Table 1. The characteristics of worker with gig work experience in the last year.
| Gig work experience in the last year | p Valuea) | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Yes | No | |||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||
| 591 | 3.3% | 17,366 | 96.7% | |||||||
| Age (year) |
–19 | 313 | 1.7% | 23 | 7.3% | ▲ | 290 | 92.7% | ▽ | <0.001 |
| 20–29 | 2,968 | 16.5% | 187 | 6.3% | ▲ | 2,781 | 93.7% | ▽ | ||
| 30–39 | 3,458 | 19.3% | 126 | 3.6% | 3,332 | 96.4% | ||||
| 40–49 | 4,493 | 25.0% | 120 | 2.7% | ▽ | 4,373 | 97.3% | ▲ | ||
| 50–59 | 3,682 | 20.5% | 85 | 2.3% | ▽ | 3,597 | 97.7% | ▲ | ||
| 60–69 | 2,248 | 12.5% | 26 | 1.2% | ▽ | 2,222 | 98.8% | ▲ | ||
| 70–79 | 795 | 4.4% | 24 | 3.0% | 771 | 97.0% | ||||
| Sex | Men | 10,279 | 57.2% | 382 | 3.7% | 9,897 | 96.3% | <0.001 | ||
| Women | 7,678 | 42.8% | 208 | 2.7% | 7,470 | 97.3% | ||||
| Household income in 2020 (1,000yen) |
–2,999 | 2,304 | 12.8% | 103 | 4.5% | ▲ | 2,201 | 95.5% | ▽ | <0.001 |
| 3,000–5,999 | 5,425 | 30.2% | 179 | 3.3% | 5,246 | 96.7% | ||||
| 6,000+ | 6,527 | 36.3% | 196 | 3.0% | 6,331 | 97.0% | ||||
| Do not want to answer | 1,803 | 10.0% | 51 | 2.8% | 1,752 | 97.2% | ||||
| Do not know | 1,896 | 10.6% | 60 | 3.2% | 1,836 | 96.8% | ||||
| Employment status | Regular employment | 10,158 | 56.6% | 292 | 2.9% | ▽ | 9,866 | 97.1% | ▲ | <0.001 |
| Non-regular employment | 5,872 | 32.7% | 173 | 2.9% | 5,699 | 97.1% | ||||
| Self-employed | 1,451 | 8.1% | 55 | 3.8% | 1,396 | 96.2% | ||||
| Freelance | 475 | 2.6% | 69 | 14.5% | ▲ | 406 | 85.5% | ▽ | ||
| Duration of work (hours/week) |
–20 | 2,570 | 14.3% | 114 | 4.4% | ▲ | 2,456 | 95.6% | ▽ | <0.001 |
| 20–29 | 2,221 | 12.4% | 100 | 4.5% | ▲ | 2,121 | 95.5% | ▽ | ||
| 30–39 | 3,417 | 19.0% | 104 | 3.0% | 3,313 | 97.0% | ||||
| 40–49 | 7,418 | 41.3% | 211 | 2.8% | ▽ | 7,207 | 97.2% | ▲ | ||
| 50–59 | 1,284 | 7.2% | 31 | 2.4% | 1,253 | 97.6% | ||||
| 60+ | 1,046 | 5.8% | 30 | 2.9% | 1,016 | 97.1% | ||||
| Household income reduction | Yes | 6,507 | 36.2% | 325 | 5.0% | 6,182 | 95.0% | <0.001 | ||
| No | 11,449 | 63.8% | 265 | 2.3% | 11,184 | 97.7% | ||||
| Work reduction | Yes | 5,288 | 29.4% | 331 | 6.3% | 4,957 | 93.7% | <0.001 | ||
| No | 12,667 | 70.5% | 258 | 2.0% | 12,409 | 98.0% | ||||
| Job loss | Yes | 1,230 | 6.8% | 134 | 10.9% | 1,096 | 89.1% | <0.001 | ||
| No | 16,726 | 93.1% | 456 | 2.7% | 16,270 | 97.3% | ||||
| Self-rated health | Excellent | 3,813 | 21.2% | 149 | 3.9% | ▲ | 3,664 | 96.1% | ▽ | 0.013 |
| Good | 3,649 | 20.3% | 121 | 3.3% | 3,528 | 96.7% | ||||
| Fair | 8,743 | 48.7% | 256 | 2.9% | ▽ | 8,487 | 97.1% | ▲ | ||
| Poor | 1,571 | 8.7% | 52 | 3.3% | 1,519 | 96.7% | ||||
| Bad | 180 | 1.0% | 11 | 6.1% | ▲ | 169 | 93.9% | ▽ | ||
| Smoking status | Non smoker | 8,801 | 49.0% | 276 | 3.1% | 8,525 | 96.9% | 0.009 | ||
| Past smoker | 4,283 | 23.9% | 122 | 2.8% | 4,161 | 97.2% | ||||
| Current smoker | 4,871 | 27.1% | 191 | 3.9% | ▲ | 4,680 | 96.1% | ▽ | ||
| Amount of drinking (alcohol g/day) |
Non drinker | 6,856 | 38.2% | 232 | 3.4% | 6,624 | 96.6% | 0.280 | ||
| –19.9 | 4,290 | 23.9% | 144 | 3.4% | 4,146 | 96.6% | ||||
| 20–39.9 | 3,500 | 19.5% | 97 | 2.8% | 3,403 | 97.2% | ||||
| 40.0– | 3,310 | 18.4% | 117 | 3.5% | 3,193 | 96.5% | ||||
| Main occupation | Professional and engineering | 3,196 | 17.8% | 108 | 18.3% | 3,088 | 17.8% | <0.001 | ||
| Clerk | 3,944 | 22.0% | 107 | 18.1% | ▽ | 3,837 | 22.1% | ▲ | ||
| Shop and market sale | 2,214 | 12.3% | 88 | 14.9% | ▲ | 2,126 | 12.2% | ▽ | ||
| Service | 1,552 | 8.6% | 69 | 11.7% | ▲ | 1,483 | 8.5% | ▽ | ||
| Security | 258 | 1.4% | 2 | 0.3% | ▽ | 256 | 1.5% | ▲ | ||
| Manufacturing process | 1,649 | 9.2% | 38 | 6.4% | ▽ | 1,611 | 9.3% | ▲ | ||
| Transport and machine operation | 403 | 2.2% | 15 | 2.5% | 388 | 2.2% | ||||
| Construction and mining | 375 | 2.1% | 5 | 0.8% | ▽ | 370 | 2.1% | ▲ | ||
| Carrying, cleaning, packaging | 677 | 3.8% | 13 | 2.2% | ▽ | 664 | 3.8% | ▲ | ||
| Else | 3,689 | 20.5% | 144 | 24.4% | ▲ | 3,545 | 20.4% | ▽ | ||
The numbers on this Table were adjusted using inverse probability weighting.
a) Chi-square test, ▽: statistically significant lower than expected value by residual analysis,
▲: statistically significant higher than expected value by residual analysis