ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2016
Sources of information on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus, satisfaction with diagnostic process and information provision.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diabetes-related information-seeking behaviour: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Quality of information in gestational diabetes mellitus videos on TikTok: Cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2025Article
- A Social-Ecological Model Exploring Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Screening Practices Among Antenatal Health Care Providers.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2024Article
- 'No matter what time of day': The value of joining Facebook groups supporting women's self-management of gestational diabetes mellitus.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Current status of electronic health literacy among pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their perceptions of online health information: a mixed-methods study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- I got frightened and felt strange. I even cried a lot after the diagnosis; the experiences on the screening and management of gestational diabetes mellitus among diagnosed women.BMC research notes · 2023Article
- A scoping review of gestational diabetes mellitus healthcare: experiences of care reported by pregnant women internationally.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Disparity and Factors Associated With Internet Health Information Seeking Among US Adults Living With Diabetes Mellitus: Cross-sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Content Quality of YouTube Videos About Gestational Diabetes: Systematic Evaluation.JMIR diabetes · 2022Article
- Article
- Assessment of Psychological Dimensions in Telemedicine Care for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review of Qualitative and Quantitative Studies.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to investigate the percentage of the needs and expectations of pregnant women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) about the best sources of information on GDM, their satisfaction with the diagnostic process and information provision.
methodsQuestionnaires were completed by 116 pregnant women aged 18-45 years, diagnosed with GDM and recruited from maternity diabetes clinic. Eligible women were invited to participate in the study and informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to enrolment. Descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis test, t-test and chi-square test were used to analyse data.
resultsMost women (64.2 %) expected general practitioners (GPs) to be the best source of GDM information, following by diabetes educator nurses (45.9 %), diabetes support groups (33.9 %) and internet (32.1 %). However, women found that diabetes educator nurses were more helpful than GPs (32.6 and 20.2 %, respectively). Participants' age and country of birth were statistically significant. For women aged over 30 years and women born overseas the internet was the most useful information source (68.9 and 77.1 % respectively). Overall, women were very satisfied (33.0 %) or satisfied (45.0 %) with how they were informed of the GDM diagnosis, although 26.0 % were informed by telephone and 16.0 % by text message. More than one-third (39.0 %) of women were not referred to sources of information by GPs at time of diagnosis of GDM (p <0.0001). Women who were referred reported that they were very satisfied (40.0 %) or satisfied (44.0 %) with information they received. Only 8.0 % of women reported dissatisfaction with the manner of health professionals.
conclusionThe results suggest that health professionals should be aware of the needs and expectations of women who have been diagnosed with GDM, with most women expecting to receive information on GDM from their GPs and diabetes educator nurses. The findings suggest that there is scope for improving how women are informed of the GDM diagnosis and given information, and in clinicians' manner.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.