Facilitators and barriers for creating a sustainable working life for first-generation immigrants – perceptions of multiple stakeholders in Sweden

Figures & data

Table 1. Participant’s characteristics.

		N = 30
Gender
	Women	15
	Men	15
Stakeholder
	Union representative	5
	Employer representative	14
	Municipal representative	4
	Civic organisation representative	4
	Authority representative	2
	Political representative	1

Table 2. Semi-structured interview guide.

Semi-structured interview guide
Entering working life
What are your thoughts and experiences regarding how a successful entry into working life for first-generation immigrants can be promoted?
What aspects do you think are important in promoting a successful entry into working life?
What difficulties/obstacles do you see today in promoting first-generation immigrants entering working life?
How can different stakeholders work together to increase the opportunities for first-generation immigrants entering working life?
Remaining in working life
What are your thoughts and experiences of working to promote a long-term and sustainable working life for first-generation immigrants?
What do you see in your work as common reasons for first-generation immigrants being without a job (voluntarily or involuntarily)?
What aspects do you think are important to consider in working life to promote first-generation immigrants remaining in working life?
Are there any other aspects outside the work itself that need to be taken into account in order to promote a sustainable working life for first-generation immigrants?
How can different stakeholders work together to increase the opportunities for first-generation immigrants being permanently established in working life?

Figure 1. Overview of the findings. This figure illustrates the main theme, themes and sub-themes. The letters in brackets explain whether the sub-theme is considered to be a facilitator (f) or a barrier (b).

Data availability statement

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available because the data cannot be completely anonymized and can therefore not be shared openly; although names, places and the like have been removed from the transcripts, the participants speak of situations and sensitive experiences within specific contexts and with a level of detail that would pose a risk for the participants to be recognised. The participants have also not given their consent for the interview transcripts to be freely shared.