Category Archives: Journal article

Retiring early: the links with childhood

When we think of why someone might retire early, our minds are unlikely to make the leap to their childhood for the answer. But a group of researchers interested in what sorts of things affect our later working lives, believe that early retirement may indeed have some of its roots in our younger years. The research sheds new and important light on worldwide efforts to plug pensions gaps and get more people working longer. Hanno Hoven from the University of Dusseldorf outlines why he and colleagues from the International Centre for Lifecourse Studies at UCL think early retirement can be traced right back to having had a tougher childhood. He goes on to explain what the findings might mean for policy in this area.

All sorts of things are likely to influence the point at which older people stop working. External factors like tax incentives to stay in work or changes to when we can claim our State Pension play a role. Then there are our working conditions, what’s going on with our health and how our personal circumstances change as we get older.

A substantial body of research has shown in recent years that people whose socioeconomic circumstances are poor are more likely to retire early than their better off peers. But in our research, we wanted to see if retiring early can additionally be traced back to earlier stages of the life course, more specifically, to having had a tougher life as a child or during mid adulthood.

In addition we wanted to dig a bit deeper into older people’s working lives, by giving a clearer and more detailed picture that describes entire patterns of employment trajectories (and not retirement timing only). To do this, we took into account the employment history between 50 and 70, including details on type of job people did, whether they worked full- or part-time or whether they were self-employed.

We used information collected by the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), which has carried out interviews with more than 28,000 older people from 14 different countries. For our research, we focused on 5,857 men and women from the survey who wereaged 70 or over and who had provided details of their previous working and personal lives.

Work and retirement

We created clusters of their work and employment histories, and you can see in the table below the proportion of men and women in each cluster. On this basis we could link these clusters or types of employment histories to earlier adversity for both men and women.

Looking at types of employment histories between the ages of 50 and 70, we could see that men were more likely than women working in full-time employment or self-employed.. Women worked more likely in a part-time job or looked after home or family during those years.

Adversity in childhood

After modelling the effect of early life information and taking a range of background factors into account (e.g., among others, health conditions prior and during working life in mid adulthood), we were able to see that men who had experienced adversity in childhood were 5 percentage points more likely to have retired early (around age 55) from full-time employment, but they were less likely self-employed in late life. The same was true of men who experienced adversity in adulthood, although it is important to note that the effects were independent of each other.

Women who had suffered adversity in childhood were also less likely to be self-employed and retire later on. However, it was not related to early (around age 55) retirement from a full-time job. Women who faced adversity in adult life were more likely to work part-time or to look after the home/family than their peers who suffered no adversity during that period. This was not the case for childhood adversity.

Some other interesting things emerged from the research, which we believe provides a more comprehensive picture than has been provided before.

One very notable point was that early retirement was more closely associated with being in full-time employment rather than being self-employed. This could be because employed people have more restricted opportunities to work for longer (even if they want to) compared with their self-employed counterparts who have more freedom in deciding when to retire.

Food for thought

For those, including the Government’s Business Champion for Older Workers, who want to see thousands more older workers in British companies by 2022, this will be food for thought. More flexible retirement arrangements are likely to be necessary for employed workers who want to work longer, for example, through retirement schemes that allow a reduction of working time before leaving the labour market. This argument is further supported by the fact that such a cluster (where employed people reduced their working hours before retiring) was not found in our research.

Interesting differences emerged between men and women when it came to their employment histories and the way in which childhood adversity was linked to them. Whilst men were more likely to follow a path of full-time employment into retirement, women were more likely to have been continuously looking after home or family (without retirement) or have worked part-time.

When we factored in childhood adversity in the women’s lives, there was a close link with discontinuous employment in later life. This link was stronger for women than for men. Other research has suggested that traditional gender roles make it harder for women to gain a foothold in the labour market, a disadvantage that any adversity in childhood is likely to compound.

Looking across the lifecourse in this way sheds considerable new and important light on the timing of retirement, and offers some pointers for policymakers looking to increase the numbers of older workers. One specific implication is that certain measures are likely to work better for different age groups and should address different stages of the lifecourse.

There has been a great deal of focus on pension age and working conditions for older people. However, our research suggests that our childhood circumstances are also important and that policies to tackle childhood poverty and create good stable jobs for young people may also have a key role to play over time.

Early Adversity and Late Life Employment History—A Sequence Analysis Based on SHARE is research by Hanno Hoven, Nico Dragano, David Blane and Morten Wahrendorf and is published in Work, Aging and Retirement.

 

Could frailty screening help extend our working lives?

The Government’s Business Champion for Older Workers, Andy Briggs, has called for one million more older people to be in work by 2022. But to enjoy the benefits of working longer, we need to remain in good health. Professor Keith Palmer from the University of Southampton and colleagues investigated whether signs of frailty in mid-life can predict difficulties in continuing to work later on. Here he outlines their findings and makes the case for developing screening to identify those workers most in need of support.

By 2020 the over-50s will comprise almost one third of the UK’s working age population, and more recent Government policies, including changes to the age at which we can claim our State Pension, have been focused on extending our working lives.

But, according to the Centre for Ageing Better, the single biggest reason for people leaving the workforce before retirement age is health, and nearly half of all people between ages 50 and 64 have a long-term health condition. The charitable foundation has been highlighting the need for more support to allow older people to continue to work.

For people with poor health, previous studies have shown that extending their working lives may not be in their best interests. Our research is the first to measure frailty and symptoms of pre-frailty in people aged 50-65 and determine whether and how it is associated with employment difficulties. The idea was to see if there is a way to identify early those people most likely to find it difficult to continue working.

We used information about more than 8,000 people collected through the Health and Employment After Fifty (HEAF) Study, which involves patients from 24 geographically-dispersed GP practices in England.

They answered a range of questions about whether they suffered from exhaustion, had a slow walking speed, a weak grip (determined by whether they had problems opening new jars), low levels of physical activity and whether they had unintentional weight loss in the past year.

People with more than three of the above symptoms were classed as ‘frail’, while those with one or two symptoms were classed as ‘pre-frail’.

They were also asked employment-related questions: were they currently working and, if not, had their previous job ended for health reasons?

Those in work were asked:

  • their total sickness absence over the past 12 months
  • had they needed to cut down at work because of their health?
  • were they coping with the physical and mental demands of their work?
  • Did they expect to be able to do the same work in two years’ time?
  • Was their job secure?
  • Did their work affect their sleep?

Information about their well-being, including back and other pain, was also collected, and participants’ jobs were classified as higher managerial, intermediate or routine/manual.

Health problems

More than one third of the women, and 27 per cent of the men studied were no longer working. Of these, around one third of both sexes said they had left their job because of a health problem.

Disorders or pain affecting movement, such as bone, joint or nerve problems, and mental illness, were the most common reasons for stopping work.

Many of those still working reported difficulties with their jobs, with between 6 and 7 per cent having taken 20 or more days’ sick leave in the last year. Around one third reported problems coping with work’s physical demands, and 20 per cent said their job was insecure.

Four per cent of the group studied were classed as ‘frail’ and, within this group, more than three-quarters reported low physical activity, weak grip and slow walking speed, with women more likely to report symptoms. Nearly one third of the participants were classed as ‘pre-frail’.

When work situations were taken into account, we found three quarters of those classified as ‘frail’ were no longer working, with 60 per cent of these leaving their job for a health reason. Only a quarter of the ‘non-frail’ participants had stopped working.

The odds of not being in paid work were more than ten times higher for frail compared with non-frail participants, while the likelihood of leaving work for health reasons was higher still (up 30-fold). In frail people who were in work, the odds of prolonged sick leave, cutting down a lot at work and struggling with work’s physical demands were about 11 to 17 times greater than for non-frail workers.

‘Pre-frail’ subjects also had more work problems, although not to the same extent as frail subjects. For example, their odds of health-related job loss were up 3.7-fold, and their odds of having prolonged sick leave or having to cut down a lot at work in the past year were up 2.5 to 3-fold.

Frailty effect

The impact of frailty on not being in work, taking more sick leave, and not coping with work demands was about 2–3 times greater among those from poorer backgrounds. However, we found ‘frailty’ was strongly associated with poor work outcomes even for those in higher managerial positions.

Looking at the frailty symptoms individually, we found most of the work problems to be most strongly linked with slow walking speed. Strong links were also found with poor grip strength and exhaustion.

Our findings showed strong associations between certain symptoms, for example those with slow-walking speed also tended to be exhausted or have a weak grip. Similarly, there were links between weak grip and exhaustion, and slow walking speed and low physical activity.

Strong associations

While our findings need further follow up, assessing the same group of patients over time to confirm the links between different physical symptoms and future work problems, our large sample size has confirmed frailty symptoms are common in people aged 50-65.

As the first study linking frailty and pre-frailty symptoms to work outcomes, we have shown strong associations with worklessness, health-related job loss, sickness absence and not coping at work.

Through further study, these symptoms could be refined to form the basis for simple screening tests for older workers, and spearhead the development of targeted support to improve physical function in those most at risk.

To realise the call of the Government’s older workers’ champion for one million more older people to be in work in five years’ time, identifying those most likely to struggle to remain in the workplace will be crucial.

The Government, NHS and employers will need to heed the call from the Centre for Ageing Better to develop workplace adaptations and age-friendly practices, and extend occupational health support and targeted preventive approaches that help people stay in work and stay well.

Further information

Frailty, prefrailty and employment outcomes in Health and Employment After Fifty (HEAF) Study is research by Keith Palmer, Stefania D’Angelo, Clare Harris, Cathy Linaker, Catharine Gale, Maria Evandrou, Holly Syddall, Cyrus Cooper, Avan Sayer, David Coggon and Karen Walker-Bone of the University of Southampton and Tjeerd van Staa of the University of Manchester. It is published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

Photo credit: Roberto Trombetta

Organisational change: impact on early retirement

Motivating older employees to stay working longer is seen as a key way of tackling the current pensions crisis facing many countries. Something of a fly in the ointment for those looking to address the problem is the option to take voluntary early retirement, especially where among those who are in good health and best placed to continue working. Dr Nina Breinegaard and colleagues at the University of Copenhagen have been researching the situation in Denmark and, as Nina explains here, they find that a key area of focus for employers and policymakers could be organisational change.

A whole host of things influence our decision around when to retire. These include obvious things like our finances, the state of our physical and mental health and what’s going on with our family and close friends.

Another key influence is what is happening in the workplace. A job may have become too physically demanding for example. A number of studies have shown that when a company is restructuring or downsizing, employees may feel less secure about their position. This in turn can be a catalyst for early retirement, sometimes on the grounds of ill health.

In our research, however, we wanted to try to get to the bottom of how organisational change might influence those without any health problems to retire early. We also wanted to take a close look at the combined influences of the psychological and social sides of work on that decision.

Claiming benefits

In Denmark, men and women who have paid into an early retirement benefits insurance fund can claim those benefits between the ages of 60-64 even if they are in good health. At the end of 2012, 34 per cent of women and 27 per cent of men aged 60-64 received these early retirement benefits.

We linked Denmark’s DREAM database, which collects information on all public benefit payments, with a survey collected over a two month period in 2011 from more than 28,000 public sector workers. This enabled us to look at which employees decided to take early retirement benefits and whether changes at work were linked to that decision.

All this information was then linked to administrative data to take a range of social and economic background factors into account.

We ended up with a group of 3254 employees aged 60-64 who were entitled to early retirement benefits. Details of any changes at their workplace: a change of manager, a merging or demerging of departments or workgroups, moving to a different office or having a new base, were collected independently from current or previous managers.

They also rated the quality of their work environment e.g. how good their managers were at leading, how positive relationships were with other colleagues and how fairly and well concerns and conflicts were dealt with (organisational justice). The answers to all these questions were then used to create overall scores for each employee’s work environment.

Follow-up

When we followed up with our survey participants, we found that one in five women and one in seven men had taken early retirement benefits with early retirement being common in all occupational groups except for doctors and dentists.

65.1 per cent of the 2206 employees for whom we had information about all types of organisational change had experienced one or more changes. Change was most frequent among social and healthcare workers (74.9 per cent) and least frequent among laboratory technicians (46 per cent).

Employees whose workplace had undergone a change of management or a merger were much more likely to have taken early retirement than those who had not. After taking background factors including age, marital status, gender etc. into account where a change in management had occurred, the likelihood of early retirement increased even more. Adjusting for the same factors for those whose workplace had experienced a merger made no difference to the likelihood of early retirement.

Relocation was linked somewhat less closely to early retirement and the demerging of departments or workgroups had no effect at all.

On their own, poor quality work relationships and networks and low levels of organisational justice were also associated with early retirement. How well people felt they were managed had an effect only once background factors (apart from age) were taken into account. When any organisational change was factored in as well as the quality of the work environment variables, the likelihood of an employee retiring early increased further.

Organisational change matters

Taking everything into account, we can say, for the first time, and with considerable confidence, that when it comes to early retirement, organisational change makes a difference, particularly where it involves a change of management. Organisational changes on top of a work environment that is perceived to be poor compounds the likelihood of an employee retiring early.

Given that our research focuses on people who are not retiring because of poor health or disability – the very employees that organisations and policy makers want to encourage to work for longer – our findings are likely to be of considerable interest.

Key would seem to be careful consideration of the impacts of any restructuring within a business or organisation. Improving the workplace environment could also have a role in reducing the numbers of employees calling time on work before the age of 65.

The frequent occurrence of organisational change in the Danish healthcare sector is interesting in the light of medical doctors, nurses and other health and social care workers recently being identified as shortage occupations in Denmark. Managing those changes and improving the working environments of people working in these occupations could be a priority, not least because ageing populations not just in Denmark, but the world over, clearly need these groups of workers more than ever before.

Organizational change, psychosocial work environment, and non-disability early retirement: a prospective study among senior public employees
 is research by Nina Breinegaard, JH Jensen and JP Bonde and is published in the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health.

Photo credit: Workers, Justin Lynham

Frailty: what is the connection with our working lives?

People are living longer, and the number of over-65s is expected to reach around one in four of the UK population by 2050. But is retirement a golden age, or will we be dogged by poor health? Wentian Lu from University College London and colleagues investigated how our working pattern throughout our lives affects our health after we retire, and found interesting differences between men and women.

Government policies are focused on extending our working lives, and record numbers of people are now working beyond state pension age. But what effect is it having on our health?

The UK government’s former older workers champion, and pensions expert, Dr Ros Altmann argues that raising the state pension age is a blunt instrument for managing old-age support, which could compound existing social and health inequalities.

With people being expected to work for longer, it is critical to understand whether and how people’s working lives affect their later life health.

A recent study led by colleague Dr Giorgio Di Gessa found no significant health benefits from working beyond state pension age, once social background, previous health and employment histories were taken into account.

Our investigation was the first in England to focus on the impact of earlier working patterns on health in later life.

We used information on more than 1,600 men and nearly 2,800 women from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Health-related information on a range of things such as chronic conditions, pain, depression, heart disease, falls, fractures and joint replacement was used to develop a frailty index.

Using detailed work histories between the ages of 16 and 64 for men (16 and 59 for women), they were divided into groups which ranged from ‘full-time employment throughout’ to ‘unemployed throughout’. For men, we considered those who left work early, at either 60 or 49 years, and those who started work late (e.g because they went to University or spent time gaining other qualifications) and retired at 60.

For women’s employment histories, we also took account of part-time working, long and short career breaks, family care, and those who only had occasional work and retired early.

Frailty over time

The study confirmed that frailty increased with age, accelerating after 65 for women and 70 for men.

The findings showed that women who took a short break for family care and then worked part-time until they were 59 had better health at retirement age than those who were mostly in full-time work. Experiencing long career breaks or only working occasionally also appeared to be more detrimental for women’s health. This finding supports the importance of work-life balance for women’s health in later life.

Women who returned to work part-time after a short career break were healthier than those who went from family care to full-time work. If further studies confirm this result, it would indicate that working part-time while their children are young can have long-term positive benefits for women’s health. The key to maintaining the long-term health of today’s generation of working mothers will be to promote flexible working policies, such as flexible start and finish times, allowing women to balance work and childcare.

Consistent with previous studies, our investigation found that women who have never worked tend to have poorer health than those who worked full-time until the age of 60. What was more surprising was that women who never worked experienced a slower decline in their health beyond the age of 60, even when social background and health-affecting behaviours such as smoking and drinking were taken into account.

Early retirement

Men who retired early at either 49 or 60 had poorer health than those who worked until they were 65. However, leaving paid employment before the age of 65 slowed down the progress of poor health in later life.

This supports the findings of previous studies which show that the burden of ill-health is substantially relieved by early retirement. With Government policies encouraging older people to work longer, our research lends further weight to concerns that this may not be good for those already suffering poor health.

Another unexpected finding was that men who started working later in life and retired at around 60, who tended to be those more highly educated and with greater social advantage, actually experienced more rapid declines in health after the age of 65 than those who worked full-time from an earlier age and retired early. This was a small group, so further research is needed to explore this in more depth.

Despite limitations imposed by some of our employment history groups being quite small, as well as possible biases coming from participants’ subjective reporting of health issues, our findings offer important pointers for developing effective strategies to improve health for older people in the UK.

If, as Dr Altmann suggests, the government could replace the blunt instrument of raising state pension age with more finely-tuned policies, allowing those who can and want to extend their working lives to do so in a flexible way, this would be fairer and give the most vulnerable a better chance of enjoying a healthy retirement.

Further information

Relationship between employment histories and frailty trajectories in later life: evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing is research by Wentian Lu, Rebecca Benson and Amanda Sacker of University College London, Karen Glaser and Laurie Corna of King’s College London, Loretta Platts of Stockholm University, Diana Worts and Peggy McDonough of the University of Toronto, Giorgio Di Gessa from the London School of Economics and Political Science, and Debora Price of the University of Manchester. It is published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

 

Healthy pensioners: Is working in our 60s good for us?

Pension ages in the UK are rising from the traditional 65 for men and 60 for women, as people live longer. But is working in later life good for us? The Government’s Chief Medical Officer Professor Dame Sally Davies says people aged 50-70 are more likely to stay healthy if they stay in work, but what does the evidence show? Dr Giorgio Di Gessa from the London School of Economics and Political Science and colleagues have investigated how being in paid work beyond state pension age affects our physical and mental health and how well we sleep and find a different story.

By 2020, it is estimated that one third of workers will be over 50. By then the state pension age will also have risen to 66 for everyone in the UK, climbing to 67 by 2028.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics reveal more than 1.2 million over-65s remain in work, an increase of nearly 50 per cent since the Default Retirement Age was banned in 2011, meaning employers cannot make staff retire when they reach state pension age.

With so many older people working, and with UK policies, and those of other western nations, designed to extend working lives, it is important to understand how continuing to work might affect our health.

Many studies have shown that working is good for physical and mental health in adults of normal working age. There is also evidence that retirement can be good for health. But little research has focused on the impact on health of working beyond State Pension age.

A previous study using the British Household Panel Survey suggests those working beyond state pension age self-report better health, but their lifetime health history was not studied. Given that healthier people are more likely to stay working, this needs to be taken into account for a more accurate picture.

Previous work history is also important, as there is evidence of poorer health among those with significant periods out of work. This is also likely to affect decisions about whether to continue working in later life.

Working longer

Using information on more than 1,600 people from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, we looked at the health and employment histories of men aged 65 to 74, and women aged 60 to 69. After those ages few men or women worked. Around a quarter of the women and 15 per cent of the men worked past State Pension age.

Participants in the study were asked if they had difficulties falling or staying asleep and whether they felt tired on waking up. Their grip strength was measured, and they also rated their own health, reporting any medical problems such as a long standing illness, heart disease, stroke, or loss of mobility.

For those who were employed, we looked at whether they worked more or less than 20 hours each week, and whether they had sedentary or active jobs. We also looked for differences between those in managerial and professional occupations through to those with routine and manual jobs.

Periods of unemployment for men and part-time working and career breaks for women were taken into account, together with the individual’s education, wealth, housing situation, marital status, caring responsibilities and factors like smoking and exercising.

Good health

Men and women in good health were more likely to be working past state pension age, as were those with a better education and those who had been in better health throughout their lives . Among women, those who were divorced or separated, still had mortgages and were not carers were more likely to continue working.

One third of those working beyond state pension age were in managerial positions, 45 per cent worked part-time, and one third of men and 41 per cent of women had a desk job. Men and women who worked throughout their lives were more likely to continue working after state pension age.

Men and women in paid work were less likely to be depressed or to have disturbed sleep, and reported better physical health, than those who didn’t work.

However, when social background, and previous health and employment histories were taken into account, we did not find any significant health benefits of working past state pension age. This is most likely to be because only a select group of healthy older adults work beyond this age.

Population health

What is clear is that the decision and ability to continue working past state pension age is strongly affected by current and lifetime health.

Overall, our study shows that extending our working lives has no effect on our health. However, it remains an open question whether changing the state pension age could worsen population health if everyone, including those in poor health, is required to work longer.

To support policies aimed at extending working lives, it will be essential for governments to focus on health promotion and policies which help to improve the health of the population throughout their working life.

Going forward it would be useful to know more about the reasons people continue working. Is it through choice or because they need the money? It would also be good to look at the timing of previous poor health to see at what stage ill health stops people from working.

Further information

Is being in paid work beyond state pension age beneficial for health? Evidence from England using a life-course approach is research by Giorgio Di Gessa of the London School of Economics and Political Science, Laurie Corna of King’s College London, Loretta Platts of Stockholm University, Diana Worts and Peggy McDonough of the University of Toronto, Amanda Sacker of University College London, Debora Price of the University of Manchester, and Karen Glaser of King’s College London. It is published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

Photo credit: Farmer stepping into cab, United Soybean

Work and family conflict: who is at risk?

Juggling the demands of work and family can create conflict and this can play out differently for men and women. But what other factors are at play? Do things like the sort of job we do and the levels of control we feel we have at work and at home matter too? It’s a subject of keen interest not just to individuals, but also employers and Government, who are being urged to provide more and better support for working parents. Dr Helena Falkenberg from Stockholm University and a team of colleagues have been investigating and find that these other factors do indeed matter, especially for women in senior level jobs.

Being in a job we enjoy and having a family are sources of great satisfaction, but also of conflicting demands. From organising childcare and sharing the housework to getting that all important report done on time and preparing for a big presentation, being a working parent can be tough at times.

Maybe there’s a special breakfast meeting that means mum or dad can’t take the kids to school or perhaps one of the children is suddenly unwell and decisions need to be taken around which parent will take time off. Work gets in the way of family life and family matters can prevent us getting on with our work.

A recent report from the Chartered Institute of Professional Development (CIPD) called for a step change in support for working parents from UK Government and employers, claiming initiatives such as Shared Parental Leave and free childcare policies are not hitting the mark, despite being well intentioned.

In this research, rather than looking simply at how and to what extent men and women are conflicted over work and family, we try to pinpoint more clearly other aspects of our lives that might be linked with conflict. In that we way, we can identify more clearly the sorts of individuals at greatest risk which in turn might help employers and policymakers identify and target support at specific groups.

This study investigated the links between gender and socioeconomic status (specifically in this case the type of job people did) and levels of conflict. It also examined how levels of control at home and work increased or reduced conflict.

The findings suggest that if you are a woman or have a higher level job, you are most likely to experience conflict between work and family life. In addition, the less in control you feel at work and at home, the greater that conflict is for both men and women.

Our study highlights the need to make it easier for higher status employees to combine work and family, especially women, and to increase the levels of control at work and at home to help individuals manage work and family successfully.

Civil servant data

We used information from the Whitehall II study of nearly 3,500 British civil servants (2,657 men and 827 women) in the 1990s. They were grouped into three different socioeconomic status levels

  • Senior administrative
  • Executive/professional
  • Clerical/support

Participants in the study were asked whether and to what extent their work interfered with family life. For example did work commitments reduce the amount of time they could spend with the family. Did their job involve a lot of travel away from home and did it make them irritable at home or leave them lacking the energy needed to do home and family related things.

When it came to how family got in the way of work, they were asked if family matters distracted them from getting on with work, prevent them from getting enough sleep to be do their job well and having enough time to themselves.

To dig deeper into the question of how in control they felt at work and at home, they were asked a range of questions including much say they had in decisions at work, how much choice about what they did and how much flexibility there was. For control at home they were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “At home, I feel I have control over what happens in most situations.”

When we took into account factors such as part-time work, whether the individuals were married, had children or other caring responsibilities, women reported more conflict between work and family than men. When we added in to the analysis how much control over work and home life participants felt they had, the difference between men and women was even more pronounced.

Having a more senior position was also a key factor for both sexes, but especially for women. The small number of women at high grades in the civil service and other areas of the labour market appears, to some extent, to reflect the difficulties for women in high positions to combine work and family. Notably in our study sample, more than half of the women with senior level jobs did not have children.

When it came to how family interfered with work, once again women fared worse than men, with women having more than twice the risk of their family life interfering with their work life. Of the women, those in higher positions fared worst of all. The type of job the men did in the study did not make a difference to the levels of interference.

Being in control

Participants who reported low levels of control at work were most likely to say that work interfered with family life, indicating that more control and flexibility at work eases the transition between work and family. There was less of a link between low levels of control at work and those reporting family interference with work. However the interaction between control at work and the influences of socioeconomic status and gender needs further research to draw significant conclusions.

Low levels of control at home also contributed to a markedly higher risk of work-family and family-work conflict. This seemed to be equally important for women and men no matter what their position at work. To develop effective policies on work-family balance, the home sphere will need further research.

One limitation of our study is that it was conducted among white-collar British civil servants, and the findings may differ among other working populations and, particularly, in different countries with different social security systems. Information was also collected some years ago.

However, we found clear evidence that women experienced more interference between work and family and vice versa than men, especially women in senior positions. This is important as it might influence their career choices and their health over time.

We hope this research and further work in this area will help employers and Government to get a more nuanced picture of what factors are at play when it comes to the issues facing working parents, and ultimately develop initiatives and approaches that can reduce the conflict in a way that helps them to thrive at work and at home.

Further information

Do gender and socioeconomic status matter when combining work and family: Could control at work and at home help? Results from the Whitehall II study is research by Helena Falkenberg and Petra Lindfors of Stockholm University, Tarani Chandola of the University of Manchester and the ESRC International Centre for Lifecourse Studies, and Jenny Head of University College London. It is published in the journal Economic and Industrial Democracy.

Want to be fit at forty? Don’t have a baby early!

Having a family early may not be good for your health later on. That was the conclusion of a team of researchers at the ESRC International centre for Lifecourse Studies when they looked at the interplay between the work and family lives of men and women, whose lives have been tracked over time in the 1958 Birth Cohort Study. But was it the same story for people born earlier and has it been the same for people who were born later? Dr Rebecca Lacey, who led the research, has been looking at the lives of thousands of adults in three Birth Cohort Studies to see whether the way their work and family lives intertwine impacts on the likelihood of them becoming overweight or obese later on.

In a recent blog for WorkLife, my colleague Anne McMunn outlined some of our research showing that, for both men and women, having children early, especially as a teenager, was closely linked with poorer health once they got into their forties.

Not only did the people we looked at for that piece of research have bigger waists, but they also had a great deal more fat circulating in their blood and less ‘good’ cholesterol, both of which are linked with a heightened risk of heart disease and diabetes.

Those findings stayed strong, even for young parents who had a job and were married, a clear indication that having children early on, with all the associated stresses and strains, seems to take a heavy toll on health over the life course.

For that piece of research, we looked only at people who had taken part in the National Child Development Study, also known as the 1958 Birth Cohort. For this research we looked, in addition at thousands more people, born in 1946 (National Survey of Health and Development) and another group born in 1970 (the British Cohort Study) whose lives had been tracked since birth.

Across cohorts

The reason for looking across cohorts was to see whether changes across generations in how we combine work and family (having children later, more cohabitation and less marriage, more women working etc.) have contributed in some way towards poorer health for some.

As with the earlier research, we made use of 12 specially created lifecourse types covering information on employment, partnerships and parenthood, such as ‘Work, Later family’ ‘Later family, Work break’, ‘Teen parent’.

Each individual in each birth cohort was ascribed a lifecourse type and this was then linked to their Body Mass Index (BMI) and how that changed over time. We went on to see how those figures differed between lifecourse types within and across the three cohorts. We used the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) definition of overweight (BMI greater than or equal to 25) and obesity (BMI greater than or equal to 30).

In addition, we took a host of other factors including our participants’ socio-economic background, prior health and educational attainment into consideration.

We anticipated that, as our earlier research had shown, that people who worked less and had children earlier would show steeper increases in BMI and that across the three cohorts, those increases would become more pronounced.

Changing attitudes and behaviours

The distribution of lifecourse types across the three cohorts reflected, as we thought it would, changing attitudes and behaviours across generations, with increasingly more women in employment and early parenthood becoming less and less common.

In the 1946 cohort, the average BMI of a very small group of men who were ‘Teen parents’ increased from 20.3 to 26.76 between age 16-42, significantly more than any other work-family combination. The same was true for male teen parents in the 1958 cohort and also for those who worked and had a family early. In the 1970 cohort, men who had no children or had children later had BMI that increased significantly less than those who became parents earlier. The only exception to this was a group of men with no family and unstable work.

Another notable finding across all three cohorts was that average BMIs for men at age 42 in all of the work-family groups were higher than the WHO threshold for overweight. The only exception was men who had children later or no children at all.

For women in the 1946 study, there was no real difference between the groups when we looked at how their BMI increased between the ages of 16 and 42. The average BMI of the 1958 cohort women who had children early increased significantly more than that of women who had them later. Women in the 1970 cohort who did not work and had children early had the biggest BMI rise (6.69) with teen parents (6.31) close behind. The average BMI of the 42 year-old women in these two groups was on the WHO obesity threshold (30), with the average BMI for the remaining work-family groups all falling under the WHO definition of overweight (25 and above).

Other interesting things to emerge included:

  • BMI increased more for male teen parents than female in the 1970 cohort
  • Marriage seems to have particular health benefits for men
  • Divorce has greater negative health effects for men than women

Negative impact

This research reinforces what we found earlier, which is that for both men and women having children early (especially in your teens) no matter what your background, is likely to have a negative impact on your health in mid life, especially if you don’t have a job or if your work is irregular or unstable. Looking across three cohorts, we can also see that those differences have become more pronounced.

How to explain and better understand how all this plays out in the day to day lives of younger parents is a challenge. Having children early may disrupt someone’s education or career. Younger parents may also be more likely to smoke and drink and exercise less than their older counterparts, unhealthy behaviours which can become established early and set in across adulthood.

Whatever the context and the reasons, there are some important messages here for young people, prospective parents, health and education professionals as well as for Government; not least that decisions about how to combine work and family life, especially when to become a parent, may have long lasting ramifications for your health.

This research adds to a growing body of evidence which makes it clear that, as far as obesity is concerned, early intervention is key and that we need to consider the complex way in which our biological and social lives intertwine over time.

Further information

Work-family life courses and BMI trajectories in three British birth cohorts is research by Rebecca Lacey, Amanda Sacker, Steven Bell, Meena Kumari, Diana Worts, Peggy McDonough, Diana Kuh, and Anne McMunn. It is published in the International Journal of Obesity.

Photo credit: Baby Fingers, Thomas

Reform and retirement: pension lessons from Finland

Pension reform is taking place in countries around the world. Governments, businesses and individuals have gradually come to terms with the fact that one of the consequences of us all living longer is that existing pension arrangements are unsustainable. As a result, millions of workers are being encouraged, nudged or, in some cases, forced to work longer. But what if reforms don’t work or have a different impact from that intended? Tarani Chandola from the ESRC International Centre for Lifecourse Studies and University of Manchester has been analysing the complex interplay between pension reform and our health and their combined effect on the timing of retirement.

We all need to work longer and retire later! Those are the essential messages coming from Governments around the globe. Turning those messages into concrete change that can make pension systems sustainable, however, is no straightforward matter, especially when you take into account the health problems that older workers can face.

The combined impact of pension age policies and our health on our decision to retire and the complex way those things play out are not very well understood. Many people stop workingbecause or ill health or caring responsibilities. Changes in the age when people can claim their state pension, which is increasing in the UK, could deter people from retiring when they perceive they need or want to.

Our research took a close look at pension reforms introduced in Finland in 2005, where, in place of a fixed statutory retirement age of 65, workers were given the choice of retiring between the ages of 63-68. The central goal of the reform was to ensure the sustainability of the pension system and to promote longer working lives. To try to get more people retiring at the top end of that age range, financial incentives were introduced for those who opted to retire later.

We looked at people who retired before and after the reforms to see whether the changes to the system had the desired effect of getting people to work longer. We also wanted to see if people who opted for early retirement (between the ages of 63-64) tended to be in better or poorer health.

Health issues linked to retirement

Our research made use of information from the medical and retirement records of more than 20,000 men and women born over a 9 year period. As far as their health was concerned, we focused on issues most closely linked with retirement such as circulatory disease and bone and muscular problems like arthritis as well as mental health problems. We were also able to access records of the sorts and quantities of prescription medicines that people were taking in the run up to retirement.

Looking at the pre-reform group, there was a clear decreasing trend in retirement by age 63 and by age 64. Among the post-reform group, there was no clear trend, but each birth cohort was substantially more likely to have retired by the age of 64 than those in the pre-reform cohorts. In fact, workers subject to the new system were 50% more likely to retire age 63-64 than those in the old.

Slide1

Although retirement was generally more common among people with poorer health, as we thought would be the case, it was striking that the increased numbers of people retiring early in the post reform group tended to have better health.

In short, the reform encouraged more people to retire earlier. Those in poor health were just as likely as before to retire early, but among people with better circulatory, muscular, bone and mental health, retirement at 63-64 increased substantially. Even when we took a range of other factors into account, such as their social and economic circumstances and their education, their good health was a strong predictor of retirement.

Unintended consequences

A more flexible retirement age, in Finland’s case, has had the unintended consequence of encouraging more, not less people into early retirement. Many of those were people in good health, the sorts of workers who might have several healthy working years ahead of them – the sorts of people the Finnish Government would have hoped would retire later.

Further reform is already on the cards for Finland in 2017 and is likely to see the lower age of statutory retirement raised to 65 and after that linked to life expectancy.

Here in the UK, we have seen the raising of the State Pension Age to 67 for men and 65 for women with further changes slated for the future. Only time will tell if it has the desired effect of keeping people who otherwise might have retired earlier in work or whether other factors, such as an individual’s health will play a stronger role in those decisions.

Our study shows that, regardless of what is happening with pension reform and policy, those in poorer health are unlikely to be able to extend their working lives no matter what, something Governments everywhere need to build into their thinking about pension reform.

Further information

Health as a predictor of early retirement before and after introduction of a flexible statutory pension age in Finland is research by Taina Leinonen, Mikko Laaksonen, Tarani Chandola and Pekka Martikainen

Photo credit: United Soybean Board

Who works post State Pension Age?

Across Europe and indeed other parts of the world, we’re being told we need to work longer than in the past. The reason? We’re all living longer and pension systems everywhere are collapsing under the strain. But with age can come poorer health and reduced physical capabilities and what if doing our job is physically or mentally demanding? Raising the State Pension Age for this group of workers compared say with someone working in a less stressful job could end up creating pressure on specific disadvantaged groups, whilst favouring already advantaged groups. Morten Wahrendorf from the University of Dusseldorf and ESRC International Centre for Lifecourse Studies has been investigating.

A number of Governments across Europe have already increased the state pension age beyond 65 and are actively looking to introduce incentives and measures that they hope will get more people of working age to retire later.

Quite a lot of research has looked at what things are going on in people’s lives that might lead them to retire early from work, but far fewer questions have been asked about what might lead to someone working beyond state pension age. What sorts of jobs do they tend to do? What are their working conditions like? How do those compare with people who retire earlier?

It’s important to get a grasp of this if we are to ensure that any changes made to the pension system are fair and just and that they don’t adversely affect specific or already disadvantaged groups.

Using information on nearly 18,000 men and women aged 65 and over from 16 European countries we were able to look into this in some depth and effectively compare prior working conditions of those people who retired early with current conditions of those who worked longer.

Work and conditions

Our information came from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). We looked at whether the participants were employed or not, their job (at the time of the survey and immediately before retiring), how long they had been doing their job, working hours and how stressful their job was.

In addition we looked at what the participants said about how much freedom they had at work, whether there were opportunities to develop new skills, whether their job was physically demanding or time-pressured and how supported and recognised they felt at work.

As far as survey participants’ health was concerned, we were able to see how they rated their own health, whether they were depressed, their quality of life, and how mentally and physically capable they were.

Workers better-off and better-educated

Of everyone we looked at in the study, 755 (4.3 per cent) were still working between the ages of 65 and 80. They tended, on average, to be better off and better-educated than those who had retired.

Those still working were three times as likely to be self-employed as our retired group, who were also less likely to have been in a managerial or professional job before retiring.

Those who had retired reported higher levels of stress in their last job, particularly when it came to how valued and supported they felt. They also had poorer health across the board on all the measures we looked at.

Figure 1. Prevalence of poor health by labour market situation among older men and women (aged 65 to 80 years) in percentage (n=17625

ICLS-health

These findings were still seen even after accounting for a host of other factors including their sex, education, whether or not they were in a relationship, if they had children and how well off they were, and also country affiliation.

There is robust evidence here that across Europe people who are likely to work longer are those who are self-employed or in a good job where they are in control and feel well supported and valued. They are also in better physical and mental shape than their retired counterparts.

Raising the State Pension Age or offering tax incentives to people to work longer may well favour certain groups who are already doing better than their peers in a number of ways. It could also place increased pressure on people already in poor health and in poor quality jobs.

All this needs to be taken into account by Governments looking to plug the pensions gap and by employers who will need to provide good jobs in a better, less stressful working environment if their workers are to remain productive post 65.

Further information

Photo credit: Fish, nico_enders

Empower employees! They will retire later

Working longer has become a policy priority in recent years, but how can people be actively encouraged to retire later? What needs to change in the workplace in order to persuade people to extend their working life? UCL’s Ewan Carr, as part of the renEWL project, has been looking at survey information from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) to see what matters to older workers when it comes to deciding whether or not to retire.

Rates of employment among older workers (aged 50-64) may have increased in the last decade or so, but across Europe, significant numbers of people in this age group continue to retire before the statutory pension age. In fact, more people retire before statutory pension age than after it.

For policymakers seeking to change that position, and for businesses looking for how best to modify the workplace to help achieve it, a better understanding of the drivers behind early retirement is essential.

Job demands and conditions

We looked at the working lives of nearly 3500 members of the ELSA study to see whether the demands and conditions of their job influenced the preferred and actual timing of their retirement. We focused on the mental as well as the physical demands of their job.

We anticipated that those with physically and mentally demanding jobs would prefer and, where possible, opt for early retirement, whilst those with fulfilling jobs, with decision making powers, support and recognition, good career opportunities and financial reward would be happy to work longer.

Participants in the study were asked how physically demanding their job was, how much time pressure they were under at work, how much control they had and to what extent they felt supported and recognised.

After taking a range of factors into account, the mental demands of a job, control at work and low recognition were the most influential when it came to retirement timing preferences.

Retirement preferences

We found that employees who reported having to ‘work very fast’ or being under time pressure preferred to retire 3 months earlier than those who said this was not the case. Employees who reported having low levels of control at work and low recognition wanted to retire around 5 months sooner than their peers.

The likelihood of actually stopping work (as opposed to wanting to stop work) was also influenced by levels of decision control, support and recognition. Employees with high levels of control were less likely to stop working, compared to those with low levels of control. Employees who felt poorly supported or that their work wasn’t recognised were also more likely to give up work.

It seems that even though a mentally demanding job might lead someone to say they would like to retire early, this doesn’t always lead to them leaving work. Other factors, besides the workplace environment, may prevent older workers from retiring when they want to.

Those who want to keep working might end up retiring early due to poor health or caring responsibilities. On the other hand, employees who want to retire early (due to the demands of work) might lack the necessary pension or financial savings to make this possible.

Our findings indicate that increasing job control from low to high could postpone retirement preferences by as much as two years – a clear indication that modifying the workplace could and should be a focus for policymakers and businesses aiming to extend working life.

Working conditions as predictors of retirement intentions and exit from paid employment: a 10-year follow-up of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing is research by Ewan Carr, Gareth Hagger-Johnson, Jenny Head, Nicola Shelton, Mai Stafford, Stephen Stansfield and Paola Zaninotto. It is published in the European Journal of Ageing

Photo credit:  Hiroyuki Takeda