IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v59y2004i3p609-623.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Physical well-being and school enrollment:: a comparison of adopted and biological children in one-child families in China

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Jihong
  • Wyshak, Grace
  • Larsen, Ulla

Abstract

Adoption has increased in China since 1980 when the government started the one-child policy. There were approximately six million adopted children living in China in 1988. The objective of this study was to compare adopted and biological children in one-child families across a number of measures of physical well-being and school enrollment. The 1992 National Sample Survey on the Situation of Children provided data on 2458 adopted and 194,760 biological children aged 0-14 years living in one-child families. Logistic regression models were used to adjust for confounders. We found that adopted children were not significantly different from biological children in reported diarrhea and nutritional outcomes (stunting, underweight, wasting) after controlling for other known demographic, socioeconomic and geographic correlates. However, there was evidence of significantly higher odds of never being immunized and not being currently enrolled in school, and evidence of slightly lower odds of having fever or acute respiratory infections among adopted children compared to biological children. These results suggest that adopted children were as healthy and well-fed as biological children, but adopted children aged 7-14 years were less likely to be enrolled in school than biological children.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Jihong & Wyshak, Grace & Larsen, Ulla, 2004. "Physical well-being and school enrollment:: a comparison of adopted and biological children in one-child families in China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 609-623, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:59:y:2004:i:3:p:609-623
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(03)00591-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:59:y:2004:i:3:p:609-623. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.