Kaberi Dasgupta1, Helle Terkildsen Maindal2, Karoline Kragelund Nielsen3, Sharleen O'Reilly4. 1. Centre for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: kaberi.dasgupta@mcgill.ca. 2. Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark; Health Promotion, Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: htm@ph.au.dk. 3. Health Promotion, Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: karoline.kragelund.nielsen@regionh.dk. 4. School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Electronic address: sharleen.oreilly@ucd.ie.
Abstract
AIM: Health behaviour change interventions have potential to reduce diabetes after pregnancy (DAP) rates following gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Recruitment success is arguably as important as intervention effectiveness, but receives less attention. We examined penetration into target populations and participation in DAP prevention interventions in women with a GDM history. METHODS: Five databases were searched for studies published up to December 2017. Studies were reviewed by at least three reviewers and data were qualitatively synthesized. Penetration (invited/target population) and participation (enrolled/invited) rates were calculated after data extraction. RESULTS: Among 2859 records, 33 intervention studies were identified, among which 16 had sufficient information to calculate penetration or participation. Penetration proportion (n = 9 studies) was between 85 and 100% for two-thirds of studies included. Participation proportion (n = 16 studies) varied substantially; when recruitment occurred during pregnancy or early postpartum, participation was 40% or more, especially if face-to-face contact was used within the GDM care setting, compared to under 15% in mid/late postpartum with mailed invitation and/or telephone contact. CONCLUSIONS: Although penetration and participation reporting is sub-optimal, penetration is generally high while participation is variable. Leveraging and structuring recruitment within standard GDM care and settings appears to be important to engage women in DAP prevention activities.
AIM: Health behaviour change interventions have potential to reduce diabetes after pregnancy (DAP) rates following gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Recruitment success is arguably as important as intervention effectiveness, but receives less attention. We examined penetration into target populations and participation in DAP prevention interventions in women with a GDM history. METHODS: Five databases were searched for studies published up to December 2017. Studies were reviewed by at least three reviewers and data were qualitatively synthesized. Penetration (invited/target population) and participation (enrolled/invited) rates were calculated after data extraction. RESULTS: Among 2859 records, 33 intervention studies were identified, among which 16 had sufficient information to calculate penetration or participation. Penetration proportion (n = 9 studies) was between 85 and 100% for two-thirds of studies included. Participation proportion (n = 16 studies) varied substantially; when recruitment occurred during pregnancy or early postpartum, participation was 40% or more, especially if face-to-face contact was used within the GDM care setting, compared to under 15% in mid/late postpartum with mailed invitation and/or telephone contact. CONCLUSIONS: Although penetration and participation reporting is sub-optimal, penetration is generally high while participation is variable. Leveraging and structuring recruitment within standard GDM care and settings appears to be important to engage women in DAP prevention activities.
Authors: Sharleen L O'Reilly; Christy Burden; Cristina Campoy; Fionnuala M McAuliffe; Helena Teede; Jesper Andresen; Karen J Campbell; Aisling A Geraghty; Cheryce L Harrison; Rachel Laws; Jane E Norman; Helle T Maindal; Karsten Vrangbæk; Ricardo Segurado; Vincent L Versace; Timothy C Skinner Journal: Trials Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 2.279