Accessibility and screening uptake rates for gestational diabetes mellitus in Ireland

Validation of Insurance Billing Codes for Monitoring Antenatal Screening

BACKGROUND

Prevalence statistics for pregnancy complications identified through screening such as gestational diabetes usually assume universal screening. However, rates of screening completion in pregnancy are not available in many birth registries or hospital databases. We validated screening-test completion by comparing public insurance laboratory and radiology billing records with medical records at three hospitals in British Columbia, Canada.

METHODS

We abstracted a random sample of 140 delivery medical records (2014-2019), and successfully linked 127 to valid provincial insurance billings and maternal-newborn registry data. We compared billing records for gestational diabetes screening, any ultrasound before 14 weeks gestational age, and Group B streptococcus screening during each pregnancy to the gold standard of medical records by calculating sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Gestational diabetes screening (screened vs. unscreened) in billing records had a high sensitivity (98% [95% CI = 93, 100]) and specificity (>99% [95% CI = 86, 100]). The use of specific glucose screening approaches (two-step vs. one-step) were also well characterized by billing data. Other tests showed high sensitivity (ultrasound 97% [95% CI = 92, 99]; Group B streptococcus 96% [95% CI = 89, 99]) but lower negative predictive values (ultrasound 64% [95% CI = 33, 99]; Group B streptococcus 70% [95% CI = 40, 89]). Lower negative predictive values were due to the high prevalence of these screening tests in our sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Laboratory and radiology insurance billing codes accurately identified those who completed routine antenatal screening tests with relatively low false-positive rates.

The effect of distance on the adherence to postpartum follow-up in women with gestational diabetes

Despite the increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus and well-known long-term metabolic consequences, a low rate of postpartum screening in this population is reported. Few studies focused on environmental factors of attending and performing blood glucose screening tests in women with gestational diabetes. This work aimed to assess the proportion of uptake of postpartum follow-up after the first recall and to study the adherence-related factors in women with gestational diabetes. All women with gestational diabetes were recalled for postpartum screening in a tertiary care center as the center of the cohort study in 2016. The postal addresses were geocoded, and precise spatial (x, y) was provided for each mother's home location. SPSS and GIS were used for data analysis. The incidence rate of gestational diabetes was 8.5% (826/9630). Of women with gestational diabetes, 21.3% accepted to return and completed postpartum screening tests in the first recall. The distance from the cohort center, history of diabetes in the family, and a number of pregnancies were significant predictors for return to follow-up using binary logistic regression (P < 0.01). The first 25% of patients had a distance of 2346 m from the cohort center, and all of the mothers referred to the hospital were 0 to 5 km away, i.e., those who did not return were more than 5 km away (95% confidence interval). Overall screening uptake rate was low. Distance from the center of the screening was an essential factor in deciding to return and adhere to postpartum care in women with gestational diabetes. Geographic inequalities must be considered as a risk factor of visiting the healthcare center in addition to individual contributors. A more accessible center may improve the postpartum follow-up rate in women with a history of gestational diabetes.

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

AIM

Complications of gestational diabetes (GDM) can be mitigated if the diagnosis is recognized. However, some at-risk women do not complete antenatal diagnostic oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT). We aimed to understand reasons contributing to non-completion, particularly to identify modifiable factors.

METHODS

Some 1906 women attending a tertiary UK obstetrics centre (2018-2019) were invited for OGTT based on risk-factor assessment. Demographic information, test results and reasons for non-completion were collected from the medical record. Logistic regression was used to analyse factors associated with non-completion.

RESULTS

Some 242 women (12.3%) did not complete at least one OGTT, of whom 32.2% (n = 78) never completed testing. In adjusted analysis, any non-completion was associated with younger maternal age [≤ 30 years; odds ratio (OR) 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-3.4; P < 0.001], Black African ethnicity (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2-5.5; P = 0.011), lower socio-economic status (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.8-1.0; P = 0.021) and higher parity (≥ 2; OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-2.8; P = 0.013). Non-completion was more likely if testing indications included BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.4; P = 0.009) or family history of diabetes (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.5-3.3; P < 0.001) and less likely if the indication was an ultrasound finding (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.9; P = 0.035). We identified a common overlapping cluster of reasons for non-completion, including inability to tolerate test protocol (21%), social/mental health issues (22%), and difficulty keeping track of multiple antenatal appointments (15%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to investigate methods of testing that are easier for high-risk groups to schedule and tolerate, with fuller explanation of test indications and additional support for vulnerable groups.

Targeted screening for prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes in a community setting in India

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Data to support the use of risk scores in screening programs to detect people with prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes in low- and middle-income countries are limited. We evaluated a targeted screening program involving a diabetes risk score in a community setting in India in terms of its uptake, yield, and costs.

METHODS

In the Kerala Diabetes Prevention Program, 2586 individuals (age 30-60 years) without known diabetes were screened using a two-step procedure. Step 1: screening with the Indian Diabetes Risk Score at participants' homes by trained non-medical staff. Step 2: oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) among those with IDRS score ≥60 ("screen-positive") at community-based clinics. Screening costs were expressed in 2013 US dollars.

RESULTS

96.3% of those invited for the IDRS screening consented and 79.1% of screen-positives attended clinics for an OGTT. Older age and male gender were associated with higher IDRS uptake. Female gender, higher monthly household expenditure, and higher IDRS score were associated with higher OGTT uptake. The number needed to screen (yield) to detect one person with prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes was two and six, respectively. The average screening cost of identifying one person with prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes was $33.8 and $116.5, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This targeted screening program had a high uptake and high yield for prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes in a community setting in India. Alternative strategies are likely required to enhance the uptake of screening in certain groups.

An investigation of the effect of accessibility to General Practitioner services on healthcare utilisation among older people

Equity in access to healthcare services is regarded as an important policy goal in the organisation of modern healthcare systems. Physical accessibility to healthcare services is recognised as a key component of access. Older people are more frequent and intensive users of healthcare, but reduced mobility and poorer access to transport may negatively influence patterns of utilisation. We investigate the extent to which supply-side factors in primary healthcare are associated with utilisation of General Practitioner (GP) services for over 50s in Ireland. We explore the effect of network distance on GP visits, and two novel access variables: an estimate of the number of addresses the nearest GP serves, and the number of providers within walking distance of a person's home. The results indicate that geographic accessibility to GP services does not in general explain differences in the utilisation of GP services in Ireland. However, we find that the effect of the number of GPs is significant for those who can exercise choice in selecting a GP, i.e., those without public health insurance. For these individuals, the number of GPs within walking distance exerts a positive and significant effect on the utilisation of GP services.

Perspectives on diagnostic strategies for hyperglycaemia in pregnancy - Dealing with the barriers and challenges: Europe

Diabetes in pregnancy (DIP) is associated with an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Unfortunately guidelines and clinical practices vary significantly and a number of key issues remain under debate. These include: glucose cut-offs for diagnosis; the approaches of universal versus selective screening; appropriate timing of screening; and acceptability of various screening strategies to the population at risk. Economic considerations are also of importance, but unfortunately data outlining the best approach from this viewpoint are limited. In this paper, we review each of these topics and examine associated barriers and challenges associated with various strategies from a European perspective. We also address options which potentially may have a future role in the care of these women including alternative diagnostic biomarkers.

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

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes that occurs in pregnancy. Although GDM usually resolves following birth, it is associated with significant morbidities for mothers and their infants in the short and long term. There is strong evidence to support treatment for GDM. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not screening all pregnant women for GDM will improve maternal and infant health and if so, the most appropriate setting for screening. This review updates a Cochrane Review, first published in 2010, and subsequently updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings on maternal and infant outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 January 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (14 June 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of different protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening for GDM based on different risk profiles and settings, compared with the absence of screening, or compared with other protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening. We planned to include trials published as abstracts only and cluster-randomised trials, but we did not identify any. Cross-over trials are not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. We resolved disagreements through discussion or through consulting a third reviewer.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials that randomised 4523 women and their infants. Both trials were conducted in Ireland. One trial (which quasi-randomised 3742 women, and analysed 3152 women) compared universal screening versus risk factor-based screening, and one trial (which randomised 781 women, and analysed 690 women) compared primary care screening versus secondary care screening. We were not able to perform meta-analyses due to the different interventions and comparisons assessed.Overall, there was moderate to high risk of bias due to one trial being quasi-randomised, inadequate blinding, and incomplete outcome data in both trials. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the quality of the evidence for selected outcomes for the mother and her child. Evidence was downgraded for study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates. Universal screening versus risk-factor screening (one trial) MotherMore women were diagnosed with GDM in the universal screening group than in the risk-factor screening group (risk ratio (RR) 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 3.04; participants = 3152; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported under this comparison for other maternal outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, caesarean birth, perineal trauma, gestational weight gain, postnatal depression, and type 2 diabetes. ChildNeonatal outcomes: large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, mortality or morbidity composite, hypoglycaemia; and childhood/adulthood outcomes: adiposity, type 2 diabetes, and neurosensory disability, were not reported under this comparison. Primary care screening versus secondary care screening (one trial) MotherThere was no clear difference between the primary care and secondary care screening groups for GDM (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.66; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), hypertension (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.59; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), pre-eclampsia (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 690;low-quality evidence), or caesarean section birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27; participants = 690; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported for perineal trauma, gestational weight gain, postnatal depression, or type 2 diabetes. ChildThere was no clear difference between the primary care and secondary care screening groups for large-for-gestational age (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.96; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), neonatal complications: composite outcome, including: hypoglycaemia, respiratory distress, need for phototherapy, birth trauma, shoulder dystocia, five minute Apgar less than seven at one or five minutes, prematurity (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.71; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), or neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.38; participants = 690; very low-quality evidence). There was one perinatal death in the primary care screening group and two in the secondary care screening group (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.10 to 12.12; participants = 690; very low-quality evidence). There were no data for neurosensory disability, or childhood/adulthood adiposity or type 2 diabetes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient randomised controlled trial data evaluating the effects of screening for GDM based on different risk profiles and settings on maternal and infant outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests universal screening compared with risk factor-based screening leads to more women being diagnosed with GDM. Low to very low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences between primary care and secondary care screening, for outcomes: GDM, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, caesarean birth, large-for-gestational age, neonatal complications composite, and hypoglycaemia.Further, high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to assess the value of screening for GDM, which may compare different protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening (based on different risk profiles and settings), with the absence of screening, or with other protocols, guidelines or programmes. There is a need for future trials to be sufficiently powered to detect important differences in short- and long-term maternal and infant outcomes, such as those important outcomes pre-specified in this review. As only a proportion of women will be diagnosed with GDM in these trials, large sample sizes may be required.

Improving spatial microsimulation estimates of health outcomes by including geographic indicators of health behaviour: The example of problem gambling

Gambling is an important public health issue, with recent estimates ranking it as the third largest contributor of disability adjusted life years lost to ill-health. However, no studies to date have estimated the spatial distribution of gambling-related harm in small areas on the basis of surveys of problem gambling. This study extends spatial microsimulation approaches to include a spatially-referenced measure of health behaviour as a constraint variable in order to better estimate the spatial distribution of problem gambling. Specifically, this study allocates georeferenced electronic gaming machine expenditure data to small residential areas using a Huff model. This study demonstrates how the incorporation of auxiliary spatial data on health behaviours such as gambling expenditure can improve spatial microsimulation estimates of health outcomes like problem gambling.

The impact of car ownership and public transport usage on cancer screening coverage: Empirical evidence using a spatial analysis in England

A spatial analysis has been conducted in England, with the aim to examine the impact of car ownership and public transport usage on breast and cervical cancer screening coverage. District-level cancer screening coverage data (in proportions) and UK census data have been collected and linked. Their effects on cancer screening coverage were modelled by using both non-spatial and spatial models to control for spatial correlation. Significant spatial correlation has been observed and thus spatial model is preferred. It is found that increased car ownership is significantly associated with improved breast and cervical cancer screening coverage. Public transport usage is inversely associated with breast cancer screening coverage; but positively associated with cervical cancer screening. An area with higher median age is associated with higher screening coverage. The effects of other socio-economic factors such as deprivation and economic activity have also been explored with expected results. Some regional differences have been observed, possibly due to unobserved factors. Relevant transport and public health policies are thus required for improved coverage. While restricting access to cars may lead to various benefits in public health, it may also result in worse cancer screening uptake. It is thus recommended that careful consideration should be taken before implementing policy interventions.

Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: The clinical outcomes of a randomised controlled trial

AIMS

To examine the clinical outcomes of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in primary care versus secondary care, in the Irish healthcare system.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT) of screening for GDM in primary versus secondary care was used to examine (i) prevalence, (ii) gestational week of screen, (iii) time to access specialist care, and (iv) maternal and neonatal outcomes. In total 781 women were recruited for screening in primary care (n=391) or secondary care (n=390).

RESULTS

The prevalence of GDM and gestational week of screen were similar in both locations. There was a trend towards a longer time to access diabetes care in primary care (24days) versus secondary care (19days), a difference of 5days (p=0.09). Women screened in primary care also showed a trend towards a higher rate of large for gestational age (LGA) infants (20%) than those screened in secondary care (14.7%), (p=0.09). There were no differences between groups in maternal outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This RCT suggests that screening for GDM in secondary care may be associated with potentially faster time to access specialist antenatal diabetes care and possibly lower LGA rates. Further research is needed to clarify these findings and to improve the delay in accessing specialist care requires an urgent focus. Further research is needed to test these findings in other health systems.

Screening for gestational diabetes in Europe: where do we stand and how to move forward?: A scientific paper commissioned by the European Board & College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (EBCOG)

The incidence of gestational diabetes (GDM) is rising globally and it represents an important modifiable risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes. GDM is also associated with negative long-term health outcomes for both mothers and offspring. Acceptance and implementation of the 2013 World Health Organization (WHO) criteria varies globally and within Europe. There is at present no consensus on the optimal approach to GDM screening in Europe. More uniformity in GDM screening across Europe will lead to an opportunity for more timely diagnosis and treatment for GDM in a greater number of women. More targeted research is necessary to evaluate optimal screening strategies based on the 2013 WHO criteria across different European populations with a focus on implementation strategy. Future research should address these important questions so that solid recommendations for GDM screening can be made to European health organizations based on screening uptake rates, maternal well-being, maternal and neonatal health outcomes, equity and cost-effectiveness. Here we describe the ongoing controversy on GDM screening and diagnosis, and provide an overview of important topics for future research concerning GDM screening in Europe.

A scoping review of geographic information systems in maternal health

Background

Geographic information systems (GIS) are increasingly recognized tools in maternal health.

Objectives

To evaluate the use of GIS in maternal health and to identify knowledge gaps and opportunities.

Search strategy

Keywords broadly related to maternal health and GIS were used to search for academic articles and gray literature.

Selection criteria

Reviewed articles focused on maternal health, with GIS used as part of the methods.

Data collection and analysis

Peer reviewed articles (n = 40) and gray literature sources (n = 30) were reviewed.

Main results

Two main themes emerged: modeling access to maternal services and identifying risks associated with maternal outcomes. Knowledge gaps included a need to rethink spatial access to maternal care in low- and middle-income settings, and a need for more explicit use of GIS to account for the geographical variation in the effect of risk factors on adverse maternal outcomes. Limited evidence existed to suggest that use of GIS had influenced maternal health policy. Instead, application of GIS to maternal health was largely influenced by policy priorities in global maternal health.

Conclusions

Investigation of the role of GIS in contributing to future policy directions is warranted, particularly for elucidating determinants of global maternal health.

The cost-effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary and secondary care in the Republic of Ireland

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in primary and secondary care settings, compared with a no-screening option, in the Republic of Ireland.

METHODS

The analysis was based on a decision-tree model of alternative screening strategies in primary and secondary care settings. It synthesised data generated from a randomised controlled trial (screening uptake) and from the literature. Costs included those relating to GDM screening and treatment, and the care of adverse outcomes. Effects were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The impact of the parameter uncertainty was assessed in a range of sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Screening in either setting was found to be superior to no screening, i.e. it provided for QALY gains and cost savings. Screening in secondary care was found to be superior to screening in primary care, providing for modest QALY gains of 0.0006 and a saving of €21.43 per screened case. The conclusion held with high certainty across the range of ceiling ratios from zero to €100,000 per QALY and across a plausible range of input parameters.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

The results of this study demonstrate that implementation of universal screening is cost-effective. This is an argument in favour of introducing a properly designed and funded national programme of screening for GDM, although affordability remains to be assessed. In the current environment, screening for GDM in secondary care settings appears to be the better solution in consideration of cost-effectiveness.

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

OBJECTIVE

A novel gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening programme which involved offering screening at the patient's general practitioner (GP) compared with the traditional hospital setting was trialled. This study investigates perspectives of involved stakeholders on the provision of GDM screening at both settings.

DESIGN

Thematic analysis of the perspectives of stakeholders involved in the receiving and provision of GDM screening in both the GP and hospital settings drawn from focus groups and interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

3 groups of participants are included in this research--patient participants, GP screening providers and hospital screening providers. All were recruited from a larger sample who participated in a randomised controlled screening trial. Purposeful sampling was utilised to select participants with a wide variety of perspectives on the provision of GDM screening.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from a geographical area covered by 3 hospitals in Ireland.

RESULTS

4 themes emerged from thematic analysis--namely (1) travel distance, (2) best care provision, (3) sense of ease created and (4) optimal screening.

CONCLUSIONS

The influence of travel distance from the screening site is the most important factor influencing willingness to attend for GDM screening among women who live a considerable distance from the hospital setting. For patients who live equidistance from both settings, other factors are important; namely the waiting facilities including parking, perceived expertise of screening provider personnel, access to emergency treatment if necessary, accuracy of tests and access to timely results and treatment. Optimal screening for GDM should be specialist led, incorporate expert advice of GDM screening, treatment and management, should be provided locally, offer adequate parking and comfort levels, provide accurate tests, and timely access to results and treatment. Such a service should result in improved rates of GDM screening uptake.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN41202110.

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

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).

From screening to postpartum follow-up - the determinants and barriers for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) services, a systematic review

Background

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) – a transitory form of diabetes first recognised during pregnancy complicates between < 1% and 28% of all pregnancies. GDM has important short and long-term health consequences for both the mother and her offspring. To prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes and to prevent or delay future onset of type 2 diabetes in mother and offspring, timely detection, optimum treatment, and preventive postpartum care and follow-up is necessary. However the area remains grossly under-prioritised.

Methods

To investigate determinants and barriers to GDM care from initial screening and diagnosis to prenatal treatment and postpartum follow-up, a PubMed database search to identify quantitative and qualitative studies on the subject was done in September 2012. Fifty-eight relevant studies were reviewed.

Results

Adherence to prevailing GDM screening guidelines and compliance to screening tests seems sub-optimal at best and arbitrary at worst, with no clear or consistent correlation to health care provider, health system or client characteristics. Studies indicate that most women express commitment and motivation for behaviour change to protect the health of their unborn baby, but compliance to recommended treatment and advice is fraught with challenges, and precious little is known about health system or societal factors that hinder compliance and what can be done to improve it. A number of barriers related to health care provider/system and client characteristics have been identified by qualitative studies. Immediately following a GDM pregnancy many women, when properly informed, desire and intend to maintain healthy lifestyles to prevent future diabetes, but find the effort challenging. Adherence to recommended postpartum screening and continued lifestyle modifications seems even lower. Here too, health care provider, health system and client related determinants and barriers were identified. Studies reveal that sense of self-efficacy and social support are key determinants.

Conclusions

The paper identifies and discusses determinants and barriers for GDM care, fully recognising that these are highly dependent on the context.

Screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The risks associated with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are well recognized, and there is increasing evidence to support treatment of the condition. However, clear guidance on the ideal approach to screening for GDM is lacking. Professional groups continue to debate whether selective screening (based on risk factors) or universal screening is the most appropriate approach. Additionally, there is ongoing debate about what levels of glucose abnormalities during pregnancy respond best to treatment and which maternal and neonatal outcomes benefit most from treatment. Furthermore, the implications of possible screening options on health care costs are not well established. In response to this uncertainty there have been repeated calls for well-designed, randomised trials to determine the efficacy of screening, diagnosis, and management plans for GDM. We describe a randomised controlled trial to investigate screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening in primary versus secondary care settings.

METHODS/DESIGN

This will be an unblinded, two-group, parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT). The target population includes 784 women presenting for their first antenatal visit at 12 to 18 weeks gestation at two hospitals in the west of Ireland: Galway University Hospital and Mayo General Hospital. Participants will be offered universal screening for GDM at 24 to 28 weeks gestation in either primary care (n=392) or secondary care (n=392) locations. The primary outcome variable is the uptake rate of screening. Secondary outcomes include indicators of clinical effectiveness of screening at each screening site (primary and secondary) including gestational week at time of screening, time to access antenatal diabetes services for women diagnosed with GDM, and pregnancy and neonatal outcomes for women with GDM. In addition, parallel economic and qualitative evaluations will be conducted. The trial will cover the period from the woman's first hospital antenatal visit at 12 to 18 weeks gestation, until the completion of the pregnancy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN02232125.

Applying current screening tools for gestational diabetes mellitus to a European population: is it time for change?

OBJECTIVE

The optimal screening regimen for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains controversial. Risk factors used in selective screening guidelines vary. Given that universal screening is not currently adopted in our European population, we aimed to evaluate which selective screening strategies were most applicable.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Between 2007 and 2009, 5,500 women were universally screened for GDM, and a GDM prevalence of 12.4% using International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria was established. We retrospectively applied selective screening guidelines to this cohort.

RESULTS

When we applied National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Irish, and American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines, 54% (2,576), 58% (2,801), and 76% (3,656) of women, respectively, had at least one risk factor for GDM and would have undergone testing. However, when NICE, Irish, and ADA guidelines were applied, 20% (120), 16% (101), and 5% (31) of women, respectively, had no risk factor and would have gone undiagnosed. Using a BMI≥30 kg/m2 for screening has a specificity of 81% with moderate sensitivity at 48%. Reducing the BMI to ≥25 kg/m2 (ADA) increases the sensitivity to 80% with a specificity of 44%. Women with no risk factors diagnosed with GDM on universal screening had more adverse pregnancy outcomes than those with normal glucose tolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides a strong argument for universal screening. However, if selective screening were adopted, the ADA guidelines would result in the highest rate of diagnosis and the lowest number of missed cases.