3.8 Article

Prevalence and risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus in a population of pregnant women attending three health facilities in Limbe, Cameroon: a cross-sectional study

期刊

PAN AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 31, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

AFRICAN FIELD EPIDEMIOLOGY NETWORK-AFENET
DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2018.31.195.17177

关键词

Gestational diabetes mellitus; IADPSG; macrosomia; oral glucose tolerance test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: There are few studies regarding gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in the South West Region of Cameroon. We aimed at determining the prevalence and risk factors of GDM in three health facilities in the Limbe health district, Cameroon. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out in one secondary, and two primary healthcare facilities in Limbe, Cameroon during the period 1st November 2016 to 31st January 2017. We administered a pretested questionnaire on 200 consenting pregnant women at 24-28 weeks' gestation. We carried out a 2- hr oral glucose tolerance test after fasting overnight. GDM was diagnosed when plasma glucose (PG) test result was abnormal according to the IADPSG criteria (FPG >= 92 mg/dL, PG 1-hr 180mg/L, PG 2-hr 153 mg/dL). Data analysis was with Epi-Info (TM) version 3.5.4. Associations were analyzed with the Pearson's chi squared and Fischer's exact test where appropriate. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: The prevalence of GDM was 20.5% and respondents' mean age was 27.8 (SD 5.7) years. Majority, 13.5% participants had abnormal FPG alone, while 3.5% had any two abnormal values. GDM was associated with: advanced maternal age (OR 3.4: 95% CI 1.7-7.0; P<0.001), BMI >= 30 kg/m(2) (OR 6.2 : 95% CI 2.9-13.1, P<0.001), past history of unexplained stillbirth (OR 5.7: 95% CI 2.5-12.9, P<0.001) and history of macrosomia (OR 8.5:95% CI 3.8-19, P<0.001). Conclusion: With the high prevalence of GDM, identification of its associated factors has the potential to be a target of intervention to prevent poor obstetrical outcomes.

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

3.8
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