Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus among women attending antenatal care at public health centers in Rwanda.

AIM: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) among women attending public health centers in Rwanda using the World Health Organization (WHO) 2013 diagnostic criteria. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was performed on 281 pregnant women attending antenatal care at urban and rural public health centers. Diagnostic testing was performed between 24 and 32 weeks gestation using a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test. Venous plasma glucose was centrifuged within one hour and measured at one of two laboratories. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: GDM prevalence was 3.2%, (4.28% urban and 2.13% rural). Women diagnosed with GDM were older, had higher BMI, hypertension, and glycosuria of ≥2+. None with HIV (14/281) had GDM. All women reported birth outcomes. All women with GDM (9/281) had normal glucose values postpartum and therefore it is unlikely that any women had overt diabetes. CONCLUSION: This study adds important information about the GDM prevalence in Rwanda, which is a resource-limited country. Although the prevalence of 3.2% was low, significant risk factors for GDM were identified. We anticipate that the risk factors for developing GDM will increase in the near future, similar to the global trend of obesity and diabetes, necessitating continued research and education in this important condition that carries a double burden of disease to both mothers and infants.

Maternal influenza vaccination: evaluation of a patient-centered pamphlet designed to increase uptake in pregnancy.

We developed and tested a theoretically-based pamphlet entitled 'Influenza in Pregnancy,' specifically designed to increase pregnant women's knowledge, reduce barriers to maternal vaccination, and subsequently improve vaccine uptake. A randomized control trial was conducted on pregnant women (n = 135) at three locations in Connecticut during the 2011-2012 season to evaluate the impact of the patient-centered pamphlet. The women were randomized to one of three groups: the pamphlet; pamphlet/benefit statement (vaccinating the pregnant woman also benefits the young infant); or control. A Chi square analysis compared the intervention with control using the primary outcome of vaccination. A secondary outcome of the perceptions of health beliefs of maternal vaccination were measured through General Linear Model/ANOVA model for repeated measures. Overall 66.9% (89/133) were vaccinated. Both the pamphlet group 72.9% (35/48) (χ² = 6.81, df = 1 p = .009), and the pamphlet/benefit statement group 86.1% (31/36) (χ² = 13.74, df = 1, p < .001), had significantly higher vaccine uptake than the control group 46.9% (23/49). The potential barrier, perception of vaccine safety (F = 4.973, df = 2, p < .01), and benefit of vaccination to mother and infant (F = 6.690, df = 2, p < .01) significantly improved for the intervention groups compared to control group. The pamphlet significantly increased the pregnant women's perceptions of the safety and benefit of the vaccine, and the overall uptake.

Reasons why women accept or reject the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) during pregnancy.

The aim of the study was to gain an in-depth understanding of the reasons why pregnant women accept or reject the seasonal influenza vaccine. The qualitative descriptive design used a face-to-face semi-structured interview format. Sixty pregnant and postpartum women at two hospitals in the Northeastern United States participated. Content analysis was the inductive method used to code the data and identify emergent themes. Six themes emerged from the data: differing degrees of influence affect action to vaccinate; two-for-one benefit is a pivotal piece of knowledge that influences future vaccination; fear if I do (vaccinate), fear if I don't; women who verbalize 'no need' for the vaccine also fear the vaccine; a conveniently located venue for vaccination reduces barriers to uptake; H1N1-a benefit and barrier to the seasonal vaccine. Our study supports previous findings and reveals a deeper understanding and interpretation of the behavior and decision-making to accept or reject the influenza vaccine. Understanding the reasons behind the behavior of vaccine rejection gives us the chance to change it.