{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034868421052631576, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.364016736401673, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A LATINO ORAL HEALTH PARADOX? USING ETHNOGRAPHY TO SPECIFY THE BIO-CULTURAL FACTORS BEHIND EPIDEMIOLOGICAL MODELS.

This article presents evidence of a "Latino oral health paradox," in which Mexican immigrant parents in California's Central Valley report having had better oral health status as children in Mexico than their U.S.-born children. Yet little research has explored the specific environmental, social, and cultural factors that mediate the much-discussed "Latino health paradox," in which foreign-born Latinos paradoxically enjoy better health status than their children, U.S.-born Latinos, and whites. Through ethnography, we explore the dietary and environmental factors that ameliorated immigrant parents' oral health status in rural Mexico, while ill-preparing them for the more cariogenic diets and environments their children face in the U.S. We argue that studies on the "Latino health paradox" neglect a binational analysis, ignoring the different health status of Latino populations in their sending countries. We use the issue of immigrant children's high incidence of oral disease to initiate a fuller dialogue between U.S.-based studies of the "health paradox" and non-U.S. based studies of the "epidemiological transition." We show that both models rely upon a static opposition between "traditional" and "modern" health practices, and argue that a binational analysis of the processes that affect immigrant children's health can help redress the shortcomings of epidemiological generalizations.