The experiences of individuals who have had gestational diabetes: A qualitative exploration
Open accessAbstract
Aim: To qualitatively explore the experiences of individuals with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) in Australia, and to recognise opportunities for leveraging digital health to enhance the support of GDM management. Method: A cross sectional online survey assessed the experiences of individuals with GDM, the healthcare system and their digital health usage. Respondents (recruited via a national diabetes registry or social media) were adults receiving GDM care within Australia in the last 5 years, who responded to any of three open‐ended questions (n = 815) exploring positive, negative and other GDM experiences. Thematic analysis was utilised, and themes were mapped to the socio‐ecological systems framework. Results: At a system level, themes related to (1) accessibility of care including the value of digital health and the inflexible or inconsistent perception of the (2) implementation of guidelines. At an interpersonal level, themes covered the need for adequate (3) health information provision, and (4) supportive care, as well as highlighting (5) experiences of stigma including a desire for greater awareness of GDM. Individual‐level themes included: (6) differential barriers to accessing care; (7) negative emotional burden; (8) internalisation of stigma; (9) dietary freedom and social impact and (10) opportunity for change derived from having GDM. Conclusion: Findings suggest a demand for more supportive, person‐centred GDM care, improved information provision and individualised implementation of clinical guidelines. Such mechanisms may support reduced barriers to accessing care or negative psychosocial impacts of GDM. Though not central to the identified experiences, digital health tools may help address the need for optimised GDM care.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
For some women, the diagnosis is a catalyst for positive behavioural change and improved quality of life.
“For some women, the diagnosis is a catalyst for positive behavioural change 36 and improved quality of life. 15”
A diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus may substantially affect women's psychological wellbeing.
“A diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus may substantially affect women's psychological wellbeing. 36 , 37 , 38”
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
Wang, H., Li, N., Chivese, T., Werfalli, M., Sun, H., Yuen, L., Hoegfeldt, C. A., Elise Powe, C., Immanuel, J., Karuranga, S., et al. (2022) · Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice · doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2021.109050 · Cited by 1,260 · see citing works
He, J., Chen, X., Wang, Y., Liu, Y., & Bai, J. (2021) · Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders · doi:10.1007/s11154-020-09610-4 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
The stigma associated with gestational diabetes mellitus: A scoping review
Davidsen, E., Maindal, H. T., Rod, M. H., Olesen, K., Byrne, M., Damm, P., & Nielsen, K. K. (2022) · eClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101614 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Towards a global consensus on GDM diagnosis: Light at the end of the tunnel?
Kapur, A., McIntyre, H. D., Divakar, H., Di Renzo, G. C., Kihara, A. B., McAuliffe, F., Hanson, M., Ma, R. C., Hod, M., & FIGO Working Group on Hyperglycemia in Pregnancy (2020) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.13149 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Nankervis A, Price S, Conn J. Gestational diabetes mellitus: a pragmatic approach to diagnosis and management. Aust J Gen Pract. 2018;47(7):445-449.
- Craig L, Sims R, Glasziou P, Thomas R. Women's experiences of a diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):1-15.
- Devsam BU, Bogossian FE, Peacock AS. An interpretive review of women's experiences of gestational diabetes mellitus: pro- posing a framework to enhance midwifery assessment. Women Birth. 2013;26(2):e69-e76.
- Pham S, Churruca K, Ellis LA, Braithwaite J. A scoping review of gestational diabetes mellitus healthcare: experiences of care reported by pregnant women internationally. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):1-12.
- Varnfield M, Redd C, Stoney RM, et al. M♡ THer, an mHealth system to support women with gestational diabetes melli- tus: feasibility and acceptability study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(5):358-366.
- Laurie JG, Wilkinson SA, Griffin A, McIntyre HD. GDM care re-imagined: maternal and neonatal outcomes following a major model of care change for gestational diabetes mellitus at a large metropolitan hospital. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2023;63:681-688.
- Barclay K, Myrskylä M. Advanced maternal age and offspring outcomes: Reproductive aging and counterbalancing period trends. Population Developm Rev. 2016;42(1):69-94.
- Roesler A, Butten K, Calyx C, Holmes-Truscott E, Taylor PJ. Use and preferences of health apps among women and health- care professionals regarding GDM postpartum care: a cross- sectional survey. Nutrients. 2023;15(15):3304.
- Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-357.
- Bronfenbrenner U. Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Am Psychol. 1977;32(7):513-531.
- Nankervis A, Conn J. Gestational diabetes mellitus: negotiating the confusion. Aust Fam Physician. 2013;42(8):528-531.
- Golin CE, DiMatteo MR, Gelberg L. The role of patient partici- pation in the doctor visit: implications for adherence to diabetes care. Diabetes Care. 1996;19(10):1153-1164.
- Litterbach E, Holmes-Truscott E, Pouwer F, Speight J, Hendrieckx C. I wish my healthprofessionals understood that it's not just all about your HbA1c !. Qualitative responses from the second Diabetes MILES Australia (MILES-2) study. Diabet Med. 2020;37(6):971-981. doi:10.1111/dme.14199 · DOI
- Sina M, Cade TJ, Flack J, et al. Antenatal models of care for women with gestational diabetes mellitus: vignettes from an international meeting. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;60(5):720-728.
- Speight J, Holmes-Truscott E, Garza M, et al. Bringing an end to diabetes stigma and discrimination: an international consen- sus statement on evidence and recommendations. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 2024;12(1):61-82.
- Davidsen E, Maindal HT, Byrne M, et al. A qualitative inves- tigation into the perceptions and experiences of the stigma attached to gestational diabetes mellitus among women in Denmark. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2023;203:110858.
- Morrison MK, Lowe JM, Collins CE. Australian women's ex- periences of living with gestational diabetes. Women Birth. 2014;27(1):52-57.
- Petrak F, Herpertz S, Albus C, Hirsch A, Kulzer B, Kruse J. Psychosocial factors and diabetes mellitus: evidence-based treatment guidelines. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2005;1(3):255-270.
- Wildevuur SE, Simonse LW. Information and communica- tion technology-enabled person-centered care for the "big five" chronic conditions: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(3):e77.
- Ekezie W, Dallosso H, Saravanan P, Khunti K, Hadjiconstantinou M. Experiences of using a digital type 2 diabetes prevention ap- plication designed to support women with previous gestational diabetes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1-10.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sweeting, A., Hare, M. J., de Jersey, S. J., Shub, A. L., Zinga, J., Foged, C., Hall, R. M., Wong, T., & Simmons, D. (2025) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/mja2.52696 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- Roesler, A., Butten, K., Taylor, P., Morrison, M., Varnfield, M., & Holmes‐Truscott, E.
- Affiliations
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
- Diabetes Australia (AU)
- Deakin University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Roesler, Anna
- ORCID
- Venue
- Diabetic Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2024-06-09
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- e15374-e15374
- ISSN
- 0742-3071 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5491
- OpenAlex
- W4399508219
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 7.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Diabetic Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Australian Government
- Diabetes Australia
- 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 › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Keywords
- gestational diabetes mellitus, patient experience, digital health, stigma, supportive care, health information provision, barriers to care, guideline implementation, psychosocial impact, social impact, person-centred care
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Australia, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pregnancy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Diabetes, Gestational, Qualitative Research, Young Adult, Social Stigma
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