The literature has established a protective effect of socioeconomic status (SES) indicators on health. However, at least in the US, these SES indicators tend to generate fewer health gains for marginalized groups including immigrants. As this literature mainly originated in the US, it is necessary to study whether these indicators similarly correlate with the health of foreign-born and native-born individuals in Europe. The current study was based on the Marginalization-related Diminished Returns (MDRs) theory and compared the effects of three SES indicators, namely parental education, own education and income, on self-rated health (SRH) of immigrant and native-born individuals. We used data from the European Social Survey 2020 (ESS 2020). Participants included 14,213 individuals who identified as either native-born (n = 9052) or foreign-born (n = 508). Education, income, and parental education were the independent variables. Self-rated health (SRH) was the outcome. Age and sex were covariates. Linear regression and logistic regression were used for data analysis. Overall, high education, income, and parental education were associated with lower odds of poor SRH. We documented a statistical interaction between immigration status and parental education, indicating a weaker inverse association between parental education and poor SRH for foreign-born than native-born individuals. The links between some but not all SES indicators vary across foreign-born and native-born individuals in Europe. Host countries seem to undervalue the parental educational attainment of foreign-born families. Future research should explore the role of time, period, cohort and country of origin as well as host country and associated policies in equalizing returns of SES indicators on the health of population subgroups. The results are important given that most studies on MDRs are developed in the US, and less is known about Europe. The results are also very important given the growing anti-immigrant sentiment and nationalist movements in Europe and the rest of the world.

Background: Although parental educational attainment is known to be associated with a lower prevalence of behaviors such as tobacco use, these effects are shown to be weaker for Black than White youth. It is important to study whether this difference is due to higher perceived tobacco use norms for Black youth. Aim: To study the association between parental educational attainment and perceived tobacco use norms overall and by race/ethnicity among youth in the US. Methods: The current study used four years of follow-up data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH-Youth) study conducted between 2013 and 2017. All participants were 12- to 17-year-old non-smokers at baseline and were successfully followed for four years (n = 4329). The outcome of interest was perceived tobacco use norms risk at year four. The predictor of interest was baseline parental educational attainment, the moderator was race/ethnicity, and the covariates were age, sex, and parental marital status at baseline. Results: Our linear regressions in the pooled sample showed that higher parental educational attainment at baseline was predictive of perceived disapproval of tobacco use at year four; however, this association was weaker for Latino than non-Latino youth. Our stratified models also showed that higher parental educational attainment was associated with perceived tobacco use norms for non-Latino but not for Latino youth. Conclusion: The effect of high parental educational attainment on anti-tobacco norms differs between Latino and non-Latino youth. Latino youth with highly educated parents remain at risk of tobacco use, while non-Latino youth with highly educated parents show low susceptibility to tobacco use.

Background: Social determinants of health—including both adversity and socioeconomic position—are known to shape physical health, health-related behaviors, and overall well-being. However, the psychological mechanisms that link these determinants to diverse outcomes remain insufficiently explored across international contexts. Objective: The objective of this study is to test whether sense of mastery and control over one’s life mediates the associations between key stressors (childhood abuse, financial insecurity) and socioeconomic resources (education, employment, and marital status) with a wide range of outcomes spanning health, behaviors, and well-being. Methods: Using cross-sectional data from Wave 1 of the Global Flourishing Study (GFS), we analyzed responses from more than 200,000 adults in 23 countries. Predictors included exposure to childhood abuse, perceived financial insecurity, and indicators of socioeconomic position (education, employment, and marital status). Outcomes included self-rated physical and mental health, depression, anxiety, smoking, drinking, physical activity, life satisfaction, and happiness. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to evaluate both direct and indirect (mediated) effects through sense of mastery and control over life. Results: Stressors were associated with poorer health, higher engagement in risk behaviors, and lower well-being. In contrast, higher levels of education, employment, and being married were linked to more favorable outcomes. In all tested models, sense of mastery and control over life significantly mediated the effects of both stressors and socioeconomic resources on health, behaviors, and well-being outcomes. Conclusions: Sense of mastery and control over life may represent key psychological pathways linking both adversity and social advantage to diverse health-related outcomes. Interventions that enhance individuals’ perceived control may offer cross-cutting benefits to improve health, promote well-being, and reduce behavioral risk factors globally.

Background: Multiple studies have shown a link between high education and better self-rated health (SRH). However, recent studies have suggested that immigrants may experience a weaker association between education and SRH than native-born individuals. Aim: Using a national sample of US older adults, this investigation studied whether there is an inverse association between education and SRH and whether immigration status moderates this association. Methods: This study is based on marginalized diminished returns (MDRs) that argues socioeconomic status (SES) resources, such as education, may generate less favorable health outcomes for marginalized groups. Data were from the General Social Survey (GSS) 1972–2021, a cross-sectional survey in the US. A total of 7999 participants who were 65+ years old were included. The independent variable was education, measured as years of schooling and treated as a continuous variable. The dependent variable was poor/fair (poor) SRH. Immigration status was the moderator. Age, sex, and race were control variables. Logistic regressions were used for data analysis. Results: We found that higher levels of education were protective against poor SRH. However, this effect was weaker for immigrants than for US-born individuals. Conclusions: This study found that native-born US older individuals are more likely to experience the protective effect of their education against poor SRH compared to their immigrants. Eliminating health inequality between immigrant and US-born individuals needs policies that go beyond socioeconomic status (SES) equality and address barriers that hinder highly-educated immigrants.

Background: Multiple studies have been conducted to test the moderating effect of immigration on the positive health results yielded through educational attainment. However, no study has been conducted to examine the role of immigration as a moderator in the association between educational level and perceived discrimination in Europe. Aim: We aimed to study whether an inverse association exists between educational level and perceived discrimination in European countries and whether immigration status moderates the association between educational level and perceived discrimination. Methods: Data from the 10th round of the cross-sectional European Social Survey (ESS) were used in this cross-sectional study. A total of 17,596 participants between 15–90 years old who lived in European countries were included. The independent variable was educational level, a categorical variable, and the dependent variable was perceived discrimination. Immigration status was the moderator, and age and sex were confounders. Results: Of 17,596 participants, 16,632 (94.5%) were native-born and 964 were immigrants (5.5%). We found that higher levels of educational level were protective against perceived discrimination, which was also found in immigrant participants; however, the effect was weaker. Conclusions: This study found that educational level was a protective factor against perceived discrimination. This effect, however, was more robust in the native-born participants than in their immigrant counterparts.

Background: The Blacks’ mental health paradox is defined as disproportionately better mental health among Black individuals compared to White individuals, despite their higher exposure to a wide range of adversities. However, the existing literature on this phenomenon is mainly limited to studies that have compared Black and White individuals. There has been little research on this phenomenon among ethnic groups other than Whites. Objectives: This study tested the Blacks’ mental health paradox with consideration of Latinx individuals as the control group. Methods: This cross-sectional study collected demographic data, socioeconomic status, chronic medical conditions, and mental and physical quality of life of 724 older Black and Latinx adults residing in low socioeconomic areas of south Los Angeles. Linear regressions were used for data analysis with mental and physical health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as dependent variables and the number of chronic medical conditions as the independent variable. Results: Overall, a higher number of chronic medical conditions was associated with lower mental and physical quality of life. A statistically significant interaction was found between race/ethnicity and the effect of the number of chronic medical conditions on mental HRQoL, which was indicative of Blacks’ mental health paradox. Conclusion: Older Black adults with a higher number of chronic medical conditions report better mental health compared to their Latinx peers with the same number of chronic medical conditions. Thus, Blacks’ mental health paradox can be seen when Black and Latinx populations are compared. Replication of such a paradox provides additional support for the relative mental health advantage of Black people compared to other ethnic groups.