The effectiveness of pharmacological and lifestyle interventions to reduce the risk of diabetes and hyperglycaemia following gestational diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To synthesize the available evidence to better understand the effectiveness of interventions to prevent or delay hyperglycaemia and Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) postnatally in women with current or previous gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). METHODS: We searched five databases up to December 2020 for primary peer-reviewed articles reporting postpartum glycaemic outcomes in women with (previous) GDM following pharmacological or lifestyle intervention. Outcomes were relative risk of T2DM or continuous measures of glycaemia, change or at follow-up. A minimum of two studies evaluating the same intervention-outcome combination were needed to conduct meta-analyses, otherwise studies were described narratively. Meta-regression was used to evaluate whether associations varied by additional variables. We assessed risk of bias using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. PROSPERO record CRD42018102380. RESULTS: We included 31 studies in the review with a total sample size of 8624 participants, and 26 studies in meta-analyses. Two-thirds of studies followed up participants at 1 year or less. Pharmacological interventions were associated with reduced risk of T2DM (0.80 [95% CI 0.64-1.00], n = 6 studies), as were lifestyle interventions albeit with a smaller effect size (0.88 [95% CI 0.76-1.01], n = 12 studies). Dietary and physical activity interventions were associated with a small reduction in fasting plasma glucose, particularly in longer interventions, but inconsistent effects were seen for other continuous outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although possibly due to chance, interventions to reduce hyperglycaemia after GDM may be effective. Future research should improve understanding of how interventions affect glucose control and how to optimise interventions for this population.

Understanding the Preferences and Considerations of the Public Towards Risk-Stratified Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Insights From Think-Aloud Interviews Based on a Discrete Choice Experiment.

CONTEXT: Risk stratification has been suggested as a strategy for improving cancer screening. Any changes to existing programmes must be acceptable to the public. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the preferences and considerations of individuals relating to the introduction of different risk-based strategies to determine eligibility for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. STUDY DESIGN: Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) within online interviews. Nine conjoint-analysis tasks were created, each with two potential CRC screening programmes. The attributes included personal risk of CRC, screening invitation strategy and impact. Participants chose between programmes while thinking aloud and sharing their thoughts. Transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty participants based in England aged 40-79 years without previous cancer history or medical expertise. RESULTS: When choosing between programmes, participants first and primarily looked to prioritise saving lives. The harms associated with screening were viewed as a surprise but also felt by most to be inevitable; the benefits frequently outweighed, therefore, harms were considered less important. Risk stratification using individual characteristics was considered a nuanced approach to healthcare, which tended to be preferred over the age-alone model. Detailed personal risk information could be taken more seriously than non-personalised information to motivate behaviour change. Although it had minimal impact on decision-making, not diverting resources for screening from elsewhere was valued. Individuals who chose not to provide health information were considered irresponsible, while it was important that those with no information to provide should not lose out. CONCLUSION: Risk-stratified CRC screening is generally aligned with public preferences, with decisions between possible stratification strategies dominated by saving lives. Even if attributes including risk factors, risk stratification strategy and risk communication contributed less to the overall decision to select certain programmes, some levels more clearly fulfilled public values; therefore, all these factors should be taken into consideration when redesigning and communicating CRC screening programmes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The primary data source for this study is interviews with 20 members of the public (current, past or future CRC screening invitees). Two public representatives contributed to planning this study, particularly the DCE.

Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening.

In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer be offered risk-reducing medication and enhanced breast screening/surveillance. In June 2022, NICE withdrew a statement recommending assessment of risk in primary care only when women present with concerns. This shift to the proactive assessment of risk substantially changes the role of primary care, in effect paving the way for a primary care-based screening programme to identify those at moderate or high risk of breast cancer. In this article, we review the literature surrounding proactive breast cancer risk assessment within primary care against the consolidated framework for screening. We find that risk assessment for women under 50 years currently satisfies many of the standard principles for screening. Most notably, there are large numbers of women at moderate or high risk currently unidentified, risk models exist that can identify those women with reasonable accuracy, and management options offer the opportunity to reduce breast cancer incidence and mortality in that group. However, there remain a number of uncertainties and research gaps, particularly around the programme/system requirements, that need to be addressed before these benefits can be realised.

A discrete choice experiment to understand public preferences and priorities for risk-stratified bowel cancer screening programmes in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Public acceptability of bowel cancer screening programmes must be maintained, including if risk stratification is introduced. We aimed to describe and quantify preferences for different attributes of risk-stratified screening programmes amongst the UK population, focussing on who to invite for bowel screening. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) including the following attributes: risk factors used to estimate bowel cancer risk (age plus/minus sex, lifestyle factors and genetics); personalisation of risk feedback; risk stratification strategy plus resource implications; default screening in the case of no risk information; number of deaths prevented by screening; and number experiencing physical harm from screening. We used the results of conditional logit regression models to estimate the importance of each attribute, willingness to trade-off between the attributes, and preferences for different programmes using contemporary risk scores and models. RESULTS: 1196 respondents completed the survey, generating 21,528 DCE observations. Deaths prevented was the most influential attribute on respondents' decision-making (contributing to 58.8% of the choice), followed by harms experienced (15.9%). For every three additional deaths prevented, respondents were willing to accept an additional screening harm per 100,000 people. Risk factors and risk stratification strategy contributed to just 11.1% and 3.6% of the choice, respectively. Although the influence on decision-making was small, respondents favoured more personalised feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel cancer screening programmes that improve cancer outcomes, particularly by preventing more deaths amongst those screened, are most preferred by the public. Optimising risk prediction models, developing public communication, and readying infrastructure should be prioritised for implementation.

Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of the general public: A mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Risk-stratified cancer screening has the potential to improve resource allocation and the balance of harms and benefits by targeting those most likely to benefit. Public acceptability has implications for engagement, uptake and the success of such a programme. Therefore, this review seeks to understand whether risk stratification of population-based cancer screening programmes is acceptable to the general public and in what context. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched from January 2010 to November 2021. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods papers were eligible for inclusion. The Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach was used to synthesize the findings and the quality of included literature was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was used as a coding frame for thematic analysis. PROSPERO record 2021 CRD42021286667. RESULTS: The search returned 12,039 citations, 22 of which were eligible for inclusion. The majority of studies related to breast cancer screening; other cancer types included ovarian, kidney, colorectal and prostate cancer. Risk stratification was generally acceptable to the public, who considered it to be logical and of wider benefit than existing screening practices. We identified 10 priorities for implementation across four key areas: addressing public information needs; understanding communication preferences for risk estimates; mitigating barriers to accessibility to avoid exacerbating inequalities; and the role of healthcare professionals in relation to supporting reduced screening for low-risk individuals. CONCLUSION: The public generally find risk stratification of population-based cancer screening programmes to be acceptable; however, we have identified areas that would improve implementation and require further consideration. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This paper is a systematic review and did not formally involve patients or the public; however, three patient and public involvement members were consulted on the topic and scope before the review commenced.

Sequence- and structure-specific cytosine-5 mRNA methylation by NSUN6.

The highly abundant N6-methyladenosine (m6A) RNA modification affects most aspects of mRNA function, yet the precise function of the rarer 5-methylcytidine (m5C) remains largely unknown. Here, we map m5C in the human transcriptome using methylation-dependent individual-nucleotide resolution cross-linking and immunoprecipitation (miCLIP) combined with RNA bisulfite sequencing. We identify NSUN6 as a methyltransferase with strong substrate specificity towards mRNA. NSUN6 primarily targeted three prime untranslated regions (3'UTR) at the consensus sequence motif CTCCA, located in loops of hairpin structures. Knockout and rescue experiments revealed enhanced mRNA and translation levels when NSUN6-targeted mRNAs were methylated. Ribosome profiling further demonstrated that NSUN6-specific methylation correlated with translation termination. While NSUN6 was dispensable for mouse embryonic development, it was down-regulated in human tumours and high expression of NSUN6 indicated better patient outcome of certain cancer types. In summary, our study identifies NSUN6 as a methyltransferase targeting mRNA, potentially as part of a quality control mechanism involved in translation termination fidelity.

Implementation of risk stratification within bowel cancer screening: a community jury study exploring public acceptability and communication needs.

BACKGROUND: Population-based cancer screening programmes are shifting away from age and/or sex-based screening criteria towards a risk-stratified approach. Any such changes must be acceptable to the public and communicated effectively. We aimed to explore the social and ethical considerations of implementing risk stratification at three different stages of the bowel cancer screening programme and to understand public requirements for communication. METHODS: We conducted two pairs of community juries, addressing risk stratification for screening eligibility or thresholds for referral to colonoscopy and screening interval. Using screening test results (where applicable), and lifestyle and genetic risk scores were suggested as potential stratification strategies. After being informed about the topic through a series of presentations and discussions including screening principles, ethical considerations and how risk stratification could be incorporated, participants deliberated over the research questions. They then reported their final verdicts on the acceptability of risk-stratified screening and what information should be shared about their preferred screening strategy. Transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. RESULTS: Risk stratification of bowel cancer screening was acceptable to the informed public. Using data within the current system (age, sex and screening results) was considered an obvious next step and collecting additional data for lifestyle and/or genetic risk assessment was also preferable to age-based screening. Participants acknowledged benefits to individuals and health services, as well as articulating concerns for people with low cancer risk, potential public misconceptions and additional complexity for the system. The need for clear and effective communication about changes to the screening programme and individual risk feedback was highlighted, including making a distinction between information that should be shared with everyone by default and additional details that are available elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of public acceptability, risk stratification using current data could be implemented immediately, ahead of more complex strategies. Collecting additional data for lifestyle and/or genetic risk assessment was also considered acceptable but the practicalities of collecting such data and how the programme would be communicated require careful consideration.

A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening is likely to improve the efficiency of screening programmes by targeting resources towards those most likely to benefit. We aimed to explore the implications of this approach from a societal perspective by understanding public views on the most acceptable stratification strategies. METHODS: We conducted three online community juries with 9 or 10 participants in each. Participants were purposefully sampled by age (40-79 years), sex, ethnicity, social grade and English region. On the first day, participants were informed of the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening and the implications of different ways of introducing stratification using scenarios based on phenotypic and genetic risk scores. On the second day, participants deliberated to reach a verdict on the research question, 'Which approach(es) to inviting people to screening are acceptable, and under what circumstances?' Deliberations and feedback were recorded and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Across the juries, the principle of risk stratification was generally considered to be an acceptable approach for determining eligibility for screening. Disregarding increasing capacity, the participants considered it to enable efficient resource allocation to high-risk individuals and could see how it might help to save lives. However, there were concerns regarding fair implementation, particularly how the risk assessment would be performed at scale and how people at low risk would be managed. Some favoured using the most accurate risk prediction model whereas others thought that certain risk factors should be prioritized (particularly factors considered as non-modifiable and relatively stable, such as genetics and family history). Transparently justifying the programme and public education about cancer risk emerged as important contributors to acceptability. CONCLUSION: Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening was acceptable to informed members of the public, particularly if it included risk factors they considered fair and when communicated transparently. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patient and public involvement representatives were involved throughout this study. They were not involved in synthesizing the results but contributed to producing study materials, co-facilitated the community juries and commented on the interpretation of the findings and final report.

'Oh, I've got an appointment': A qualitative interview study exploring how to support attendance at diabetes screening after gestational diabetes.

AIMS: To explore the views of women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) on suggested practical approaches to support diabetes screening attendance after GDM, which is recommended but poorly attended. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 participants in Cambridgeshire, UK who had been diagnosed with GDM and were 3-48 months postpartum. Interviews covered whether participants had been screened and why, plans for future screening and their views on potential interventions to facilitate attendance (at the first postpartum test and annual testing). Framework analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. The interview schedule, suggested interventions and thematic framework were based on a recent systematic review. RESULTS: Sixteen participants had undergone screening since pregnancy, explaining that they had an appointment arranged and wanted reassurance that they did not have diabetes. The participants who had not been tested were not aware that it was recommended. Only 13 had planned to attend subsequent tests at the start of the interview. Eight themes to support future attendance were discussed. The majority of the participants agreed that changing the processes for arranging tests, offering choice in test location and combining appointments would facilitate attendance. Child-friendly clinics, more opportunities to understand GDM and the role of postpartum testing, stopping self-testing and increasing their GP's awareness of their pregnancy received inconsistent feedback. The nature of the test used did not appear to influence attendance. CONCLUSIONS: The participants wanted to be screened for diabetes after GDM. We have identified interventions that could be relatively simply incorporated into routine practice to facilitate screening attendance, such as flexibility in the appointment location or time and sending invitations for tests.

The association between psychosocial factors and change in lifestyle behaviour following lifestyle advice and information about cardiovascular disease risk.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) and fruit and vegetable intake (FVI) are two key modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Achieving change in these behaviours is challenging and affected by many variables including psychosocial factors. We aimed to investigate the association between social support, stress and mood, and change in PA and FVI following provision of CVD risk information and web-based lifestyle advice. METHODS: Seven hundred sixteen blood donors (56% male; mean age 57 years) from the intervention arms of the Information and Risk Modification (INFORM) trial, a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of providing CVD risk and web-based lifestyle information, were analysed as a prospective cohort. We used linear and logistic regression analyses to quantify the association between social support, stress and mood at baseline and behaviour change following the intervention. We modelled objective (average acceleration measured by Axivity AX3 wrist-worn accelerometers and plasma carotenoid levels) and subjective (self-reported recreational PA and FVI) outcomes as change between baseline and 12 weeks follow-up. RESULTS: There was no clear association between social support and change in objective or subjective PA. Higher levels of stress and, to a lesser extent, depression symptoms were associated with smaller improvement in self-reported PA (ß -1.53 h/week vigorous PA, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.30 to -0.75, p < 0.001 for stress; ß -1.64 h/week, 95% CI -3.50 to 0.21, p = 0.082 for little interest). Higher social support was associated with greater odds and higher stress was associated with lower odds of increasing self-reported FVI to five portions per day (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.69, p = 0.020 for social support; OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76, p < 0.001 for stress). The associations between psychosocial factors and objective FVI were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: High stress and low mood may reduce the likelihood and extent of reported change in PA and FVI following CVD risk information and advice. Greater social support may be associated with increased FVI. The role of psychosocial factors should be considered when developing, tailoring and evaluating future interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17721237 . Registered 12 January 2015.

The ethics of risk-stratified cancer screening.

Cancer screening programmes aim to save lives and reduce cancer burden through prevention or early detection of specific cancers. Risk stratification, where one or more elements of a screening programme are systematically tailored based on multiple individual-level risk factors, could improve the balance of screening benefits and harms and programme efficiency. In this article, we explore the resulting ethical issues and how they impact risk-stratified screening policymaking using Beauchamp and Childress's principles of medical ethics. First, in line with universal screening programme principles, we acknowledge that risk-stratified screening should be introduced only when the expected total benefits outweigh the harms, and where it has a favourable overall impact compared to alternative options. We then discuss how these are difficult to both value and quantify, and that risk models typically perform differently in sub-populations. Second, we consider whether screening is an individual right and whether it is fair to offer more or less intensive screening to some and not others based on personal characteristics. Third, we discuss the need to maintain respect for autonomy, including ensuring informed consent and considering the screening implications for those who cannot or choose not to participate in the risk assessment. In summary, from an ethical perspective, focusing on population-level effectiveness alone is insufficient when planning risk-stratified screening programmes and the range of ethical principles must be considered.

Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of healthcare professionals: A mixed methods systematic review and recommendations to support implementation.

BACKGROUND: Introduction of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes has the potential to optimise resource allocation by targeting screening towards members of the population who will benefit from it most. Endorsement from healthcare professionals is necessary to facilitate successful development and implementation of risk-stratified interventions. Therefore, this review aims to explore whether using risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes is acceptable to healthcare professionals and to identify any requirements for successful implementation. METHODS: We searched four electronic databases from January 2010 to October 2021 for quantitative, qualitative, or primary mixed methods studies reporting healthcare professional and/or other stakeholder opinions on acceptability of risk-stratified population-based cancer screening. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using the Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach to mixed methods analysis and mapped onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research using a 'best fit' approach. PROSPERO record CRD42021286667. RESULTS: A total of 12,039 papers were identified through the literature search and seven papers were included in the review, six in the context of breast cancer screening and one considering screening for ovarian cancer. Risk stratification was broadly considered acceptable, with the findings covering all five domains of the framework: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals, and process. Across these five domains, key areas that were identified as needing further consideration to support implementation were: a need for greater evidence, particularly for de-intensifying screening; resource limitations; need for staff training and clear communication; and the importance of public involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Risk stratification of population-based cancer screening programmes is largely acceptable to healthcare professionals, but support and training will be required to successfully facilitate implementation. Future research should focus on strengthening the evidence base for risk stratification, particularly in relation to reducing screening frequency among low-risk cohorts and the acceptability of this approach across different cancer types.

Personalised colorectal cancer screening strategies: Information needs of the target population.

Prior faecal Hemoglobin (f-Hb) concentrations of a negative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can be used for risk stratification in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Individuals with higher f-Hb concentrations may benefit from a shorter screening interval (1 year), whereas individuals with undetectable f-Hb concentrations could benefit from a longer screening interval (3 year). Individuals' views on personalised CRC screening and information needed to make a well-informed decision is unknown. We conducted three semi-structured focus groups among individuals eligible for CRC screening (i.e. men and women aged 55 to 75) in the Netherlands. Thematic analysis was used to analyse participants' information need on personalised CRC screening strategies. Fourteen individuals took part. The majority were positive about CRC screening and indicated that they would participate in personalised CRC screening. The rationale for a longer interval among those at lowest risk was, however, unclear for many. The preferred information on individual risk was variable: ranging from full information to only information on the personalised strategy without mentioning the risk. It was not possible to address everyone's need with a single approach. Additional communications, e.g. public media campaigns, billboards, videos on social media, were also suggested as necessary. This study showed that preferences on receiving information on individual CRC risk varied substantially and no consensus was reached. Introducing a personalised screening programme will require careful communication, particularly around the rationale for the strategy, and a layered approach to deliver information.

Public Preferences for Determining Eligibility for Screening in Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening Programs: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification has been proposed to improve the efficiency of population-level cancer screening. We aimed to describe and quantify the relative importance of different attributes of potential screening programs among the public, focusing on stratifying eligibility. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment in which respondents selected between 2 hypothetical screening programs in a series of 9 questions. We presented the risk factors used to determine eligibility (age, sex, or lifestyle or genetic risk scores) and anticipated outcomes based on eligibility criteria with different sensitivity and specificity levels. We performed conditional logit regression models and used the results to estimate preferences for different approaches. We also analyzed free-text comments on respondents' views on the programs. RESULTS: A total of 1,172 respondents completed the survey. Sensitivity was the most important attribute (7 and 11 times more important than specificity and risk factors, respectively). Eligibility criteria based on age and sex or genetics were preferred over age alone and lifestyle risk scores. Phenotypic and polygenic risk prediction models would be more acceptable than screening everyone aged 55 to 70 y if they had high discrimination (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve ≥0.75 and 0.80, respectively). LIMITATIONS: Although our sample was representative with respect to age, sex, and ethnicity, it may not be representative of the UK population regarding other important characteristics. Also, some respondents may have not understood all the information provided to inform decision making. CONCLUSIONS: The public prioritized lives saved from cancer over reductions in numbers screened or experiencing unnecessary follow-up. Incorporating personal-level risk factors into screening eligibility criteria is acceptable to the public if it increases sensitivity; therefore, maximizing sensitivity in model development and communication could increase uptake. HIGHLIGHTS: The public prioritized lives saved when considering changing from age-based eligibility criteria to risk-stratified cancer screening over reductions in numbers of people being screened or experiencing unnecessary follow-up.The risk stratification strategy used to do this was the least important component, although age plus sex or genetics were relatively preferable to using age alone and lifestyle risk scores.Communication strategies that emphasize improvements in the numbers of cancers detected or not missed across the population are more likely to be salient than reductions in unnecessary investigations or follow-up among some groups.Future research should focus on developing implementation strategies that maximize gains in sensitivity within the context of resource constraints and how to present attributes relating to specificity to facilitate understanding and informed decision making.

"Post-GDM support would be really good for mothers": A qualitative interview study exploring how to support a healthy diet and physical activity after gestational diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). They are therefore recommended to follow a healthy diet and be physically active in order to reduce that risk. However, achieving and maintaining these behaviours in the postpartum period is challenging. This study sought to explore women's views on suggested practical approaches to achieve and maintain a healthy diet and physical activity to reduce T2DM risk. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 20 participants in Cambridgeshire, UK were conducted at three to 48 months after GDM. The participants' current diet and physical activity, intentions for any changes, and views on potential interventions to help manage T2DM risk through these behaviours were discussed. Framework analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. The interview schedule, suggested interventions, and thematic framework were based on a recent systematic review. RESULTS: Most of the participants wanted to eat more healthily and be more active. A third of the participants considered that postpartum support for these behaviours would be transformative, a third thought it would be beneficial, and a third did not want additional support. The majority agreed that more information about the impact of diet and physical activity on diabetes risk, support to exercise with others, and advice about eating healthily, exercising with a busy schedule, monitoring progress and sustaining changes would facilitate a healthy diet and physical activity. Four other suggested interventions received mixed responses. It would be acceptable for this support to be delivered throughout pregnancy and postpartum through a range of formats. Clinicians were seen to have important roles in giving or signposting to support. CONCLUSIONS: Many women would appreciate more support to reduce their T2DM risk after GDM and believe that a variety of interventions to integrate changes into their daily lives would help them to sustain healthier lifestyles.

Barriers to postpartum diabetes screening: a qualitative synthesis of clinicians' views.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is an important risk factor for developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) later in life. Postpartum screening provides an opportunity for early detection and management of T2DM, but uptake is poor. AIM: To explore barriers to screening from clinicians' perspectives to guide future interventions to increase uptake of postpartum screening. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and qualitative synthesis. METHOD: Qualitative studies included in a previous review were assessed, and then five electronic databases were searched from January 2013 to May 2019 for qualitative studies reporting clinicians' perspectives on postpartum glucose screening after GDM. Study quality was assessed against the Critical Appraisal Skills Programmes checklist. Qualitative data from the studies were analysed using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: Nine studies were included, containing views from 187 clinicians from both community and hospital care. Three main themes were identified: difficulties in handover between primary and secondary care (ambiguous roles and communication difficulties); short-term focus in clinical consultations (underplaying risk so as not to overwhelm patients and competing priorities); and patient-centric barriers such as time pressures. CONCLUSION: Barriers to diabetes screening were identified at both system and individual levels. At the system level, clarification of responsibility for testing among healthcare professionals and better systems for recall are needed. These could be achieved through registers, improved clinical protocols, and automatic flagging and prompts within electronic medical records. At the individual level, clinicians should be supported to prioritise the importance of screening within consultations and better educational resources made available for women. Making it more convenient for women to attend may also facilitate screening.

The absolute and relative risk of type 2 diabetes after gestational diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 129 studies.

AIMS: To estimate development of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in women with previous gestational diabetes (GDM) and investigate characteristics associated with higher diagnoses, building on previous meta-analyses and exploring heterogeneity. METHODS: Systematic literature review of studies published up to October 2019. We included studies reporting progression to T2DM ≥6 months after pregnancy, if diagnostic methods were reported and ≥50 women with GDM participated. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression of absolute and relative T2DM risk. PROSPERO ID: CRD42017080299. RESULTS: In 129 included studies, the percentage diagnosed with T2DM was 12% (95% confidence interval 8-16%) higher for each additional year after pregnancy, with a third developing diabetes within 15 years. Development was 18% (5-34%) higher per unit BMI at follow-up, and 57% (39-70%) lower in White European populations compared to others (adjusted for ethnicity and follow-up). Women with GDM had a relative risk of T2DM of 8.3 (6.5-10.6). 17.0% (15.1-19.0%) developed T2DM overall, although heterogeneity between studies was substantial (I2 99.3%), and remained high after accounting for various study-level characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Percentage developing T2DM after GDM is highly variable. These findings highlight the need for sustained follow-up after GDM through screening, and interventions to reduce modifiable risk factors.