Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

The impact of economic recession on the association between youth unemployment and functional somatic symptoms in adulthood: a difference-in-difference analysis from Sweden

BMC Public HealthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201616:230

DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-2917-0

Received: 7 October 2015

Accepted: 1 March 2016

Published: 5 March 2016

Abstract

Background

The impact of macroeconomic conditions on health has been extensively explored, as well as the relationship between individual unemployment and health. There are, however, few studies taking both aspects into account and even fewer studies looking at the relationship in a life course perspective. In this study the aim was to assess the role of macroeconomic conditions, such as national unemployment level, for the long-term relationship between individual unemployment and functional somatic symptoms (FSS), by analysing data from two longitudinal cohorts representing different periods of unemployment level in Sweden.

Methods

A difference-in-difference (DiD) analysis was applied, looking at the difference over time between recession and pre-recession periods for unemployed youths (age 21 to 25) on FSS in adulthood. FSS was constructed as an index of ten self-reported items of somatic ill-health. Covariates for socioeconomics, previous health status and social environment were included.

Results

An association was found in the difference of adult FSS between unemployed and employed youths in the pre-recession and recession periods, remaining in the adjusted model for the pre-recession period. The DiD analysis between unemployed youths showed that men had significantly lower adult FSS during the recession compared to men in the pre-recession time.

Conclusions

Adulthood FSS showed to be significantly lower among unemployed youths, in particular among men, during recession compared to pre-recession times. Since this is a fairly unexplored research field, more research is needed to explore the role of macroeconomic conditions for various health outcomes, long-term implications and gender differences.

Keywords

Youth unemployment Recession National unemployment Longitudinal analysis Functional somatic symptoms Difference-in-difference analysis Northern Sweden Cohort Sweden

Background

In the 1990s, Sweden faced its worst economic and unemployment crisis since the 1930s, with dramatic changes in the labour market and the public economy. National unemployment levels rose dramatically, the labour market insurance system (disability, sickness and unemployment insurance) was slimmed down, and social inequalities increased [13]. One of the most alarming effects related to this recession was the high youth unemployment level. For young people at the onset of entering the labour market, it meant a higher risk of unemployment and lower occupational income, a considerable delay of independence from parents, with implications for independent living arrangements and the opportunity to start a family, as well as financial vulnerability because of the downsized social security [2, 3]. Additionally, youths as a group are more sensitive to changes in the labour market than the adult population, due to lack of experience, network and qualifications needed, with higher risks of further unemployment in adulthood [4, 5].

The relationship between unemployment and health status has been explored in a number of fields (such as sociology, economics and social epidemiology) and over an extended period of time [68]. Overall, unemployment has been associated with health problems, such as anxiety, depression, heart disease, hypertension, somatic ill-health and mortality, showing both short-term and long-term health implications [6, 7, 9, 10]. However, little is known about the macroeconomic impact on the association between individual unemployment and health status, particularly regarding potential long-term health implications. This is partly because of the dominance of cross-sectional studies [11].

Theories of individual level pathways suggests that recessions could have harmful short-term effects on health due to increase in stress and fear of unemployment, potential income loss and social insecurity [12]. On the other hand, a recession may reduce work hazards and risk-taking behaviours, and may increase (non-market) leisure time, leading to short-term population health improvements [13]. The few studies within the field have shown both positive and negative short-term health implications [14]. A recent Spanish study applied a difference-in-difference (DiD) approach and found a short-term effect on mental health for unemployment during the current European recession compared to unemployment during the pre-recession period [15]. An Australia study observed an increase of suicides among unemployed young men during times of recession [16]. Conversely, this pattern has not been found in the Nordic context [17]. In Sweden, unemployed during the 1990s recession showed no health impact compared to unemployment during the post-recession time [18] and in Finland suicide mortality decreased among unemployed during the recession [19]. According to a study conducted on the same cohorts as in the current study, macroeconomic conditions did not seem to be an important factor for short-term health status [20]. However, this study, like most studies within the field, focused only on current effects.

In the present study the aim was to assess the role of macroeconomic conditions, such as the national unemployment level, for the long-term relationship between individual youth unemployment and adult health status in a Swedish context, by analysing data from two longitudinal cohorts from northern Sweden. The cohorts represent different macroeconomic periods, the pre-recession and the recession, for youths in the school-to-work transition. When participants in what we henceforth call ‘the pre-recession cohort’ entered the labour market in the beginning of the 1980s, the national unemployment rate was relatively low (3.5 % at the highest level) [21]. For participants in what we label ‘the recession cohort’, the circumstances were dramatically different in the beginning of the 1990s when the unemployment levels was high (8.5 % at the highest level in 1993) [21]. For young people (age 16 to 24) this was even more dramatic, with a youth unemployment rate as high as 8.0 % during the pre-recession and 18.4 % during the recession [21].

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study taking a life course perspective on the impact of macroeconomic conditions on the association between individual unemployment and health status.

Method

Participants and data collection

Prospective data have been used from two cohorts from a medium-sized industrial town in northern Sweden. The cohorts consist of all pupils who studied in the 9th grade of compulsory school in 1981 (pre-recession cohort, n = 1083) and 1989 (recession cohort, n = 897). In the pre-recession cohort, data were collected at age 16, 18, 21, 30 and 42. At the last follow-up the response rate (of those still alive n = 1071) was 93.5 % (n = 1001). In the recession cohort, designed to be comparable to the pre-recession cohort, data were collected at age 21 and 39, with a response rate of 85.8 % (n = 686) at the last follow-up (of those still alive participating at 21, n = 800). The exceptionally high response rate is due to an intensive effort to contact all participants. At each follow-up, an identical questionnaire was carried out in both cohorts with around 90 questions concerning labour market, family situation and socioeconomic conditions, health and health behaviour. The questionnaires and the data collection were performed in the same way for both cohorts and merged into one dataset. A more detailed description of the cohorts, the questioners and available variables is published elsewhere [20, 2224]. All participants provided informed consent at all follow-ups. The Regional Ethical Review Board in Umeå, Sweden, approved the data collection in this study.

Measurements

Exposures

The macroeconomic condition is an unobserved variable, operationalised as the assignment to the different cohorts of low and high national unemployment levels at age 21. Individual unemployment was defined as lack of employment, actively looking for a job and being available to the labour market. In this study, we focus on young adults between age 21 and 25 (referred to as youths) because this age group have access to available labour market measures in Sweden but is still in a sensitive period of time where unemployment may have long-lasting health implications [25, 26]. In the recession cohort, youth unemployment was measured by register data from Statistics Sweden, while in the pre-recession cohort it was self-reported. This was due to unavailable register data from Statistics Sweden at that time [23]. In the pre-recession cohort, youth unemployment was measured at age 30 by a battery of questions about different labour market positions each semester and each summer from age 21 to age 25. If participants did not remember their previous labour market position, complementary data were collected from youth unemployment centres and youth labour market measures. The variable was coded into months in unemployment and dichotomised, in accordance to the Swedish Public Employment Service classification of long-term youth unemployment, into employed (<3 months) and unemployed (>3 months of unemployment). In the recession cohort, register data of the annual number of days in unemployment were used between age 21 and 25. All years were added and coded as months of unemployment and dichotomised as in the pre-recession cohort. Various cut-off points of unemployment have been tested (6 and 12 months) but not included in the analysis due to the low overall exposure to unemployment.

Health outcome

Functional somatic symptoms (FSS) at age 42 in the pre-recession cohort and age 39 in the recession cohort were measured by ten items of physical symptoms in the borderline between soma and psyche (added to an index ranging 0–20), showed to be related to internalised mental health, such as anxiety, depression and mortality [27, 28]. Self-reported symptoms during the last 12 months (headache/migraine, stomach ache, nausea, backache/hip pain/sciatica, fatigue, breathlessness, dizziness, overstrain) were asked for and answered as ‘no’, ‘yes, light’ or ‘yes, severe’. Occurrence of palpitations and sleeping difficulties were asked for and answered as ‘never’, ‘sometimes’ or ‘often/always’. Validation of the FSS measure showed good factor structure [29] (Cronbach’s alpha was 0.796 in the pre-recession cohort and 0.784 in the recession cohort).

Covariates

The following variables were coded equally at age 21 in both cohorts, with the exception of parents’ occupational class (measured at age 16 in the pre-recession cohort and age 21 in the recession cohort). All variables were merged into combined variables.

Time spent in education was measured by level of education, coded as ‘compulsory school’ (i.e. 9 years of education), ‘2 years upper secondary education’, ‘3–4 years upper secondary’ and ‘higher education’.

Previous health was measured by FSS (Cronbach’s alpha 0.70 in the pre-recession cohort and 0.74 in the recession cohort), and health behaviours as smoking (‘yes’ and ‘no’) [29].

Participants’ agency within the labour market was measured by two variables: if they are doing what they want to do (‘yes’ or ‘no’) and outlook on the future for the next 6 months (‘education’, ‘work’ or ‘unemployed, parental leave or other’).

Another dimension of young people’s transition into adulthood is experiences of independence from parents, which was measured by three variables: living arrangements (‘parents’ or ‘alone, spouse or friends’), income (‘own income’, ‘student loans’, ‘parents or partners income’ or ‘social benefits’) and cash margin (able to get hold of 5000 SEK in the pre-recession cohort and 10,000 SEK in the recession cohort in 1 week, ‘no’, ‘yes, own assets’, ‘yes, loan’ or ‘yes, otherwise’).

Parents’ occupational class was based on participants’ own reporting of their parents’ occupation and classified into two groups: white-collar workers and entrepreneurs and blue-collar workers including manual workers. The variable was coded as ‘both parents white-collar workers’, ‘one parent blue-collar worker’ and ‘both parents blue-collar workers’.

Parents’ unemployment, parents’ health and unemployment in adulthood (age 30 to 35, conducted on register data in both cohorts) were not included in the analysis due to the low prevalence and sample size.

Analyses

Between-cohort differences regarding all study variables were assessed by independent sample t-tests and Pearson chi-squared statistics. Thereafter we applied a difference-in-difference (DiD) approach [30]. DiD is a quasi-experimental causal inference technique adaptable for estimating effect across time without randomly assigned group comparisons [31]. It is a research design based on controlling for confounding variables where time is the main difference. DiD is commonly used to evaluating the effect before and after a certain policy that do not affect everybody at the same time and in the same way [32]. In this study we applied a modified DiD approach with four different groups instead of two, an approach applied in other studies [15]. Four different groups (2 pairs of unemployed and employed) were exposed to different macroeconomic periods (pre-recession and recession) [31, 32].

A linear regression DiD equation model was used:
$$ {Y}_{idt}=\alpha +\delta Unem{p}_{it}+\lambda t+\gamma \left( Unem{p}_{it}\ast t\right)+{X}_{it}^{\prime }{\beta}_t+{\varepsilon}_{idt} $$

The main components were FSS in adulthood (represented by Y), the labour market position (δ, where δ = 0 employed and δ = 1 unemployed), the macroeconomic periods (λ, with t = 0 pre-recession and t = 1 recession and the interaction term (γ), capturing the impact of the macroeconomic periods on the relationship between unemployment status and health later in life. It also includes potential confounding covariates and an error term.

The empirical strategy is two-parted. First, an analysis was conducted separately for the pre-recession and the recession periods with two models: a crude model and an adjusted model with covariates Then a DiD analysis was carried out to assess the impact of labour market position during the pre-recession compared to the recession period for the adult FSS [30]. Difference in adulthood FSS for unemployed was attributed to the change of macroeconomic period [31, 32]. A significant test was conducted with a bootstrapping of 1000 repetitions to calculate the sampling distribution of means and the standard error for the different differences [30]. A DiD Kernel Propensity score matching was also applied as a sensitivity analysis obtaining similar results. Analyses were conducted in the total sample and separately for women and men. All analyses were performed in SPSS 22 and Stata 13.

Results

The prevalence of unemployment differed between the cohorts (Table 1). In the pre-recession cohort, 16.1 % had at least a 3-month spell of unemployment compared to 37.3 % in the recession cohort (p <0.01). Cohort similarities were found in adulthood FSS (4.24 compared to 3.94, p = 0.07) but varied in youth (2.82 in the pre-recession period compared to 3.52 in the recession period, p <0.01). The descriptive statistics of the covariates showed significant differences in all variables except for gender and smoking between the cohorts (Table 1).
Table 1

Descriptive statistics for all study variables in the pre-recession and recession

Variables

Pre-recession

Recession

p *

Unemployment (21 to 25 years old), (n=) %

 No unemployment

840

83.9

430

62.7

<0.01b

 Unemployment

161

16.1

256

37.3

 

Functional somatic symptoms, Mean (SD)

 Adulthood

986

4.24 (3.31)

671

3.94 (3.27)

0.07 a

 Youth

966

2.82 (2.51)

662

3.52 (2.98)

<0.01b

Gender,(n=) %

 Women

482

48.1

340

49.6

0.57b

 Men

519

51.9

346

50.4

 

Doing what they want, (n=) %

 Yes

417

42.1

248

36.2

0.02b

 No

573

57.9

438

63.8

 

Parents’ occupational class, (n=) %

 Both parents white-collar workers

300

30.0

298

43.8

<0.01b

 One parent blue-collar worker

335

33.5

263

38.6

 

 Both parents blue-collar workers

366

36.5

120

17.6

 

Smoking, (n=) %

 No

627

63.1

448

66.1

0.21b

 Yes

367

36.9

230

33.9

 

Living arrangement, (n=) %

 Parents

349

35.1

267

40.0

0.05b

 Alone, spouse or friends

645

64.9

402

60.0

 

Time spent in education, (n=) %

 Compulsory school

127

12.8

104

15.2

<0.01b

 2 years’ secondary education

487

48.9

182

26.5

 

 3–4 years’ secondary education

264

26.5

213

31.05

 

 Higher education

118

11.9

187

27.3

 

Income, (n=) %

 Own income

915

91.9

212

31.0

<0.01b

 Student loans

20

2.0

174

25.4

 

 Parents or partners income

59

5.9

64

9.4

 

 Social benefits

2

0.2

234

34.2

 

Cash margin, (n=) %

 No

276

28.6

213

31.4

<0.01b

 Yes, own assets

477

49.4

320

47.2

 

 Yes, loan

186

19.6

90

13.3

 

 Yes, otherwise

27

2.8

55

8.1

 

Outlook on the future, (n=) %

 Education

267

26.8

281

41.0

<0.01b

 Work

575

57.7

218

31.8

 

 Unemployment, parental leave or other

154

15.5

186

27.2

 

*p-value of the difference between the pre-recession cohort and the recession cohort

aT-test bChi2

The DiD analysis (Table 2) shows the estimated FSS in adulthood across the macroeconomic conditions. First between unemployed and employed youths within pre-recession and within the recession, and then the difference-in-difference between youth unemployment during the pre-recession and youth unemployment during recession.
Table 2

Estimated impact of macroeconomic conditions on the association between youth occupational status and FSS in adulthood (β, 95 % Confidence interval)

 

Pre-recession

Recession

DiD between recession and pre-recession

Crude model

Full model

Crude model

Full model

Crude model

Full model

Unemp

Emp

Diffa

Unemp

Emp

Diffa

Unemp

Emp

Diffa

Unemp

Emp

Diffa

DiDb

DiDb

Total sample (n=)

159

827

 

152

762

 

252

419

 

230

379

 

1657

1523

FSS

5.62

3.97

1.65***

5.33

4.06

1.27***

4.42

3.65

0.77***

3.74

3.45

0.30

−0.88**

−0.98**

Standard error

0.26

0.11

 

0.71

0.75

 

0.21

0.16

 

0.80

0.73

   

Men (n=)

84

426

 

81

391

 

129

208

 

120

188

 

847

780

FSS

5.61

3.38

2.23***

4.65

2.88

1.78***

3.81

3.04

0.78**

3.19

2.79

0.41

−1.45**

−1.37**

Standard error

0.31

0.14

 

0.80

0.64

 

0.25

0.20

 

0.72

0.64

   

Women (n=)

75

401

 

71

371

 

123

211

 

110

191

 

810

743

FSS

5.64

4.60

1.04**

3.85

3.15

0.69

5.06

4.26

0.80**

2.04

1.92

0.11

−0.24

−0.58

Standard error

0.41

0.18

 

1.12

1.12

 

0.32

0.24

 

1.12

1.14

   

*** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05

Full model adjusted for education, parents’ occupational class, smoking, FSS, living arrangement, income, doing what they want, outlook on the future and low cash margin

aDifference in adulthood FSS between unemployed and employed youths within the pre-recession and the recession

bDifference-in-difference in adulthood FSS between unemployed and employed youths in the recession and in the pre-recession

The first column of the table presents the estimated FSS in the pre-recession. The crude model showed an average significant difference between unemployed and employed in adult FSS for the total sample, women and men. The association remained for the total sample and for men in the adjusted model (1.24 in total sample and 1.73 for men, p <0.01) but not for women. In the second column, the estimated FSS is presented for the recession period. The crude model showed a small but significant difference between unemployed and employed on adult FSS for total sample, women and men. However, no significant difference remained in the adjusted model. The last column presents the DiD between unemployed in the pre-recession and unemployed in the recession calculating the average difference, first for the crude model and then for the adjusted model. The DiD analysis showed a statistically significant negative effect of the recession period on the relationship between youth unemployment and FSS (full model: −0.98 in the total sample and −1.37 for men, p <0.05), implying a lower risk of adulthood FSS during the recession compared to hard economic times. This was found in both models for the total sample and for men, but not for women.

Discussion

This study examined the impact of macroeconomic conditions on the association between youth unemployment and FSS later in life. The findings suggest that youth unemployment during the pre-recession time had greater negative influence on the long-term health than youth unemployment during the recession. This association remained for men and the total sample after accounting for previous health status and several social and economic circumstances, but not for women.

This is, as far as we know, one of the first studies investigating this issue with a life course perspective. However, several cross-sectional studies have suggested a general harmful health effect in the labour force due to economic recession [15, 16, 33]. In particular, a recent Spanish study with similar analytical approach showed that unemployed had significant worse health status during the current economic recession compared to the pre-recession time [15]. In contrast to our results, these findings may reflect the contextual differences between Sweden and other western countries, such as in unemployment, social policy measures and health status. One profound difference is the level of national unemployment levels reported. In the Spanish study the highest level of national unemployment was 27.2 % compared to 18.4 % reported in ours.

This study shows that young people with unemployment during the recession have better health later in life, compared to unemployed youths in the pre-recession time. This pattern may be partly explained by the substantial increase of higher education during the 1990s compared to the 1980s [34]. The Swedish educational system promotes higher education for all citizens by enabling free education and a well-developed student loan system via the Swedish state. During the 1990s the educational system developed even further by doubling the number of places in higher educational degrees [34]. A comparison of the cohorts showed that young people in the recession cohort were more dependent on social benefits and also had less access to unemployment measures [3], but they also spent more time in education and strove to do so in the future, compared to the pre-recession cohort. It may be that young people in the recession cohort chose higher educational studies as a consequence of the unemployment rate at that time and the encouragement from the Swedish state. The implication could be that, compared to the pre-recession cohort, they came to be well-educated in adulthood, adaptable to the Swedish labour market, had high salary jobs with better work conditions and access to more social and economic buffers. This could be viewed as a pathway of accumulated health promotion factors, even if it may be caused by non-beneficial conditions. Another possible explanation for our findings could be the normalisation of the risk of unemployment during the recession compared to the experiences during the pre-recession time. This could be viewed in terms of less health selection into unemployment, less isolation and less social and material stigma related to unemployment, functioning as protecting factors of ill-health related to unemployment.

In this study we did not find any significant difference between pre-recession and recession among women, except in the crude DiD model. The relationship was mainly confounded by FSS at age 21, showing that the health status in youth is an important predictor of health later in life. In the recession cohort, income and education at age 21 were confounding factors among women and men, but not to the extent of eliminating the statistical association among men. This pattern of significant associations among men but not among women has been observed in previous studies [9, 35]. Studies have shown that people in Sweden are affected by unemployment in the same way regardless of gender [36], due to women’s high labour market participation and the social democratic welfare system in place. An interpretation might be that the unemployment situation by gender is channelled through different health outcomes, but more research is needed to further explore this gender difference.

Limitations

There are a number of limitations in this study. First, the difference in health between the cohorts may be due to cohort selection. As a sensitivity analysis, we performed a DiD kernel propensity score matching in order to reduce some of these biases by including all covariates as matching variables. The analysis showed similar results supporting the DiD findings. Nevertheless, bias due to unavailable covariates may still occur. However, with only 8 years between the cohorts and no profound changes in the Swedish society or in the Swedish labour market during the time of exposure of youth unemployment, we can assume the difference found in this study may be due to the recession. Second, the pre-recession cohort has shown to be comparable to the Swedish population with regard to demographic and socioeconomic factors as well as illness and health behaviour [22], and the recession cohort appears to be comparable as well. But since the cohorts are geographically, socially and culturally located in a mid-sized town in northern Sweden, they may be more homogeneous than the Swedish population in general. Third, the different measures of unemployment may be problematic for the comparability. However, descriptive analysis of unemployment spells (self-reported and register data) in adulthood were approximately the same in the pre-recession cohort. Giving some indications of non-bias in the reporting of unemployment. Finally, the level of unemployment, which was considered as a proxy for macroeconomic conditions, is commonly used and reflects the economic and labour market conditions in a country [37]. However, because of the unobserved state of the exposure, other macroeconomic differences may be interrelating factors, such as access to different labour market measures, and the inference made should be taken cautiously.

Conclusion

This study contributes to a fairly unexplored research field, showing an impact of macroeconomic conditions on the long-term association between youth unemployment and health in adulthood. Adulthood FSS showed to be significantly lower for unemployed youths during the recession compared to pre-recession times, particularly for men. There is however a need to further explore the role of macroeconomic conditions for various health outcomes, long-term unemployment spells and gender differences.

Declarations

Acknowledgement

Thanks to all the participants in the recession and pre-recession cohorts. AH and MSS was funded by The Swedish Research Council Formas (grant number 259-2012-37). AB was funded by The Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare Forte (grant number 2011-0445).

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Unit of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University

References

  1. Hallsten L, Grossi G, Westerlund H. Unemployment, labour market policy and health in Sweden during years of crisis in the 1990’s. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1999;72(Suppl):S28–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Sweden S. Välfärd och ojämlikhet i 20-årsperspektiv 1975-1995 [Living conditions and inequality in Sweden - a 20-year perspective 1975-1995]. Örebro Statistiska centralbyrån (SCB), 1997Google Scholar
  3. Bengtsson M. Transformation of labour market policies in the Nordic countries: towards a regime shift in Sweden and Denmark? Philadelphia: ILERA World Congress; 2012.Google Scholar
  4. Gregg P. The impact of youth unemployment on adult unemployment in the NCDS. Econ J. 2001;111:F626–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Arulampalam W. Is unemployment really scarring? Effects of unemployment experiences on wages. Econ J. 2001;111:F585–606.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Paul KI, Moser K. Unemployment impairs mental health: meta-analyses. J Vocat Behav. 2009;74:264–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. McKee-Ryan FM, Song ZL, Wanberg CR, Kinicki AJ. Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: a meta-analytic study. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90:53–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. van der Noordt M, IJzelenberg H, Droomers M, Proper KI. Health effects of employment: a systematic review of prospective studies. Occup Environ Med. 2014;71:730–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brydsten A, Hammarstrom A, Strandh M and Johansson K. Youth unemployment and functional somatic symptoms in adulthood: results from the Northern Swedish cohort. Eur J Public Health. 2015;25:796–800.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Strandh M, Winefield A, Nilsson K, Hammarstrom A. Unemployment and mental health scarring during the life course. Eur J Public Health. 2014;24:440–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Stuckler D, Reeves A, Karanikolos M, McKee M. The health effects of the global financial crisis: can we reconcile the differing views? A network analysis of literature across disciplines. Health Econ Policy Law. 2015;10:83–99.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldman-Mellor SJ, Saxton KB, Catalano RC. Economic contraction and mental health. Int J Ment Health. 2010;39:6–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Stuckler D, Basu S, Suhrcke M, Coutts A, McKee M. The public health effect of economic crises and alternative policy responses in Europe: an empirical analysis. Lancet. 2009;374:315–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Janlert U. Economic crisis, unemployment and public health. Scand J Public Health. 2009;37:783–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Urbanos-Garrido RM and Lopez-Valcarcel BG. The influence of the economic crisis on the association between unemployment and health: an empirical analysis for Spain. Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16:175–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Berk M, Dodd S, Henry M. The effect of macroeconomic variables on suicide. Psychol Med. 2006;36:181–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Norström T, Grönqvist H. The Great Recession, unemployment and suicide. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69:110–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Garcy AM, Vågerö D. Unemployment and suicide during and after a deep recession: a longitudinal study of 3.4 million Swedish men and women. Am J Public Health. 2013;103:1031–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Mäki N, Martikainen P. A register-based study on excess suicide mortality among unemployed men and women during different levels of unemployment in Finland. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66:302–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Novo M, Hammarstrom A, Janlert U. Health hazards of unemployment–only a boom phenomenon? A study of young men and women during times of prosperity and times of recession. Public Health. 2000;114:25–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Sweden S. Sysselsättning och arbetslöshet 1976-2004 [Employment and unemployment 1976-2004]. Arbetsmarknads- och utbildningsstatistik: Arbetskraftsundersökningarna; 2005.Google Scholar
  22. Hammarstrom A, Janlert U. Cohort profile: the northern Swedish cohort. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:1545–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Novo M. Young and unemployed–Does the trade cycle matter for health? Umeå University; 2000. www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:769168/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Accessed 2016-03-03.
  24. The Northern Swedish Cohort: Description, data and documents from the Northern Swedish Cohort Project. http://www.medfak.umu.se/english/research/research-projects/lulea_cohort_project/. Accessed 2016-03-03.
  25. Sawyer SM, Afifi RA, Bearinger LH, et al. Adolescence: a foundation for future health. Lancet. 2012;379:1630–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Magnusson L. The Swedish labour market model in a globalised world. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. 2007.Google Scholar
  27. Zijlema WL, Stolk RP, Lowe B, et al. How to assess common somatic symptoms in large-scale studies: a systematic review of questionnaires. J Psychosom Res. 2013;74:459–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Haug TT, Mykletun A, Dahl AA. The association between anxiety, depression, and somatic symptoms in a large population: the HUNT-II study. Psychosom Med. 2004;66:845–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hammarström A, Westerlund H, Kirves K, Nygren K, Virtanen P, Hägglöf B. Addressing challenges of validity and internal consistency of mental health measures in a 27- year longitudinal cohort study - the Northern Swedish Cohort study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Angrist JD, Pischke J-S. Mostly harmless econometrics : an empiricist's companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  31. Antonakis J, Bendahan S, Jacquart P, Lalive R. On making causal claims: a review and recommendations. Leadership Quart. 2010;21:1086–120.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Lechner M. The estimation of causal effects by difference-in-difference methods. Department of Economics: University of St. Gallen. 2011.Google Scholar
  33. Ruhm CJ. Are recessions good for your health? Q J Econ. 2000;115:617–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Angelin A. Den dubbla vanmaktens logik: en studie om långvarig arbetslöshet och socialbidragstagande bland unga vuxna. Lund University. 2009.Google Scholar
  35. Bartoll X, Palència L, Malmusi D, Suhrcke M, Borrell C. The evolution of mental health in Spain during the economic crisis. Eur J Public Health. 2014;24:415–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Hammarstrom A, Gustafsson PE, Strandh M, Virtanen P, Janlert U. It’s no surprise! Men are not hit more than women by the health consequences of unemployment in the Northern Swedish Cohort. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39:187–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Buffel V, van de Straat V, Bracke P. Employment status and mental health care use in times of economic contraction: a repeated cross-sectional study in Europe, using a three-level model. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14:29.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Brydsten et al. 2016

Advertisement