Suchergebnisse

The purpose of this research note is to develop protocols and templates for data collection, which could be applied to social policy legislation in order to create new indicators on the social rights of migrants. In this research note, we review the current state-of-the-art of social policy data specifically addressing the situation of migrants. We identify a need for new quantitative indicators of what rights migrants can expect from social policy that are suitable for systematic cross-national research. We also outline an approach to collect such indicators, including a data template that fruitfully can be used as a starting point for future infrastructure projects on migrants' social rights. In order to test the feasibility of our new approach, we asked national experts to complete the data template for their countries. Thereafter we evaluated their experience of being part of this data collection project. The methodology of inviting external national experts to complete the data template on migrants' social rights proved possible, but highly challenging. It was difficult to cover a large number of countries, and data quality was an issue of concern. We also encountered problems in following up on data codings with the national experts after the initial task was completed. Our experience in this pilot project of immigrants' social rights suggests that future implementations at a minimum should be based on a budget sufficient to pay the national experts for their time – and to be able to commit them to quality control updates. A viable alternative might be to collect data in-house, and rely on experts on an ad-hoc basis, and when needed. Data on migrants' social rights is of great importance in analyses of social Europe, but data are not readily available in a way suitable for quantitative analyses. Despite the challenges inherent to this pilot project, the data we were able to generate reveal interesting cross-country differences. There are therefore strong reasons for continued efforts in setting up a ...

Das Sozio-oekonomische Panel (SOEP) ist als multidisziplinäres Haushaltspanel, das Informationen zu allen Personen, die in einem Panel-Haushalt leben, erhebt und damit alle Altersjahrgänge abdeckt, nach 25 Jahren Laufzeit auch zu einer Kohorten- Studie geworden. Der zunehmende Erfolg der Forschungsinfrastruktur-Einrichtung SOEP speist sich in erster Linie daraus, dass die Analysekraft von Längsschnittstudien mit jedem weiteren Erhebungsjahr zunimmt. Hinzu kommen im Falle des SOEP seit Beginn an eine lange Reihe von Innovationen bei der Erhebung, Datenaufbereitung und Nutzer-Service. Deswegen gilt es zu überlegen, wie die wissenschaftliche Power des SOEP weiter gestärkt werden kann. Nicht zuletzt auch, da es für neue, spezialisierte Panel-Studien (wie das Nationale Bildungspanel oder das DFG-geförderte Familienpanel PAIRFAM) eine Referenz und ggf. Verankerung der Hochrechnung darstellt. Zudem kann das SOEP künftig eine größere Rolle als "Kontroll-Stichprobe" für Interventions-Studien spielen; etwa im Bereich der Kindheitsentwicklung. Auf diese neuen Rollen muss es vorbereitet sein. Die im SOEP in den letzten Jahren realisierten Erhebungsinnovationen wie z. B. die Inkorporation psychologischer Konzepte, physische Gesundheitsmessungen (Greifkraft), die Messung kognitiver Fähigkeiten und die Erprobung von Verhaltens- Experimenten werden in anderen Panel-Studien aufgegriffen und auf eine größere Stichprobenbasis gestellt. Im UK wird mit "Understanding Society" ein Haushaltspanel mit 40.000 Haushalten begonnen; in den Niederlanden wird mit MESS ein Haushaltspanel von über 5.000 Haushalten für innovative Messmethoden zur Verfügung gestellt. Die Erhebungsinhalte des SOEP werden von den Forschungs- und Politikberatungs-Communities unverändert stark nachgefragt. In UK hat ein für "Understanding Society" breit angelegter Konsultationsprozess keine grundsätzlich neuen Befragungsinhalte zu Tage gefördert, die das SOEP nicht bereits enthält oder die für das SOEP ohnehin im Gespräch sind. Wichtiger als die "Entdeckung" völlig neuer Erhebungsinhalte ist das thematische wie zeitliche "Zuschneiden" der Details von Befragungsinhalten auf (zugespitzte) neue (theoretische) Fragestellungen und dabei gleichzeitig bewährte sowie viel genutzte zentrale Befragungsinhalte und deren Befragungsrhythmen beizubehalten. Das "Maßschneidern" von Erhebungsinhalten wird in den nächsten Jahren die eigentliche Herausforderung für Infrastruktur- Erhebungen wie die PSID, "Understanding Society" und das SOEP sein. Bei den Erhebungsinhalten sollten die "Ränder" des Lebenslaufs eine größere Rolle spielen, da diese von Haushalts-Panels besonders gut erfasst werden können. Diese Verbesserungen der Erhebungen beziehen sich einerseits auf die fötale Phase von in das SOEP hineingeborenen Kindern und die (frühe) Kindheit, andererseits auf die letzte Lebensphase und das Sterben. In der Mitte des Lebenslaufs werden verbesserte Fragen zum Einkommen, Sparen und Vermögen sowie auch psychologische Konstrukte eine zentrale Rolle spielen, außerdem gezielte Fragen (event triggered questionnaires) in Verbindung mit zentralen Lebensereignissen wie z. B. Eheschließung, Scheidung, Eintritt in und Austritt aus Arbeitslosigkeit. Es wird die Etablierung einer SOEP-"Innovations-Stichprobe" vorbereitet, um theoriegeleitete Forschungsfragen gezielter unterstützen zu können. Dazu wird es auch notwendig sein, neue Messkonzepte zu erproben (z. B. die Erhebung von Biomarkern, qualitative Erhebungen, aber auch Experimente und gezielte Interventionsstudien). Um die Power von Längsschnittdaten von Anfang an für die Innovations-Stichprobe ausnutzen zu können, ist geplant, zwei kleinere Teilstichproben des SOEP, die seit 1998 bzw. 2006 laufen (Subsamples E und H), in die Innovationsstichprobe zu überführen. Um die statistische Power langlaufender Längsschnittdaten entscheidend zu verbessern, schätzen wir eine Mindestfallzahl von etwa 500 Personen pro Geburtsund Alterskohorte für ausreichend ein. Um dieses Ziel zu erreichen, muss die Fallzahl des SOEP-Standard-Samples erhöht werden. Als "Nebeneffekt" werden dadurch wesentlich bessere Analysen für relativ kleine Gruppen in der Bevölkerung möglich; etwa für allein Erziehende oder bestimme Immigrantengruppen. Außerdem verbessern sich als weiterer "Nebeneffekt" auch regionale Analysemöglichkeiten, z. B. für die meisten Bundesländer und in großen Bundesländern bis hin zu Regierungsbezirken (oder ähnlich abgegrenzten regionalen Einheiten). In letzter Zeit wird immer deutlicher, welche große Bedeutung das SOEP als "Referenz-Datensatz" für spezialisierte und vom SOEP völlig unabhängige Erhebungen hat (neben Beobachtungsstudien, wie etwa Zwillings-Studien, auch Labor- und Interventions-Studien). Zur Unterstützung dieser Funktion ist eine neue Art von Service, der in Deutschland bislang nicht vorgehalten wird, notwendig (Beratung von Spezial-Erhebungen; ggf. Datenaufbereitung von längsschnittlichen Spezial-Erhebungen), der auch in ein Datenservicezentrum eingebracht werden könnte. After 25 years as a multidisciplinary household panel containing information on all individuals residing in panel households and thus covering all age cohorts, the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) has become a true cohort study as well. The increasing success of the SOEP research infrastructure comes above all from the increasing analytical power that longitudinal studies attain with each successive survey year. In the case of SOEP, a long series of innovations in surveying, data preparation, and user service have also played a major role. For this reason, it is important to consider how the scientific capacity of SOEP can be further enhanced— not least of all since the SOEP can form a key point of reference (or "anchor") for new, specialized panel studies (such as the National Educational Panel and the family panel PAIRFAM, funded by the German Research Foundation). Furthermore SOEP can become a kind of "control sample" for intervention studies, for example, in the field of child development. The SOEP survey and its governance structures must be prepared for these new tasks. The numerous innovations introduced into SOEP in recent years—questions dealing with psychological concepts, physical health measures (grip strength), measures of cognitive capabilities, and behavioral experiments—have been incorporated into other panel studies as well, and thus provided with a larger sample base. In the UK, the "Understanding Society" household panel study was launched with 40,000 households; in the Netherlands, the MESS household panel study of over 5,000 households offered a new basis for testing innovative measurement methods. The results of the SOEP survey are in continuing high demand in the research and policy advisory community. From our point of view, the large-scale consultation process conducted to define the content of the UK survey "Understanding Society" failed to identify any fundamentally new survey content that the SOEP either did not already contain or that was not already being discussed for the SOEP. More important than "discovering" entirely new survey areas is "tailoring" the details of existing survey content to address new, more specific (theoretical) questions, and thus maintaining proven and widely used elements of survey content. The "tailoring" of survey content will be the real challenge facing infrastructure surveys like PSID, "Understanding Society," and the SOEP in the coming years. In the future, the "margins" of the life course should play a stronger role in survey content, since household panels are able to provide outstanding data of these life phases. The SOEP, and other household panel surveys, can be improved, on the one hand, by including the fetal phase of life and early childhood for children born into the panel, and on the other, by including late life and death. In the middle of the life course, improved questions on income, savings, and wealth as well as psychological constructs will play a central role, as will specific questions (in "eventtriggered" questionnaires) on central life occurrences such as marriage, divorce, and entry into and exit from unemployment. Current plans for SOEP foresee the addition of an "Innovation Sample" that will make it possible to better address theory-based research questions required for testing new measurement concepts (e.g., the surveying of biomarkers, qualitative surveys, but also experiments and targeted intervention studies). In order to exploit the power of longitudinal data from the outset, we plan to incorporate two smaller SOEP subsamples that have been running since 1998 and 2006 (Subsamples E and H, respectively) into the Innovation Sample. In order to decisively improve the statistical power of long-term longitudinal data, we believe that a minimum case number of about 500 persons per birth and age cohort is required. In order to reach this goal, the case number in the SOEP standard samples needs to be increased. A positive side-effect of this enlargement would be a significantly improved potential for analyses of relatively small groups within the population: for example, lone parents or specific immigrant groups. Another positive side-effect would be an improved potential for regional analyses: for example, for the majority of federal states. In recent times, the importance of SOEP as a "reference dataset" for specialized surveys which are independent from SOEP (observational studies such as twin studies, and laboratory and intervention studies) has become strikingly evident. To enhance this important function, new types of service are needed (advice on special surveys, possibly also data preparation for special surveys), which could become part of a Data Service Center.

Dieser Aufsatz ist der Frage der Weiterentwicklung des SOEP insgesamt gewidmet. Daher nehmen wir in einem ersten Teil eine Bestandsaufnahme der Entscheidungsstrukturen zum Erhebungsprogramm ("Governance") vor. Im zweiten Abschnitt beschäftigen wir uns mit den Inhalten der SOEP-Erhebung - also dem SOEPsurvey. Danach gehen wir auf die Weiterentwicklung des Daten-Services für die wachsende Gruppe der externen Forscherinnen und Forscher im In- und Ausland (SOEPservice) ein. Und schließlich diskutieren wir einige forschungspolitische Probleme, die bei der nachhaltigen Sicherung einer Längsschnittstudie berücksichtigt werden sollten. Die in diesem Artikel beschriebenen derzeitigen Überlegungen zur Verbesserung der SOEP-Erhebung sollen vor allem Nutzerinnen und Nutzer anregen, sich aktiv an der Weiterentwicklung des Survey zu beteiligen.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the association between long working hours and alcohol use. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies and unpublished individual participant data. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of PubMed and Embase databases in April 2014 for published studies, supplemented with manual searches. Unpublished individual participant data were obtained from 27 additional studies. REVIEW METHODS: The search strategy was designed to retrieve cross sectional and prospective studies of the association between long working hours and alcohol use. Summary estimates were obtained with random effects meta-analysis. Sources of heterogeneity were examined with meta-regression. RESULTS: Cross sectional analysis was based on 61 studies representing 333 693 participants from 14 countries. Prospective analysis was based on 20 studies representing 100 602 participants from nine countries. The pooled maximum adjusted odds ratio for the association between long working hours and alcohol use was 1.11 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.18) in the cross sectional analysis of published and unpublished data. Odds ratio of new onset risky alcohol use was 1.12 (1.04 to 1.20) in the analysis of prospective published and unpublished data. In the 18 studies with individual participant data it was possible to assess the European Union Working Time Directive, which recommends an upper limit of 48 hours a week. Odds ratios of new onset risky alcohol use for those working 49-54 hours and ≥55 hours a week were 1.13 (1.02 to 1.26; adjusted difference in incidence 0.8 percentage points) and 1.12 (1.01 to 1.25; adjusted difference in incidence 0.7 percentage points), respectively, compared with working standard 35-40 hours (incidence of new onset risky alcohol use 6.2%). There was no difference in these associations between men and women or by age or socioeconomic groups, geographical regions, sample type (population based v occupational cohort), prevalence of risky alcohol use in the cohort, or sample attrition rate. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals whose working hours exceed standard recommendations are more likely to increase their alcohol use to levels that pose a health risk.

Objective: To quantify the association between long working hours and alcohol use. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies and unpublished individual participant data. Data sources: A systematic search of PubMed and Embase databases in April 2014 for published studies, supplemented with manual searches. Unpublished individual participant data were obtained from 27 additional studies. Review methods: The search strategy was designed to retrieve cross sectional and prospective studies of the association between long working hours and alcohol use. Summary estimates were obtained with random effects meta-analysis. Sources of heterogeneity were examined with meta-regression. Results: Cross sectional analysis was based on 61 studies representing 333 693 participants from 14 countries. Prospective analysis was based on 20 studies representing 100 602 participants from nine countries. The pooled maximum adjusted odds ratio for the association between long working hours and alcohol use was 1.11 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.18) in the cross sectional analysis of published and unpublished data. Odds ratio of new onset risky alcohol use was 1.12 (1.04 to 1.20) in the analysis of prospective published and unpublished data. In the 18 studies with individual participant data it was possible to assess the European Union Working Time Directive, which recommends an upper limit of 48 hours a week. Odds ratios of new onset risky alcohol use for those working 49-54 hours and ≥55 hours a week were 1.13 (1.02 to 1.26; adjusted difference in incidence 0.8 percentage points) and 1.12 (1.01 to 1.25; adjusted difference in incidence 0.7 percentage points), respectively, compared with working standard 35-40 hours (incidence of new onset risky alcohol use 6.2%). There was no difference in these associations between men and women or by age or socioeconomic groups, geographical regions, sample type (population based v occupational cohort), prevalence of risky alcohol use in the cohort, or sample attrition rate. Conclusions: Individuals whose working hours exceed standard recommendations are more likely to increase their alcohol use to levels that pose a health risk. ; CODEN: BMJOA