7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The concept of vulnerability in aged care: a systematic review of argument-based ethics literature

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Vulnerability is a key concept in traditional and contemporary bioethics. In the philosophical literature, vulnerability is understood not only to be an ontological condition of humanity, but also to be a consequence of contingent factors. Within bioethics debates, vulnerable populations are defined in relation to compromised capacity to consent, increased susceptibility to harm, and/or exploitation. Although vulnerability has historically been associated with older adults, to date, no comprehensive or systematic work exists on the meaning of their vulnerability. To fill this gap, we analysed the literature on aged care for the meaning, foundations, and uses of vulnerability as an ethical concept.

          Methods

          Using PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of argument-based ethics literature in four major databases: PubMed, Embase®, Web of Science™, and Philosopher’s Index. These covered biomedical, philosophy, bioethical, and anthropological literature. Titles, abstracts, and full texts of identified papers were screened for relevance. The snowball technique and citation tracking were used to identify relevant publications. Data analysis and synthesis followed the preparatory steps of the coding process detailed in the QUAGOL methodology.

          Results

          Thirty-eight publications met our criteria and were included. Publication dates ranged from 1984 to 2020, with 17 publications appearing between 2015 and 2020. Publications originated from all five major continents, as indicated by the affiliation of the first author. Our analyses revealed that the concept of vulnerability could be distinguished in terms of basic human and situational vulnerability. Six dimensions of older adults’ vulnerability were identified: physical; psychological; relational/interpersonal; moral; sociocultural, political, and economic; and existential/spiritual. This analysis suggested three ways to relate to older adults’ vulnerability: understanding older adults’ vulnerability, taking care of vulnerable older adults, and intervening through socio-political-economic measures.

          Conclusions

          The way in which vulnerability was conceptualised in the included publications overlaps with distinctions used within contemporary bioethics literature. Dimensions of aged care vulnerability map onto defining features of humans, giving weight to the claim that vulnerability represents an inherent characteristic of humans. Vulnerability is mostly a value-laden concept, endowed with positive and negative connotations. Most publications focused on and promoted aged care, strengthening the idea that care is a defining practice of being human.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00819-3.

          Related collections

          Most cited references86

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Frailty in elderly people

            Frailty is the most problematic expression of population ageing. It is a state of vulnerability to poor resolution of homoeostasis after a stressor event and is a consequence of cumulative decline in many physiological systems during a lifetime. This cumulative decline depletes homoeostatic reserves until minor stressor events trigger disproportionate changes in health status. In landmark studies, investigators have developed valid models of frailty and these models have allowed epidemiological investigations that show the association between frailty and adverse health outcomes. We need to develop more efficient methods to detect frailty and measure its severity in routine clinical practice, especially methods that are useful for primary care. Such progress would greatly inform the appropriate selection of elderly people for invasive procedures or drug treatments and would be the basis for a shift in the care of frail elderly people towards more appropriate goal-directed care. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Frailty: implications for clinical practice and public health

              Frailty is an emerging global health burden, with major implications for clinical practice and public health. The prevalence of frailty is expected to rise alongside rapid growth in the ageing population. The course of frailty is characterised by a decline in functioning across multiple physiological systems, accompanied by an increased vulnerability to stressors. Having frailty places a person at increased risk of adverse outcomes, including falls, hospitalisation, and mortality. Studies have shown a clear pattern of increased health-care costs and use associated with frailty. All older adults are at risk of developing frailty, although risk levels are substantially higher among those with comorbidities, low socioeconomic position, poor diet, and sedentary lifestyles. Lifestyle and clinical risk factors are potentially modifiable by specific interventions and preventive actions. The concept of frailty is increasingly being used in primary, acute, and specialist care. However, despite efforts over the past three decades, agreement on a standard instrument to identify frailty has not yet been achieved. In this Series paper, we provide an overview of the global impact and burden of frailty, the usefulness of the frailty concept in clinical practice, potential targets for frailty prevention, and directions that need to be explored in the future.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                virginia.sanchini@unimi.it
                Journal
                BMC Med Ethics
                BMC Med Ethics
                BMC Medical Ethics
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6939
                16 August 2022
                16 August 2022
                2022
                : 23
                : 84
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.4708.b, ISNI 0000 0004 1757 2822, Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, , University of Milan, ; Milan, Italy
                [2 ]GRID grid.15496.3f, ISNI 0000 0001 0439 0892, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, ; Milan, Italy
                [3 ]GRID grid.5596.f, ISNI 0000 0001 0668 7884, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, , KU Leuven, ; Leuven, Belgium
                Article
                819
                10.1186/s12910-022-00819-3
                9379886
                35974362
                49b8ee44-169c-4f3b-9231-094a8e9c436c
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 6 December 2021
                : 29 July 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: This work was originally conceived under the Project INNOVAcaRE (“Enhancing Social Innovation in Elderly Care: Values, Practices, and Policies”) and the supported by the Project ElderTech (“Emerging technologies and vulnerabilities in aged care”), both funded by Fondazione Cariplo.
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Medicine
                vulnerability,frailty,fragility,older adults,clinical ethics,bioethics,systematic review
                Medicine
                vulnerability, frailty, fragility, older adults, clinical ethics, bioethics, systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article