Nativity, duration of residence and chronic health conditions in Australia: Do trends converge towards the native-born population? Santosh Jatrana a, * , Samba Siva Rao Pasupuleti a , Ken Richardson b a Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Deakin University, Victoria 3220, Australia b Department of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, PO Box 7343, Wellington, New Zealand article info Article history: Received 7 January 2014 Received in revised form 7 August 2014 Accepted 8 August 2014 Available online 13 August 2014 Keywords: Australia Migrants Chronic conditions Longitudinal Duration of residence abstract Using data from waves 3, 7 and 9 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, a group-mean-centred multilevel mixed model and self-reported chronic conditions, this study contributes to the limited longitudinal evidence on the nativity health gap in Australia. We investigated whether differences exist in the reporting of any chronic condition (including cancer, cardiovascular disease (CVD), arthritis, diabetes and respiratory disease), and in the total number of chronic conditions, between foreign-born (FB) from English speaking (ES) and non-English speaking (NES) countries and native-born (NB) Australians. We also investigated differences between these groups in the reporting of any chronic condition, and the total number of chronic conditions, by duration of residence. After adjusting for time varying and time invariant covariates, we found a significant difference by nativity status in the reporting of chronic condition, with immigrants from both ES and NES countries less likely to report a chronic condition and having fewer chronic conditions compared with the NB. Immigrants from both ES and NES countries living in Australia for less than 20 years were significantly less likely to report a chronic condition compared with the NB. However, the health of both these groups converged to that of the NB population in terms of reporting a chronic condition after 20 years of stay in Australia. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Examining differences in chronic conditions between immi- grants and native born people, and how this difference changes over time, is an important policy issue in countries for whom mi- grants make up a significant proportion of the population, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the USA. For example, in Australia an estimated 26% of the total population is born over- seas, and net overseas migration is the major contribution to population growth (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012a, b). As the number of immigrants in these countries continues to rise, it has become increasingly important to know how health profiles differ between foreign born and native born individuals, and how those health profiles change over time, since this will help identify vulnerable immigrant populations. A large body of research has acknowledged the presence of a ‘healthy immigrant effect’ (HIE), whereby foreign-born (FB) people have better health status than their native-born (NB) counterparts upon arrival in the host country, and that this health advantage narrows significantly over time leading to a convergence towards the health of the host population (see Anikeeva et al., 2010; Argeseanu Cunningham et al., 2008; De Maio, 2010; Friis et al., 1998; Hyman, 2007; Lassetter and Callister, 2009; McKay et al., 2003; Messias and Rubio, 2004 for a review of the HIE in various continents). However, there is little consensus about the universality of the HIE and the effect of duration of residence across all health mea- sures and immigrant groups (Razum et al., 1998). There is some evidence to suggest that these effects are sensitive to how health is measured, which immigrant group is considered and where they migrate from or to (McKay et al., 2003). For example, McDonald and Kennedy (2004) and Newbold (2005) found mixed or no evidence for the HIE in terms of the probability that an individual rates his or her health as ‘fair’ or ‘poor’. In contrast, Newbold (2006) found strong evidence of the HIE with respect to chronic conditions in a cross-sectional analysis, but no significant difference between the NB and FB with respect to the risk of developing a chronic condition * Corresponding author. Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Deakin University, Geelong Waterfront Campus, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, Victoria 3220, VIC, Australia. E-mail addresses: santosh.jatrana@deakin.edu.au, jatranasantosh@yahoo.com (S. Jatrana). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Social Science & Medicine journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.08.008 0277-9536/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Social Science & Medicine 119 (2014) 53e63