Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05

    • THZ1 We acknowledge certain limitations of this study

    2018-11-07

    We acknowledge certain limitations of this study. This is a descriptive analysis which seeks to document and THZ1 the psychosocial job conditions experienced by people with disability in comparison to those without disability. The pooled cross-sectional analysis was associative, precluding causal inference. While our analyses controlled for some of the established determinants of psychosocial working conditions (age, sex, education, skill level and employment arrangement) (LaMontagne, Krnjacki, Kavanagh, & Bentley, 2013), we recognise that there may be other systematic differences between the two groups that our analysis has not accounted for and that more sophisticated modelling would be required to make causal attributions. Separate analyses are being pursued in this regard, such as a recent propensity score analysis showing an association between working with a disability and lower perceived fairness of pay (Milner et al., 2015). Other limitations arise due to the nature of the sample. HILDA underrepresents people with severe disabilities and it does not include people living in institutions. In addition, because proxy reports (survey responses) are not permitted in HILDA, it is possible that the sample may underrepresent people with communication impairments, and it is possible that people with intellectual disabilities (who reported some of the greatest differences in working conditions) might respond to the survey differently than others. With the exception of results for people with intellectual/development disability, as discussed above, our results were robust to various sensitivity analyses, highlighting the need to interpret the results for working people with intellectual disability with caution.
    Conclusions
    Competing interests
    Funding and all other required statements This work was supported by Australian Research Council Linkage Project Grant #LP10020054 and Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project Grant #375196 and NHMRC Capacity-Building Grant #546248. This study also received centre Grant funding (#15732) from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation Melbourne, Victoria (Australia).
    Acknowledgements This paper uses unit record data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia HILDA) Survey. The HILDA Project was initiated and is funded by the Australian Government Department of Social Services DSS) and is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research Melbourne Institute). The findings and views reported in taxon paper, however, are those of the author and should not be attributed to either DSS or the Melbourne Institute. The data used in this paper was extracted using the Add-On Package PanelWhiz for Stata. PanelWhiz (http://www.PanelWhiz.eu) was written by Dr. John P. Haisken-DeNew ([email protected]).
    Introduction In high resource countries there are significant disparities in prevalence of adverse birth outcomes, such as preterm birth (PTB), among infants born to women of low vs. high socioeconomic position (SEP) (Blumenshine, Egerter, Barclay, Cubbin, & Braveman, 2010). SEP demarcates social class based on material and social resources (i.e. wealth and educational credentials) and prestige (i.e. occupation, or other measures of social rank) (Krieger, 2001, p. 1). When socioeconomic barriers consistently lead to adverse health outcomes for a historically marginalized population—such as women of low SEP—health disparity mirrors social injustice (Braveman & Gruskin, 2003). Therefore, there is an ethical imperative based on the principles of fairness and the universal human right to “the highest attainable standard of health” (Constitution of the World Health Organization, 1946), to rectify health disparities (Braveman & Gruskin, 2003). Women of low SEP are more commonly exposed to the known causal determinants of PTB and intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) compared to women of higher SEP, including: smoking, substance use, low gestational weight gain, short stature, prolonged standing and strenuous work activity, inadequate prenatal care, bacterial vaginosis, and psychological factors such as depression, physical abuse and low social support (Kramer, Séguin, Lydon, & Goulet, 2000). At birth, PTB or IUGR infants are at greater risk of neonatal death, respiratory distress, failure to regulate temperature, and hospital readmission (Bernstein, Horbar, Badger, Ohlsson, & Golan, 2000; Martens, Derksen, & Gupta, 2004; Wang, Dorer, Fleming, & Catlin, 2004). Long-term, these infants have higher rates of delayed cognitive, emotional, and developmental growth compared to those born at full-term (Alexander, 2007), and as adults may have increased odds of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and diabetes (Barker, 1995; Ross & Beall, 2008).