Heterogeneity in the Association of Citizenship Status on Self-Rated Health Among Asians in California

Association of depression and self-reported health status by birthplace and citizenship status: Results from the 2010-2018 National Health Interview Survey

BACKGROUND

Self-reported health (SRH) is an important indicator of mental health outcomes. More information, however, is needed on whether this association varies by birthplace (defined as US-born or non-US-born) and citizenship status (i.e., non-US-born citizen, non-US citizen, and US-born citizen).

METHODS

We examined the associations between SRH and depression among non-US-born US citizens, non-US citizens, and US-born citizens aged 18 years and older using weighted cross-sectional data from the 2010-2018 National Health Interview Survey (n = 139,884). Logistic regression models were used to assess the association between depression and SRH by citizenship status, adjusting for covariates.

RESULTS

US-born citizens reported the highest prevalence of depression (40.3 %), and non-US-born citizens reported the highest prevalence of poor/fair SRH (14.5 %). Individuals with fair/poor SRH had a significantly increased likelihood of depression relative to those with good/very good/excellent for non-US-born US citizens (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 2.42, 95 % Confidence Interval [95 % CI] = 2.04-2.88), non-US citizens (AOR = 2.80, 95 % CI = 2.31-3.40), and US-born citizens (AOR = 2.31, CI = 2.18-2.45).

LIMITATIONS

The study is cross-sectional, reducing the strength of determining causal relationships. Also, there is a possible response bias due to the self-reported nature of the data.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that fair/poor SRH is significantly associated with an increased likelihood of depression regardless of an individual citizenship status. Additionally, immigrants with fair/poor SRH had higher increased odds of depression. Therefore, mental healthcare interventions tailored for immigrants can reduce mental health problems and disparities among immigrants.

The association of perceived ethnic discrimination and institutional verbal violence with chronic stress in an immigrant sample: The role of protective factors - results from the VIOLIN study

Immigrants are exposed to a variety of stressors, such as ethnic discrimination, and therefore experience a higher risk of developing adverse health outcomes. However, the role of potentially protective psychological factors is not well-studied. The present study addresses the question how discrimination and institutional verbal violence (IVV) are associated with chronic stress in an immigrant sample. In addition, this study highlights moderating effects of migration-specific variables (first or second migration generation and citizenship status). Participants (n = 232; 69.4 % female) completed an online-survey, which included demographics, questionnaires (Everyday Discrimination Scale, EDS; Perceived Stress Scale, PSS-4; Resilience Scale, RS-11; Self-Compassion Scale, SCS-SF) as well as a self-developed questionnaire on institutional verbal violence. Only participants living in Germany with migration background (self or one parent migrated to Germany) were included. Results showed that perceived discrimination and institutional verbal violence were highly associated with chronic stress. Further, self-compassion buffered the connection between discrimination and stress, whereas resilience was no protective factor. The inclusion of migration-specific variables showed that the second-generation sub-group experienced less discrimination-related stress and self-compassion was shown to be particularly protective within this sub-group. Citizenship status did not appear to be a moderator, but especially persons with temporary or permanent residence status, compared to German/EU-citizens, reported higher values of verbal violence and discrimination-related stress. These findings highlight the importance of considering not only psychological but also structural and societal protective and risk factors, as they may be differentially associated with immigrants' stress perceptions. Implications for future research and practical implementations are presented.

Selection Bias in Digital Conversations on Depression Before and During COVID-19

Collapse

Election-Related Post-Traumatic Stress: Evidence from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

The 2020 U.S. presidential election saw rising political tensions among ordinary voters and political elites, with fears of election violence culminating in the January 6 riot. We hypothesized that the 2020 election might have been traumatic for some voters, producing measurable symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We also hypothesized that negative sentiment toward the opposing party correlates with PTSD. We measured PTSD using a modified version of the PCL-5, a validated PTSD screener, for 573 individuals from a nationally representative YouGov sample. We modeled the association between affective polarization and PTSD, controlling for political, demographic, and psychological traits. We estimate that 12.5% of American adults (95% CI: 9.2% to 15.9%) experienced election-related PTSD, far higher than the annual PTSD prevalence of 3.5%. Additionally, negativity toward opposing partisans correlated with PTSD symptoms. These findings highlight a potential need to support Americans affected by election-related trauma.

Divergent Immigrant Health Trajectories: Disparities in Physical Health Using a Multidimensional Conceptualization of Legal Status

Immigrant health research demonstrates that foreign-born individuals generally experience lower morbidity rates relative to native-born individuals. However, this research often overlooks structural factors that influence the immigrant experience, such as legal status. The present study examines legal status as a multidimensional and dynamic characteristic that shapes immigrant health over time. I use two waves of the New Immigrant Survey (n = 3550) to assess if three dimensions of legal status — initial documentation classification, legal permanent residence (LPR) admission category, and US citizenship — predict likelihoods of reporting a chronic condition among a sample of immigrants who attained LPR. Results indicate that each of the three dimensions of legal status predicted health. Immigrants who obtained US citizenship improved their relative health over time, while immigrants with previous temporarily documented, undocumented, legalization, or refugee experience exhibited persistent disadvantage in the hierarchy of immigrant health. Findings demonstrate that the sociopolitical context continually shapes the physical health of immigrants, and a dynamic and multidimensional conceptualization of legal status can expose previously obscured disparities in the overarching pattern of an immigrant health advantage.

Health selection on self-rated health and the healthy migrant effect: Baseline and 1-year results from the health of Philippine Emigrants Study

Studies of migration and health focus on a "healthy migrant effect" whereby migrants are healthier than individuals not migrating. Health selection remains the popular explanation of this phenomenon. However, studies are mixed on whether selection occurs and typically examine migrants post-departure. This study used a novel pre-migration dataset to identify which health and social domains differ between migrants and their non-migrant counterparts and their contribution to explaining variance in self-rated health by migrant status at pre-migration and 1-year later. Data were used from the baseline and 1-year follow-up of the Health of Philippine Emigrants Study (HoPES). We used multivariable ordinary least squares regression to examine differences in self-rated health between migrants to the U.S. and a comparable group of non-migrants at baseline (premigration) and one year later, accounting for seven domains: physical health, mental health, health behavior, demographics, socioeconomic factors and healthcare utilization, psychosocial factors, and social desirability. A migrant advantage was present for self-rated health at baseline and 1-year. Accounting for all domains, migrants reported better self-rated health compared to non-migrants both at baseline (β = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.22, 0.43) and at 1-year (β = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.10, 0.46). Migrant status, health behavior, and mental health accounted for most of the variance in self-rated health both at baseline and 1-year follow-up. This analysis provides evidence of migrant health selection and nuanced understanding to what is being captured by self-rated health in studies of migrant health that should be considered in future research.

Recasting the Immigrant Health Paradox Through Intersections of Legal Status and Race

Immigrant health research has often noted an "immigrant health paradox", the observation that immigrants are "healthier" compared to their native-born peers of similar demographic and socioeconomic profile. This paradox disappears as immigrants stay longer in the host country. Multiple arguments, including migrant selectivity and cultural and behavioral factors have been proposed as reasons for the apparent paradox. Recently, the field has focused on immigrant legal status, especially its racialization. We review the literature on the immigrant health paradox, legal status, and racialized legal status to examine how this debate has taken a more structural approach. We find that immigrant health research has taken a needed intersectional approach, a productive development that examines how different markers of disadvantage work concurrently to shape immigrants' health. This approach, which factors in immigration enforcement practices, aligns with explanations for poor health outcomes among other racialized groups, and promises a fruitful avenue for future research.

Legal Status, Worries About Deportation, and Depression Among Asian Immigrants

Although legal status and worries of deportation have been identified as key factors in immigrant health inequities for Latinx immigrants, how they impact health of Asian immigrants is largely unknown. Using 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey, we used sets of logistic regressions to examine the relationships among legal statuses, worries about deportation, and depression for Asian immigrants (n = 1371). Asian immigrants who are in the process of applying for citizenship, those with visas, and those who are ineligible to apply for citizenship were significantly more likely to be depressed compared with naturalized citizens. The significant associations between legal status and depression were mediated by worries about deportation. Legal status and worries of deportation are important determinants of health for Asian immigrants. The results point to a critical need for systematic investment in data collection for data disaggregation.

Mistreatment in Medical Care and Psychological Distress among Asian Americans

Although studies have shown that discrimination is linked to poor mental health, less is known about this relationship in the context of healthcare and how it varies for different Asian subgroups. The aim of this study was to examine the relationships between mistreatment in medical care and psychological distress among a diverse sample of Asian Americans. Data were drawn from the 2015-2017 California Health Interview Survey. A series of regression models were estimated to test the association between mistreatment in medical care and psychological distress. Various Asian subgroups showed different levels of psychological distress. Mistreatment in medical care was also linked to worse mental health. Findings, however, did not show significant differences in the interaction between mistreatment and ethnicity on psychological distress. This study advances knowledge on the experiences of Asian Americans and contributes to the literature showing the impact of discrimination on mental health.