Alegría Margarita, Canino Glorisa, Shrout Patrick E, Woo Meghan, Duan Naihua, Vila Doryliz, Torres Maria, Chen Chih-Nan, Meng Xiao-Li
Center for Multicultural Mental Health Research, Somerville, MA 02143, USA.
Am J Psychiatry. 2008 Mar;165(3):359-69. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.07040704. Epub 2008 Feb 1.
Although widely reported among Latino populations, contradictory evidence exists regarding the generalizability of the immigrant paradox, i.e., that foreign nativity protects against psychiatric disorders. The authors examined whether this paradox applies to all Latino groups by comparing estimates of lifetime psychiatric disorders among immigrant Latino subjects, U.S-born Latino subjects, and non-Latino white subjects.
The authors combined and examined data from the National Latino and Asian American Study and the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, two of the largest nationally representative samples of psychiatric information.
In the aggregate, risk of most psychiatric disorders was lower for Latino subjects than for non-Latino white subjects. Consistent with the immigrant paradox, U.S.-born Latino subjects reported higher rates for most psychiatric disorders than Latino immigrants. However, rates varied when data were stratified by nativity and disorder and adjusted for demographic and socioeconomic differences across groups. The immigrant paradox consistently held for Mexican subjects across mood, anxiety, and substance disorders, while it was only evident among Cuban and other Latino subjects for substance disorders. No differences were found in lifetime prevalence rates between migrant and U.S.-born Puerto Rican subjects.
Caution should be exercised in generalizing the immigrant paradox to all Latino groups and for all psychiatric disorders. Aggregating Latino subjects into a single group masks significant variability in lifetime risk of psychiatric disorders, with some subgroups, such as Puerto Rican subjects, suffering from psychiatric disorders at rates comparable to non-Latino white subjects. Our findings thus suggest that immigrants benefit from a protective context in their country of origin, possibly inoculating them against risk for substance disorders, particularly if they emigrated to the United States as adults.
尽管移民悖论(即外国出生可预防精神疾病)在拉丁裔人群中已有广泛报道,但关于其普遍性仍存在相互矛盾的证据。作者通过比较移民拉丁裔受试者、美国出生的拉丁裔受试者和非拉丁裔白人受试者中终身精神疾病的估计患病率,研究了这一悖论是否适用于所有拉丁裔群体。
作者合并并分析了来自《全国拉丁裔和亚裔美国人研究》以及《全国共病调查复制版》的数据,这是两个最大的具有全国代表性的精神疾病信息样本。
总体而言,拉丁裔受试者患大多数精神疾病的风险低于非拉丁裔白人受试者。与移民悖论一致,美国出生的拉丁裔受试者报告的大多数精神疾病患病率高于拉丁裔移民。然而,当数据按出生地和疾病分层,并针对各群体的人口统计学和社会经济差异进行调整后,患病率有所不同。移民悖论在墨西哥受试者的情绪、焦虑和物质使用障碍方面始终成立,而仅在古巴和其他拉丁裔受试者的物质使用障碍方面明显。在移民和美国出生的波多黎各受试者的终身患病率方面未发现差异。
在将移民悖论推广到所有拉丁裔群体和所有精神疾病时应谨慎。将拉丁裔受试者归为一个单一群体掩盖了精神疾病终身风险的显著差异,一些亚群体,如波多黎各受试者,患精神疾病的比率与非拉丁裔白人受试者相当。因此,我们的研究结果表明,移民受益于其原籍国的保护环境,这可能使他们对物质使用障碍风险具有免疫力,特别是如果他们成年后移民到美国。