BACKGROUND Vulnerability is a concept frequently encountered in the bioethical literature, particularly in the context of research ethics. It can be said that the usage of the concept expanded in the 2000s and started to be used in many new contexts in the literature. However, there appears to be no systematic review that examines the definition of the concept of vulnerability. OBJECTIVES The rationale for this study constitutes the questions regarding how vulnerability is defined and which components are used to define the concept of vulnerability in the bioethics literature. RESEARCH DESIGN The integrative review method was conducted to reach various definitions of the concept of vulnerability in bioethics. Whittemore and Knafl's revised framework for integrative reviews guided the analysis. 'Vulnerability' and 'vulnerable' keywords, intercrossing with the words 'bioethics' and 'medical ethics', were searched in three different databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus). Collected data were analysed thematically and a taxonomy was developed. FINDINGS A total of 1287 studies obtained through search were reduced to 123 that kept the definition of vulnerability. As a result of the review, a comprehensive taxonomy of vulnerability has been proposed. The proposed taxonomy of vulnerability has two categories, ontological and circumstantial, with three subcategories each, which might provide a multidimensional perspective. DISCUSSION Publication dates, origins and contexts of included publications were discussed. Specifications of the term vulnerability and components of its definition and factors that constitute these components provided from the view were evaluated and also discussed. CONCLUSION The proposed taxonomy provides a useful classification for assessing vulnerability in bioethics. It is hoped that the taxonomy we put forward as a result of the review will increase awareness on the issue and also take into account the factors that create vulnerability in the context of research, healthcare and nursing care policies. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS The review was conducted in accord with ethical and scientific standards.

中文翻译：

---

脆弱性：综合生物伦理学审查和拟议的分类法

背景 脆弱性是生物伦理文献中经常遇到的一个概念，特别是在研究伦理的背景下。可以说，这个概念的使用在 2000 年代得到了扩展，并开始在文献中的许多新语境中使用。然而，似乎没有系统审查来检查脆弱性概念的定义。目标 本研究的基本原理构成了关于如何定义脆弱性以及在生物伦理学文献中使用哪些成分来定义脆弱性概念的问题。研究设计 进行综合审查方法以达到生物伦理学中脆弱性概念的各种定义。Whittemore 和 Knafl 修订的综合审查框架指导了分析。“脆弱性”和“脆弱性” 在三个不同的数据库（PubMed、Web of Science 和 Scopus）中搜索了与“生物伦理学”和“医学伦理学”这两个词交叉的关键词。对收集的数据进行专题分析，并制定了分类法。结果 通过搜索获得的总共 1287 项研究减少到保留脆弱性定义的 123 项。作为审查的结果，已经提出了一个全面的脆弱性分类法。拟议的脆弱性分类法有两个类别，本体和环境，每个类别有三个子类别，可以提供多维视角。讨论 讨论了纳入出版物的出版日期、来源和背景。评估并讨论了术语脆弱性的规范及其定义的组成部分以及构成这些组成部分的因素。结论 拟议的分类法为评估生物伦理学的脆弱性提供了有用的分类。希望我们作为审查结果提出的分类法将提高对该问题的认识，并考虑在研究、医疗保健和护理政策的背景下造成脆弱性的因素。伦理考虑 审查是按照伦理和科学标准进行的。希望我们作为审查结果提出的分类法将提高对该问题的认识，并考虑在研究、医疗保健和护理政策的背景下造成脆弱性的因素。伦理考虑 审查是按照伦理和科学标准进行的。希望我们作为审查结果提出的分类法将提高对该问题的认识，并考虑在研究、医疗保健和护理政策的背景下造成脆弱性的因素。伦理考虑 审查是按照伦理和科学标准进行的。