ArticleBMC public health2025
Living in an unhealthy neighbourhood impacts individual employment status.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIndividual characteristics including poor health are well-known to affect labour market participation. However, less is known on the role of health at the residential neighbourhood level. This study examines cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between neighbourhood health and employment status and the moderating role of individual health in the association between neighbourhood health and employment status.
methodsIndividual level data from the Lifelines Cohort Study (n = 137,921) was matched with full-population neighbourhood health data and registry data from Statistics Netherlands on employment status with up to 14 years of follow-up. Neighbourhood health indicators included the proportion of individuals in poor self-reported health (nHealth) and with a chronic disease (nDisease) within neighbourhoods, divided in tertiles (T1, T2, T3). Individual health included dichotomized measures of self-reported poor health (iHealth) and the presence of a chronic disease (iDisease). Employment status comprised the categories employed, unemployed, work disabled, economically inactive and early retired. Logistic and cause-specific Cox regression analyses, including interaction terms between iHealth and nHealth, were used to examine the associations with employment status.
resultsPoorest nHealth and nDisease tertiles were associated with higher risks of unemployment and work disability. Cross-sectional odds ratios (OR)s for nHealth T3 were: 2.22 (95% CI: 2.06─2.39) for unemployment and 1.98 (95% CI: 1.81─2.16) for work disability. Longitudinal hazard ratios (HR)s for nHealth T3 were: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.22─1.32) for unemployment and 1.59 (95% CI: 1.45─1.74) for work disability. Associations for nDisease were weaker but statistically significant. iHealth and iDisease moderated the associations but stratified analyses yielded inconclusive results.
conclusionsNeighbourhood health promotion may have societal and economic benefits by extending individual's working lives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.