RESUMEN
AIMS: Women with diabetes (WWD) (type 1 and type 2) are around four times more likely to experience baby loss: miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal death or termination of pregnancy for medical reasons. Many WWD become pregnant again soon after loss. This study aimed to explore healthcare professional perspectives on improving inter-pregnancy care for WWD after baby loss, as they play a crucial role in facilitating access to support for WWD to prepare for subsequent pregnancy. METHODS: Eighteen healthcare professionals recruited through social media and professional networks between November 2020 and July 2021 participated in a semi-structured remote interview. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: (1) supporting WWD who want to become pregnant again after baby loss; (2) recognising multiple hidden burdens in the inter-pregnancy interval after loss; (3) discontinuities and constraints in inter-pregnancy care. Most participants tended to assume WWD wanted time and space before thinking about pregnancy after loss, so they did not routinely broach the subject. Participants reported receiving little or no training on managing sensitive conversations. Care provision varied across providers, and unclear referral pathways were challenging to navigate. Participants reported concerns that not all healthcare professionals knew how to mitigate pregnancy risks. CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear who is responsible for supporting WWDs preconception health between baby loss and subsequent pregnancy. Healthcare professionals may be reticent to initiate conversations about pregnancy for fear of causing upset or distress. Future research is required to scope out ways to raise awareness among healthcare professionals and practical tips on sensitively raising the topic of subsequent pregnancy.
RESUMEN
Background: The burden of gestational diabetes (GDM) and the optimal screening strategies in African populations are yet to be determined. We assessed the prevalence of GDM and the performance of various screening tests in a Cameroonian population. Methods: We carried out a cross-sectional study involving the screening of 983 women at 24-28 weeks of pregnancy for GDM using serial tests, including fasting plasma (FPG), random blood glucose (RBG), a 1-hour 50g glucose challenge test (GCT), and standard 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). GDM was defined using the World Health Organization (WHO 1999), International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Special Group (IADPSG 2010), and National Institute for Health Care Excellence (NICE 2015) criteria. GDM correlates were assessed using logistic regressions, and c-statistics were used to assess the performance of screening strategies. Findings: GDM prevalence was 5·9%, 17·7%, and 11·0% using WHO, IADPSG, and NICE criteria, respectively. Previous stillbirth [odds ratio: 3·14, 95%CI: 1·27-7·76)] was the main correlate of GDM. The optimal cut-points to diagnose WHO-defined GDM were 5·9 mmol/L for RPG (c-statistic 0·62) and 7·1 mmol/L for 1-hour 50g GCT (c-statistic 0·76). The same cut-off value for RPG was applicable for IADPSG-diagnosed GDM while the threshold was 6·5 mmol/L (c-statistic 0·61) for NICE-diagnosed GDM. The optimal cut-off of 1-hour 50g GCT was similar for IADPSG and NICE-diagnosed GDM. WHO-defined GDM was always confirmed by another diagnosis strategy while IADPSG and GCT independently identified at least 66·9 and 41·0% of the cases. Interpretation: GDM is common among Cameroonian women. Effective detection of GDM in under-resourced settings may require simpler algorithms including the initial use of FPG, which could substantially increase screening yield.