Search

Abstract Previous research findings across a variety of nations show that affiliation with the conservative party is associated with greater longevity; however, it is thus far unclear what characteristics contribute to this relationship. We examine the political party/mortality relationship in the United States context. The goal of this paper is two-fold: first, we seek to replicate the mortality difference between Republicans and Democrats in two samples, controlling for demographic confounders. Second, we attempt to isolate and test two potential contributors to the relationship between political party affiliation and mortality: (1) socioeconomic status and (2) dispositional traits reflecting a personal responsibility ethos, as described by the Republican party. Graduate and sibling cohorts from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study were used to estimate mortality risk from 2004 to 2014. In separate Cox proportional hazards models controlling for age and sex, we adjusted first for markers of socioeconomic status (such as wealth and education), then for dispositional traits (such as conscientiousness and active coping), and finally for both socioeconomic status and dispositional traits together. Clogg's method was used to test the statistical significance of attenuation in hazard ratios for each model. In both cohorts, Republicans exhibited lower mortality risk compared to Democrats (Hazard Ratios = 0.79 and 0.73 in graduate and sibling cohorts, respectively [p < 0.05]). This relationship was explained, in part, by socioeconomic status and traits reflecting personal responsibility. Together, socioeconomic factors and dispositional traits account for about 52% (graduates) and 44% (siblings) of Republicans' survival advantage. This study suggests that mortality differences between political parties in the US may be linked to structural and individual determinants of health. These findings highlight the need for better understanding of political party divides in mortality rates. Highlights • Republicans have greater longevity compared to Democrats, adjusting for demographics. • This relationship is partly explained by Republican's higher socioeconomic status. • This relationship is partly explained by Republican's personal responsibility ethos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whites in the USA are the dominant racial group, with greater than average access to most material and social rewards. Yet, while whites have better outcomes than other racial groups on some health indicators, whites paradoxically compare poorly on other measures. Further, whites in the USA also rank poorly in international health comparisons. In this paper, we present a framework that combines the concept of whiteness—a system that socially, economically, and ideologically benefits European descendants and disadvantages people in other groups—with research from a variety of fields in order to comprehensively model the social factors that influence whites' health. The framework we present describes how whiteness and capitalism in the USA shape societal conditions, individual social characteristics and experiences, and psychosocial responses to circumstances to influence health outcomes. We detail specific examples of how social policies supported by whiteness, the narratives of whiteness, and the privileges of whiteness may positively and negatively affect whites' health. In doing so, we suggest several areas for future research that can expand our understanding of how social factors affect health and can contribute to the patterns and paradoxes of whites' health. By expanding research to include theoretically-grounded analyses of the dominant group's health, we can achieve a more complete picture of how systems of racial inequity affect health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a great deal of state-level legislative activity focused on immigration and immigrants over the past decade in the United States. Some policies aim to improve access to education, transportation, benefits, and additional services while others constrain such access. From a social determinants of health perspective, social and economic policies are intrinsically health policies, but research on the relationship between state-level immigration-related policies and Latino health remains scarce. This paper summarizes the existing evidence about the range of state-level immigration policies that affect Latino health, indicates conceptually plausible but under-explored relationships between policy domains and Latino health, traces the mechanisms through which immigration policies might shape Latino health, and points to key areas for future research. We examined peer-reviewed publications from 1986 to 2016 and assessed 838 based on inclusion criteria; 40 were included for final review. These 40 articles identified four pathways through which state-level immigration policies may influence Latino health: through stress related to structural racism; by affecting access to beneficial social institutions, particularly education; by affecting access to healthcare and related services; and through constraining access to material conditions such as food, wages, working conditions, and housing. Our review demonstrates that the field of immigration policy and health is currently dominated by a “one-policy, one-level, one-outcome” approach. We argue that pursuing multi-sectoral, multi-level, and multi-outcome research will strengthen and advance the existing evidence base on immigration policy and Latino health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]