Search

INTRODUCTION: Despite having worse healthcare access and other social disadvantages, immigrants have, on average, better health outcomes than U.S.-born individuals. For Latino immigrants, this is known as the Latino health paradox. It is unknown whether this phenomenon applies to undocumented immigrants. METHODS: This study used restricted California Health Interview Survey data from 2015 to 2020. Data were analyzed to test the relationships between citizenship/documentation status and physical and mental health among Latinos and U.S.-born Whites. Analyses were stratified by sex (male/female) and length of U.S. residence (= 15 years). RESULTS: Undocumented Latino immigrants had lower predicted probabilities of reporting any health condition, asthma, and serious psychological distress and had a higher probability of overweight/obesity than U.S.-born Whites. Despite having a higher probability of overweight/obesity, undocumented Latino immigrants did not have probabilities of reporting diabetes, high blood pressure, or heart disease different from those of U.S.-born Whites after adjusting for having a usual source of care. Undocumented Latina women had a lower predicted probability of reporting any health condition and a higher predicted probability of overweight/obesity than U.S.-born White women. Undocumented Latino men had a lower predicted probability of reporting serious psychological distress than U.S.-born White men. There were no differences in outcomes when comparing shorter- with longer-duration undocumented Latino immigrants. CONCLUSIONS: This study observed that the Latino health paradox may express patterns for undocumented Latino immigrants that are different from those for other Latino immigrant groups, emphasizing the importance of accounting for documentation status when conducting research on this population.

Objective: To examine food and beverage purchasing patterns across formal and informal outlets among Mexican households' and explore differences by urbanicity and income.Design: Cross-sectional study of a nationally representative sample of households. We calculated the proportion of total food and beverage expenditure in each household by food outlet type overall and by urbanicity and income. We defined informal outlets as those which are not registered or regulated by tax and fiscal laws. Since some of the outlets within community food environments do not fall in clear categories, we defined a continuum from formal to informal outlets, adding mixed outlets as a category.Setting: Mexico.Participants: Mexican households (n 74 203) from the 2018 National Income and Expenditure Survey.Results: Of the total food and beverage purchases, outlets within the formal food sector (i.e. supermarkets and convenience stores) accounted for 15 % of the purchases, 13 % of purchases occurred in outlets within the informal food sector (i.e. street markets, street vendors and acquaintances) and 70 % in fiscally mixed outlets (i.e. small neighbourhood stores, specialty stores and public markets). Across levels of urbanicity and income, most food and beverage purchases occurred in mixed outlets. Also, purchases in informal and mixed outlets decreased as levels of urbanicity and income increased. In contrast to informal outlets, purchases in formal outlets were most likely from richer households and living in larger sized cities.Conclusions: Understanding where Mexican households shop for food is relevant to create tailored interventions according to food outlet type, accounting for regulatory and governance structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To develop a simulation framework for assessing how combinations of taxes, nutrition warning labels and advertising levels could affect purchasing of ultra-processed foods (UPF) in Latin American countries and to understand whether policies reinforce or reduce pre-existing social disparities in UPF consumption.Design: We developed an agent-based simulation model using international evidence regarding the effect of price, nutrition warning labels and advertising on UPF purchasing.Setting: We estimated policy effects in scenarios representing two stages of the 'social transition' in UPF purchasing: (1) a pre-transition scenario, where UPF purchasing is higher among high-income households, similar to patterns in Mexico; and (2) a post-transition scenario where UPF purchasing is highest among low-income households, similar to patterns in Chile.Participants: A population of 1000 individual agents with levels of age, income, educational attainment and UPF purchasing similar to adult women in Mexico.Results: A 20 % tax would decrease purchasing by 24 % relative to baseline in both the pre- and post-transition scenarios, an effect that is similar in magnitude to that of a nutrition warning label policy. A 50 % advertising increase or decrease had a comparatively small effect. Nutrition warning labels were most effective among those with higher levels of educational attainment. Labelling reduced inequities in the pre-transition scenario (i.e. highest UPF purchasing among the highest socio-economic group) but widened inequities in the post-transition scenario.Conclusions: Effective policy levers are available to reduce UPF purchasing, but policymakers should anticipate that equity impacts will differ depending on existing social patterns in UPF purchasing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legislative policies that criminalize immigrants have a "chilling effect" on public program participation among eligible immigrants. However, little is known about the effect of local enforcement actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In this study, we linked county-level data on the number of detainer requests (or immigration holds) issued by ICE to individual-level data from the 2011, 2016, and 2019 American Community Surveys. We fit adjusted logistic regression models to assess the association between detainer requests and enrollment in Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) among those likely eligible for each program in US-born versus immigrant households. A higher volume of detainer requests was associated with lower enrollment in both Medicaid and SNAP, particularly among adults in households with at least one immigrant relative to US-born households. We observed the most pronounced effects in 2011 and 2019.