ArticleBMC public health2024
Differential impacts of health systems and sociocultural environment on vulnerable populations during the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from four Asia-Pacific countries.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building a resilient oncology workforce in the Asia-Pacific: From outcomes to systems thinking in workforce well-being.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Persistent socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in unmet need for NCD diagnosis and treatment in Viet Nam, 2015-2021.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Reclaiming clinical time: The promise and challenges of ambient AI for oncology nurses in the Asia-Pacific region.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Article
- Disability-based disparities under universal health coverage among chronically ill adults during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia: an interrupted time series analysis.Global health action · 2025Article
- Perception of Risk for Developing Severe Illness or Complications from COVID-19 in Brazil: Focus on Factors Linked to Socially Vulnerable Populations, 2020-2023.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Starfield's 4Cs of NCD management in primary healthcare: a conceptual framework development from a case study of 19 countries.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Differences in the Rates of Diagnoses of Mental and Behavioral Disorders Due to Psychoactive Substance Use by Sex and Age during Pre-Pandemic and COVID-19 Pandemic Periods in Kazakhstan.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to evaluate healthcare systems and pandemic responses in relation to marginalized and vulnerable groups, identify populations requiring urgent care, and assess the differential impacts on their health during the pandemic.
methodsData were collected by the Asia-Pacific Observatory on Health Systems and Policies (APO)-National University of Singapore and APO-International Health Policy Program consortium members: Korea, Indonesia, Philippines, and Singapore. Data were collected through a combination of semi-structured interviews, policy document reviews, and analysis of secondary data.
resultsOur findings reveal that the pandemic exacerbated existing health disparities, particularly affecting older adults, women, and children. Additionally, the study identified LGBTI individuals, healthcare workers, slum dwellers, and migrant workers as groups that faced particularly severe challenges during the pandemic. LGBTI individuals encountered heightened discrimination and limited access to health services tailored to their needs. Healthcare workers suffered from immense stress and risk due to prolonged exposure to the virus and critical working conditions. Slum dwellers struggled with healthcare access and social distancing due to high population density and inadequate sanitation. Migrant workers were particularly hard hit by high risks of virus transmission and stringent, often discriminatory, isolation measures that compounded their vulnerability. The study highlights the variation in the extent and nature of vulnerabilities, which were influenced by each country's specific social environment and healthcare infrastructure. It was observed that public health interventions often lacked the specificity required to effectively address the needs of all vulnerable groups, suggesting a gap in policy and implementation.
conclusionsThe study underscores that vulnerabilities vary greatly depending on the social environment and context of each country, affecting the degree and types of vulnerable groups. It is critical that measures to ensure universal health coverage and equal accessibility to healthcare are specifically designed to address the needs of the most vulnerable. Despite commonalities among groups across different societies, these interventions must be adapted to reflect the unique characteristics of each group within their specific social contexts to effectively mitigate the impact of health disparities.
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.