ArticleGlobal health action
Beyond the checklist: understanding rural health vulnerability in a South African context.
Article in Global health action. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-use of healthcare services among persons with mobility impairments in Cofimvaba, South Africa.African journal of disability · 2023Article
- Socio-ecological influences of adolescence marijuana use initiation: Qualitative evidence from two illicit marijuana-growing communities in South Africa.The South African journal of psychiatry : SAJP : the journal of the Society of Psychiatrists of South Africa · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVulnerability in the past has sometimes been measured and understood in terms of checklists or common understanding. It is argued here that vulnerability is a more complex issue than this. Although checklists of vulnerable groups are important, they do not capture the essence and dynamics of vulnerability.
objectiveThe case of rural health vulnerability in South Africa is discussed to show that classifying people into vulnerable groups does not portray the complexity and intricacies of what it means to have vulnerability. We also wish to show that there are different kinds of vulnerabilities, and the difference between access vulnerability and illness vulnerability is highlighted.
methodsAs part of a larger study, this case study is presented to show how vulnerability in a poor rural community in South Africa has to be understood in a contextual and dynamic manner as opposed to a static manner.
resultsFamily and social dynamics can influence health. For example, fractured families were seen as a vulnerable issue within the community, while being a person with a disability can lead to isolation and callous attitudes towards them. It is these family and social dynamics that lead proximally to vulnerability to ill health.
conclusionsA contextual approach can assist in giving a more layered understanding of vulnerability than a checklist approach can do. Interventions to change health cannot be addressed simply by medical means. Social conditions need to be changed, and part of changing social conditions is the process of assisting those who are isolated or experience themselves as vulnerable to reconnect with others in the community. Poverty leads to social exclusion; social and family inclusion may be key to well-being.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.