ReviewOriginal research: Postpartum testing rates among women with a history of gestational diabetes—Systematic review
Introduction
Women who develop gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) during their pregnancy have a higher risk of developing overt diabetes mellitus and dysglycemia (impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, or prediabetes) later in life, compared to women without GDM. The prevalence of GDM increased from 2 to 4% in the United States, from 2.9% to 8.8% in Australia, and the number of pregnancies complicated by preexisting diabetes mellitus doubled from 10 to 21% [1], [2], [3]. Obesity, an obvious risk factor for diabetes mellitus and GDM, is also increasing [4]. Because the at-risk population is growing, and postpartum testing of women with GDM will identify the 20–30% with persistent dysglycemia, it is important that an efficient system be in place to identify women with early diabetes mellitus or pre-diabetes for whom evidence based interventions exist [5].
Reported rates of women who follow through with the recommended postpartum testing range from 9 to 95% [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. A recent review summarized studies between 2008 and 2010 and, like similar reports, lists conflicting findings regarding the association between specific patient demographics and testing rates, such as Hispanic women being tested 2% more or 10% less than White women [22], [27], [51]. However, because the differences associated with individual demographics are modest, it seems possible that the large variation in screening rates is due to differences in health care delivery that affected the entire population within individual study cohorts. Understanding these differences can help providers design quality improvement initiatives.
This systematic review regarding postpartum testing for women with GDM was designed to determine if factors such as the use of systematic protocols within care systems could explain the variation reported between studies. The specific aim was to identify approaches associated with higher testing rates that could be incorporated into practice models and care-systems.
Section snippets
Search strategy
We referenced the AMSTAR framework and the PRISMA Statement (www.prisma-statement.org) to construct the search and develop the Flowchart (Fig. 1) [52], [53]. We searched major electronic databases: PUBMED (1902 through 2012 Week 29), OVID (1950–2012 Week 29), EMBASE (1947–2012 Week 29), and the Cochrane Database of systematic reviews to identify literature reporting rates of postpartum testing among women with GDM. The search included MeSH terms related to GDM and postpartum screening or
Characteristics of the studies reviewed
Of 307 abstracts reviewed 54 articles met the inclusion criteria and were organized into three groups: 25 reported Usual Care follow-up rates based on retrospective cohort/database reviews, or prospective data collected without (a) allocation of additional staff/resources or (b) systematic changes to the way caregivers practiced. When a proactive system or process was developed to improve follow-up rates, we classified them as Active Care, and 22 articles reported such data. The final group was
Discussion
Organizing this review in terms of Usual vs. Active Care, and the timeframes of the testing, permits the following conclusions: The primary factor associated with higher rates was implementation of an active system-based program designed to improve the postpartum testing rate after the authors observed low rates in a retrospective review, typically allocation of a nurse manager to contact patients. While this might appear to be self evident, to our knowledge this is the first review to
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no financial or personal relationships with organizations that could bias this work. No funding was provided.
Acknowledgement
MP and MF had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
References (78)
- et al.
Effects of new criteria for type 2 diabetes on the rate of postpartum glucose intolerance in women with gestational diabetes
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
(1999) - et al.
Gestational diabetes mellitus: antenatal variables as predictors of postpartum glucose intolerance
Obstetrics and Gynecology
(1995) - et al.
Gestational diabetes: implications of variation in post-partum follow-up criteria
European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology
(2004) - et al.
Gestational diabetes mellitus and the risk of metabolic syndrome: a population-based study in Lausanne, Switzerland
Diabetes and Metabolism
(2005) - et al.
The importance of a postpartum 75 g oral glucose tolerance test in women with gestational diabetes
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada
(2006) - et al.
Gestational diabetes: postpartum glucose tolerance testing
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
(1994) - et al.
Gestational diabetes mellitus in Korea: prevalence and prediction of glucose intolerance at early postpartum
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
(2003) - et al.
Gestational diabetes mellitus: the prevalence of glucose intolerance and diabetes mellitus in the first two months post partum
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
(1990) - et al.
The prevalence of 6 weeks postpartum abnormal glucose tolerance in Caucasian women with gestational diabetes
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
(2009) - et al.
Clinical predictors for a high risk for the development of diabetes mellitus in the early puerperium in women with recent gestational diabetes mellitus
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
(2002)