Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 18, 2026

A Modified Trier Social Stress Test for Vulnerable Mexican American Adolescents
Published on: July 10, 2017
Identification of vulnerability within a child and family health service
Katarina Kimla1, Dania Nathanson1, Susan Woolfenden1
1Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, High Street, Randwick, Sydney, NSW 2031, Australia. Email:.
Objective The aims of the present study were to describe the prevalence of vulnerability in a cohort of newborns, identify the factors that increase the risk of vulnerability and examine whether those who are most vulnerable are receiving home visits. Methods A prospective cross-sectional study was performed using data collected from questionnaires completed by child and family health nurses and obstetric discharge summaries for each mother-baby dyad. Descriptive frequencies and percentages are used to describe the proportions of children who were vulnerable, offered services and had risk factors for vulnerability. Categorical data were compared using Pearson's Chi-squared analysis. Results In all, 1517 newborns were included in the present study. Of these, 40.5% were identified as vulnerable and 13.9% had two or more risk factors for vulnerability (95% confidence interval (CI) 12-16%). The most common risk factors were biological. Across all newborns, 33.7% were visited at home, and 74.6% of vulnerable newborns were offered a home visit. Children identified as vulnerable were more likely to have a home visit than those who were not (z for 95% CI=1.96; P<0.1). Conclusions Although the high reported prevalence of identified risk needs to be confirmed in further studies, identifying vulnerability allowed the offer of home visiting to be directed towards those most likely to benefit. What is known about the topic? Of the Australian child population, 10-20% are vulnerable to adverse health, developmental and wellbeing outcomes. Vulnerable infants are at a greater risk of becoming vulnerable children, adolescents and adults over the life course. Biological and psychosocial risk factors for vulnerability are well described. Families with the greatest need are often the least likely to access or receive support, and have lower utilisation of preventative health services despite evidence that support in the first few years of life can significantly improve long-term outcomes. What does this paper add? This paper provides a detailed description of vulnerabilities in a cohort of newborns and demonstrates that it is possible to assign risk of vulnerability within existing child and family health services using tools that identify biological and psychosocial risk factors. Identification of vulnerability risk allows prioritisation of services to those with the greatest need. What are the implications for practitioners? It is possible to identify vulnerability risk within child and family health services. This allows those families at risk of future adverse health, developmental and wellbeing outcomes to be prioritised to receive health services and supports.
Objective The aims of the present study were to describe the prevalence of vulnerability in a cohort of newborns, identify the factors that increase the risk of vulnerability and examine whether those who are most vulnerable are receiving home visits. Methods A prospective cross-sectional study was performed using data collected from questionnaires completed by child and family health nurses and obstetric discharge summaries for each mother-baby dyad. Descriptive frequencies and percentages are used to describe the proportions of children who were vulnerable, offered services and had risk factors for vulnerability. Categorical data were compared using Pearson's Chi-squared analysis. Results In all, 1517 newborns were included in the present study. Of these, 40.5% were identified as vulnerable and 13.9% had two or more risk factors for vulnerability (95% confidence interval (CI) 12-16%). The most common risk factors were biological. Across all newborns, 33.7% were visited at home, and 74.6% of vulnerable newborns were offered a home visit. Children identified as vulnerable were more likely to have a home visit than those who were not (z for 95% CI=1.96; P<0.1). Conclusions Although the high reported prevalence of identified risk needs to be confirmed in further studies, identifying vulnerability allowed the offer of home visiting to be directed towards those most likely to benefit. What is known about the topic? Of the Australian child population, 10-20% are vulnerable to adverse health, developmental and wellbeing outcomes. Vulnerable infants are at a greater risk of becoming vulnerable children, adolescents and adults over the life course. Biological and psychosocial risk factors for vulnerability are well described. Families with the greatest need are often the least likely to access or receive support, and have lower utilisation of preventative health services despite evidence that support in the first few years of life can significantly improve long-term outcomes. What does this paper add? This paper provides a detailed description of vulnerabilities in a cohort of newborns and demonstrates that it is possible to assign risk of vulnerability within existing child and family health services using tools that identify biological and psychosocial risk factors. Identification of vulnerability risk allows prioritisation of services to those with the greatest need. What are the implications for practitioners? It is possible to identify vulnerability risk within child and family health services. This allows those families at risk of future adverse health, developmental and wellbeing outcomes to be prioritised to receive health services and supports.
More Related Videos
07:31Implementation of a Real-Time Psychosis Risk Detection and Alerting System Based on Electronic Health Records using CogStack
Published on: May 15, 2020
06:16Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and Their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting
Published on: June 6, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Preventive Healthcare Services
Primary Healthcare Services
In 1978, international leaders convened in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, for what would be a pivotal event in global health. The Alma-Ata Declaration was the first to call...
Factors Affecting Illness
For instance, risk factors are connected to illness,...
Specialized Care Centers and Settings-II
Rural health centers are specialized care facilities in remote locations with very few medical personnel. The primary care providers who run the centers are mostly Registered Nurse Practitioners. Here, emergency treatment is provided to critically ill or injured patients before they are transferred to the closest hospital. Fortunately, due to advancement in technology, many rural healthcare facilities and professionals have easy access to diagnostic and treatment...
Models of Health Promotion and Illness Prevention II
The agent-host-environment model states that disease results...
Community Based Intervention
Foundations of Community Mental Health Programs
Central to the success of community-based interventions is the...