Skip to main content

Table 2 Eligible studies evaluating the effect of diabetes on labour market outcomes

From: The impact of diabetes on labour market participation: a systematic review of results and methods

Study Methods Results Other
Study designa Outcome definition Age group Exposure Statistical method Summary measured Overall Men Women Confounderse Comorbidities/complications modelling Endogeneityg Quality score
Employment
 Ng et al. (2001) [27] C Currently working (vs. currently not working)b 18–65 Diabetes Probit regression PC −0.04 *    A, CC, E, F, G, L, MS, SH Stratification no 5/6
  T1DM Probit regression PC 0.11 *   
 Bastida et al. (2002) [19] C Currently working (vs. currently not working) 45+ Diabetes Probit regression ME    − 0.08 * − 0.07   A, E, F, H, I, MS, O no 5/6
 Yassin et al. (2002) [34] C Being employed for most of the time in the last 12 months 18–64 Diabetes Multinomial logistic regression OR    0.53   0.48 * A, E, I, MC, MS, O, SM no 5/6
 Brown et al. (2005) [20] C Currently working (vs. currently not working)b 45+ Diabetes Probit regression PC    −1.02 * − 0.34 * A, E, F, H, I, MS, O yes 5/6
Recursive bivariate probit IV PC    −1.71 * 0.51  
 Klarenbach et al. (2006) [22] C Working at a job or business and being present at that job for the week before 20–59 T2DM Logistic Regression OR 0.70 *      A, CC, E, G, L, MS, O Confounders no 4/6
 Harris (2009) [21] C Currently employed (vs. not working but not retired) > 25 Diabetes Endogenous multivariate probit model ME    −0.07 * − 0.09 * A, CC, E, F, I, MS, PA, SM Confounders yes 4/6
 Latif (2009) [23] C Having had a job in the last 12 months 15–64 Diabetes Probit regression PC    −0.65 * − 0.44 * A, E, H, L, MS yes 5/6
  Diabetes Recursive bivariate probit regression IV PC    0.96   0.19   
 Zhang et al. (2009) [36] C Currently working (vs. currently not working)b 18–49 Diabetes Endogenous recursive multivariate probit model TE (%)    −3.91 * − 3.70   A, CC, E, MS, O, Y Confounders yes 4/6
50–64 Diabetes Endogenous recursive multivariate probit model TE (%)    −11.47 * − 0.20  
 Lin (2011) [24] C Currently working (vs. currently not working) 45–65 Diabetes Recursive bivariate probit model ME −0.24 * − 0.19 * − 0.15   A, E, G, I, MS yes 5/6
 Minor (2011) [25] C Worked for pay at some point during the last year 20–65 Diabetes IV estimation (model 1) ME −0.42 *      A, E, F, F, J, L, MS, O, SH yes 5/6
  T1DM IV estimation (model 2) ME −0.06        
  T2DM ME −0.45 *       
 Seuring et al. (2015) [31] C Having worked or carried out an activity that helped with the household expenses for at least 10 h over the last week 15–44 Diabetes Probit regression ME    − 0.01   0.00   A, E, F, I, L, MS, O, PE yes 5/6
45–64    ME    −0.110 * − 0.06 *  
 Nielsen et al. (2016) [28] C Currently working (vs. currently not working) 18–103 T1DM Linear regression RD −9.10 * − 5.30 * − 12.20 * A, E, G, SH no 4/6
 Minor et al. (2016) [26] C Currently working (vs. currently not working) 18–65 A1c levels > 6.5% Probit regression (model 1) ME    −0.02   − 0.16   A, E, F, MS, O, Y no 5/6
T2DM ME    −0.11 * − 0.19 *   
T1DM ME    −0.17   0.18 *   
T2DM Probit regression (model 2) ME    −0.09 * − 0.19 *   
T1DM ME    −0.16   0.175 *   
 Tunceli et al. (2005) [46] L Working for pay outside the home (vs. Not working for pay outside home) 51–61 Diabetes Probit regression (model 1) ME    −0.09 * − 0.06 * A, BMI, E, F, I, J, MS, O Confounders SAf no 6/8
Diabetes Probit regression (model 2) ME    −0.07 * − 0.04   A, BMI, E, F, I, J, MS, O, CC  
 Pit et al. (2012) [44] L Employment last week (more than one hour spent on an occupation with or without pay) (vs. less than one hour spent last week on an occupation or unemployed) 51–61 Diabetes Robust nested multivariate longitudinal analyses (GEE) OR 0.82 *    BMI, CC, E, F, L, MS, SM, Y Confounders no 4/8
 Minor (2013) [43] L Currently working (vs. currently not working)b 45–53 T1DM Logistic regression LC    0.22   −0.03   A, E, F, FH, J, L, MS, O, Y Confounders SAf, modelling time from diagnosis no 6/8
  T2DM LC    −0.42 * − 0.37 *  
  T1DM Logistic regression LC    0.02   0.28   A, BMI, CC, E, F, FH, J, L, MS, O, Y  
  T2DM LC    −0.28   −0.36 *  
Unemployment
 Alavinia et al. (2008) [18] C Currently unemployed (vs. Having done any kind of paid work in the last four weeks) 50–65 Diabetes Logistic regression OR 1.38       A, AL, BMI, CC, E, G, MS, PA, SM Confounders no 4/6
 Smith et al. (2014) [32] C Currently not employed due to health reasons (vs. currently employed) 25–74 Diabetes Logistic regression OR 2.22 *      A, BMI, CC, E, F, G, I, L, MS, Y Confounders no 3/6
 Van Der Zee-Neuen et al. (2017) [33] C Currently unemployed (vs. currently employed) 18–65 Diabetes Multinomial logistic regression OR 1.88       A, BMI, E, G, SM no 4/6
 Yassin et al. (2002) [34] C Transition from employment to no employment due to health reasons 18–64 Diabetes Logistic regression OR    3.1 * 2.9   A, E, I, MC, MS, O, SM no 5/6
 Rumball-Smith et al. (2014) [30] C More than one year of absence from the labour force or retirement (vs. Currently employed) > 50 Diabetes Cox proportional hazards models (matching diabetes subject with seven non-diabetes matches) HR 1.30 * 1.26 * 1.34 * A, E, G, L no 5/6
 Kraut et al. (2001) [41] L Not in the labour force (not employed and not seeking job) vs. in the labour force 18–64 Diabetes (w comp) Logistic regression OR 2.07 *      A, G, L, MS, O Exposure no 6/8
Diabetes (w/o comp) Logistic regression OR 1.20      
Unemployed (no job but actively looking for it) vs. employed (with job) 18–64 Diabetes Logistic regression OR 1.45      
Diabetes (w comp) Logistic regression OR 1.69      
  Diabetes (w/o comp) Logistic regression OR 1.35       
 Kouwenhoven-Pasmooij et al. (2016) [40] L Transition from employment to unemployment > 50 Diabetes Multinomial logistic regression OR 1.17       A, CC, E, G, L, MS, Confounders no 6/8
 Majeed et al. (2015) [42] L “Early paid work” (vs. “mostly in the labour force”)c 45–50 Diabetes Multinomial logistic regression OR 1.44 *      BMI, E, F, I, MS, SM no 4/8
Early retirement
 Vijan et al. (2004) [47] C Currently retired (vs. currently working) 51–61 Diabetes Logistic regression OR 1.3       A, E, F, G, MS, O no 4/6
 Alavinia et al. (2008) [18] C Currently retired (vs. Having done any kind of paid work in the last four weeks) 50–65 Diabetes Logistic regression OR 1.33 *      A, AL, BMI, CC, E, G, MS, PA, SM Confounders no 4/6
 Pit et al. (2013) [29] C Retirement due to health reasons (vs. Working) 45–65 Diabetes Multinomial logistic regression OR    1.44 * 1.30   A, CC, E, MS Confounders no 3/6
  Retirement for other reasons (vs. Working)     1.16   1.07    
 Yen et al. (2011) [35] C Age at retirement 50–75 Diabetes at age 50 OLS regression OLS −1.39 *      CC, E, G, I, J, L, O Confounders no 3/6
 Vijan et al. (2004) [47] L Incremental duration of retirement over the 8 years follow-up 51–61 Diabetes at baseline Two-part multivariable model (logistic regression + OLS) OLS 0.14 *      A, E, F, G, MS, O no 6/8
 Shultz et al. (2007) [45] L Transition from employment to retirement 47–64 Diabetes at baseline Multinomial logistic regression OR 3.37 *      A, CC, G, I, O Confounders no 4/8
 Herquelot et al. (2011) [38] L Transition from employment to retirement 35–60 Diabetes (in at least three consecutive yearly questionnaire) Cox proportional-hazard regression HR 1.6 *      A, BMI, G, J no 6/8
 Kang et al. (2015) [39] L Transition from employment to early retirement due to health problems 45–70 Diabetes at baseline Cox proportional hazard model HR 1.47 * 1.52   1.40   A, AL, BMI, CC, G, I, J, PA, SH, SM Confounders no 5/8
 Kouwenhoven-Pasmooij et al. (2016) [40] L Transition from employment to retirement > 50 Diabetes Multinomial logistic regression OR 1.06       A, CC, E, G, L, MS, Confounders no 6/8
Disability pension
 Vijan et al. (2004) [47] C Currently receiving a disability pension (vs. currently working)a 51–61 Diabetes Logistic regression OR 3.1 *      A, E, F, G, MS, O no 4/6
 Van Der Zee-Neuen et al. (2017) [33] C Currently receiving a disability pension (vs. Currently employed) 18–65 Diabetes Multinomial logistic regression OR 2.32 *      A, BMI, E, G, SM no 3/6
 Vijan et al. (2004) [47] L Incremental duration of disability pension over the 8 years follow-up 51–61 Diabetes at baseline Two-part multivariable model (logistic regression + OLS estimation) Cumulative impact of diabetes (years) 0.79 *      A, E, F, G, MS, O no 6/8
 Herquelot et al. (2011) [38] L Transition from employment to disability pension 35–60 Diabetes (in at least three consecutive years) Cox proportional-hazard regression HR 1.4       A, BMI, G, J no 6/8
 Ervasti et al. (2016) [37] L Transition from employment to disability pension 30–65 Diabetes at baseline (vs. No metabolic condition) Cox proportional-hazard regression (model 1) HR 1.84 *      A, G, SES Confounders SAf no 7/8
Diabetes at baseline (vs. No metabolic condition) Cox proportional-hazard regression (model 2) HR 1.56 *      A, AL, BMI, CC, G, J, PA, SES, SM
 Kouwenhoven-Pasmooij et al. (2016) [40] L Transition from employment to disability pension > 50 Diabetes or high blood glucose levels Multinomial logistic regression OR 2.37 *      A, CC, E, G, L, MS, Confounders no 6/8
  1. *p-value< 0.05
  2. aC: cross-sectional study; L: longitudinal study;
  3. bNot clearly stated but understood from context, interpretation, questions asked in survey
  4. cOther outcomes considered (“increasingly paid work”, “gradually not in paid work”, “mostly not in paid work”) are not reported here
  5. dOR: Odds Ratio HR: Hazard Ratio ME: Marginal Effect PC: Probit Coefficient LC: Logit Coefficient TE: Treatment Effect RD: Risk Differences OLS: OLS-Coefficient
  6. eA Age, AL Alcohol use, BMI Body-Mass-Index, CC Comorbidities/complications, E Education/Years of schooling, F Family related features (Number of children; Family size; People living in houehold; Household size; Living with someone who needs care; Competing activities;); FH Family health, G Gender, H Owns home, I Income/Wealth, J Employment characteristics, (Self-employment; Job tenure; Work experience; Part time; Occupational status;) L Region, Area of living/residence, MC Medical cost, MS Marital status, O Origin (Race, Australian born, Immigrant status) 0 PA Physical activity, PE Parental education, SH Subjective health/health related quality of life, SM Tobacco use/Smoking, Y Year
  7. fComplications were used in the sensitivity analysis as confounders;
  8. gPresence of endogeneity: yes = endogeneity of diabetes was detected; no = endogeneity of diabetes was not detected
  9. Other information (e.g. sample size, country, method of data collection, results of IV tests) are not included in the table due to space limitations and are available from the corresponding author upon request