Geospatial analysis of food environment demonstrates associations with gestational diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is one of most common complications of pregnancy, with incidence rates varying by maternal age, race/ethnicity, obesity, parity, and family history. Given its increasing prevalence in recent decades, covariant environmental and sociodemographic factors may be additional determinants of GDM occurrence. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that environmental risk factors, in particular measures of the food environment, may be a diabetes contributor. We employed geospatial modeling in a populous US county to characterize the association of the relative availability of fast food restaurants and supermarkets to GDM. STUDY DESIGN: Utilizing a perinatal database with >4900 encoded antenatal and outcome variables inclusive of ZIP code data, 8912 consecutive pregnancies were analyzed for correlations between GDM and food environment based on countywide food permit registration data. Linkage between pregnancies and food environment was achieved on the basis of validated 5-digit ZIP code data. The prevalence of supermarkets and fast food restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants for each ZIP code were gathered from publicly available food permit sources. To independently authenticate our findings with objective data, we measured hemoglobin A1c levels as a function of geospatial distribution of food environment in a matched subset (n = 80). RESULTS: Residence in neighborhoods with a high prevalence of fast food restaurants (fourth quartile) was significantly associated with an increased risk of developing GDM (relative to first quartile: adjusted odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.19). In multivariate analysis, this association held true after controlling for potential confounders (P = .002). Measurement of hemoglobin A1c levels in a matched subset were significantly increased in association with residence in a ZIP code with a higher fast food/supermarket ratio (n = 80, r = 0.251 P < .05). CONCLUSION: As demonstrated by geospatial analysis, a relationship of food environment and risk for gestational diabetes was identified.

A qualitative assessment of the perceived risks of electronic cigarette and hookah use in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Studies reveal that electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) and hookah use are increasing among adolescents and young adults. However, the long-term health effects are unknown, especially with regards to pregnancy. Because of the increased use in women of reproductive age, and the unknown long-term health risks, our primary objectives were to determine the perceived risks of e-cigarette and hookah use in pregnancy, and learn common colloquial terms associated with e-cigarettes. Furthermore, we sought to determine if there is a stigma associated with e-cigarette use in pregnancy. METHODS: Eleven focus groups including 87 participants were conducted immediately following regularly scheduled CenteringPregnancy® prenatal care with women at three different clinics in the greater Houston area. A minimum of two facilitators led the groups, using ten lead-in prompts, with Spanish translation as necessary. Facilitators took notes which were compared immediately following each group discussion and each group was audio recorded and transcribed. Three facilitators utilized NVivo 9.0 software to organize the transcribed data into nodes to identify major themes. To increase rigor, transcripts were further analyzed by two obstetricians who were instructed to find the major themes. RESULTS: Analyses revealed contradicting themes concerning e-cigarette use. In general, e-cigarettes were perceived as safer alternatives to regular tobacco cigarettes, especially if used as smoking cessation devices. A major theme is that use in pregnancy is harmful to the fetus. However, it was perceived that use for smoking cessation in pregnancy may have fewer side effects. We found that a common term for e-cigarettes is "Blu." In our discussion of hookah use, participants perceived use as popular among teenagers and that use in pregnancy is dangerous for the fetus. CONCLUSIONS: Although a strong theme emerged against hookah use, we found contradicting themes in our discussions on e-cigarette use in pregnancy. It is possible that e-cigarette use will not carry the same stigma as regular cigarette smoking in pregnancy. In addition, the impression of e-cigarettes as a healthier alternative to smoking may influence use in pregnancy. Clinicians need to be prepared for questions of e-cigarette safety and efficacy as smoking cessation devices from their pregnant patients who smoke, and women who smoke and are planning to become pregnant.