Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35659201›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2022

Assessing and addressing vulnerability in pregnancy: General practitioners perceived barriers and facilitators - a qualitative interview study.

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

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Louise Brygger VenøDepartment of Public Health, Research Unit of General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. lbrygger@health.sdu.dk.
L Bjørnskov PedersenDepartment of Public Health, Research Unit of General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
J SøndergaardDepartment of Public Health, Research Unit of General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
R K ErtmannDepartment of Public Health, Research Unit of General Practice, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
D E JarbølDepartment of Public Health, Research Unit of General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
University of Southern Denmark · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVulnerability due to low psychosocial resources increases among women in the fertile age. Undetected vulnerability in pregnancy is a major contributor to inequality in maternal and perinatal health and constitutes a risk of maternal depression, adverse birth outcomes,-i.e. preterm birth, low birth weight, and adverse outcomes in childhood such as attachment disorders. General practitioners (GPs) have a broad understanding of indicators of vulnerability in pregnancy. However, less than 25% of pregnant women with severe vulnerability are identified in Danish general practice. The aim was to explore GPs' perceived barriers and facilitators for assessing and addressing vulnerability among pregnant women.

methodsA qualitative study with semi-structured focus group interviews with twenty GPs from urban and rural areas throughout the Region of Southern Denmark. A mixed inductive and deductive analytic strategy was applied, structured according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

resultsFive themes emerged covering twelve TDF domains: (I)knowledge and attention, (II)professional confidence, (III)incentives, (IV)working conditions and (V)behavioral regulations. Prominent barriers to assessment were lack of continuity of care and trust in the doctor-patient relation. Other barriers were inattention to indicators of vulnerability, time limits, unavailable information on patients' social support needs from cross-sectoral collaborators, and lack of reimbursement for the use of extra time. Fear of damaging the doctor-patient relation, ethical dilemmas and time limits were barriers to addressing vulnerability. Facilitators were increased attention on vulnerability, professionalism and a strong and trustful doctor-patient relation. Behavioral regulations ensuring continuity of care and extra time for history taking enabled assessing and addressing vulnerability, especially when a strong doctor-patient relation was absent.

conclusionsThe TDF disclosed several barriers, especially in the absence of a strong doctor-patient relation. A behavior change intervention of restructuring the organization of antenatal care in general practice might reduce the GPs' barriers to assessing and addressing vulnerability in pregnancy. The findings may serve as a guide for commissioners and policymakers of antenatal care on the GPs' support needs when providing antenatal care to vulnerable pregnant women.

Indexed as

General PracticeGeneral PractitionersPremature BirthAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyQualitative ResearchAntenatal careAssessmentBarriersFacilitatorsGeneral practiceMental health carePregnancyPreventive health carePsycho-socialVulnerability

Identifiers

PMID35659201
PMCPMC9164392
OpenAlexW4281636691

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.