Abstract
BackgroundThe healthy immigrant paradox refers to the unexpected health advantages of immigrant groups settled in host countries. In this population-based study we analyze immigrant advantages in birthweight decomposing differences between infants born to immigrant mothers from specific origins.MethodUsing publicly available data from Spanish Vital Statistics for the period 2007–2017, differential birthweights among several groups of immigrants were estimated with an ordinary least squares regression. The Oaxaca–Blinder regression-based decomposition method was then applied to identify the extent to which differences in birthweight between groups corresponded to compositional disparities or to other factors.ResultsOur analysis of singleton live births to migrant mothers in Spain between 2007 and 2017 (N = 542,137) confirmed the healthy immigrant paradox for certain immigrant populations settled in Spain. Compared with infants born to mothers from high-income countries, the adjusted birthweight was higher for infants born to mothers from non-high- income European countries (33.2 g, 95% CI: 28.3–38.1, P < 0.01), mothers from African countries (52.2 g, 95% CI: 46.9–57.5, P < 0.01), and mothers from Latin American countries (57.4 g, 95% CI: 52.9–61.3, P < 0.01), but lower for infants born to mothers from Asian non-high-income countries (− 31.4 g, 95% CI: − 38.4 to − 24.3, P < 0.01). Decomposition analysis showed that when compared with infants born to mothers from high-income countries, compositional heterogeneity accounts for a substantial proportion of the difference in birthweights. For example, it accounts for 53.5% (95% CI: 24.0–29.7, P < 0.01) of the difference in birthweights for infants born to mothers from non-high-income European countries, 70.9% (95% CI: 60–66.7, P < 0.01) for those born to mothers from African countries, and 38.5% (95% CI: 26.1–29.3, P < 0.01) for those born to mothers from Latin American countries.ConclusionsOur results provide strong population-based evidence for the healthy immigrant paradox in birthweight among certain migrant groups in Spain. However, birth outcomes vary significantly depending on the origins of migrant subpopulations, meaning that not all immigrant groups are unexpectedly healthier. A significant portion of the perinatal health advantage of certain immigrant groups is only a by-product of their group composition (by age, parity, marital status, socioeconomic status, and citizenship of mother, age and migratory status of father and type of delivery) and does not necessarily correspond to other medical, environmental, or behavioral factors.
Highlights
The healthy immigrant paradox refers to the unexpected health advantages of immigrant groups settled in host countries
Compared with infants born to mothers from high-income countries, the adjusted birthweight was higher for infants born to mothers from non-high- income European countries (33.2 g, 95% CI: 28.3–38.1, P < 0.01), mothers from African countries (52.2 g, 95% CI: 46.9–57.5, P < 0.01), and mothers from Latin American countries (57.4 g, 95% CI: 52.9–61.3, P < 0.01), but lower for infants born to mothers from Asian non-high-income countries (− 31.4 g, 95% CI: − 38.4 to − 24.3, P < 0.01)
It accounts for 53.5% of the difference in birthweights for infants born to mothers from non-high-income European countries, 70.9% for those born to mothers from African countries, and 38.5% for those born to mothers from Latin American countries
Summary
The healthy immigrant paradox refers to the unexpected health advantages of immigrant groups settled in host countries In this population-based study we analyze immigrant advantages in birthweight decomposing differences between infants born to immigrant mothers from specific origins. An interesting variation of this paradox is when immigrants from high-income societies have worse health results in the host countries than immigrants from low- and middle-income societies. The host country, maternal origin, and specific health outcomes (birthweight, mortality and premature births) often involve different observations, conceptual definitions, and research designs, and all of these measurement problems may further complicate the findings. As Gagnon et al [13] suggested, efforts to ensure research clarity and homogeneity are needed to confirm and properly understand these associations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
