Employment precariousness is a social determinant that affects the health of workers, families, and communities. Its recent popularity has been spearheaded by three main developments: the surge in “flexible employment” and its associated erosion of workers' employment and working conditions since the mid-1970s; the growing interest in social determinants of health, including employment conditions; and the availability of new data and information systems. This article identifies the historical, economic, and political factors that link precarious employment to health and health equity; reviews concepts, models, instruments, and findings on precarious employment and health inequalities; summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of this literature; and highlights substantive and methodological challenges that need to be addressed. We identify two crucial future aims: to provide a compelling research program that expands our understanding of employment precariousness and to develop and evaluate policy programs that effectively put an end to its health-related impacts.

This article presents an overview of the recent work on precarious employment and employment quality in relation to workers’ health and well-being. More specifically, the article mainly reviews the work performed in the E.U. 7th Framework project, SOPHIE. First, we present our overarching conceptual framework. Then, we provide a compiled overview of the evidence on the sociodemographic and European cross-country distribution of employment quality and employment precariousness. Subsequently, we provide the current evidence regarding the relations with health and broader worker well-being indicators. A final section summarizes current insights on the pathways relating precarious employment and health and well-being. The article concludes with a plea for further data collection and research into the longitudinal effects of employment precariousness among emerging groups of workers. Based on the evidence compiled in this article, policymakers should be convinced of the harmful health and well-being effects of employment precariousness and (further) labor market flexibilization.

Objectives The aims of this position paper are to (i) summarize research on precarious employment (PE) in the context of occupational health; (ii) develop a theoretical framework that distinguishes PE from related concepts and delineates important contextual factors; and (iii) identify key methodological challenges and directions for future research on PE and health. Methods This position paper is the result of a working group consisting of researchers from the EU, Turkey and the USA, who have discussed the issue over the course of six months (October 2018–April 2019), meeting both online and face-to-face on several occasions. Results The lack of a common theoretical framework of PE hinders it from becoming an established part of occupational and public health research. There are also issues regarding operationalization in surveys and registers. Further, previous research on PE and health suffers from methodological limitations including inadequate study designs and biased assessments of exposure and outcomes. PE is highly dependent on contextual factors and cross-country comparison has proven very difficult. We also point to the uneven social distribution of PE, ie, higher prevalence among women, immigrants, young and low educated. We propose a theoretical framework for understanding precarious employment as a multidimensional construct. Conclusions A generally accepted multidimensional definition of PE should be the highest priority. Future studies would benefit from improved exposure assessment, temporal resolution, and accounting for confounders, as well as testing possible mechanisms, eg, by adopting multi-level and intersectional analytical approaches in order to understand the complexity of PE and its relation to health.

BACKGROUND: From an employee-perspective, temporary agency employment can be considered in two ways. According to the first perspective, agency jobs are associated with job characteristics that adversely affect (mental) health: job insecurit

Understanding public health risk perceptions is essential in efficient environmental health management. In the light of the negative impact of air pollution on health and the direct and indirect mediation of this impact through risk perceptions, it is crucial to better understand the lay perceptions of air pollution. Since qualitative research methods are well suited for this aim, the central objective of this study is to present a review of qualitative research articles in the field of environmental epidemiology that investigate health risk perceptions of ambient air pollution since the 2000s. We followed the PRISMA-guidelines which resulted in a selection of 20 scientific articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals that used qualitative research methods and reported on health risk perceptions about ambient air pollution. Qualitative research in the field of environmental epidemiology is still scarce. Most of the studies included in the review were based on face-to-face interviews and focus group discussions; a minority used a mixed-method approach. Interesting contributions were made with respect to both the perception of exposure to air pollution and the perception of the health effect associated with air pollution. The review suggests that data generated through qualitative research might complement the traditionally quantitative field of environmental epidemiology. Mixed method multidisciplinary research is likely to provide a more holistic explanation of environmental health patterns observed through quantitative research. These explanations are key in managing environmental health and in developing successful prevention, mitigation and communication strategies. Implementing qualitative research methods contribute to the field of environmental epidemiology as it i) allows for triangulation of findings; ii) generates nuanced findings and new research questions; iii) triggers in-depth understandings of quantitatively identified patterns; iv) leads to additional surprising and/or multifaceted responses; v) enhances relationships between researcher and respondent; vi) increases the awareness of important context-dependent dynamics or interactions that may generate biases and vii) grasps the local, contextual, situational and cultural elements that interact with health risk perceptions.