| Literature DB >> 34068883 |
Yang Cai1,2, Weiwei Kong1, Yongsheng Lian1, Xiangxin Jin1.
Abstract
The mental health status of informal employees is rarely studied in China. Nowadays, new economic forms such as gig economy and platform economy are emerging with the rapid development of information and communication technology, which has brought great changes to the labor market, especially to the informal employment field. Thus, it is of great significance to investigate the depressive symptoms among informal employees in the digital era. Based on the cross-sectional data of CFPS (China Family Panel Studies, 2018), this study takes a quantitative analysis framework to explore and analyze the association between informal employment and depressive symptoms in the Chinese labor market. After screening, a data set of 8893 employees (60.5% male and 39.5% female) was established. Several statistical methods, including the Mann-Whitney test and probit regression model, were used in the sample data analysis. The results show that the prevalence of depressive symptoms among informal employees is significantly higher than that among formal employees. Depressive symptoms are highly related to informal work and other factors, such as education, physical health, household income, etc. The impact of Internet use on informal employees' depressive symptoms is not significant. The mental health inequality between formal and informal employees still exists in the digital era, and corresponding labor market regulations and social policies should be perfected to address this issue.Entities:
Keywords: CFPS; China; Internet use; depressive symptoms; digital economy; informal employment; quantitative analysis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34068883 PMCID: PMC8156780 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18105211
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Description and value range of variables in the regression model.
| Type | Variable | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Dependent Variables |
| 8-item CES-D score, between 0 and 24 |
|
| depressive symptoms, 1: | |
| Independent Variables |
| 1: informal employment; 0: formal employment |
|
| 1: work with Internet 3 days per week and above; 0: others | |
| Control Variables |
| 1: male; 0: female |
|
| values range from 18 to 65 | |
|
| ||
|
| years of education, 0: none; 6: primary school; 9: middle school; 12: high school; 16: college and above | |
|
| 1: married, 0: single or divorced | |
|
| perceived health, values range from 1(not healthy) to 5(very healthy) | |
|
| personal annual income | |
|
| household annual income | |
|
| perceived interpersonal relationship index, values range from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest) | |
|
| perceived social class, values range from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) |
* The logarithm of income and h_income is used in the regression model.
General statistics and CES-D score of the grouped samples.
| Informal Employees | Formal Employees | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | N | % | Mean | S.D. | N | % | Mean | S.D. |
| CES-D Score | 5909 | 100 | 5.34 | 3.62 | 2984 | 100 | 4.73 | 3.26 |
| Depressive Symptoms ( | ||||||||
| Yes | 1506 | 25.5 | 10.21 | 2.49 | 576 | 19.3 | 9.73 | 2.23 |
| No | 4403 | 74.5 | 3.68 | 2.13 | 2408 | 80.7 | 3.54 | 2.15 |
| Working with Internet | ||||||||
| Yes | 1694 | 28.7 | 5.20 | 3.34 | 1979 | 66.3 | 4.71 | 3.21 |
| No | 4215 | 71.3 | 5.40 | 3.72 | 1005 | 33.7 | 4.77 | 3.36 |
| Gender | ||||||||
| Male | 3604 | 61.0 | 5.14 | 3.56 | 1775 | 59.5 | 4.58 | 3.27 |
| Female | 2305 | 39.0 | 5.65 | 3.68 | 1209 | 40.5 | 4.95 | 3.24 |
| Age | ||||||||
| 18–30 years | 1785 | 30.2 | 5.28 | 3.42 | 999 | 33.5 | 4.75 | 3.22 |
| 31–45 years | 2152 | 36.4 | 5.67 | 3.66 | 1291 | 43.3 | 4.87 | 3.25 |
| >45 years | 1972 | 33.4 | 5.03 | 3.71 | 694 | 23.3 | 4.44 | 3.32 |
| Education | ||||||||
| Primary School and Below | 1586 | 26.8 | 5.68 | 4.00 | 135 | 4.5 | 4.87 | 3.66 |
| Middle School | 2302 | 39.0 | 5.35 | 3.54 | 493 | 16.5 | 4.54 | 3.12 |
| High School | 1155 | 19.5 | 5.09 | 3.42 | 637 | 21.3 | 4.75 | 3.34 |
| College and Above | 866 | 14.7 | 5.02 | 3.28 | 1719 | 57.6 | 4.76 | 3.24 |
| Marital status | ||||||||
| Married | 4668 | 79.0 | 5.18 | 3.56 | 2319 | 77.7 | 4.65 | 3.18 |
| Single/Divorced | 1241 | 21.0 | 5.93 | 3.75 | 665 | 22.3 | 5.00 | 3.51 |
| Perceived Health | ||||||||
| Q1 (very healthy) | 983 | 16.6 | 4.20 | 3.48 | 391 | 13.1 | 3.47 | 2.76 |
| Q2 | 1079 | 18.3 | 4.47 | 3.12 | 565 | 18.9 | 3.98 | 2.88 |
| Q3 | 2715 | 45.9 | 5.51 | 3.49 | 1593 | 53.4 | 4.84 | 3.17 |
| Q4 | 699 | 11.8 | 6.08 | 3.47 | 268 | 9.0 | 5.86 | 3.19 |
| Q5 (not healthy) | 433 | 7.3 | 7.85 | 4.31 | 167 | 5.6 | 7.37 | 4.18 |
| Personal Annual Income | ||||||||
| <CNY 15,000 | 344 | 5.8 | 6.00 | 4.11 | 24 | 0.8 | 5.42 | 3.30 |
| ~CNY 30,000 | 1462 | 24.7 | 5.44 | 3.73 | 320 | 10.7 | 4.97 | 3.54 |
| ~CNY 60,000 | 2828 | 47.9 | 5.26 | 3.52 | 1353 | 45.3 | 4.79 | 3.28 |
| ~CNY 100,000 | 1080 | 18.3 | 5.27 | 3.53 | 861 | 28.9 | 4.71 | 3.23 |
| ≥CNY 100,000 | 195 | 3.3 | 4.95 | 3.48 | 426 | 14.3 | 4.37 | 3.05 |
| Household Annual Income | ||||||||
| <CNY 30,000 | 1048 | 17.7 | 5.75 | 3.87 | 196 | 6.6 | 5.07 | 3.11 |
| ~CNY 60,000 | 2133 | 36.1 | 5.52 | 3.68 | 520 | 17.4 | 5.03 | 3.37 |
| ~CNY 120,000 | 1948 | 33.0 | 5.13 | 3.45 | 1147 | 38.4 | 4.82 | 3.37 |
| ~CNY 200,000 | 552 | 9.3 | 4.74 | 3.19 | 629 | 21.1 | 4.61 | 3.20 |
| ≥CNY 200,000 | 228 | 3.9 | 4.94 | 3.76 | 492 | 16.5 | 4.23 | 2.95 |
| Interpersonal Relationship Index | ||||||||
| Q1 (highest) | 1000 | 16.9 | 4.89 | 3.80 | 425 | 14.2 | 3.90 | 3.07 |
| Q2 | 2670 | 45.2 | 4.93 | 3.32 | 1740 | 58.3 | 4.52 | 3.07 |
| Q3 | 1926 | 32.6 | 5.89 | 3.68 | 737 | 24.7 | 5.52 | 3.45 |
| Q4 | 245 | 4.1 | 6.67 | 3.82 | 72 | 2.4 | 6.46 | 4.29 |
| Q5 (lowest) | 68 | 1.2 | 7.72 | 5.16 | 10 | 0.3 | 6.1 | 4.63 |
| Social Class Index | ||||||||
| Q1 (highest) | 440 | 7.4 | 4.93 | 3.71 | 115 | 3.9 | 3.89 | 2.84 |
| Q2 | 842 | 14.2 | 3.51 | 3.21 | 488 | 16.4 | 3.75 | 2.82 |
| Q3 | 2888 | 48.9 | 5.06 | 3.34 | 1687 | 56.5 | 4.62 | 3.06 |
| Q4 | 1066 | 18.0 | 6.09 | 3.75 | 493 | 16.5 | 5.66 | 3.50 |
| Q5 (lowest) | 673 | 11.4 | 6.67 | 4.35 | 201 | 6.7 | 6.19 | 4.32 |
Figure 1Histogram of CES-D score distribution.
Figure 2Boxplot of CES-D score comparison.
Regression results of probit model.
| Ordered Probit Model | Binary Probit Model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | ||
|
| 0.094 | 0.026 | 0.000 | 0.099 | 0.038 | 0.009 |
|
| −0.117 | 0.024 | 0.000 | −0.109 | 0.033 | 0.001 |
|
| 0.043 | 0.008 | 0.000 | 0.051 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
|
| −0.062 | 0.009 | 0.000 | −0.068 | 0.013 | 0.000 |
|
| −0.014 | 0.003 | 0.000 | −0.014 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
|
| −0.204 | 0.032 | 0.000 | −0.270 | 0.044 | 0.000 |
|
| −0.247 | 0.011 | 0.000 | −0.250 | 0.015 | 0.000 |
|
| 0.017 | 0.023 | 0.466 | 0.011 | 0.033 | 0.743 |
|
| −0.106 | 0.018 | 0.000 | −0.158 | 0.025 | 0.000 |
|
| −0.059 | 0.006 | 0.000 | −0.059 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
|
| −0.109 | 0.011 | 0.000 | −0.137 | 0.016 | 0.000 |
Regression results of probit model.
| Ordered Probit Model | Binary Probit Model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | ||
|
| −0.002 | 0.034 | 0.962 | −0.022 | 0.047 | 0.640 |
|
| −0.129 | 0.030 | 0.000 | −0.112 | 0.041 | 0.006 |
|
| 0.044 | 0.009 | 0.000 | 0.051 | 0.012 | 0.000 |
|
| −0.061 | 0.011 | 0.000 | −0.069 | 0.015 | 0.000 |
|
| −0.018 | 0.004 | 0.000 | −0.017 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
|
| −0.264 | 0.039 | 0.000 | −0.279 | 0.053 | 0.000 |
|
| −0.234 | 0.013 | 0.000 | −0.231 | 0.018 | 0.000 |
|
| 0.027 | 0.028 | 0.333 | 0.004 | 0.040 | 0.922 |
|
| −0.115 | 0.021 | 0.000 | −0.153 | 0.030 | 0.000 |
|
| −0.049 | 0.007 | 0.000 | −0.048 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
|
| −0.095 | 0.013 | 0.000 | −0.120 | 0.018 | 0.000 |