SynthesisSystematic reviews2024
A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of ill health and health shocks on labour supply.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Taxonomy of the Full Health and Societal Value of Maternal Vaccination to Prevent Infant Respiratory Syncytial Virus Disease.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral studies have explored the effects of ill health and health shocks on labour supply. However, there are very few systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this area. The current work aims to fill this gap by undertaking a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of ill health and health shocks on labour supply.
methodsWe searched using EconLit and MEDLINE databases along with grey literature to identify relevant papers for the analysis. Necessary information was extracted from the papers using an extraction tool. We calculated partial correlations to determine effect sizes and estimated the overall effect sizes by using the random effects model. Sub-group analyses were conducted based on geography, publication year and model type to assess the sources of heterogeneity. Model type entailed distinguishing articles that used the standard ordinary least squares (OLS) technique from those that used other estimation techniques such as quasi-experimental methods, including propensity score matching and difference-in-differences methodologies. Multivariate and univariate meta-regressions were employed to further examine the sources of heterogeneity. Moreover, we tested for publication bias by using a funnel plot, Begg's test and the trim and fill methodology.
resultsWe found a negative and statistically significant pooled estimate of the effect of ill health and health shocks on labour supply (partial r = -0.05, p < .001). The studies exhibited substantial heterogeneity. Sample size, geography, model type and publication year were found to be significant sources of heterogeneity. The funnel plot, and the trim and fill methodology, when imputed on the left showed some level of publication bias, but this was contrasted by both the Begg's test, and the trim and fill methodology when imputed on the right.
conclusionThe study examined the effects of ill health and health shocks on labour supply. We found negative statistically significant pooled estimates pertaining to the overall effect of ill health and health shocks on labour supply including in sub-groups. Empirical studies on the effects of ill- health and health shocks on labour supply have oftentimes found a negative relationship. Our meta-analysis results, which used a large, combined sample size, seem to reliably confirm the finding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.