4.5 Review

Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in Indigenous Australians with diabetes in pregnancy

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF DIABETES
Volume 6, Issue 6, Pages 880-888

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.4239/wjd.v6.i6.880

Keywords

Diabetes; Gestational; Hyperglycaemia; Pregnancy; Indigenous; Aboriginal; Torres Strait Islander; Outcomes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To perform a systematic review of reported neonatal and pregnancy outcomes of Indigenous Australians with diabetes in pregnancy (DIP). METHODS: Electronic searches of PubMed and Web of Science were carried out. Articles were selected if they contained original data on DIP outcomes in Indigenous Australians. There were no specific exclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of eight articles, predominantly from Queensland and Western Australia were identified once inclusion criteria were applied. Birth data from midwifery registries or paper charts encompassing years 1985-2008 were used. A total of 465591 pregnant women with and without DIP were included in the eight studies, with 1363 being Indigenous women with DIP. Indigenous Australians experienced increased rates of many known adverse outcomes of DIP including: macrosomia, caesarean section, congenital deformities, low birth weight, hypoglycaemia, and neonatal trauma. There were regional differences among Indigenous Australians, particularly regional/remote vs metropolitan populations where the regional/remote data showed worse outcomes. Two of the articles did not note a difference between Aboriginals and Caucasians in the rates of measured adverse outcome. Studies varied significantly in size, measured outcomes, and subsequent analysis. CONCLUSION: The health disparities between Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians are further evidenced by poorer outcomes in DIP. This has broader implications for Indigenous health in general.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available