Umeå University's logo

umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Methodological perspectives on the study of the health effects of unemployment – reviewing the mode of unemployment, the statistical analysis method and the role of confounding factors
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Epidemiology and Global Health.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0457-2175
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Epidemiology and Global Health. Institute of Environmental Medicine, Occupational Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4095-7961
2022 (English)In: BMC Medical Research Methodology, E-ISSN 1471-2288, Vol. 22, no 1, article id 199Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Introduction: Studying the relationship between unemployment and health raises many methodological challenges. In the current study, the aim was to evaluate the sensitivity of estimates based on different ways of measuring unemployment and the choice of statistical model.

Methods: The Northern Swedish cohort was used, and two follow-up surveys thereof from 1995 and 2007, as well as register data about unemployment. Self-reported current unemployment, self-reported accumulated unemployment and register-based accumulated unemployment were used to measure unemployment and its effect on self-reported health was evaluated. Analyses were conducted with G-computation, logistic regression and three estimators for the inverse probability weighting propensity scores, and 11 potentially confounding variables were part of the analyses. Results were presented with absolute differences in the proportion with poor self-reported health between unemployed and employed individuals, except when logistic regression was used alone.

Results: Of the initial 1083 pupils in the cohort, our analyses vary between 488–693 individuals defined as employed and 61–214 individuals defined as unemployed. In the analyses, the deviation was large between the unemployment measures, with a difference of at least 2.5% in effect size when unemployed was compared with employed for the self-reported and register-based unemployment modes. The choice of statistical method only had a small influence on effect estimates and the deviation was in most cases lower than 1%. When models were compared based on the choice of potential confounders in the analytical model, the deviations were rarely above 0.6% when comparing models with 4 and 11 potential confounders. Our variable for health selection was the only one that strongly affected estimates when it was not part of the statistical model.

Conclusions: How unemployment is measured is highly important when the relationship between unemployment and health is estimated. However, misspecifications of the statistical model or choice of analytical method might not matter much for estimates except for the inclusion of a variable measuring health status before becoming unemployed. Our results can guide researchers when analysing similar research questions. Model diagnostics is commonly lacking in publications, but they remain very important for validation of analyses.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BioMed Central, 2022. Vol. 22, no 1, article id 199
Keywords [en]
Biased estimates, G-computation, Labour market, Propensity score weighting, Unemployment
National Category
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-198290DOI: 10.1186/s12874-022-01670-1ISI: 000828611700003PubMedID: 35864450Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85134498495OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-198290DiVA, id: diva2:1685048
Funder
Forte, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, 2011-0839Available from: 2022-08-01 Created: 2022-08-01 Last updated: 2024-01-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1028 kB)112 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1028 kBChecksum SHA-512
cf7e44cc3e45dfb9e6d0f79d45bd4a065100bc54d965bebc7832bd6d088d44abfb631cd9e2f003cf92076837ebc636cab680f8c6100e6ef3dde208f25f239e41
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Norström, FredrikHammarström, Anne

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Norström, FredrikHammarström, Anne
By organisation
Department of Epidemiology and Global Health
In the same journal
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 112 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 295 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf