ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Exploring layers of vulnerability during COVID-19: qualitative research with communities in Indonesia, Nepal, and Vietnam.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhat does it mean to be vulnerable in a pandemic? COVID-19 and its complex ramifications have challenged policymakers and researchers worldwide to redefine and reassess vulnerability. This paper presents experiences of being vulnerable during the pandemic among communities in Indonesia, Nepal and Vietnam.
methodsFrom November 2020 to April 2021, we conducted qualitative research with communities in 13 locations including Jakarta, Bandung and Sumba in Indonesia; Morang & Sunsari, Kathmandu, Bhaktapur, Sindulpalchowk, Lower Mustang and Kapilvastu in Nepal; and Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Nam Dinh and Dak Lak in Vietnam. We held discussions with key informants from local communities and healthcare systems to explore local ideas of vulnerability. Based on these discussions and findings from our media monitoring at all study locations, community members at high risk of adverse impacts from the pandemic were identified. Participants were purposively sampled to represent a range of age groups, occupations and levels of exposure to COVID-19 in the community and enrolled in semi-structured in-depth interviews about their experiences with the pandemic and public health responses. We analyzed and framed the results using Luna’s metaphor of “vulnerability layers”.
resultsIn total we held discussions with 16 key informants from local communities and healthcare systems and collected 93 in-depth interviews with community participants. Using the “vulnerability layers” metaphor, we describe how stimulus conditions, namely stringent public health responses to COVID-19, may aggravate vulnerabilities a person already experiences or create new vulnerability experiences (for example, stigmatized status). A vulnerable experience can be exacerbated by the layering of multiple vulnerabilities or their cascade effects; on the other hand, it can be mediated by personal or collective protective factors. Our findings also demonstrate the role of context, including local disease control approaches and sociocultural attitudes and norms, in both the activation of and protection against vulnerability.
conclusionsVulnerability assessments should take into account potential stimulus conditions (including public health responses) and local complexities rather than relying on groupings of impacted people. An understanding of the local context is also essential to improve the uptake and effectiveness of public health measures.
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.