| Title |
Differences in Subjective Well-being Between Older Migrants and Natives in Europe
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10903-016-0537-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gregor Sand, Stefan Gruber |
| Abstract |
This study examines disparities in subjective well-being (SWB) among older migrants and natives across several European countries using data from the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Our results show a significant SWB gap between migrants and non-migrants that diminishes with increasing age. While migrants from Northern and Central Europe have similar SWB levels as natives, Southern European, Eastern European, and Non-European migrants have significantly lower levels of SWB than the native population. The immigrant-native gap becomes smaller but remains significant after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and health, the financial situation, citizenship, age at migration, and length of residence. Additionally, we find that the size of the SWB gap varies largely across countries. Current family reunion policies as measured by the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) correlate with these country differences. The immigrant-native gap is bigger in countries with restrictive and smaller in countries with open policies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 90 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 32 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 16 | 18% |
| Psychology | 13 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 36 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 July 2021.
All research outputs
#4,041,541
of 23,896,578 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#241
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,526
of 425,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#4
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,896,578 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 425,558 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.