Sleep mediates the relationship between precarious employment and mental health.

Background: Current evidence suggests that precarious employment is a risk factor for poor mental health. Although the mechanisms underpinning this relationship are unclear, poor sleep has been proposed to have a role in this relationship. This study explored the mediating effects of poor sleep quality and duration on the relationship between precarious employment and mental health. Methods: Data were obtained from wave 17 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey. A novel precarious employment score (PES) was developed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) in 8127 workers (4195 female, aged 18-65). Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to evaluate the mediating effect of sleep quality and duration on the relationship between precarious employment and mental health (SF-36 mental health subscale). Results: The PES identified 650 workers with a high level of precariousness, 2417 with a moderate level of precariousness, and 5060 workers with a low level of precariousness out of 8127 in total. There was a significant direct association between precarious employment and mental health; with higher precarity increasing the likelihood of poor mental health. The SEM results revealed that sleep quality partially mediated the association between precarious employment and mental health (Coefficient = 0.025, 95 % CI [0.015, 0.034], P ≤ 0.001). However, a mediation effect was not found for sleep duration. Conclusion: Encouraging precarious employees to improve sleep quality may mitigate the adverse effects of precarious work on their mental health. Further objective measurement of sleep duration warrants a more accurate insight into this mediating effect in this group.

Precarious employment and associated health and social consequences; a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to identify, evaluate, and summarise the consequences of precarious employment. METHODS: We included studies published within the last ten years (Jan 2011-July 2021) that employed at least two of three key dimensions of precarious employment: employment insecurity, income inadequacy, and lack of rights and protection. RESULTS: Of the 4,947 initially identified studies, only five studies met our eligibility criteria. These five studies were of moderate quality as assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Our review found that the current literature predominantly defines precarity based on the single criterion of employment insecurity. Our review identified evidence for the negative consequences of precarious employment, including poorer workplace wellbeing, general health, mental health, and emotional wellbeing. The findings indicated an increase in the magnitude of these adverse outcomes with a higher degree of job precariousness. CONCLUSIONS: The rise of employment precariousness will likely continue to be a major issue in the coming years. More research is needed to inform effective policies and practices using a consensus definition of precarious employment. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: The presence of adverse effects of precarious employment suggests workplace initiatives are essential to mitigate the negative consequences of precarity.