Effect of Acupressure on Maternal Anxiety in Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Acupressure: a possible therapeutic strategy for anxiety related to COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

From the end of 2019 to December 2023, the world grappled with the COVID-19 pandemic. The scope and ultimate repercussions of the pandemic on global health and well-being remained uncertain, ushering in a wave of fear, anxiety, and worry. This resulted in many individuals succumbing to fear and despair. Acupoint massage emerged as a safe and effective alternative therapy for anxiety relief. However, its efficacy was yet to be extensively backed by evidence-based medicine. This study aimed to enhance the clinical effectiveness of acupoint massage and extend its benefits to a wider population. It undertakes a systematic review of the existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of acupoint massage on anxiety treatment, discussing its potential benefits and implications. This research aims to furnish robust evidence supporting anxiety treatment strategies for patients afflicted with COVID-19 disease and spark new approaches to anxiety management.

Objectives

This study evaluates the evidence derived from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quantifies the impact of acupressure on anxiety manifestations within the general population, and proposes viable supplementary intervention strategies for managing COVID-19 related anxiety.

Materials and methods

This review included RCTs published between February 2014 and July 2023, that compared the effects of acupressure with sham control in alleviating anxiety symptomatology as the outcome measure. The studies were sourced from the multiple databases, including CINAHL, EBM Reviews, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. A meta-analysis was performed on the eligible studies, and an overall effect size was computed specifically for the anxiety outcome. The Cochrane Collaboration Bias Risk Assessment Tool (RevMan V5.4) was employed to assess bias risk, data integration, meta-analysis, and subgroup analysis. The mean difference, standard mean deviation, and binary data were used to represent continuous outcomes.

Results

Of 1,110 studies of potential relevance, 39 met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The majority of the studies reported a positive effect of acupressure in assuaging anticipatory anxiety about treatment. Eighteen studies were evaluated using the STAI scale. The acupressure procedures were thoroughly documented, and studies exhibited a low risk of bias. The cumulative results of the 18 trials showcased a more substantial reduction in anxiety in the acupressure group compared to controls (SMD = -5.39, 95% CI -5.61 to -5.17, p < 0.01). A subsequent subgroup analysis, based on different interventions in the control group, demonstrated improvement in anxiety levels with sham acupressure in improving changes in anxiety levels (SMD -1.61, 95% CI: -2.34 to -0.87, p < 0.0001), and blank controls (SMD -0.92, 95% CI: -2.37 to 0.53, p = 0.22).

Conclusion

In the clinical research of traditional Chinese medicine treatment of anxiety, acupressure demonstrated effectiveness in providing instant relief from anxiety related to multiple diseases with a medium effect size. Considering the increasing incidence of anxiety caused by long COVID, the widespread application of acupressure appears feasible. However, the results were inconsistent regarding improvements on physiological indicators, calling for more stringent reporting procedures, including allocation concealment, to solidify the findings.

The approach to managing perinatal anxiety: A mini-review

Perinatal Anxiety (PNA) is defined as anxiety occurring during pregnancy and up to 12 months post-partum and is estimated to affect up to 20% of women. Risk factors for PNA are multiple and can be classed as psychological, social and biological. PNA negatively impacts on the mother, child and family. PNA is not well-recognized and diagnosis of PNA can be challenging for clinicians. There is currently no validated case-finding or diagnostic test available for PNA. PNA has been less extensively researched than perinatal depression (PND). Clinical guidance currently recommends pharmacological and psychological therapies for the management of women with PNA, however the limited research available suggests that other intervention types may also be effective with some evidence on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in primary care for PNA. This article provides a mini-review of PNA, summarizing current evidence around PNA including risk factors, the impact of PNA, the process of diagnosis of PNA and focussing predominantly on available management options for PNA.

Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting in trials of diabetes in pregnancy: A systematic review

AIMS

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reports of the patient's health status that come directly from the patient without interpretation by the clinician or anyone else. They are increasingly used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this systematic review we identified RCTs conducted in women with diabetes in pregnancy which included PROs in their primary or secondary outcomes. We then evaluated the quality of PRO reporting against an internationally accepted reporting framework (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-PRO) guidelines).

METHODS

We searched online databases for studies published 2013-2021 using a combination of keywords. Two authors reviewed all abstracts independently. Data on study characteristics and the quality of PRO reporting were extracted from relevant studies. We conducted a multiple regression analysis to identify factors associated with high quality reporting.

RESULTS

We identified 7122 citations. Thirty-five articles were included for review. Only 17% of RCTs included a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome. Out of a maximum score of 100 the median score was 46, indicating sub-optimal reporting. A multiple regression analysis did not reveal any factors associated with high quality reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should be mindful of the importance of PRO inclusion and reporting and include reliable PROs in trials.

The effect of nonpharmacological interventions on the mental health of high-risk pregnant women: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of nonpharmacological interventions on the mental health of high-risk pregnant women.

METHODS

This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA) statement. The Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials from inception to April 2021. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Data were independently extracted and narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies involving 1723 pregnant women were selected. Nonpharmacological interventions included cognitive behavioral interventions, yoga, relaxation interventions, psychological and educational support interventions, and acupressure. Cognitive behavioral interventions and yoga for high-risk pregnant women had potential benefits on the symptoms of anxiety, stress and depression. There was insufficient evidence that relaxation interventions, psychological and educational support interventions and acupressure had positive effects on these women's mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

This review showed that cognitive behavioral interventions and yoga during pregnancy may benefit women with high-risk pregnancies. However, due to methodological limitations of this review, further studies with robust methodological designs are needed to verify the efficacy.

Effects of Acupressure on Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives: The research aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the ability of acupressure to reduce anxiety. Design: Randomized controlled trials were obtained through a search of electronic medical databases (four in English and one in Chinese) from inception to October 5, 2020. Two authors searched the databases, evaluated studies' methodological quality, and performed data extraction independently. The final studies for analysis were identified after discussion with the third author. Results: We obtained 27 studies for our systematic review and meta-analysis. Eight studies had a low overall risk of bias, and 13 had some bias concerns with methodological quality. According to the results, acupressure significantly reduced patient anxiety (standardized mean difference = 1.152; 95% confidence interval: 0.847-1.459, p < 0.001), and the study heterogeneity was high (Q = 299.74, p < 0.001, I² = 91.333%). Two studies reported acupressure-associated adverse events. We also performed a sensitivity analysis by omitting one outlier study, which had the largest effect size; however, high heterogeneity remained (I² = 87.816%). A subgroup analysis revealed significant differences between participant types (Q = 46.573, p < 0.001), levels of methodological quality (Q = 6.228, p = 0.044), and massage equipment (Q = 4.642, p = 0.031). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that acupressure can alleviate anxiety. Acupressure was more effective for inpatients and preoperative patients when finger massage was applied. In individuals with anxiety and a stable hemodynamic status, acupressure could be a promising treatment option. However, the substantial heterogeneity across studies means that any inference from the results should be performed cautiously.

Effects of nonpharmacological interventions on the psychological health of high-risk pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

This study aimed to summarize the current evidence on the effects of nonpharmacological interventions on psychological health outcomes for women with high-risk pregnancies due to conditions such as preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, or preterm labor.

Methods

The following databases were searched from January 2000 to December 2020: PubMed, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, DBpia, RISS, and KISS. Two investigators independently reviewed and selected articles according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. RoB 2 and the ROBINS-I checklist were used to evaluate study quality.

Results

Twenty-nine studies with a combined total of 1,806 pregnant women were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological health improvements were found in women with preeclampsia (Hedges’ g=–0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.91 to –0.44), gestational diabetes (Hedges’ g=–0.38; 95% CI, –0.54 to –0.12), and preterm labor (Hedges’ g=–0.73; 95% CI, –1.00 to –0.46). The funnel plot was slightly asymmetrical, but the fail-safe N value and the trim-and-fill method showed no publication bias.

Conclusion

Nonpharmacological interventions for women with high-risk pregnancies due to conditions such as preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and preterm labor can improve psychological parameters such as anxiety, stress, and depression. Nurses can play a pivotal role in the nursing management of pregnant women with high-risk conditions and apply various types of nonpharmacological interventions to meet their needs in uncertain and anxious times during pregnancy.

Psychosocial support interventions for women with gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

PURPOSE

This study aimed to analyze the content and effectiveness of psychosocial support interventions for women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

METHODS

The following databases were searched with no limitation of the time period: Ovid-MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Ovid-Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, NDSL, KoreaMed, RISS, and KISS. Two investigators independently reviewed and selected articles according to the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. ROB 2.0 and the RoBANS 2.0 checklist were used to evaluate study quality.

RESULTS

Based on the 14 selected studies, psychosocial support interventions were provided for the purpose of (1) informational support (including GDM and diabetes mellitus information; how to manage diet, exercise, stress, blood glucose, and weight; postpartum management; and prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus); (2) self-management motivation (setting goals for diet and exercise management, glucose monitoring, and enhancing positive health behaviors); (3) relaxation (practicing breathing and/or meditation); and (4) emotional support (sharing opinions and support). Psychosocial supportive interventions to women with GDM lead to behavioral change, mostly in the form of self-care behavior; they also reduce depression, anxiety and stress, and have an impact on improving self-efficacy. These interventions contribute to lowering physiological parameters such as fasting plasma glucose, glycated hemoglobin, and 2-hour postprandial glucose levels.

CONCLUSION

Psychosocial supportive interventions can indeed positively affect self-care behaviors, lifestyle changes, and physiological parameters in women with GDM. Nurses can play a pivotal role in integrative management and can streamline the care for women with GDM during pregnancy and following birth, especially through psychosocial support interventions.

Ameliorative potential of acupressure on gestational diabetes mellitus: A randomized controlled trial

Background and aim Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) poses a threat to the mother and child. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of acupressure on the glycemic control and insulin requirement of GDM females. Materials and methods Thirty GDM female patients were randomized to either the study group (SG; n=15), which was treated with acupressure and the standard antenatal care, or the control group (CG; n=15), which was treated with the standard antenatal care. Fasting and 2-h post-prandial blood glucose levels, requirement for insulin and insulin resistance were measured at 24 and 36 weeks' gestation (WG). Also, neonatal outcomes were registered at delivery. Results The pre intervention showed no statistically significant differences between SG and CG for baseline characteristics of participants (p>0.05). Within group analyses, after 12 weeks intervention had shown that 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), insulin resistance, number of required insulin and measure of utilized insulin were significantly reduced (p<0.05), with significant increase in body mass index (BMI) (p<0.05) in both groups. All outcome measures were not significantly changed (p>0.05) between both groups at 24 and 36 WG. No significant differences (p>0.05) in pregnancy and neonatal outcomes between both groups at labor. Conclusions Acupressure may help to reduce gestational diabetes or insulin treatment for overweight female patients with GDM.

Massage, reflexology and other manual methods for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour, and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined the evidence currently available on manual methods, including massage and reflexology, for pain management in labour. This review is an update of the review first published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect, safety and acceptability of massage, reflexology and other manual methods to manage pain in labour.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 June 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1966 to 30 June 2017, CINAHL (1980 to 30 June 2017), the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (4 August 2017), Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (4 August 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, (4 August 2017), the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (4 August 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (4 August 2017) and reference lists of retrieved trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing manual methods with standard care, other non-pharmacological forms of pain management in labour, no treatment or placebo. We searched for trials of the following modalities: massage, warm packs, thermal manual methods, reflexology, chiropractic, osteopathy, musculo-skeletal manipulation, deep tissue massage, neuro-muscular therapy, shiatsu, tuina, trigger point therapy, myotherapy and zero balancing. We excluded trials for pain management relating to hypnosis, aromatherapy, acupuncture and acupressure; these are included in other Cochrane reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted data and checked data for accuracy. We contacted trial authors for additional information. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 14 trials; 10 of these (1055 women) contributed data to meta-analysis. Four trials, involving 274 women, met our inclusion criteria but did not contribute data to the review. Over half the trials had a low risk of bias for random sequence generation and attrition bias. The majority of trials had a high risk of performance bias and detection bias, and an unclear risk of reporting bias. We found no trials examining the effectiveness of reflexology.MassageWe found low-quality evidence that massage provided a greater reduction in pain intensity (measured using self-reported pain scales) than usual care during the first stage of labour (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.06 to -0.56, six trials, 362 women). Two trials reported on pain intensity during the second and third stages of labour, and there was evidence of a reduction in pain scores in favour of massage (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -2.23 to 0.26, 124 women; and SMD -1.03, 95% CI -2.17 to 0.11, 122 women). There was very low-quality evidence showing no clear benefit of massage over usual care for the length of labour (in minutes) (mean difference (MD) 20.64, 95% CI -58.24 to 99.52, six trials, 514 women), and pharmacological pain relief (average risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.74, four trials, 105 women). There was very low-quality evidence showing no clear benefit of massage for assisted vaginal birth (average RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.13, four trials, 368 women) and caesarean section (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.09, six trials, 514 women). One trial reported less anxiety during the first stage of labour for women receiving massage (MD -16.27, 95% CI -27.03 to -5.51, 60 women). One trial found an increased sense of control from massage (MD 14.05, 95% CI 3.77 to 24.33, 124 women, low-quality evidence). Two trials examining satisfaction with the childbirth experience reported data on different scales; both found more satisfaction with massage, although the evidence was low quality in one study and very low in the other.Warm packsWe found very low-quality evidence for reduced pain (Visual Analogue Scale/VAS) in the first stage of labour (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.00, three trials, 191 women), and the second stage of labour (SMD -1.49, 95% CI -2.85 to -0.13, two trials, 128 women). Very low-quality evidence showed reduced length of labour (minutes) in the warm-pack group (MD -66.15, 95% CI -91.83 to -40.47; two trials; 128 women).Thermal manual methodsOne trial evaluated thermal manual methods versus usual care and found very low-quality evidence of reduced pain intensity during the first phase of labour for women receiving thermal methods (MD -1.44, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.65, one trial, 96 women). There was a reduction in the length of labour (minutes) (MD -78.24, 95% CI -118.75 to -37.73, one trial, 96 women, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference for assisted vaginal birth (very low-quality evidence). Results were similar for cold packs versus usual care, and intermittent hot and cold packs versus usual care, for pain intensity, length of labour and assisted vaginal birth.Music One trial that compared manual methods with music found very low-quality evidence of reduced pain intensity during labour in the massage group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.89, 101 women). There was no evidence of benefit for reduced use of pharmacological pain relief (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.08, very low-quality evidence).Of the seven outcomes we assessed using GRADE, only pain intensity was reported in all comparisons. Satisfaction with the childbirth experience, sense of control, and caesarean section were rarely reported in any of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Massage, warm pack and thermal manual methods may have a role in reducing pain, reducing length of labour and improving women's sense of control and emotional experience of labour, although the quality of evidence varies from low to very low and few trials reported on the key GRADE outcomes. Few trials reported on safety as an outcome. There is a need for further research to address these outcomes and to examine the effectiveness and efficacy of these manual methods for pain management.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the symptoms of mild to moderate anxiety in pregnant women

AIM

To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for pregnant women with symptoms of mild to moderate anxiety.

BACKGROUND

Many pregnant women experience mild to moderate symptoms of anxiety and could benefit from additional support. Non-pharmacological interventions have been suggested for use during pregnancy.

DESIGN

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Randomized controlled trials published since 1990, identified from electronic databases: Medline; CINAHL; Maternity and Infant Care; PsycINFO; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; CENTRAL; EMBASE; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; Social Sciences Citation Index; ASSIA; HTA Library; Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Practice database; Allied and Complementary Medicine.

REVIEW METHODS

Conducted according to the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination procedure. Papers were screened (N = 5,222), assessed for eligibility (N = 57) and selected for inclusion (N = 25). The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used. Papers were assessed for clinical and statistical heterogeneity and considered for meta-analysis. Descriptive analysis of the data was conducted.

RESULTS

Psychological, mind-body, educational and supportive interventions were delivered individually and to groups of pregnant women over single or multiple sessions. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory was the most commonly used anxiety measure. In 60% of studies there were fewer than 40 participants. Meta-analysis of three studies indicated no observed beneficial effect in the reduction of anxiety.

CONCLUSION

There was insufficient evidence from which to draw overall conclusions regarding the benefit of interventions. Results were predominantly based on small samples. Many papers provided an inadequate description of methods which prevented a full assessment of methodological quality.

Lifestyle interventions for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes (GDM) is glucose intolerance, first recognised in pregnancy and usually resolving after birth. GDM is associated with both short- and long-term adverse effects for the mother and her infant. Lifestyle interventions are the primary therapeutic strategy for many women with GDM.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of combined lifestyle interventions with or without pharmacotherapy in treating women with gestational diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 May 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (14th May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials comparing a lifestyle intervention with usual care or another intervention for the treatment of pregnant women with GDM. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. Women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. All selection of studies, data extraction was conducted independently by two review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials (in 45 reports) are included in this review (4501 women, 3768 infants). None of the trials were funded by a conditional grant from a pharmaceutical company. The lifestyle interventions included a wide variety of components such as education, diet, exercise and self-monitoring of blood glucose. The control group included usual antenatal care or diet alone. Using GRADE methodology, the quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low quality. The main reasons for downgrading evidence were inconsistency and risk of bias. We summarised the following data from the important outcomes of this review. Lifestyle intervention versus control groupFor the mother:There was no clear evidence of a difference between lifestyle intervention and control groups for the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia) (average risk ratio (RR) 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.22; four trials, 2796 women; I² = 79%, Tau² = 0.23; low-quality evidence); caesarean section (average RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.05; 10 trials, 3545 women; I² = 48%, Tau² = 0.02; low-quality evidence); development of type 2 diabetes (up to a maximum of 10 years follow-up) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.76; two trials, 486 women; I² = 16%; low-quality evidence); perineal trauma/tearing (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; one trial, n = 1000 women; moderate-quality evidence) or induction of labour (average RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.46; four trials, n = 2699 women; I² = 37%; high-quality evidence).More women in the lifestyle intervention group had met postpartum weight goals one year after birth than in the control group (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.90; 156 women; one trial, low-quality evidence). Lifestyle interventions were associated with a decrease in the risk of postnatal depression compared with the control group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.78; one trial, n = 573 women; low-quality evidence).For the infant/child/adult:Lifestyle interventions were associated with a reduction in the risk of being born large-for-gestational age (LGA) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.71; six trials, 2994 infants; I² = 4%; moderate-quality evidence). Birthweight and the incidence of macrosomia were lower in the lifestyle intervention group.Exposure to the lifestyle intervention was associated with decreased neonatal fat mass compared with the control group (mean difference (MD) -37.30 g, 95% CI -63.97 to -10.63; one trial, 958 infants; low-quality evidence). In childhood, there was no clear evidence of a difference between groups for body mass index (BMI) ≥ 85th percentile (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.11; three trials, 767 children; I² = 4%; moderate-quality evidence).There was no clear evidence of a difference between lifestyle intervention and control groups for the risk of perinatal death (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.70; two trials, 1988 infants; low-quality evidence). Of 1988 infants, only five events were reported in total in the control group and there were no events in the lifestyle group. There was no clear evidence of a difference between lifestyle intervention and control groups for a composite of serious infant outcome/s (average RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.55; two trials, 1930 infants; I² = 82%, Tau² = 0.44; very low-quality evidence) or neonatal hypoglycaemia (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.52; six trials, 3000 infants; I² = 48%, Tau² = 0.12; moderate-quality evidence). Diabetes and adiposity in adulthood and neurosensory disability in later childhoodwere not prespecified or reported as outcomes for any of the trials included in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lifestyle interventions are the primary therapeutic strategy for women with GDM. Women receiving lifestyle interventions were less likely to have postnatal depression and were more likely to achieve postpartum weight goals. Exposure to lifestyle interventions was associated with a decreased risk of the baby being born LGA and decreased neonatal adiposity. Long-term maternal and childhood/adulthood outcomes were poorly reported.The value of lifestyle interventions in low-and middle-income countries or for different ethnicities remains unclear. The longer-term benefits or harms of lifestyle interventions remains unclear due to limited reporting.The contribution of individual components of lifestyle interventions could not be assessed. Ten per cent of participants also received some form of pharmacological therapy. Lifestyle interventions are useful as the primary therapeutic strategy and most commonly include healthy eating, physical activity and self-monitoring of blood glucose concentrations.Future research could focus on which specific interventions are most useful (as the sole intervention without pharmacological treatment), which health professionals should give them and the optimal format for providing the information. Evaluation of long-term outcomes for the mother and her child should be a priority when planning future trials. There has been no in-depth exploration of the costs 'saved' from reduction in risk of LGA/macrosomia and potential longer-term risks for the infants.