4.3 Article

Diet Quality and History of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Among Childbearing Women, United States, 2007-2010

Journal

PREVENTING CHRONIC DISEASE
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

CENTERS DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION
DOI: 10.5888/pcd12.140360

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [UL1TR000161, 1U01HL105268, R01HL35434, KL2TR000160]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Diet quality plays an important role in the prevention of type 2 diabetes. We compared diet quality among childbearing women with a history of GDM with the diet quality of childbearing women without a history of GDM. Methods We used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2007 through 2010. We included women without diabetes aged 20 to 44 years whose most recent live infant was born within the previous 10 years and who completed two 24-hour dietary recalls. The Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2010 estimated overall and component diet quality. Multivariable linear regression models estimated the association between a history of GDM and current diet quality, adjusting for age, education, smoking status, and health risk for diabetes. Results A history of GDM was reported by 7.7% of women. Compared with women without a history of GDM, women with a history of GDM had, on average, 3.4 points lower overall diet quality (95% confidence interval [CI], -6.6 to -0.2) and 0.9 points lower score for consumption of green vegetables and beans (95% CI, -1.4 to -0.4). Other dietary component scores did not differ by history of GDM. Conclusion In the United States, women with a history of GDM have lower diet quality compared with women who bore a child and do not have a history of GDM. Improving diet quality may be a strategy for preventing type 2 diabetes among childbearing women.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available