Table 3.
Multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses of self-rated health status for a sample of young Latino adults in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area (n=1268)
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | ||||
| Socio-demographic Characteristics | |||||||||
| Age, y | * | 0.98 | (0.96, 0.99) | * | 0.98 | (0.96, 0.99) | * | 0.98 | (0.96, 0.99) |
| Female | 1.13 | (0.92, 1.38) | 1.11 | (0.90, 1.36) | 1.12 | (0.92, 1.38) | |||
| Income, $a | |||||||||
| 20000–49,999 | * | 1.40 | (1.07, 1.84) | * | 1.42 | (1.08, 1.86) | * | 1.41 | (1.08, 1.85) |
| ≥ 50,000–99,999 | *** | 1.94 | (1.42, 2.64) | *** | 1.98 | (1.46, 2.70) | *** | 1.89 | (1.38, 2.58) |
| At least some college (>12 years education)b | ** | 1.46 | (1.17, 1.82) | ** | 1.46 | (1.17, 1.82) | ** | 1.43 | (1.14, 1.78) |
| Spanish-language interviewc | * | 0.64 | (0.45, 0.92) | * | 0.65 | (0.45, 0.93) | * | 0.67 | (0.47, 0.96) |
| Immigration Measures | |||||||||
| 1.5 generationd | * | 1.38 | (1.03, 1.84) | 0.96 | (0.52, 1.75) | 0.95 | (0.52, 1.74) | ||
| Central Americane | 0.87 | (0.69, 1.09) | 0.87 | (0.70, 1.10) | 0.89 | (0.71, 1.12) | |||
| Respondent Legal Statusf | |||||||||
| Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) | 0.87 | (0.59, 1.27) | 0.82 | (0.56, 1.20) | 0.83 | (0.56, 1.21) | |||
| Neither Citizen or LPR | 0.69 | (0.41, 1.16) | 0.68 | (0.40, 1.14) | 0.69 | (0.41, 1.16) | |||
| At least one parent entered U.S. as documented | ** | 1.42 | (1.13, 1.78) | ** | 1.41 | (1.12, 1.77) | ** | 1.37 | (1.09, 1.72) |
| Cross border ties | |||||||||
| Parents ever remitted money | 1.19 | (0.95, 1.50) | * | 1.39 | (1.05, 1.84) | * | 1.40 | (1.06, 1.85) | |
| R ever remitted money | 0.95 | (0.76, 1.19) | 0.94 | (0.76, 1.18) | 0.95 | (0.76, 1.18) | |||
| Either parent visited country-of-origin for ≥ 6 mos.g | |||||||||
| Yes, and R accompanied parent | 0.95 | (0.65, 1.38) | 0.95 | (0.65, 1.39) | 0.96 | (0.65, 1.41) | |||
| Yes, and R did not accompany parent | ** | 0.60 | (0.44, 0.82) | ** | 0.61 | (0.45, 0.83) | ** | 0.62 | (0.45, 0.84) |
| R ever visited (parents') country of origin as an adult | 0.90 | (0.71, 1.15) | 0.91 | (0.72, 1.15) | 0.90 | (0.71, 1.14) | |||
| Has close relative in (parents') country-of-origin | 1.09 | (0.84, 1.42) | 0.86 | (0.63, 1.18) | 0.84 | (0.62, 1.15) | |||
| Interaction Terms | |||||||||
| 1.5 generation × parents ever remitted money | 0.68 | (0.43, 1.08) | 0.68 | (0.43, 1.08) | |||||
| 1.5 generation × close relative in (parents') country-of-origin | ** | 2.19 | (1.23, 3.92) | ** | 2.26 | (1.26, 4.04) | |||
| Local social ties | |||||||||
| >10 close relatives (non-household) in L.A.h | 1.17 | (0.95, 1.44) | |||||||
| Belongs to a community group | * | 1.36 | (1.01, 1.83) | ||||||
| Likelihood Ratio Chi-Squared Statistic | 92.7 | *** | 101.4 | *** | 108.1 | *** | |||
Source: Intergenerational and Immigrant Mobility in Metropolitan Los Angeles (IIMMLA), 2004.
Notes:
a
2003 household income, ≤ $19,999 is the reference,
b
≤ 12 years of education is the reference,
c
English-language interview is the reference,
d
2nd generation (U.S.-born) is the reference,
e
Mexican/Mexican-American is the reference,
f
U.S. Citizen is the reference,
g
this measure refers to extended visits during respondents' childhood, the reference is neither parent made an extended visit,
h
≤ 10 close relatives (non-household) in L.A. is the reference.
*
p<0.05,
**
p<0.01,
***
p<0.001