Table 4.

Summary of findings: use of health services and health outcomes among informal economy workers, compared with formal economy workers.

Population: Informal Economy Workers Setting: Any Country, Occupation, Industrial Sector and Workplace Comparator: Formal Economy Workers in the Same Country
Outcomes	Anticipated Absolute Risk * (95% CI)		Relative Difference (95% CI)	No of Participants (No of Studies)	Quality of the Evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk among Formal Economy Workers	Risk among Informal Economy Workers
Has used any health services	770 per 1000	749 per 1000 (740 to 759)	OR 0.89 (0.85 to 0.94)	195667 (4 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low—a,b,c	Informal economy workers may be less likely to have used any health service, compared with formal economy workers.
Has used any occupational safety and health services	-	-	-	-	-	No evidence available on this outcome.
Has died from an occupational injury	-	-	-	15650750 (2 studies)	Very low—a,b,d,e	We are very uncertain about the estimate for this outcome.
Has had any non-fatal occupational injury	-	-	-	3465 (2 studies)	Very Low—a,b,d,f,g	We are very uncertain about the estimate for this outcome.
Has depression	20 per 1000	92 per 1000 (52 to 158)	OR 5.02 (2.72 to 9.27)	26260 (3 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low—b,g	Informal economy workers may be more likely to have depression, compared with formal economy workers.
Has any musculoskeletal disorder	-	-	-	881 (1 study)	Very Low—b,g	We are very uncertain about the estimate for this outcome.

^a. Serious concerns for inconsistency due to high statistical heterogeneity (I² > 90%). ^b. Serious concerns for indirectness due to study population being limited geographically. ^c. Serious concerns for indirectness due to study population being limited to one gender. ^d. Very serious concerns due to definitely high risk of bias in at least one domain in each study. ^e. Serious concerns for imprecision as the 95% CI is wide and crosses 1. ^f. Serious concerns for probably high risk of bias in multiple domains (selection bias, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting of outcome, differences in numerator and denominator and outcome misclassification). ^g. Serious concern for indirectness due to occupational groups being very specific and thus limited. * The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative difference (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio. GRADE quality of evidence ratings. High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.