Poppy Ellis Logan’s research demonstrated that most people have some circumstance or requirement which means they would be categorised as ‘vulnerable’ by emergency planners. But most of them did not consider themselves “vulnerable” in a disaster. This revealed a potential disconnect between academic and policy language, and public perceptions.

Poppy developed and conducted a national survey of over 5,000 UK-based adults. The survey examined whether people considered "vulnerable" by emergency planners self-identified as such during disasters. It collected data on people’s requirements (e.g., refrigerated medications, prescribed dietary products, assistive devices) and whether they could meet these requirements in a disaster, to find out if this determined whether they considered themself to be “vulnerable in a disaster”.

The research demonstrated that most people have some circumstance or requirement considered to indicate ‘vulnerability’ in emergency response narratives.

Most of them did not consider themselves “vulnerable” in a disaster, regardless of whether they were prepared to meet their health requirements in a disaster. This suggests that people do not identify with the term “vulnerable”, regardless of their circumstances. Using the term is potentially counterproductive in public health communications. It risks alienating the people it aims to describe and may reduce engagement with public health and disaster information.

“Vulnerable” does not communicate to people the reasons why health disparities may arise. By contrast, specific phrases like “people who need, but may be unable to access, prescribed medicines” clearly explain how disparate risk arises, enabling further discussion of how to address such problems. The study concluded that more precise and self-explanatory terminology is necessary to effectively communicate about risk and address health disparities.

Poppy’s research demonstrates why inclusive and precise language is a priority consideration for risk communications. Her work catalysed widespread changes at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), including the initiation of a project to develop a UKHSA-wide guidance document on terminology around health equity. 

This work directly informed efforts across UKHSA to consider the right terminology to use in public health. The terminology guide which her work informed will ensure that all public health messaging about people who experience inequalities uses language that is clear, inclusive and evidence based.

By avoiding the term “vulnerable,” UKHSA communications will better reflect the preferences of the people they aim to describe. The shift away from the word reduces stigma, encourages greater engagement with health information, and helps professionals understand the specific, actionable circumstances driving health inequalities and what might address them. The broader impact of this work is significant.

UKHSA are now working to embed using precise and non-ambiguous language in key public health messaging, written guidance and public communications; as well as in speeches, public announcements, and strategy documents.

Poppy’s work has demonstrated the importance of using reflective, critical and co-produced research tools which question traditional assumptions, rather than relying on pre-existing tools which might sustain institutional biases and oversights. Her work has inspired wider conversations in academic and policy-making circles about how health inequalities arise and how language can shape public health outcomes.

Read more about this topic.

The UK Health Security Agency is a government agency responsible for all health security in England, and some reserved public health protection matters across the whole of the United Kingdom.