Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34174822›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2021

General practitioners' perceived indicators of vulnerability in pregnancy- A qualitative interview study.

L Brygger Venø, D E Jarbøl, L B Pedersen, J Søndergaard, R K Ertmann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. More GP Consultations by Violence Victims: Results from the Representative German DEGS1 Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

L Brygger VenøResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern, Odense, Denmark. lbrygger@health.sdu.dk.
D E JarbølResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern, Odense, Denmark.
L B PedersenResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern, Odense, Denmark.
J SøndergaardResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern, Odense, Denmark.
R K ErtmannResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Southern Denmark · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore general practitioners' (GPs') perceived indicators of vulnerability among pregnant women in primary care.

designA qualitative study with semi-structured in-depth focus group interviews.

settingGeneral practices located in a mixture of urban, semi-urban and rural practices throughout the Region of Southern Denmark SUBJECTS: Twenty GPs.

main outcome measuresThrough qualitative analysis with systematic text condensation of the interview data, the following themes emerged: (1) obvious indicators of vulnerability-i.e. somatic or psychological illnesses, or complex social problems and 2) intangible indicators of vulnerability - i.e. identification depended on the GPs' gut-feeling. From the GPs' perspective, the concept of vulnerability in pregnancy were perceived as the net result of risk factors and available individual and social resources, with a psychosocial etiology as the dominant framework.

conclusionsThe GPs demonstrated a broad variety of perceived indicators of vulnerability in pregnancy; most importantly, the GPs were aware of a group of pregnant women with intangible vulnerability mainly representing low resilience. Despite not fitting into the GPs' perceived concept of vulnerability, the GPs had a strong gut feeling that these women might be vulnerable. Misjudging the resources of pregnant women due to their physical appearance could delay the GPs' identification of vulnerability. Future studies should explore the challenges GPs experiences when assessing vulnerability among pregnant women.

Indexed as

General PracticeGeneral PractitionersAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansPregnancyPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchAntenatal careGeneral practicePregnancyVulnerability

Identifiers

PMID34174822
PMCPMC8236135
OpenAlexW3121450210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.