MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408257114 · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-21525-w

The impact of ethnic status on the health of female migrants: evidence from China

2025· article· en· W4408257114 on OpenAlexaff
Di Tang, Xiangdong Gao, Hao Zhang, Yaping Wei, Lihua Zhu, Peter C. Coyte

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiostatisticsMedicineEthnic groupPublic healthChinaEpidemiologyEnvironmental healthDemographyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The health of ethnic minority migrant women is a significant public health concern due to their relative vulnerability in comparison to men. However, there exists a paucity of research on the relationship between ethnic status and the health of migrant women in low-to-middle-income countries, such as China. The objectives of this study is to examine the impact of ethnic status on self-reported health and medical history among migrant women in China. METHODS: Data were drawn from the 2017 nationally representative China Migrants Dynamic Survey (CMDS), which represents a cross-sectional study of 72,444 female migrants in households across China. An ordered logistic regression model was used to assess the association between self-reported health and ethnic minority status among female migrants, with results reported as odds ratios. A propensity score matching (PSM) method was employed to address the issue of endogeneity in the regressions arising from potential selectivity bias inherent in migration. RESULTS: Analysis of 72,444 female migrants revealed significant disparities in health outcomes between ethnic minority and Han migrants. The odds of ethnic minority migrants reporting "Healthy" were 0.776 times the odds for Han migrants (OR = 0.776, p < 0.001), indicating lower odds of reporting good health for ethnic minority migrants. For selected health conditions over the past year, the odds of ethnic minority migrants reporting these conditions were 1.119 times the odds for Han migrants (OR = 1.119, p < 0.001), suggesting higher odds of experiencing health issues among ethnic minority migrants. Further stratification by migration distance revealed more pronounced disparities for interprovincial migrants. Among interprovincial migrants, the odds of ethnic minority females reporting "Healthy" were 0.653 times the odds for Han females (OR = 0.653, p < 0.001), indicating a larger health gap compared to interprovincial migrants. When stratified by time since migration, ethnic minority females who migrated 11 or more years ago had 0.738 times the odds of reporting "Healthy" compared to Han females (OR = 0.738, p < 0.001). This suggests that health disparities persist even for long-term migrants. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to Han migrant women in China, we found that ethnic minority migrant women were more likely to report being in poor health and having a health condition in the past year. In addition, interprovincial migrants and ethnic minority females who migrated more than 11 years ago were more likely to report poor health.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public Health→Same topicMigration, Health and Trauma→French-language works237,207→