Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the source population. Nearly all” should be interpreted as “enough to be confident of the findings”, and a suitable proportion depends on the context. Is selection bias or loss to follow-up expected to result in an overestimate (bias away from the null) or underestimate (bias toward the null) of the effect.
Is failure to adjust for or over-adjust for confounding variables expected to result in an overestimate (bias away from the null) or underestimate (bias toward the null) of the effect. Was the information used to define the intervention groups recorded at the start of the intervention. Could classification of intervention status have been affected by knowledge of the outcome or risk of the outcome.
Is information bias of the exposure/intervention expected to result in an overestimate (bias away from the null) or underestimate (bias toward the null) of the effect. If outcome assessors are unaware of the interventions being received by participants despite there being no active blinding by the study investigators, the answer would also be ‘No’. Is information bias of the outcome expected to result in an overestimate (bias away from the null) or underestimate (bias toward the null) of the effect.
Results of the systematic review of quantitative studies examining the relationship between government policies and mental and physical health outcomes among Latinx adults living in the United States (N = 11 studies).
Results of the systematic review of quantitative studies examining the relationship between government policies and mental and physical health outcomes among Latinx adults living in the United States (N = 11 studies)
No changes in self- rated health for the same periods observed in other states (CA, NM, TX) among Spanish-preferring or English-. BRFSS 243,996 Latinx and non-Latinx adults (with a sub- sample of non-Latinx whites) aged 18 and older. NHIS 127,108 Mexican non- citizens, US-born Latinx adults, and US-born non-Latinx white young adults (18- 28 years old) with some secondary education.
Association with a decrease in fair/poor self-rated health among Mexican non- citizens, but trends were not. IRT with financial aid: Association with a decrease in fair/poor self-rated health among Mexican non-. Trends for Mexican non-citizens and US-born Latinx adults were not statistically different (DD(SE NSS).
Distress IRT-only: No observed association with psychological distress among Mexican non- citizens (e.g., Distress score: D (SE NSS; DD (SE)Mexican non-citizens vs. Trends for Mexican non-citizens and US-born Latinx adults were not statistically different (Distress score: DD (SE NSS). NHIS 57,927 Young adult (18- 28 years old) Mexican non- citizens, US-born Latinx adults in all citizen households , and US- born non- Latinx whites.
IRT-only policies were associated with lower prevalence of fair/poor self-rated health for college- aged Mexican non- citizens compared with Latinx adults in all-citizen. IRT policies with financial aid were associated with increased prevalence of fair/poor health for Mexican non- citizens compared with Latinx adults in all-citizen. No association observed between DACA and self- rated health for DACA-eligible individuals compared with DACA-ineligible individuals (OR (95% CI.
NHIS 262,374 Foreign- born Latinx adults aged 18-60 years, with at least one non-citizen family member and US- born, non- Latinx whites. No association observed with fair/poor health for immigrants with at least one non- citizen household member. Trends in either outcome did not significantly differ from non- Latinx whites for either immigrant groups.
A description of policy exposures identified in the 11 studies included in the systematic review of immigrant-related policies and physical and mental health outcomes among Latinx adults in the US.
A description of policy exposures identified in the 11 studies included in the systematic review of immigrant- related policies and physical and mental health outcomes among Latinx adults in the US
Laws were rated on direction. inclusive/exclusionary) and factor analysis was used to create the final 14-item index. Laws were identified through the National Conference of State Legislatures and were coded by the researchers to identify direction (inclusive/exclusionary) and immigrant target population (e.g., noncitizens, refugees) (Vargas et al., 2017; Ybarra et al., 2016).
1996 (agreement
The Secure Communities Program was active from was replaced by a similar Priority Enforcement Program, and then was re-instated in 2017. States and local governments can refuse to detain identified immigrants until ICE authorities arrive to remove noncitizens (East, 2020). Strengthened the criteria for removal of noncitizens (e.g., noncitizens who have been convicted or charged with any criminal office or who pose risk to public safety or national security as judged by an immigration officer); fined.
The implementation of this executive order was suspended by a federal district court in the state of Washington and was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, though a new executive order with the same title was signed on March 6.
2001- present
Summary and analysis of executive order "Protecting the Nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States". State dream acts and education, health and mental health of Mexican young adults in the US. Context of entry and number of depressive symptoms in an older Mexican-origin immigrant population.
From undocumented to lawfully present: Do changes to legal status impact psychological wellbeing among latino immigrant young adults. In-State Resident Tuition Policies and the Self-Rated Health of High-School-Aged and College-Aged Mexican Noncitizen Immigrants, Their Families, and the Latina/o Community.
