Giving a voice to medically vulnerable populations: A mixed‐methods investigation of their unique perceptions and needs in emergency situations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults in poor health represent a growing sector of the population worldwide. These medically vulnerable individuals often tend to be ill-prepared for emergencies. In times of crisis they are at higher risk of experiencing adverse health outcomes and are liable to place an additional burden on health and social care services. The aim of this study was to explore the unique perceptions and diverse needs of community-dwelling medically vulnerable individuals in Israel in order to gain insights that could be used to promote future preparedness. A mixed methods design was employed that included 16 in-depth interviews, followed by a quantitative survey of 179 participants. Data were collected between 2016 and 2017. The analysis process included thematic analysis for qualitative data. Quantitative data analysis focused on estimating associations between preparedness levels and participants' characteristics and perceptions. The results indicated low levels of preparedness-only 13.5% of participants reported having prepared a full emergency kit with supplies. Family members played a key role in almost every dimension related to emergency preparedness; alongside certain authorities perceived by the participants as responsible for initiating the preparedness process. Additional issues that emerged were related to information and communication and to the logistics of medication handling and special nutrition. The findings suggest that it is vital to adopt a proactive approach to the problem of preparedness in this population. This conclusion should be of value to health and social care practitioners in the community as well as to family members and caregivers. Practical and simple recommendations for enhancing preparedness based on these findings are provided. Viewing preparedness as a process that is the joint responsibility of the individual, the family, caregivers, and community health and social welfare services could contribute to maintaining continuity of care among vulnerable populations and mitigate adverse health outcomes in future events.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".