How Does Precarious Employment Affect Mental Health? A Scoping Review and Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Evidence from Western Economies

Abstract

This article offers a scoping review and thematic synthesis of qualitative research on the relationship between precarious employment and mental health. Systematic searches of primary qualitative research in western economies, focused on insecure contracts and a broad conceptualisation of mental health, identified 32 studies. Thematic synthesis revealed four core experiences of precarious employment: financial instability, temporal uncertainty, marginal status and employment insecurity, each connected with multiple, interrelated experiences/responses at four thematic levels: economic, socio-relational, behavioural and physical, leading to negative mental health effects. Reported mental health outcomes could be predominantly understood as reductions in ‘positive mental health’. Findings are theoretically located in models of work-family conflict and latent deprivation; insecure work constrains access to benefits of time structure, social contacts, social purposes, status and identity, which correlate with psychological wellbeing. Frequently failing also to provide the manifest (financial) benefits of work, insecure employment poses mental health risks on both fronts.

Keywords

insecurity latent deprivation mental health precarious employment qualitative research work-family conflict

Introduction

This article offers a scoping review and thematic synthesis of findings of qualitative research on the relationship between precarious employment and poor mental health. Quantitative research on this topic is plentiful (Hünefeld et al., 2020; Rönnblad et al., 2019; Utzet et al., 2020; Virtanen et al., 2005), with overall findings of a positive causal association between precarious employment and poor mental health (De Witte et al., 2016). However, there have been many calls for further research to elucidate the causal pathways underlying these correlations (Benach et al., 2016; Matilla-Santander et al., 2020; Valero et al., 2021). For example, Bolibar et al. (2021: 3) note that ‘despite the growing evidence of the association between precarious employment and health . . . the explanatory mechanisms underlying this relationship, both in biomedical and socioeconomic terms, have not yet been sufficiently studied’.

Qualitative research is essential to understanding the complex and contingent relationships between employment status, mental health and broader social wellbeing, illuminating precisely how and why it is that precarious employment has negative implications for mental health. The primary contribution of this article is to synthesise existing empirical qualitative evidence on relationships between precarious employment and mental health, thus providing a preliminary response to the perceived lack of evidence on causal pathways and offering a concise overview for scholars seeking to advance research in this area.

This review forms part of a wider programme of mixed-methods research on relationships between precarious employment and mental health in the UK context.¹ This starting point shaped the parameters of the review, as we briefly outline here. The very notion of precarious employment must be contextualised historically and geographically, being a construct ‘with its own political, economic and cultural specificity’ (Muntaner, 2016: 2). Contemporary conceptualisations of precarious employment are ‘embedded within an individualistic, Western context’ (Allan et al., 2021: 10) and concern relatively recent shifts (back) towards contingent work in industrialised countries (Mosoetsa et al., 2016; Muntaner, 2016; Quinlan et al., 2001). In the Global South, informal work makes up a far higher proportion of labour, and legal and social protections are significantly different (Mosoetsa et al., 2016; Muntaner, 2016). Extrapolating without consideration of spatial and temporal difference may thus lead to an ‘emptiness’ of analysis (Hussain, 2018: 117). Moreover, conceptualisations and manifestations of distress also differ between cultural contexts (Kohrt et al., 2014; Mendenhall and Kim, 2021). For these reasons, with the UK as our starting point, our focus was restricted to Western economies sharing a degree of structural and cultural similarity, namely Europe, North America, Canada and Australasia (see O’Sullivan et al., 2019).

Defining precarious employment

In its narrowest conceptualisation, the notion of precarious employment is equated to ‘atypical’ employment that differs from the ‘Standard Employment Relationship’ of full-time, stable and socially protected employment with a single employer (Bosch, 2004),² encompassing a variety of insecure contractual statuses, including temporary agency, casual, fixed-term, zero-hours, gig or platform work, freelancing and self-employment. However, there is growing consensus that precarious employment is best conceived as multidimensional, involving core components of employment insecurity, income inadequacy and lack of rights and social protection (Bodin et al., 2020; Kalleberg and Vallas, 2017; Kreshpaj et al., 2020). Some conceptualisations also include low workplace social support, lack of access to training and development, higher exposure to occupational health hazards, and low work status (Tompa et al., 2007). As Pirani (2017: 235) explains ‘the concept of precariousness puts the accent on the dark side of atypical work’.

Beyond employment-centred concepts, there is a broader notion of precarity, summarised by Campbell and Price (2016: 315–316) as, ‘a generalised set of social conditions and an associated sense of insecurity, experienced by precarious workers but extending to other domains of social life such as housing, welfare provision and personal relationships’. This concept has both socio-political and ontological dimensions (Alberti et al., 2018; Castel, 2000; Dörre, 2014; Han, 2018; Standing, 2011).

While recognising the limitations of research that focuses narrowly on structural employment relationships (see Alberti et al., 2018; Allan et al., 2021; Vives et al., 2020), this review does take as its starting point objectively insecure forms of employment, namely temporary agency, fixed-term, casual, zero-hours and gig work. Following Benach et al. (2014: 237), we consider workers in these roles to be ‘in an objective state of job insecurity’ to the extent that they lack a permanent contract guaranteeing long-term employment and, in many cases also lack a guarantee of consistent hours or pattern of work. A relationship between subjective job insecurity and mental health is well established (Llosa-Fernández et al., 2018), but may equally be experienced by workers in ostensibly secure (permanent) employment (Julià et al., 2017; Vives et al., 2020). In this review, we sought to identify specifically what it is about insecure contractual status (as opposed to subjectively perceived job insecurity) that produces negative mental health outcomes. By looking in detail at qualitative evidence, we sought to elucidate the pathways through which insecure contractual status leads to poorer mental health. As such, the review attempted to separate out contractually insecure forms of employment from both broader notions of precarity, subjective job insecurity and poor-quality work in general (see Kreshpaj et al., 2020).

The ambiguous character of precarious employment

Although we here define precarious employment as objectively insecure contractual status, non-permanent employment does not, in and of itself, imply a lived experience of precarity (Allan et al., 2021; Allmendinger et al., 2013; Campbell and Price, 2016; Dörre, 2014), nor necessarily lead to negative mental health consequences. The extent to which insecure contractual relationships affect mental health varies according to whether that employment form is voluntarily chosen and the contextual factors framing that choice, including biography, aspirations and the presence of financial and social ‘buffers’ of support. As Campbell and Price (2016: 316) note, ‘[a variety of] workers are engaged in precarious work, but the experience and the potential impact are likely to differ in complex but socially patterned ways’.

Several typologies have been proposed to classify this spectrum from those who actively embrace this style of employment to those who feel trapped and wish to escape it (Araújo et al., 2016; Clarke et al., 2007; Keuskamp et al., 2013; McGann et al., 2016; Manolchev et al., 2018; Mrozowicki and Trappmann, 2021; Pocock et al., 2004). For some workers, objectively insecure employment may have negligible or even positive effects on their mental health, if it has good fit with their personal context, career and lifestyle aspirations (Adler, 2020; Bill, 2012). Studies have also shown gender-related differences in mental health outcomes, with males being more negatively affected by precarious work than females (Carrieri et al., 2014; Demiral et al., 2022). Essentially, precarious employment is a ‘person-in-context’ phenomenon (Tompa et al., 2007), with effects on mental health modulated by that context. Our focus here is on drawing together qualitative evidence to understand how and why, for some people, insecure work is detrimental to mental health. Our review question is: What is known, from primary qualitative research, about the contexts and pathways connecting precarious employment and poor mental health?

Defining mental health

In contemporary usage, the term ‘mental health’ is applied to an expanding range of experiences and phenomena. Mental health is used to refer both to negative states (mental disorders, mental health conditions, mental health problems) and to states of ‘positive mental health’ or ‘mental wellbeing’ (Iasiello et al., 2019). Quantitative studies measuring correlations between precarious employment and mental health typically use standardised self-report instruments measuring symptoms of clinical depression and/or anxiety or psychological distress more broadly conceived. Utzet et al. (2020) reviewed 53 quantitative studies of precarious employment and mental health; all used subjective self-report measures, common instruments being the General Health Questionnaire, Short-Form Health Survey, the Mental Health Inventory and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

In this review, we took a deliberately broad conceptualisation of mental health, which encompassed the main diagnostic concepts used within quantitative studies (i.e. stress, anxiety, depression) but also included wider socio-cultural understandings of mental wellbeing and distress, moving away from clinical or medicalised conceptualisations to encompass contemporary (Western) social and cultural understandings. Search terms used to capture this diversity of understandings of mental health are detailed in Table 1. As we discuss below, this broad conceptual scope enabled us to consider, as part of this review, how qualitative research (to date) has conceptualised mental health in relation to precarious work, in terms of definitions and directional effects.

Table 1.

Search terms and combinations.

Precarious employment	“Temporary work” OR “Temporary employ” OR “Temporary job” OR “Temporary contract” OR “Fixed term work” OR “Fixed term employ” OR “Fixed term job” OR “Fixed term contract” OR “Agency work” OR “Agency employ” OR “Agency job” OR “Agency contract” OR “Zero hours work” OR “Zero hours employ” OR “Zero hours job” OR “Zero hours contract” OR “Gig work” OR “Gig employ” OR “Gig job” OR “Gig contract” OR “Gig economy” OR “Precarious work” OR “Precarious employ” OR “Precarious job” OR “Precarious contract”
	AND
Mental health	“Mental health” OR wellbeing OR well-being OR “mental illness” OR psychological OR psychosocial OR depression OR anxiety OR stress OR distress OR “lived experience”

Method

The review was conducted according to JBI guidance for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020) and is reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., 2018). Following the Population, Concept, Context (PCC) format (Peters et al., 2020), our inclusion criteria are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2.

Inclusion criteria.

Population	Adults in precarious employment
Concept	Precarious employment: Insecure contractual forms including temporary agency, casual, zero-hours, fixed-term and gig workMental health: Broad conceptualisation including clinically specified conditions, stress and subjective psychosocial wellbeing
Context	Western economies: UK, Europe, USA, Canada and Australasia
Study design	Primary research studies using any qualitative method; qualitative strands of mixed-methods studies. Peer-reviewed articles, research reports, theses. [Exclusions: journalistic mainstream media articles, reflective pieces based on author’s personal experience of precarious work]

Search strategy

Searches were conducted on 24 to 25 November 2020 in the following databases: Proquest (incorporating Proquest Central, Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global, Publicly Available Content Database, IBSS, Social Science Database, ASSIA, Sociological Abstracts, Sociology Databases); OVID (incorporating PsychInfo, Social Policy and Practice, EMBASE); and Web of Science Core Collection. Table 1 shows the terms and combinations used. Timeframe was 1980 to present; language limited to English.

Results

Database searches returned 3798 results, reducing to 2467 following deduplication. Screening by title and abstract resulted in 145 items retained for full-text review. Full-text screening removed 117 items (reasons shown in Figure 1), reducing the number of eligible items to 28 studies that substantively addressed the topic of mental health in relation to insecure employment. A further seven eligible items were identified through our existing collections, secondary references, grey literature and ongoing contents alerts. In total, 35 items, reporting 32 unique studies, were incorporated to the review (asterisked in References). Figure 1 summarises the search process.

Figure 1.

PRISMA-ScR flow diagram of screening and exclusion process.

Description of included studies

Studies were published between 2004 and 2021, mainly from 2012 onwards. A majority were conducted in Canada (10), with smaller numbers in the UK (6), USA (5), Australia (4), Sweden (2) and one study each from Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy and Portugal. Several studies considered multiple insecure employment forms. Where focused on specific contract types, most common was temporary agency, followed by fixed-term and casual work. Notably, gig work and zero-hours contracts were the focus of only one study in each case. Some studies focused on specific populations (e.g. young people, migrant workers) or sectors (e.g. higher education, music industry, social care) but many took broad population samples and covered a variety of sectors. A detailed overview of the 35 papers is provided online as a technical appendix.

Mental health measures, concepts and outcomes

In all studies, mental health outcomes were based on qualitative participant self-reports, as elicited in the research encounter. No studies used standardised diagnostic measures to determine participant mental health. Rather, findings were based on subjective accounts of negative psychological states. Whilst we do not consider this a limitation of the data (given the subjective nature of all psychological experience and ongoing debates about the utility of diagnostic measures (Allsopp et al., 2019; Boyle and Johnstone, 2020)), this indicates a clear departure from the methods of quantitative studies.

Notably, no studies focused exclusively on individuals with pre-existing mental health diagnoses. Indeed, very few mentioned that any participants had received formal diagnoses or treatment. As such, our scoping review suggests that the current qualitative evidence base predominantly reflects unidirectional effects of precarious employment on mental health, rather than how lived experience of mental health problems may lead to precarity of employment.

Almost all studies reported experiences of stress and anxiety, and to a lesser extent depression. Given the absence of clinical samples or standardised measurements, these seemed predominantly to be lay uses of terms, referring to various types and degrees of worry and low mood, rather than reports of formal diagnoses. Alongside this were references to a multitude of other negative psychological states including: frustration, dissatisfaction, sadness, tearfulness, low self-esteem/self-worth, self-doubt, hopelessness, meaninglessness, pessimism, exhaustion, anger, irritability, shame and guilt (see technical appendix for detailed overview). Overall, we found that extant qualitative literature on this topic reflects a predominantly psychosocial, rather than clinical or medicalised, conceptualisation of mental health and wellbeing. As we will discuss below, qualitative research to date appears predominantly to signal detrimental effects on ‘positive mental health’ or ‘mental wellbeing’ rather than associations with diagnosed mental ‘illness’ or ‘disorder’.

Quality assessment

In accordance with scoping review methodology (Peters et al., 2020; Tricco et al., 2018), studies were not formally evaluated or excluded on the basis of methodological quality. Rather, inclusion was guided by the extent to which each added knowledge that enabled us to address our central review question (Thomas and Harden, 2008). Of the included items, 24 were peer reviewed articles, six were non-peer reviewed research reports and five were unpublished doctoral theses. The sample sizes ranged from six to 94 (see appendix). Whilst sample size does not determine the quality of qualitative research (adequacy depends on scope and method of inquiry), the majority of included studies had sample sizes that would generally be considered robust in qualitative interview-based research (Baker and Edwards, 2012; Bonde, 2013). There was variability in the depth of reporting/discussion of participants’ mental health experiences. Some papers contained relatively little detail, despite mental health/wellbeing featuring in their title or keywords, thus presenting a limitation to the review.

Thematic synthesis of findings

Findings of the 35 papers (reporting 32 studies) were analysed and integrated using thematic synthesis (Thomas and Harden, 2008). Thematic synthesis is a rigorous and transparent method of analysis that, while offering a higher level of conceptualisation, remains grounded in the original material and provides accessible information for policy and practice (Barnett-Page and Thomas, 2009; Thomas and Harden, 2008). Analysis proceeded iteratively, supported by NVivo12, beginning with descriptive coding of the findings of individual studies, remaining close to their original codes/themes, followed by organisation of related codes under broader thematic headings, as presented below.

Our analysis sought to identify the specific pathways through which the experience of insecure employment leads to negative mental health effects, thereby adding qualitative explanation to the correlations demonstrated by quantitative studies. The model arising from our thematic synthesis is show in Figure 2. On the left of the figure, we identify four ‘core experiences’ of precarious employment: financial instability, temporal uncertainty, marginal status and employment insecurity. The reviewed studies reveal how each of these leads to a number of intermediate ‘resultant experiences and responses’, which we have categorised thematically as occurring at the economic, socio-relational, behavioural and physical levels. These resultant experiences and responses (which in psychological terms may be called ‘stressors’) are, via various forms of conflict and deprivation, steps along the pathway to negative mental health effects of multiple types. These include stress, anxiety and depression, but also (in keeping with our broad definition of ‘mental health’) other negative affective states such as low morale, low self-esteem, frustration and guilt.

Figure 2.

Theoretical model of pathways between precarious employment and mental health.

In the sections that follow, we structure the findings around the four ‘core experiences’ but note the overlapping and bidirectional nature of many of their effects. We then discuss our interpretation of how these core and resultant experiences/behaviours in turn lead to negative mental health outcomes, drawing on sociological theories of work-family conflict and latent deprivation.

Financial instability

The first core experience of precarious employment was financial instability. People in casual, zero-hours or gig work faced uncertainty about their overall level of income and the schedule or flow of that income; in other words, earnings could be both inadequate and unpredictable. Whilst quantitative studies have identified financial strain as a significant mediator of precarious employment and mental health (Ferrante et al., 2019), qualitative studies emphasised the stress and anxiety additionally caused by instability or unpredictability of income, over both the short and long term (Apouey et al., 2020; Asanin, 2007; León-Pérez et al., 2021).

At the economic level, fluctuations in amount and schedule of income (especially when coupled with low rates of pay), required complex budgeting decisions about how to prioritise day-to-day expenditure. People could be forced into debt, use of credit or informal borrowing, and were unable to plan for their long-term financial future through savings, pensions or home ownership (Bosmans et al., 2017; Malenfant et al., 2007; Pocock et al., 2004).

Financial instability had direct and indirect effects on people’s social relationships. Monetary worries caused tension within families and relationships (Asanin, 2007; Cuervo and Chesters, 2019). People restricted their own and their children’s social activities due to lack of financial resources (Lewchuk et al., 2013; Toivanen et al., 2020). Feeling unable to meet the social or material needs of dependent children was distressing and could lead to feelings of guilt and failure as a parent (Bobek et al., 2018; León-Pérez et al., 2021; Lewchuk et al., 2013; Toivanen et al., 2020).

Even for those with relatively well-paid positions and longer-term contracts, precarious employment could be an obstacle to financial independence, with socio-relational impacts. Ongoing dependence on others (particularly one’s parents) created tensions within household relationships (Araújo et al., 2016) and led to a feeling of ‘forced infantilisation’ (Bobek et al., 2018). Clarke et al. (2007) cited instances of women entering into or remaining in potentially harmful relationships, due to financial insecurity.

Turning to behaviours, in order to counter the risk of insufficient income, people made themselves continually available for work, feeling they were ‘always on call’ and unable to turn down any offer of work (Bosmans et al., 2017; Macassa et al., 2017; McGann et al., 2016; Toivanen et al., 2020). People enlisted with multiple employers or agencies, to maximise earning potential and minimise risk of unemployment (Araújo et al., 2016; Bosmans et al., 2017; Gross and Musgrave, 2017; McGann et al., 2016; Malenfant et al., 2007; Premji, 2018), rarely taking time off or having holidays (Gellatly, 2007; Pocock et al., 2004). This had a recursive effect on social relationships; feeling a need to be continually available for work, people curtailed their social lives, leading to isolation and weakening of friendships and social networks. Family time was negatively impacted, leading to familial conflict and negative impacts on children’s social wellbeing and behaviour (Lewchuk et al., 2013; Malenfant et al., 2007; Premji, 2018).

On the physical level, several studies identified presenteeism (continuing to work despite illness or injury) as a consequence of financial insecurity. People felt they could not afford to sacrifice income, especially where contracts did not offer sick pay (Bobek et al., 2018; Bosmans et al., 2016, 2017; McGann et al., 2012; Pocock et al., 2004). Furthermore, people delayed attending to ongoing health problems or injuries (Henninger et al., 2019; McGann et al., 2012), particularly where they did not have access to health insurance or free healthcare, hence could afford neither the time off work nor the costs of consultations or treatments (Asanin, 2007; Bobek et al., 2018; Clarke et al., 2007; Premji, 2018), risking exacerbation of illness or injury through neglect.

Temporal uncertainty

The core experience of temporal uncertainty can be thought of in both short and long-term perspectives. In the short term, where the pattern of daily, weekly or monthly working hours was variable, and outside the worker’s control, people faced temporal uncertainty in their everyday lives. People could be given very short notice of shifts and sometimes not told how long a shift would be until it was underway (Bosmans et al., 2017; Clarke et al., 2007; Lewchuk et al., 2013; Macassa et al., 2017; Premji, 2018; Saldaña Lopez, 2019). Where people enlisted with multiple employers, the dovetailing of different shifts and availabilities added a further dimension of temporal stress (Araújo et al., 2016; Henninger et al., 2019).

Regarding the social-relational, these short-term temporal uncertainties caused difficulties planning other areas of life, including family time, social life and attending to personal needs such as routine medical or haircare appointments (Lewchuk et al., 2013; Macassa et al., 2017; McGann et al., 2012, 2016; Ravalier et al., 2019; Toivanen et al., 2020; Zeytinoglu et al., 2005). Where shifts were fluctuating or at short notice, parents found it difficult to plan childcare (Bosmans et al., 2017; Clarke et al., 2007; Crozier, 2009; Lewchuk et al., 2013; McGann et al., 2016; Zeytinoglu et al., 2004, 2005). Inconsistent hours, coupled with low earnings, made it difficult to engage in a regular arrangement with a registered provider, hence people could be reliant on informal childcare (Bobek et al., 2018; León-Pérez et al., 2021; Premji, 2018).

Owing to scheduling uncertainty and fear of missing an opportunity to work, people avoided committing to social engagements, which could lead to loneliness and social isolation (Bobek et al., 2018; Bosmans et al., 2016; Clarke et al., 2007; Gellatly, 2007; Lewchuk et al., 2013; Pocock et al., 2004). An inability to make or stick to plans caused tensions within families, with feelings of guilt, particularly where children were involved (León-Pérez et al., 2021; Pocock et al., 2004; Premji, 2018; Toivanen et al., 2020). Furthermore, unpredictable schedules when engaged in precarious employment could restrict people’s ability to contribute to their local communities e.g. through voluntary activities (Lewchuk et al., 2013), which are known to support positive mental health (Aked et al., 2008). Fluctuating work patterns also had physical impacts, disrupting people’s ability to maintain healthy sleeping and eating habits (Vorell and Carmack, 2015), which are important factors in supporting mental wellbeing.

There was also a longer-term socio-relational aspect to temporal uncertainty, relating less to the immediate organisation of one’s life, but to capacity to control or plan for one’s future, which could lead to people feeling ‘stuck’ and demoralised (Clarke et al., 2007; Gross and Musgrave, 2017). Long-term temporal uncertainty affected decision-making around key biographical transitions such as leaving the parental home, homeownership, marriage and parenthood (Araújo et al., 2016; Bobek et al., 2018; Cuervo and Chesters, 2019; Henninger et al., 2019; Lewchuk et al, 2013; Macassa et al., 2017; Toivanen et al., 2020). Delays to these social markers of adulthood could lead to feeling trapped in a childlike status, dissonant with desired identity and bringing associated feelings of inadequacy (Bobek et al., 2018). Temporary and fixed-term contracts also entailed uncertainties about one’s longer-term geographical location, preventing people from ‘putting down roots’ in a community, leading to isolation and lack of social integration (Cuervo and Chesters, 2019).

Marginal status

A third core experience emerging strongly from the qualitative literature was that of marginal status. People in precarious work, especially temporary employment, experienced a peripheral, inferior or devalued status within the workplace. Temporary workers reported being allocated the most unpleasant or menial tasks, provided with inadequate training and equipment, lacking feedback and professional development opportunities, having unreasonably high demands made and given insufficient breaks. Marginal status had social-relational consequences, with workers feeling left out of information networks and decision-making processes, being excluded from formal and informal social occasions, and encountering hostility from permanent employees (Bosmans et al., 2016, 2017; Crozier, 2009; Henninger et al., 2019; Keke, 2014; Lewchuk et al., 2013; Lopes and Dewan, 2018; Loveday, 2018; Macassa et al., 2017; McGann et al., 2012, 2016; Pocock et al., 2004; Seifert et al., 2007; Toms, 2012; Vorell and Carmack, 2015; Zoeckler, 2018).

Workers on short contracts or agency placements had to adjust frequently to new working environments, processes, cultures and colleagues, which could be stressful and exhausting (Bosmans et al., 2016, 2017; Crozier, 2009; Loveday, 2018; Macassa et al., 2017; McGann et al., 2012; Premji, 2018; Vorell and Carmack, 2015). This had both social-relational and behavioural consequences, such that people perceived it as difficult, or even pointless, to establish friendships within the workplace. This in turn compounded a sense of isolation, lack of integration and social support, with psychological consequences of stress and low morale (Malenfant et al., 2007; Seifert et al., 2007; Vorell and Carmack, 2015).

Employment insecurity

The final core experience was employment insecurity. In this review, we deliberately excluded studies focused on subjective job insecurity. However, the included papers nevertheless confirmed (unsurprisingly) that perceived insecurity was a key experience connecting objectively insecure contracts with poor mental health (see also Thomson and Hünefeld, 2021). By examining qualitative evidence, this review was able to add a more fine-grained explanation of the behavioural and relational effects brought about by perceived job insecurity, which lie along the pathway to negative mental health outcomes. Behaviourally, employment insecurity resulted in overwork and overperformance, in order to demonstrate value and reliability to the employer (Bosmans et al., 2017; Loveday, 2018; Macassa et al., 2017; Malenfant et al., 2007). As with financial instability, people felt they must be available for work at any moment, accepting any shifts or placements offered, regardless of personal inconvenience, ill health or injury, for fear of not being offered work in future (Bosmans et al., 2017; Clarke et al., 2007; Henninger et al., 2019; Lewchuk et al., 2013; Lopes and Dewan, 2018; Loveday, 2018; Macassa et al., 2017; McGann et al., 2016; Malenfant et al., 2007; Pocock et al., 2004; Toivanen et al., 2020; Toms, 2012).

Employment insecurity led workers to ingratiate themselves with managers and colleagues through subservience, conflict avoidance, emotion suppression and overperformance, so as to be positively evaluated and hence secure future work (Macassa et al., 2017; Malenfant et al., 2007). People tolerated poor working conditions or did not report bullying, safety concerns or other grievances, due to fear that they would be dismissed or not rehired (Bosmans et al., 2016; Henninger et al., 2019; León-Pérez et al., 2021; McGann et al., 2012, 2016; Ravalier et al., 2019; Saldaña Lopez, 2019; Toms, 2012). Competition could also arise between casual workers vying for limited contracts, resulting in guardedness and a lack of workplace solidarity (Seifert et al., 2007).

Overall, workers felt powerless, unable to exercise choice or control over the content, scheduling, or continuity of their employment (Bosmans et al., 2016; Lewchuk et al., 2013; Lopes and Dewan, 2018; Malenfant et al., 2007; Ravalier, 2012; Toivanen et al., 2020). Furthermore, employment insecurity meant people were in a ‘constant search for work’ (Araújo et al., 2016; Bosmans et al., 2017; Clarke et al., 2007; Lewchuk et al., 2013; Macassa et al., 2017; Malenfant et al., 2007). Coupled with overwork and unpredictable availability, this preoccupation placed further socio-relational strain on family and personal relationships (Crozier, 2009; Lewchuk et al., 2013; Premji, 2018; Toivanen et al., 2020).

Finally, temporary employment status affected people’s long-term ability to establish and progress in a chosen career. Cycling through short contracts impeded professional development, and fragmented and discontinuous positions could lead to deskilling (Asanin, 2007; Henninger et al., 2019; Lopes and Dewan, 2018). These effects hindered ability to perform one’s job to a high standard, affecting pride, conscientiousness and job-satisfaction (Lopes and Dewan, 2018; Seifert et al., 2007), in turn leading to stress, anxiety, depression, frustration, self-doubt, low morale, pessimism and loss of self-esteem (Araújo et al., 2016; Asanin, 2007; Bosmans et al., 2017; Gross and Musgrave, 2017; Loveday, 2018; Malenfant et al., 2007; Musumeci and Ghislieri, 2020; Premji, 2018; Toivanen et al., 2020).

Discussion: From insecurity, uncertainty and marginalisation to poor mental health

The relationship between precarious employment and poor mental health is typically conceived as a stress pathway (Allan et al., 2021; Tompa et al., 2007), chronic stress being a recognised factor in the development of mental health conditions (Khan and Khan, 2017). Allan et al. (2021: 8) describe the causal pathway as being one of ‘the constant uncertainty and stress inherent’ in precarious employment. Uncertainty is positively correlated to mental health problems including anxiety, depression, stress and distress (Massazza et al., 2022). The present review sheds more detailed qualitative light on the nature of and responses to the uncertainties of precarious employment, typologising the core and resultant intermediary experiences and responses that comprise the multifaceted and compound stressors of precarious work. In this section, we draw on sociological theories of latent deprivation and work-family conflict, in combination with extant epidemiological evidence, to explain how these experiences and responses in turn contribute to poor mental health.

Low and inadequate wages are well-recognised features of insecure employment and, for many precarious workers, financial strain, poverty and material deprivation are key pathways to poor mental health (Ridley et al., 2020). However, our review of qualitative studies highlights that, beyond absolute income level, stress and anxiety can result from complex budgeting decisions of managing uncertain income schedules, both in the short and longer term. A recent Canadian pilot of ‘universal basic income’ (Ferdosi and McDowell, 2020) found reductions in depression, stress and anger, particularly among employed participants. They conclude that, by ‘smooth[ing] out the variance in income’ (p. 2), universal basic income could be an important policy tool in improving the mental health of people in precarious employment.

The reviewed qualitative evidence also sheds important light on the role of temporal uncertainty in relation to mental health, and the significant socio-relational consequences that follow. Whether or not work is adequately paid, uncertainties of time, in the short and long term, affect people’s ability to plan their lives, impacting familial and social relationships, community engagement and biographical trajectories. Those in precarious employment are thus deprived of both the ‘temporal and economic resources needed to plan their lives’ (McGann et al., 2016: 774). Quantitative research has more recently begun to focus on the negative wellbeing impacts of temporal uncertainty (Felstead et al., 2020; Lee and Kawachi, 2021) and to explore the concept of ‘social precarity’, with Matilla-Santander et al. (2021) demonstrating an association between precarious employment and inability to participate in social activities.

It is no surprise to find that overall employment insecurity affects mental health. However qualitative research usefully illuminates the specific behavioural responses to insecurity that compound stress and distress. Overwork, tolerance of poor conditions, coupled with the constant search for work, lead to physical and emotional exhaustion, familial tensions and social withdrawal. Employment insecurity, financial instability and short-term temporal uncertainty also – for a combination of reasons – cause people to work through physical illness or injury, not attending to health issues in a timely manner.

These findings can be considered in relation to theories of work-family (or more broadly work-life) conflict (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). The socio-relational theme (Figure 2) indicates how work-family conflict can be generated by both the financial and temporal aspects of insecure work, as well as overall employment insecurity, through the ‘role pressure incompatibilities’ (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985) of time demands, work strain and work-related behaviours such as overwork, preoccupation with job searching and being ‘always on call’. Work-family conflict is strongly correlated with decreased mental wellbeing among employees (Borgmann et al., 2019; Frone, 2000) and quantitative studies show that for people in non-standard or insecure work, work-family conflict is associated with significantly higher risk of psychological distress (Lee et al., 2022; Mutambudzi et al., 2017).

The reviewed qualitative evidence also underscores the common experience of marginalisation among precarious employees, with workers in causal and temporary roles feeling undervalued, socially excluded and exploited within the workplace. Recent quantitative studies have shown a positive association between precarious employment and workplace bullying and discrimination (Kvart et al., 2021) and between temporary employment and loneliness at work (Moens et al., 2021). Experiences of marginalisation, discrimination and exploitation had psychological consequences including stress, frustration, sense of injustice, feelings of isolation and lack of belonging.

Taken as a whole, the review findings may be theoretically located in Jahoda’s (1982) explication of the latent benefits of work. Our analysis indicates that people in insecure work may (to a greater or lesser extent) be deprived of the latent benefits of time structure, social contacts, social purpose, status and identity (Jahoda, 1981), which are causally related to mental wellbeing (Selenko et al., 2011). Whilst latent deprivation theory was originally posited in relation to unemployment, this review suggests that insecure work may similarly deprive people of the latent benefits of work that are connected to positive mental wellbeing. This proposition finds partial support in quantitative analyses (Selenko and Batinic, 2013; Vander Elst et al., 2016). Qualitative studies in the present review (Lopes and Dewan, 2018; Loveday, 2018; Seifert et al., 2007; Vorell and Carmack, 2015) revealed that professionals in temporary and casual roles are subject to the negative effects of (long-term) temporal uncertainty, marginal status, and employment insecurity, despite their roles being relatively well-remunerated. That people in well-paid but insecure roles experience similar detrimental effects on mental health corroborates the role of latent deprivation, highlighting the need to consider the potential harms of precarious employment beyond factors of low pay and poor physical working conditions. We might also draw upon Warr’s (1987) framework of job-related affective wellbeing, which positions environmental features including control, clarity, skill development, good social relations, fair treatment and valued positions as core to mental health. Again, our review indicates that all these psychologically supportive features may be denied to those in insecure work.

We noted in the introduction the complexities in conceptualising ‘mental health’. Reflecting on this body of reviewed research, it seems that extant qualitative evidence predominantly signals an inverse relationship between insecure work and ‘positive mental health’, the latter being conceptualised as a distinct state/experience from mental ‘illness’ (Jahoda, 1963; Keyes, 2005) and involving positive self-regard, self-actualisation, autonomy and mastery (Jahoda, 1958). The experience of insecure work constrains people’s ability to maintain or attain a state of good mental health, as these facets of positive mental health are impeded by the marginalising and temporally-destabilising effects of insecure work. As Jahoda, (1963: 1067) describes, a state of mental health involves an individual being ‘free to strive for a full and satisfying life’. Insecure work appears, in various ways, to constrain the attainment of this ‘full and satisfying life’.

Research gaps

Our search results suggest that qualitative research to date has predominantly focused unidirectionally on precarious employment as a precursor or ‘cause’ of mental health problems. Two studies noted a small number of participants with pre-existing mental health problems, for whom the flexibility of temporary, casual or gig work was facilitative of (re-)entry to paid employment alongside fluctuating capacity for work (Crozier, 2009; Keuskamp et al., 2013; see also Broughton et al., 2018). However, our searches revealed no studies that took, as their starting point, populations with mental health diagnoses. This indicates a research gap regarding the experience of precarious employment among people living with long-term mental health problems, amongst whom perceptions of causal pathways, (dis)advantages and psychological outcomes of insecure work may differ. Additionally, given the extent of recent interest, we were surprised to find only two qualitative studies focused specifically on the mental health effects of gig work or zero-hours contracts (Apouey et al., 2020 and Ravailier et al., 2019, respectively), indicating areas that may also benefit from further qualitative inquiry.

Limitations

Our searches were not exhaustive, were restricted to English language and social distancing restrictions (at the time of study) prevented access to material only available in hardcopy. Theoretically informed decisions were made to limit the forms of precarious employment considered in accordance with scoping review methodology, where relevance and conceptual saturation are of primary importance (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Thomas and Harden, 2008). The geographical limitation to Western economies limits the transferability of findings, although (as noted in Method) a contextualised approach is methodologically appropriate to the topic of precarity. The methodologies of the included studies did not enable us to disaggregate experiences by demographic variables such as age, gender, or specific job sector. However, the review brought to light particular challenges faced by parents (especially mothers) of young children, and people with migrant status, for whom issues of legal status, racial discrimination and disrupted professional identity present additional stressors. Finally, the relative scantness of detail, within some papers, on participants’ reported mental health experiences is a limitation on the depth of analysis.

Conclusion

This review has consolidated qualitative evidence on why and how insecure employment is often harmful to mental health, elucidating causal pathways and emphasising the role of temporal insecurity (long and short-term), marginalisation and the behavioural responses to employment insecurity that compound mental health effects. The conceptualisation of mental health reflected in qualitative studies to date is a broad psychosocial and largely non-clinical framing, with the effects of precarious employment predominantly manifesting as detriment to ‘positive mental health’. Commonly reported outcomes include stress and anxiety but also a range of other negative emotional and psychological states not necessarily representing a diagnostic category. Our findings can be theoretically located in concepts of work-family conflict and latent deprivation, whereby insecure work constrains access to benefits of time structure, social contacts, social purpose, status and identity, which correlate with psychological wellbeing. Frequently failing also to provide the manifest (financial) benefits of work, insecure employment poses mental health risks on both fronts.

Our resulting framework has similarities to previous, theoretically-derived models (Allan et al., 2021; Benach et al., 2014; Bodin et al., 2020; Tompa et al., 2007), but our focus on empirical qualitative evidence has shed greater light on aspects of temporal uncertainty and the experience and implications of marginal status, as well as foregrounding the complex web of compounding, overlapping and bidirectional effects. Our analysis of behavioural responses accords with Lewchuk et al.’s (2008) empirically-derived Employment Strain Model, particularly the components of ‘employment relationship uncertainty’ and ‘employment relationship effort’.

From this scoping review alone, we cannot make policy recommendations. However, our explication of the intermediate steps on the pathway between insecure employment and poor mental health begins to enable the identification of possible points of intervention. Findings indicate that – beyond offering living wages and the social protection of sick pay – improvements to precarious workers’ mental health may be generated through offering more predictability in hours,³ and through improving the quality of workplace relationships and resources for those who may otherwise feel on the peripheries of work groups. Greater confidence in the regularity of hours may counter responses of overwork and presenteeism, as well as reducing stressful complexity and uncertainties around budgeting and caring. More equitable and supportive workplace relations may counter feelings of social isolation and tendencies to suppress needs and concerns.

We concur with Benach et al. (2014: 244) that policy-focused research on precarious employment and health is essential, ‘not only because it represents an interesting line of inquiry, but also because ill-health causes avoidable human suffering and new knowledge has the potential to inform prevention or intervention strategies’. It is hoped that this qualitative synthesis of the key areas of difficulty for those in precarious employment offers a useful entryway into future research and dialogue between academics, policymakers and employers.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-wes-10.1177_09500170221128698 – Supplemental material for How Does Precarious Employment Affect Mental Health? A Scoping Review and Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Evidence from Western Economies

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-wes-10.1177_09500170221128698 for How Does Precarious Employment Affect Mental Health? A Scoping Review and Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Evidence from Western Economies by Annie Irvine and Nikolas Rose in Work, Employment and Society

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the journal editor and two anonymous peer reviewers for their critical engagement with earlier drafts of this manuscript, which led us to improve the conceptual clarity and theoretical framing of our review.

Funding

This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Centre for Society and Mental Health at King’s College London [ES/S012567/1]. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the ESRC or King’s College London.

ORCID iD

Annie Irvine

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Annie Irvine is a qualitative researcher whose interests centre around experiences of and interactions between mental health, employment and welfare systems. Annie seeks primarily to contribute to research that has policy and practice relevance, whilst also exploring conceptual and theoretical aspects of mental health and society. She is currently employed as a Research Associate in the ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health, King’s College London.

Nikolas Rose is Distinguished Honorary Professor in the Research School of Social Sciences and School of Sociology, Australian National University and Honorary Professor at the Institute of Advanced Studies, University College London. Nikolas was Professor of Sociology at King’s College London from 2012 until his retirement in April 2021. He was the founding Head of the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine at King’s and Co-Founder and Co-Director of King’s ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health, the UK’s first major research centre on the social dimensions of mental distress.

References

Adler

(2020) Choosing bad jobs: the use of nonstandard work as a commitment device. Work and Occupations 48(2): 949596.

Aked

Marks

Cordon

Thompson

(2008) Five Ways to Wellbeing: A Report Presented to the Foresight Project on Communicating the Evidence Base for Improving People’s Well-Being. London: New Economics Foundation.

Alberti

Bessa

Hardy

Trappmann

Umney

(2018) In, against and beyond precarity: work in insecure times. Work, Employment and Society 32(3): 3447–3457.

Allan

Autin

Wilkins-Yel

(2021) Precarious work in the 21st century: a psychological perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior 126: 103491.

Allmendinger

Hipp

Stuth

(2013) Atypical Employment in Europe 1996–2011. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.

Allsopp

Read

Corcoran

Kinderman

(2019) Heterogeneity in psychiatric diagnostic classification. Psychiatry Research 279: 15–22.

*Apouey

Roulet

Solal

Stabile

(2020) Gig workers during the COVID-19 crisis in France: financial precarity and mental well-being. Journal of Urban Health 97: 776–795.

*Araújo

Jordão

Castro

(2016) Multiplasticity: a grounded theory on the adaptation to anemployment. Labour Sciences Journal 6: 35–56.

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1): 119–132.

10.

*Asanin

(2007) ‘Education? It is irrelevant to my job now, it makes me very depressed. . .’: Exploring the Health Impacts of Precarious Employment Among Highly Skilled Recent Immigrants in Mississauga, Ontario. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

11.

Baker

Edwards

(2012) How many qualitative interviews is enough? Discussion Paper. NCRM. Available at: https://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/id/eprint/2273/ Accessed 18th October 2022

12.

Barnett-Page

Thomas

(2009) Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology 9: 159.

13.

Beck

Brook

Carter

Clark

Danford

Hammer

, et al. (2016) Work, employment and society sans frontières: extending and deepening our reach. Work, Employment and Society 30(2): 211–219.

14.

Benach

Vives

Amable

Vanroelen

Tarafa

Muntaner

(2014) Precarious employment: understanding an emerging social determinant of health. Annual Review of Public Health 35: 229–253.

15.

Benach

Vives

Tarafa

Delclos

Muntaner

(2016) What should we know about precarious employment and health in 2025? Framing the agenda for the next decade of research. International Journal of Epidemiology 45(1): 232–238.

16.

Bill

(2012) ‘Blood, sweat and shears’: happiness, creativity, and fashion education. Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress Body and Culture 16(1): 49–65.

17.

*Bobek

Pembroke

Wickham

(2018) Living with Uncertainty: The Social Implications of Precarious Work. Dublin: TASC.

18.

Bodin

Çağlayan

Garde

Gnesi

Jonsson

Kiran

, et al. (2020) Precarious employment in occupational health: an OMEGA-NET working group position paper. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 46(3): 321–329.

19.

Bolibar

Belvis

Jódar

Vives

Méndez

Bartoll-Roca

, et al. (2021) Precarious employment and stress: the biomedical embodiment of social factors – PRESSED project study protocol. Frontiers in Public Health 9: 649447.

20.

Bonde

(2013) Qualitative Interviews: When Enough Is Enough. Brisbane: Research by Design.

21.

Borgmann

L-S

Rattay

Lampert

(2019) Health-related consequences of work-family conflict from a European perspective: results of a scoping review. Frontiers in Public Health 7: 189.

22.

Bosch

(2004) Towards a new standard employment relationship in Western Europe. British Journal of Industrial Relations 42(4): 617–636.

23.

*Bosmans

Hardonk

De Cuyper

Vanroelen

(2016) Explaining the relation between precarious employment and mental well-being: a qualitative study among temporary agency workers. Work 53(2): 249–264.

24.

*Bosmans

Lewchuk

De Cuyper

Hardonk

Van Aerden

Vanroelen

(2017) The experience of employment strain and activation among temporary agency workers in Canada. Society, Health and Vulnerability 8(1): 1306914.

25.

Boyle

Johnstone

(2020) A Straight Talking Introduction to the Power Threat Meaning Framework. Monmouth, OR: PCCS Books.

26.

Broughton

Gloster

Marvell

Green

Langley

Martin

(2018) The Experiences of Individuals in the Gig Economy. London: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

27.

Campbell

Price

(2016) Precarious work and precarious workers: towards an improved conceptualisation. The Economic and Labour Relations Review 27(3): 314–332.

28.

Carrieri

Novi

Jacobs

Robone

(2014) Insecure, sick and unhappy? Well-being consequences of temporary employment contracts. In: Tatsiramos

Polachek

(eds) Factors Affecting Worker Well-Being: The Impact of Change in the Labor Market (Research in Labor Economics), vol. 40. Bingley: Emerald, 157–193.

29.

Castel

(2000) The roads to disaffiliation: insecure work and vulnerable relationships. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24(3): 519–535.

30.

*Clarke

Lewchuk

De Wolff

King

(2007) ‘This just isn’t sustainable’: precarious employment, stress and workers’ health. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 30(4): 311–326.

31.

*Crozier

(2009) Investigating Stress and Gender Diversity in the Temporary Clerical Agency Workforce: A Mixed Method Design. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The University of Manchester, Manchester.

32.

*Cuervo

Chesters

(2019) The [im]possibility of planning a future: how prolonged precarious employment during transitions affects the lives of young Australians. Labour and Industry 29(4): 295–312.

33.

De Witte

Pienaar

De Cuyper

(2016) Review of 30 years of longitudinal studies on the association between job insecurity and health and well-being: is there causal evidence? Australian Psychologist 51(1): 18–31.

34.

Demiral

Ihle

Rose

Conway

Burr

(2022) Precarious work as risk factor for 5-year increase in depressive symptoms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(6): 3175.

35.

Dörre

(2014) Precarity and social disintegration: a relational concept. Journal für Entwicklungspolitik 4: 69–89.

36.

Felstead

Gallie

Green

Henseke

(2020) Unpredictable times: the extent, characteristics and correlates of insecure hours of work in Britain. Industrial Relations Journal 51(1–2): 34–57.

37.

Ferdosi

McDowell

(2020) More than welfare: the experiences of employed and unemployed Ontario basic income recipients. Basic Income Studies 15(2): 20200005.

38.

Ferrante

Fasanelli

Gigantesco

Ferracin

Contoli

Costa

, et al. (2019) Is the association between precarious employment and mental health mediated by economic difficulties in males? Results from two Italian studies. BMC Public Health 19(1): 869.

39.

Frone

(2000) Work-family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: the National Comorbidity Survey. The Journal of Applied Psychology 85(6): 888–895.

40.

*Gellatly

(2007) Working on the Edge. Toronto, ON, Canada: Workers Action Centre.

41.

Greenhaus

Beutell

(1985) Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review 10: 76–88.

42.

*Gross

Musgrave

(2017) Can Music Make You Sick? A Study into the Incidence of Musicians’ Mental Health. Middlesex: Music Tank Publishing.

43.

Han

(2018) Precarity, precariousness, and vulnerability. Annual Review of Anthropology 47(1): 331–343.

44.

*Henninger

Brons

Riley

Yin

(2019) Perceptions and experiences of precarious employment in Canadian libraries: an exploratory study. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 14(2): 1–22.

45.

Hünefeld

Gerstenberg

Hüffmeier

(2020) Job satisfaction and mental health of temporary agency workers in Europe: a systematic review and research agenda. Work and Stress 34(1): 82–110.

46.

Hussain

(2018) Contesting, (re)producing or surviving precarity? Debates on precarious work and informal labor reexamined. International Critical Thought 8(1): 105–126.

47.

Iasiello

van Agteren

Keyes

CLM

Cochrane

(2019) Positive mental health as a predictor of recovery from mental illness. Journal of Affective Disorders 251: 227–230.

48.

International Labour Organization (ILO) (2016) Non-standard Employment around the World: Understanding Challenges, Shaping Prospects. Geneva: ILO.

49.

Jahoda

(1958) Current Concepts of Positive Mental Health. New York: Basic Books.

50.

Jahoda

(1963) Mental health. In: Deutsch

(ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Mental Health, vol. 3. New York: Franklin Wans, 1067–1079.

51.

Jahoda

(1981) Work, employment, and unemployment: values, theories, and approaches in social research. American Psychologist 36: 184–191.

52.

Jahoda

(1982) Employment and Unemployment: A Social-Psychological Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

53.

Julià

Vives

Tarafa

Benach

(2017) Changing the way we understand precarious employment and health: precarisation affects the entire salaried population. Safety Science 100: 66–73.

54.

Kalleberg

Vallas

(2017) Probing precarious work: theory, research, and politics. In: Kalleberg

Vallas

(eds) Precarious Work: Causes, Characteristics, and Consequences (Research in the Sociology of Work), vol. 31. Bingley: Emerald, 1–30.

55.

*Keke

(2014) The Experience of Temporary Employees’ Stressors in a Masonary Organization: An Exploratory Qualitative Inquiry. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.

56.

*Keuskamp

Mackenzie

CRM

Ziersch

Baum

(2013) Deliberately casual? Workers’ agency, health, and nonstandard employment relations in Australia. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 55(6): 620–627.

57.

Keyes

CLM

(2005) Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 73(3): 539–548.

58.

Khan

(2017) Chronic stress leads to anxiety and depression. Annals of Psychiatry and Mental Health 5(1): 1091.

59.

Kohrt

Rasmussen

Kaiser

Haroz

Maharjan

Mutamba

, et al. (2014) Cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric disorders: literature review and research recommendations for global mental health epidemiology. International Journal of Epidemiology 43(2): 365–406.

60.

Kreshpaj

Orellana

Burström

Davis

Hemmingsson

Johansson

, et al. (2020) What is precarious employment? A systematic review of definitions and operationalizations from quantitative and qualitative studies. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 46(3): 235–247.

61.

Kvart

Jonsson

Bodin

Håkansta

Kreshpaj

Orellana

, et al. (2021) Precarious employment and psychosocial hazards: a cross-sectional study in Stockholm county. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(21): 11218.

62.

Lee

Kawachi

(2021) Association between unpredictable work schedules and depressive symptoms in Korea. Safety and Health at Work 12(3): 351–358.

63.

Lee

Lim

J-E

Cho

Won

Jeong

H-G

Lee

M-S

, et al. (2022) Association between work-family conflict and depressive symptoms in female workers: an exploration of potential moderators. Journal of Psychiatric Research 151: 113–121.

64.

*León-Pérez

Richards

Non

(2021) Precarious work and parenting stress among Mexican immigrant women in the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family 83(3): 881–897.

65.

*Lewchuk

Clarke

De Wolff King

(2006) Employment Strain: The Hidden Costs of Precarious Employment – Final Research Report. Hamilton, ON, Canada: McMaster University.

66.

Lewchuk

Clarke

De Wolff

(2008) Working without commitments: precarious employment and health. Work, Employment and Society 22(3): 387–406.

67.

*Lewchuk

Lafleche

Dyson

Goldring

Meisner

Procyk

, et al. (2013) It’s More Than Poverty: Employment Precarity and Household Well-Being. Toronto, ON, Canada: PEPSO.

68.

Llosa-Fernández

Menéndez-Espina

Agulló-Tomás

Rodríguez-Suárez

(2018) Job insecurity and mental health: a meta-analytical review of the consequences of precarious work in clinical disorders. Anales de Psicología 34(2): 211–223.

69.

*Lopes

Dewan

(2018) Precarious pedagogies? The impact of casual and zero-hour contracts in higher education. Journal of Feminist Scholarship 7: 28–42.

70.

*Loveday

(2018) The neurotic academic: anxiety, casualisation, and governance in the neoliberalising university. Journal of Cultural Economy 11(2): 154–166.

71.

*Macassa

Bergström

Malstam

Hiswåls

Soares

Ahmadi

, et al. (2017) Experiences of employment precariousness and psychological well-being in east central Sweden. Health Science Journal 11(2): 1–7.

72.

*McGann

Moss

White

(2012) Health, freedom and work in rural Victoria: the impact of labour market casualisation on health and wellbeing. Health Sociology Review 21(1): 99–115.

73.

*McGann

White

Moss

(2016) Labour casualization and the psychosocial health of workers in Australia. Work, Employment and Society 30(5): 766–782.

74.

*Malenfant

Larue

Vezina

(2007) Intermittent work and well-being: one foot in the door, one foot out. Current Sociology 55(6): 814–835.

75.

Manolchev

Saundry

Lewis

(2018) Breaking up the ‘precariat’: personalisation, differentiation and deindividuation in precarious work groups. Economic and Industrial Democracy 42: 814625.

76.

Massazza

Kienzler

Al-Mitwalli

Tamimi

Giacaman

(2022) The association between uncertainty and mental health: a scoping review of the quantitative literature. Journal of Mental Health. Epub ahead of print 11 January. DOI: 10.1080/09638237.2021.2022620.

77.

Matilla-Santander

González-Marrón

Martín-Sánchez

Lidón-Moyano

Cartanyà-Hueso À and Martínez-Sánchez

(2020) Precarious employment and health-related outcomes in the European Union: a cross-sectional study. Critical Public Health 30(4): 429–440.

78.

Matilla-Santander

Jonsson

Kreshpaj

Orellana

Benach

Badarin

, et al. (2021) The relation between precarious employment arrangements and social precarity: findings from the PREMIS study in Stockholm, Sweden. International Journal of Health Services 52: 51880.

79.

Mendenhall

Kim

(2021) Rethinking idioms of distress and resilience in anthropology and global mental health. In: Dyer

Kohrt

Candilis

(eds) Global Mental Health Ethics. Cham: Springer, 157–170.

80.

Moens

Baert

Verhofstadt

Van Ootegem

(2021) Does loneliness lurk in temp work? Exploring the associations between temporary employment, loneliness at work and job satisfaction. PLoS ONE 16(5): e0250664.

81.

Mosoetsa

Stillerman

Tilly

(2016) Special issue on precarious labor in global perspectives: precarious labor, South and North: an introduction. International Labor and Working-Class History 89: 5–19.

82.

Mrozowicki

Trappmann

(2021) Precarity as a biographical problem? Young workers living with precarity in Germany and Poland. Work, Employment and Society 35(2): 221–238.

83.

Muntaner

(2016) Global precarious employment and health inequalities: working conditions, social class, or precariat? Cadernos de Saúde Pública 32(6): e00162215.

84.

*Musumeci

Ghislieri

(2020) Some voices from Italian youth on well-being: how to cope with job insecurity? Social Sciences 9(4): 58.

85.

Mutambudzi

Javed

Kaul

Prochaska

Peek

(2017) Effects of work–family conflict and job insecurity on psychological distress. Occupational Medicine 67(8): 637–640.

86.

O’Sullivan

Lavelle

McMahon

Ryan

Murphy

Turner

, et al. (eds) (2019) Zero Hours and On-call Work in Anglo-Saxon Countries. Singapore: Springer.

87.

Peters

MDJ

Godfrey

McInerney

Munn

Tricco

Khalil

(2020) Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris

Munn

(eds) JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Adelaide, SA, Australia: JBI, 406–451.

88.

Pirani

(2017) On the relationship between atypical work(s) and mental health: new insights from the Italian case. Social Indicators Research 130(1): 233–252.

89.

*Pocock

Prosser

Bridge

(2004) ‘Only a Casual. . .’: How Casual Work Affects Employees, Households and Communities in Australia. Adelaide, SA, Australia: University of Adelaide.

90.

*Premji

(2018) ‘It’s totally destroyed our life’: exploring the pathways and mechanisms between precarious employment and health and well-being among immigrant men and women in Toronto. International Journal of Health Services 48(1): 106–127.

91.

Quinlan

Mayhew

Bohle

(2001) The global expansion of precarious employment, work disorganization, and consequences for occupational health: placing the debate in a comparative historical context. International Journal of Health Services 31(3): 507–536.

92.

*Ravalier

Morton

Russell

Fidalgo

(2019) Zero-hour contracts and stress in UK domiciliary care workers. Health and Social Care in the Community 27(2): 348–355.

93.

Ridley

Rao

Schilbach

Patel

(2020) Poverty, depression, and anxiety: causal evidence and mechanisms. Science 370(6522): eaay0214.

94.

Rönnblad

Grönholm

Jonsson

Koranyi

Orellana

Kreshpaj

, et al. (2019) Precarious employment and mental health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 45(5): 429–443.

95.

*Saldaña Lopez

(2019) A Case Study about the Impact of Precarious Working Conditions on Mental Health. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, California State University, Ann Arbor, MI.

96.

*Seifert

Messing

Riel

Chatigny

(2007) Precarious employment conditions affect work content in education and social work: results of work analyses. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 30(4): 299–310.

97.

Selenko

Batinic

(2013) Job insecurity and the benefits of work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 22(6): 725–736.

98.

Selenko

Batinic

Paul

(2011) Does latent deprivation lead to psychological distress? Investigating Jahoda’s model in a four-wave study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 84: 723–740.

99.

Standing

(2011) The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, 1st Edition. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

100.

Thomas

Harden

(2008) Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 8(1): 45.

101.

Thomson

Hünefeld

(2021) Temporary agency work and well-being: the mediating role of job insecurity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(21): 11154.

102.

*Toivanen

Tarantino

Emmelin

Östergren

(2020) Diverting blame to stay sane – young people’s strategies for dealing with the mental health effects of precarious employment: a grounded theory study. BMC Public Health 20: 571.

103.

Tompa

Scott-Marshall

Dolinschi

Trevithick

Bhattacharyya

(2007) Precarious employment experiences and their health consequences: towards a theoretical framework. Work 28(3): 209–224.

104.

*Toms

(2012) The Impact of the UK Temporary Employment Industry in Assisting Agency Workers Since the Year 2000. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham.

105.

Tricco

Lillie

Zarin

O’Brien

Colquhoun

Levac

, et al. (2018) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169(7): 467–473.

106.

Utzet

Valero

Mosquera

Martin

(2020) Employment precariousness and mental health, understanding a complex reality: a systematic review. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 33(5): 569–598.

107.

Valero

Martin

Bacigalupe

Utzet

(2021) The impact of precarious jobs on mental health: a gender-sensitive literature review. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 94: 577–589.

108.

Vander Elst

Näswall

Bernhard-Oettel

De Witte

Sverke

(2016) The effect of job insecurity on employee health complaints: a within-person analysis of the explanatory role of threats to the manifest and latent benefits of work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 21(1): 65–76.

109.

Virtanen

Kivimäki

Joensuu

Virtanen

Elovainio

and Vahtera

(2005) Temporary employment and health: a review. International Journal of Epidemiology 34(3): 610–622.

110.

Vives

Gonzalez Lopez

Benach

(2020) Measuring precarious employment: type of contract can lead to serious misclassification error. Annals of Work Exposures and Health 64(9): 1035–1038.

111.

*Vorell

Carmack

(2015) Healing the healer: stress and coping strategies in the field of temporary medical work. Health Communication 30(4): 398–408.

112.

*Vosko

(2000) Temporary Work: The Gendered Rise of a Precarious Employment Relationship. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

113.

Warr

(1987) Work, Unemployment, and Mental Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

114.

*Zeytinoglu

Lillevik

Seaton

Moruz

(2004) Part-time and casual work in retail trade: stress and other factors affecting the workplace. Relations Industrielles 59(3): 516–544.

115.

*Zeytinoglu

Seaton

Lillevik

Moruz

(2005) Working in the margins: women’s experiences of stress and occupational health problems in part-time and casual retail jobs. Women and Health 41(1): 87–107.

116.

*Zoeckler

(2018) Occupational stress among home healthcare workers: integrating worker and agency-level factors. New Solutions 27: 4524–4542.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB