Undocumented immigrants and mental health: A systematic review of recent methodology and findings in the United States

Downgraded dreams: Labor market outcomes and mental health in undocumented migration

Undocumented immigrant workers are particularly exposed to mental health risk factors, including occupational downgrading - i.e. the loss in occupational status upon arrival. This study breaks new ground by examining the relationship between occupational downgrading and mental health among this hard-to-reach population, offering the first-ever investigation of its kind. Leveraging a unique dataset collected by a primary care outpatient clinic in Milan, Italy, which combines medical evaluations with detailed occupational information, we construct a direct measure of occupational downgrading, which adds to the literature. We employ logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for mental and behavioral disorders. The study also offers fresh evidence on the socioeconomic and health status of a sizable sample of undocumented migrants. The study sample consists of 1738 individuals that had their first medical examination in 2017-18. Prevalence of mental health conditions is 5.58%. Data also highlight poor labor market integration: one third of individuals in the sample is employed, mostly in elementary occupations; 66.63% of immigrant workers experienced occupational downgrading. Regression results show that undocumented immigrants who undergo occupational downgrading are at considerably higher risk of mental disorders. ORs range from 1.729 (95% CI 1.071-2.793), when the model only includes individual characteristics determined prior to migration, to 2.659 (CI 1.342-5.271), when it accounts for all the available controls. From a policy perspective, our study underscores the need to consider the broader impact of policies, including restrictive entry and integration policies, on migrant health. Additionally, ensuring access to primary care for all immigrants is crucial for early detection and treatment of mental health conditions.

The mental health of migrants living in limbo: A mixed-methods systematic review with meta-analysis

The number of forcibly displaced people has more than doubled over the past decade. Many people fleeing are left in limbo without a secure pathway to citizenship or residency. This mixed-methods systematic review reports the prevalence of mental disorders in migrants living in limbo, the association between limbo and mental illness, and the experiences of these migrants in high income countries. We searched electronic databases for quantitative and qualitative studies published after January 1, 2010, on mental illness in precarious migrants living in HICs and performed a meta-analysis of prevalence rates. Fifty-eight articles met inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis yielded prevalence rates of 43.0 % for anxiety disorders (95 % CI 29.0-57.0), 49.5 % for depression (40.9-58.0) and 40.8 % for posttraumatic stress disorder (30.7-50.9). Having an insecure status was associated with higher rates of mental illness in most studies comparing migrants in limbo to those with secure status. Six themes emerged from the qualitative synthesis: the threat of deportation, uncertainty, social exclusion, stigmatization, social connection and religion. Clinicians should take an ecosocial approach to care that attends to stressors and symptoms. Furthermore, policymakers can mitigate the development of mental disorders among migrants by adopting policies that ensure rapid pathways to protected status.

Health Care Access and Utilization and the Latino Health Paradox

BACKGROUND

The Latino health paradox is the phenomenon whereby recent Latino immigrants have, on average, better health outcomes on some indicators than Latino immigrants who have lived in the United States longer and US-born Latinos and non-Latino Whites. This study examined whether the paradox holds after accounting for health care access and utilization.

METHODS

The 2019-2020 National Health Interview Survey data were used. The main predictors included population groups of foreign-born and US-born Latinos (Mexican or non-Mexican) versus US-born non-Latino Whites. Predicted probabilities of health outcomes (self-reported poor/fair health, overweight/obesity, hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and depression) were calculated and stratified by length of residence in the United States (<15 or ≥15 years) among foreign-born Latinos and sex (female or male). Multivariable analyses adjusted for having a usual source of care other than the emergency department, health insurance, a doctor visit in the past 12 months, predisposing and enabling factors, and survey year.

RESULTS

After adjusting for health care access, utilization, and predisposing and enabling factors, foreign-born Latinos, including those living in the United States ≥15 years, had lower predicted probabilities for most health outcomes than US-born non-Latino Whites, except overweight/obesity and diabetes. US-born Latinos had higher predicted probabilities of overweight/obesity and diabetes and a lower predicted probability of depression than US-born non-Latino Whites.

CONCLUSIONS

In this national survey, the Latino health paradox was observed after adjusting for health care access and utilization and predisposing and enabling factors, suggesting that, although these are important factors for good health, they do not necessarily explain the paradox.

Implications of Undocumented Status for Latinx Families During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Call to Action

BACKGROUND

A disproportionate number of COVID-19 cases and deaths have been reported among Latinxs in the U.S. Among those most affected by the pandemic are marginalized families, including those that are undocumented and mixed-status, in which some, but not all members are undocumented. Undocumented and mixed-status families face multiple and chronic daily stressors that compromised their health and wellbeing. Salient stressors faced by undocumented Latinx families include poverty, social disadvantage, discrimination, dangerous living and working conditions, and limited access to healthcare. These stressors are frequently compounded with trauma, fear of detention, deportation, and family separation.

PURPOSE

Informed by the literature and insights from our community-based work to address the health needs of undocumented and mixed status Latinx families during the pandemic, this paper uses a social determinants of health lens to present a narrative summary that highlights four primary psychosocial stressors faced by these families and their implications for mental health.

DISCUSSION

These include stressors pertaining to (a) anti-immigrant rhetoric and actions; (b) family stressors and disruptions in family dynamics; (c) economic changes and financial losses; and (c) limited access to healthcare. Implications of the aforesaid stressors on the mental health of undocumented families and youth are also discussed. In addition, recommendations are provided for the provision of mental health services, best practices, and resources from a strengths-based approach.

Facing a dual threat: Pandemic stress and immigration policy vulnerability on mental health among Latinx immigrant parents

BACKGROUND

Exclusionary immigration policies rooted in structural racism threaten the wellbeing of Latinx families, increasing stress, anxiety, depression, and distress among immigrant parents. The COVID-19 pandemic has had devastating and disproportionate impacts on communities of color with unique impacts on Latinx immigrant parents in mixed-status families.

AIMS

From a syndemic theory lens, we explored the convergence of structural racism and the COVID-19 pandemic to explore if the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic may compound harmful immigration-related policies.

METHODS

Our community-based participatory research cross-sectional study administered 145 surveys among Latinx immigrant parents in mixed-status families in Georgia. We examined the relationship of pandemic stress and perceived statewide immigration policy vulnerability to depressive, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms. We conducted multiple linear regression analyses to test these relationships and their interaction.

RESULTS

We found that that greater perceived policy immigration vulnerability and reported pandemic stress were associated with higher symptoms of depression. Increased PTSD symptoms were also associated with immigration policy vulnerability, but not pandemic stress. Tests to assess if pandemic stress strengthened the relationship between policy vulnerability on depressive, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms revealed no statistically significant interactions.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that stress of the COVID-19 pandemic and longstanding anti-immigrant policies in Georgia were salient for and related to the mental health of these Latinx immigrant parents.

Symptoms of depression and stress among migrant workers in Al Qassim, Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Migrant workers make up a third of the population of Saudi Arabia, approximately 13 million. Mental health disorders among this population are common, but very limited data exist currently.

AIMS

To assess the prevalence of moderate to severe symptoms of depression and stress among a sample of migrant workers in Saudi Arabia. To identify whether migrant-specific factors, such as occupation, nationality, duration of migration, and work characteristics, are associated with depressive and stress symptoms.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of 2,123 migrants was conducted in Al Qassim, Saudi Arabia. Depressive and stress symptoms were assessed with the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). The outcomes were categorized into two levels (i.e. mild or no symptoms versus moderate to severe symptoms). Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regressions were used to assess the relationship with potential covariates.

RESULTS

The prevalence of moderate to severe depressive and stress symptoms was 7.3% and 3.6%, respectively. These did not vary by the duration of stay in the country or weekly work hours. However, there was substantial variance in the symptoms by participants' nationality and occupation. Participants from Bangladesh were 3.8 (95% CI [1.50, 9.62]) times more likely, and hospital cleaners were 6.5 (95% CI [2.12, 20.07]) times more likely to have depressive symptoms. Similarly, auto-repair workers were 6.3 times more likely to have symptoms of stress (95% CI [1.55, 25.90]).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of depressive and stress symptoms varied significantly depending on occupation and country of origin. It would behoove employers to screen for these mental health conditions and refer employees to the relevant healthcare services. Future studies could examine the feasibility of mental health screening programs among migrant employees.

Delivering ADAPT+ to Latino Families Living in Rural Communities: Feasibility and Acceptability of Implementing a Health Promotion Program Including Mindfulness

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a major public health crisis in Latino youth. Mounting evidence implicates stress in the development and maintenance of obesity. This study examined the feasibility and acceptability of having community health workers, i.e., promotoras, deliver Adaptando Dieta y Acción Para Todos (ADAPT)+, a family-based health promotion program integrating mindfulness strategies for stress reduction to underserved Latino families in rural communities.

METHODS

In an ORBIT model Phase IIb longitudinal quasi-cluster feasibility study, promotoras delivered the 6-session ADAPT+ intervention and 1-session Enhanced Usual Care (EUC) in rural Florida. Feasibility was assessed via sample size and recruitment, randomization by community, data collection completion, and intervention fidelity. Acceptability was assessed via participant retention and program satisfaction. Effect sizes of differences in parent stress and mindful eating between conditions at baseline, end of treatment, and 3-month follow-up were calculated.

RESULTS

Feasibility and acceptability were demonstrated. The recruitment target was 99% met (n = 95 recruited). Randomization was limited to site level due to coronavirus disease 2019-related challenges. Data collection procedures were feasible (100% completion). Retention was 86% at post-assessment and 82.6% at 3-month follow-up. All sessions were completed (100% fidelity). Mean program satisfaction was 3.91/4.00. ADAPT+ parents reported lower stress (difference = -3.04, medium-to-large effect, d = .70) and more mindful eating (difference = 2.00, medium effect, d = .44) than EUC parents at 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Study implementation and intervention delivery to rural Latino families using promotoras were feasible and acceptable. Promising findings regarding parent stress and mindful eating support a larger (ORBIT Phase III) efficacy trial.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT04800432.

Impact of legal status regularization on undocumented migrants’ self-reported and mental health in Switzerland

Undocumented migrants face cumulative difficulties like precarious living and working conditions or exclusion from health services that might negatively influence their health. Little is known about the evolution of undocumented migrants' self-reported health (SRH) and mental health after they get documented. This study aims to observe the effect of legal status regularization on SRH and mental health in a cohort of migrants undergoing regularization in Geneva, Switzerland. We evaluate SRH with the first item of the Short Form Survey (SF12) and depression as a proxy of mental health with the PHQ-9 questionnaire over four years among 387 undocumented and newly documented migrants. Using hybrid linear models, our data show that regularization has no direct effect on SRH, but has direct positive effects on mental health in a longitudinal perspective, even when controlling for competing factors. The arrival of the pandemic did not alter these effects. Migrants tend to evaluate their subjective health status more positively than the prevalence of screened depression shows. Those findings point towards better targeted policies that could reduce the burden of depression among undocumented migrants.

The Role of Anti-Racist Community-Partnered Praxis in Implementing Restorative Circles Within Marginalized Communities in Southern California During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the adverse influence of structural racism and discrimination experienced by historically marginalized communities (e.g., Black, Latino/a/x, Indigenous, and transgender people). Structural racism contributes to trauma-induced health behaviors, increasing exposure to COVID-19 and restricting access to testing and vaccination. This intersection of multiple disadvantages has a negative impact on the mental health of these communities, and interventions addressing collective healing are needed in general and in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Share, Trust, Organize, and Partner COVID-19 California Alliance (STOP COVID-19 CA), a statewide collaborative of 11 universities and 75 community partners, includes several workgroups to address gaps in COVID-19 information, vaccine trial participation, and access. One of these workgroups, the Vaccine Hesitancy Workgroup, adopted an anti-racist community-partnered praxis to implement restorative circles in historically marginalized communities to facilitate collective healing due to structural racism and the COVID-19 pandemic. The project resulted in the development of a multilevel pre-intervention restorative process to build or strengthen community-institutional partnerships when procurement of funds has been sought prior to community partnership. This article discusses this workgroup's role in advancing health justice by providing a community-based mental health intervention to marginalized communities in Southern California while using an antiracist praxis tool to develop a successful community-institutional partnership and to live up to the vision of community-based participatory research.

Mental Health Screening for Korean Ukrainian Refugee Minors in the Republic of Korea: A Cross Sectional Pilot Study

Since February 2022, the Ukrainian refugee crisis has been highlighting mental health problems associated with trauma and distress. This study aimed to evaluate the mental health status of twenty-seven refugee minors (10 to 18 years old) who fled Ukraine and temporarily settled in the Republic of Korea (ROK). This cross-sectional survey study aimed to evaluate the mental health status of ethnic Korean Ukrainian refugee minors. The Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen—Youth Report (CATS), generalized anxiety disorder seven-item scale (GAD-7), and subjective unit of distress scale (SUDs) were used for assessment. A preliminary analysis indicated that 77% Ukrainian refugee minors were exposed to and experienced war-related trauma. They are at a relatively low risk of trauma symptoms, anxiety, and distress due to stable family and visa status and a comparably better environment in the ROK. Meanwhile, refugee teenagers showed higher rates of psychological distress compared with refugee children. This finding suggests that an early psychological interventions in a host country may be beneficial to prevent mental health issues in refugee minors.

When the United States says you do not belong: Suicide-related thoughts and behaviors among immigrant young adults varying in immigration legal status

BACKGROUND

The number of immigrants in the United States and the risk of suicide among minoritized individuals have increased. Little research has examined the impact of immigration legal status on suicide-related thoughts and behaviors (SRTB), despite theoretical and empirical work suggesting that feelings of burdensomeness and failure to belong (prominent among immigrants) are risk factors.

METHODS

We examined a diverse sample of foreign-born young adults (18-25; N = 366). Data collection utilized the Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire Revised and items probing belongingness and immigration status (undocumented/Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), permanent, and citizen).

RESULTS

DACA/undocumented status was associated with increased SRTB compared with permanent and citizen categories. Increased SRTBs were associated with reduced feelings of acceptance in the United States, increased deportation fears, and increased fear of being harassed or hurt. Of these belongingness variables, only the interpersonal-not feeling welcome in the United States-partially mediated the risk relation between DACA/undocumented immigration legal status and SRTBs, whereas physical and legal threat, like deportation, did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight the interpersonal nature of SRTB risk in DACA/undocumented immigrants and the need for targeted culture and context-appropriate interventions, as well as advocacy and policy to reduce risk in this historically marginalized population.

"No one left behind": A social determinant of health lens to the wellbeing of undocumented immigrants

Undocumented and mixed-status families, in which some, but not all members have an undocumented immigration legal status, often face multiple and chronic stressors that influence their health. Compounded by trauma and limited opportunities, the aforementioned stressors negatively impact the physical and mental health of the undocumented and mixed-status population. This article uses a social determinants of health (SDOH) framework, examining five key domains--economic stability, education, healthcare, the social and community context, and the neighborhood and built environment. Undocumented immigrants face challenging living, social and work environments, have less economic stability, and have restricted access to opportunities. The aforesaid challenges place undocumented and mixed-status families at risk. Strategies are discussed to improve the health outcomes of this vulnerable population.