Adherence to Dietary Guidelines among Women with and without Gestational Diabetes: Evidence from the Growing up in New Zealand Study.

Diet is thought to play a role in the development and management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Dietary guidelines provide practical recommendations for achieving nutrient requirements and mitigating the risk of chronic disease. The aim of this study was to describe the adherence to dietary guidelines by women with and without GDM and determine whether adherence is associated with the development of GDM. Adherence to Ministry of Health food group recommendations was assessed in 5391 pregnant women participating in the Growing Up in New Zealand study. A food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) administered during pregnancy provided dietary data. The presence of GDM was determined using diagnostic coding in clinical data and blood glucose results. A quarter of women did not meet any food group recommendations. There were no significant differences in the number of food group targets met by women with or those without GDM. Meeting food group recommendations was not associated with odds of having GDM in adjusted analyses. This study found adherence to dietary recommendations is poor in both women with and without GDM and no association between adherence to food group recommendations and the development of GDM. Greater support is required to assist women to achieve food and nutrition recommendations.

Dietary Patterns and Dietary Adaptations in Women with and without Gestational Diabetes: Evidence from the Growing Up in New Zealand Study.

Diet is a cornerstone of the management of gestational diabetes (GDM). We investigated differences in dietary patterns and dietary adaptations among pregnant women with and without GDM participating in the Growing Up in New Zealand study. Presence of GDM was determined using coded clinical data and plasma glucose results meeting the New Zealand Society for the Study of Diabetes diagnostic criteria. Women answered a food frequency questionnaire and questions regarding dietary changes and information received during pregnancy. Women with GDM had lower adherence scores than those without GDM for 'Junk' (mean (SD) score -0.28 (0.95) versus 0.02 (1.01) p < 0.0005) and 'Traditional/White bread' dietary patterns (-0.18 (0.93) versus 0.01 (1.01) p = 0.002). More women with GDM reported avoiding foods high in fat or sugar (25.3% versus 5.7%, p < 0.05) compared to women without GDM. A greater proportion of women with GDM compared with those without GDM received information from dietitians or nutritionists (27.0% versus 1.7%, p < 0.05) or obstetricians (12.6% versus 7.5%, p < 0.05). More women diagnosed before the antenatal interview received advice from dietitians or nutritionists compared with those diagnosed after (46.9% versus 6.0%, p < 0.05). Women with GDM appear to make positive changes to their diet in response to advice received from health care professionals.

Prevalence of gestational diabetes according to commonly used data sources: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: It is well recognized that prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) varies depending on the population studied and the diagnostic criteria used. The data source used also can lead to substantial differences in the reporting of GDM prevalence but is considered less frequently. Accurate estimation of GDM prevalence is important for service planning and evaluation, policy development, and research. We aimed to determine the prevalence of GDM in a cohort of New Zealand women using a variety of data sources and to evaluate the agreement between different data sources. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Growing Up in New Zealand Study, consisting of a cohort of 6822 pregnant women residing in a geographical area defined by three regional health boards in New Zealand. Prevalence of GDM was estimated using four commonly used data sources. Coded clinical data on diabetes status were collected from regional health boards and the Ministry of Health's National Minimum Dataset, plasma glucose results were collected from laboratories servicing the recruitment catchment area and coded according to the New Zealand Society for the Study of Diabetes diagnostic criteria, and self-reported diabetes status collected via interview administered questionnaires. Agreement between data sources was calculated using the proportion of agreement with 95% confidence intervals for both a positive and negative diagnosis of GDM. RESULTS: Prevalence of GDM combining data from all sources in the Growing Up in New Zealand cohort was 6.2%. Estimates varied from 3.8 to 6.9% depending on the data source. The proportion of agreement between data sources for presence of GDM was 0.70 (95% CI 0.65, 0.75). A third of women who had a diagnosis of GDM according to medical data reported having no diabetes in interview administered questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of GDM varies considerably depending on the data source used. Health services need to be aware of this and to understand the limitations of local data sources to ensure service planning and evaluation, policy development and research are appropriate for the local prevalence. Improved communication of the diagnosis may assist women's self-management of GDM.

Dietetic management of gestational diabetes in New Zealand: A cross-sectional survey.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate dietetic practice in the management of gestational diabetes in New Zealand, compare this with evidence-based guidelines and determine the need for New Zealand-specific evidence-based nutrition practice guidelines for gestational diabetes. METHODS: A 64-item cross-sectional online survey of New Zealand-registered dietitians providing care to women with gestational diabetes was undertaken. Participants were recruited through Dietitians New Zealand, District Health Boards and private practices across New Zealand. The survey examined dietetic service provision, management recommendations, guideline use, service evaluation, compliance with national and international guidelines and the perceived need for New Zealand-specific evidence-based guidelines for the nutritional management of gestational diabetes. RESULTS: Thirty-three (62%) eligible dietitians participated in the survey. There was significant variation in dietetic services and management recommendations. Nine (28%) dietitians felt the service within which they worked did not offer adequate dietetic services for women with gestational diabetes. Compliance with national and international evidence-based guidelines ranged from 28 to 100% depending on the recommendation. Twenty-five (76%) respondents felt there was a need for New Zealand-specific evidence-based nutrition practice guidelines for gestational diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight differences in dietetic services and practice in New Zealand and variations in compliance with local and international evidence-based guidelines. The development of New Zealand-specific evidence-based nutrition practice guidelines for gestational diabetes is supported.