Cited by 8Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Unmet needs of women with GDM: A health needs assessment in Sandwell, West Midlands

Open access
Plant, Nicola, Šumilo, Dana, Chapman, Rachel, Webber, Jonathan, Saravanan, Ponnusamy, Nirantharakumar, Krishnarajah·2020·Journal of Public Health

Abstract

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects over 4% of pregnancies in England. We investigated GDM epidemiology within ethnically diverse population and the current offer of services to women with previous GDM to reduce their type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) risk. Methods: (i) Analysis of routinely collected maternity data examining GDM incidence and risk factors; (ii) local authority self-assessment questionnaire on public health interventions targeting women with previous GDM and (iii) service development discussions regarding the current pathway and areas for improvement. Results: Of 9390 births between 2014 and 2018, 6.8% had a record of GDM. High body mass index (BMI), maternal age, and ethnicity (South Asian and some mixed ethnic backgrounds) were independent predictors of GDM. There were no public health commissioned services specifically targeting women with previous GDM. Weaknesses in transition from secondary to primary care and areas for improvement when screening for GDM were identified. Conclusions: GDM burden in this population was high. Awareness should be raised on the importance of regular glucose testing and lifestyle modification to delay or prevent progression to T2DM, particularly within high risk groups. The potential for health visitors to contribute to this should be explored. Commissioners should review evidence to develop a flexible lifestyle services model to meet the specific needs of these women.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/pubmed/fdz172

Cites

2 of 2 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Plant, N., Šumilo, D., Chapman, R., Webber, J., Saravanan, P., & Nirantharakumar, K.
Affiliations
  • Adult Social Care, Health and Wellbeing, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, Oldbury B69 3EN, UK
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Plant, Nicola
  • Šumilo, Dana
Venue
Journal of Public Health
Published
2019-12-10
Volume
42
Issue
4
Pages
e516-e524
ISSN
  • 0943-1853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3842
  • 1741-3850
OpenAlex
W2996134540
Cited by
8
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MR/N006232/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, type 2 diabetes prevention, health needs assessment, risk factors, body mass index, South Asian ethnicity, GDM screening, lifestyle modification, health visitors, public health services, Sandwell
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, England, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Risk Factors, Diabetes, Gestational, Needs Assessment

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