Reducing health inequalities in disasters: A cross-sectional study of the viability of ‘vulnerability’ terminology and of priority lists in the UK

IF 2.2 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Poppy Ellis Logan , Gabriella Rundblad , Marian Brooke Rogers , Richard Amlôt , Gideon James Rubin
{"title":"Reducing health inequalities in disasters: A cross-sectional study of the viability of ‘vulnerability’ terminology and of priority lists in the UK","authors":"Poppy Ellis Logan ,&nbsp;Gabriella Rundblad ,&nbsp;Marian Brooke Rogers ,&nbsp;Richard Amlôt ,&nbsp;Gideon James Rubin","doi":"10.1016/j.puhip.2024.100564","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>In disasters, people with certain characteristics repeatedly experience health inequalities. In the UK, people predicted to experience poorer health outcomes are often described as ‘vulnerable’. Various services compile lists of ‘vulnerable’ people eligible for interventions in disasters to reduce health disparities.</div></div><div><h3>Study aim</h3><div>To explore the viability of current approaches to reducing health inequalities in disasters, we tested whether people typically described as ‘vulnerable’ by public health and emergency planners self-identify as 'vulnerable' in a disaster, and whether they are registered on a ‘vulnerability list’.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>We collected data from 5148 UK-based adults using a cross-sectional online survey from July–September 2022, using nationally representative quotas for age, gender, disability, and social grade.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We calculated the proportions of respondents with perceived indicators of ‘vulnerability’ who self-described as 'vulnerable during a disaster’, and who reported being on a Priority Service Register or another ‘vulnerability list’. We used odds ratios to assess whether access to resources or risk mitigation plans explained low rates of self-identification as 'vulnerable' and registration.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among people with perceived indicators of 'vulnerability', self-description as ‘vulnerable in a disaster’ ranged from 22.4 % (of people dependent on false teeth) to 60.7 % (of people reporting significant difficulty running errands alone). Registration on a Priority Service Register ranged from 11.4 % (of people who were pregnant) to 35.7 % (of people reporting difficulties dressing, bathing, or using the toilet independently). Respondents without alternative plans or resources were generally no more likely to consider themselves ‘vulnerable’ or be registered on a 'vulnerability list' than those with alternative plans or resources.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Communications using the term 'vulnerable' may not reach target audiences. Using priority lists to reduce health disparities is impractical as most people facing inequitable risk are not registered. We suggest shifting UK terminology and discourse surrounding disaster risk, focussing on making mainstream strategies inclusive and accessible to reduce health inequalities in disasters.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34141,"journal":{"name":"Public Health in Practice","volume":"9 ","pages":"Article 100564"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535224001010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

In disasters, people with certain characteristics repeatedly experience health inequalities. In the UK, people predicted to experience poorer health outcomes are often described as ‘vulnerable’. Various services compile lists of ‘vulnerable’ people eligible for interventions in disasters to reduce health disparities.

Study aim

To explore the viability of current approaches to reducing health inequalities in disasters, we tested whether people typically described as ‘vulnerable’ by public health and emergency planners self-identify as 'vulnerable' in a disaster, and whether they are registered on a ‘vulnerability list’.

Study design

We collected data from 5148 UK-based adults using a cross-sectional online survey from July–September 2022, using nationally representative quotas for age, gender, disability, and social grade.

Methods

We calculated the proportions of respondents with perceived indicators of ‘vulnerability’ who self-described as 'vulnerable during a disaster’, and who reported being on a Priority Service Register or another ‘vulnerability list’. We used odds ratios to assess whether access to resources or risk mitigation plans explained low rates of self-identification as 'vulnerable' and registration.

Results

Among people with perceived indicators of 'vulnerability', self-description as ‘vulnerable in a disaster’ ranged from 22.4 % (of people dependent on false teeth) to 60.7 % (of people reporting significant difficulty running errands alone). Registration on a Priority Service Register ranged from 11.4 % (of people who were pregnant) to 35.7 % (of people reporting difficulties dressing, bathing, or using the toilet independently). Respondents without alternative plans or resources were generally no more likely to consider themselves ‘vulnerable’ or be registered on a 'vulnerability list' than those with alternative plans or resources.

Conclusions

Communications using the term 'vulnerable' may not reach target audiences. Using priority lists to reduce health disparities is impractical as most people facing inequitable risk are not registered. We suggest shifting UK terminology and discourse surrounding disaster risk, focussing on making mainstream strategies inclusive and accessible to reduce health inequalities in disasters.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Public Health in Practice
Public Health in Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
117
审稿时长
71 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信