Literature DB >> 26242644

Feasibility, acceptability and uptake rates of gestational diabetes mellitus screening in primary care vs secondary care: findings from a randomised controlled mixed methods trial.

Marie Tierney1, Angela O'Dea2, Andriy Danyliv3, Liam G Glynn4,5, Brian E McGuire5,6, Louise A Carmody5, John Newell7, Fidelma P Dunne2,5.   

Abstract

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: It is postulated that uptake rates for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening would be improved if offered in a setting more accessible to the patient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the proportion of uptake of GDM screening in the primary vs secondary care setting, and to qualitatively explore the providers' experiences of primary care screening provision.
METHODS: This mixed methods study was composed of a quantitative unblinded parallel group randomised controlled trial and qualitative interview trial. The primary outcome was the proportion of uptake of screening in both the primary and secondary care settings. All pregnant women aged 18 years or over, with sufficient English and without a diagnosis or diabetes or GDM, who attended for their first antenatal appointment at one of three hospital sites along the Irish Atlantic seaboard were eligible for inclusion in this study. Seven hundred and eighty-one pregnant women were randomised using random permutated blocks to receive a 2 h 75 g OGTT in either a primary (n = 391) or secondary care (n = 390) setting. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 primary care providers. Primary care providers who provided care to the population covered by the three hospital sites involved were eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the primary care (n = 391) and secondary care (n = 390) arms for uptake (52.7% vs 89.2%, respectively; effect size 36.5 percentage points, 95% CI 30.7, 42.4; p < 0.001), crossover (32.5% vs 2.3%, respectively; p < 0.001) and non-uptake (14.8% vs 8.5%, respectively; p = 0.005). There were no significant differences in uptake based on the presence of a practice nurse or the presence of multiple general practitioners in the primary care setting. There was evidence of significant relationship between probability of uptake of screening and age (p < 0.001). Primary care providers reported difficulties with the conduct of GDM screening, despite recognising that the community was the most appropriate location for screening. CONCLUSIONS/
INTERPRETATION: Currently, provision of GDM screening in primary care in Ireland, despite its acknowledged benefits, is unfeasible due to poor uptake rates, poor rates of primary care provider engagement and primary care provider concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://isrctn.org ISRCTN02232125 FUNDING: This study was funded by the Health Research Board (ICE2011/03).

Entities:  

Keywords:  GDM; Gestational diabetes mellitus; Mixed methods; Primary care; Screening; Uptake rates

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26242644     DOI: 10.1007/s00125-015-3713-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetologia        ISSN: 0012-186X            Impact factor:   10.122


  20 in total

1.  Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields.

Authors:  R Elliott; C T Fischer; D L Rennie
Journal:  Br J Clin Psychol       Date:  1999-09

2.  Growing discontent of Swiss doctors, 1998-2007.

Authors:  Thomas V Perneger; Marie Deom; Stéphane Cullati; Patrick A Bovier
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 3.367

3.  Antenatal care in the European Union: a survey on guidelines in all 25 member states of the Community.

Authors:  Annette Bernloehr; Pam Smith; Vasso Vydelingum
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2005-09-01       Impact factor: 2.435

4.  Gestational diabetes: the consequences of not treating.

Authors:  Oded Langer; Yariv Yogev; Orli Most; Elly M J Xenakis
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosed with a 2-h 75-g oral glucose tolerance test and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Authors:  M I Schmidt; B B Duncan; A J Reichelt; L Branchtein; M C Matos; A Costa e Forti; E R Spichler; J M Pousada; M M Teixeira; T Yamashita
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 19.112

6.  ATLANTIC DIP: simplifying the follow-up of women with previous gestational diabetes.

Authors:  E Noctor; C Crowe; L A Carmody; G M Avalos; B Kirwan; J J Infanti; A O'Dea; P Gillespie; J Newell; B McGuire; C O'Neill; P M O'Shea; F P Dunne
Journal:  Eur J Endocrinol       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 6.664

7.  Diabetes mellitus after GDM.

Authors:  J B O'Sullivan
Journal:  Diabetes       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 9.461

8.  Risk of diabetes after gestational diabetes and preeclampsia. A registry-based study of 230,000 women in Norway.

Authors:  Anders Engeland; Tone Bjørge; Anne Kjersti Daltveit; Svetlana Skurtveit; Siri Vangen; Stein Emil Vollset; Kari Furu
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-02-06       Impact factor: 8.082

9.  Frequency of gestational diabetes mellitus at collaborating centers based on IADPSG consensus panel-recommended criteria: the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study.

Authors:  David A Sacks; David R Hadden; Michael Maresh; Chaicharn Deerochanawong; Alan R Dyer; Boyd E Metzger; Lynn P Lowe; Donald R Coustan; Moshe Hod; Jeremy J N Oats; Bengt Persson; Elisabeth R Trimble
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  ATLANTIC DIP: the impact of obesity on pregnancy outcome in glucose-tolerant women.

Authors:  Lisa A Owens; Eoin P O'Sullivan; Breeda Kirwan; Gloria Avalos; Geraldine Gaffney; Fidelma Dunne
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 19.112

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings for improving maternal and infant health.

Authors:  Joanna Tieu; Andrew J McPhee; Caroline A Crowther; Philippa Middleton; Emily Shepherd
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-08-03

Review 2.  Different strategies for diagnosing gestational diabetes to improve maternal and infant health.

Authors:  Diane Farrar; Lelia Duley; Therese Dowswell; Debbie A Lawlor
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-08-23

3.  Universal HbA1c Measurement in Early Pregnancy to Detect Type 2 Diabetes Reduces Ethnic Disparities in Antenatal Diabetes Screening: A Population-Based Observational Study.

Authors:  R C E Hughes; J Williman; J E Gullam
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Pregnancy complications and cardiovascular disease risk perception: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Prabha H Andraweera; Zohra S Lassi; Maleesa M Pathirana; Michelle D Plummer; Gus A Dekker; Claire T Roberts; Margaret A Arstall
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 3.752

5.  Perspectives on the provision of GDM screening in general practice versus the hospital setting: a qualitative study of providers and patients.

Authors:  Marie Tierney; Angela O'Dea; Andrii Danyliv; Louise Carmody; Brian E McGuire; Liam G Glynn; Fidelma Dunne
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Barriers to completing oral glucose tolerance testing in women at risk of gestational diabetes.

Authors:  E H Lachmann; R A Fox; R A Dennison; J A Usher-Smith; C L Meek; C E Aiken
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  2020-03-18       Impact factor: 4.213

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.