Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28092071›Full record

ArticleDemography2017

Explaining the Immigrant Health Advantage: Self-selection and Protection in Health-Related Factors Among Five Major National-Origin Immigrant Groups in the United States.

Fernando Riosmena, Randall Kuhn, Warren C Jochem

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Demography, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

97 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fernando RiosmenaPopulation Program and Geography Department, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1440 15th Street, 483 UCB, Boulder, CO, 80309, USA. Fernando.Riosmena@colorado.edu.
Randall KuhnUCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Department of Community Health Sciences and the California Center for Population Research, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Warren C JochemDepartment of Geography and Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

Scientific and Technical CoreP2CHD041022 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Martha Jane Bailey · 2016 to 2026
$6.9M
University of Colorado Population CenterP2CHD066613 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI JANE A MENKEN · 2015 to 2026
$3.7M
The University of Colorado Population CenterR24HD066613 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI PAMPEL, FRED C · 2010 to 2014
$1.9M
A Cross-National Perspective in Migrant HealthR03HD066061 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI RIOSMENA, FERNANDO · 2010 to 2011
$140k
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD041022NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD066613NICHD NIH HHS R03 HD066061NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD066613
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite being newcomers, immigrants often exhibit better health relative to native-born populations in industrialized societies. We extend prior efforts to identify whether self-selection and/or protection explain this advantage. We examine migrant height and smoking levels just prior to immigration to test for self-selection; and we analyze smoking behavior since immigration, controlling for self-selection, to assess protection. We study individuals aged 20-49 from five major national origins: India, China, the Philippines, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic. To assess self-selection, we compare migrants, interviewed in the National Health and Interview Surveys (NHIS), with nonmigrant peers in sending nations, interviewed in the World Health Surveys. To test for protection, we contrast migrants' changes in smoking since immigration with two counterfactuals: (1) rates that immigrants would have exhibited had they adopted the behavior of U.S.-born non-Hispanic whites in the NHIS (full "assimilation"); and (2) rates that migrants would have had if they had adopted the rates of nonmigrants in sending countries (no-migration scenario). We find statistically significant and substantial self-selection, particularly among men from both higher-skilled (Indians and Filipinos in height, Chinese in smoking) and lower-skilled (Mexican) undocumented pools. We also find significant and substantial protection in smoking among immigrant groups with stronger relative social capital (Mexicans and Dominicans).

Indexed as

Body HeightHealth StatusAcculturationAdultAge FactorsAsianChinaDominican RepublicEmigrants and ImmigrantsFemaleHealth BehaviorHispanic or LatinoHumansIndiaMaleMexicoHealthImmigrant adaptationMigrationProtectionSelectivity

Identifiers

PMID28092071
PMCPMC5316478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.