The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1657-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is an increasingly common condition of pregnancy. It is associated with adverse fetal, infant and maternal outcomes, as well as an increased risk of GDM in future pregnancies and type 2 diabetes for both mother and offspring. Previous studies have shown that GDM can result in an emotionally distressing pregnancy, but there is little research on the patient experience of GDM care, especially of a demographically diverse UK population. The aim of this research was to explore the experiences of GDM and GDM care for a group of women attending a large diabetes pregnancy unit in southeast London, UK, in order to improve care.
Framework analysis was used to support an integrated analysis of data from six focus groups with 35 women and semi-structured interviews with 15 women, held in 2015. Participants were purposively sampled and were representative of the population being studied in terms of ethnicity, age, deprivation score and body mass index (BMI).
We identified seven themes: the disrupted pregnancy, projected anxiety, reproductive asceticism, women as baby machines, perceived stigma, lack of shared understanding and postpartum abandonment. These themes highlight the often distressing experience of GDM. While most women were grateful for the intensive support they received during pregnancy, the costs to their personal autonomy were high. Women described feeling valued solely as a means to produce a healthy infant, and felt chastised if they failed to adhere to the behaviours required to achieve this. This sometimes had an enduring impact to the potential detriment of women’s long-term psychological and physical health.
This study reveals the experiences of a demographically diverse group of patients with GDM, reflecting findings from previous studies globally and extending analysis to the context of improving care. Healthcare delivery may need to be reoriented to improve the pregnancy experience and help ensure women are engaged and attentive to their own health, particularly after birth, without compromising clinical pregnancy outcomes. Areas for consideration in GDM healthcare include: improved management of emotional responses to GDM; a more motivational approach; rethinking the medicalisation of care; and improved postpartum care.
Additional file 1: This file is the topic guide used by the researchers for the interviews and focus groups. (DOCX 25 kb)12884_2018_1657_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Diabetes UK: Diabetes: facts and Stats. www.diabetes-resources-production.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/diabetes-storage/migration/pdf/DiabetesUK_Facts_Stats_Oct16.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2018.
HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2008;2008(358):1991–2002.
Dabelea D, Knowler WC, Pettitt DJ. Effect of diabetes in pregnancy on offspring: follow-up research in the pima Indians. J Matern Fetal Med. 2000;9(1):83–8. PubMed
Hughes C. Empowerment: challenges during pregnancy. J Diabetes Nurs. 2007;11(8):288–94.
Leung AS, Garrett KY, Zheng SZ, Smith LA. Experience with patients with gestational diabetes established by the international association of the diabetes and pregnancy study groups. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:66S. CrossRef
Carey M. The group effect in focus groups: planning, implementing, and. Crit Issues Qual Res Methods. 1994;225.
Kitzinger J. The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Illn. 1994;16(1):103–21. CrossRef
Morgan DL. Focus groups. Annu Rev Sociol. 1996;22(1):129–52. CrossRef
Stokes D, Bergin R. Methodology or “methodolatry”? An evaluation of focus groups and depth interviews. Qual Mark Res Int J. 2006;9(1):26–37. CrossRef
World Health Organization Diagnostic criteria and classification of hyperglycaemia first detected in pregnancy. WHO/NMH/MND/13.2 2013 WHO Geneva. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/85975/1/WHO_NMH_MND_13.2_eng.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 9 Jan 2018.
Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med. 2002;2002(346):393–403.
Silverman D. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: SAGE Publications Limited; 2013.
Krueger RA, Casey MA. Designing and conducting focus group interviews. Soc Anal Selected Tools Tech. 2002;4(23):4–24.
Rubin HJ, Rubin IS. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Limited; 2011.
Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. Qual Res Companion. 2002;573(2002):305–29.
Ward DJ, Furber C, Tierney S, Swallow V. Using framework analysis in nursing research: a worked example. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(11):2423–31. PubMed
Ritchie J, Lewis J, Nicholls CM, Ormston R. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London: SAGE Publications Limited; 2013.
Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: Helping people change. New York: Guilford press; 2012.
Figueroa Gray M, Hsu C, Kiel L, Dublin S. “It’s a Very Big Burden on Me”: Women’s Experiences Using Insulin for Gestational Diabetes. Matern Child Health J. 2017;(8):1678–685.
Poston L, Bell R, Croker H, Flynn AC, Godfrey KM, Goff L, Hayes L, Khazaezadeh N, Nelson SM, Oteng-Ntim E. Effect of a behavioural intervention in obese pregnant women (the UPBEAT study): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diab Endocrinol. 2015;3(10):767–77. CrossRef
Kübler-Ross E. On death and dying: What the dying have to teach doctors, nurses, clergy and their own families. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd; 2009.
Berg M, Hotikasalo M-L. Pregnancy and diabetes-a hermeneutic phenomenological study of women's experiences. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2000;21(1):39–48. CrossRef
Lupton D. ‘Precious cargo’: Foetal subjects, risk and reproductive citizenship. Crit Public Health. 2012;22(3):329–40. CrossRef
Petchesky RP. Fetal images: the power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction. Fem Stud. 1987;13(2):263–92. CrossRef
Ettorre E. A critical look at the new genetics: conceptualizing the links between reproduction, gender and bodies. Crit Public Health. 2002;12(3):237–50. CrossRef
Opdenakker R. Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2006. http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewArticle/175/391&sa=U&ei=FdsJTdDCGYOnrAer0YjVDg&ved=0CP4BEBYwXg&usg=AFQjCNEsC2J0wILvNuH7LEhQaA2znBkKvw. Accessed 9 Jan 2018.
Sturges JE, Hanrahan KJ. Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: a research note. Qual Res. 2004;4(1):107–18. CrossRef
- Experiences of gestational diabetes and gestational diabetes care: a focus group and interview study
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet
Mail Icon II