Differences in birth weight between immigrants' and natives' children in Europe and Australia: a LifeCycle comparative observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Research on adults has identified an immigrant health advantage, known as the 'immigrant health paradox', by which migrants exhibit better health outcomes than natives. Is this health advantage transferred from parents to children in the form of higher birth weight relative to children of natives? SETTING: Western Europe and Australia. PARTICIPANTS: We use data from nine birth cohorts participating in the LifeCycle Project, including five studies with large samples of immigrants' children: Etude Longitudinale Française depuis l'Enfance-France (N=12 494), the Raine Study-Australia (N=2283), Born in Bradford-UK (N=4132), Amsterdam Born Children and their Development study-Netherlands (N=4030) and the Generation R study-Netherlands (N=4877). We include male and female babies born to immigrant and native parents. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is birth weight measured in grams. Different specifications were tested: birth weight as a continuous variable including all births (DV1), the same variable but excluding babies born with over 4500 g (DV2), low birth weight as a 0-1 binary variable (1=birth weight below 2500 g) (DV3). Results using these three measures were similar, only results using DV1 are presented. Parental migration status is measured in four categories: both parents natives, both born abroad, only mother born abroad and only father born abroad. RESULTS: Two patterns in children's birth weight by parental migration status emerged: higher birth weight among children of immigrants in France (+12 g, p<0.10) and Australia (+40 g, p<0.10) and lower birth weight among children of immigrants in the UK (-82 g, p<0.05) and the Netherlands (-80 g and -73 g, p<0.001) compared with natives' children. Smoking during pregnancy emerged as a mechanism explaining some of the birth weight gaps between children of immigrants and natives. CONCLUSION: The immigrant health advantage is not universally transferred to children in the form of higher birth weight in all host countries. Further research should investigate whether this cross-national variation is due to differences in immigrant communities, social and healthcare contexts across host countries.

Parental migrant status and health inequalities at birth: The role of immigrant educational selectivity.

Immigrants tend to exhibit better health than natives despite immigrants' more disadvantaged socioeconomic status. This paradox has often been attributed to immigrants' pre-migration selectivity. However, most empirical studies investigating the role of selectivity have focused on adult health; less attention has been paid to children's birth outcomes outside the U.S. context. Using data from the Etude Longitudinale Française depuis l'Enfance (ELFE), a nationally representative sample of over 18000 births in France in 2011, we investigate the role of immigrant parents' educational selectivity in shaping four birth outcomes: birthweight, low birthweight, prematurity, and being born small for gestational age. Results from linear and logistic regressions confirm a health advantage for children of immigrants compared to natives despite lower parental socioeconomic status, mainly among children of Middle Eastern and North African parents. Immigrant parents' positive pre-migration educational selectivity explains most of this health advantage, predominantly among children with two immigrant parents. Further, mediation analyses indicate that the effect of educational selectivity is partially mediated by parental health behaviors, particularly smoking during pregnancy. Furthermore, analyses suggest that selectivity improves birth outcomes only for children of recent arrivals, with less than five years of residence in France. The beneficial effect of selectivity declines with length of residence, suggesting that a process of "unhealthy assimilation," coupled with the cumulative exposure to health risks and disadvantaged living conditions, may lead to the erosion of the protective effect of immigrant selectivity.

Discrimination in healthcare as a barrier to care: experiences of socially disadvantaged populations in France from a nationally representative survey.

BACKGROUND: People in socially disadvantaged groups face a myriad of challenges to their health. Discrimination, based on group status such as gender, immigration generation, race/ethnicity, or religion, are a well-documented health challenge. However, less is known about experiences of discrimination specifically within healthcare settings, and how it may act as a barrier to healthcare. METHODS: Using data from a nationally representative survey of France (N = 21,761) with an oversample of immigrants, we examine rates of reported discrimination in healthcare settings, rates of foregoing healthcare, and whether discrimination could explain disparities in foregoing care across social groups. RESULTS: Rates of both reporting discrimination within healthcare and reporting foregone care in the past 12 months were generally highest among women, immigrants from Africa or Overseas France, and Muslims. For all of these groups, experiences of discrimination potentially explained significant proportions of their disparity in foregone care (Percent disparity in foregone care explained for: women = 17%, second-generation immigrants = 8%, Overseas France = 13%, North Africa = 22%, Sub-Saharan Africa = 32%, Muslims = 26%). Rates of foregone care were also higher for those of mixed origin and people who reported "Other Religion", but foregone healthcare was not associated with discrimination for those groups. CONCLUSIONS: Experiences of discrimination within the healthcare setting may present a barrier to healthcare for people that are socially disadvantaged due to gender, immigration, race/ethnicity, or religion. Researchers and policymakers should consider barriers to healthcare that lie within the healthcare experience itself as potential intervention targets.