Search

Objectives: We examined potential pathways by which time in the United States may relate to differences in the predicted probability of past-year psychiatric disorder among Latino immigrants as compared with US-born Latinos., Methods: We estimated predicted probabilities of psychiatric disorder for US-born and immigrant groups with varying time in the United States, adjusting for different combinations of covariates. We examined 6 pathways by which time in the United States could be associated with psychiatric disorders., Results: Increased time in the United States is associated with higher risk of psychiatric disorders among Latino immigrants. After adjustment for covariates, differences in psychiatric disorder rates between US-born and immigrant Latinos disappear. Discrimination and family cultural conflict appear to play a significant role in the association between time in the United States and the likelihood of developing psychiatric disorders., Conclusions: Increased perceived discrimination and family cultural conflict are pathways by which acculturation might relate to deterioration of mental health for immigrants. Future studies assessing how these implicit pathways evolve as contact with US culture increases may help to identify strategies for ensuring maintenance of mental health for Latino immigrants.

We examine differential validity of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) diagnoses assessed by the fully-structured Composite International Diagnostic Interview Version 3.0 (CIDI) among Latino, non-Latino Black, and non-Latino White adolescents in comparison to gold standard diagnoses derived from the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-age Children (K-SADS). Results are based on the National Comorbidity Survey Replication Adolescent Supplement, a national US survey of adolescent mental health. Clinicians re-interviewed 347 adolescent/parent dyads with the K-SADS. Sensitivity and/or specificity of CIDI diagnoses varied significantly by ethnicity/race for four of ten disorders. Modifications to algorithms sometimes reduced bias in prevalence estimates, but at the cost of reducing individual-level concordance. These findings document the importance of assessing fully-structured diagnostic instruments for differential accuracy in ethnic/racial subgroups. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents analyses of a representative sample of U.S. Latinos (N = 2,540) to investigate whether family cohesion moderates the effects of cultural conflict on psychological distress. The results for the aggregated Latino group suggest a significant association between family cohesion and lower psychological distress, and the combination of strong family cohesion with presence of family cultural conflict is associated with higher psychological distress. However, this association differs by Latino groups. In this study, no association for Puerto Ricans is seen; Cuban results are similar to the aggregate group, family cultural conflict in Mexicans is associated with higher psychological distress whereas family cohesion in other Latinos is associated with higher psychological distress. Implications of these findings are discussed to unravel the differences in family dynamics across Latino subethnic groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Motivated by the need to meaningfully implement the Institute of Medicine's (IOM's) definition of health care disparity, this paper proposes statistical frameworks that lay out explicitly the needed causal assumptions for defining disparity measures. Our key emphasis is that a scientifically defensible disparity measure must take into account the direction of the causal relationship between allowable covariates that are not considered to be contributors to disparity and non-allowable covariates that are considered to be contributors to disparity, to avoid flawed disparity measures based on implausible populations that are not relevant for clinical or policy decisions. However, these causal relationships are usually unknown and undetectable from observed data. Consequently, we must make strong causal assumptions in order to proceed. Two frameworks are proposed in this paper, one is the conditional disparity framework under the assumption that allowable covariates impact non-allowable covariates but not vice versa. The other is the marginal disparity framework under the assumption that non-allowable covariates impact allowable ones but not vice versa. We establish theoretical conditions under which the two disparity measures are the same and present a theoretical example showing that the difference between the two disparity measures can be arbitrarily large. Using data from the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Survey, we also provide an example where the conditional disparity is misled by Simpson's paradox, whereas the marginal disparity approach handles it correctly., Statistics