Structural Vulnerability in Health Research: A Systematic Mixed Studies Review

ABSTRACT Aims To systematically examine how structural vulnerability has been defined and operationalised in United States‐based health research, identify conceptual consistencies and methodological gaps, and propose core dimensions of structural vulnerability along with implications for future application in health research. Design A systematic mixed‐studies review using a parallel‐results convergent synthesis design. Data Sources PubMed, Embase, Scopus and CINAHL were searched from first publication through 2024 using the terms ‘structural* vulnerab*’ AND health. Review Methods Peer‐reviewed English‐language empirical studies conducted in the United States that applied the concept of structural vulnerability were identified. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess study quality. Study content was analysed to identify how structural vulnerability was defined and operationalised. Results Thirty‐seven predominantly high‐quality studies published between 2011 and 2024 met inclusion criteria. Structural vulnerability was consistently defined through two interrelated dimensions: as a social positionality (characterised by constrained resilience, limited agency and imposed risks rooted in systemic discrimination and social hierarchies) and as a critical analytic framework for examining structural determinants of health. Quantitative studies predominantly used individual‐level indicators (e.g., income, housing) and cross‐sectional designs. Qualitative studies focused on experiences of structural vulnerability in relation to health outcomes and infrequently translated findings into structural interventions. The most frequently studied outcomes were infectious disease, substance use and mental health. Conclusion Structural vulnerability, as a conceptual and empirical lens, reveals how systems produce—and can potentially reduce—health risks. Findings underscore the need for geographically diverse and longitudinal studies, as well as multidimensional measures. Advancing health equity demands critiquing systemic causes of inequities and pursuing justice‐oriented interventions. Implications for the Profession Nursing, positioned at the intersection of public health, social sciences and policy, is uniquely equipped to engage structural vulnerability as a critical analytic tool to address health inequities, design interventions and advocate for policy reform. Impact What problem did the study address? This study addressed a lack of clarity in the definition and operationalization of structural vulnerability in health research. What were the main findings? The definition of structural vulnerability is consistent across quantitative and qualitative studies, but there are marked variations in its operationalization. Quantitative studies predominantly rely on individual‐level indicators, while qualitative studies use it as a theoretical framework to guide analysis, interpret findings and examine structural determinants of health. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? This review offers a clear framing for integrating structural vulnerability in health research in efforts to advance health equity. Reporting Method PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses) reporting guideline. No Patient or Public Involvement This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct or reporting.