ArticleBMJ open2025
Occupational health outcomes of work in the gig economy: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe gig economy is a promising arena to reduce unemployment and provide other benefits such as the opportunity to earn supplemental income. Like all other forms of work, the gig space also presents occupational health issues for those working in it. This proposed review is aimed at identifying and describing the common occupational health outcomes reported within this workforce; second, to examine the risk factors that contribute to the development of these health issues; and third, to assess the interventions and support systems currently in place to promote the occupational health of gig workers.
methodsA systematic review will be undertaken according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (2009). A search from 2015 to 2025 will be conducted on four global databases (Web of Science, SCOPUS, Academic Source Complete and Business Source Complete). Only records in English, full text and peer-reviewed journal articles will be included. Book chapters, thesis, reports and systematic reviews will be excluded. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools will be used to assess the methodological rigour of various studies prior to inclusion for the final analysis. The extracted data will be synthesised using a narrative synthesis approach, integrating findings from both quantitative and qualitative studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research is exempt from ethics approval because the work will be carried out on published documents. We will disseminate this protocol in a related peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420250654059.
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.