Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in Atypical Work and Employment ContinuityJohn T. Addison Christopher J. Surfield The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R S E R I E SIZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. ABSTRACT Atypical Work and Employment ContinuityAtypical employment arrangements such as agency temporary work and contracting have long been criticized as offering more precarious and unstable work than regular employment. Using data from two datasets -the CAEAS and the NLSY79 -we determine whether workers who take such jobs rather than regular employment, or the alternative of continued job search, subsequently experience greater or lesser employment continuity. Observed differences between the various working arrangements are starkest when we do not account for unobserved individual heterogeneity. Controlling for the latter, we report that the advantage of regular work over atypical work and atypical work over continued joblessness dissipates.JEL Classification: J40, J60, J63, M50
Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.
Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.
Atypical work arrangements have long been criticized as offering more precarious and lower paid work than regular open‐ended employment. An important British paper by Booth et al. (Economic Journal, Vol. 112 (2002), No. 480, pp. F189–F213) was among the first to recognize such jobs also functioned as a stepping stone to permanent work. This conclusion proved prescient, receiving increased support in Europe. Here, we provide a broadly parallel analysis for the USA, where research has been less targeted on this issue. We report similar findings for temporary workers in the USA as found for fixed‐term contract workers in Britain.
Objective: To compare outcomes for Medicare patients with diabetic foot ulcer(s) (DFU) receiving cryopreserved placental membrane containing viable cells (vCPM) to other Cellular- and Tissue-Based Products (CTPs). Approach: Patients with DFU and CTP use were selected in Medicare claims (2013–2017) by using a strict definition of DFU with demonstrated diabetes etiology. We compared the effectiveness of vCPM with other CTPs on: (1) reduction of post-treatment ulcer occurrence, and (2) reduction in 1 year mortality. We controlled for selection bias and differential risk characteristics between comparison groups in a two-stage inverse probability treatment weighting model. Results: Overall, 7,869 DFU episodes with CTP use met inclusion criteria: 786 received vCPM, 4,546 received another “cellular” CTP, and 2,537 received “acellular” CTP. For ulcer occurrence, we examined: 30-, 90-, 180-, and 365 days post-treatment. We found a significant reduction in ulcers at each period for vCPM compared with either alternative CTP—results range from a 36.7% percentage point reduction in ulcer occurrence at 30 days compared with cellular CTP, and a 58.5% percentage point reduction at 365 days compared with acellular CTP. Further, the application of vCPM reduces mortality within 1 year by 2.3 percentage points (13–13.8% change) compared with other CTPs. Innovation: This study examines the differences in ulcer occurrence and mortality for Medicare DFU patients receiving vCPM and other CTPs. Our strict DFU definition excludes beneficiaries without foot ulcer with demonstrated diabetes etiology. Conclusion: Among CTPs, vCPM users have reduced ulcer rates (recurrent or new) and reduced all-cause mortality compared with other “cellular” and “acellular” CTPs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.