Scoping study of definitions and instruments measuring vulnerability in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is important to foster social participation and health equity, especially for older adults in situations of vulnerability. Despite growing interest in vulnerability, there is no consensus regarding how to define or measure this concept. This paper provides an inventory and synthesis of definitions of and instruments measuring vulnerability in older adults. METHODS: Using a scoping study framework, eight databases (Abstracts in Social Gerontology, Academic Search Complete, AgeLine, CINAHL, MEDLINE, SocINDEX, PsycInfo, Scopus) were searched with relevant keywords [Vulnerab* AND (Concept*, Defin*, Meaning, Terminology, Measurement, Assessment*, Indicator*, Instrument*, Scale*, Questionnaire* OR Test*) AND (Aging, Aging, Elder*, Gerontolog*, Older OR Senior*)]. RESULTS: Thirty-one original definitions and five measuring instruments were identified, content-analyzed, and compared. Vulnerability definitions mostly focused on people under conditions that increased their risk of harm because of individual physical factors, the environment, and their interaction. Considering these definitions, experts in the field of aging, including two representing older adults, participated in a workshop, and a consensus was reached to define a situation of vulnerability as "a set of circumstances in which one or more individuals experience, at a specific moment in time, one or multiple physiological, psychological, socioeconomic or social difficulties that may interact to increase their risk of being harmed or having coping challenges that have a negative impact on their life." Although none of the measures fully targeted this definition, the Perceived Vulnerability Scale (PVS) is one of the most complete measures, with 22 items considering feelings of vulnerability toward personal and environmental factors, and good psychometric properties. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed definition and the PVS help to provide a common language and measure in health and social sciences research, policy and practice identifying and reaching older adults in situations of vulnerability and intervening to foster social participation and health equity.
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 | 0.116 | 0.329 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.068 | 0.069 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".