Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30785926›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Towards a universal concept of vulnerability: Broadening the evidence from the elderly to perinatal health using a Delphi approach.

Nynke de Groot, Gouke J Bonsel, Erwin Birnie, Nicole B Valentine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Towards Establishing Shared Terminology for Person-Centred Care: A Modified Delphi Study With Consumers and Health Professionals.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nynke de GrootMaternity Care Academic Research Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0940-3047
Gouke J BonselMaternity Care Academic Research Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Erwin BirnieErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4534-4857
Nicole B ValentinePublic Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health Department (PHE), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concept 'vulnerability' is prevalent in the public domain, health care, social institutions and multidisciplinary research. Conceptual heterogeneity is present, hampering the creation of a common evidence-base of research achievements and successful policies. Recently an international expert group combined a specific literature review with a 2-stage Delphi procedure, arriving at a seemingly universal concept of vulnerability for the elderly with applications for research instruments. We replicated and extended this study, to generalize this result to health in general, and perinatal health in particular.

methodsTwo independent expert panels (general health, perinatal health) repeated the Delphi-procedure, using an extended and updated literature review to derive statements on the concept and defining pathways of vulnerability. Additional views were collected on research tools. Consensus-by-design was explicitly avoided. Data collection and processing was independent.

resultsBoth panels showed surprising convergence on the pathways of vulnerability to health/ill-health, and their interaction. The agreed conceptual model describes a dynamic relation between health and ill-health and vulnerability. The 2 key pathways that link to vulnerability, are complementary, but not symmetrical as biological processes of maintaining health or obtaining better health are not reciprocal to recovery, so also not in terms of vulnerability impacts. An individual's degree of vulnerability is the net balance of risk effects and protective and healing factors (socially, biologically and in terms of health literacy and health care access). These factors can for measurement purposes (according to the panels: interview for exploration, checklists for population research) be grouped into 'material resources', 'taking responsibility for one's own health', 'risky activities and behaviors', and 'social support'. Supportive and transforming action can thus be undertaken.

conclusionA universal concept of vulnerability in the context of health was successfully derived after careful replication and extension of an international Delphi study on vulnerability among the elderly.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueHealth EquityVulnerable PopulationsAgedAged, 80 and overConsensusFemaleHealth LiteracyHumansMaleMotivationPovertyPregnancyPublic HealthSocial Support

Identifiers

PMID30785926
PMCPMC6382270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.