Conectar
To systematically examine how structural vulnerability has been defined and operationalised in United States-based health research, identify conceptual consistencies and methodological gaps, and propose core dimensions of structural vulnerability along with implications for future application in health research.
A systematic mixed-studies review using a parallel-results convergent synthesis design.
PubMed, Embase, Scopus and CINAHL were searched from first publication through 2024 using the terms ‘structural* vulnerab*’ AND health.
Peer-reviewed English-language empirical studies conducted in the United States that applied the concept of structural vulnerability were identified. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess study quality. Study content was analysed to identify how structural vulnerability was defined and operationalised.
Thirty-seven predominantly high-quality studies published between 2011 and 2024 met inclusion criteria. Structural vulnerability was consistently defined through two interrelated dimensions: as a social positionality (characterised by constrained resilience, limited agency and imposed risks rooted in systemic discrimination and social hierarchies) and as a critical analytic framework for examining structural determinants of health. Quantitative studies predominantly used individual-level indicators (e.g., income, housing) and cross-sectional designs. Qualitative studies focused on experiences of structural vulnerability in relation to health outcomes and infrequently translated findings into structural interventions. The most frequently studied outcomes were infectious disease, substance use and mental health.
Structural vulnerability, as a conceptual and empirical lens, reveals how systems produce—and can potentially reduce—health risks. Findings underscore the need for geographically diverse and longitudinal studies, as well as multidimensional measures. Advancing health equity demands critiquing systemic causes of inequities and pursuing justice-oriented interventions.
Nursing, positioned at the intersection of public health, social sciences and policy, is uniquely equipped to engage structural vulnerability as a critical analytic tool to address health inequities, design interventions and advocate for policy reform.
What problem did the study address? This study addressed a lack of clarity in the definition and operationalization of structural vulnerability in health research.
What were the main findings? The definition of structural vulnerability is consistent across quantitative and qualitative studies, but there are marked variations in its operationalization. Quantitative studies predominantly rely on individual-level indicators, while qualitative studies use it as a theoretical framework to guide analysis, interpret findings and examine structural determinants of health.
Where and on whom will the research have an impact? This review offers a clear framing for integrating structural vulnerability in health research in efforts to advance health equity.
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting guideline.
This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct or reporting.
The primary objective was to determine whether a behaviour change intervention delivered to hospital staff would (1) improve the proportion of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander (Aboriginal) babies being registered and (2) reduce hospital admissions and emergency presentations for babies
Quasi-experimental design and cohort study.
Five tertiary birthing hospitals in WA.
The intervention was delivered to health service providers who were in the five tertiary birthing hospitals. Outcome data were collected on Aboriginal babies born between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2018 who were delivered within these hospitals. Babies in the control group (n=226) were born 6 months before the intervention and intervention babies (n=232) were born 6 months following the intervention. For the secondary objective, there were 4573 babies included in the analysis.
A behaviour change intervention delivered to hospital staff in five hospitals.
The primary outcomes were the proportion of babies who were registered and whether a baby had been admitted to hospital or an emergency department by 3 and 6 months old. The secondary outcome was to determine factors that might influence the proportion of registered Aboriginal births in WA (cohort study).
There was evidence of a 38% reduction in emergency presentations within 6 months for babies born to hospitals 6 months following the staff training (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.91), and little evidence of improvements in birth registrations, hospital admissions within 3 or 6 months of birth or emergency department presentations within 3 months of birth. Of the 4573 babies included in the cohort study, 3769 (82.4%) babies had their births registered and 804 (17.6%) babies did not. Factors that were associated with not having a birth registered included low birth weight babies with a 34% decrease in odds of having a registered birth compared with those with a normal birth weight (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.86). Timing of first antenatal visit was associated with reduced odds of having a birth registered if this occurred in the second (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) or third trimester (aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.77) compared with the first trimester.
Our study identifies the complexities surrounding birth registrations and improved hospital utilisation for Aboriginal babies, the importance of targeted interventions and ongoing efforts needed to address this issue comprehensively.
ACTRN12615000976583.
FreshRSS 