Reducing health inequalities in disasters: A cross-sectional study of the viability of ‘vulnerability’ terminology and of priority lists in the UK
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...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | Public Health in Practice |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535224001010 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832589966765457408 |
|---|---|
| author | Poppy Ellis Logan Gabriella Rundblad Marian Brooke Rogers Richard Amlôt Gideon James Rubin |
| author_facet | Poppy Ellis Logan Gabriella Rundblad Marian Brooke Rogers Richard Amlôt Gideon James Rubin |
| author_sort | Poppy Ellis Logan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-2d968edf260a4834a52912fbca43612f |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2666-5352 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-06-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Public Health in Practice |
| spelling | doaj-art-2d968edf260a4834a52912fbca43612f2025-01-24T04:45:46ZengElsevierPublic Health in Practice2666-53522025-06-019100564Reducing health inequalities in disasters: A cross-sectional study of the viability of ‘vulnerability’ terminology and of priority lists in the UKPoppy Ellis Logan0Gabriella Rundblad1Marian Brooke Rogers2Richard Amlôt3Gideon James Rubin4National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London, United Kingdom; Corresponding author. NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, Weston Education Centre, Cutcombe Road, King's College London, London, SE5 9RJ, United Kingdom.Social Science & Public Policy: School of Education, Communication and Society, King's College London, United KingdomNational Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London, United KingdomNational Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London, United Kingdom; Behavioural Science and Insights Unit, UK Health Security Agency, United KingdomNational Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London, United KingdomBackground: 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.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535224001010‘Health inequalities’‘Health disparities’‘Health outcomes’‘Health equity’‘Disability’‘Disasters’ |
| spellingShingle | Poppy Ellis Logan Gabriella Rundblad Marian Brooke Rogers Richard Amlôt Gideon James Rubin Reducing health inequalities in disasters: A cross-sectional study of the viability of ‘vulnerability’ terminology and of priority lists in the UK Public Health in Practice ‘Health inequalities’ ‘Health disparities’ ‘Health outcomes’ ‘Health equity’ ‘Disability’ ‘Disasters’ |
| title | Reducing health inequalities in disasters: A cross-sectional study of the viability of ‘vulnerability’ terminology and of priority lists in the UK |
| title_full | Reducing health inequalities in disasters: A cross-sectional study of the viability of ‘vulnerability’ terminology and of priority lists in the UK |
| title_fullStr | Reducing health inequalities in disasters: A cross-sectional study of the viability of ‘vulnerability’ terminology and of priority lists in the UK |
| title_full_unstemmed | Reducing health inequalities in disasters: A cross-sectional study of the viability of ‘vulnerability’ terminology and of priority lists in the UK |
| title_short | Reducing health inequalities in disasters: A cross-sectional study of the viability of ‘vulnerability’ terminology and of priority lists in the UK |
| title_sort | reducing health inequalities in disasters a cross sectional study of the viability of vulnerability terminology and of priority lists in the uk |
| topic | ‘Health inequalities’ ‘Health disparities’ ‘Health outcomes’ ‘Health equity’ ‘Disability’ ‘Disasters’ |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535224001010 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT poppyellislogan reducinghealthinequalitiesindisastersacrosssectionalstudyoftheviabilityofvulnerabilityterminologyandofprioritylistsintheuk AT gabriellarundblad reducinghealthinequalitiesindisastersacrosssectionalstudyoftheviabilityofvulnerabilityterminologyandofprioritylistsintheuk AT marianbrookerogers reducinghealthinequalitiesindisastersacrosssectionalstudyoftheviabilityofvulnerabilityterminologyandofprioritylistsintheuk AT richardamlot reducinghealthinequalitiesindisastersacrosssectionalstudyoftheviabilityofvulnerabilityterminologyandofprioritylistsintheuk AT gideonjamesrubin reducinghealthinequalitiesindisastersacrosssectionalstudyoftheviabilityofvulnerabilityterminologyandofprioritylistsintheuk |