Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 24;41(4):484–493. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmac134

Table 2.

Barriers to assessing vulnerability in pregnant women among 760 general practitioners (2022).

TDF domain Construct Item Fully agree/agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree/fully disagree
N (%) N (%) N (%)
A) Knowledge Knowledge of condition Lacking knowledge of indicators of vulnerability in pregnancy 61 (8.0%) 169 (22.2%) 528 (69.5%)
B) Skills (reversed) Competence Perceived competence in vulnerability assessment 610 (80.3%) 120 (15.8%) 21 (2.8%)
C) Memory attention and decision making Shared attention GPs and staff lacking shared attention on vulnerability assessment 134 (17.6%) 219 (28.8%) 376 (49.5%)
D) Behavioural regulation Action planning/routines Lacking routines in how to address vulnerability 135 (17.8%) 181 (23.8%) 439 (57.8%)
E.1) Environmental context and resources Time limits Time limits the possibility of assessing vulnerability 48 (6.3%) 121 (15.9%) 585 (77.0%)
E.2) Environmental context and resources (reversed) Socio-political context—remuneration Perceived sufficiency of ANC remuneration for vulnerability assessment 210 (27.6%) 206 (27.1%) 326 (42.9%)
F) Social influences Organizational culture—medical record-keeping Insufficient medical record-keeping on indicators of vulnerability 282 (37.1%) 204 (26.8%) 240 (31.6%)
G) Social/Professional role and identity (reversed) Obligation and role Perceived obligation and role regarding vulnerability assessment in pregnancy 715 (94.1%) 42 (5.5%) 2 (0.3%)
H.1) Believes about capabilities Control of behaviour, and social environment Lacking overview whether assessing all pregnant women who are vulnerable 197 (25.9%) 236 (31.1%) 314 (41.3%)
H.2) Believes about capabilities Control of environment—delegating to Staff* Lacking overview of vulnerability assessment due to delegating ANC to staff* 23 (15.1%) 34 (22.4%) 95 (62.5%)
H.3) Believes about capabilities Control of environment—delegating to GP trainees** Lacking overview of vulnerability assessment due to delegating ANC to GP trainees** 106( 17.0%) 148 (23.8%) 339 (54.5%)
H.4) Believes about capabilities Self-efficacy Perceived low self-efficacy in vulnerability assessment 28 (3.7%) 127 (16.7%) 596 (78.4%)
I) Believes about consequences Outcome expectancies Perceived adverse outcome expectancies regarding patient relation 38 (5.0%) 102 (13.4%) 614 (80.8%)
J) Goal Priority Perceived inferior priority of vulnerability assessment 53 (7.0%) 256 (33.7%) 441 (58.0%)
K) Intention (reversed) Commitment Commitment in relation to vulnerability assessment 720 (94.7%) 34 (4.5%) 5 (0.7%)
L) Emotion Cognitive overload Cognitive overload in relation to vulnerability assessment 15 (2.0%) 134 (17.6%) 603 (79.3%)
M) Reinforcement Incentives Increased motivation to spend extra time on vulnerability assessment in case of extra remuneration 303 (39.9%) 250 (32.9%) 183 (24.1%)
N) Optimism (reversed) Usefulness Perceived usefulness of assessing vulnerability 716 (94.2%) 33 (4.3%) 9 (1.2%)

TDF: Theoretical Domains Framework; ANC: Antenatal care.

*N = 152, as only GPs who delegated ANC fully to practice staff received this question.

**N = 622, as only GPs having GP trainees in their clinic received this question. To comply with general data protection requirements for cells with small numbers (<5), categories for fully agree/agree and fully disagree/disagree are combined, while the category don’t know/not relevant is omitted from the table. Therefore the sum of responses does not equal 760.