Gestational Diabetes Testing, Narrative, and Medical Distrust

Clinicians' perspectives on gestational diabetes screening during the global COVID-19 pandemic in Australia

AIM

There is no international consensus for the screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). In March 2020, modified screening and diagnostic recommendations were rapidly implemented in Queensland, Australia, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. How clinicians perceived and used these changes can provide insights to support high-quality clinical practice and provide lessons for future policy changes. The aim of this study was to understand clinicians' perceptions and use of COVID-19 changes to GDM screening and diagnostic recommendations.

METHODS

Queensland healthcare professionals responsible for diagnosing or caring for women with GDM were recruited for semi-structured telephone interviews. Data analysis of transcribed interviews used inductive reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Seventeen interviews were conducted with the following participants: six midwives/nurses, three endocrinologists, two general practitioners, two general practitioners/obstetricians, two diabetes educators, one dietitian and one obstetrician. Three themes emerged: communication and implementation, perceptions and value of evidence and diversity in perceptions of GDM screening. Overall, clinicians welcomed the rapid changes during the initial uncertainty of the pandemic, but as COVID-19 became less of a threat to the Queensland healthcare system, some questioned the underlying evidence base. In areas where GDM was more prevalent, clinicians more frequently worried about missed diagnoses, whereas others who felt that overdiagnosis had occurred in the past continued to support the changes.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the challenges to changing policy when clinicians have diverse (and often strongly held) views.

Gestational diabetes screening from the perspective of consumers: Insights from early in the COVID-19 pandemic and opportunities to optimise experiences

BACKGROUND

Consumer perspectives are a cornerstone of value-based healthcare. Screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) were among many of the rapid changes to health care recommended during the COVID-19 pandemic. The changes provided a unique opportunity to add information about women's perspectives on the debate on GDM screening.

AIMS

The aim of this qualitative study was to explore women's perspectives and understanding of GDM screening and diagnosis comparing the modified COVID-19 recommendations to standard GDM screening and diagnostic practices.

METHODS

Women who had experienced both the standard and modified GDM screening and diagnostic processes were recruited for telephone interviews. Data analysis used inductive reflexive thematic analysis. Online surveys were disseminated to any registrant not included in interviews to provide an opportunity for all interested participants to provide their perspective.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine telephone interviews were conducted and 19 survey responses were received. Seven themes were determined: (1) information provision from clinicians; (2) acceptability of GDM screening; (3) individualisation of GDM screening methods; (4) safety nets to avoid a missed diagnosis; (5) informed decision making; (6) women want information and evidence; and (7) preferred GDM screening methods for the future.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, women preferred the modified GDM screening recommendations put in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, their preference was influenced by their prior screening experience and perception of personal risk profile. Women expressed a strong need for clear communication from health professionals and the opportunity to be active participants in decision making.

Decolonizing Care at Diagnosis: Culture, History, and Family at an Urban Inter-tribal Clinic

The decolonization framework in medical anthropology is slowly reframing tropes of cultural competency toward decolonizing health care. For decolonization of health care to occur, both colonial histories and continuing postcolonial inequities must be recognized from the first diagnostic moment. We report on qualitative research into the role of culture, history, and family experience in person-specific reactions to receipt of a diagnosis. A collaborative approach at an urban inter-tribal clinic was used to interview patients with a recent (within six months) diagnosis of diabetes or related condition. Interviews revealed ways that the Relocation Act eventuated in isolation, poverty, and diabetes among now-urban Native Americans. We discuss how patients may or may not have the ability to (re)connect with their heritage and may simultaneously perceive only recent family contexts as influential in their diabetes. We conclude by acknowledging how postcolonial harms are not captured in diagnoses but should not be left out of diagnostic discussions.

Experiences of pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of qualitative evidence protocol

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasing and an issue of global concern. GDM can cause severe adverse effects for pregnant women and their fetuses. This systematic review is proposed to explore women's experiences during the pregnancy with GDM. This review will provide insights into the physical, psychological and social adaptation experiences of women with GDM that can help to identify challenges of glycaemic control and provide targeted care and interventions to improve maternal and child health.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The databases we will search include English databases (ie, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, OpenGrey and Deep Blue) and Chinese databases (ie, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals). Published qualitative evidence of life changes or experiences of the women with GDM will be searched. There will be no limits on publication year. Two reviewers will independently use the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research for methodological validity prior to inclusion in this review. Any disagreements regarding article evaluation will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using the standardised data extraction tool from JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information. Synthesis will include in-depth reading of the original text and the discovery of the results, and then summarising similar categories for more advanced synthesised findings. The final synthesised findings will be graded according to the ConQual approach for establishing confidence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study does not require ethical approval as primary data will not be collected. Results of this systematic review will be submitted to peer-reviewed international journals for publication and be presented in relevant international conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019132065.

Investigating Public trust in Expert Knowledge: Narrative, Ethics, and Engagement

"Public Trust in Expert Knowledge: Narrative, Ethics, and Engagement" examines the social, cultural, and ethical ramifications of changing public trust in the expert biomedical knowledge systems of emergent and complex global societies. This symposium was conceived as an interdisciplinary project, drawing on bioethics, the social sciences, and the medical humanities. We settled on public trust as a topic for our work together because its problematization cuts across our fields and substantive research interests. For us, trust is simultaneously a matter of ethics, social relations, and the cultural organization of meaning. We share a commitment to narrative inquiry across our fields of expertise in the bioethics of transformative health technologies, public communications on health threats, and narrative medicine. The contributions to this symposium have applied, in different ways and with different effects, this interdisciplinary mode of inquiry, supplying new reflections on public trust, expertise, and biomedical knowledge.