Melinda K Morrison1, Clare E Collins, Julia M Lowe. 1. Health and Education Division, Diabetes Australia-NSW, GPO Box 9824, Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia. melindam@diabetesnsw.com.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postnatal blood glucose testing is recommended for reclassification of glucose tolerance following a pregnancy affected by gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM); however, there are limited data on the postnatal follow-up sought by Australian women. AIMS: To describe postnatal diabetes testing patterns in Australian women following a pregnancy affected by GDM and identify factors associated with return for follow-up testing in accordance with the Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society (ADIPS) guidelines. METHODS: A cross-sectional self-administered survey of 1372 women diagnosed with GDM between 2003 and 2005, sampled from the National Diabetes Services Scheme database. RESULTS: Postnatal diabetes testing was reported by 73.2% of survey respondents with 27.4% returning for an oral glucose test tolerance at six to eight weeks post-GDM pregnancy. Using logistic regression analysis, factors associated with appropriate postnatal testing were receiving individualised risk reduction advice (odds ratio (OR) 1.41 (1.08,1.84)) or written information (OR 1.35 (1.03,1.76)) and in two-way interactions, being under the care of an endocrinologist and not tertiary educated (OR 2.09 (1.49,2.93)) as well as seeing an obstetrician and diabetes educator during pregnancy (OR 1.72 (1.19,2.48)). Every five years increase in age reduced the likelihood of a woman returning for testing by 17%. CONCLUSIONS: Specialist diabetes care in non-tertiary educated women, or a team approach to management with diabetes education and obstetric care may act to reinforce the need for postnatal diabetes testing in accordance with the ADIPS guidelines. Individualised follow up from a health professional and provision of written information following a GDM pregnancy may also encourage return for postnatal testing in this high-risk group.
BACKGROUND: Postnatal blood glucose testing is recommended for reclassification of glucose tolerance following a pregnancy affected by gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM); however, there are limited data on the postnatal follow-up sought by Australian women. AIMS: To describe postnatal diabetes testing patterns in Australian women following a pregnancy affected by GDM and identify factors associated with return for follow-up testing in accordance with the Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society (ADIPS) guidelines. METHODS: A cross-sectional self-administered survey of 1372 women diagnosed with GDM between 2003 and 2005, sampled from the National Diabetes Services Scheme database. RESULTS:Postnatal diabetes testing was reported by 73.2% of survey respondents with 27.4% returning for an oral glucose test tolerance at six to eight weeks post-GDM pregnancy. Using logistic regression analysis, factors associated with appropriate postnatal testing were receiving individualised risk reduction advice (odds ratio (OR) 1.41 (1.08,1.84)) or written information (OR 1.35 (1.03,1.76)) and in two-way interactions, being under the care of an endocrinologist and not tertiary educated (OR 2.09 (1.49,2.93)) as well as seeing an obstetrician and diabetes educator during pregnancy (OR 1.72 (1.19,2.48)). Every five years increase in age reduced the likelihood of a woman returning for testing by 17%. CONCLUSIONS: Specialist diabetes care in non-tertiary educated women, or a team approach to management with diabetes education and obstetric care may act to reinforce the need for postnatal diabetes testing in accordance with the ADIPS guidelines. Individualised follow up from a health professional and provision of written information following a GDM pregnancy may also encourage return for postnatal testing in this high-risk group.
Authors: Andrew McGovern; Lucilla Butler; Simon Jones; Jeremy van Vlymen; Khaled Sadek; Neil Munro; Helen Carr; Simon de Lusignan Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Mary Pierce; Jo Modder; Iman Mortagy; Anna Springett; Heather Hughes; Stephanie Baldeweg Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Kaberi Dasgupta; Deborah Da Costa; Sabrina Pillay; Mirella De Civita; Réjeanne Gougeon; Aaron Leong; Simon Bacon; Stephen Stotland; V Tony Chetty; Natasha Garfield; Agnieszka Majdan; Sara Meltzer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-07-04 Impact factor: 3.240