4.7 Article

A comparison of rates, risk factors, and outcomes of gestational diabetes between aboriginal and non-aboriginal women in the Saskatoon Health District

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 487-493

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.25.3.487

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective-To determine possible differences in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in the Saskatoon Health District. Research Design and Methods-This was a prospective survey of all women admitted for childbirth to the Saskatoon Royal University Hospital between January and July 1998. We compared prevalence rates, risk factors, and outcomes of GDM between aboriginal and non-aboriginal women. Results-Information was obtained from 2,006 women, of whom 252 aboriginal and 1,360 non-aboriginal subjects had been test for GDM. The overall rates of GDM were 3.5% for women in the general population and 11.5% for aboriginal. For those living within the Saskatoon Health District, GDM rates were 3.7 and 6.4%, respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that aboriginal ethnicity, most notable when combined with obesity, was an independent predictor for GDM. Pregravid BMI greater than or equal to27 kg/m(2) and maternal age greater than or equal to33 years were the most important risk factors for GDM in aboriginal women, whereas previous GDM, family history of diabetes, and maternal age greater than or equal to38 years were the strongest predictors for GDM in non-aboriginal women. Conclusions-There may be fundamental differences in GDM between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. Because GDM contributes to an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in aboriginal women and their offspring, the impact of prevention and optimal treatment of GDM on the type 2 diabetes epidemic in susceptible populations are important areas for further investigation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available