Table 3.
Quality assessments and definitional classifications of articles selected for the reviews
| Questions | Number of articles included for quality assessment | Quality Assessment | Classification of definition | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-2 | 3-4 | Vulnerability Physio-logical |
Vulnerability Complex |
Vulnerability Geriatric |
Disability | Setting/Source | Other | ||
| Biological basis | 81 | 55 | 26 | 12 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 39 |
| Social basis | 74 | 9 | 65 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 62 | 0 | 0 |
| Prevalence | 55* | 9 | 46 | 7 | 4 | 9 | 32 | 0 | 3 |
| Risk factors | 88 | 13 | 75 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 63 | 0 | 12 |
| Impact | 34 | 3 | 31 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 20 | 1 | 4 |
| Identification | 24 | 16 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 7 |
| Prevention & Management | 48* | 4 | 44 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 4 | 14 | 18 |
| Environment & Technology | 65† | 15 | 39 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 19 | 17 | 24 |
* These articles were rated on a scale from 1-3 (poor, fair, good). Articles that were rated "poor" are presented in the 1-2 category and articles rated as "fair" or "good" are presented in the 3-4 category.
† 11 of these articles had study designs that could not be evaluated with any of the CIFA quality assessment tools.