Search

Abstract: In recent decades there has been an increasing interest in understanding the role of social and physical contexts in influencing health behaviors and outcomes. This is especially true for weight, which is considered to be highly dependent on environmental factors. The evidence linking neighborhood characteristics to weight in the United States, however, is mixed. Many studies in this area are hampered by cross sectional designs and a limited scope, insofar as they investigate only one dimension of neighborhood context. It is also unclear to what extent neighborhood characteristics account for racial/ethnic disparities in weight. Using longitudinal data from the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (L.A. FANS), we compare patterns of weight change between Hispanics and other racial and ethnic groups in order to evaluate whether we observe a pattern of unhealthy assimilation in weight among Hispanic immigrants and to identify differences in the rate at which different groups gain weight over time. We also explore the extent to which patterns of weight change are related to a wider range of community characteristics. We find that weight increases across all groups between the two study waves of L.A. FANS and that the increases are significant except for Asians/Pacific Islanders. With respect to differences in the pace of weight change, second and higher generation Hispanic women and black men gain weight more rapidly than their first generation Hispanic counterparts. Although the evidence presented indicates that first generation Hispanics gain weight, we do not find evidence for convergence in weight since the U.S.-born gain weight at a more rapid rate. The inclusion of community-level variables does not alter the relationships between the race, ethnicity, and immigrant generation categories and weight change. Of the six types of community characteristics considered, only collective efficacy is consistently and significantly associated with weight change, although the protective effect of neighborhood collective efficacy is seen only among women. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Previous studies assessing the validity of adolescent self-reported height and weight for estimating obesity prevalence have not accounted for, potential bias due to nonresponse in self-reports. Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the implications of selective nonresponse in self-reports of height and weight for estimates of adolescent obesity. Methods: The authors analyzed 613 adolescents ages 12-17 years from the 2006-2008 Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, a longitudinal study of Los Angeles County households with an oversample of poor neighborhoods. Obesity prevalence estimates were compared based ' on (a) self-report, (b) measured height and weight for those who did report, and (c) measured height and weight for those who did report. Results: Among younger teens, measured obesity prevalence was higher for those who did not report height and weight compared with those who did (40% vs. 30%). Consequently, obesity prevalence based on self-reported height and weight underestimated measured prevalence by 12 percentage points (when accounting for nonresponse) versus 9 percentage points (when nonresponse was not accounted for). Results were robust to the choice of difference child growth references. Discussion: Adolescent obesity surveillance and prevention efforts must take into account selective nonresponse for self-reported height and weight, particularly for younger teens. Results should be replicated in a nationally representative sample. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Despite the health and survival advantages of Hispanics relative to non-Hispanic whites in the USA, Hispanics report themselves to be in worse health than whites. Prior research indicates that these ethnic differences in self-rated health (SRH), measured by a simple question asking individuals to assess their overall health status, persist in the presence of an extensive set of explanatory variables. In this paper we use data from the first wave of the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (L.A.FANS-1) to test three hypotheses regarding Hispanic–white differences in SRH. We evaluate whether poorer health reports among Hispanics result from: (1) acculturation and language-related differences in reports; (2) measures of socioeconomic status (SES) that are often omitted in other studies; and (3) somatization of emotional distress by Hispanics. Our results provide new insights into the validity of these explanations and suggest avenues for future research. First, they underscore the importance of language of interview over other measures of acculturation, suggesting that translation issues between the Spanish and English versions of the SRH question may give rise to some of the differences. Second, adjustment for SES—especially years of schooling—narrows, but does not eliminate, the gap between whites’ and Hispanics’ SRH. Finally, although respondents who are depressed are more likely to report poor SRH, this study provides little evidence to support the somatization hypothesis. The second wave of L.A.FANS incorporates new questions that are likely to permit more in-depth assessments of these hypotheses in future analyses. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: We assessed whether the few findings to date suggesting weak relationships between education and health-related variables among Hispanics are indicative of a more widespread pattern. Methods: We used logistic regression models to examine education differentials (i.e., education gradients) in health behaviors and outcomes among White and Mexican-origin adults, adolescents, and infants. We gathered information from 3 data sets: the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, and the National Health Interview Survey. Results: In contrast with patterns for Whites, education was weakly associated or not associated with numerous health-related variables among the US Mexican-origin population. Among adults, Mexican immigrants were especially likely to have weaker education gradients than Whites. Conclusions: The weak relationships between education and health observed among individuals of Mexican origin may have been the result of several complex mechanisms: social gradients in health in Mexico that differ from those in the United States, selective immigration according to health and socioeconomic status, and particular patterns of integration of Mexican immigrants into US society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large numbers of foreign-born residents in the United States mean that many people receive at least part of their education abroad. Despite this fact, our understanding of nativity differences in the success of adults and their children is based on research that does not empirically consider variation in the benefits to schooling depending on where it is received. We use data from the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (L.A. FANS) to examine: (a) whether the socioeconomic and cognitive returns to education depend on whether it is received in the U.S. or abroad; and (b) whether schooling location partially accounts for nativity differences in these returns. We find that the returns to schooling are generally largest for adults who receive at least some of their highest level of education in the U.S. The beneficial effects of U.S. schooling are more pronounced at higher levels of educational attainment. Schooling location accounts for a sizeable fraction of the lower socioeconomic and cognitive returns of the foreign-born, relative to natives; some meaningful differences remain, however. In addition, the higher cognitive skills of the children of foreign-born adults remain unexplained. Although we cannot distinguish among the possible pathways underlying these associations (e.g., school quality, transferability of credentials, the timing of immigration) our findings suggest the importance of considering factors related to schooling location as predictors of socioeconomic and cognitive success in the United States. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Obesity among the Mexican-origin adult population in the US has been associated with longer stays in the US and with being US- vs. Mexican-born, two proxies for acculturation. This pattern is less clear for Mexican-origin children and young adults: recent evidence suggests that it may be reversed, with foreign-born Mexican youth in the US at higher risk of obesity than their US-born Mexican–American counterparts. The objective of this study is to evaluate the hypothesis that the immigrant advantage in obesity prevalence for Mexican-origin populations in the US does not hold for children and young adults. We use data from the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (N = 1143) and the California Health Interview Survey (N = 25,487) for respondents ages 4–24 to calculate the odds of overweight/obesity by ethnicity and nativity. We find support for the hypothesis that overweight/obesity prevalence is not significantly lower for first-generation compared to second- and third-generation Mexican-origin youth. Significantly higher obesity prevalence among the first generation was observed for young adult males (ages 18–24) and adolescent females (ages 12–17). The previously-observed protective effect against obesity risk among recent adult immigrants does not hold for Mexican-origin youth. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]