Does Selective Migration Explain the Hispanic Paradox?: A Comparative Analysis of Mexicans in the U.S. and Mexico

Latino immigrants, particularly Mexican, have some health advantages over U.S.-born Mexicans and Whites. Because of their lower socioeconomic status, this phenomenon has been called the epidemiologic “Hispanic Paradox.” While cultural theories have dominated explanations for the Paradox, the role of selective migration has been inadequately addressed. This study is among the few to combine Mexican and U.S. data to examine health selectivity in activity limitation, self-rated health, and chronic conditions among Mexican immigrants, ages 18 and over. Drawing on theories of selective migration, this study tested the “healthy migrant” and “salmon-bias” hypotheses by comparing the health of Mexican immigrants in the U.S. to non-migrants in Mexico, and to return migrants in Mexico. Results suggest that there are both healthy migrant and salmon-bias effects in activity limitation, but not other health aspects. In fact, consistent with prior research, immigrants are negatively selected on self-rated health. Future research should consider the complexities of migrants’ health profiles and examine selection mechanisms alongside other factors such as acculturation

Incidence and mortality rates of selected infection-related cancers in Puerto Rico and in the United States

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In 2002, 17.8% of the global cancer burden was attributable to infections. This study assessed the age-standardized incidence and mortality rates of stomach, liver, and cervical cancer in Puerto Rico (PR) for the period 1992-2003 and compared them to those of Hispanics (USH), non-Hispanic Whites (NHW), and non-Hispanic Blacks (NHB) in the United States (US).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Age-standardized rates [ASR(World)] were calculated based on cancer incidence and mortality data from the PR Cancer Central Registry and SEER, using the direct method and the world population as the standard. Annual percent changes (APC) were calculated using the Poisson regression model from 1992-2003.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The incidence and mortality rates from stomach, liver and cervical cancer were lower in NHW than PR; with the exception of mortality from cervical cancer which was similar in both populations. Meanwhile, the incidence rates of stomach, liver and cervical cancers were similar between NHB and PR; except for NHB women who had a lower incidence rate of liver cancer than women in PR. NHB had a lower mortality from liver cancer than persons in PR, and similar mortality from stomach cancer.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The burden of liver, stomach, and cervical cancer in PR compares to that of USH and NHB and continues to be a public health priority. Public health efforts are necessary to further decrease the burden of cancers associated to infections in these groups, the largest minority population groups in the US. Future studies need to identify factors that may prevent infections with cancer-related agents in these populations. Strategies to increase the use of preventive strategies, such as vaccination and screening, among minority populations should also be developed.</p

Social and health epidemiology of immigrants in Germany: past, present and future

Razum O, Wenner J. Social and health epidemiology of immigrants in Germany: past, present and future. Public Health Reviews. 2016;37(1): 4.Germany has experienced different forms of immigration for many decades. At the end of and after the Second World War, refugees, displaced persons and German resettlers constituted the largest immigrant group. In the 1950s, labor migration started, followed by family reunification. There has been a constant migration of refugees and asylum seekers reaching peaks in the early 1990s as well as today. Epidemiological research has increasingly considered the health, and the access to health care, of immigrants and people with migration background. In this narrative review we discuss the current knowledge on health of immigrants in Germany. The paper is based on a selective literature research with a focus on studies using representative data from the health reporting system. Our review shows that immigrants in Germany do not suffer from different diseases than non-immigrants, but they differ in their risk for certain diseases, in the resources to cope with theses risk and regarding access to treatment. We also identified the need for differentiation within the immigrant population, considering among others social and legal status, country of origin and duration of stay. Though most of the studies acknowledge the need for differentiation, the lack of data currently rules out analyses accounting for the existing diversity and thus a full understanding of health inequalities related to migration to Germany