COVID-19 Pandemic Among Immigrant Latinx Farmworker and Non-farmworker Families: A Rural–Urban Comparison of Economic, Educational, Healthcare, and Immigration Concerns
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
COVID-19 has revealed social and health inequities in the United States. Structural inequalities have increased the likelihood of immigrants contracting COVID-19, by being essential workers and through poverty that forces this population to continue working. Rural and urban immigrant families may face different concerns. Using a telephone survey in May 2020 of 105 Latinx families in an existing study, quantitative and qualitative data were gathered on work and household economics, childcare and education, healthcare, and community climate. Analyses show that, although rural and urban groups experienced substantial economic effects, impacts were more acute for urban families. Rural workers reported fewer workplace protective measures for COVID-19. For both groups, fear and worry, particularly about finances and children, dominated reports of their situations with numerous reports of experiencing stress and anxiety. The experience of the pandemic is interpreted as an example of contextual vulnerability of a population already experiencing structural violence through social injustice. Policy implications are highlighted.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.30.20223156: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Additional details of the larger study can be found elsewhere.24 The current study used a telephone survey to reach the mother of the children in these families in May, 2020, when no face-to-face contact between study staff and study participants was permitted by the Institutional Review Board due to COVID-19-related health concerns for research participants.
Consent: For both samples, mothers were contacted by a bilingual staff member who explained the overall study procedures, answered questions, and, if the mother agreed to participate, obtained signed informed consent from the mother and assent from the child.Randomization not detected. Blinding not … SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.30.20223156: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Additional details of the larger study can be found elsewhere.24 The current study used a telephone survey to reach the mother of the children in these families in May, 2020, when no face-to-face contact between study staff and study participants was permitted by the Institutional Review Board due to COVID-19-related health concerns for research participants.
Consent: For both samples, mothers were contacted by a bilingual staff member who explained the overall study procedures, answered questions, and, if the mother agreed to participate, obtained signed informed consent from the mother and assent from the child.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Data were entered in real time during the interviews using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). REDCapsuggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)All analyses were done using SAS v 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) and p-values < . SAS Institutesuggested: (Statistical Analysis System, RRID:SCR_008567)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:This study has several limitations that should be considered. All behaviors were self-reported and not observed. The women interviewed also reported for their spouses. Data could not be verified and may be inaccurate or distorted because of social desirability. Small sample sizes prevent more detailed analyses of quantitative data. There was greater uniformity in occupations within the rural group, which makes their responses easier to interpret. Nevertheless, this study has several strengths. One was the scheduling of data collection within a short time (the month of May) during which changes in national information about prevention and state regulations were relatively stable. By the time of data collection, emerging research had established the importance of physical distancing and mask use over the initial emphasis on hand hygiene and cleaning surfaces.41-43 Another strength was that all families in this study would have been subject to the same North Carolina governmental orders.
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
-
