4.5 Article

Factors associated with attendance for pre-pregnancy care and reasons for non-attendance among women with diabetes

期刊

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 142, 期 -, 页码 269-275

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2018.05.030

关键词

Diabetes in pregnancy; Pre-pregnancy care; Type 1 diabetes; Type 2 diabetes; Women's health

资金

  1. National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS), an initiative of the Australia Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To describe factors associated with the uptake of diabetes-specific pre-pregnancy care (PPC), determine the perceived helpfulness of attending, reasons for non-attendance and intention to seek PPC in the future. Methods: A cross-sectional 66-item survey was administered to Australian women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) aged 18-50 years. Results: Of 429 eligible women, 54% reported having attended PPC. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, having Type 1 DM [adjusted OR 1.89, 95% CI (1.07, 3.33)], being married or in a defacto relationship [OR 2.43 (95% CI 1.27, 4.65)], tertiary educated [OR 1.91 (95% CI 1.27, 2.88)] or employed [OR 1.80 (95% CI 1.14, 2.82)] were associated with being more likely to attend PPC. Sixty eight percent (68%) rated attending PPC as helpful. A lack of awareness about the availability of PPC (48%) and unplanned pregnancy (47%) were the main reasons for non-attendance. Of women with future pregnancy plans, 43% were aware of local services offering PPC and 84% indicated they would attend PPC if available. Conclusion: Australian women who attend PPC differ by type of diabetes and socioeconomic characteristics. Initiatives are needed to address this disparity and encourage all women with diabetes to plan and prepare for pregnancy. Reasons reported for non-attendance suggest that strategies to increase awareness about the availability of diabetes-specific PPC and the risks of unplanned pregnancy are warranted. Crown Copyright (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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