Marie Tierney1, Angela O'Dea2, Andriy Danyliv3, Liam G Glynn4,5, Brian E McGuire5,6, Louise A Carmody5, John Newell7, Fidelma P Dunne2,5. 1. School of Medicine, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. marie.m.tierney@nuigalway.ie. 2. School of Medicine, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. 3. J. E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. 4. Discipline of General Practice, School of Medicine, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. 5. Galway Diabetes Research Centre, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. 6. School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. 7. HRB Clinical Research Facility, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
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).
RCT Entities:
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).
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
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
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
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
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
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