12 Do the Cognitive Effects of the Immigrant Health Paradox Vary Across the Lifespan?

Abstract

Objective:

The Immigrant Health Paradox (IHP) suggests that immigrants have better health upon arrival in comparison to their U.S.-born Latinx counterparts, indicating that immigrants’ unique experiences may buffer against negative health outcomes, including cognition. Some studies indicate that IHP-related cognitive health benefits diminish with increased time spent in the U.S., while others suggest that this relationship may be age-dependent such that compared to migration during earlier or later life, migration during young/middle adulthood may be related to better cognition-potentially due to higher simultaneous cognitive demands associated with this age epoch (e.g., language acquisition, acculturation). However, this literature is equivocal and has methodological limitations (e.g., cognition typically assessed with cognitive screeners, lack of clinical populations) Thus, this study aimed to examine the role of age related to IHP and cognition within a well-characterized sample of HIV+ Latinx adults. It was hypothesized that compared to U.S.-born Latinx adults and those who immigrated earlier or later in life, the Latinx immigrant subgroup who migrated during young/middle adulthood would demonstrate better cognitive functioning.

Participants and Methods:

This cross-sectional study included a HIV+ sample (A/=105) of 34 Latinx immigrants (M_age=45.56, SD=6.99) and 71 U.S.-born Latinx individuals (Ma_ge=46.03, SD=7.63), who completed a comprehensive sociocultural questionnaire and cognitive battery. Demographically-adjusted average T-scores were computed for each cognitive test and domain (e.g., learning, memory). A series of Welch’s-corrected ANOVAS with post hoc Games-Howell tests for multiple comparisons were conducted to compare cognitive function across three groups: Latinx immigrants who migrated during earlier (<19 yrs) or later adulthood (>50 yrs), young/middle adulthood (20-49 yrs), and U.S.-born Latinx adults.

Results:

Compared to the other Latinx subgroups, Latinx immigrants who migrated during middle adulthood performed worse in Verbal Fluency (F(2,98)=8.04, p<.001), Attention/Working Memory (f(2,96)=6.10, p<.01), Executive Function (f(2,99)=5.11, p<.01), and Processing Speed (F(2,101)=3.36, p<.05). Posthoc Games-Howell tests showed that the mean Verbal Fluency (p<.01, 95% C.I.=[-21.37, -2.66]), Attention/Working Memory (p<.05, 95% C.I.=[-16.82, -1.59]), Executive Function (p<.01, 95% C.I.=[-14.66, -2.49]) and Processing Speed (p<.05, 95% C.I.=[-13.60, -1.31]) T-scores were significantly lower in Latinx immigrants who migrated in young/middle adulthood compared to the U.S.-born Latinx sample. Further, there were no differences between the U.S.-born Latinx group compared to the Latinx immigrant group who migrated earlier or later in life (ps>.05).

Conclusions:

This preliminary study is the first to examine whether the potential protective cognitive effects of the IHP vary across the lifespan among Latinx immigrants with HIV, using a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Age-related IHP benefits were not observed in this study. Moreover, Latinx immigrants who migrated during young/middle adulthood had worse cognitive functioning compared to their U.S.-born Latinx counterparts and those that migrated earlier or later in life. A possible explanation for this study’s unexpected findings is that the IHP is outdated due to the current sociopolitical climate immigrants experience compared to the 1980s when the theory was developed. Future studies, with larger samples, longitudinal designs, and greater sociocultural characterization (e.g., immigration reason/s, country of origin, discrimination), are needed to better understand the role of IHP in cognition.