ArticleFamily practice2022
Implementing primary care diabetes prevention for women with previous gestational diabetes: a mixed-methods study.
Article in Family practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving Proactive Primary Health Care After Gestational Diabetes: Protocol for Implementation and Evaluation of a Quality Improvement Collaborative Program in General Practice (GooD4Mum) and Baseline Practice Characteristics.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- "To be honest, no one cares": an ethnographic study of postpartum perceptions and practices after gestational diabetes in Vietnam.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Implementing care for women with gestational diabetes after delivery-the challenges ahead.Frontiers in global women's health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe implementation of diabetes prevention for women with previous gestational diabetes (GDM) has been stymied by many barriers that are located within routine general practice (GP). We aimed to unpack the GP factors and understand the mechanisms that explain why a diabetes prevention intervention for this population succeeds or fails.
methodsWe performed a mixed-methods study with a Normalization Process Theory framework that included clinical audits, semistructured interviews, and focus groups within mixed urban and rural primary care practices in Victoria, Australia. Staff of primary care practices and external support staff who provide services to women with previous GDM participated in a 12-month quality improvement collaborative intervention. We compared diabetes screening and prevention activity planning with the strategies and factors identified through a process evaluation of full-, moderate-, and low-active participating practices.
resultsThe intervention doubled screening rates (26%-61%) and 1-in-10 women received a diabetes prevention planning consultation. Critical improvement factors were: mothers being seen as participants in the quality improvement work; staff collectively building care strategies; staff taking a long-term care of a community perspective rather than episodic service delivery; and feedback processes being provided and acted on across the practice. The observable factors from the external perspective were: leadership by identified practice staff, reminder systems in action and practice staff driving the process collectively.
conclusionsSuccessful engagement in diabetes prevention for women with previous GDM requires proactive building of the critical improvement factors and audit feedback into routine GP.
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.