Mental Health Outcomes of Immigrant and Non-Immigrant Youth in New Zealand: Exploring the Immigrant Paradox

<p>The Immigrant Paradox can be defined as the counterintuitive finding that immigrants show better adaptation outcomes than their non-immigrant peers despite their often poorer socio-economic conditions (Sam, Vedder, Ward, & Horenczyk, 2006). However, the advantage observed in first-generation immigrants is often diminished, if not lost, by the second generation. The current study explored the Immigrant Paradox by looking at well-being and depressive symptoms in a total of 7053 European, Asian, Pacific, and ‘Other’ secondary school youth in New Zealand. The mental health outcomes of first-generation, second-generation and non-immigrant youth were compared with a set of one-way ANOVAs. In addition, hierarchical regressions were performed to identify the role of acculturation, perceived discrimination and ethnicity in the relation between immigrant generation and the mental health outcomes. The findings indicated support for the Immigrant Paradox in only one instance, specifically in the well-being of first- and second-generation Pacific youth in comparison to their non-immigrant peers. Although results varied across ethnic groups, overall results indicated that non-immigrant youth had better mental health outcomes than immigrant youth and that second-generation adolescents had better outcomes than their first-generation peers. In addition, although acculturation and perceived discrimination were both significant predictors of mental health, these factors did not eliminate generational differences in either depressive symptoms or well-being. In the end, the Immigrant Paradox seems to exist only in some countries, among some groups, and in terms of some outcome variables. Furthermore, ethnicity was shown to be a critical factor in understanding immigrants’ mental health.</p>

Mental Health Outcomes of Immigrant and Non-Immigrant Youth in New Zealand: Exploring the Immigrant Paradox

<p>The Immigrant Paradox can be defined as the counterintuitive finding that immigrants show better adaptation outcomes than their non-immigrant peers despite their often poorer socio-economic conditions (Sam, Vedder, Ward, & Horenczyk, 2006). However, the advantage observed in first-generation immigrants is often diminished, if not lost, by the second generation. The current study explored the Immigrant Paradox by looking at well-being and depressive symptoms in a total of 7053 European, Asian, Pacific, and ‘Other’ secondary school youth in New Zealand. The mental health outcomes of first-generation, second-generation and non-immigrant youth were compared with a set of one-way ANOVAs. In addition, hierarchical regressions were performed to identify the role of acculturation, perceived discrimination and ethnicity in the relation between immigrant generation and the mental health outcomes. The findings indicated support for the Immigrant Paradox in only one instance, specifically in the well-being of first- and second-generation Pacific youth in comparison to their non-immigrant peers. Although results varied across ethnic groups, overall results indicated that non-immigrant youth had better mental health outcomes than immigrant youth and that second-generation adolescents had better outcomes than their first-generation peers. In addition, although acculturation and perceived discrimination were both significant predictors of mental health, these factors did not eliminate generational differences in either depressive symptoms or well-being. In the end, the Immigrant Paradox seems to exist only in some countries, among some groups, and in terms of some outcome variables. Furthermore, ethnicity was shown to be a critical factor in understanding immigrants’ mental health.</p>

Revisiting the Immigrant Epidemiological Paradox: Findings from the American Panel of Life 2019

Objective: Immigrants enjoy a health advantage over their US-born counterparts (termed the immigrant paradox), though the extent of this paradox may not extend to all health outcomes. Methods: We analyzed data from the RAND American Life Panel. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined the associations between immigrant status and a wide range of health outcomes (e.g., cardiovascular diseases, mental health), adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. Results: Being an immigrant was associated with lower odds of having any health condition, multimorbidity, and number of health conditions. When looking at specific conditions, however, immigrant status was only significantly associated with lower odds of depression, nerve problem causing numbness or pain, and obesity, but not other conditions. Conclusion: The immigrant paradox is evident when examining overall health, and specifically depression, nerve problems, and obesity.

To Unfold the Immigrant Paradox: Maltreatment Risk and Mental Health of Racial-Ethnic Minority Children

Children of immigrants are often considered to be at increased risk of mental health problems due to families' immigration-related stress and perceived discrimination and prejudice from the host country. However, many studies found them to have better developmental outcomes than children with native-born parents in the U.S. This study aims to unfold this paradoxical phenomenon using data from a population-based cohort of children born in large U.S. cities. Specifically, we investigated differences in mental health outcomes between children of immigrants and those with native-born parents, stratified by children's race-ethnicity. We also explored the mediating role of child maltreatment risk in the association of parental nativity status and race-ethnicity with children's mental health. Our findings supported the immigrant paradox, with better self-reported and parent-reported internalizing and externalizing outcomes in Hispanic and Black children of immigrants than their same race-ethnicity peers and White children of native-born. Such immigrant-native variations were partially explained by parents' physically and psychologically abusive behaviors. Hispanic and Black children with immigrant parents were less likely to be physically or psychologically abused than their peers of native-born at ages 4–5, which translated into mental health advantages of children of immigrants at age 9. Our findings shed light on future research to further clarify the mechanism underlying different parenting practices between same race-ethnicity immigrants and native-born families so that culturally responsive interventions can be developed to safeguard racial-ethnic minority children's mental health.

Beyond the healthy immigrant paradox: decomposing differences in birthweight among immigrants in Spain

Background The healthy immigrant paradox refers to the unexpected health advantages of immigrant groups settled in host countries. In this population-based study we analyze immigrant advantages in birthweight decomposing differences between infants born to immigrant mothers from specific origins. Method Using publicly available data from Spanish Vital Statistics for the period 2007–2017, differential birthweights among several groups of immigrants were estimated with an ordinary least squares regression. The Oaxaca–Blinder regression-based decomposition method was then applied to identify the extent to which differences in birthweight between groups corresponded to compositional disparities or to other factors. Results Our analysis of singleton live births to migrant mothers in Spain between 2007 and 2017 (N = 542,137) confirmed the healthy immigrant paradox for certain immigrant populations settled in Spain. Compared with infants born to mothers from high-income countries, the adjusted birthweight was higher for infants born to mothers from non-high- income European countries (33.2 g, 95% CI: 28.3–38.1, P < 0.01), mothers from African countries (52.2 g, 95% CI: 46.9–57.5, P < 0.01), and mothers from Latin American countries (57.4 g, 95% CI: 52.9–61.3, P < 0.01), but lower for infants born to mothers from Asian non-high-income countries (− 31.4 g, 95% CI: − 38.4 to − 24.3, P < 0.01). Decomposition analysis showed that when compared with infants born to mothers from high-income countries, compositional heterogeneity accounts for a substantial proportion of the difference in birthweights. For example, it accounts for 53.5% (95% CI: 24.0–29.7, P < 0.01) of the difference in birthweights for infants born to mothers from non-high-income European countries, 70.9% (95% CI: 60–66.7, P < 0.01) for those born to mothers from African countries, and 38.5% (95% CI: 26.1–29.3, P < 0.01) for those born to mothers from Latin American countries. Conclusions Our results provide strong population-based evidence for the healthy immigrant paradox in birthweight among certain migrant groups in Spain. However, birth outcomes vary significantly depending on the origins of migrant subpopulations, meaning that not all immigrant groups are unexpectedly healthier. A significant portion of the perinatal health advantage of certain immigrant groups is only a by-product of their group composition (by age, parity, marital status, socioeconomic status, and citizenship of mother, age and migratory status of father and type of delivery) and does not necessarily correspond to other medical, environmental, or behavioral factors.