Cited by 65Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes Management and EducationObesity and Health Practices

The stigma associated with gestational diabetes mellitus: A scoping review

Open access
Davidsen, Emma, Maindal, Helle Terkildsen, Rod, Morten Hulvej, Olesen, Kasper, Byrne, Molly, Damm, Peter, Nielsen, Karoline Kragelund·2022·eClinicalMedicine

Abstract

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects an increasing number of pregnant women globally. Although studies have identified psychosocial ramifications associated with GDM, stigma in the form of experienced discrimination and self-blame and its consequences have received limited attention. Our objective was to examine the current evidence on stigma, as experienced among women with GDM, including the potential adverse consequences hereof. Methods: A scoping review was conducted with citations retrieved from the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and, PsycINFO. Studies published before 15 June 2022, when the search was conducted, were included. Findings: We identified 1388 citations and included 44 in the review. We found that women with GDM may experience stigma in the form of overt discrimination from healthcare personnel and relatives, and in the form of internalised stigma, such as guilt and shame. Identified consequences include avoidance of screening, not following dietary recommendations nor reporting blood glucose readings, social isolation, and poor mental wellbeing. No estimates of stigma prevalence were identified. Interpretation: Existing evidence shows that women with GDM report stigma, which may affect both their mental and physical health. Further investigations into the prevalence of stigma and long-term consequences of stigma are much needed. Funding: The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101614

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • International qualitative evidence shows that women across different settings often report limited knowledge of GDM prior to diagnosis, experience marked emotional distress at diagnosis and describe stigma characterised by guilt, shame and self-blame.

    “International qualitative evidence mirrors these findings, with research showing that women across different settings often report limited knowledge of GDM prior to diagnosis, experience marked emotional distress at diagnosis and describe stigma characterised by guilt, shame and self‐blame [26, 27].”

    From Preconception Perceptions, Knowledge and Behaviours of Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Qualitative Study (2026) · cites this paper as [26]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas. 10th edition. International Diabetes Federation. Belgium; 2021. Available from: https://www.diabetesatlas.org
  2. [14]Veritas Health Innovation, Covidence Systematic Review Software. Melbourne, Australia. Available from: www.covidence.org

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davidsen, E., Maindal, H. T., Rod, M. H., Olesen, K., Byrne, M., Damm, P., & Nielsen, K. K.
Affiliations
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Nielsen, Karoline Kragelund
Venue
eClinicalMedicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-10
Volume
52
Pages
101614
ISSN
2589-5370 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4292688930
Cited by
64
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EClinicalMedicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen
  • Region Hovedstaden
  • Illinois Department of Public Health
  • Aarhus Universitet
  • Novo Nordisk Fonden
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Obesity and Health Practices
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, stigma, discrimination, self-blame, guilt and shame, self-stigma, health care discrimination, social isolation, psychological well-being, dietary adherence, pregnant women

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review