CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Does charge-free screening improve detection of gestational diabetes in women from deprived areas: a cross-sectional study

Open access
Beyerlein, Andreas, Koller, Daniela, Ziegler, Anette-Gabriele, Lack, Nicholas, Maier, Werner·2016·BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
DOI 10.1186/s12884-016-1060-3PMC PMC5016952
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) occurs in 2-6 % of all pregnancies. We investigated whether area level deprivation is associated with a higher risk for GDM and whether GDM detection rates in deprived regions changed after the introduction of charge-free GDM screening in Germany in 2012. METHODS: We analyzed population-based data from Bavaria, Germany, comprising n = 587,621 deliveries in obstetric units between 2008 and 2014. Area level deprivation was assessed municipality-based using the Bavarian Index of Multiple Deprivation (BIMD), divided into quintiles and assigned to each mother based on her residential address. We estimated annual odds ratios (ORs) for GDM diagnosis by BIMD quintile with adjustment for maternal obesity, maternal age, migration background and single mother status. RESULTS: Women from the most deprived regions were less likely to be diagnosed with GDM before introduction of charge-free GDM screening (OR = 0.76 [95 % confidence interval: 0.66, 0.86] compared to least deprived areas), in 2008. In contrast, high area level deprivation was associated with significantly increased risk of GDM diagnosis in 2013 (OR [95 % confidence interval] = 1.15 [1.02, 1.29]). The OR was also elevated, although not significantly, in 2014 (OR [95 % confidence interval] = 1.05 [0.93, 1.18]). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of GDM seems to have been underreported in women from highly deprived areas before introduction of the charge-free GDM screening in Germany. In fact, women living in deprived regions seem to have an increased risk for GDM and may profit from access to charge-free GDM screening.

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 · 10.1186/s12884-016-1060-3

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Before 2012, different strategies for GDM diagnosis existed in Germany, and prevalence rates varied between 2% and approximately 18%.

    “Until this time, different strategies for GDM diagnosis existed; therefore, the prevalence rates were very variable between 2% and approximately 18% [121,122,123].”

    From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [121]

    The Background describes changes to German GDM diagnostic criteria in 2011 and screening in 2012, supporting the point that diagnostic approaches changed. It gives a prevalence of 2–6% for industrialized countries, not a German range of 2% to approximately 18%; the Results report 3.4% in the Bavarian study population in 2008. No passage found supports the claimed 18% upper bound. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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: 33

  1. [1]American Diabetes Association Standards of medical care in diabetes--2011 Diabetes Care 2011 34 Suppl 1 S11 61 10.2337/dc11-S011 21193625 PMC3006050 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [2]Poston L Maternal obesity, gestational weight gain and diet as determinants of offspring long term health Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012 26 5 627 639 10.1016/j.beem.2012.03.010 22980045 · DOI
  3. [3]Dabelea D Snell-Bergeon JK Hartsfield CL Bischoff KJ Hamman RF McDuffie RS Kaiser Permanente of Colorado GDMSP Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) over time and by birth cohort: Kaiser Permanente of Colorado GDM Screening Program Diabetes Care 2005 28 3 579 584 10.2337/diacare.28.3.579 15735191 · DOI
  4. [4]Metzger BE Gabbe SG Persson B Buchanan TA Catalano PA Damm P Dyer AR Leiva A Hod M Kitzmiler JL International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy Diabetes Care 2010 33 3 676 682 10.2337/dc09-1848 20190296 PMC2827530 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [5]Farren M Daly N O’Higgins AC McKeating A Maguire PJ Turner MJ The interplay between maternal obesity and gestational diabetes mellitus J Perinat Med 2015 43 3 311 317 10.1515/jpm-2014-0272 25389982 · DOI
  6. [6]Cleary-Goldman J Malone FD Vidaver J Ball RH Nyberg DA Comstock CH Saade GR Eddleman KA Klugman S Dugoff L Impact of maternal age on obstetric outcome Obstet Gynecol 2005 105 5 Pt 1 983 990 10.1097/01.AOG.0000158118.75532.51 15863534 · DOI
  7. [7]Savitz DA Janevic TM Engel SM Kaufman JS Herring AH Ethnicity and gestational diabetes in New York City, 1995–2003 BJOG 2008 115 8 969 978 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01763.x 18651880 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [8]Cypryk K Szymczak W Czupryniak L Sobczak M Lewinski A Gestational diabetes mellitus - an analysis of risk factors Endokrynol Pol 2008 59 5 393 397 18979449
  9. [9]Hedderson MM Gunderson EP Ferrara A Gestational weight gain and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus Obstet Gynecol 2010 115 3 597 604 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181cfce4f 20177292 PMC3180899 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [10]Ruiz-Gracia T Duran A Fuentes M Rubio MA Runkle I Carrera EF Torrejon MJ Bordiu E Valle LD Garcia de la Torre N Lifestyle patterns in early pregnancy linked to gestational diabetes mellitus diagnoses when using IADPSG criteria. The St Carlos gestational study Clin Nutr 2016 35 3 699 705 10.1016/j.clnu.2015.04.017 25998584 · DOI
  11. [11]Kahr MK, Suter MA, Ballas J, Ramin SM, Monga M, Lee W, Hu M, Shope CD, Chesnokova A, Krannich L, et al. Geospatial Analysis of Food Environment Demonstrates Associations with Gestational Diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(1):110.e1–9. PMC4821568 26319053
  12. [12]Dode MA dos Santos IS Non classical risk factors for gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of the literature Cad Saude Publica 2009 25 Suppl 3 S341 359 20027384
  13. [13]Janghorbani M Stenhouse EA Jones RB Millward BA Is neighbourhood deprivation a risk factor for gestational diabetes mellitus? Diabet Med 2006 23 3 313 317 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01774.x 16492216 · DOI
  14. [14]Sampson L Dasgupta K Ross NA The association between socio-demographic marginalization and plasma glucose levels at diagnosis of gestational diabetes Diabet Med 2014 31 12 1563 1567 10.1111/dme.12529 24961673 · DOI
  15. [15]Heslehurst N Identifying ‘at risk’ women and the impact of maternal obesity on National Health Service maternity services Proc Nutr Soc 2011 70 4 439 449 10.1017/S0029665111001625 21854697 · DOI
  16. [16]Maier W Holle R Hunger M Peters A Meisinger C Greiser KH Kluttig A Volzke H Schipf S Moebus S The impact of regional deprivation and individual socio-economic status on the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes in Germany. A pooled analysis of five population-based studies Diabet Med 2013 30 3 e78 86 10.1111/dme.12062 23127142 · DOI
  17. [17]Grundmann N Mielck A Siegel M Maier W Area deprivation and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes and obesity: analysis at the municipality level in Germany BMC Public Health 2014 14 1264 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1264 25495106 PMC4301883 · DOI
  18. [18]Maier W Scheidt-Nave C Holle R Kroll LE Lampert T Du Y Heidemann C Mielck A Area level deprivation is an independent determinant of prevalent type 2 diabetes and obesity at the national level in Germany. Results from the National Telephone Health Interview Surveys 'German Health Update' GEDA 2009 and 2010 Plos One 2014 9 2 e89661 10.1371/journal.pone.0089661 24586945 PMC3937320 · DOI
  19. [20]Beyerlein A Lack N von Kries R Within-population average ranges compared with institute of medicine recommendations for gestational weight gain Obstet Gynecol 2010 116 5 1111 1118 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f1ad8b 20966696 · DOI
  20. [21]Beyerlein A Schiessl B Lack N von Kries R Associations of gestational weight loss with birth-related outcome: a retrospective cohort study BJOG 2011 118 1 55 61 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02761.x 21054761 · DOI
  21. [22]Maier W Fairburn J Mielck A Regional deprivation and mortality in Bavaria. Development of a community-based index of multiple deprivation Gesundheitswesen 2012 74 7 416 425 10.1055/s-0031-1280846 22020751 · DOI
  22. [23]Noble M Wright G Smith G Dibben C Measuring multiple deprivation at the small-area level Environ Plan A 2006 38 1 169 185 10.1068/a37168 · DOI
  23. [24]Rückert IM Böcken J Mielck A Are German patients burdened by the practice charge for physician visits ('Praxisgebuehr')? A cross sectional analysis of socio-economic and health related factors BMC Health Serv Res 2008 8 232 10.1186/1472-6963-8-232 19014476 PMC2605748 · DOI
  24. [25]Klabunde CN Vernon SW Nadel MR Breen N Seeff LC Brown ML Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of reports from primary care physicians and average-risk adults Med Care 2005 43 9 939 944 10.1097/01.mlr.0000173599.67470.ba 16116360 · DOI
  25. [26]Green AR Peters-Lewis A Percac-Lima S Betancourt JR Richter JM Janairo MP Gamba GB Atlas SJ Barriers to screening colonoscopy for low-income Latino and white patients in an urban community health center J Gen Intern Med 2008 23 6 834 840 10.1007/s11606-008-0572-6 18350339 PMC2517890 · DOI
  26. [27]Scholz R Voigt M Schneider KT Rochow N Hagenah HP Hesse V Straube S Analysis of the German perinatal survey of the years 2007–2011 and comparison with data from 1995–1997: maternal characteristics Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2013 73 12 1247 1251 10.1055/s-0033-1350830 24771906 PMC3964354 · DOI
  27. [28]Mensink GB Schienkiewitz A Haftenberger M Lampert T Ziese T Scheidt-Nave C Overweight and obesity in Germany: results of the German health interview and examination survey for adults (DEGS1) Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2013 56 5–6 786 794 10.1007/s00103-012-1656-3 23703499 · DOI
  28. [29]Naylor CD Sermer M Chen E Farine D Selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus. Toronto Trihospital Gestational Diabetes Project Investigators N Engl J Med 1997 337 22 1591 1596 10.1056/NEJM199711273372204 9371855 · DOI
  29. [30]Görig T Schneider S Bock C Maul H Kleinwechter H Diehl K Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in Germany: a qualitative study on pregnant womens attitudes, experiences, and suggestions Midwifery 2015 31 11 1026 1031 10.1016/j.midw.2015.07.001 26235526 · DOI
  30. [31]Park S, Sappenfield WM, Bish C, Salihu H, Goodman D, Bensyl DM. Assessment of the Institute of Medicine Recommendations for Weight Gain During Pregnancy: Florida, 2004–2007. Maternal Child Health J. 2011;15(3):289–301. 20306221
  31. [32]Donahue SM Kleinman KP Gillman MW Oken E Trends in birth weight and gestational length among singleton term births in the United States: 1990–2005 Obstet Gynecol 2010 115 2 Pt 1 357 364 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181cbd5f5 20093911 PMC3219436 · DOI
  32. [33]Khashan AS Kenny LC The effects of maternal body mass index on pregnancy outcome Eur J Epidemiol 2009 24 11 697 705 10.1007/s10654-009-9375-2 19653107 · DOI
  33. [35]Bodnar LM, Siega-Riz AM, Simhan HN, Himes KP, Abrams B. Severe obesity, gestational weight gain, and adverse birth outcomes. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91(6):1642–48. PMC2869513 20357043

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beyerlein, A., Koller, D., Ziegler, A.-G., Lack, N., & Maier, W.
Affiliations
  • Helmholtz Munich (DE)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Corresponding author
Beyerlein, Andreas
ORCID
Venue
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-09-09
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
266-266
ISSN
1471-2393 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12884-016-1060-3
PMC
PMC5016952
OpenAlex
W2514359296
Cited by
16
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion)
  • Site cant be reached (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Kompetenznetz Diabetes Mellitus
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
  • Deutsches Zentrum für Diabetesforschung
  • iMedthe Helmholtz Initiative on Personalized Medicine
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, area deprivation, socioeconomic status, health disparities, prenatal screening, maternal obesity, Bavaria
MeSH terms
Adult, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Germany, Humans, Mass Screening, Poverty, Pregnancy, Prenatal Diagnosis, Risk Factors, Prevalence, Odds Ratio, 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