Social Determinants of Health and Allergic Disease Prevalence Among Asian American Children.

BACKGROUND: Although racial and ethnic disparities in allergic diseases have previously been observed, the relationship between social determinants of health (SDoH) and allergic disease prevalence among disaggregated Asian American (AsA) subgroups is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of SDoH with allergic disease prevalence among disaggregated AsA subgroups. METHODS: Using the 2011-2018 National Health Interview Survey, we examined caregiver-reported race and ethnicity, SDoH, and allergic diseases. We compared survey-weighted allergic disease prevalence by AsA subgroup. Subgroup-stratified multivariable logistic regression accounting for age, sex, child/parent nativity, and survey year modeled the association between SDoH and allergic disease prevalence. We provide predicted probabilities of having each allergic disease based on exposure to each SDoH. RESULTS: We examined data from 5042 non-Hispanic AsA children representing 3,264,768 AsA children. Approximately 25% of all AsA children reported at least one allergic disease, ranging from 20% of Asian Indian children to 30% of Filipino/a children. The number of unfavorable SDoH was lowest among Asian Indian and Chinese children (mean 0.7) and highest among "other Asian" children (mean 1.2). In stratified analyses, financial instability and inaccessible healthcare were associated with greater probability of allergic diseases among some, but not all AsA subgroups. Lower parent education level, food insecurity, and rent/other housing arrangement were associated with lower probability of allergic disease among some AsA children. CONCLUSION: There was heterogeneity in the association of SDoH and allergic disease prevalence among AsA children. Further study of SDoH may inform modifiable environmental factors for allergic disease among AsA children.

Loneliness and Psychological Distress Among Older Californians: The Moderating Roles of Citizenship Status and English Proficiency.

OBJECTIVES: Guided by the theory of stress proliferation, our study examined whether loneliness, citizenship status, and English proficiency were associated with psychological distress among older adults, and if citizenship status and English proficiency moderated these relationships. METHODS: Using the older adult subsample (65+ years) of the 2019-2020 California Health Interview Survey (N = 15,210), we assessed cross-sectional associations between loneliness, citizenship status, and English proficiency on psychological distress by conducting multivariable linear regression models. Interaction terms were included in subsequent models to determine if citizenship status and English proficiency moderated the relationship between loneliness and psychological distress. RESULTS: In unadjusted models, greater loneliness was associated with higher distress. Both naturalized citizens and noncitizens, and those with limited English proficiency (LEP) exhibited greater distress than US born citizens and those who speak English only (EO). After adjusting for sociodemographic and health covariables, loneliness remained significant for distress although the relationships between citizenship status and English proficiency became attenuated. With the inclusion of interactions, the magnitude of the relationship between loneliness and distress was stronger for naturalized citizens and those with LEP than native-born citizens and those who speak EO, respectively. DISCUSSION: Loneliness was the most consistent stressor affecting multiple life domains. However, our findings demonstrate that stress proliferation is occurring among older immigrant adults and the interplay between loneliness, citizenship status, and English proficiency is contributing to heightened distress. Further attention is needed in understanding the role of multiple stressors influencing mental health among immigrant older adults.

Asthma heterogeneity among Asian American children: The California Health Interview Survey.

BACKGROUND: The Asian American (AsA) population is heterogenous and rapidly growing; however, little is known regarding childhood asthma burden among AsA ethnic groups. The relation between obesity and asthma in AsA ethnic groups also remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate asthma prevalence and the relation of obesity to asthma risk among children in 7 AsA ethnic groups. METHODS: We analyzed data from the California Health Interview Survey from 2011 to 2020. AsA ethnicities were self-reported. Body mass index z-scores, calculated from self-reported height/weight, were used to categorize children by obesity status, based on body mass index-for-age growth charts. Prevalence of self-reported lifetime doctor-diagnosed asthma and asthma attack in the last 12 months was calculated. We performed multivariable logistic regressions adjusting for age and sex. RESULTS: Of 34,146 survey respondents, 12.2% non-Hispanic White and 12.5% AsA children reported lifetime asthma. Among AsA ethnic groups, however, lifetime asthma ranged from 5.1% (Korean American) to 21.5% (Filipino American). Non-Hispanic White children and AsA children had a similar lifetime asthma prevalence (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.71-1.55; P = .81), but prevalence was lower in Korean American children (aOR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.73; P = .004) and higher in Filipino American children (aOR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.22-3.17; P = .006). The lifetime asthma prevalence of different AsA ethnic groups persisted even when stratified by obesity status. CONCLUSION: Childhood lifetime asthma prevalence varied among AsA ethnic groups, with lowest prevalence in Korean American children and highest prevalence in Filipino American. Further characterization of asthma burden among AsA ethnic groups may help guide asthma screening and prevention measures and offer new insights into asthma pathogenesis.

Modes of COVID-19 Information and Vaccine Hesitancy Among Asian Americans: The Moderating Role of Exposure to Cyberbullying.

Introduction: : COVID-19 vaccination is an important public health intervention to curb the pandemic's magnitude and spread, and racial discrimination is a key predictor of COVID-19 preventive behavior, vaccine hesitancy, and uptake. This study evaluated the association of vaccine hesitancy with various modes of information on COVID-19 (i.e., online, social media) and the moderating role of cyberbullying among Asian Americans. Methods: : We used population-weighted data from the nationwide Asian American & Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander COVID-19 Needs Assessment Survey, which was conducted from January to April 2021 (unweighted n=3,127). We examined the association of various modes of COVID-19 information and vaccine hesitancy, moderated by exposure to cyberbullying. Results: : In general, 16% of Asian Americans reported vaccine hesitancy; 26% reported experiencing cyberbullying. Asian Americans reported receiving the majority of COVID-19 information from online sources (75%) and social media (52%). In unadjusted models, receiving information online (OR=0.46, 95%CI=0.33, 0.62, p<.001), via social media (OR=0.80, 95%CI=0.52, 0.93, p<.05), and via broadcast (OR=0.60, 95%CI=0.44, 0.81, p<.001) were significantly associated with a lower vaccine hesitancy. However, reporting any cyberbullying was associated with increased vaccine hesitancy (OR=1.39, 95%CI=1.02, 1.90, p<.05). The protective effects for COVID-19 information modes remained when accounting for health and sociodemographic factors, while the effect of cyberbullying was no longer statistically significant. Cyberbullying moderated the protective effect of broadcast information only, so those who received information via broadcast and reported experiencing cyberbullying had similar odds of vaccine hesitancy compared to those who did not receive information via broadcast. Conclusions: : Online, social media, and broadcast remain important sources of information about COVID-19 for Asian Americans; however, experiencing cyberbullying can reduce the effectiveness of these sources in the uptake of the vaccine. COVID-19 information promotion strategies for Asian Americans must account for the role of cyberbullying in social media campaigns.

Prevalence of cardiovascular disease among Asian, Pacific Islander and multi-race populations in Hawai'i and California.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death in the US. CVD incidence is influenced by many demographic, clinical, cultural, and psychosocial factors, including race and ethnicity. Despite recent research, there remain limitations on understanding CVD health among Asians and Pacific Islanders (APIs), particularly some subgroups and multi-racial populations. Combining diverse API populations into one study group and difficulties in defining API subpopulations and multi-race individuals have hampered efforts to identify and address health disparities in these growing populations. METHODS: The study cohort was comprised of all adult patients at Kaiser Permanente Hawai'i and Palo Alto Medical Foundation in California during 2014-2018 (n = 684,363). EHR-recorded ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes were used to indicate coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), and overall CVD. Self-reported race and ethnicity data were used to construct 12 mutually exclusive single and multi-race groups, and a Non-Hispanic White (NHW) comparison group. Logistic regression models were used to derive prevalence estimates, odds ratios, and confidence intervals for the 12 race/ethnicity groups. RESULTS: The prevalence of CHD and PVD varied 4-fold and stroke and overall CVD prevalence varied 3-fold across API subpopulations. Among Asians, the Filipino subgroup had the highest prevalence of all three CVD conditions and overall CVD. Chinese people had the lowest prevalence of CHD, PVD and overall CVD. In comparison to Native Hawaiians, Other Pacific Islanders had significantly higher prevalence of CHD. For the multi-race groups that included Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, the prevalence of overall CVD was significantly higher than that for either single-race Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders. The multi-race Asian + White group had significantly higher overall CVD prevalence than both the NHW group and the highest Asian subgroup (Filipinos). CONCLUSIONS: Study findings revealed significant differences in overall CVD, CHD, stroke, and PVD among API subgroups. In addition to elevated risk among Filipino, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Islander groups, the study identified particularly elevated risk among multi-race API groups. Differences in disease prevalence are likely mirrored in other cardiometabolic conditions, supporting the need to disaggregate API subgroups in health research.

Associations between Socioeconomic Status and Psychological Distress: An Analysis of Disaggregated Latinx Subgroups Using Data from the National Health Interview Survey.

Differences in socioeconomic status (SES), including income, education, and employment, continue to be significant contributors to health disparities in the United States (US), including disparities in mental health outcomes. Despite the size and diversity of the Latinx population, there is a lack of literature describing differences in mental health outcomes, including psychological distress, for Latinx subgroups (e.g., Dominican, Puerto Rican, Cuban). Therefore, we used pooled data from the 2014-2018 National Health Interview Survey to examine variations in psychological distress among Latinx subgroups as compared to other Latinx subgroups and non-Latinx whites. Additionally, we conducted regression analyses and tested whether race/ethnicity modified the relationship between SES indicators and psychological distress. Findings indicate that individuals categorized as Dominican and Puerto Rican were among the Latinx subgroups with the highest levels of psychological distress when compared to other Latinx subgroups and non-Latinx whites. Additionally, results demonstrate that SES indicators, such as higher levels of income and education, were not necessarily significantly associated with lower levels of psychological distress for all Latinx subgroups when compared to non-Latinx whites. Our findings discourage the practice of making broad generalizations about psychological distress or its associations with SES indicators to all Latinx subgroups using results garnered from the aggregate Latinx category.

Willingness to Receive the COVID-19 Vaccine in California: Disparities by Race and Citizenship Status.

Although it is widely acknowledged that racialized minorities may report lower COVID-19 vaccine willingness compared to non-Hispanic white individuals, what is less known, however, is whether the willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine also differs by citizenship. Understanding disparities in vaccine willingness by citizenship is particularly important given the misleading rhetoric of some political leaders regarding vaccine eligibility by citizenship status. This study used the 2020 California Health Interview Survey (n = 21,949) to examine disparities in vaccine willingness by race/ethnicity and citizenship among Asian, Latinx, and non-Hispanic white individuals. Overall, 77.7% of Californians indicated that they were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine if it was made available. However, there were distinct differences by race/ethnicity and citizenship. Asian people, regardless of citizenship, had the highest predicted probability of vaccine willingness, accounting for demographic, socioeconomic, and health factors. Non-citizen Latinx and non-citizen non-Hispanic white people had higher predicted probabilities of vaccine willingness compared to their US-born counterparts, accounting for demographic, socioeconomic, and health factors. Our results reveal that although vaccine willingness may be high among non-citizen individuals, it may not necessarily translate into actual vaccine uptake. Furthermore, while individual-level factors may account for some of the differences in vaccine willingness by race/ethnicity and citizenship, other institutional and structural barriers prevent vaccine uptake.

Health selection on self-rated health and the healthy migrant effect: Baseline and 1-year results from the health of Philippine Emigrants Study.

Studies of migration and health focus on a "healthy migrant effect" whereby migrants are healthier than individuals not migrating. Health selection remains the popular explanation of this phenomenon. However, studies are mixed on whether selection occurs and typically examine migrants post-departure. This study used a novel pre-migration dataset to identify which health and social domains differ between migrants and their non-migrant counterparts and their contribution to explaining variance in self-rated health by migrant status at pre-migration and 1-year later. Data were used from the baseline and 1-year follow-up of the Health of Philippine Emigrants Study (HoPES). We used multivariable ordinary least squares regression to examine differences in self-rated health between migrants to the U.S. and a comparable group of non-migrants at baseline (premigration) and one year later, accounting for seven domains: physical health, mental health, health behavior, demographics, socioeconomic factors and healthcare utilization, psychosocial factors, and social desirability. A migrant advantage was present for self-rated health at baseline and 1-year. Accounting for all domains, migrants reported better self-rated health compared to non-migrants both at baseline (ß = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.22, 0.43) and at 1-year (ß = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.10, 0.46). Migrant status, health behavior, and mental health accounted for most of the variance in self-rated health both at baseline and 1-year follow-up. This analysis provides evidence of migrant health selection and nuanced understanding to what is being captured by self-rated health in studies of migrant health that should be considered in future research.

The Impact of Structural Inequities on Older Asian Americans During COVID-19.

Structural racism manifests as an historical and continued invisibility of Asian Americans, whose experiences of disparities and diverse needs are omitted in research, data, and policy. During the pandemic, this invisibility intersects with rising anti-Asian violence and other persistent structural inequities that contribute to higher COVID-19 mortality in older Asian Americans compared to non-Hispanic whites. This perspective describes how structural inequities in social determinants of health-namely immigration, language and telehealth access, and economic conditions-lead to increased COVID-19 mortality and barriers to care among older Asian Americans. Specifically, we discuss how the historically racialized immigration system has patterned older Asian immigrant subpopulations into working in frontline essential occupations with high COVID-19 exposure. The threat of "public charge" rule has also prevented Asian immigrants from receiving eligible public assistance including COVID-19 testing and vaccination programs. We highlight the language diversity among older Asian Americans and how language access remains unaddressed in clinical and non-clinical services and creates barriers to routine and COVID-19 related care, particularly in geographic regions with small Asian American populations. We discuss the economic insecurity of older Asian immigrants and how co-residence in multigenerational homes has exposed them to greater risk of coronavirus transmission. Using an intersectionality-informed approach to address structural inequities, we recommend the disaggregation of racial/ethnic data, meaningful inclusion of older Asian Americans in research and policy, and equitable investment in community and multi-sectoral partnerships to improve health and wellbeing of older Asian Americans.

Selection, experience, and disadvantage: Examining sources of health inequalities among naturalized US citizens.

OBJECTIVES: We integrated major theories in immigrant health and assimilation into a single analytical framework to quantify the degrees to which demographic composition, pathways to citizenship, and socioeconomic assimilation account for physical and mental health disparities between naturalized immigrants by region of origin. METHODS: Using the restricted data from the 2015-2016 California Health Interview Survey, we decomposed differences in physical and mental health into demographic factors, path to citizenship, and socioeconomic characteristics by region of origin using the Karlson, Holm, and Breen (KHB) method. RESULTS: Differences in socioeconomic status mediated most of the disparity in physical health between naturalized immigrants from different regions. Factors associated with major immigrant health theories-demographic composition, pathways to citizenship, and socioeconomic assimilation-did not mediate disparities in mental health. CONCLUSION: This article argues that the study of health disparities among immigrants must simultaneously account for differences in demographic composition, immigration experience, and socioeconomic disadvantage. The findings also underscore the need for theory development that can better explain mental health disparities among immigrants.

Recasting the Immigrant Health Paradox Through Intersections of Legal Status and Race.

Immigrant health research has often noted an "immigrant health paradox", the observation that immigrants are "healthier" compared to their native-born peers of similar demographic and socioeconomic profile. This paradox disappears as immigrants stay longer in the host country. Multiple arguments, including migrant selectivity and cultural and behavioral factors have been proposed as reasons for the apparent paradox. Recently, the field has focused on immigrant legal status, especially its racialization. We review the literature on the immigrant health paradox, legal status, and racialized legal status to examine how this debate has taken a more structural approach. We find that immigrant health research has taken a needed intersectional approach, a productive development that examines how different markers of disadvantage work concurrently to shape immigrants' health. This approach, which factors in immigration enforcement practices, aligns with explanations for poor health outcomes among other racialized groups, and promises a fruitful avenue for future research.

Heterogeneity in the Association of Citizenship Status on Self-Rated Health Among Asians in California.

Citizenship is considered an egalitarian legal identity but may function differently among minorities because of racial/ethnic stratification and historical context. Using Asians, I examine whether the association between citizenship and self-rated health differs by ethnicity. I examine the moderating effect of Asian ethnic group (Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, and Other Asian) on citizenship and self-rated health using the 2012-2016 California Health Interview Survey (n = 11,084). Models account for demographics, socioeconomic status, healthcare, and English proficiency. Adjusting for demographics, naturalized citizens and non-citizens were statistically significantly more likely to report fair/poor health compared to U.S.-born citizens. Naturalized and non-citizen Vietnamese reported statistically significantly poorer health to all U.S.-born groups. These trends largely disappear when controlling for all covariates. Citizenship status can be useful in considering structural barriers for immigrants. Future work should interrogate the non-citizen category and why trends are seen among Vietnamese, but not others.

Heterogeneity in Migrant Health Selection: The Role of Immigrant Visas.

This study proposes that visa status is an important construct that is central to understanding how health selection occurs among immigrants. We used the 2017 baseline survey data of the Health of Philippine Emigrants Study (n = 1,632) to compare the health of nonmigrants remaining in the Philippines and migrants surveyed prior to migration to the United States. Furthermore, we compared migrant health by visa type: limited family reunification, unlimited family reunification, fiancé(e)/marriage, and employment. Migrants reported fewer health conditions than nonmigrants overall. However, health varied among migrants by visa type. Migrants with fiancé(e)/marriage visas were the healthiest, reporting significantly fewer health conditions than the other groups. Limited family reunification migrants reported more health conditions than nonmigrants and unlimited family reunification migrants. We discuss how the immigration visa process reflects broader forms of social and political stratification that cause heterogeneity in immigrant health selection.

Comparing Obesity-Related Health Disparities among Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, Asians, and Whites in California: Reinforcing the Need for Data Disaggregation and Operationalization.

Since the 2000 Census, Asians and Pacific Islanders have been categorized as separate races. Government initiatives have called for greater study of Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander (NHPI) health outcomes. NHPI often have worse health outcomes than Asians and Whites. Despite this, the lack of operationalization of racial definitions may affect the magnitude of health disparities. This analysis examined how utilizing different sociological race definitions could influence NHPI health outcomes when compared to Asians and Whites. Utilizing data from the 2009 California Health Interview Survey, NHPI had significantly higher age adjusted obesity prevalence than Whites under the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research (CHPR) (OR = 1.72, P = .03) and Self-Report (OR = 1.57, P = .01) definitions, but not the Census definition (OR = 1.42, P = .11). NHPI had significantly higher age adjusted obesity prevalence than Asians under all definitions (Census OR = 4.05, P < .01; CHPR OR = 4.81, P < .01; Self-Report OR = 4.46, P < .01). NHPI had significantly higher age adjusted diabetes/pre-diabetes prevalence than Whites across all definitions (Census OR = 3.27, P < .01, CHPR OR = 3.03, P < .01, Self-Report OR = 1.99, P = .01) but only the Census (OR = 2.12, P = .01) and CHPR (OR = 1.86, P = .04) when NHPI were compared to Asians. Overall, race definition changed the identification of health disparities. Future studies should operationalize racial definitions, as health disparities are masked post-hoc when utilizing different race definitions.