Appendix A – Collection of Data

Relevant studies are identified through searches in international electronic databases and grey literature. In the following we will describe the search methods.

The following international databases are searched:

The search string is based on the PICO(S)‐model, which have the following aspects: Population (P), Intervention (I), Comparison (C), Outcome (O), Study design. We only utilize three aspects: population (P), intervention (I) and outcomes (O). We have developed three corresponding search facets and add limits concerning geographic area and period.

Populations (P):

Intervention (I):

Outcomes (O):
Labour market outcomes such as employment probability, earnings and welfare benefit.

Limits:

The following search string (exemplified with a search from Academic Search Premier, see Table A.1) has been implemented on the chosen bibliographic databases and modified according to each databases' thesaurus and controlled subject terms:

We have search for working papers and published papers from the following resources:

In the first step the literature is screened on title and abstracts. In the next step the remaining studies are full text screened. Information on study type/methodology is used in the screening, as we are only interested in quantitative evaluation studies with a comparison condition. After screening at the two levels do we end with 46 publications.

Table A.1 Search string: Academic Search Premier. Search History

In order to supplement the insights gained through our literature review, we have also conducted interviews with caseworkers in various parts of the Nordic countries’ public employment services. These interviews aimed at uncovering the practical knowledge and experiences among the caseworkers concerning the effectiveness of the different types of employment instruments on which the literature review focusses. Hence, the point of departure of this qualitative study was the framework of the employment instruments and its main categories that helped us structure the interviews around the ‘instrument themes’ that are evident in Figure 2.1. Secondly, we chose to reach out to caseworkers who worked with one of the main target groups that were to point of departure of this project, i.e. vulnerable youth, seniors, immigrants and persons with disabilities. The work of caseworkers in the public Nordic employment and integration services is obviously structured by the target group categories defined by national legislation. Still, focussing on these broad demographic groups and their potential employment barriers helped us gather knowledge through these interviews that we could subsequently analyse in a cross-Nordic perspective. Hence, by not focussing on the specifics of e.g. Danish or Norwegian legislation pertaining to members of the NEETs group turning on in a Danish ‘job center’ or a Norwegian ‘NAV’, it became easier to gain knowledge across these settings on what the caseworker actually did and which tools they found useful in practice.

To identify relevant caseworkers, we received the help from the different employment ministries in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. We aimed at interviewing caseworkers working with each of our demographic groups ideally from different parts of each Nordic country. More specifically, we aimed at interviewing caseworkers from both cities/ large towns and from small towns in (remote) rural areas. Ideally, we wanted to conduct a group interview in each country with participation of 2-4 caseworkers from different parts of the country but working with the same target group. The intention behind this approach was to gain knowledge reflecting different job opportunities facing vulnerable groups given the internal differences in each Nordic country where the labour markets surrounding large university cities may differ very much from similar opportunities in small towns in rural areas. We managed to stick to this approach to some extent, especially in Iceland and Norway (as reflected in Table A.2). However, it turned out that caseworkers are typically very busy people with very busy schedules that are not easily coordinated in a relatively short-term perspective. Given the need to conduct the interviews within a 2–3 months-timeframe, we had to diverge from our approach if it was not possible to find an interview date where different caseworkers working with the same target group but in different parts of the country was able to participate. In that instance, we chose to conduct individual interviews with each caseworker at a specific time suiting this particular person. In total we conducted 9 group interviews, 24 individual interviews with a total of 44 interview persons (for more details see Table A.2) 

Practically, the interviews were conducted over Zoom and recorded. The interviews were relatively structured inspired by a the funnel approach starting out with open questions and then later following up with more specific questions about their experience with specific employment instruments (Wengraf, 2001). Hence, we started out asking open questions to the interview persons about their work, experience with clients from the specified target group, and what they experience as useful instruments to help these citizens closer to finding a job. Secondly, based on previous research and analyses in this project, we presented on a PowerPoint slide a vignette describing a fictitious but potentially typical citizen from the target group. In qualitative studies, this method is good for introducing a topic on which the researcher wants the interview persons to reflect (Ejrnæs and Monrad, 2012). In our study, for example, caseworkers working with persons with disabilities were presented a vignette describing in a brief text an unemployed unmarried female 35 years ole suffering anxiety and depression who has been out of work the last three years. Caseworkers working with vulnerable youth was presented with the vignette below:

Subsequently, we asked the caseworkers if they could recognize this person as someone they could meet in their work, which they usually could or could with minor modifications of the characteristics of our vignette person, and what they would do to help her or him find work. Finally, we presented on six separate slides the employment instruments and asked them to reflect on and tell us about their experiences concerning the use of these instruments and the extent to which they found the instrument useful in their work. 

The PowerPoints presented to Danes/Norwegians/Swedes were in Danish/Norwegian/Swedish and the interviews were conducted in those languages. The PowerPoints to Finnish and Icelandic caseworkers were in English and these interviews were conducted in English. All interviews lasted 45-65 minutes; the group interviews typically lasting longer than the individual interviews. All interviews were recorded, and their content was summarized.

We subsequently conducted a thematic analysis, i.e. analysed which reflections among the interview persons were most prevalent in relation to specific themes. These themes related primarily to: A) which barriers are most prevalent among members of our target groups. B) How it is important to get to know the person that the caseworker is to assist and establish a good trustful relation, especially if this relation due to the nature of the employment barriers becomes a long-term relationship. C) How different types of instruments may help the persons from the target groups into the labour market.

Table A.2 Qualitative data collected among caseworkers in the employment services in the Nordic countries, April - June 2024