The Relationships among Social Discrimination, Subjective Health, and Personal Satisfaction of Immigrants

Article information

Res Community Public Health Nurs. 2017;28(4):375-385

Publication date (electronic) : 2017 December 12

doi : https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2017.28.4.375

¹Graduate School, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

²College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Lee, Insook College of Nursing, Seoul National University, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Korea. Tel: +82-2-740-8828, Fax: +82-2-765-4103, E-mail: lisook@snu.ac.kr

Received 2017 July 13; Revised 2017 October 01; Accepted 2017 October 02.

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to examine the relationships among social discrimination, subjective health, and personal satisfaction based on the country of origin.

Methods

The analysis was based on 16,958 immigrants who participated in the National Survey of Multicultural Family 2015 in Korea. This study conducted stratified cross-analysis of social discrimination for the differences in subjective health and personal satisfaction. Multivariate-adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the relationships among social discrimination, subjective health, and personal satisfaction were examined with multivariable logistic regression.

Results

There were differences in experience of social discrimination, subjective health status, and personal satisfaction according to the country of origin. Groups without the experience of social discrimination had better subjective health and personal satisfaction than the other groups.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that a discrimination prevention program needs to be developed based on a cultural approach

Keywords: Immigrants; Discrimination; Subjective health; Personal satisfaction

Table 1.

The General Characteristics of Participants for Social Discrimination Experience, Subjective Health and Personal Satisfaction (N=16,958)

Table 2.

Differences in Subjective Health and Personal Satisfaction according to Social Discrimination Experience by Country of Origin (N=16,958)

Table 3.

Relationship¹⁾ among Social Discrimination, Subjective Health and Personal Satisfaction by Country of Origin

References

1. Korea Immigration Service. Korea immigration service statistics 2015 Gwacheon: Ministry of Justice; 2015. p. 1056.

2. Jeong HS, Kim IS, Lee TM, Ma KH, Choi YJ, Park GP, et al. Ministry of the gender equality and family. An analysis on the national survey of multicultural families 2015. Statistics Report Seoul: Ministry of the Gender Equality and Family; 2016. January. Report No.: 2016-03.

3. Andrews MM, Boyle JS. Transcultural concepts in nursing care 6th edth ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012. p. 476.

4. Giger, JN, Davidhizar RE. Transcultural nursing: Assessment and intervention 6th edth ed. Maryland Heights, Missouri: Mosby; 2013. p. 720.

5. Williams DR, Lavizzo-Mourey R, Warren RC. The concept of race and health status in America. Public Health Reports 1994;109(1):26–41.

6. Kim JK. Yellow over black: History of race in Korea and the new study of race and empire. Critical Sociology 2015;41(2):205–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920513507787.

7. Kim YG, Son IS, Kim SS. Association between discrimination and self-rated health among marriage migrants in South Korea: Focusing on region of origin and gender differences. Health and Social Welfare Review 2015;35(3):421–452. https://doi.org/10.15709/hswr.2015.35.3.421.

8. Ahn SS, Min MS, Kim IS, Lee MJ, Kim KM. National multicultural acceptability. Research Report Seoul: Ministry of the Gender Equality and Family; 2012. January. Report No.: 2012-02.

9. Gee GC, Walsemann KM, Brondolo E. A life course perspec- tive on how racism may be related to health inequities. American Journal of Public Health 2012;102(5):967–974. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300666.

10. Krieger N. Discrimination and health inequities. International Journal of Health Services 2014;44(4):643–710. https://doi.org/10.2190/HS.44.4.b.

11. Son IS, Kim SS. A systemic review of research on perceived discrimination and health in South Korea. Health and Social Welfare Review 2015;35(1):26–57. https://doi.org/10.15709/hswr.2015.35.1.26.

12. Kim SJ, Hong CH. The effect of discrimination experience and language problems on psychosocial adjustment in children with multi-cultural family: The moderating effect of ego-resilience and family strengths. Korean Journal of Youth Studies 2017;24(1):195–211. https://doi.org/10.21509/KJYS.2017.01.24.1.195.

13. Ryu HS. Effects of the marriage immigrant women's discriminatory experience on the physical and mental health. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association 2016;16(8):345–356. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2016.16.08.345.

14. Lee C, Ayers SL, Kronenfeld JJ. The association between perceived provider discrimination, health care utilization, and health status in racial and ethnic minorities. Ethnicity & Disease 2009;19(3):330–337.

15. Finch BK, Hummer RA, Kol B, Vega WA. The role of discrimination and acculturative stress in the physical health of Mexican-origin adults. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 2001;23(4):399–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986301234004.

16. Hur CS. Understanding the multi-cultural map for Indonesian migrants in South Korea. The Journal of Anthropology of Education 2009;12(2):137–169. https://doi.org/10.17318/jae.2009.12.2.005.

17. Lee JH, Kim YK. The study on the cyber communities of migrant workers in Korea. Journal of the Korean Association of Regional Geographers 2013;19(2):324–339.

19. Lee HY, Kim WJ. An analysis of the growth and settlement pattern of marriage migration of women from developing countries. Journal of the Korean Urban Geographical Society 2007;10(2):15–33.

18. Sul DH. Foreign workers in Korean society Seoul: Seoul National University; 1999. p. 575.

20. Lee EK, Hwang HS. The report of multicultural policy. Policy Report Seoul: The Hope Institute; 2016. October. Report No.: 2016-07.

21. Korea National Statistical Office. Statistical information report of national survey of multicultural families [Internet] Daejeon: Korea National Statistical Office; 2015. [cited 2017 July 1]. Available from: http://kostat.go.kr/policy/quality/qt_dl/6/index.board?bmode=read&aSeq=351157&pageNo=14&rowNum=10&amSeq=&sTarget=title&sTxt=.

22. Cho SJ, Lee KS, Kwon YB. Periodic statistics quality diagnosis of 2015 national multicultural family survey. Statistics Report Daejeon: Korea National Statistical Office; 2015. Report No.: 11-1240000-00776-01.

23. Yun JW, Kang HS. Factors influencing married immigrant women's perceived health status: The national survey of multicultural families 2012. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing 2015;21(1):32–42. https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2015.21.1.32.

24. Lee SM, Kim DS. Acculturation and self-rated health among foreign women in Korea. Health and Social Welfare Review 2014;34(2):453–483.

25. Cho JE, Cho GJ. A study on changes of the effect of factors to married immigrant women's health: Multicultural families survey (2009, 2012). The Journal of Migration & Society 2014;7(2):5–28.

26. Nilchaikovit T, Hill JM, Holland JC. The effects of culture on illness behavior and medical care: Asian and American differences. General Hospital Psychiatry 1993;15(1):41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/0163-8343(93)90090-B.

27. Honolulu JA. People and cultures of Hawaii: A psychocultural profile Burns School of Medicine: University Press of Hawaii; 1980. p. 143.

28. Kim BSK, Yang PH, Atkinson DR, Wolfe MM, Hong SH. Cultural value similarities and differences among Asian American ethnic groups. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 2001;7(4):343–361.

29. Cheung R, Nelson W, Advindula L, Cureton VY, Canham DL. Understanding the culture of chinese children and families. Journal of School Nursing 2005;21(1):3–9.

30. Park JH, Lee UB. Comparison of 20 generations in five global countries [Internet] Seoul: L.G Business Insight; 2015. [cited 2017 March 30]. Available from: http://www.nhrd.net/board/view.do?boardId=BBS_0000006&orderBy=register_dt%20DESC&startPage=1&dataSid=25307.

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Table 1.

The General Characteristics of Participants for Social Discrimination Experience, Subjective Health and Personal Satisfaction (N=16,958)

Variables	Categories	Total	Discrimination^†		Subjective health^‡		Personal satisfaction^§
Variables	Categories	n (%)	n (%)	x² (p)	n (%)	x² (p)	n (%)	x² (p)
Total		16,958 (100.0)	10,200 (100.0)		10,931 (100.0)		9,619 (100.0)
Gender		2,561 (15.1)	1,451 (56.7)	15.34	1,702 (66.5)	263.79	1,498 (58.5)	305.29
Gender		14,397 (84.9)	8,749 (60.8)	(＜.001)	9,229 (64.1)	(＜.001)	8,121 (56.4)	(＜.001)
Age (year)	10~19	92 (0.5)	69 (75.0)	5.26	71 (77.2)	237.27	63 (68.5)	12.74
	20~29	4,584 (27.0)	2,787 (60.8)	(.022)	3,506 (76.5)	(＜.001)	2,934 (64.0)	(.026)
	30~39	5,816 (34.3)	3,408 (58.6)		4,157 (71.5)		3,493 (60.1)
	40~49	3,989 (23.5)	2,262 (56.7)		2,205 (55.3)		2,013 (50.5)
	50~59	1,701 (10.0)	1,058 (62.2)		786 (46.2)		780 (45.9)
	60~69	776 (4.6)	616 (79.4)		206 (26.5)		336 (43.3)
Education	No	196 (1.2)	121 (61.7)	3.85	95 (48.5)	35.15	89 (45.4)	647.49
	Elementary school	1,168 (6.9)	746 (63.9)	(.050)	621 (53.2)	(＜.001)	559 (47.9)	(＜.001)
	Middle school	3,067 (18.1)	1,870 (61.0)		1,848 (60.3)		1,597 (52.1)
	High school	6,871 (40.5)	4,170 (60.7)		4,293 (62.5)		3,719 (54.1)
	≥College	5,656 (33.4)	3,293 (58.2)		4,074 (72.0)		3,655 (64.6)
Marital status	Single	237 (1.4)	155 (65.4)	157.57	188 (79.3)	367.83	116 (48.9)	849.82
	Married	15,415 (90.9)	9,309 (60.4)	(＜.001)	10,204 (66.2)	(＜.001)	9,125 (59.2)	(＜.001)
	Others^\|\|	1,306 (7.7)	736 (56.4)		539 (41.3)		378 (28.9)
Residence period (year)	≤1	418 (2.5)	318 (77.6)	1,301.77	319 (77.8)		302 (73.7)	76.47
	2~5	3,786 (22.3)	2,394 (63.2)	(＜.001)	2,844 (75.1)	455.42	2,526 (66.7)	(＜.001)
	6~10	6,122 (36.1)	3,457 (56.5)		4,091 (66.8)	(＜.001)	3,452 (56.4)
	≥11	6,632 (39.1)	4,031 (60.8)		3,677 (55.4)		3,339 (50.3)
Income (10,000 won/ month)	≤100	1,357 (8.0)	864 (63.7)	333.03	509 (37.5)	94.96	474 (34.9)	583.61
	100~200	3,885 (22.9)	2,355 (60.6)	(＜.001)	2,303 (59.3)	(＜.001)	1,755 (45.2)	(＜.001)
	200~300	5,238 (30.9)	3,156 (60.3)		3,505 (66.9)		3,010 (57.5)
	300~400	3,507 (20.7)	2,068 (59.0)		2,422 (69.1)		2,231 (63.6)
	400~500	1,630 (9.6)	945 (58.0)		1,156 (70.9)		1,132 (69.4)
	≥500	1,341 (7.9)	812 (60.6)		1,036 (77.3)		1,017 (75.8)
Country of origin	China	3,793 (22.4)	2,292 (60.5)	17.42	2,311 (61.0)	463.70	2,032 (53.6)	397.17
	Korean-Chinese	2,678 (15.8)	1,577 (58.9)	(.002)	1,363 (50.9)	(＜.001)	1,205 (45.0)	(＜.001)
	Japan	1,485 (8.8)	973 (65.5)		791 (53.3)		790 (53.2)
	Taiwan, Hongkong	550 (3.2)	374 (68.0)		382 (69.5)		344 (62.5)
	Vietnam	2,736 (16.1)	1,628 (59.6)		1,915 (70.1)		1,628 (59.6)
	Philippines	1,446 (8.5)	867 (60.0)		1,097 (75.9)		904 (62.5)
	The Rese of Southeast Asia	1,569 (9.3)	945 (60.3)		1,107 (70.6)		907 (57.8)
	South Asia	510 (3.0)	236 (46.3)		366 (71.8)		306 (60.0)
	Mongolia, Russia, Central Asia	1,240 (7.3)	751 (60.6)		839 (67.7)		762 (61.5)
	America, Europe, Oceania	951 (5.6)	557 (58.6)		760 (79.9)		741 (77.9)

^†

No discrimination;

^‡

Good subjective health;

^§

Good personal satisfaction;

^||

Including divorced, separated and widows.

Table 2.

Differences in Subjective Health and Personal Satisfaction according to Social Discrimination Experience by Country of Origin (N=16,958)

Country of origin	n (%)	Discrimination						No discrimination
		Subjective health			Personal satisfaction			Subjective health			Personal satisfaction
		Good	Poor	χ² (p)	Good	Poor	χ² (p)	Good	Poor	χ² (p)	Good	Poor	χ² (p)
Total	n	3,997	2,761	269.35	3,416	3,342	160.78	6,934	3,266	334.25	6,203	3,997	256.90
Total	(%)	(59.1)	(40.9)	(＜.001)	(50.5)	(49.5)	(＜.001)	(68.0)	(32.0)	(＜.001)	(60.8)	(39.2)	(＜.001)
China	n	809	692		713	788		1,502	790		1,319	973
China	(%)	(53.9)	(46.1)		(47.5)	(52.5)		(65.5)	(34.5)		(57.5)	(42.5)
Korean-Chinese	n	491	610		435	666		872	705		770	870
Korean-Chinese	(%)	(44.6)	(55.4)		(39.5)	(60.5)		(55.3)	(44.7)		(48.8)	(55.2)
Japan	n	242	270		244	268		549	424		546	427
Japan	(%)	(47.3)	(52.7)		(47.7)	(52.3)		(56.4)	(43.6)		(56.1)	(43.9)
Taiwan, Hongkong	n	111	65		104	72		271	103		240	134
Taiwan, Hongkong	(%)	(63.1)	(36.9)		(59.1)	(40.9)		(72.5)	(27.5)		(64.2)	(35.8)
Vietnam	n	710	398		566	542		1,205	423		1,062	566
Vietnam	(%)	(64.1)	(35.9)		(51.1)	(48.9)		(74.0)	(26.0)		(65.2)	(34.8)
Philippines	n	419	160		341	238		678	189		563	304
Philippines	(%)	(72.4)	(27.6)		(58.9)	(41.1)		(78.2)	(21.8)		(64.9)	(35.1)
The Rese of Southeast Asia	n	420	204		312	312		687	258		595	350
The Rese of Southeast Asia	(%)	(67.3)	(32.7)		(50.0)	(50.0)		(72.7)	(27.3)		(63.0)	(37.0)
South Asia	n	187	87		142	132		179	57		164	72
South Asia	(%)	(68.2)	(31.8)		(51.8)	(48.2)		(75.8)	(24.2)		(69.5)	(30.5)
Mongolia, Russia, Central Asia	n	313	176		276	213		526	225		486	265
Mongolia, Russia, Central Asia	(%)	(64.0)	(36.0)		(56.4)	(43.6)		(70.0)	(30.0)		(64.7)	(35.3)
America, Europe, Oceania	n	295	99		283	111		465	92		458	99
America, Europe, Oceania	(%)	(74.9)	(25.1)		(71.8)	(28.2)		(83.5)	(16.5)		(82.2)	(17.8)

Differences in discrimination by country of origin (χ²=76.47, p＜.001).

Table 3.

Relationship¹⁾ among Social Discrimination, Subjective Health and Personal Satisfaction by Country of Origin

Variables	Model I^† (N=16,958)						Model II^‡ (N=10,200)
	Subjective health^§			Personal satisfaction^\|\|			Subjective health^§			Personal satisfaction^\|\|
	OR²⁾	95%	CI	OR³⁾	95%	CI	OR⁴⁾	95%	CI	OR⁵⁾	95%	% CI
China	1.37	1.12	1.69	1.83	1.51	2.22	1.46	1.10	1.94	1.86	1.42	2.42
Korean-Chinese	1.64	1.33	2.02	2.13	1.75	2.60	1.77	1.33	2.36	2.21	1.69	2.90
Japan	1.90	1.53	2.36	2.09	1.70	2.57	2.29	1.70	3.07	2.31	1.75	3.05
Taiwan, Hongkong	1.09	0.84	1.42	1.44	1.13	1.84	1.20	0.84	1.70	1.71	1.24	2.35
Vietnam	1.53	1.22	1.91	1.85	1.50	2.28	1.85	1.35	2.53	1.71	1.28	2.28
Philippines	0.95	0.75	1.19	1.50	1.21	1.86	1.21	0.88	1.66	1.68	1.26	2.24
The Rest of Southeast Asia	1.33	1.06	1.67	1.93	1.55	2.39	1.82	1.32	2.50	1.92	1.43	2.58
South Asia	1.19	0.91	1.55	1.42	1.11	1.82	1.47	0.99	2.19	1.25	0.87	1.82
Mongolia, Russia, Central Asia	1.30	1.04	1.63	1.58	1.28	1.96	1.53	1.12	2.10	1.68	1.26	2.25
America, Europe, Oceania	Ref			Ref			Ref			Ref

^†

Total group;

^‡

No discrimination group;

^§

Good subjective health;

^||

Good personal satisfaction.

¹⁾

Obtained from multivariable logistic regression model including variables in Table 1;

²⁾

p-value=0.059 by Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness-of-fit-test;

³⁾

p-value=0.364 by Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness-of-fit-test;

⁴⁾

p-value=0.271 by Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness-of-fit-test;

⁵⁾

p-value=0.463 by Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness-of-fit-test.