Elsevier

General Hospital Psychiatry

Volume 35, Issue 1, January–February 2013, Pages 93-99
General Hospital Psychiatry

Epidemiology of psychiatric morbidity among migrants compared to native born population in Spain: a controlled study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2012.09.010Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this paper is to explore the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity in different immigrant groups in Spain. In keeping with prior studies carried out in Europe, it is expected that the immigrant population will have elevated levels of psychopathology, with some variation across immigrant groups.

Method

Design: Multicenter, observational, cross-sectional study. Setting: Primary care settings of two Spanish regions. Sample: N= 1.503 immigrants paired with the same number of Spanish controls, adjusted by gender and age. Variables: Demographic variables, MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview and Standardized Polyvalent Psychiatric Interview, somatic symptoms section. Student's t tests, ORs and logistic regressions were used to analyze the data.

Results

No differences in psychiatric morbidity were found (native born 30.9%, population vs. immigrants 29.6%, OR=.942, CI=.806–1.100) when comparing immigrants to native born Spaniards. Relative to Spaniards (30.9%), Latin American immigrants had significantly higher levels of psychopathology (36.8%), Sub-Saharan Africans (24.4%) and Asians (16%) had significantly lower levels, and Eastern Europeans (31.4%) and North Africans (26.8%) showed no significant difference.

Conclusions

The hypotheses were only partially supported. Although overall immigrants did not differ from the native born population, when analyzed by geographic origin, only Latin Americans had higher levels of psychopathology. It is concluded that multiple factors need to be taken into consideration when studying the mental health of immigrants given that different immigrant groups have different levels of psychopathology.

Introduction

The relationship between immigration and psychopathology is unclear, as are the specific factors that may impact the process.

Recent large-scale epidemiological studies carried out in the United States found that immigrants had lower rates of common mental disorders [1], [2], whereas studies carried out in Europe — Belgium [3] and Sweden [4], for example — found the opposite. In their meta-analysis on migration and mood disorders, Swinnen and Selten [5] found a very slim, non-significant increase in risk in immigrants, and Kirmayer et al. [6], in their review, found that immigrants had slightly lower levels of mental disorders than the general population. It would appear, however, that immigrants to Europe, particularly those from the Caribbean and Africa, are vulnerable to developing psychotic disorders, and to a lesser extent affective disorders, as evidenced by a series of recent meta-analyses [7], [8], [9]. It is noteworthy that in the studies cited above and others [10], the prevalence of psychopathology varies, at times significantly, between different immigrant groups. This may be due to differential impact of the factors that are understood to comprise the principle risk, such as “social defeat” [8], cultural dissimilarity [11], and racism or discrimination [6].

Just as psychopathology may vary by immigrant groups, it follows that it would vary by environment or social context [12] there would appear to be a sort of “geopolitical effect” evidenced by differential findings in studies carried out in the United States and Canada which tend to show lower levels of psychopathology, as opposed to those carried out in Europe which show the reverse. Thus, it may be the case that to speak of “immigration and mental health” without taking into consideration the receiving country may be overly reductionistic. There is both conceptual [12] and empirical evidence that suggests that sociopolitical context has an impact on immigration processes and associated mental health [13], [14]. To that end, expanding the locale of epidemiological studies on migration and mental health could be of interest, particularly given that the bulk of studies have been carried out in countries with a long history of migration, 4 of which are English speaking (the US, the UK, Canada and Australia). A study taking place in Southern Europe, with its relatively recent history of mass migration, could provide an interesting counterpoint to existing findings.

Until the end of the 20th century, Spain had been a country of emigrants. With its rising prosperity, proximity to Africa, and relatively porous borders, it became an increasingly popular destination for immigrants [15], and saw an increase from less than 1% of the population in the early 90s to its current rate of around 15%. Spain's relatively recent status as a country of immigrants combined with its historical, cultural, and geographical similarities with some of its immigrant groups (e.g., Latin America; North Africa) suggests that it could provide interesting insights into understanding the relationship between migration and mental health.

The variations found in levels of psychopathology in immigrant and native-born populations may be due to factors specific to the immigrant group in question in conjunction with factors specific to the receiving culture, and/or of some combination thereof. Furthermore, commentators note that cross-cultural research is beset by the challenge of avoiding bias [16], [17]. In this context, bias refers to variation in a measured phenomenon due to group membership rather than variation of the phenomenon in question. Bias is often related to cultural differences in the understanding of the central constructs and in how specific items are understood.

The aim of this paper is to explore the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity in different immigrant groups in Spain relative to the native-born population, and to identify associated sociodemographic factors. It is expected that psychiatric morbidity will be higher in immigrants relative to the native born population, on the one hand, and, on the other, that there will be variation between immigrant groups.

Section snippets

Study design

The current paper describes the main findings of a multicenter, observational, cross-sectional study carried out in primary care settings. At the time of the study, public healthcare was available to all individuals registered with their local municipality, regardless of immigration status. Many municipalities facilitated access for those immigrants lacking correct documentation. The principal barrier to accessing the system are primarily related to linguistic and cultural differences [18].

Results

Fig. 1 summarizes the flowchart of the study. Refusal rate in immigrants was quite low considering the residence status of many of them, and similar to that found in Spanish population.

Table 1 summarizes the distribution of the sample by gender and, for immigrants, by geographical group. Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample are summarized in Table 2. The sample is relatively young and mostly female (61.3%). Immigrants reported a more stable marital relationship, had lower levels of

Discussion

The findings of the study, perhaps more than anything else, demonstrate the complexity of researching the mental health status of immigrants. It was hypothesized that immigrants would have higher levels of psychiatric morbidity than native born Spaniards, which at first glance is not supported by the data. However, this “first glance” belies the complexity of studying psychopathology in immigrant populations. When grouped together as “immigrants” versus “Spaniards”, no difference was found;

Conclusions

Two key findings emerged from this study. One is that there is considerable variability in levels of psychopathology across different immigration groups, and the other is that the receiving country may have an impact on the mental health of immigrants, a conclusion inferred based on the variability in prevalence of psychopathology in immigrant groups in this study relative to studies carried out in other countries. In terms of prevalence, the key issue may not simply be one of being an

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their deep appreciation to all of the people who made this study possible, particularly the volunteer interviewers. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful remarks. The study was supported by a grant from the Carlos III Health Institute to JCG and FC, a grant from the Departament de Salut, Government of Catalonia, Spain, and a doctoral grant from the Research Institute of the Vall d’Hebron University Hospital to HWRE.

References (38)

  • F. Bourque et al.

    A meta-analysis of the risk for psychotic disorders among first- and second-generation immigrants

    Psychol Med

    (2011)
  • E. Cantor-Graae et al.

    Schizophrenia and migration: A metal-analysis and review

    Am J Psychiatry

    (2005)
  • W. Veling et al.

    Ethnic density of neighborhoods and incidence of psychotic disorders among immigrants

    Am J Psychiatry

    (2008)
  • C.S. Lim et al.

    Cross-ethnic differences in severity of symptomatology of individuals with first-episode schizophrenia spectrum disorder

    Early Interv Psychiatry

    (2011)
  • D. Bhugra et al.

    Ethnic density, cultural congruity and mental illness in migrants

    Int Rev Psychiatry

    (2005)
  • J. Berry

    Conceptual approaches to acculturation

  • M.J. Dealberto

    Ethnic origin and increased risk for schizophrenia in immigrants to countries of recent and longstanding immigration

    Acta Psychiatr Scand

    (2010)
  • K. Eschbach et al.

    Neighborhood context and mortality among older Mexican Americans: is there a barrio advantage?

    Am J Public Health

    (2004)
  • C. Pereda et al.

    Impactos y desafíos

    Anuario de Psicología Clínica y de la Salud

    (2008)
  • Cited by (21)

    • Mental Health in Immigrants Versus Native Population: A Systematic Review of the Literature

      2017, Archives of Psychiatric Nursing
      Citation Excerpt :

      Post-traumatic stress disorder was less frequently evaluated (Amad et al., 2013). The measuring instruments used for these studies were varied but mainly included four: the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (Kokaua et al., 2009; Schaffer et al., 2009; Schrier et al., 2010, 2012; Setia et al., 2012), the MINI Neuropsychiatric Interview (Amad et al., 2013; Qureshi et al., 2013), the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) (Bromand et al., 2012; Del Amo et al., 2011) and the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (Schaffer et al., 2009; Sharma, 2012). A summary of the quality criteria of the different studies is shown in Table 2.

    • Gender Dysphoria and Social Anxiety: An Exploratory Study in Spain

      2016, Journal of Sexual Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Moreover, other studies report that hormonal treatment seems to improve this psychiatric morbidity18–20 and also reduces perceived stress and cortisol response.21 Regarding the prevalence of current social anxiety disorder (SAD) (last 30 days) in studies of primary care patients within the general population, a prevalence between 2%–4.2% has been reported.22,23 Epidemiological studies estimate a current prevalence of SAD (last 12 months) at around 5% (range 1.3%–9.1%).24–27

    • Comparative epidemiologic study of skin diseases in foreign children and children of Spanish origin in Alicante, Spain

      2014, Actas Dermo-Sifiliograficas
      Citation Excerpt :

      The new sociodemographic realities in our country demand an analysis of the needs and priorities at all levels of care.2 The foreign pediatric population may have a different prevalence of certain diseases compared to the Spanish population,3,4 as demonstrated in Spanish5,6 and international studies.7,8 Likewise, several Spanish studies have investigated the demand generated in dermatology clinics by foreign patients.9–11

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text