Most occupational health research is conducted with the so-called “standard employment relationship” in mind, which entails ongoing, full-time employment for a single employer. Yet mounting evidence suggests the way work is organized is increasingly deviating from this standard model, and that work arrangements themselves—the terms and conditions of employment such as contract type and the extent of directive control over tasks—are important determinants of worker health and safety. However, a lack of clear conceptual definitions or taxonomic system defining the wide variety of economic work arrangements in the contemporary workplace hampers rigorous investigation of their relationship to health. The various forms of “non-standard” employment arrangements—also called non-traditional, alternative, flexible, fissured, precarious, contingent, temporary, atypical, or gig work—may have overlapping attributes, yet ambiguity regarding the character of these arrangements obscures mechanisms that lead to increased health and safety risks. Here, we attempt to clarify work arrangements as a workplace exposure, deserving of specific attention within occupational health and safety research, practice, and policy. We argue that, at minimum, three key features of work arrangements need to be considered: (1) whether an arrangement is permanent or temporary; (2) whether a worker is a contractor or an employee; and (3) whether an arrangement involves more than one firm. We further propose mechanisms linking work arrangements to increased work-related health risks to better inform strategies aimed at protecting the growing non-standard workforce.

Background: Nonstandard employment arrangements are becoming increasingly common and could provide needed flexibility for workers living with disabilities.However, these arrangements may indicate precarious employment, that is, employment characterized by instability, powerlessness, and limited worker rights and benefits. Little is known about the role of nonstandard and precarious jobs in the well-being of disabled persons during workforce reintegration after permanent impairment from work-related injuries or illnesses. Methods:We used linked survey and administrative data for a sample of 442 Washington State workers who recently returned to work and received a workers' compensation permanent partial disability award after permanent impairment from a work-related injury. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine associations between nonstandard employment and outcomes related to worker well-being and sustained employment. We also examined associations between a multidimensional measure of precarious employment and these outcomes.Secondarily, qualitative content analysis methods were used to code worker suggestions on how workplaces could support sustained return to work (RTW).Results: Workers in: (1) nonstandard jobs (compared with full-time, permanent jobs), and (2) precarious jobs (compared with less precarious jobs) had higher adjusted odds of low expectations for sustained RTW. Additionally, workers in precarious jobs had higher odds of reporting fair or poor health and unmet need for disability accommodation. Workers in nonstandard and precarious jobs frequently reported wanting safer and adequately staffed workplaces to ensure safety and maintain sustained employment.Conclusions: Ensuring safe, secure employment for disabled workers could play an important role in their well-being and sustained RTW.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: Our objective was to understand experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV) by survivors living through the COVID-19 pandemic in a rural area. Method: Structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of IPV survivors, 93% of whom identified as women, living in a rural parish (county) in Louisiana (n = 41). Interviews included COVID-19-related stressors (e.g., rent stress due to the pandemic) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5) and resilience (Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10) validated scales. Data were analyzed using independent t tests to determine differences across race with respect to PTSD and resilience and logistic regression to predict group membership in the probable PTSD group. Results: Results indicate 72.5% and 56.2% of rural IPV survivors interviewed reported experiencing rent/mortgage stress and nutritional stress, respectively, due to the pandemic. No statistically significant differences by race for probable PTSD or resilience were found. Rent or mortgage stress due to COVID-19 was a significant predictor of probable PTSD in the regression model. Conclusions: Findings suggest the possibility that IPV concerns may exacerbate pandemic-related concerns, which in turn exacerbates health functioning. Clinical Impact StatementThis research suggests policy changes to the Violence Against Women Act and the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act are needed to better support rural intimate partner violence survivors during disaster to aid in keeping survivors safe from abusers.