4.3 Review

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Southeast Asia: A Scoping Review

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18031272

Keywords

gestational diabetes mellitus; Southeast Asia; screening; risk-factors; complications; management

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The burden of GDM in Southeast Asia has not been adequately assessed, but existing evidence shows issues related to risk factors, complications, diagnostic challenges, and disease management in the region. While much of the risk of GDM is preventable through lifestyle modifications, the burden of GDM is expected to increase across countries due to heterogeneity in screening methods and diagnostic criteria.
A rapid increase in the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has been associated with various factors such as urbanization, lifestyle changes, adverse hyperglycemic intrauterine environment, and the resulting epigenetic changes. Despite this, the burden of GDM has not been well-assessed in Southeast Asia. We comprehensively reviewed published Southeast Asian studies to identify the current research trend in GDM in this region. Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology was used to guide the scoping review. The synthesis of literature findings demonstrates almost comparable clinical evidence in terms of risk factors and complications, challenges presented in diagnosing GDM, and its disease management, given the similarities of the underlying population characteristics in Southeast Asia. Evidence suggests that a large proportion of GDM risk in women may be preventable by lifestyle modifications. However, the GDM burden across countries is expected to rise, given the heterogeneity in screening approaches and diagnostic criteria, mainly influenced by economic status. There is an urgent need for concerted efforts by government and nongovernmental sectors to implement national programs to prevent, manage, and monitor the disease.

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