Search

Background: Psychosis rates are higher among some migrant groups. We hypothesized that psychosis in migrants is associated with cumulative social disadvantage during different phases of migration. Methods: We used data from the EUropean Network of National Schizophrenia Networks studying Gene-Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) case–control study. We defined a set of three indicators of social disadvantage for each phase: pre-migration, migration and post-migration. We examined whether social disadvantage in the pre- and post-migration phases, migration adversities, and mismatch between achievements and expectations differed between first-generation migrants with first-episode psychosis and healthy first-generation migrants, and tested whether this accounted for differences in odds of psychosis in multivariable logistic regression models. Results: In total, 249 cases and 219 controls were assessed. Pre-migration (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.06–2.44, p = 0.027) and post-migration social disadvantages (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.02–3.51, p = 0.044), along with expectations/achievements mismatch (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03–1.26, p = 0.014) were all significantly associated with psychosis. Migration adversities (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.672–2.06, p = 0.568) were not significantly related to the outcome. Finally, we found a dose–response effect between the number of adversities across all phases and odds of psychosis (⩾6: OR 14.09, 95% CI 2.06–96.47, p = 0.007). Conclusions: The cumulative effect of social disadvantages before, during and after migration was associated with increased odds of psychosis in migrants, independently of ethnicity or length of stay in the country of arrival. Public health initiatives that address the social disadvantages that many migrants face during the whole migration process and post-migration psychological support may reduce the excess of psychosis in migrants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rise of right‐wing populist parties has been widely discussed across the social sciences during the last decade. Taking a social representational approach, we analyse organising principles and anchoring of right‐wing populist thinking across four European countries (France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). Using European Social Survey data (Round 7), we compare political attitudes and self‐appraisals of citizens identifying with right‐wing populist, conservative right‐wing, and traditional left‐wing parties. The findings converge across the four countries to show that right‐wing populist identifiers diverge from both left‐ and right‐wing identifiers on vertical (between the "people" and the "elite") and horizontal (between nationals and immigrants) dimensions of differentiation. Depending on the context, right‐wing populist identification was fuelled by material and physical insecurity, low political efficacy, and distrust of fellow citizens. We conclude that right‐wing populism requires multiple strategies of differentiation within and between groups to justify and sustain itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review arises from a series of multidisciplinary Franco-British workshops which were supported by a grant from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR). More than 30 participants from a range of institutions and agencies were involved in compiling the material in this review (Appendix I). The workshops offered an opportunity to exchange ideas from research on the relationships between migration, health and well-being in Britain and France. In the following discussion we compare and contrast experiences in the two countries, with the aim of assessing the importance of international, national and local contexts, in their various cultural, social and political dimensions, for the relationships of interest. Drawing on these ideas, we suggest the definition of a future international research agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]