4.3 Article

Migration Selection, Protection, and Acculturation in Health: A Binational Perspective on Older Adults

期刊

DEMOGRAPHY
卷 50, 期 3, 页码 1039-1064

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13524-012-0178-9

关键词

International migration; Health; Immigrant adaptation; Mexico; United States

资金

  1. FIC NIH HHS [D43 TW001586] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG018016, R01 AG025533, R37 AG025216, P30 AG017266] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NICHD NIH HHS [P2C HD066613, R24 HD041041, P30 HD005876, R03 HD066061, R24 HD066613, R21 HD051146] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this article, we test for four potential explanations of the Hispanic Health Paradox (HHP): the salmon bias, emigration selection, and sociocultural protection originating in either destination or sending country. To reduce biases related to attrition by return migration typical of most U.S.-based surveys, we combine data from the Mexican Health and Aging Study in Mexico and the U.S. National Health Interview Survey to compare self-reported diabetes, hypertension, current smoking, obesity, and self-rated health among Mexican-born men ages 50 and older according to their previous U.S. migration experience, and U.S.-born Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic whites. We also use height, a measure of health during childhood, to bolster some of our tests. We find an immigrant advantage relative to non-Hispanic whites in hypertension and, to a lesser extent, obesity. We find evidence consistent with emigration selection and the salmon bias in height, hypertension, and self-rated health among immigrants with less than 15 years of experience in the United States; we do not find conclusive evidence consistent with sociocultural protection mechanisms. Finally, we illustrate that although ignoring return migrants when testing for the HHP and its mechanisms, as well as for the association between U.S. experience and health, exaggerates these associations, they are not fully driven by return migration-related attrition.

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