4.6 Article

Results of the first recorded evaluation of a national gestational diabetes mellitus register: Challenges in screening, registration, and follow-up for diabetes risk

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200832

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council [533956]
  2. NHMRC
  3. Victorian Department of Health
  4. SA Health
  5. Diabetes Victoria Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) increases the risk of type 2 diabetes. A register can be used to follow-up high risk women for early intervention to prevent progression to type 2 diabetes. We evaluate the performance of the world's first national gestational diabetes register. Research design and methods Observational study that used data linkage to merge: (1) pathology data from the Australian states of Victoria (VIC) and South Australia (SA); (2) birth records from the Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity (CCOPMM, VIC) and the South Australian Perinatal Statistics Collection (SAPSC, SA); (3) GDM and type 2 diabetes register data from the National Gestational Diabetes Register (NGDR). All pregnancies registered on CCOPMM and SAPSC for 2012 and 2013 were included-other data back to 2008 were used to support the analyses. Rates of screening for GDM, rates of registration on the NGDR, and rates of follow-up laboratory screening for type 2 diabetes are reported. Results Estimated GDM screening rates were 86% in SA and 97% in VIC. Rates of registration on the NGDR ranged from 73% in SA (2013) to 91% in VIC (2013). During the study period rates of screening at six weeks postpartum ranged from 43% in SA (2012) to 58% in VIC (2013). There was little evidence of recall letters resulting in screening 12 months follow-up. Conclusions GDM Screening and NGDR registration was effective in Australia. Recall by mail-out to young mothers and their GP's for type 2 diabetes follow-up testing proved ineffective.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据