Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • U S Hispanics differ greatly in terms of nativity and

    2018-10-26

    U.S. Hispanics differ greatly in terms of nativity and country of origin, socioeconomic background and attainment, English language orientation, geographic mobility, and health (Fenelon, 2016; Hall, 2013; Markides & Eschbach, 2005) While the largest waves of Mexican Dabrafenib began in the 1960s and 1970s, large populations of immigrants from Central America arrived in the 1980s and South American migration began largely in the 1990s and 2000s. Mexicans tend to experience the highest levels of socioeconomic disadvantage (Franzini & Fernandez-Esquer, 2004), and employment for Mexican immigrants is concentrated both geographically and in terms of industry (Kandel & Parrado, 2005; Palloni & Arias, 2004). Puerto Ricans tend to be the most residentially segregated from non-Hispanic whites (Tienda & Fuentes, 2014), and US-born Cuban Americans achieve the highest levels of socioeconomic attainment among Hispanics (Williams, Mohammed, Leavell, & Collins, 2010). These patterns support the notion that comparing Hispanics as a whole to other race/ethnic groups in terms of mortality experience ignores substantial within-group variation.
    Background
    Data The primary benefit of the NHIS is the large and geographically-diverse sample. Many of the Hispanic subgroups considered here make up less than 1% of the US population, which makes representative samples for these groups difficult to obtain in most survey samples. With surveys pooled 1990 to 2009, the total sample becomes large enough to examine smaller Hispanic subgroups than has been possible in prior research. Individuals under age 25 are excluded because they Dabrafenib are less likely to have completed their education, which is a key measure of socioeconomic status in our analysis. The total pooled sample includes 890,115 individuals and 143,435 deaths by the end of 2011. Table 1 provides a detailed description of the sample by Hispanic subgroup, while Table 2 provides the number of deaths by Hispanic subgroup, sex, and age group.
    Methods We use a hazard modeling approach to examine differences in mortality risk between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanic subgroups. Since the exact date of interview and death are available through the restricted-use file, the model uses a continuous-time proportional hazards procedure modeled using a Gompertz-distributed hazard function. The first set of models (unadjusted) examines mortality differences among Hispanic subgroups and non-Hispanic whites focusing on two age groups: 25–64 and 65+. The second set of models includes controls for socioeconomic and demographic characteristics (adjusted). We run all models separately by sex, in order to consider differences between Hispanic men and women in migration experiences, socioeconomic experiences in the United States (Lariscy et al., 2015). The coefficient for each Hispanic subgroup denotes the hazard ratio of the mortality risk in comparison to that for US-born non-Hispanic whites. We use sample weights adjusted for eligibility status in the mortality linkage (National Center for Health Statistics, 2013).
    Results Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of the sample by Hispanic subgroup and nativity. Mexicans are the largest Hispanic subgroup, comprising 59% of all Hispanics in the sample. Central/South Americans are the next largest (9.4%), followed by Puerto Ricans (9.3%), Cubans (6.1%) and Dominicans (1.7%). Other Hispanics make up 14% of Hispanics in the sample. Sixty-three percent of Hispanics are foreign-born. Subgroups also differ substantially in their socioeconomic attainment, and not all Hispanic subgroups exhibit lower SES than non-Hispanic whites. Although all foreign-born groups have lower levels of education and income than whites, USB Cubans, Dominicans, and Central/South Americans show higher socioeconomic attainment. While 50.8% of whites have at least 13 years of education, 63.7% of USB Cubans, 59.7% of USB Dominicans, and 67.3% of USB Central/South Americans do. FB Mexicans have particularly low levels of SES, with 33.6% having family income below the federal poverty line. FB Dominicans have the next highest poverty rate, 32.4%, followed by FB Puerto Ricans, 29.9%. Within each Hispanic subgroup, the foreign-born have lower levels of education and greater rates of poverty than the US-born. The number of deaths observed for each subgroup is shown in Table 2. Some Hispanic subgroups have too few deaths to report (fewer than 10), and thus our models have difficulty calculating accurate death rates for these groups. Specifically, mortality estimates for US-born Central/South Americans and Dominicans should be interpreted with caution.