4.3 Article

Asthma in US Mexican-Origin Children in Early Childhood: Differences in Risk and Protective Factors by Parental Nativity

期刊

ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 421-429

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.acap.2014.11.005

关键词

air pollution; asthma; disparities; Latino; Mexican origin; nativity

资金

  1. US National Institutes of Health [P01 HD062498, 2R24HD041025-11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: Over 900,000 Mexican-origin children in the United States have asthma, but little is known about the extent to which development of this condition reflects early childhood exposure to social and environmental risks. The objectives of this research are to demonstrate the roles of risk and protective factors in the prevalence and severity of asthma in this population and provide comparisons with other racial/ethnic groups. METHODS: Nationally representative data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (n = 6900), with county-level ozone data appended to this file were analyzed using descriptive and multivariate regression methods. RESULTS: The odds of asthma diagnosis by 60 months are approximately 50% higher among Mexican-origin children than for non-Hispanic whites (P < .05) in multivariate analyses. Compared to those with foreign-born parents, Mexican-origin children with native-born parents have a lower likelihood of being breast-fed and greater chances of having risks including a family history of asthma, having respiratory illnesses and allergies, living with a smoker, and attending center-based child care. Mexican-origin children live in counties with over 3 times more elevated ozone days annually than non-Hispanic whites. CONCLUSIONS: Mexican-origin children experience a constellation of risk and protective factors, but those with US-born parents have elevated asthma risks compared to those with foreign-born parents. Asthma incidence and severity will likely increase as this population becomes increasingly integrated into US society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据