Birthweight of babies born to migrant mothers - What role do integration policies play?

Birthweights of babies born to migrant women are generally lower than those of babies born to native-born women. Favourable integration policies may improve migrants’ living conditions and contribute to higher birthweights. We aimed to explore associations between integration policies, captured by the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX), with offspring birthweight among migrants from various world regions. In this cross-country study we pooled 31 million term birth records between 1998 and 2014 from ten high-income countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Norway, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom (Scotland). Birthweight differences in grams (g) were analysed with regression analysis for aggregate data and random effects models. Proportion of births to migrant women varied from 2% in Japan to 28% in Australia. The MIPEX score was not associated with birthweight in most migrant groups, but was positively associated among native-born (mean birthweight difference associated with a 10-unit increase in MIPEX: 105 g; 95% CI: 24, 186). Birthweight among migrants was highest in the Nordic countries and lowest in Japan and Belgium. Migrants from a given origin had heavier newborns in countries where the mean birthweight of native-born was higher and vice versa. Mean birthweight differences between migrants from the same origin and the native-born varied substantially across destinations (70 g–285 g). Birthweight among migrants does not correlate with MIPEX scores. However, birthweight of migrant groups aligned better with that of the native-born in destination counties. Further studies may clarify which broader social policies support migrant women and have impacts on perinatal outcomes.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Susceptibility of Pancreatic Beta Cells to Fatty Acids Is Regulated by LXR/PPARα-Dependent Stearoyl-Coenzyme A Desaturase

Chronically elevated levels of fatty acids-FA can cause beta cell death in vitro. Beta cells vary in their individual susceptibility to FA-toxicity. Rat beta cells were previously shown to better resist FA-toxicity in conditions that increased triglyceride formation or mitochondrial and peroxisomal FA-oxidation, possibly reducing cytoplasmic levels of toxic FA-moieties. We now show that stearoyl-CoA desaturase-SCD is involved in this cytoprotective mechanism through its ability to transfer saturated FA into monounsaturated FA that are incorporated in lipids. In purified beta cells, SCD expression was induced by LXR- and PPARα-agonists, which were found to protect rat, mouse and human beta cells against palmitate toxicity. When their SCD was inhibited or silenced, the agonist-induced protection was also suppressed. A correlation between beta cell-SCD expression and susceptibility to palmitate was also found in beta cell preparations isolated from different rodent models. In mice with LXR-deletion (LXRβ-/- and LXRαβ-/-), beta cells presented a reduced SCD-expression as well as an increased susceptibility to palmitate-toxicity, which could not be counteracted by LXR or PPARα agonists. In Zucker fatty rats and in rats treated with the LXR-agonist TO1317, beta cells show an increased SCD-expression and lower palmitate-toxicity. In the normal rat beta cell population, the subpopulation with lower metabolic responsiveness to glucose exhibits a lower SCD1 expression and a higher susceptibility to palmitate toxicity. These data demonstrate that the beta cell susceptibility to saturated fatty acids can be reduced by stearoyl-coA desaturase, which upon stimulation by LXR and PPARα agonists favors their desaturation and subsequent incorporation in neutral lipids

Economic arguments in migrant health policymaking: proposing a research agenda

Gottlieb ND, TrummerNa U, Davidovitch N, et al. Economic arguments in migrant health policymaking: proposing a research agenda. Globalization and Health. 2020;16:113.Welfare states around the world restrict access to public healthcare for some migrant groups. Formal restrictions on migrants' healthcare access are often justified with economic arguments; for example, as a means to prevent excess costs and safeguard scarce resources. However, existing studies on the economics of migrant health policies suggest that restrictive policies increase rather than decrease costs. This evidence has largely been ignored in migration debates. Amplifying the relationship between welfare state transformations and the production of inequalities, the Covid-19 pandemic may fuel exclusionary rhetoric and politics; or it may serve as an impetus to reconsider the costs that one group's exclusion from health can entail for all members of society.The public health community has a responsibility to promote evidence-informed health policies that are ethically and economically sound, and to counter anti-migrant and racial discrimination (whether overt or masked with economic reasoning). Toward this end, we propose a research agenda which includes 1) the generation of a comprehensive body of evidence on economic aspects of migrant health policies, 2) the clarification of the role of economic arguments in migration debates, 3) (self-)critical reflection on the ethics and politics of the production of economic evidence, 4) the introduction of evidence into migrant health policymaking processes, and 5) the endorsement of inter- and transdisciplinary approaches. With the Covid-19 pandemic and surrounding events rendering the suggested research agenda more topical than ever, we invite individuals and groups to join forces toward a (self-)critical examination of economic arguments in migration and health, and in public health generally

Economic arguments in migrant health policymaking: proposing a research agenda

Gottlieb ND, TrummerNa U, Davidovitch N, et al. Economic arguments in migrant health policymaking: proposing a research agenda. Globalization and Health. 2020;16:113.Welfare states around the world restrict access to public healthcare for some migrant groups. Formal restrictions on migrants' healthcare access are often justified with economic arguments; for example, as a means to prevent excess costs and safeguard scarce resources. However, existing studies on the economics of migrant health policies suggest that restrictive policies increase rather than decrease costs. This evidence has largely been ignored in migration debates. Amplifying the relationship between welfare state transformations and the production of inequalities, the Covid-19 pandemic may fuel exclusionary rhetoric and politics; or it may serve as an impetus to reconsider the costs that one group's exclusion from health can entail for all members of society.The public health community has a responsibility to promote evidence-informed health policies that are ethically and economically sound, and to counter anti-migrant and racial discrimination (whether overt or masked with economic reasoning). Toward this end, we propose a research agenda which includes 1) the generation of a comprehensive body of evidence on economic aspects of migrant health policies, 2) the clarification of the role of economic arguments in migration debates, 3) (self-)critical reflection on the ethics and politics of the production of economic evidence, 4) the introduction of evidence into migrant health policymaking processes, and 5) the endorsement of inter- and transdisciplinary approaches. With the Covid-19 pandemic and surrounding events rendering the suggested research agenda more topical than ever, we invite individuals and groups to join forces toward a (self-)critical examination of economic arguments in migration and health, and in public health generally