Variation in Mental Health Service Use Among U.S. Latinos by Place of Origin and Service Provider Type
Abstract
Objective:
This study examined variation in mental health service use among U.S. Latinos by place of origin and service provider type.
Methods:
Data were obtained from the National Latino and Asian American Study. The sample for this study consisted of 2,533 Latino adults, including Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and other Latinos. Use of services from specialty mental health providers, general medical providers, and other providers was examined. Guided by Andersen’s behavioral model of health service use, logistic regression models were conducted.
Results:
Although over one-fifth of the sample (21.3%) had a psychiatric disorder, only 9.6% reported that they received any mental health services in the past 12 months. Overall, Puerto Ricans were more likely than the other Latino subgroups to use any mental health services. Respondents with a psychiatric disorder were more likely to use mental health services from all provider types, but the effect of having a psychiatric disorder on use of general medical care providers was greater among Mexicans than among Puerto Ricans.
Conclusions:
Findings suggest the existence of variations among Latino subgroups in mental health service use by provider type and place of origin. Mental health professionals should provide tailored outreach and services to this vulnerable population, which underutilizes mental health services. Further research should examine variation in mental health service use by immigrant legal status.
Disparate access to and utilization of mental health care is a long-standing concern for racial-ethnic minority populations (1–4). Previous studies identified multiple factors associated with this disparate utilization, including cost and lack of insurance (5,6), linguistic challenges (5–7), perception of mental health symptoms as general medical conditions (8,9), and lack of knowledge about where to access help (6,10). This disparity in service use is especially concerning in light of the rapid growth of the Latino population—now the largest racial-ethnic minority group in the United States (11). The Latino population is predicted to triple from 2005 to 2050 and will constitute 29% of the U.S. national population by 2050 (12).
Although a growing body of research has examined factors associated with mental health service utilization among Latinos, much of the literature has focused on Latinos collectively, without fully recognizing the diversity within the Latino population. A key component of this diversity is place of origin because of its association with unique migration histories and sociodemographic characteristics. Migration from both Mexico and Puerto Rico, for example, is traditionally associated with seeking higher wages, whereas Cuban migration has been driven by the socialist leadership. Notable rates of Mexican migration began with the establishment of two U.S. guest worker initiatives (bracero programs) in 1917 (13) and in 1942; the latter facilitated the migration of 4.2 million Mexicans for agricultural labor (14). Continued Mexican migration has largely centered on the search for higher-paying jobs than can be found at home.
Puerto Ricans were granted U.S. citizenship in 1917, which initiated some degree of migration; however, more substantial waves occurred after 1945 as a result of economic shifts in Puerto Rico (15). For example, about 470,000 Puerto Ricans moved to the United States after an industrialization program (Operation Bootstrap) that was launched in 1947. In subsequent decades, migration rates have fluctuated on the basis of economic circumstances at home, as well as the availability of employment in the United States (15). Cuban migration to the United States rose sharply beginning with the Cuban revolution in 1959, particularly as wealthier individuals sought refuge from the socialist regime (16). Rates of migration increased after the Cuban Migration Agreement in 1995 (17). As a population seeking asylum, Cubans can apply for access to humanitarian provisions not provided to other Latino migrants, which serves as a driving force for some to move to the United States.
In regard to sociodemographic characteristics of Latino subgroups, Cubans constitute relatively older and more educated individuals (18–21), and Puerto Ricans are more likely to be proficient in English (18–20). Cubans also report a higher level of cohesion among family members, compared with Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, who reported the lowest level (21).
In terms of mental health issues, Alegría and colleagues (22) found that foreign-born Latinos had lower rates of psychiatric disorders than their U.S.-born counterparts. However, when the Latino sample was disaggregated into various subgroups, the disparity remained only for Mexicans. This diversity accentuates the importance of understanding variations in the mental health of Latinos and their service utilization patterns. Although previous studies suggest the importance of understanding disparities in mental health service use by place of origin (22–27), limited research has examined the role of Latino subgroups in mental health service utilization. The exception is a recent study by Keyes and colleagues (27). However, their study was limited by the aggregation of various service types, and it did not account for variation in use by service provider type. Specifically, considering the potential barriers to mental health service use among immigrant populations (for example, unfamiliarity with the U.S. mental health system and limited English proficiency), understanding which types of professionals are utilized for services is critical. Thus our study extends the work of Keyes and colleagues by examining variation on the basis of provider type, including specialty mental health providers, general medical providers, and other types of providers.
Andersen’s (28) behavioral model of health service utilization was used as the framework for this study. The model conceptualizes health service use as a function of predisposition to use services, enabling conditions to secure services, and need for such services, and it has been widely used for various vulnerable populations, including racial-ethnic minority groups and immigrants because of its comprehensive approach to explaining their use of general medical and mental health services (29–36). We examined variations in the main effects of predisposing, enabling, need, and immigration-related factors and their interaction effects with place of origin on various types of mental health service use among nationally representative samples of Latino subgroups in the United States. By exploring variations in service use by place of origin and provider type, the results can help inform mental health policies and services for various Latino subgroups in the United States.
Methods
Data Source and Study Sample
Data were obtained from the National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS). The NLAAS is a nationally representative survey that estimates the prevalence of mental disorders and rates of mental health service utilization by Latino and Asian Americans in the United States (37). The NLAAS data were collected in 2002 and 2003 by in-person household interviews or telephone interviews in English or in the respondent’s native language; the weighted response rate was 75.5% for Latinos and 65.6% for Asians (38). Although this data set may be dated, the NLAAS is still one of the most comprehensive and largest studies of nationally representative Latinos and Asian Americans (39).
The study sample consisted of 2,533 Latino adults (age 18 and older). To make a clear comparison of Latino respondents on the basis of their place of origin, non-Latino respondents were excluded from this study. Respondents were classified into four subgroups on the basis of self-reported place of origin: Cuban, Puerto Rican, Mexican, and other Latino.
Measures
Mental health service use was the dependent variable. Respondents were asked whether they received services in the past 12 months from each of three provider types for problems with emotions, nerves, or use of alcohol or drugs. The three service provider types included specialty mental health services provided by psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals and by mental health hotlines; general medical services provided by general practitioners, family doctors, nurses, occupational therapists, and other health professionals; and other services provided by social workers, counselors, religious or spiritual advisors, self-help groups, and Internet support groups (40,41). On the basis of use of the three types of providers (yes or no), we created another dichotomous variable to indicate whether the respondent used any type of mental health services (yes or no). This operationalization is a conventional way of measuring various types of mental health services in previous studies (40,41). However, it is important to note that this self-reported service use might be underestimated (37).
Predisposing factors included age (in years), gender, marital status, and educational attainment. Marital status was dichotomized: currently married or cohabiting versus divorced, separated, widowed, or never married. Educational attainment consisted of four categories: less than high school graduate, high school graduate, some university, and university graduate or above.
Enabling factors included poverty status, insurance coverage, and social network characteristics. Poverty status was based on the 2001 U.S. Census income-to-needs ratio (yes or no). We dichotomized insurance coverage to indicate whether the respondent had any type of insurance (insured versus uninsured). Two social network variables included frequency of contact with relatives and with friends who don’t live with respondents; respondents were asked how often they talked on the phone or got together (most every day, a few times a week, a few times a month, once a month, and less than once a month). To achieve parsimony, we used social network variables as continuous variables in multivariate models, with higher values indicating more contacts.
Psychiatric disorders, a need factor, were assessed by a modified version of the World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview, a comprehensive, fully structured psychiatric diagnostic interview developed by the World Health Organization to provide valid information about the prevalence of mental disorders in the general population (42). We created four dichotomous variables (yes or no) to indicate whether the respondent had the following disorders during the 12-month period: mood disorders (major depressive disorder, major depressive episode, and dysthymia), anxiety disorders (panic attack, panic disorder, agoraphobia without panic disorder, agoraphobia with panic disorder, social phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder), substance use disorders (alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, drug abuse, and drug dependence), and eating disorders (anorexia, binge eating, and bulimia). We created an additional dichotomous variable (yes or no) to indicate whether the respondent had any of these four types of psychiatric disorders (40,41). It should be noted that bipolar disorder and schizophrenia were not measured in the NLAAS (43).
Immigration-related factors included length of stay in the United States (0–5, 6–10, 11–20, or ≥21 years), age at immigration (0–12, 13–17, 18–34, or ≥35 years), U.S. citizenship status (U.S.-born or naturalized citizen versus noncitizen), and English proficiency (excellent-good versus fair-poor).
Data Analysis
We used the survey procedures of SAS, version 9.3, to account for the NLAAS’s complex sampling design. To compare sample characteristics by place of origin, we conducted Rao-Scott chi square tests for all categorical variables (44) and calculated F statistics for a continuous variable of age. We conducted a series of logistic regression analyses to examine the factors associated with use of services from each provider type. To examine variation by place of origin (the moderating effect of place of origin on the relationships among covariates and mental health service use), we also tested potential interactions. By comparing Wald chi square statistics of two models (one with and one without interactions), an omnibus test was conducted (45). On the basis of a conservative cutoff point (variance inflation factor >4.0) (46), we found no multicollinearity issues in the models. Because of the relatively small observed missing values, listwise deletion was conducted.
Results
The mean±SE age of the sample was 37.98±.55, and mean age differed significantly by place of origin (F=37.8, df=3 and 56, p<.001). Results of Rao-Scott chi square tests showed that all predisposing, enabling, need, and immigration-related characteristics were significantly different (p<.05) by place of origin, with the exceptions of depression and substance use disorders (Table 1). Over one-fifth of respondents had any psychiatric disorders (21.3%), whereas only 9.6% reported that they received any mental health services in the past 12 months. Receipt of mental health services from specialty providers and other providers differed significantly (p<.05) by place of origin, whereas no variation was found in receipt of services from general medical providers.
| Characteristic | All Latino (N=2,533) | Cuban (N=573) | Puerto Rican (N=488) | Mexican (N=861) | Other (N=611) | χ2 | df | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | SE | % | SE | % | SE | % | SE | % | SE | |||
| Predisposing factor | ||||||||||||
| Gender | 10.6* | 3 | ||||||||||
| Male | 51.5 | 1.2 | 52.6 | 1.2 | 48.7 | 2.0 | 53.8 | 1.8 | 47.7 | 2.2 | ||
| Female | 48.5 | 1.2 | 47.4 | 1.2 | 51.3 | 2.0 | 46.2 | 1.8 | 52.3 | 2.2 | ||
| Marital status | 37.2*** | 3 | ||||||||||
| Married or cohabiting | 64.4 | 1.4 | 63.5 | 3.2 | 54.6 | 3.0 | 69.8 | 2.1 | 57.4 | 2.0 | ||
| Other | 35.6 | 1.4 | 36.5 | 3.2 | 45.4 | 3.0 | 30.2 | 2.1 | 42.6 | 2.0 | ||
| Education | 150.4*** | 9 | ||||||||||
| Less than high school graduate | 44.3 | 1.7 | 30.4 | 2.2 | 33.9 | 2.6 | 52.4 | 2.2 | 34.1 | 2.2 | ||
| High school graduate | 24.6 | .9 | 24.7 | 1.4 | 28.3 | 2.0 | 24.4 | 1.1 | 23.5 | 2.1 | ||
| Some university | 21.0 | 1.3 | 21.2 | 2.0 | 26.1 | 1.9 | 16.1 | 1.8 | 28.7 | 2.2 | ||
| University graduate or higher | 10.2 | 1.0 | 23.7 | 2.7 | 11.6 | 1.5 | 7.1 | 1.0 | 13.7 | 1.6 | ||
| Enabling factor | ||||||||||||
| Poverty | 38.3*** | 3 | ||||||||||
| Yes | 38.6 | 2.5 | 31.5 | 4.2 | 30.6 | 2.2 | 44.0 | 3.3 | 32.0 | 2.4 | ||
| No | 61.4 | 2.5 | 68.5 | 4.2 | 69.4 | 2.2 | 56.0 | 3.3 | 68.0 | 2.4 | ||
| Currently insured | 147.5*** | 3 | ||||||||||
| Yes | 65.3 | 2.4 | 75.2 | 2.9 | 83.9 | 1.8 | 57.3 | 3.0 | 72.9 | 2.2 | ||
| No | 34.7 | 2.4 | 24.8 | 2.9 | 16.1 | 1.8 | 42.7 | 3.0 | 27.1 | 2.2 | ||
| Frequency of contact with relatives | 30.2** | 12 | ||||||||||
| Less than once a month | 12.1 | .6 | 7.5 | .8 | 12.1 | 1.7 | 11.7 | .9 | 13.3 | 1.8 | ||
| Once a month | 13.9 | 1.1 | 7.5 | 1.5 | 10.1 | 1.4 | 15.3 | 1.3 | 13.4 | 1.9 | ||
| A few times a month | 23.5 | .8 | 21.6 | 1.6 | 23.0 | 1.7 | 23.4 | 1.2 | 24.1 | 2.2 | ||
| A few times a week | 30.3 | 1.2 | 29.5 | 1.7 | 29.8 | 1.7 | 31.2 | 1.7 | 28.9 | 1.8 | ||
| Most every day | 20.3 | .9 | 33.9 | 1.5 | 25.1 | 1.8 | 18.4 | 1.5 | 20.3 | 1.6 | ||
| Frequency of contact with friends | 53.2*** | 12 | ||||||||||
| Less than once a month | 21.4 | .9 | 13.5 | 1.8 | 17.1 | 2.3 | 25.2 | 1.0 | 16.8 | 2.0 | ||
| Once a month | 14.8 | .7 | 14.2 | 1.2 | 12.7 | 1.6 | 15.2 | 1.2 | 14.8 | 1.4 | ||
| A few times a month | 22.9 | 1.1 | 23.5 | 1.2 | 23.3 | 1.6 | 24.5 | 1.6 | 19.8 | 2.1 | ||
| A few times a week | 27.3 | .9 | 28.0 | 2.1 | 30.2 | 2.4 | 24.7 | 1.7 | 31.3 | 2.3 | ||
| Most every day | 13.5 | .8 | 20.8 | 1.4 | 16.7 | 2.1 | 10.4 | 1.4 | 17.3 | 2.0 | ||
| Need factor | ||||||||||||
| Any psychiatric disorder | 21.3 | 1.1 | 20.5 | 1.2 | 29.9 | 1.8 | 20.1 | 1.5 | 20.9 | 2.4 | 11.2* | 3 |
| Depressive disorder | 8.6 | 1.0 | 8.3 | .9 | 11.9 | 1.4 | 8.4 | .8 | 8.8 | 1.2 | 4.8 | 3 |
| Anxiety disorder | 14.4 | 1.0 | 14.8 | 1.3 | 21.1 | 2.4 | 13.9 | 1.3 | 13.2 | 1.7 | 9.6* | 3 |
| Substance use disorder | 2.9 | .4 | 1.8 | .3 | 3.4 | 1.0 | 2.9 | .3 | 2.9 | 1.1 | .8 | 3 |
| Eating disorder | 3.1 | .5 | 3.5 | .7 | 4.3 | .9 | 2.3 | .6 | 4.2 | 1.0 | 8.7* | 3 |
| Immigration-related factor | ||||||||||||
| Length of stay in the U.S. (years) | 46.4*** | 9 | ||||||||||
| 0–5 | 9.7 | 1.3 | 16.6 | 4.3 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 10.1 | 2.0 | 10.3 | 1.6 | ||
| 6–10 | 9.1 | 1.0 | 12.9 | 2.1 | 3.6 | 1.2 | 9.4 | 1.3 | 9.8 | 1.8 | ||
| 11–20 | 18.4 | 1.2 | 8.5 | 1.5 | 9.0 | 1.2 | 19.1 | 1.8 | 21.7 | 2.1 | ||
| ≥21 | 62.8 | 2.1 | 62.1 | 4.3 | 85.0 | 2.6 | 61.3 | 3.5 | 58.2 | 2.5 | ||
| Age at immigration | 29.1*** | 9 | ||||||||||
| 0–12 | 53.9 | 2.1 | 29.9 | 2.9 | 72.1 | 2.3 | 54.0 | 3.3 | 51.3 | 2.9 | ||
| 13–17 | 10.9 | 1.0 | 5.8 | 1.1 | 7.0 | 1.1 | 13.7 | 1.7 | 7.7 | 1.0 | ||
| 18–34 | 28.7 | 1.6 | 31.2 | 2.5 | 17.2 | 1.1 | 30.2 | 2.3 | 29.6 | 2.4 | ||
| ≥35 | 6.4 | .6 | 33.1 | 2.9 | 3.7 | 1.0 | 2.2 | .4 | 11.4 | 1.6 | ||
| U.S. citizenship | 109.8*** | 3 | ||||||||||
| Yes | 61.4 | 2.3 | 60.8 | 3.6 | 98.9 | .6 | 54.7 | 3.4 | 61.6 | 2.7 | ||
| No | 38.6 | 2.3 | 39.2 | 3.6 | 1.1 | .6 | 45.3 | 3.4 | 38.4 | 2.7 | ||
| English proficiency | 39.8*** | 3 | ||||||||||
| Excellent-good | 51.0 | 2.5 | 40.6 | 3.7 | 69.2 | 2.7 | 45.7 | 3.5 | 56.7 | 2.7 | ||
| Fair-poor | 49.0 | 2.5 | 59.4 | 3.7 | 30.8 | 2.7 | 54.3 | 3.5 | 43.3 | 2.7 | ||
| Dependent variable | ||||||||||||
| Any mental health service | 9.6 | .6 | 10.0 | 1.4 | 16.8 | 2.4 | 8.6 | .9 | 9.1 | .9 | 20.3*** | 3 |
| Specialty mental health care | 4.0 | .7 | 5.3 | 1.0 | 7.9 | 1.7 | 3.2 | .9 | 3.9 | .9 | 10.6* | 3 |
| General medical care | 4.5 | .5 | 6.3 | 1.0 | 6.6 | 1.7 | 4.1 | .7 | 4.2 | .6 | 4.7 | 3 |
| Other service provider | 5.2 | .7 | 2.9 | .7 | 8.2 | 1.3 | 4.5 | 1.0 | 6.1 | 1.0 | 9.5* | 3 |
a
All data are weighted.
*
p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Table 2 and Table 3 present the results of the logistic regression models. To examine the gross effect of place of origin, model A included only ethnic dummy variables; the results indicated that Puerto Ricans were more likely than Cubans, Mexicans, and other Latinos to use services provided by any mental health providers; however, no variation by place of origin was found in use of specialty mental health care. The results of omnibus tests indicated that the model specifying the interaction effects of place of origin (model C) had a better fit (p<.001) than the model not specifying these interactions (model B). Consequently, the following results are based on model C.
| Variable | Any mental health provider | Specialty mental health provider | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model Ab | Model Bc | Model Cd | Model Ab | Model Bc | Model Cd | |||||||
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| Predisposing factor | ||||||||||||
| Place of origin (reference: Puerto Rican) | ||||||||||||
| Cuban | .55* | .35–.87 | .66 | .37–1.76 | .35 | .08–1.55 | .65 | .35–1.23 | 1.09 | .52–2.31 | .59 | .05–7.38 |
| Mexican | .47*** | .30–.71 | .81 | .51–1.30 | .38 | .07–2.00 | .39* | .18–.82 | .74 | .31–1.75 | 1.27 | .13–12.65 |
| Other | .50*** | .33–.75 | .70 | .45–1.09 | .69 | .45–1.04 | .48* | .30–.91 | .77 | .36–1.67 | .78 | .36–1.66 |
| Age (in years) | 1.01** | 1.00–1.02 | 1.01 | .99–1.02 | 1.02* | 1.00–1.04 | 1.02 | .99–1.04 | ||||
| Female (reference: male) | 1.47* | 1.08–2.00 | 1.20 | .82–1.74 | .94 | .52–1.71 | .91 | .45–1.83 | ||||
| Married or cohabiting (reference: other) | .85 | .53–1.35 | .85 | .53–1.36 | .62 | .32–1.22 | .62 | .31–1.23 | ||||
| Education (reference: high school graduate) | ||||||||||||
| Less than high school graduate | 1.03 | .63–1.70 | 1.03 | .62–1.69 | 1.29 | .64–2.59 | 1.30 | .65–2.63 | ||||
| Some university | 1.08 | .53–2.21 | 1.07 | .51–2.21 | 1.15 | .41–3.17 | 1.12 | .41–3.10 | ||||
| University graduate or higher | 1.62 | .99–2.64 | 1.61 | .97–2.68 | 1.88 | .86–4.11 | 1.85 | .84–4.07 | ||||
| Enabling factor | ||||||||||||
| Poverty (reference: no) | 1.13 | .77–1.64 | 1.11 | .76–1.62 | 1.45 | .89–2.35 | 1.39 | .83–2.32 | ||||
| Insured (reference: uninsured) | 2.58*** | 1.60–4.16 | 2.52** | 1.30–4.89 | 2.97** | 1.30–6.81 | 7.23*** | 2.38–22.01 | ||||
| Frequency of contact with relatives | 1.00 | .88–1.14 | 1.00 | .88–1.14 | .79* | .66–.95 | .80* | .66–.97 | ||||
| Frequency of contact with friends | 1.00 | .87–1.14 | .99 | .87–1.14 | 1.04 | .88–1.24 | 1.04 | .87–1.23 | ||||
| Need factor: psychiatric disorder (reference: none) | 9.12*** | 6.53–12.75 | 7.96*** | 5.25–12.05 | 11.91*** | 5.77–24.56 | 9.30*** | 4.42–19.57 | ||||
| Immigration-related factor | ||||||||||||
| Length of stay in the U.S. (reference: 0–5 years) | ||||||||||||
| 6–10 | .71 | .30–1.67 | .72 | .31–1.69 | .75 | .20–2.80 | .80 | .21–3.07 | ||||
| 11–20 | 1.02 | .57–1.82 | 1.02 | .57–1.84 | .68 | .24–1.97 | .68 | .24–1.94 | ||||
| ≥21 | 1.10 | .75–1.60 | 1.11 | .78–1.59 | 1.00 | .52–1.93 | 1.07 | .54–2.11 | ||||
| Age at immigration (reference: 0–12 years) | ||||||||||||
| 13–17 | 1.09 | .56–2.14 | 1.13 | .57–2.22 | .94 | .39–2.26 | .98 | .41–2.34 | ||||
| 18–34 | .68 | .36–1.28 | .71 | .39–1.29 | 1.16 | .45–3.02 | 1.17 | .48–2.34 | ||||
| ≥35 | 1.56 | .63–3.88 | 1.79 | .69–4.70 | .70 | .26–1.91 | .81 | .32–2.06 | ||||
| U.S. citizen (reference: no) | 1.14 | .50–2.60 | 1.19 | .51–2.81 | 1.52 | .54–4.32 | 1.58 | .56–4.45 | ||||
| Excellent-good English proficiency (reference: fair-poor) | 1.43 | .82–2.50 | 1.40 | .79–2.48 | 1.58 | .67–3.74 | 1.65 | .69–3.94 | ||||
| Interactions (reference: Puerto Rican) | ||||||||||||
| Cuban × age | .99 | .97–1.02 | .99 | .96–1.02 | ||||||||
| Cuban × gender | 1.68 | .87–3.27 | 4.26* | 1.14–15.94 | ||||||||
| Cuban × insurance | 1.63 | .53–5.02 | .52 | .09–2.95 | ||||||||
| Cuban × psychiatric disorder | 1.60 | .78–3.31 | 2.93 | .83–10.32 | ||||||||
| Mexican × age | 1.01 | .99–1.04 | 1.01 | .99–1.03 | ||||||||
| Mexican × gender | 1.43 | .65–3.15 | .91 | .25–3.36 | ||||||||
| Mexican × insurance | 1.03 | .31–3.43 | .28 | .07–1.16 | ||||||||
| Mexican × psychiatric disorder | 1.24 | .67–2.29 | 1.49 | .46–4.85 | ||||||||
a
All data are weighted.
b
Model A, ethnic dummy variables only. Any mental health service use, Wald χ2=13.89; specialty provider, Wald χ2=6.75
c
Model B, without interactions. Any mental health service use, Wald χ2=1,155.26; specialty provider, Wald χ2=486.12
d
Model C, with interactions. Any mental health service use, Wald χ2=1,768.47; specialty provider, Wald χ2=907.52
*
p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
| Variable | General medical provider | Other service provider | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model Ab | Model Bc | Model Cd | Model Ab | Model Bc | Model Cd | |||||||
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| Predisposing factor | ||||||||||||
| Place of origin (reference: Puerto Rican) | ||||||||||||
| Cuban | .96 | .51–1.83 | 1.36 | .60–3.06 | 1.34 | .15–12.05 | .34*** | .19–.60 | .43* | .22–.84 | .85 | .10–7.33 |
| Mexican | .62 | .31–1.23 | 1.19 | .58–2.45 | .39 | .05–3.08 | .52* | .31–.88 | .85 | .50–1.44 | .55 | .07–4.40 |
| Other | .63 | .34–1.17 | 1.06 | .49–2.27 | .98 | .48–2.02 | .73 | .47–1.14 | 1.01 | .62–1.63 | 1.00 | .62–1.61 |
| Age (in years) | 1.01 | .99–1.03 | 1.00 | .98–1.03 | 1.01 | 1.00–1.02 | 1.00 | .98–1.02 | ||||
| Female (reference: male) | 1.94** | 1.20–3.12 | 2.23 | .98–5.04 | 1.04 | .64–1.68 | .90 | .52–1.54 | ||||
| Married or cohabiting (reference: other) | .79 | .49–1.27 | .78 | .49–1.25 | .64 | .40–1.02 | .64 | .40–1.03 | ||||
| Education (reference: high school graduate) | ||||||||||||
| Less than high school graduate | .80 | .38–1.68 | .80 | .38–1.68 | 1.00 | .53–1.88 | .99 | .52–1.90 | ||||
| Some university | 1.08 | .48–2.43 | 1.07 | .47–2.43 | 1.10 | .54–2.22 | 1.08 | .51–2.26 | ||||
| University graduate or higher | 1.36 | .73–2.50 | 1.32 | .70–2.48 | 1.33 | .73–2.41 | 1.33 | .72–2.44 | ||||
| Enabling factor | ||||||||||||
| Poverty (reference: no) | .92 | .56–1.53 | .91 | .53–1.56 | 1.24 | .81–1.90 | 1.23 | .82–1.85 | ||||
| Insured (reference: uninsured) | 2.98** | 1.39–6.40 | 3.40* | 1.04–11.11 | 2.34* | 1.17–4.71 | 2.45 | .90–6.68 | ||||
| Frequency of contact with relatives | .95 | .75–1.20 | .94 | .74–1.20 | 1.04 | .88–1.24 | 1.04 | .87–1.24 | ||||
| Frequency of contact with friends | .91 | .78–1.06 | .91 | .77–1.07 | .98 | .79–1.20 | .97 | .79–1.20 | ||||
| Need factor: psychiatric disorder (reference: none) | 11.99*** | 7.69–18.68 | 6.81*** | 3.32–13.98 | 6.82*** | 4.14–11.22 | 7.33*** | 4.38–12.27 | ||||
| Immigration-related factor | ||||||||||||
| Length of stay in the U.S. (reference: 0–5 years) | ||||||||||||
| 6–10 | .47 | .10–2.19 | .48 | .11–2.16 | .47 | .15–1.51 | .47 | .14–1.56 | ||||
| 11–20 | .58 | .25–1.31 | .58 | .26–1.30 | 1.00 | .50–2.01 | 1.04 | .51–2.14 | ||||
| ≥21 | .86 | .32–2.11 | .90 | .39–2.01 | 1.06 | .67–1.67 | 1.09 | .70–1.72 | ||||
| Age at immigration (reference: 0–12 years) | ||||||||||||
| 13–17 | 1.46 | .47–4.52 | 1.59 | .51–4.95 | 1.24 | .57–2.70 | 1.27 | .57–2.83 | ||||
| 18–34 | .46 | .14–1.48 | .48 | .15–1.48 | .87 | .45–1.66 | .91 | .49–1.68 | ||||
| ≥35 | 1.52 | .35–6.62 | 1.69 | .42–6.75 | 1.50 | .52–4.33 | 1.83 | .56–5.96 | ||||
| U.S. citizen (reference: no) | 1.06 | .34–3.29 | 1.19 | .35–3.98 | .75 | .30–1.85 | .78 | .31–2.00 | ||||
| Excellent-good English proficiency (reference: fair-poor) | .86 | .36–2.05 | .82 | .34–1.99 | 2.45* | 1.07–5.59 | 2.43* | 1.02–5.81 | ||||
| Interactions (reference: Puerto Rican) | ||||||||||||
| Cuban × age | 1.01 | .98–1.04 | .96* | .93–.99 | ||||||||
| Cuban × gender | .55 | .19–1.60 | 2.80 | .84–9.39 | ||||||||
| Cuban × insurance | .87 | .16–4.78 | .75 | .17–3.43 | ||||||||
| Cuban × psychiatric disorder | 1.13 | .41–3.09 | 2.37 | .59–9.52 | ||||||||
| Mexican × age | 1.02 | .98–1.05 | 1.01 | .96–1.04 | ||||||||
| Mexican × gender | .82 | .26–2.60 | 1.29 | .48–3.46 | ||||||||
| Mexican × insurance | .82 | .15–4.54 | .95 | .22–4.16 | ||||||||
| Mexican × psychiatric disorder | 3.23* | 1.10–9.44 | .82 | .35–1.88 | ||||||||
a
All data are weighted.
b
Model A, ethnic dummy variables only. General medical provider, Wald χ2=4.85; other service provider, Wald χ2=15.57
c
Model B, without interactions. General medical provider, Wald χ2=874.69; other service provider, Wald χ2=976.85
d
Model C, with interactions. General medical provider, Wald χ2=1,505.84; other service provider, Wald χ2=2,565.60
*
p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Regardless of service provider type, the presence of a psychiatric disorder was found to be a strong predictor of mental health service use (p<.001). Having insurance was also found to be a significant predictor of use, with the exception of services provided by others (social workers, religious advisors, and so forth). We found a significant interaction between Cuban origin and gender (odds ratio [OR]=4.26, p<.05) indicating that Cuban women were more likely than Puerto Rican women to receive services from specialty mental health providers. Similarly, Mexicans with a psychiatric disorder were more likely than Puerto Ricans with a psychiatric disorder to receive mental health services from general medical care providers (OR=3.23, p<.05). We also found a significant interaction between Cuban origin and age (OR=.96, p<.05) indicating that the effect of age on use of services from other providers was smaller among Cubans than among Puerto Ricans. The likelihood of using services from other providers was higher among those with better English proficiency (OR=2.43, p<.05). However, more frequent contact with relatives decreased the probability of using specialty mental health care (OR=.80, p<.05).
Discussion
The results provide important information on mental health service utilization among Latino subgroups, particularly in three provider categories: specialty mental health providers, general medical providers, and other providers (social workers, counselors, religious or spiritual advisors, self-help groups, and Internet support groups). Furthermore, we examined the effect of place of origin on service use to account for the heterogeneity among Latino subgroups. Using a nationally representative sample of Latinos, our study contributes to the literature by expanding knowledge of mental health service use by place of origin and service provider type.
The rate of service use was low (9.6%) in light of the percentage of respondents who had a psychiatric disorder (21.3%). This discrepancy has been noted in prior research, which has indicated that Latinos experience substantial access barriers and utilize mental health treatment at lower rates than non-Hispanic whites (1,24,47–51). As in other research on racial-ethnic minority populations (52), respondents who sought mental health services were more likely to visit general medical providers and other providers than to visit mental health specialists. This finding held even among individuals with health insurance, which may reflect the vulnerability of uninsured Latinos in terms of mental health service use (5). Notably, previous research found that Latinos were less likely than non-Hispanic whites to be insured (53). In our study, approximately 35% of the sample was uninsured.
Findings also indicated that Puerto Ricans were more likely than Cubans and Mexicans to use services, regardless of provider type. Considering the high rate of psychiatric disorders among Puerto Ricans (29.9%), which is consistent with previous findings (25,26,43), this result is not surprising. The presence of a psychiatric condition (a need factor) facilitates service use according to the Andersen model. However, to better understand the need for services, further studies should account for the level of functioning and severity of psychiatric symptoms. In addition, among Puerto Ricans, high rates of insurance (83.9%; enabling factor), citizenship (98.9%; immigration-related factor), and proficiency in English (69.2%; immigration-related factor) may facilitate mental health service use. By adding immigration-related factors to the original Andersen model, our study supported the generalizability of the extended Andersen model for racial-ethnic minority groups (41,54).
Findings also indicated the existence of variation in mental health service use by provider type among Latino subgroups. The very low rates of specialty mental health service use are particularly concerning, as is the higher likelihood among Mexican respondents of accessing mental health care from general medical providers. Minority populations are often treated for mental health conditions by general practitioners instead of specialty mental health providers (52,55). Although this may have benefits, such as convenient access, it may also yield poorer outcomes because of no treatment or inadequate treatment (2,56,57). Further, Lawrie and colleagues (58) demonstrated that practitioners in general medical settings were unwilling to include people with psychiatric disorders on their patient list. These providers’ attitudes toward and inadequate treatment of individuals with psychiatric disorders may influence the quality of and satisfaction with mental health services provided. Thus use of specialty providers is critical to adequate treatment provision.
Also, because individuals with psychiatric disorders tend to have comorbid general medical conditions (59,60), ensuring the integration of general medical and behavioral health care (61) could facilitate appropriate and adequate mental health services for this vulnerable population. Integrated health settings, such as medical homes with mental health services or behavioral health homes with general medical services, may improve treatment utilization and outcomes. Further research should address the quality of services and cost savings by comparing integrated models to better enhance access to effective care for this vulnerable population, which often seeks mental health care in primary care settings.
Identifying where Latino subgroups seek mental health services helps providers be fully prepared to assess patients’ psychiatric needs. Because Mexicans were found to be more likely to visit general practitioners, these providers should be aware of the need to assess and fully address (via sufficient treatment or referral) mental health needs. Policies that support integrated health care, such as the Affordable Care Act, help promote comprehensive and effective treatments. However, service provision must also address barriers unique to populations from each place of origin, recognizing how cultural norms, understanding of mental health, citizenship status, insurance barriers, and other factors influence service utilization. For example, given that Mexicans sought mental health treatment from general practitioners more often than did other Latino subgroups, they may benefit from direct written and oral education (in Spanish) on mental health diagnosis and treatment in the general medical setting. Further, general practitioners should link Mexican patients to affordable, culturally and linguistically appropriate mental health specialty services by building connections with Spanish-speaking providers in their communities who offer sliding scale—or other affordable—options for mental health treatment. Finally, providers with substantial knowledge of the cultural norms and immigration histories and patterns of each subgroup should tailor health assessment and education to the distinct experiences of patients. A further understanding of how the settlement process by subgroup contributes to health needs will facilitate appropriate diagnosis and treatment.
Some study limitations should be addressed. First, self-reported service use might be underestimated. Second, the study could not control for the severity of psychiatric symptoms, which play an important indicator of need in mental health service use, and for specific immigration status, such as legal and refugee status, which may better explain variation in mental health service use.
Conclusions
This is the first study to examine variation in mental health service use among Latino subgroups by type of service provider. Findings suggest the existence of differences among Latino subgroups in patterns of use and predictors of use. By highlighting differences in service use among Cuban, Mexican, and Puerto Rican subgroups, our findings also inform the provision of effective outreach and services to a population that underutilizes mental health treatment. Further studies should examine variations among Latino Americans in service use by immigrant legal status.
Acknowledgments
The authors report no competing interests.
References
1.
Alegría M, Canino G, Ríos R, et al: Inequalities in use of specialty mental health services among Latinos, African Americans, and non-Latino whites. Psychiatric Services 53:1547–1555, 2002
2.
Young AS, Klap R, Sherbourne CD, et al: The quality of care for depressive and anxiety disorders in the United States. Archives of General Psychiatry 58:55–61, 2001
3.
Mental Health: Culture, Race, and Ethnicity: A Supplement to Mental Health: A Report to the Surgeon General. Rockville, Md, US Department of Health and Human Services, US Public Health Service, 2001
4.
Broman CL: Race differences in the receipt of mental health services among young adults. Psychological Services 9:38–48, 2012
5.
Bridges AJ, Andrews AR, 3rd, Deen TL: Mental health needs and service utilization by Hispanic immigrants residing in mid-southern United States. Journal of Transcultural Nursing 23:359–368, 2012
6.
Cabassa LJ, Zayas LH: Latino immigrants’ intentions to seek depression care. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 77:231–242, 2007
7.
Bauer AM, Chen C-N, Alegría M: English language proficiency and mental health service use among Latino and Asian Americans with mental disorders. Medical Care 48:1097–1104, 2010
8.
Acosta FX: Barriers between mental health services and Mexican Americans: an examination of a paradox. American Journal of Community Psychology 7:503–520, 1979
9.
Peifer KL, Hu T, Vega W: Help seeking by persons of Mexican origin with functional impairments. Psychiatric Services 51:1293–1298, 2000
10.
Biegel DE, Farkas KJ, Song L-Y: Barriers to the use of mental health services by African-American and Hispanic elderly persons. Journal of Gerontological Social Work 29:23–44, 1998
11.
Hispanic or Latino Populations. Atlanta, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013. Available at www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/populations/REMP/hispanic.html
12.
Passel JS, Cohn DV: US Population Projections: 2005–2050. Washington, DC, Pew Hispanic Research Center, 2008
13.
Rodriguez-Scott E: Patterns of Mexican migration to the United States. Presented at the Southwestern Social Science Association Conference, New Orleans, La, March 27–30, 2002
14.
Durand J, Massey DS, Zenteno RM: Mexican immigration to the United States: continuities and changes. Latin American Research Review 36:107–127, 2001
15.
Duany J: The Puerto Rican Diaspora to the United States: A Postcolonial Migration? New York, City University of New York, Hunter College, Center for Puerto Rican Studies, 2009
16.
Perez L: Cubans in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 487:126–137, 1986
17.
Wasem R: Cuban Migration to the United States: Policy and Trends. Washington, DC, Congressional Research Service, 2009
18.
Brown A, Patten E: Hispanics of Cuban Origin in the United States, 2011. Washington, DC, Pew Research Center, 2013
19.
Brown A, Patten E: Hispanics of Puerto Rican Origin in the United States, 2011. Washington, DC, Pew Research Center, 2013
20.
Brown A, Patten E: Hispanics of Mexican Origin in the United States, 2011. Washington, DC, Pew Research Center, 2013
21.
Guarnaccia PJ, Pincay IM, Alegria M, et al: Assessing diversity among Latinos: results from the NLAAS. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 29:510–534, 2007
22.
Alegría M, Canino G, Shrout PE, et al: Prevalence of mental illness in immigrant and non-immigrant US Latino groups. American Journal of Psychiatry 165:359–369, 2008
23.
Escobedo LG, Kirch DG, Anda RF: Depression and smoking initiation among US Latinos. Addiction 91:113–119, 1996
24.
Harris KM, Edlund MJ, Larson S: Racial and ethnic differences in the mental health problems and use of mental health care. Medical Care 43:775–784, 2005
25.
Ai AL, Appel HB, Huang B, et al: Overall health and healthcare utilization among Latino American women in the United States. Journal of Women's Health 21:878–885, 2012
26.
Alegría M, Mulvaney-Day N, Woo M, et al: Correlates of past-year mental health service use among Latinos: results from the National Latino and Asian American Study. American Journal of Public Health 97:76–83, 2007
27.
Keyes KM, Martins SS, Hatzenbuehler ML, et al: Mental health service utilization for psychiatric disorders among Latinos living in the United States: the role of ethnic subgroup, ethnic identity, and language/social preferences. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 47:383–394, 2012
28.
Andersen R, Harada N, Chiu V, et al: Application of the behavioral model to health studies of Asian and Pacific Islander Americans. Asian American and Pacific Islander Journal of Health 3:128–141, 1995
29.
Burnette D, Mui AC: Physician utilization by Hispanic elderly persons: national perspective. Medical Care 37:362–374, 1999
30.
Choi S: Insurance status and health service utilization among newly arrived older immigrants. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health 8:149–161, 2006
31.
Kuo T, Torres-Gil FM: Factors affecting utilization of health services and home-and community-based care programs by older Taiwanese in the United States. Research on Aging 23:14–36, 2001
32.
Vera M, Alegría M, Freeman DH Jr, et al: Help seeking for mental health care among poor Puerto Ricans: problem recognition, service use, and type of provider. Medical Care 36:1047–1056, 1998
33.
Jang Y, Chiriboga DA, Okazaki S: Attitudes toward mental health services: age-group differences in Korean American adults. Aging and Mental Health 13:127–134, 2009
34.
Lee S, Choi S: Disparities in access to health care among non-citizens in the United States. Health Sociology Review 18:307–320, 2009
35.
Nguyen D: Physician contact by older Asian Americans: the effects of perceived mental health need. Clinical Interventions in Aging 5:333–336, 2010
36.
González HM, Vega WA, Rodríguez MA, et al: Diabetes awareness and knowledge among Latinos: does a usual source of healthcare matter? Journal of General Internal Medicine 24(suppl 3):528–533, 2009
37.
Alegria M, Takeuchi D, Canino G, et al: Considering context, place and culture: the National Latino and Asian American Study. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:208–220, 2004
38.
Lê Cook B, Carson N, Alegria M: Assessing racial/ethnic differences in the social consequences of early-onset psychiatric disorder. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 21(suppl):49–66, 2010
39.
National Latino and Asian American Study. Somerville, Mass, Center for Multicultural Mental Health Research, 2014. Available at www.multiculturalmentalhealth.org/nlaas.asp
40.
Abe-Kim J, Takeuchi DT, Hong S, et al: Use of mental health-related services among immigrant and US-born Asian Americans: results from the National Latino and Asian American Study. American Journal of Public Health 97:91–98, 2007
41.
Lee S, Matejkowski J: Mental health service utilization among noncitizens in the United States: findings from the National Latino and Asian American Study. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 39:406–418, 2012
42.
Kessler RC, Ustün TB: The World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative Version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:93–121, 2004
43.
Alegría M, Mulvaney-Day N, Torres M, et al: Prevalence of psychiatric disorders across Latino subgroups in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 97:68–75, 2007
44.
Rao JNK, Scott AJ: On chi-squared tests for multiway contingency tables with cell proportions estimated from survey data. Annals of Statistics 12:46–60, 1984
45.
Jaccard J: Interaction Effects in Logistic Regression. New York, Sage, 2001
46.
Fox J: Regression Diagnostics. Newbury Park, Calif, Sage, 1991
47.
Fiscella K, Franks P, Doescher MP, et al: Disparities in health care by race, ethnicity, and language among the insured: findings from a national sample. Medical Care 40:52–59, 2002
48.
Hough RL, Landsverk JA, Karno M, et al: Utilization of health and mental health services by Los Angeles Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic whites. Archives of General Psychiatry 44:702–709, 1987
49.
Wells K, Klap R, Koike A, et al: Ethnic disparities in unmet need for alcoholism, drug abuse, and mental health care. American Journal of Psychiatry 158:2027–2032, 2001
50.
Lewis MJ, West B, Bautista L, et al: Perceptions of service providers and community members on intimate partner violence within a Latino community. Health Education and Behavior 32:69–83, 2005
51.
Padgett DK, Patrick C, Burns BJ, et al: Ethnic differences in use of inpatient mental health services by blacks, whites, and Hispanics in a national insured population. Health Services Research 29:135–153, 1994
52.
Chapa T: Mental Health Services in Primary Care Settings for Racial and Ethnic Minority Populations. Washington, DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Minority Health, 2004
53.
People Without Health Insurance Coverage by Race and Ethnicity. Atlanta, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008. Available at www.cdc.gov/Features/dsHealthInsurance
54.
Lee S, Laiewski L, Choi S: Racial-ethnic variation in US mental health service use among Latino and Asian non-U.S. citizens. Psychiatric Services 65:68–74, 2014
55.
Snowden LR, Pingitore D: Frequency and scope of mental health service delivery to African Americans in primary care. Mental Health Services Research 4:123–130, 2002
56.
Kessler RC, Demler O, Frank RG, et al: Prevalence and treatment of mental disorders, 1990 to 2003. New England Journal of Medicine 352:2515–2523, 2005
57.
Wang PS, Lane M, Olfson M, et al: Twelve-month use of mental health services in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry 62:629–640, 2005
58.
Lawrie SM, Parsons C, Patrick J, et al: A controlled trial of general practitioners’ attitudes to patients with schizophrenia. Health Bulletin 54:201–203, 1996
59.
Dickey B, Normand SL, Weiss RD, et al: Medical morbidity, mental illness, and substance use disorders. Psychiatric Services 53:861–867, 2002
60.
Lyketsos CG, Dunn G, Kaminsky MJ, et al: Medical comorbidity in psychiatric inpatients: relation to clinical outcomes and hospital length of stay. Psychosomatics 43:24–30, 2002
61.
Druss BG, Reisinger E: Mental Disorders and Medical Comorbidity. Princeton, NJ, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2011
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: In the Loge, by Mary Cassatt, circa 1879. Pastel and metallic paint on canvas prepared with a pastel ground. Gift of Mrs. Sargent McKean, 1950 (1950-52-1), the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Photo credit: the Philadelphia Museum of Art/Art Resources, New York.
History
Published ahead of print: 17 November 2014
Published in print: January 01, 2015
Published online: 2 January 2015
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
There are no citations for this item
View Options
View options
PDF/ePub
View PDF/ePubGet Access
Login options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).