Immigrant Legal Status and Health: Legal Status Disparities in Chronic Conditions and Musculoskeletal Pain Among Mexican-Born Farm Workers in the United States

Away from home, into the fields: Assessing the health of undocumented and indigenous farmworkers

A large and growing literature argues that the agricultural labor market is stratified by ethnicity and legal status. However, other markers of distinction, such as indigeneity, may overlap with legal status to reveal additional health inequalities. Our study contributes to this scholarly dialogue by assessing the relation between indigeneity, legality, and health among immigrant-origin farmworkers from Latin America. To this end, we use data from the National Agricultural Worker Survey (N = 21,092) to examine health outcomes among indigenous and non-indigenous immigrants. Results indicate that indigenous farmworkers experience higher rates of pain-but not chronic conditions-than their non-indigenous counterparts. While undocumented farmworkers who are not indigenous exhibit especially favorable health, indigenous workers who are documented are significantly more likely to suffer from pain. Finally, there is limited evidence that differences in insurance coverage can fully explain the patterning between legal status, indigeneity, and health. This project sheds light on the well-being of indigenous migrant laborers in the U.S. food system, a population that experiences pervasive barriers to socioeconomic advancement at home and abroad.

Impacts of COVID-19 shelter in place across key life domains among immigrant farmworker Latina mothers and young adults

OBJECTIVE

Individuals and families from racial and ethnic groups experience social and economic disadvantage making them vulnerable to the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study sought to capture the impacts of Shelter in Place (SIP) across key life domains including family life, education, work, mental health, and coping strategies among a sample of Mexican-origin mothers who were currently engaged in agricultural work, or whose spouses were engaged in agricultural work, and young adults who had a parent working in agriculture.

METHOD

During the summer of 2020, while California was under SIP orders, we conducted three virtual focus groups using Zoom(r). We recruited focus group participants from the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS), an ongoing, 20-year, longitudinal cohort study of Mexican-origin families in a predominantly agricultural area of California. Three focus groups were conducted with mothers (n = 9), mean age = 48 years, young adult women (n = 8) and young adult men (n = 5), mean age = 18 years, respectively.

RESULTS

Mothers reported high levels of stress stemming from fear of Covid-19 infection, work instability and financial concerns, children's schooling, anxiety about an uncertain future, and the demands of caretaking for dependents. Adverse mental health impacts were particularly pronounced among participants experiencing multiple adversities pre-dating the pandemic, including unemployment, single motherhood, and having undocumented family members. For young adults, work instability and varying work hours were also a source of stress because they made it difficult to make decisions about the future, such as whether to attend college or how many classes to take. Families used coping strategies including expressing gratitude, focusing on what's under one's control, familismo, and community engagement to manage mental health challenges during SIP.

CONCLUSION

In the event of future pandemics or disasters, particular attention is needed to those who experience unemployment, are undocumented and/or have undocumented family members, and/or are single parents facing economic adversity. During public health emergencies, action at the local, state, and national level is needed to support farmworkers and other vulnerable groups' secondary major stressors stemming from inequities in access to affordable housing, childcare, living wages, healthcare, and other benefits.

Prevalence of Chronic Pain by Immigration Status and Latino Ethnicity

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the Latino paradox and healthy migrant hypotheses by estimating the association between the prevalence of chronic pain, immigration status, and Latino ethnicity.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study analyzed pooled data from 85,395 adult participants of the 2019-2021 National Health Interview Survey. The dependent variables were any pain and chronic pain in the past 3 months. The independent variables were immigration status (US born, naturalized citizen, non-citizen) and Latino ethnicity.

RESULTS

Chronic pain was prevalent for nearly a quarter of US born non-Latino adults (24%) and non-citizen non-Latino adults had the lowest prevalence at 8%. In multivariable adjusted models, US born non-Latino immigration status and ethnicity was associated with a higher probability of reporting chronic pain in the last 3 months compared to US born Latino adults (-3.0%; 95% CI = -4.4%, -1.6%), naturalized citizen non-Latino adults (-4.7%; 95% CI = -5.9%, -3.4%), naturalized citizen Latino adults (-6.7%; 95% CI = -8.5%, -4.9%), non-citizen non-Latino adults (-3.1%; 95% CI = -4.7%, -1.5%), and non-citizen Latino adults (-8.9%; 95% CI = -10.8%, -7.0%).

CONCLUSION

US Born non-Latino adults reported the highest prevalence of chronic pain and non-citizen Latino adults reported the lowest prevalence of chronic pain providing support for the Latino paradox and healthy migrant effect hypotheses.

A Test of the Validity of Imputed Legal Immigration Status

We evaluate the performance of a widely used technique for imputing the legal immigration status of U.S. immigrants in survey data-the logical imputation method. We validate this technique by implementing it in a nationally representative survey of U.S. farmworkers that includes a well-regarded measure of legal status. When using this measure as a benchmark, the imputation algorithm correctly identifies the legal status of 78% of farmworkers. Of all the variables included in the algorithm, we find that Medicaid participation poses the greatest challenge for accuracy. Using the American Community Survey, we show that increased Medicaid enrollments stemming from the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in 2014 led to sizable changes in the share of immigrants imputed as legal over time and across space. We explore the implications of these changes for two previous studies and conclude that including Medicaid criteria in the imputation algorithm can significantly impact research findings. We also provide tools to gauge the sensitivity of results.

Hired crop worker injury risks on farms in the United States during three different periods between 2002 and 2015

BACKGROUND

Hired crop workers have high incidence of work-related injuries, but little has been documented about potential risks at the national level.

METHODS

Data were obtained from a national probability sample of hired crop workers in the United States (U.S.) during 2002-2004 (period I), 2008-2010 (period II), and 2014-2015 (period III). Multivariable logistic regression models of work-related injury were constructed using an occupational exposure adjustment for weeks worked in the previous year.

RESULTS

Hired crop workers reporting that their employer did not provide clean drinking water and disposable cups every day were estimated to be at greater odds of injury during all three periods. Having at least some English-speaking ability was associated with increased odds of injury in two periods, while owning a dwelling in the U.S. showed greater injury risk during period II but was associated with lower risk during period III. Other items significantly associated with injury during at least one of the study periods in the final multivariable logistic models included being a direct-hire, a migrant worker, U.S.-born, receiving public aid, and having a health condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Hired crop workers are an extremely marginalized population of workers in the U.S. Innovative intervention methods must extend beyond traditional occupational models to focus on the overall health of hired crop workers, including increasing healthcare access, ending agricultural exceptionalism to provide equal regulatory protections afforded to workers in other industries, and adequate enforcement of existing regulations. These findings contribute to the understanding of correlates related to increased work-related injury among hired crop workers, and have implications in fields of prevention, intervention, and policy.

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.

Unauthorized Mexican-Born Immigrants, Occupational Injuries, and the use of Medical Services in the United States

This article examines how unauthorized immigrant status is associated with the risk of suffering a work-related accident or illness and with the use of medical services after experiencing an injury among Mexican immigrants in the United States. Using individual-level data on 81,004 Mexican immigrants who previously worked in the United States and were interviewed when they returned to Mexico in the Survey of Migration in the Northern Border of Mexico from 2010 to 2018, we estimate a series of probit models and nonlinear decompositions to analyze legal status differences in the incidence of occupational injuries among immigrant workers. The results show that among Mexican immigrants in the United States unauthorized status was associated with a greater probability of experiencing an occupational injury. The higher injury rate among unauthorized immigrants was partly driven by the fact that they worked more hours per day, more days per week, and were employed in riskier occupations than authorized immigrants. If unauthorized immigrants were older and had higher levels of English-language ability, the injury gap would have been even larger. Unauthorized status was also associated with a lower likelihood of using medical services after suffering an occupational injury because unauthorized workers had less access to medical care. The findings show that the right to legal work has important implications for the health of immigrants by setting a higher risk level for injury on the job and limiting access to health care following such an injury.

Adverse childhood experiences are associated with increased overdose risk in predominately Latinx adults seeking treatment for substance use disorders

Introduction

Almost no previous studies explored the relationship between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and overdose risk for individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs), and these did not focus on a Latinx population. This study examined the relationship between ACEs, reporting PTSD symptoms, and lifetime experience of overdose in a sample (n = 149) of primarily Latinx adults seeking treatment for substance use disorder (SUD).

Materials and methods

Administrative data from an integrated behavioral health and primary care treatment system in Massachusetts were analyzed through bivariate analyses and multiple logistic regression. The final model examined the association between self-reported ACEs, PTSD screen, and lifetime drug overdose. We controlled for demographic characteristics and heroin use and explored alternative measure specifications.

Results

ACEs scores were high with 58% having experienced 4+ ACEs. Female gender was associated with a 24% higher ACE score than male gender (p < 0.01). In the multiple logistic model each additional ACE was associated with 1.3 times greater odds of overdose (p < 0.01). Those reporting heroin use had 8.8 times greater odds of reporting overdose compared to those reporting no heroin use (p < 0.001). Gender, age, Puerto Rican ethnicity, years of cocaine use, receiving public assistance income, and a positive initial PTSD screen were not significant. Findings were robust in sensitivity testing.

Discussion and conclusion

We found the number of ACEs and reported heroin use significantly and positively associated with self-report of overdose in both bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses. In contrast, a positive initial screen for PTSD was only significantly associated with overdose in the bivariate analysis. Increased screening for ACEs is warranted and ACE-specific treatment is suggested for SUD treatment programs offering trauma-informed services for adults.

State Immigration Policy Contexts and Racialized Legal Status Disparities in Health Care Utilization Among U.S. Agricultural Workers

Research links restrictive immigration policies to immigrant health and health care outcomes. Yet most studies in this area focus on the impact of single policies in particular years, with few assessing how broader state-level immigration policy contexts affect groups by nativity, race/ethnicity, and legal status. Linking data from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (2005-2012) with information on state immigration policies, we use an intersectional approach to examine the links between policy contexts and health care utilization by nativity, race/ethnicity, and legal status. We also assess the associations between two specific types of state immigration policies-those governing immigrant access to Medicaid and driver's licenses-and health care utilization disparities. We find that state-level immigration policy contexts are associated with health care utilization among U.S.-born and naturalized U.S. citizen non-White Latinx agricultural workers, who report lower levels of health care utilization and greater barriers to care-seeking in more restrictive policy contexts. By contrast, we find little evidence that state policies shaped health care utilization among undocumented workers. These findings advance understanding of the impact of "policies of exclusion" on the lives of marginalized groups and underscore the importance of racialized legal status in considering the links between sociopolitical contexts and health and health care disparities.

Community Health Workers' Role in Addressing Farmworker Health Disparities

Community health workers (CHWs) are uniquely positioned to connect migrant and seasonal farmworkers to health promotion and clinical services. However, research on CHWs' experiences, particularly related to their provision of health education to farmworkers, is limited. To explore CHWs' practices and challenges in conducting health education outreach, we conducted three focus group discussions with farmworker health CHWs (N = 28) in North Carolina in the spring of 2020. We analyzed the focus group transcripts, and we compared the code outputs, thematic code summaries, and memos maintained throughout the analytic process to examine the experiences of CHWs in acquiring and disseminating health information and resources, including use of technology. We identified three themes related to CHWs' experiences providing health information to farmworkers. First, CHWs described short-term preparation, immediately before providing health outreach, and long-term activities, devoted to maintaining and improving their capacity to provide relevant health information to farmworkers. Second, they described their use of health education delivery methods, including open-ended questions, participatory and interactive approaches, and non-verbal aids. Third, participants described their current use of technology and related challenges, as well as the technology needed to enhance health outreach, including internet access. Findings reveal opportunities to improve farmworker health education through professional development for CHWs, identification of preferred methods of health education delivery to farmworkers, and provision of technology to farmworker-serving organizations. Establishing rural internet access and equipping outreach organizations with technology would position CHWs to be maximally effective as they strive to reduce farmworkers' health inequities.Abbreviations: CHW: Community health worker; FGD: focus group discussion; NC: North Carolina.

Beyond Black vs White: racial/ethnic disparities in chronic pain including Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and multiracial US adults

ABSTRACT

Previous literature on race/ethnicity and pain has rarely included all major US racial groups or examined the sensitivity of findings to different pain operationalizations. Using data from the 2010 to 2018 National Health Interview Surveys on adults 18 years or older (N = 273,972), we calculated the weighted prevalence of 6 definitions of pain to provide a detailed description of chronic pain in White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and multiracial groups. We also estimated modified Poisson models to obtain relative disparities, net of demographic and socioeconomic (SES) factors including educational attainment, family income, and home ownership; finally, we calculated average predicted probabilities to show prevalence disparities in absolute terms. We found that Asian Americans showed the lowest pain prevalence across all pain definitions and model specifications. By contrast, Native American and multiracial adults had the highest pain prevalence. This excess pain was due to the lower SES among Native Americans but remained significant and unexplained among multiracial adults. The pain prevalence in White, Black, and Hispanic adults fell in between the 2 extremes. In this trio, Hispanics showed the lowest prevalence, an advantage not attributable to immigrant status or SES. Although most previous research focuses on Black-White comparisons, these 2 groups differ relatively little. Blacks report lower prevalence of less severe pain definitions than Whites but slightly higher prevalence of severe pain. Net of SES, however, Blacks experienced significantly lower pain across all definitions. Overall, racial disparities are larger than previously recognized once all major racial groups are included, and these disparities are largely consistent across different operationalizations of pain.

The role of SNAP and WIC participation and racialized legal status in U.S. farmworker health

Background

Policies that restrict access to and use of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) by legal status may disproportionately disadvantage particular racial and ethnic groups. While immigrant legal status, race, and ethnicity are recognized as independent social determinants of health, studies examining the extent to which legal status structures racial and ethnic health disparities are limited. Research is needed to identify factors that mitigate disparate health outcomes, such as SNAP and WIC.

Methods

Cross-sectional data from the 2009/2010 National Agricultural Workers Survey (N = 3,961) were analyzed. Chi-square tests and logistic regressions examined associations among self-reported health, race, ethnicity, legal status, and SNAP/WIC participation.

Results

Farmworkers reporting excellent or good health were more likely to be non-Hispanic White, U.S. citizen, aged 18–25, single, male, educated beyond primary school, living above the poverty level, without chronic health conditions, and located in the Midwest. Hispanic farmworkers had lower odds of reporting excellent or good health (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12–0.62). Among SNAP/WIC participants, Hispanic farmworkers had higher odds of reporting excellent or good health (OR 6.74, 95% CI 1.54–29.57) compared to non-Hispanic White farmworkers. There was no significant association between self-reported health and legal status.

Discussion

This study complements the extant literature showing racial and ethnic health disparities among the U.S. farmworker population. Results provide valuable insight on the health-protective potential of programs like SNAP and WIC, particularly among Hispanic farmworkers, who may be both less likely to be eligible and more hesitant to participate. These findings underscore the need to expand U.S. farmworkers’ eligibility and participation in SNAP and WIC.

Sick Days: Logical Versus Survey Identification of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States

The self-reported number of workdays missed due to injury or illness, or sick days, is a reliable measure of health among working-aged adults. Although sick days is a relatively underexplored health-related outcome in migration studies, it can provide a multidimensional understanding of immigrant wellbeing and integration. Current understandings of the association between migration status and sick days are limited for two reasons. First, in the United States, few nationally representative surveys collect migration status information. Second, researchers lack consensus on the most reliable approach for assigning migration status. We use the 2008 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to examine sick days and draw comparisons between two methods for assigning migration status—a logical approach and a survey approach. The logical method assigns migration status to foreign-born respondents based on characteristics such as government employment or welfare receipt, while the survey approach relies on self-reported survey responses. Sick days among immigrants was correlated with and predicted by other health conditions available in the SIPP. Comparisons of sick days by migration status vary based on migration assignment approach. Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) reported more sick days than non-LPRs and appear less healthy when migration status is assigned using the logical approach. The logical approach also produced a gap in sick days between LPRs and non-LPRs that is not replicated in the survey approach. The results demonstrate that if migration status is not measured directly in the data, interpretation of migration status effects should proceed cautiously.

Social exclusion at the intersections of immigration, employment, and healthcare policy: A qualitative study of Mexican and Chinese immigrants in California

While immigrants in the US suffer poor access to healthcare in general, access within immigrant populations varies notably by legal status and employment. Intersections between immigration, employment, and healthcare policy have shaped immigrants' access or exclusion from healthcare; however, little research has examined how immigrants experience and navigate these intersections. Drawing on social exclusion theory and the theory of bounded agency, we aimed to investigate Mexican and Chinese immigrants' experiences of exclusion from healthcare as one key dimension of social exclusion-and how this was shaped by interactions with the institutions of immigration and employment. The examination of two ethnic immigrant groups who live under the same set of policies allows for a focus on the common impacts of policy. We selected Mexican and Chinese immigrants as the two largest subgroups in California's Latinx and Asian immigrant population. We use a policy lens to analyze qualitative data from the mixed-methods Research on Immigrant Health and State Policy (RIGHTS) Study, involving 60 in-depth interviews with Mexican and Chinese immigrants in California between August 2018-August 2019. We identified two primary themes: pathways of social exclusion and access, and strategies used to address social exclusion. Findings show that immigrants' exclusion from healthcare is fundamentally linked to legal status and employment, and that immigrants navigate difficult choices between opportunities for improved employment and changes in legal status. We argue that multiple categories of legal status affect immigrants' employment opportunities and social position, which, in turn, translates to stratified healthcare access. Our findings support the literature establishing legal status as a mechanism of social stratification but challenge legal-illegal binary paradigms.

Immigrant Legal Status Disparities in Health Among First- and One-point-five-Generation Latinx Immigrants in California

Restrictive US immigration laws and law enforcement undermine immigrant health by generating fear and stress, disrupting families and communities, and eroding social and economic wellbeing. The inequality and stress created by immigration law and law enforcement may also generate disparities in health among immigrants with different legal statuses. However, existing research does not find consistent evidence of immigrant legal status disparities in health, possibly because it does not disaggregate immigrants by generation, defined by age at migration. Immigration and life course theory suggest that the health consequences of non-citizen status may be greater among 1.5-generation immigrants, who grew up in the same society that denies them formal membership, than among the 1st generation, who immigrated as adolescents or adults. In this study, we examine whether there are legal status disparities in health within and between the 1st generation and the 1.5 generation of 23,288 Latinx immigrant adults interviewed in the 2005–2017 waves of the California Health Interview Survey. We find evidence of legal status disparities in heart disease within the 1st generation and for high blood pressure and diabetes within the 1.5 generation. Non-citizens have higher rates of poor self-rated health and distress within both generations. Socioeconomic disadvantage and limited access to care largely account for the worse health of legally disadvantaged 1st- and 1.5-generation Latinx adults in California.

Health Power Resources Theory: A Relational Approach to the Study of Health Inequalities

Link and Phelan's pioneering 1995 theory of fundamental causes urged health scholars to consider the macro-level contexts that "put people at risk of risks." Allied research on the political economy of health has since aptly demonstrated how institutions contextualize risk factors for health. Yet scant research has fully capitalized on either fundamental cause or political economy of health's allusion to power relations as a determinant of persistent inequalities in population health. I address this oversight by advancing a theory of health power resources that contends that power relations distribute and translate the meaning (i.e., necessity, value, and utility) of socioeconomic and health-relevant resources. This occurs through stratification, commodification, discrimination, and devitalization. Resurrecting historical sociological emphases on power relations provides an avenue through which scholars can more fully understand the patterning of population health and better connect the sociology of health and illness to the central tenets of the discipline.

Severity of Inpatient Hospitalizations Among Undocumented Immigrants and Medi-Cal Patients in a Los Angeles, California, Hospital: 2019

Objectives. To compare the severity of inpatient hospitalizations between undocumented immigrants and Medi-Cal patients in a large safety-net hospital in Los Angeles, California. Methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of all 2019 inpatient stays at a Los Angeles hospital (n = 22 480), including patients of all races/ethnicities. We examined 3 measures by using insurance status to approximate immigration status: illness severity, length of hospital stay, and repeat hospitalizations. We calculated group differences between undocumented and Medi-Cal patients by using inverse probability weighted regression adjustment separately for patients aged 18 to 64 years and those aged 65 years and older. Results. Younger undocumented patients had less severe illness and shorter lengths of stay than their Medi-Cal counterparts. Older undocumented immigrants also had less severe illness, but had similar lengths of stay and were more likely to have repeated hospitalizations. Conclusions. While existing work suggests that undocumented immigrants could have more severe health care needs on account of their poorer access to medical care, we did not see clear health disadvantages among hospitalized undocumented immigrants, especially younger patients. There were fewer differences between undocumented and Medi-Cal patients who were older. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(11):2019-2026. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306485).

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.

Selection, experience, and disadvantage: Examining sources of health inequalities among naturalized US citizens

Objectives

We integrated major theories in immigrant health and assimilation into a single analytical framework to quantify the degrees to which demographic composition, pathways to citizenship, and socioeconomic assimilation account for physical and mental health disparities between naturalized immigrants by region of origin.

Methods

Using the restricted data from the 2015–2016 California Health Interview Survey, we decomposed differences in physical and mental health into demographic factors, path to citizenship, and socioeconomic characteristics by region of origin using the Karlson, Holm, and Breen (KHB) method.

Results

Differences in socioeconomic status mediated most of the disparity in physical health between naturalized immigrants from different regions. Factors associated with major immigrant health theories—demographic composition, pathways to citizenship, and socioeconomic assimilation—did not mediate disparities in mental health.

Conclusion

This article argues that the study of health disparities among immigrants must simultaneously account for differences in demographic composition, immigration experience, and socioeconomic disadvantage. The findings also underscore the need for theory development that can better explain mental health disparities among immigrants.

•

Socioeconomic disadvantage accounted for poorer physical health among naturalized citizens who were born in Mexico.

•

Psychological distress is pervasive among naturalized citizens from Central and Latin America.

•

Differences in SES mediated the disparity in physical health between naturalized immigrants from different regions.

•

Demographic characteristics, time to citizenship, and SES did not mediate disparities in mental health.

A rapid scoping review of COVID-19 and vulnerable workers: Intersecting occupational and public health issues

BACKGROUND

This article reports the results of a rapid scoping review of the literature on COVID-19 transmission risk to workers in essential sectors such as retail, health care, manufacturing, and agriculture, and more particularly the experiences of workers in precarious employment and social situations.

METHODS

Following scoping review methods, we included 30 studies that varied in terms of methodology and theoretical approaches. The search included peer-reviewed articles and grey literature published between March and September 2020.

RESULTS

Based on the studies reviewed, we found that COVID-19 infection and death rates increased not only with age and comorbidities, but also with discrimination and structural inequities based on racism and sexism. Racial and ethnic minority workers, including migrant workers, are concentrated in high-risk occupations and this concentration is correlated to lower socioeconomic conditions. The COVID-19 pandemic appears in the occupational health and safety spotlight as an exacerbator of already existing socioeconomic inequalities and social inequalities in health, especially in light of the intersection of issues related to racism, ethnic minority status, and sexism.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides early evidence about the limitations of institutions' responses to the pandemic, and their capacity to provide a safe and decent working environment for all workers, regardless of their employment status or the social protections they may enjoy under normal circumstances. It is also important to think about these issues in the postpandemic context, when conditions of precariousness and vulnerability persist and possibly worsen.

Comparing the Effectiveness of Assignment Strategies for Estimating Likely Undocumented Status in Secondary Data Sources for Latino and Asian Immigrants

Researchers are increasingly interested in the role of undocumented status in immigrant economic, social, and health outcomes. A major obstacle to this work is that detailed immigration status is not widely collected in representative data sources. Some secondary data sources collect enough information to identify immigrants without a green card (non-LPRs), and researchers take different approaches to assign undocumented status to immigrants within this population. These approaches have not been compared to one another, nor do we know if they work equally well for Latino and Asian immigrants. In this research note, we test the validity of several assignment strategies using the 2001, 2004, and 2008 panels of the restricted version of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to measure differences in health-related outcomes (e.g., health insurance coverage and self-rated health) by immigration status. We compare results when immigration status is directly measured using the detailed information in the SIPP to several strategies to assign undocumented status among non-LPRs. The probabilistic approach produced the smallest biases, but Asian immigrants had larger biases compared to Latinos across all strategies.

Pain Trends Among American Adults, 2002-2018: Patterns, Disparities, and Correlates

Determining long-term trends in chronic pain prevalence is critical for evaluating and shaping U.S. health policies, but little research has examined such trends. This study (1) provides estimates of pain trends among U.S. adults across major population groups; (2) tests whether sociodemographic disparities in pain have widened or narrowed over time; and (3) examines socioeconomic, behavioral, psychological, and medical correlates of pain trends. Regression and decomposition analyses of joint, low back, neck, facial/jaw pain, and headache/migraine using the 2002-2018 National Health Interview Survey for adults aged 25-84 (N  =  441,707) assess the trends and their correlates. We find extensive escalation of pain prevalence in all population subgroups: overall, reports of pain in at least one site increased by 10%, representing an additional 10.5 million adults experiencing pain. Socioeconomic disparities in pain are widening over time, and psychological distress and health behaviors are among the salient correlates of the trends. This study thus comprehensively documents rising pain prevalence among Americans across the adult life span and highlights socioeconomic, behavioral, and psychological factors as important correlates of the trends. Chronic pain is an important dimension of population health, and demographic research should include it when studying health and health disparities.

Beyond the Economic Gaze: Childbearing During and After Recessions in the Nordic Countries

During the 2010s, fertility rates fell across the Nordic region. The onset of these declines seems linked to the Great Recession of 2008-2009, but their continuation cannot easily be linked to subsequent economic change. The 1990s, too, brought episodes of economic crises to the Nordic region that were followed by different degrees of fertility decline. In this study, we provide an empirical overview of parity-, age- and education-specific fertility developments in the five Nordic countries in the wake of the economic recessions in 2008 and the early 1990s, respectively. We demonstrate a high degree of heterogeneity in fertility developments across countries after 1990, whereas after 2008, the trends are much more similar across the five countries. Likewise, the educational differences in birth hazards that characterized the developments after 1990 were much smaller in the initial years after 2008-2009. This reversal from heterogeneity to homogeneity in the fertility response to recessions calls for an expansion of theories on the cyclicality of fertility in relation to uncertainty and economic and social change. In our discussion, we consider the role of a set of factors that also incorporates the state, crisis management, and perceptions of economic and welfare uncertainty.

Aging and undocumented: The sociology of aging meets immigration status

Being undocumented is strongly correlated with low wages, employment in high risk occupations, and poor healthcare access. We know surprisingly little about the social lives of older undocumented adults despite the vast literature about youth and young undocumented migrants. Literature about the immigrant health paradox casts doubts on the argument that unequal social conditions translate to poorer self-reported health and mortality, but few of these studies consider immigration status as the dynamic variable that it is. Reviewing research about older migrants and minorities, I point to the emergence of undocumented older persons as a demographic group that merits attention from researchers and policymakers. This nexus offers important lessons for understanding stratification and inequality. This review offers new research directions that take into account multilevel consequences of growing old undocumented. Rather than arguing that older-aged undocumented migrants are aging into exclusion, I argue that we need careful empirical research to examine how the continuity of exclusion via policies can magnify inequalities on the basis of immigration status and racialization in older age.

(Il)legality and psychosocial well-being: Central Asian migrant women in Russia

Legal status has shown far-reaching consequences for international migrants' incorporation trajectories and outcomes in Western contexts. In dialogue with the extant research, we examine the implications of legal status for subjective well-being of Central Asian migrant women in the Russian Federation. Using survey data collected through respondent-driven sampling in two large cities, we compare migrants with regularized and irregular legal statuses on several interrelated yet distinct dimensions of subjective well-being. We find that, regardless of other factors, regularized status has a strong positive association with migrants' perception of their rights and freedoms but not with their feeling of being respected in society. Regularized status is positively associated with self-efficacy and negatively with depression. Yet, no net legal status difference is found in migrants' views on their relations with other migrants or on treatment of migrants by native-borns. The findings are situated within the cross-national scholarship on the ramifications of racialized immigrant (il)legality and its implications for membership and belonging.

Comparing immigration status and health patterns between Latinos and Asians: Evidence from the Survey of Income and Program Participation

Undocumented status is widely recognized as an important social determinant of health. While undocumented immigrants have lower levels of health care access, they do not have consistently poorer physical health than the US-born or other immigrant groups. Furthermore, heterogeneity by race/ethnicity has been largely ignored in this growing literature. This paper used the 2001, 2004, 2008 panels of the restricted Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), one of the only representative surveys equipped to adequately identify Asian undocumented immigrants, to compare health patterns between Asians and Latinos by immigration status. We examined three general measures of health/health access: self-rated health, disability, and current health insurance. Latino undocumented immigrants displayed some advantages in self-rated health and disability but had lower insurance coverage compared to US-born Latinos. In contrast, Asian undocumented immigrants did not differ from US-born Asians in any of the three outcomes. While undocumented status has been proposed as a fundamental cause of disease, we found no evidence that Latino and Asian undocumented immigrants consistently fare worse in health access or physical health outcomes than immigrants in other status categories. Different racial groups also appeared to have unique patterns between immigration status and health outcomes from one another.

Does Facilitated and Early Access to the Healthcare System Improve Refugees’ Health Outcomes? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Germany

Because of their often-dramatic, life-threatening flight patterns and resulting pronounced health disparities, many refugees have a great need for medical treatment after arrival to their host countries. In Germany, refugees whose asylum application is not approved or whose duration of stay has not yet exceeded 15 months must request doctor visits, with a considerable amount of bureaucracy, from the local responsible authority. Since 2016, however, several federal states and municipalities in Germany have introduced electronic health cards ( eHCs) which give refugees immediate and unbureaucratic access to the healthcare system. We examine whether being eligible for eHCs because of this policy change had an effect on multidimensional health indicators for refugees in Germany. For empirical identification, we take advantage of variation in policy adoption across German regions and over time. Relying on the IAB-BAMF-SOEP Survey of Refugees, we find that being eligible for eHCs because of the policy change improved the mental well-being and subjective health assessment of recently arrived refugees, while having no impact on physical health status. These results can be traced back to the moderating effect of facilitated healthcare access on post-migration stress, which is known to affect primarily psychological well-being. Moreover, facilitated healthcare access appears to alleviate potential language and cultural barriers faced by refugees with low health literacy (measured by the ability to read or write in the origin-country language). Altogether, the article illustrates how structural and institutional constraints may shape individual health outcomes of adult refugees.

Disentangling contributions of demographic, family, and socioeconomic factors on associations of immigration status and health in the United States

BACKGROUND

In the United States, immigration policy is entwined with health policy, and immigrants' legal statuses determine their access to care. Yet, policy debates rarely take into account the health needs of immigrants and potential health consequences of linking legal status to healthcare. Confounding from social and demographic differences and lack of individual-level data with sensitive immigration variables present challenges in this area of research.

METHODS

This article used the restricted California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) to assess differences in self-rated health, obesity, and severe psychological distress. Between US-born citizens, naturalised citizens, lawful permanent residents (LPR), undocumented immigrants, and temporary visa holders living in California.

RESULTS

Results show that while immigrant groups appear to have poorer health on the surface, these differences were explained predominantly by older age among naturalised citizens and by lower-income and education among LPRs and undocumented immigrants. Favourable family characteristics acted as protective factors for immigrants' health, especially among disadvantaged immigrants.

CONCLUSION

Immigration policy that limits access to healthcare and family support may further widen the health disadvantage among immigrants with less legal protection.

Legal Violence, Health, and Access to Care: Latina Immigrants in Rural and Urban Kansas

Using interviews and ethnography started in 2016 in rural and urban Kansas, we examine the consequences of an amplified immigration enforcement combined with a local limited health care infrastructure that reproduce legal violence manifesting on Latina immigrants' health, access to care, and community participation. We highlight the conditions rooted in place that generate short- and long-term negative impacts for Latina immigrants' health. Fear and anxiety about the deportation of themselves and their family members make them ill and also generate apprehension about contacting medical institutions, driving, and spending time in public spaces. These circumstances coalesce in women's lives to block access to medical care and undermine women's roles in their communities. Following gendered expectations, women turn to their informal networks to seek health care for their families. In the context that the enforcement regime has created, these ties can turn exploitative.

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

Citizenship is considered an egalitarian legal identity but may function differently among minorities because of racial/ethnic stratification and historical context. Using Asians, I examine whether the association between citizenship and self-rated health differs by ethnicity. I examine the moderating effect of Asian ethnic group (Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, and Other Asian) on citizenship and self-rated health using the 2012-2016 California Health Interview Survey (n = 11,084). Models account for demographics, socioeconomic status, healthcare, and English proficiency. Adjusting for demographics, naturalized citizens and non-citizens were statistically significantly more likely to report fair/poor health compared to U.S.-born citizens. Naturalized and non-citizen Vietnamese reported statistically significantly poorer health to all U.S.-born groups. These trends largely disappear when controlling for all covariates. Citizenship status can be useful in considering structural barriers for immigrants. Future work should interrogate the non-citizen category and why trends are seen among Vietnamese, but not others.

Association between immigration status and anxiety, depression, and use of anxiolytic and antidepressant medications in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between undocumented immigration status and anxiety, depression, and use of anxiolytic or antidepressant medications in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of data collected between 2014 and 2017. Participants were categorized as U.S.-born citizens, naturalized citizens, documented noncitizens, or undocumented noncitizens. We calculated prevalence and prevalence ratios for anxiety, depression, and use of anxiolytic or antidepressant medication, by immigration status.

RESULTS

Of 9257 participants, 1403 (15%) were undocumented noncitizens, 2872 (31%) were documented noncitizens, 3766 (41%) were naturalized citizens, and 1216 (13%) were U.S.-born citizens. Prevalence of anxiety was lower among undocumented than documented noncitizens (9 vs. 15%, P < .0001) but not significantly different in adjusted analyses. Prevalence of depression was similar among undocumented and documented noncitizens (20 vs. 24%, P = .07) and not significantly different in adjusted analyses. Among participants with depression, 7% of undocumented and 27% of documented noncitizens reported use of antidepressants (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Undocumented noncitizens had similar likelihood of anxiety and depression, but lower likelihood of antidepressant use, compared with documented noncitizens. These results may reflect the resilience of an undocumented population facing multiple stressors but suggest that this group may be undertreated for depression.