IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i6p3189-d520507.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health Services Use and Health Outcomes among Informal Economy Workers Compared with Formal Economy Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Nisha Naicker

    (National Institute for Occupational Health, A Division of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg 2001, South Africa
    School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2193, South Africa
    Department of Environmental Health, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2028, South Africa)

  • Frank Pega

    (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Health, World Health Organization, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland)

  • David Rees

    (School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2193, South Africa)

  • Spo Kgalamono

    (National Institute for Occupational Health, A Division of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg 2001, South Africa
    School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2193, South Africa)

  • Tanusha Singh

    (National Institute for Occupational Health, A Division of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg 2001, South Africa
    Department of Environmental Health, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2028, South Africa
    Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, School of Pathology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2193, South Africa)

Abstract

Background: There are approximately two billion workers in the informal economy globally. Compared to workers in the formal economy, these workers are often marginalised with minimal or no benefits from occupational health and safety regulations, labour laws, social protection and/or health care. Thus, informal economy workers may have higher occupational health risks compared to their formal counterparts. Our objective was to systematically review and meta-analyse evidence on relative differences (or inequalities) in health services use and health outcomes among informal economy workers, compared with formal economy workers. Methods: We searched PubMed and EMBASE in March 2020 for studies published in 1999–2020. The eligible population was informal economy workers. The comparator was formal economy workers. The eligible outcomes were general and occupational health services use, fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries, HIV, tuberculosis, musculoskeletal disorders, depression, noise-induced hearing loss and respiratory infections. Two authors independently screened records, extracted data, assessed risk of bias with RoB-SPEO, and assessed quality of evidence with GRADE. Inverse variance meta-analyses were conducted with random effects. Results: Twelve studies with 1,637,297 participants from seven countries in four WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean and Western Pacific) were included. Compared with formal economy workers, informal economy workers were found to be less likely to use any health services (odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.85–0.94, four studies, 195,667 participants, I 2 89%, low quality of evidence) and more likely to have depression (odds ratio 5.02, 95% confidence interval 2.72–9.27, three studies, 26,260 participants, I 2 87%, low quality of evidence). We are very uncertain about the other outcomes (very-low quality of evidence). Conclusion: Informal economy workers may be less likely than formal economy workers to use any health services and more likely to have depression. The evidence is uncertain for relative differences in the other eligible outcomes. Further research is warranted to strengthen the current body of evidence and needed to improve population health and reduce health inequalities among workers.

Suggested Citation

  • Nisha Naicker & Frank Pega & David Rees & Spo Kgalamono & Tanusha Singh, 2021. "Health Services Use and Health Outcomes among Informal Economy Workers Compared with Formal Economy Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:6:p:3189-:d:520507
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3189/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3189/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jesne Kistan & Vusi Ntlebi & Felix Made & Tahira Kootbodien & Kerry Wilson & Nonhlanhla Tlotleng & Spo Kgalamono & Angela Mathee & Nisha Naicker, 2020. "Health care access of informal waste recyclers in Johannesburg, South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-12, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Virginia Gunn & Alejandra Vives & Alessandro Zaupa & Julio C. Hernando-Rodriguez & Mireia Julià & Signild Kvart & Wayne Lewchuk & Eva Padrosa & Mattias Philippe Vos & Emily Q. Ahonen & Sherry Baron & , 2022. "Non-Standard Employment and Unemployment during the COVID-19 Crisis: Economic and Health Findings from a Six-Country Survey Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-27, May.
    2. Yang Cai & Weiwei Kong & Yongsheng Lian & Xiangxin Jin, 2021. "Depressive Symptoms among Chinese Informal Employees in the Digital Era," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-13, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ntobeko Mlotshwa & Tanya Dayaram & Asiphile Khanyile & Princess A. Sibanda & Kira Erwin & Tamlynn Fleetwood, 2022. "Working with Waste: Hazards and Mitigation Strategies Used by Waste Pickers in the Inner City of Durban," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-12, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:6:p:3189-:d:520507. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.