ArticleBMC primary care2022
Challenges in the cross-sectoral collaboration on vulnerable pregnant women: a qualitative study among Danish general practitioners.
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 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding Vulnerability During Preventive Child Health Examinations: Insights from Danish General Practitioners.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Efficacy of Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Management and Prevention.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Association of Self-Rated Health in Pregnancy With Maternal Childhood Experiences, Socioeconomic Status, Parity, and Choice of Antenatal Care Providers: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- General practitioners' barriers to cross-sectoral collaboration on pregnant women with vulnerabilities: a cross-sectional survey in Danish general practice.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Clustering of non-medical risk factors and the association with duration of social care in pregnant women in highly vulnerable circumstances.European journal of public health · 2025Article
- Barriers to assessing vulnerability in pregnant women. A cross-sectional survey in Danish general practice.Family practice · 2024Article
- "We have to change our mindsets": a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators in research collaboration across integrated care system organisations.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- 'There's a will, but not a way': Norwegian GPs' experiences of collaboration with child welfare services - a grounded theory study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Building Cross-sectoral Collaborations to Address Perinatal Health Inequities: Insights From the Dutch Healthy Pregnancy 4 All-3 Program.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Reducing the risk of prenatal alcohol exposure and FASD through social services: promising results from the FAR SEAS pilot project.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVulnerable pregnant women, defined as women threatened by social, psychological, or physical risk factors, need special support during pregnancy to prevent complications in pregnancy, birth, and childhood. Proper cross-sectoral collaboration in antenatal care is paramount to delivering sufficient supportive care to these women. General practitioners (GPs) often face barriers when assessing vulnerable pregnant women and may; as a result, under-identify and underreport child abuse. Little is known about how the cross-sectoral collaboration in antenatal care affects the GP's opportunities of managing vulnerable pregnant women. This study explores GPs' perceived barriers and facilitators in the antenatal care collaboration on vulnerable pregnant women and in the reporting of these women to social services.
methodsA qualitative study with semi-structured focus group interviews among twenty GPs from the Region of Southern Denmark. A mixed inductive and deductive analytic strategy was applied, structured according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).
resultsThree themes emerged: I) collaborative experience, II) motivation, and III) organizational working conditions. Barriers were lacking experience, i.e. knowledge, skills, and attention to antenatal care collaboration and reporting, inadequate organizational working contexts, i.e. insufficient pathways for communication between health care and social care systems, and laws restricting feedback on the consequences of reporting. This decreased the GPs motivation, i.e. poor confidence in navigating the system, fear of breaking the patient alliance when collaborating in antenatal care and reporting with the social services. GPs motivation to collaborate and report was increased by knowing the working contexts of their collaborative partners in the antenatal care and social services system and by a strong doctor-patient relationship enabling them to describe the vulnerability to collaborators.
conclusionsGPs experience system-related barriers to collaborating and reporting on vulnerable pregnant women within the health care sector and in the interplay with the social services sector. Organizational development of cross-sectoral antenatal care collaboration should imply user involvement of all collaborative partners. Results suggest that health authorities should consider establishing accessible communication pathways between the GPs and the social services to improve options for proper cross-sectoral communication and feedback to GPs, thereby improving care trajectories of vulnerable pregnant women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.