Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39913176›Full record

ReviewInteractive journal of medical research2025

Process Evaluations of Interventions for the Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes in Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review.

Iklil Iman Mohd Sa'id, Natasha Hotung, Madeleine Benton, Iliatha Papachristou Nadal, Anisah Baharom, Matthew Prina, Barakatun Nisak Mohd Yusof, Kimberley Goldsmith, Samantha Birts, Ching Siew Mooi and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Interactive journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Iklil Iman Mohd Sa'id *Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7330-9397
Natasha Hotung *Department of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5261-8809
Madeleine BentonDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0779-6334
Iliatha Papachristou NadalDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2991-2578
Anisah BaharomDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2590-4869
Matthew PrinaNewcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6698-3263
Barakatun Nisak Mohd YusofDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0403-5895
Kimberley GoldsmithDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0620-7868
Samantha BirtsDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8481-7939
Ching Siew MooiDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4425-7989
Angus ForbesDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3331-755X
Khalida IsmailDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6084-449X
Boon How ChewDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8627-6248

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is characterized by hyperglycemia in pregnancy and typically resolves after birth. Women with GDM have an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) later in life compared to those with normoglycemic pregnancy. While diabetes prevention interventions (DPIs) have been developed to delay or prevent the onset of T2DM, few studies have provided process evaluation (PE) data to assess the mechanisms of impact, quality of implementation, or contextual factors that may influence the effectiveness of the intervention.

objectiveThis study aims to identify and evaluate PE data and how these link to outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of T2DM prevention interventions for women with GDM.

methodsA systematic review was conducted to identify studies published from 2005 to 2020 aiming to capture the most recent DPIs. Five electronic bibliographic databases (Cochrane Library, Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials, Embase, PubMed, and MEDLINE) were searched to identify relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were published (peer-reviewed) RCTs of DPIs in women with a current diagnosis or history of GDM. Exclusion criteria were studies not published in English; studies where the target population was women who had a family history of T2D or women who were menopausal or postmenopausal; and gray literature, including abstracts in conference proceedings. The Medical Research Council's PE framework of complex interventions was used to identify key PE components. The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of included studies.

resultsA total of 24 studies were included; however, only 5 studies explicitly reported a PE theoretical framework. The studies involved 3 methods of intervention delivery, including in person (n=7), digital (n=7), and hybrid (n=9). Two of the studies conducted pilot RCTs assessing the feasibility and acceptability of their interventions, including recruitment, participation, retention, program implementation, adherence, and satisfaction, and 1 study assessed the efficacy of a questionnaire to promote food and vegetable intake. While most studies linked PE data with study outcomes, it was unclear which of the reported PE components were specifically linked to the positive outcomes.

conclusionsWhile the Medical Research Council's framework is a valuable source for conducting systematic reviews on PEs, it has been criticized for lacking practical advice on how to conduct them. The lack of information on PE frameworks in our review also made it difficult to categorize individual PE components against the framework. We need clearer guidance and robust frameworks for conducting PEs for the development and reporting of DPIs for women with GDM.

trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020208212; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=208212. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211034010.

Indexed as

complex interventionsgestational diabetes mellitusimplementationprocess evaluationrandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID39913176
PMCPMC11843062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.