Response Styles Among Ethnic Groups in the Netherlands

AbstractBackgroundEthnic minorities have higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses, but little is known about ethnic differences in past exposure. We aimed to determine whether prevalence and determinants of SARS-CoV-2 exposure varied between six ethnic groups in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.MethodsParticipants aged 25-79 years enrolled in a population-based prospective cohort were randomly selected within ethnic groups and invited to test for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies and answer COVID-19 related questions. We estimated prevalence and determinants of SARS-CoV-2 exposure within ethnic groups using survey-weighted logistic regression adjusting for age, sex and calendar time.ResultsBetween June 24-October 9, 2020, we included 2497 participants. Adjusted SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was comparable between ethnic-Dutch (25/498; 5.5%, 95%CI=3.2-7.9), South-Asian Surinamese (22/451; 4.8%, 95%CI=2.1-7.5), African Surinamese (22/400; 8.2%, 95%CI=3.0-13.4), Turkish (30/408; 7.8%, 95%CI=4.3-11.2) and Moroccan (32/391; 7.0%, 95%CI=4.0-9.9) participants, but higher among Ghanaians (95/327; 26.5%, 95%CI=18.7-34.4). 57.1% of SARS-CoV-2-positive participants did not suspect or were unsure of being infected, which was lowest in African Surinamese (18.2%) and highest in Ghanaians (90.5%). Determinants of SARS-CoV-2 exposure varied across ethnic groups, while the most common determinant was having a household member suspected of infection. In Ghanaians, seropositivity was associated with older age, larger household sizes, living with small children, leaving home to work and attending religious services.ConclusionsNo remarkable differences in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence were observed between the largest ethnic groups in Amsterdam after the first wave of infections. The higher infection seroprevalence observed among Ghanaians, which passed mostly unnoticed, warrants wider prevention efforts and opportunities for non-symptom-based testing.

Download Full-text

Trajectories of Multiculturalism in Germany, the Netherlands and Canada: In Search of Common Patterns

Government and Opposition ◽

10.1111/j.1477-7053.2009.01309.x ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 45 (2) ◽

pp. 166-186 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Elke Winter

Keyword(s):

The Netherlands ◽

Ethnic Groups ◽

Public Perceptions ◽

Immigrant Integration ◽

Important Distinction ◽

Theoretical Position ◽

National Minorities ◽

Different Types ◽

State Responses ◽

Recent Immigration

AbstractIn the mid-1990s, Canadian scholarship introduced an important distinction between historically incorporated national minorities and ethnic groups emerging from recent immigration. While the former may be accommodated through federal or multinational arrangements, multiculturalism has come to describe a normative framework of immigrant integration. The distinction between these analytically different types of movements is crucial for Taylor's and Kymlicka's influential theories, but the relations between different types of national and ethnic struggles for rights and recognition have remained unexplored in much of the subsequent scholarly literature. This article starts from a theoretical position where different types of diversity are viewed as highly interdependent in practice. Tracing the trajectories of multiculturalism in three different countries, the article aims to identify common patterns of how changing relations between traditionally incorporated groups affect public perceptions of and state responses to more recent immigration-induced diversity. More specifically, it asks the following question: to what extent does the absence (in Germany), discontinuation (in the Netherlands) and exacerbation (in Canada) of claims on ethnocultural grounds by traditionally incorporated groups influence the willingness of the national majority/ies to grant multicultural rights to immigrants?

Download Full-text