IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v58y2004i6p1007-1024.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Women, work, and well-being 1950-2000:: a review and methodological critique

Author

Listed:
  • Klumb, Petra L.
  • Lampert, Thomas

Abstract

In this research synthesis, we summarize 161 measures of the effects of women's employment on well being reported between 1950 and 2000. Variations in the conceptualization and measurement of employment and health outcomes and the difficulty in distinguishing social selection from social causation limit the inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. Therefore, we distinguish two types of studies. Longitudinal studies measuring relevant covariates at the first measurement occasion and statistically controlling them in multivariate analyses providing effect-size information are classified as Type II studies. The remaining studies are classified as Type I studies. The main findings were that (1) results from methodologically sound Type II studies confirm the cross-sectional finding that paid employment has no adverse effects on women; (2) the outcome groups psychological distress, subjective health, cardiovascular risks and disease, and mortality do not converge completely.

Suggested Citation

  • Klumb, Petra L. & Lampert, Thomas, 2004. "Women, work, and well-being 1950-2000:: a review and methodological critique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(6), pages 1007-1024, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:58:y:2004:i:6:p:1007-1024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(03)00262-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aïda Solé-Auró & Mariona Lozano, 2019. "Inequalities in Longevity by Education Level in Spain: A Life Satisfaction Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 729-744, July.
    2. Jennifer Caputo & Eliza K. Pavalko & Melissa A. Hardy, 2020. "Midlife Work and Women’s Long-Term Health and Mortality," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(1), pages 373-402, February.
    3. Weden, Margaret M & Astone, Nan M & Bishai, David, 2006. "Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in smoking cessation associated with employment and joblessness through young adulthood in the US," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 303-316, January.
    4. Thomas Leoni & Rainer Eppel, 2013. "Women's Work and Family Profiles over the Lifecourse and their Subsequent Health Outcomes – Evidence for Europe. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 28," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46889.
    5. Hadley, Mary B. & Blum, Lauren S. & Mujaddid, Saraana & Parveen, Shahana & Nuremowla, Sadid & Haque, Mohammad Enamul & Ullah, Mohammad, 2007. "Why Bangladeshi nurses avoid 'nursing': Social and structural factors on hospital wards in Bangladesh," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1166-1177, March.
    6. Lucia Ciciolla & Alexandra S. Curlee & Suniya S. Luthar, 2017. "What Women Want: Employment Preference and Adjustment Among Mothers," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 494-513, December.
    7. Dana Hamplová, 2019. "Does Work Make Mothers Happy?," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 471-497, February.
    8. Fritzell, Sara & Ringbäck Weitoft, Gunilla & Fritzell, Johan & Burström, Bo, 2007. "From macro to micro: The health of Swedish lone mothers during changing economic and social circumstances," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 2474-2488, December.
    9. VAN DEN BROECK, Goedele & MAERTENS, Miet, 2015. "Does Off-farm Employment Make Women in Rural Senegal Happy?," Working Papers 232593, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:58:y:2004:i:6:p:1007-1024. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.