Rethinking the use of ‘vulnerable’

Migrants as ‘vulnerable groups’ in the COVID-19 pandemic: A critical discourse analysis of a taken-for-granted label in academic literature

“…Similar concerns have been raised in the public health literature: some scholars see the concept of vulnerability as being connected to notions of difference, which can result in further exclusion and stigmatisation of individuals and groups of people ( Munari et al, 2021 ). Vladeck (2007) has even argued that the use of the concept of vulnerable populations in public health “arises more from the pressures for euphemism in the discussion of health policy and health services than from any intellectual power inherent in the concept” (p. 1232).…”

“…A larger study would be needed in order to understand broader societal discursive patterns relating to migrants as a vulnerable group in the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, we limited our analysis to reviewing the use of the term ‘vulnerable’, even though there are other terms which are similarly used without sufficient critical reflection, such as ‘underserved’, ‘disenfranchised’, ‘at risk’, ‘disadvantaged’ and ‘marginalized’ ( Munari et al, 2021 ). The selected papers have a geographic bias, as more than two-thirds of the publications studied Europe, the USA or Canada.…”

Appropriateness of COVID-19 public health guidelines for an Alberta First Nations community

“…Historically, starting with the Indian Act (1876) (Government of Canada, 1985 ), colonial laws continue to harm First Nations culture in favour of assimilation into Euro-Canada society. This oppression through policy choices and discourses of racial inferiority can be considered the root cause of inequity (Munari et al, 2021 ), as opposed to individual or community vulnerabilities. This systemic racism manifests in social exclusion of First Nations people, limiting or preventing political, social, and economic participation—including access to and participation in health (Leyland et al, 2016 ).…”

Universal child health and early education service use from birth through Kindergarten and developmental vulnerability in the Preparatory Year (age 5 years) in Tasmania, Australia

“…Our intention in modelling the associations between risk factors and service use patterns was to draw attention to service system changes that might improve access to and use of services for priority population groups (Goodman et al, 2019; Munari et al, 2021). Risk variables from the Tasmanian Perinatal Data Collection were collected at the child's birth, and risk variables from the AEDC Data Collection were obtained in the child's first year of full‐time school (Table 1).…”

“…Identifying patterns of universal early childhood service use across different types of services and at different ages and stages of child development is an important first step in understanding how universal services are used across the population. Identifying the risk factors associated with different patterns of service use permits a view of the developmental circumstances that shape children's access to and participation in services (Munari et al, 2021). The extent to which different patterns of service use are associated with individual and cumulative risks and developmental vulnerability permits some insights into the service needs of different population groups, defined primarily by their pattern of universal service use over time.…”