No abstract

We aimed to identify occupational groups at high-risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in Korea, to estimate the number of such workers, and to examine the prevalence of protective resources by employment status. METHODS: Based on the sixth Standard Occupational Classification codes, 2015 census data were linked with data from the fifth Korean Working Conditions Survey, which measured how frequently workers directly come into contact with people other than fellow employees in the workplace. RESULTS: A total of 30 occupational groups, including 7 occupations from the healthcare and welfare sectors and 23 from other sectors, were classified as high-risk occupational groups involving frequent contact with people other than fellow employees in the workplace (more than half of the working hours). Approximately 1.4 million (women, 79.1%) and 10.7 million workers (46.3%) are employed in high-risk occupations. Occupations with a larger proportion of women are more likely to be at a highrisk of infection and are paid less. For wage-earners in high-risk occupations, protective resources to deal with COVID-19 (e.g., trade unions and health and safety committees) are less prevalent among temporary or daily workers than among those with permanent employment. CONCLUSIONS: Given the large number of Koreans employed in high-risk occupations and inequalities within the working population, the workplace needs to be the key locus for governmental actions to control COVID-19, and special consideration for vulnerable workers is warranted.

Introduction This article reports on the results from a scoping review and a modified e-Delphi survey with experts which aimed to synthesize existing knowledge and identify research gaps on the health and health equity implications of informal employment in both low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs). Methods The scoping review included peer-reviewed articles published online between January 2015 and December 2019 in English. Additionally, a modified e-Delphi survey with experts was conducted to validate our findings from the scoping review and receive feedback on additional research and policy gaps. We drew on micro- and macro-level frameworks on employment relations and health inequities developed by the Employment Conditions Knowledge Network to synthesize and analyze existing literature. Results A total of 540 articles were screened, and 57 met the eligibility criteria for this scoping review study, including 36 on micro-level research, 19 on macro-level research, and 13 on policy intervention research. Most of the included studies were conducted in LMICs while the research interest in informal work and health has increased globally. Findings from existing literature on the health and health equity implications of informal employment are mixed: informal employment does not necessarily lead to poorer health outcomes than formal employment. Although all informal workers share some fundamental vulnerabilities, including harmful working conditions and limited access to health and social protections, the related health implications vary according to the sub-groups of workers (e.g., gender) and the country context (e.g., types of welfare state or labour market). In the modified e-Delphi survey, participants showed a high level of agreement on a lack of consensus on the definition of informal employment, the usefulness of the concept of informal employment, the need for more comparative policy research, qualitative health research, and research on the intersection between gender and informal employment. Conclusions Our results clearly identify the need for more research to further understand the various mechanisms through which informal employment affects health in different countries and for different groups of informal workers.