ArticleFamily practice2024
Barriers to assessing vulnerability in pregnant women. A cross-sectional survey in Danish general practice.
Article in Family practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
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
Abstract
backgroundUndetected vulnerability in pregnancy contributes to inequality in maternal and perinatal health and is associated with negative birth outcomes and adverse child outcomes. Nationwide reports indicate important barriers to assessing vulnerability among Danish general practitioners.
objectiveTo explore general practitioners perceived barriers to vulnerability assessment in pregnant women and whether the barriers are associated with practice organization of antenatal care, general practitioner, and practice characteristics.
methodsThe questionnaire was sent to all Danish general practitioners (N = 3,465). Descriptive statistics described the barriers to assessing vulnerability in pregnant women. Analytical statistics with ordered logistic regression models were used to describe the association between selected barriers to vulnerability assessment and antenatal care organization, and general practitioner and practice characteristics.
results760 general practitioners (22%) answered. Barriers to vulnerability assessment were related to lacking routines for addressing vulnerability, lacking attention to and record-keeping on vulnerability indicators, an insufficient overview of vulnerable pregnant women, and perceived insufficient remuneration for antenatal care consultations. Not prioritizing extra time when caring for vulnerable pregnant women was associated with experiencing more barriers. Always prioritizing continuity of care was associated with experiencing fewer barriers. General practitioners of either young age, male gender, or who did not prioritize extra time to care for vulnerable pregnant women experienced more barriers.
conclusionBarriers to vulnerability assessment among pregnant women do exist in general practice and are associated with organizational characteristics such as lacking prioritization of extra time and continuity in antenatal care consultations. Also, general practitioner characteristics like male gender and relatively young age are associated with barriers to vulnerability assessment.
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.