Table 8.
Employment Status
| Site | Employment Status • Baseline (No Information at Follow-up) ○ Follow-up (%) |
| São Paulo, Brazil38 | • 19.3: Working regularly • 7.3: Some activity • 10.5: Housewife • 10.5: Retired • 11.3: Sickness benefit • 41.1: No occupation |
| Sichuan, China29 | • 32.1: Full-time farm work • 45.5: Part-time farm or household work • 22.4: No work |
| Butajira, Ethiopia42 | • 50.3: Full-time work • 4.4: Domestic work • 45.3: Unemployed |
| India | |
| Chandigarh28 | ○ 39.6: Working/no impairment ○ 16.5: Working/some impairment ○ 44.0: Not working |
| Multisite study22,25,26 | 2 y ○ 40.2: Working/no impairment ○ 42.2: Working/some impairment ○ 17.6: Not working |
| Multisite study22,25,26 | 5 y ○ 39.0: Working/no impairment ○ 43.2: Working/some impairmenta ○ 17.8: Not working |
| MLS44,45 | 10 y Men ○ 52.5: Good occupational outcomeb ○ 47.5: Poor occupational outcomec |
| Women ○ 66.7: Good home-making functiond ○ 33.3: Poor home-making functione | |
| MLS20 | 20 y Men ○ 76: Employedf |
| Women ○ 75: Housewives or unmarried living with parents ○ 25: Employedg | |
| Chennai43 | ○ 51.0: No impairment in job/housework functionh |
| Rural Karnataka41 | • 13: Regular employment |
| Bali, Indonesia23 | 11 y ○ 37.0: Employed full time ○ 21.7: Employed part time ○ 41.3: Unemployed |
| Jamaica39 | ○ 43: “Gainful employment” during follow-up |
| Nigeria | |
| Ilesa53 | ○ 36.2: Working ○ 52.3: Not working ○ 9.6: Sead |
| Lagos90 | ○ 56.6: Maintained employment |
| Abeokuta35 | ○ 51.7: Little or no disruption in occupation ○ 25: Significant work disruptionsi ○ 13: Totally incapacitated |
| Trinidad88 | • 23.9: Employed • 34.8: unemployed • 41.3: No information |
| WHO studies | |
| Sofia, Bulgaria15 | Past 2 y • 45.3: Some paid employment • 13.1: Full-time household work |
| China15 | Past 2 y • 27.6: Some paid employmentj • 34.5: Household work • 41.4: Retiredk |
| Cali, Colombia15 | • 68: Employedl • 18: Full-time household work • 14: NA |
| Agra, India15 | • 44.3: Employedm • 34.4: Household activities • 4.9: Retired • 9.8: Unemployed • 6.6: NA |
| Chandigarh (rural), India15 | Past 2 y • 45: Some paid employmentn • 58: Full-time household work |
| Chandigarh (urban), India15 | Past 2 y • 64: Some paid employmento • 28: Fulltime household work |
Note: MLS, Madras Longitudinal Study,
In general, men's employment was “erratic and irregular consequent to the illness.”
No change or improvement in employment or income status during follow-up.
Deterioration in employment or income status during follow-up.
Performed regular housework ≥50% of follow-up.
Performed regular housework ≤50% of follow-up.
Half full-time, others part-time or in family business. Of those employed, two-thirds had minimal or no impairment in work.
Mostly intermittent employment.
Seven subjects (14.3% of sample) unemployed at inclusion gained employment during follow-up.
In all, 4.6% of men and 51.5% of women were rated as having poor occupational outcomes.
About two-thirds of these subjects had worked for 12 mo or more.
A small proportion of this category included in other categories.
Of these, 59% were employed full-time during previous 2 y.
In rural areas of Agra, employment was “in routine, rustic jobs—such as taking cattle to graze and feed—tasks which family members judged them to be performing well.”
Of these, 37% were employed for the entire 2 y.
Of these, 54% were employed for the entire 2 y.