Cited by 642Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementObesity, Physical Activity, DietMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Effect of a behavioural intervention in obese pregnant women (the UPBEAT study): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Open access
Poston, Lucilla, Bell, Ruth, Croker, Helen, Flynn, Angela C, Godfrey, Keith M, Goff, Louise, Hayes, Louise, Khazaezadeh, Nina +12 more·2015·The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Behavioural interventions might improve clinical outcomes in pregnant women who are obese. We aimed to investigate whether a complex intervention addressing diet and physical activity could reduce the incidence of gestational diabetes and large-for-gestational-age infants. METHODS: The UK Pregnancies Better Eating and Activity Trial (UPBEAT) is a randomised controlled trial done at antenatal clinics in eight hospitals in multi-ethnic, inner-city locations in the UK. We recruited pregnant women (15-18 weeks plus 6 days of gestation) older than 16 years who were obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m(2)). We randomly assigned participants to either a behavioural intervention or standard antenatal care with an internet-based, computer-generated, randomisation procedure, minimising by age, ethnic origin, centre, BMI, and parity. The intervention was delivered once a week through eight health trainer-led sessions. Primary outcomes were gestational diabetes (diagnosed with an oral glucose tolerance test and by criteria from the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups) and large-for-gestational-age infants (≥90th customised birthweight centile). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, ISCRTN89971375. Recruitment and pregnancy outcomes are complete but childhood follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2009, and June 2, 2014, we assessed 8820 women for eligibility and recruited 1555, with a mean BMI of 36·3 kg/m(2) (SD 4·8). 772 were randomly assigned to standard antenatal care and 783 were allocated the behavioural intervention, of which 651 and 629 women, respectively, completed an oral glucose tolerance test. Gestational diabetes was reported in 172 (26%) women in the standard care group compared with 160 (25%) in the intervention group (risk ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·79-1·16; p=0·68). 61 (8%) of 751 babies in the standard care group were large for gestational age compared with 71 (9%) of 761 in the intervention group (1·15, 0·83-1·59; p=0·40). Thus, the primary outcomes did not differ between groups, despite improvements in some maternal secondary outcomes in the intervention group, including reduced dietary glycaemic load, gestational weight gain, and maternal sum-of-skinfold thicknesses, and increased physical activity. Adverse events included neonatal death (two in the standard care group and three in the intervention group) and fetal death in utero (ten in the standard care group and six in the intervention group). No maternal deaths were reported. Incidence of miscarriage (2% in the standard care group vs 2% in the intervention group), major obstetric haemorrhage (1% vs 3%), and small-for-gestational-age infants (≤5th customised birthweight centile; 6% vs 5%) did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: A behavioural intervention addressing diet and physical activity in women with obesity during pregnancy is not adequate to prevent gestational diabetes, or to reduce the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Guys and St Thomas' Charity, Chief Scientist Office Scotland, Tommy's Charity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2213-8587(15)00227-2

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Poston, L., Bell, R., Croker, H., Flynn, A. C., Godfrey, K. M., Goff, L., Hayes, L., Khazaezadeh, N., Nelson, S. M., Oteng-Ntim, E., Pasupathy, D., Patel, N., Robson, S. C., Sandall, J., Sanders, T. A. B., Sattar, N., Seed, P. T., Wardle, J., Whitworth, M. K., & Briley, A. L.
Affiliations
  • St Thomas' Hospital (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Glasgow Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • British Heart Foundation (GB)
  • St Mary's Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Poston, Lucilla
Venue
The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-10
Volume
3
Issue
10
Pages
767-777
ISSN
2213-8587 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1863728472
Cited by
642
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 83 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 84 · 2017: 71 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 1
FWCI
88.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK (14133)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (CL-2010-17-007, FP7/2007–2013, NF-SI-0514-10145, RP-PG-0407-10452, 289346)
  • King's College London
  • European Commission (2007–2013, FP7 2007-2013, FP7/2007, 289346)
  • Norges Forskningsråd (289346)
  • Tommy's
  • National Institute for Health Research Southampton Biomedical Research Centre (289346)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K02325X/1, MC_UU_12011/4, MR/L002477/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Keywords
maternal obesity, gestational diabetes mellitus, large for gestational age, behavioral interventions, prenatal care, diet, physical activity, gestational weight gain, pregnancy outcomes, ethnic minority women, inner-city women, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes screening
MeSH terms
Adult, Feeding Behavior, Female, Fetal Macrosomia, Gestational Age, Glucose Tolerance Test, United Kingdom, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Life Style, Motor Activity, Obesity, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Pregnancy Trimester, Second, Prenatal Care, Weight Gain, Diabetes, Gestational

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