Sick Days: Logical Versus Survey Identification of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States. Issue 1 (March 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Altman, Claire E.; Bachmeier, James D.; Spence, Cody; Hamilton, Christal
• Is Part Of: International migration review. Volume 57:Issue 1(2023)
• Page Start: 395
• Page End: 420
• Publication Date: 2023-03
• Subjects: sick days -- immigration -- SIPP -- legal status -- measurement; Emigration and immigration -- Periodicals; 325.05
• DOI: 10.1177/01979183221084333
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0197-9183

Abstract

The self-reported number of workdays missed due to injury or illness, or sick days, is a reliable measure of health among working-aged adults. Although sick days is a relatively underexplored health-related outcome in migration studies, it can provide a multidimensional understanding of immigrant wellbeing and integration. Current understandings of the association between migration status and sick days are limited for two reasons. First, in the United States, few nationally representative surveys collect migration status information. Second, researchers lack consensus on the most reliable approach for assigning migration status. We use the 2008 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to examine sick days and draw comparisons between two methods for assigning migration status—a logical approach and a survey approach. The logical method assigns migration status to foreign-born respondents based on characteristics such as government employment or welfare receipt, while the survey approach relies on self-reported survey responses. Sick days among immigrants was correlated with and predicted by other health conditions available in the SIPP. Comparisons of sick days by migration status vary based on migration assignment approach. Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) reported more sick days than non-LPRs and appear less healthy when migration status is assigned using the logical approach. The logical approach also produced a gap in sick days between LPRs and non-LPRs that is not replicated in the survey approach. The results demonstrate that if migration status is not measured directly in the data, interpretation of migration status effects should proceed cautiously.