Dataset Information

Household Income and Children's Depressive Symptoms: Immigrants' Diminished Returns.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Relative to socially privileged groups, socially marginalized people experience weaker health effects of household income and other economic resources, a pattern known as Minorities' Diminished Returns (MDRs). These MDRs are frequently seen in racial and ethnic minorities, but less is known about the relevance of such MDRs in immigrant families. To investigate the MDRs of household income on children's depression as a function of immigration, we compared non-immigrant and immigrant children for the effect of household income on children's depressive symptoms.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted across multiple cities in the United States. Baseline data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study collected in 2018 was used. A total of 6,412 children between the ages of 9-10-year-old were included. The predictor variable was household income. The primary outcome was children's depression measured by the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). Race, ethnicity, age, sex, parental marital status, parental employment, and financial difficulties were the covariates. Immigration status was the effect modifier.

Results

Overall, high household income was associated with lower children's depressive symptoms. Immigration status showed a statistically significant interaction with household income on children's depression. This interaction term suggested that high household income has a smaller protective effect against depression for immigrant children than non-immigrant children.

Conclusion

The protective effect of household income against children's depression is diminished for immigrant than non-immigrant children.

SUBMITTER: Assari S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8143044 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:While increased household income is associated with overall decreased screen time for children, less is known about the effect of racial variation on this association. According to Minorities' Diminished Returns (MDRs) theory, family income and other economic resources show weaker association with children's developmental, behavioral, and health outcomes for racialized groups such as black families, due to the effect of racism and social stratification. In this study, we investigated the association, by race, between family income and children's screen time, as a proxy of screen time. This longitudinal study followed 15,022 American children aged 9-11 over a 1-year period. The data came from the baseline of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study. The independent variable was family income, and it was categorized as a three-level nominal variable. The dependent variable, screen time, was a continuous variable. Ethnicity, gender, parental education, and marital status were the covariates. The results showed that family income was inversely associated with children's screen time. However, there was a weaker inverse association seen in black families when compared with white families. This was documented by a significant statistical interaction between race and family income on children's screen time. Diminished association between family income and children's screen time for black families, compared with white families, is similar to MDRs and reflects a health risk to high-income black children. In a society where race and skin color determine opportunities and treatment by society, children from middle class black families remain at risk across multiple domains. We should not assume that income similarly promotes the health of all racial and ethnic groups. Addressing health and behavioral inequalities requires interventions that go beyond equalizing socioeconomic resources for black families. Marginalization, racism, and poverty interfere with the normal family income-related development of American children.

Project description:Introduction:Although income is among the major social determinants of mental health of middle-aged and older individuals, socially marginalized groups gain less health from their income and other socioeconomic status (SES) resources compared to socially privileged groups. This pattern is called marginalization-related diminished returns (MDRs). Most of the existing knowledge on MDRs, however, has been derived from studies that have defined marginalization based on race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. As a result, very limited information exists on whether similar MDRs can be observed for middle-aged and older immigrants or not. Building on the MDRs framework, this study compared a national sample of immigrants and non-immigrants for the effects of income on the mental well-being of middle-aged and older adults in the United States. Methods:This is a cross-sectional study. The 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) enrolled 14?149 middle-aged and older individuals who were either immigrants (n=1977; 14.0%) or non-immigrants (n=12?166; 86.0%). The independent variable (IV) was income that was treated as a continuous variable. The dependent variable was mental well-being, also treated as a continuous variable. Age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, marital status, employment, self-rated health, obesity, and region were confounders. Immigration (nativity status) was the moderator. Logistic regression was applied for data analysis. Results:High income was associated with higher odds of good mental well-being in middle-aged and older adults. However, immigration showed a significant statistical interaction with income, which was suggestive of a smaller protective effect of high income on mental well-being for immigrant than non-immigrant middle-aged and older adults. Conclusion:In line with MDRs, the association between income and mental well-being is weaker for immigrant than non-immigrant middle-aged and older adults. There is a need to help high income immigrants secure health outcomes similar to those of non-immigrants. Such changes may require bold and innovative economic, public, and social policies that help immigrants more effectively translate their income and socioeconomic resources into tangible outcomes such as mental well-being.

Project description:Racial minorities, particularly non-Hispanic Blacks in the US, experience weaker effects of family socioeconomic position (SEP) on tangible outcomes, a pattern called Minorities' Diminished Returns (MDRs). These MDRs are frequently shown for the effects of family SEP on immigrant adolescents' school performance. As a result of these MDRs, immigrant adolescents from high SEP families show worse than expected cognitive outcomes, including but not limited to poor school performance. However, the existing knowledge is minimal about the role of executive function in explaining diminished returns of family SEP on adolescents' outcomes. To investigate racial differences in the effects of parental human capital on adolescents' executive function, we compared non-Hispanic White non-immigrant and immigrant adolescents for the effect of parental human capital on adolescents' executive function. This was a cross-sectional analysis that included 2,723 non-twin non-Hispanic White adolescents from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study. The independent variable was parental human capital (parental educational attainment), treated as a continuous measure with a higher score reflecting higher subjective socioeconomic status. The primary outcome was adolescents' executive function measured by the stop-signal task (SST). Age, sex, parental marital status, parental employment, family income, and financial difficulties. Immigration status was the effect modifier. Overall, high parental human capital was associated with higher task-based executive function. Immigration status showed statistically significant interactions with parental human capital on adolescents' executive function outcomes. This interaction term suggested that high parental human capital has a smaller effect on increasing immigrants' executive function compared to non-immigrant adolescents. The boosting effect of parental human capital on executive function is diminished for immigrants compared to non-immigrant adolescents. To minimize the inequalities in executive function-related outcomes such as school performance, we need to address the diminishing returns of existing resources for immigrants. Not only should we equalize groups based on their SEP but also equalize the marginal returns of their existing SEP. Such efforts require public policies that aim for equal processes. As such, social policies should address structural and societal barriers such as xenophobia, segregation, racism, and discrimination that hinder immigrant families' ability to effectively utilize their resources. In a fair society, immigrant and non-immigrant families should be equally able to leverage their SEP resources and turn them into tangible outcomes.

Project description:Introduction: Although the effects of parental education and household income on children's brain development are well established, less is known about possible variation in these effects across diverse racial and ethnic groups. According to the Minorities' Diminished Returns (MDRs) phenomenon, due to structural racism, social stratification, and residential segregation, parental educational attainment and household income show weaker effects for non-White than White children. Purpose: Built on the MDRs framework and conceptualizing race as a social rather than a biological factor, this study explored racial and ethnic variation in the magnitude of the effects of parental education and household income on children's whole-brain cortical surface area. Methods: For this cross-sectional study, we used baseline socioeconomic and structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) data of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study. Our analytical sample was 10,262 American children between ages 9 and 10. The independent variables were parental education and household income. The primary outcome was the children's whole-brain cortical surface area. Age, sex, and family marital status were covariates. Race and ethnicity were the moderators. We used mixed-effects regression models for data analysis as participants were nested within families and study sites. Results: High parental education and household income were associated with larger children's whole-brain cortical surface area. The effects of high parental education and high household income on children's whole-brain cortical surface area were modified by race. Compared to White children, Black children showed a diminished return of high parental education on the whole-brain cortical surface area when compared to White children. Asian American children showed weaker effects of household income on the whole-brain cortical surface area when compared to White children. We could not find differential associations between parental education and household income with the whole-brain cortical surface area, when compared to White children, for non-Hispanic and Hispanic children. Conclusions: The effects of parental educational attainment and household income on children's whole-brain cortical surface area are weaker in non-White than White families. Although parental education and income contribute to children's brain development, these effects are unequal across racial groups.

Project description:Introduction:Although education is among the major socioeconomic status (SES) resources that influence populations' and individuals' health, social marginalization may reduce the health gain that follows access to SES indicators such as education, a pattern called marginalization-related diminished return (MDR). The literature on MDRs, however, has been mainly derived from studies that have defined marginalization based on race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Thus, more research is needed on MDRs that may follow as a result of immigration. To extend what is known on immigration status related MDRs, this study compared a national sample of immigrants and non-immigrants for the effect of education on the poor self-rated health (SRH) of adults in the United States. Methods:With a cross-sectional design, this study employed data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a survey that had enrolled 33,654 adults who were either immigrants (n = 6225; 18.5%) or non-immigrants (n = 27 429; 81.5%). The independent variable was education level, treated as a categorical variable. The dependent variable was SRH treated as a dichotomous variable. Race, ethnicity, age, gender, marital status, and region were the confounders. Immigration (nativity) was the moderator. Logistic regression was used for data analysis. Results:Higher education credentials were associated with better SRH in the pooled sample; however, immigration showed a significant statistical interaction with education level (college graduation) on the outcome. This interaction was indicative of a smaller protective effect of college graduation on poor SRH among immigrants than non-immigrant adults. Conclusion:In line with the MDRs framework, the effect of education on SRH is weaker for immigrants than for non-immigrant adults. There is a need to help highly educated immigrants to mobilize their human capital to secure their best health outcomes, similar to non-immigrants. Such strategies may require bold and innovative policy solutions to reduce discrimination against immigrants, so they can more effectively translate their education and human capital into tangible outcomes such as health.

Project description:BackgroundDue to a pattern known as Marginalization-related Diminished Returns (MDRs), historically oppressed non-Hispanic Black Americans show weaker effects of economic status on health and development, when compared to socially privileged non-Hispanic White Americans. Such MDRs are also documented for the effects of economic status on the school performance of non-Hispanic Black children. However, the existing knowledge is minimal on similar diminished returns on children's intelligence.AimTo compare racial and ethnic groups for the effect of subjective economic status on children's cognitive performance, we compared non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black children for the effects of subjective economic status on children's matrix reasoning.MethodsThis cross-sectional study included 7898 children from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study. The predictor variable was subjective economic status, which was treated as a continuous measure. The primary outcome was children's matrix reasoning, a domain of cognitive performance, measured by the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children-IV (WISC-V) matrix reasoning total score.ResultsOverall, high subjective economic status was associated with higher matrix reasoning score. Race showed a statistically significant interaction with subjective economic status on children's matrix reasoning score. This interaction suggested that high subjective economic status has a smaller boosting effect on increasing matrix reasoning score for non-Hispanic Black children relative to non-Hispanic White children.ConclusionThe degree by which subjective economic status correlates with matrix reasoning score, an important domain of cognitive performance, depends on race and racialization. Non-Hispanic Black children may show weaker gains in matrix reasoning from their subjective economic status than their non-Hispanic White counterparts. To minimize the racial gap in cognitive performance, we need to address diminished returns that occur as a result of the racialization of racial and ethnic minority children. Not only should we equalize economic status, but also increase the marginal returns of economic status for racial minorities, particularly non-Hispanic Black families. Such efforts require public policies that go beyond access and also consider how we can empower non-Hispanic Black communities and families so they can more effectively leverage and utilize their economic resources to secure measurable and tangible outcomes. Structural and societal barriers such as residential and school segregation may hinder non-Hispanic Black children from receiving the full effects of their family-level economic status on a variety of outcomes, including their cognitive performance.

Project description:BackgroundIncome inequality has dramatically increased worldwide, and there is a need to re-evaluate the association between socio-economic status (SES) and depression. Relative contributions of household income and education to depression, as well as their interactions, have not been fully evaluated. This study aimed to examine the association between SES and depressive symptoms in Japanese adults, focusing on interactions between education and household income levels.MethodsThis cross-sectional study used data from baseline surveys of two cohort studies. Participants were 38,499 community-dwelling people aged 40-74 years who participated in baseline surveys of the Murakami cohort study (2011-2012) and Uonuma cohort study (2012-2015) conducted in Niigata Prefecture, Japan. Information regarding marital status, education level, household income, occupation, activities of daily living (ADL), and history of cancer, myocardial infarction, stroke, and diabetes was obtained using a self-administered questionnaire. Depressive symptoms were examined using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Logistic regression analysis was used to obtain odds ratios (ORs). Covariates included age, sex, marital status, education, household income, occupation, ADL, and disease history.ResultsIndividuals with higher education levels had lower ORs (adjusted P for trend = 0.0007) for depressive symptoms, independently of household income level. The OR of the university-or-higher group was significantly lower than that of the junior high school group (adjusted OR = 0.79). Individuals with lower household income levels had higher ORs (adjusted P for trend< 0.0001) for depressive symptoms, independently of education level. The type of occupation was not associated with depressive symptoms. In subgroup analyses according to household income level, individuals with higher education levels had significantly lower ORs in the lowest- and lower-income groups (adjusted P for trend = 0.0275 and 0.0123, respectively), but not in higher- and highest-income groups (0.5214 and 0.0915, respectively).ConclusionsBoth education and household income levels are independently associated with the prevalence of depressive symptoms, with household income levels showing a more robust association with depressive symptoms than education levels. This suggests that a high household income level may offset the risk of depressive symptoms from having a low education level.