Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33656653›Full record

ReviewJournal of immigrant and minority health2021

Recasting the Immigrant Health Paradox Through Intersections of Legal Status and Race.

Adrian Matias Bacong, Cecilia Menjívar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of immigrant and minority health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

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

2 authors.

Adrian Matias BacongDepartment of Community Health Sciences, UCLA, Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA. adrianbacong@ucla.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-4754
Cecilia MenjívarDepartment of Sociology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7061-509X

Funding

Scientific and Technical CoreP2CHD041022 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Martha Jane Bailey · 2016 to 2026
$6.9M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD041022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Emigrants and ImmigrantsTransients and MigrantsEmigration and ImmigrationHealth StatusHumansPopulation GroupsHispanic health paradoxImmigrant health advantageImmigrant health paradoxImmigrationLatinos/Latinas/LatinxLegal statusRace and racialization

Identifiers

PMID33656653
PMCPMC10022586

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.