评估孕妇脆弱性的障碍。丹麦全科医生横断面调查。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Louise Brygger Venø, Dorte Ejg Jarbøl, Ruth Kirk Ertmann, Jens Søndergaard, Line Bjørnskov Pedersen
{"title":"评估孕妇脆弱性的障碍。丹麦全科医生横断面调查。","authors":"Louise Brygger Venø, Dorte Ejg Jarbøl, Ruth Kirk Ertmann, Jens Søndergaard, Line Bjørnskov Pedersen","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmac134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Undetected 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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>760 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Barriers 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12209,"journal":{"name":"Family practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11324321/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Barriers to assessing vulnerability in pregnant women. A cross-sectional survey in Danish general practice.\",\"authors\":\"Louise Brygger Venø, Dorte Ejg Jarbøl, Ruth Kirk Ertmann, Jens Søndergaard, Line Bjørnskov Pedersen\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/fampra/cmac134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Undetected 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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>760 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Barriers 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Family practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11324321/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Family practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmac134\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmac134","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:未被发现的孕期脆弱性会导致孕产妇和围产期健康的不平等,并与不良的分娩结果和不良的儿童结局有关。全国性报告显示,丹麦全科医生在评估脆弱性方面存在重大障碍:目的:探讨全科医生在评估孕妇脆弱性时遇到的障碍,以及这些障碍是否与产前护理的实践组织、全科医生和实践特征有关:方法:向所有丹麦全科医生(N=3465)发送了调查问卷。描述性统计描述了评估孕妇脆弱性的障碍。使用有序逻辑回归模型进行分析统计,以描述脆弱性评估的选定障碍与产前护理组织、全科医生和诊所特征之间的关联:共有 760 名全科医生(22%)回答了问题。脆弱性评估的障碍涉及缺乏处理脆弱性问题的常规程序、缺乏对脆弱性指标的关注和记录、对脆弱孕妇的了解不够全面以及认为产前护理咨询的报酬不足。在护理易受伤害的孕妇时不优先考虑额外时间与遇到更多障碍有关。总是优先考虑连续性护理与遇到的障碍较少有关。年龄小、性别为男性或不优先考虑花额外时间照顾易受伤害孕妇的全科医生遇到的障碍更多:结论:全科医生在对孕妇进行脆弱性评估时确实存在障碍,而且这些障碍与全科医生的组织特征有关,如在产前护理咨询中不优先考虑额外时间和连续性。此外,男性和相对年轻等全科医生的特点也与脆弱性评估的障碍有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Barriers to assessing vulnerability in pregnant women. A cross-sectional survey in Danish general practice.

Background: Undetected 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.

Objective: To 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.

Methods: The 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.

Results: 760 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.

Conclusion: Barriers 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Family practice
Family practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Practice is an international journal aimed at practitioners, teachers, and researchers in the fields of family medicine, general practice, and primary care in both developed and developing countries. Family Practice offers its readership an international view of the problems and preoccupations in the field, while providing a medium of instruction and exploration. The journal''s range and content covers such areas as health care delivery, epidemiology, public health, and clinical case studies. The journal aims to be interdisciplinary and contributions from other disciplines of medicine and social science are always welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信