Economic Evaluation of Prenatal and Postpartum Care in Women With Gestational Diabetes and Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: A Systematic Review

The long-term general practice healthcare of women with a history of gestational diabetes: A Scoping Review Protocol

Introduction

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) is a hyperglycaemic condition diagnosed during pregnancy. GDM is strongly associated with future development of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Lifestyle and pharmacological interventions can reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. General practice is the recommended setting for long-term follow-up of women with a history of GDM. However, rates of follow-up are suboptimal. The evidence around long-term general practice healthcare for women with a history of GDM has not previously been reviewed.

Aims

The aim of this scoping review is to explore the current evidence base for the long-term care of women with a history of GDM in general practice.

Study Design

The study described by this protocol is a scoping review. The study design was informed by Joanna Briggs Institute methodology.

Methods

Empirical qualitative and quantitative research studies published since 2014 will be identified from a search of the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Elsevier), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete and SocIndex. The review will identify key characteristics of the literature. Framework analysis will be used to map the findings against the Chronic Care Model, a primary care-based framework that sets out the core components for optimal long-term healthcare.

Results

A numerical descriptive summary (using frequencies) will describe the overall extent of literature, and the range and distribution of its component parts, including the geographical and economic settings, research methods, interventions, outcomes and findings. The qualitative analysis will map interventions and descriptions of care to components of the chronic care model. Research gaps will be reported, and research needs and priorities will be suggested.

Conclusion

The findings of this scoping review will have the potential to inform future research efforts in the area.

Registration

This protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/bz2vh).

SPARK: an mHealth intervention for self-management and treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus in Sweden - protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasingly becoming a serious public health challenge. Innovative, effective and scalable lifestyle interventions to support women with GDM to manage their condition and prevent adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes as well as later morbidity are required. This study aims to evaluate whether a novel, multilingual and scalable mobile health (mHealth) intervention (SPARK; SmartPhone App for gestational diabetes patients suppoRting Key lifestyle behaviours and glucose control) can improve self-management and treatment of GDM and prevent adverse maternal and offspring outcomes.

METHODS/ANALYSES

SPARK is a multicentre two-arm randomised controlled trial recruiting women diagnosed with GDM in south-eastern Sweden. A total of 412 women will be randomised to either standard care (control) or the SPARK intervention. The SPARK online platform (accessed through a mobile app) provides a behaviour change programme for healthy eating, physical activity and glycaemic control. To increase reach, SPARK is available in Swedish, English, Arabic and Somali. SPARK also comes with a clinician portal where healthcare professionals monitor and intervene when glycaemic control is unsatisfactory (above certain cut-offs). Primary outcomes are glycaemic control that is, time in range and HbA1c, while diet, physical activity (ActiGraph), gestational weight gain, metabolic and inflammatory biomarkers in weeks 37-38, adherence to protocol for daily glucose sampling, as well as adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes are secondary outcomes. Secondary outcomes also include cardiometabolic risk evaluation, physical activity and healthy eating behaviours 1 year postpartum. A health economic evaluation of SPARK vs standard care will also be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (2021-06627-01; 2022-03842-02; 2023-05911-02). Results will be disseminated through scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals, posts in traditional and social media, and presentations at scientific and healthcare professionals' conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial was registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov register platform (ID NCT05348863) 27 April 2022.

Exploring Structural Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Gestational Diabetes Screening: An Application Example from Norway

BACKGROUND

Screening pregnant women for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has recently been expanded in Norway, although screening eligibility criteria continue to be debated. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of alternative GDM screening strategies and explored structural uncertainty and the value of future research in determining the most cost-effective eligibility criteria for GDM screening in Norway.

DESIGN

We developed a probabilistic decision tree to estimate the total costs and health benefits (i.e., quality-adjusted life-years; QALYs) associated with 4 GDM screening strategies (universal, current guidelines, high-risk, and no screening). We identified the most cost-effective strategy as the strategy with the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below a Norwegian benchmark for cost-effectiveness ($28,400/QALY). We excluded inconclusive evidence on the effects of screening on later maternal type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the primary analysis but included this outcome in a secondary analysis using 2 different sources of evidence (i.e., Cochrane or US Preventive Services Task Force). To quantify decision uncertainty, we conducted scenario analysis and value-of-information analyses.

RESULTS

Current screening recommendations were considered inefficient in all analyses, while universal screening was most cost-effective in our primary analysis ($26,014/QALY gained) and remained most cost-effective when we assumed a preventive effect of GDM treatment on T2DM. When we assumed no preventive effect, high-risk screening was preferred ($19,115/QALY gained). When we assumed GDM screening does not prevent perinatal death in scenario analysis, all strategies except no screening exceeded the cost-effectiveness benchmark. In most analyses, decision uncertainty was high.

CONCLUSIONS

The most cost-effective screening strategy, ranging from no screening to universal screening, depended on the source and inclusion of GDM treatment effects on perinatal death and T2DM. Further research on these long-term outcomes could reduce decision uncertainty.

HIGHLIGHTS

This article analyses the cost-effectiveness of 4 alternative gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening strategies in Norway: universal screening, current (broad) screening, high-risk screening, and no screening.The current Norwegian screening recommendations were considered inefficient under all analyses.The most cost-effective screening strategy ranged from no screening to universal screening depending on the source and inclusion of GDM treatment effects on later maternal diabetes and perinatal death.The parameters related to later maternal diabetes and perinatal death accounted for most of the decision uncertainty.

Racial and Ethnic Inequities in Development of Type 2 Diabetes After Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To estimate racial and ethnic disparities in type 2 diabetes mellitus after gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and to investigate baseline pregnancy clinical and social or structural characteristics as mediators.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort of individuals with GDM using linked 2009-2011 New York City birth and hospital data and 2009-2017 New York City A1c Registry data. We ascertained GDM and pregnancy characteristics from birth and hospital records. We classified type 2 diabetes as two hemoglobin A 1c test results of 6.5% or higher. We grouped pregnancy characteristics into clinical (body mass index [BMI], chronic hypertension, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, preterm delivery, caesarean, breastfeeding, macrosomia, shoulder dystocia) and social or structural (education, Medicaid insurance, prenatal care, and WIC [Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children] participation). We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate associations between race and ethnicity and 8-year type 2 diabetes incidence, and we tested mediation of pregnancy characteristics, additionally adjusting for age and nativity (U.S.-born vs foreign-born).

RESULTS

The analytic data set included 22,338 patients with GDM. The 8-year type 2 diabetes incidence was 11.7% overall and 18.5% in Black, 16.8% in South and Southeast Asian, 14.6% in Hispanic, 5.5% in East and Central Asian, and 5.4% in White individuals with adjusted hazard ratios of 4.0 (95% CI 2.4-3.9), 2.9 (95% CI 2.4-3.3), 3.3 (95% CI 2.7-4.2), and 1.0 (95% CI 0.9-1.4) for each group compared with White individuals. Clinical and social or structural pregnancy characteristics explained 9.3% and 23.8% of Black, 31.2% and 24.7% of Hispanic, and 7.6% and 16.3% of South and Southeast Asian compared with White disparities. Associations between education, Medicaid insurance, WIC participation, and BMI and type 2 diabetes incidence were more pronounced among White than Black, Hispanic, and South and Southeast Asian individuals.

CONCLUSION

Population-based racial and ethnic inequities are substantial in type 2 diabetes after GDM. Characteristics at the time of delivery partially explain disparities, creating an opportunity to intervene on life-course cardiometabolic inequities, whereas weak associations of common social or structural measures and BMI in Black, Hispanic and South and Southeast Asian individuals demonstrate the need for greater understanding of how structural racism influences postpartum cardiometabolic risk in these groups.