Is any job better than no job? A systematic review

Next update: Update not planned

Contact for queries and feedback

Introduction

In 1999, the International Labour Organization set the goal of “decent work for all”, meaning work that is secure, fair, and supports human dignity. Good quality jobs typically offer stability, fair pay, safe conditions, worker control, and opportunities for development.

In recent decades, insecure work such as zero‑hours contracts, casual work, and temporary jobs has increased in the UK. While having a job is generally considered better for health than unemployment, growing evidence shows that job quality matters. Poor quality or insecure jobs are linked to worse mental and physical health.

Recent economic changes, including COVID‑19 and Brexit, have increased uncertainty in the labour market. As a result, creating jobs alone is not enough — work must also be good quality.

We conducted a systematic review to answer the question “Is any job better than no job?” Specifically, our review compares health and well-being outcomes in those who are unemployed with those who are in jobs that may be considered poor or low quality, and the impact of movement between these.

Main points

How up to date is this evidence?

We carried out the searches for this scoping review in April 2020 and identified studies published between 2003 and 2020.

What we found

We included 25 studies (reported in 30 articles), all using analysis of existing national datasets, including six studies from the UK. Most studies focused on mental wellbeing rather than physical health. There were large differences between studies in terms of populations, study design, definitions of poor‑quality work, and health outcomes measured. Overall, study quality was moderate.

Findings differed across the studies we identified:

• Some studies suggested that being in a poor‑quality job was linked to slightly better mental wellbeing than being unemployed.
• Other studies found no clear or statistically significant difference between poor‑quality work and unemployment.

Studies that examined changes in employment status found that:

• Moving from unemployment into a poor‑quality job was not associated with improved mental health.
• Moving from a poor‑quality job into unemployment was associated with worsening mental health.

Many studies could not show whether changes in employment happened before changes in health, meaning cause and effect could not be clearly established.

Overall, the findings suggest that job quality matters, and poor‑quality work does not consistently lead to better health or wellbeing than unemployment.

What this means

We included 25 studies (reported in 30 articles), all using analysis of existing national datasets, including six studies from the UK. Most studies focused on mental wellbeing rather than physical health. There were large differences between studies in terms of populations, study design, definitions of poor‑quality work, and health outcomes measured. Overall, study quality was moderate.

Findings differed across the studies we identified:

• Some studies suggested that being in a poor‑quality job was linked to slightly better mental wellbeing than being unemployed.
• Other studies found no clear or statistically significant difference between poor‑quality work and unemployment.

Studies that examined changes in employment status found that:

• Moving from unemployment into a poor‑quality job was not associated with improved mental health.
• Moving from a poor‑quality job into unemployment was associated with worsening mental health.

Many studies could not show whether changes in employment happened before changes in health, meaning cause and effect could not be clearly established.

Overall, the findings suggest that job quality matters, and poor‑quality work does not consistently lead to better health or wellbeing than unemployment.

Technical information

We conducted a systematic review to address the question “Is any job better than no job?”  We compared health and well-being outcomes in those who are unemployed with those who are in jobs that could be considered poor or low quality and the impact of any movement between them.

Glossary

Systematic review: A review that summarises the evidence on a clearly formulated review question according to a predefined protocol, using systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and appraise relevant studies, and to extract, analyse, collate and report their findings. It may or may not use statistical techniques, such as meta-analysis