| Literature DB >> 27459507 |
Ying Ji1, Yanling Wang1, Lei Sun1, Yan Zhang2, Chun Chang1.
Abstract
Migrants usually exhibit similar or better health outcomes than native-born populations despite facing socioeconomic disadvantages and barriers to healthcare use; this is known as the "migrant paradox." The migrant paradox among children is highly complex. This study explores whether the migrant paradox exists in the health of internal migrant children in China and the role of schools in reducing children's health disparities, using a multi-stage stratified cluster sampling method. Participants were 1,641 student and parent pairs from Grades 4, 5, and 6 of eight primary schools in Beijing. The following school types were included: state schools with migrant children comprising over 70% of total children (SMS), private schools with migrant children comprising over 70% (PMS), and state schools with permanent resident children comprising over 70% (SRS). Children were divided into Groups A, B, C or D by the type of school they attended (A and B were drawn from SRSs, C was from SMSs, and D was from PMSs) and whether they were in the migrant population (B, C, and D were, but A was not). Related information was collected through medical examination and questionnaires completed by parents and children. Prevalence of caries, overweight and obesity, poor vision, and self-reported incidence of colds and diarrhea in the previous month were explored as health outcomes. The results partially demonstrated the existence of the migrant paradox and verified the role of schools in lowering health disparities among children; there are theoretical and practical implications for improving the health of migrant children.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27459507 PMCID: PMC4961441 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160025
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Basic demographic characteristics of study participants.
| A | B | C | D | χ2 / | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male ratio ( | 293(45.0) | 172 (52.0) | 202 (60.9) | 184 (56.1) | 24.97 | <0.001 |
| Average age (years) ( | 10.7±0.94 | 10.7±1.05 | 10.7±1.21 | 10.9±1.18 | 1.60 | 0.187 |
| Residence duration ( | -- | 9.2±2.54 | 8.6±2.9 | 8.6±3.0 | 16.13 | <0.001 |
| Rural registered residency ( | 38 (5.8) | 131 (39.6) | 235 (70.8) | 271 (82.6) | 688.29 | <0.001 |
Basic family information of study participants.
| Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D | χ2 / | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education level of parents (father/mother, %/%) | Primary school and below | 0.4/2.5 | 31.9/10.6 | 14.3/29.0 | 26.3/41.1 | Father 879.58;Mother 872.28 | <0.001 |
| Junior high school | 7.4/9.2 | 21.0/33.4 | 55.5/50.3 | 61.2/48.8 | |||
| Senior high school or technical school | 15.0/11.7 | 17.9/17.0 | 19.5/14.9 | 10.1/8.3 | |||
| Junior college | 20.6/26.6 | 29.2/17.3 | 7.0/4.6 | 1.5/1.5 | |||
| University and above | 56.6/50.1 | 2.1/21.6 | 3.7/1.2 | 0.9/0.3 | |||
| Ownership of durable consumer goods (number) | 5.7 ±0.65 | 5.4±0.97 | 4.4±1.57 | 3.5±1.70 | 282.91 | <0.001 | |
| Type of accommodation (n, %) | Apartment block | 616(94.9) | 261(78.9) | 107(30.5) | 39(11.0) | 872.13 | <0.001 |
| Brick bungalow | 29(4.5) | 65(19.6) | 219(62.4) | 269(76.2) | |||
| Adobe bungalow | 4(0.6) | 2(0.6) | 13(3.7) | 29(8.2) | |||
| Other | 1(0.0) | 3(0.9) | 12(3.4) | 16(4.5) | |||
| Sharing bathroom | (n, %) | 46(7.1) | 63(19.0) | 173(47.9) | 244(68.1) | 499.19 | <0.001 |
| SES score | 0.86±0.51 | 0.38±0.81 | -0.71±0.85 | -1.33±0.74 | 801.47 | <0.001 | |
Health status among various groups (n,%).
| Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D | χ2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-reported cold in the past month | 243(38.6) | 107(33.4) | 114(36.1) | 118(36.6) | 20.45 | 0.492 |
| Self-reported diarrhea in the past month | 80(12.8) | 56(17.7) | 60(19.3) | 93(29.9) | 65.52 | <0.001 |
| Caries | 75(11.5) | 40(12.1) | 84(25.3) | 111(33.8) | 89.69 | <0.001 |
| Overweight and obesity | 198(31.0) | 101(31.1) | 73(22.7) | 67(20.8) | 17.00 | 0.001 |
| Poor vision | 467(71.8) | 213(64.4) | 180(54.2) | 126(38.4) | 108.99 | <0.001 |
Results of logistic regression analysis on influencing factors of health (OR, 95% CI).
| SES | A | C | D | Cox & Snell | Hosmer-Lemeshow | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (B group as reference) | R Square | Good Fit (χ2, | |||||
| Cold | Model 1 | 0.92 (0.82, 1.05) | 0.007 | 6.459, 0.596 | |||
| Model 2 | 0.95 (0.81, 1.11) | 1.14 (0.84, 1.55) | 1.20 (0.82, 1.75) | 1.20 (0.78, 1.84) | 0.008 | 4.571, 0.712 | |
| Diarrhea | Model 1 | 0.76 (0.65, 0.88) | 0.023 | 8.633, 0.374 | |||
| Model 2 | 0.81 (0.67, 0.99) | 0.77 (0.52, 1.16) | 0.89 (0.56, 1.41) | 1.22 (0.74, 2.01) | 0.026 | 7.019, 0.535 | |
| Caries | Model 1 | 0.77 (0.67, 0.89) | 0.043 | 21.355, 0.003 | |||
| Model 2 | 1.00 (0.83, 1.20) | 1.08 (0.70, 1.68) | 2.00 (1.25, 3.20) | 3.04 (1.83, 5.06) | 0.056 | 16.122, 0.041 | |
| Overweight | Model 1 | 1.26 (1.09, 1.45) | 0.044 | 6.232, 0.621 | |||
| and obesity | Model 2 | 1.04 (0.87, 1.25) | 1.11 (0.80, 1.53) | 0.60 (0.40, 0.91) | 0.51 (0.31, 0.82) | 0.051 | 2.878, 0.896 |
| Poor vision | Model 1 | 1.44 (1.28, 1.63) | 0.059 | 1.521, 0.992 | |||
| Model 2 | 1.22 (1.04, 1.43) | 1.31 (0.96, 1.78) | 0.96 (0.67, 1.39) | 0.53 (0.35, 0.81) | 0.070 | 3.527, 0.897 | |
Model 1 Only SES with adjusted for sex, residence duration, urban/rural registered residency.
Model 2 SES and children’s type with adjusted for sex, residence duration and urban/rural registered residency.
***p<0.001
**p<0.01
*p<0.05.