Analysis of risk factors and construction of a predictive model for macrosomia in deliveries with gestational diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes, a frequent pregnancy complication marked by elevated maternal blood glucose, can cause serious adverse effects for both mother and fetus, including increased amniotic fluid and risks of fetal asphyxia, hypoxia, and premature birth. OBJECTIVE: To construct a predictive model to analyze the risk factors for macrosomia in deliveries with gestational diabetes. METHODS: From January 2021 to February 2023, 362 pregnant women with gestational diabetes were selected for the study. They were followed up until delivery. Based on newborn birth weight, the participants were divided into the macrosomia group (birth weight ⩾ 4000 g) and the non-macrosomia group (birth weight < 4000 g). The data of the two groups of pregnant women were compared. ROC curves were plotted to analyze the predictive value of multiple factors for the delivery of macrosomic infants among pregnant women with gestational diabetes. A logistic regression model was constructed to identify the risk factors for delivering macrosomic infants and the model was tested. RESULTS: A total of 362 pregnant women with gestational diabetes were included, of which 58 (16.02%) had babies with macrosomia. The macrosomia group exhibited higher metrics in several areas compared to those without: pre-pregnancy BMI, fasting glucose, 1 h and 2 h OGTT sugar levels, weight gain during pregnancy, and levels of triglycerides, LDL-C, and HDL-C, all with significant differences (P< 0.05). ROC analysis revealed predictive value for macrosomia with AUCs of 0.761 (pre-pregnancy BMI), 0.710 (fasting glucose), 0.671 (1 h OGTT), 0.634 (2 h OGTT), 0.850 (weight gain), 0.837 (triglycerides), 0.742 (LDL-C), and 0.776 (HDL-C), indicating statistical significance (P< 0.05). Logistic regression identified high pre-pregnancy BMI, fasting glucose, weight gain, triglycerides, and LDL-C levels as independent risk factors for macrosomia, with odds ratios of 2.448, 2.730, 1.884, 16.919, and 5.667, respectively, and all were statistically significant (P< 0.05). The model's AUC of 0.980 (P< 0.05) attests to its reliability and stability. CONCLUSION: The delivery of macrosomic infants in gestational diabetes may be related to factors such as body mass index before pregnancy, blood-glucose levels, gain weight during pregnancy, and lipid levels. Clinical interventions targeting these factors should be implemented to reduce the incidence of macrosomia.

The diabetes insulin self-management education (DIME) intervention for people with type 2 diabetes starting insulin: a pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and acceptability of a diabetes insulin self-management education (DIME) group intervention for people with type 2 diabetes starting insulin. DESIGN: Single-centre parallel randomised pilot trial. SETTING: Primary care, South London, UK. SUBJECTS: Adults with type 2 diabetes, requiring insulin treatment, on maximum tolerated dose of 2 or more oral antidiabetic drugs with HbA1c > / = 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) on 2 occasions. We excluded people who were non-fluent in English; morbid obesity (BMI > / = 35 kg/m2); in employment that contraindicates insulin treatment; and those with severe depression, anxiety disorders, psychotic disorders, personality disorders, or cognitive impairment. METHODS: Participants were randomised using blocks of 2 or 4 to 3, 2-h group, face-to-face, DIME sessions or standard insulin group education sessions (control). We assessed feasibility according to consent to randomisation and attendance at intervention (DIME) and standard group insulin education sessions. Acceptability of the interventions was determined using exit interviews. We additionally measured change in self-reported insulin beliefs, diabetes distress and depressive symptoms between baseline and 6-month post-randomisation. RESULTS: There were 28 potentially eligible participants, of which 17 consented to randomisation, 9 were allocated to the DIME group intervention and 8 were allocated to the standard group insulin education. Three people withdrew from the study (1 from DIME and 2 from standard insulin education) before the start of the first session and did not complete baseline questionnaires. Of the remaining participants (n = 14), all DIME participants (n = 8) completed all 3 sessions, and all standard insulin education participants (n = 6) completed at least 1 standard insulin education session. The median group size was 2, the mean age of participants was 57.57 (SD 6.45) years, and 64% were female (n = 9). Exit interviews demonstrated that all participants (n = 7) found the group sessions acceptable, and thematic analysis of interview transcripts indicated social support, the content of group sessions and post-group experiences were positive, especially amongst DIME participants. There was improvement on self-report questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The DIME intervention was acceptable and feasible to deliver to participants with type 2 diabetes starting insulin in South London, UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Study Registration Clinical Trial Network (ISRCTN registration number 13339678).

Systematic review and meta-analysis of diabetes specialist delivered insulin education for adults with type 2 diabetes in outpatient settings.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of insulin education for people with type 2 diabetes to assess its effectiveness in improving glycaemic levels. METHODS: We searched the following online databases from the earliest record to 17 February 2020: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of science, Cochrane Library and https://clinicaltrials.gov. Data was extracted on publication status, participants' characteristics at baseline, intervention and control group, study design, and data for primary and secondary outcomes, change in HbA1c(%), change in weight (Kilogram). The review was registered with international prospective register of systematic reviews registration (PROSPERO):CRD42020167769. RESULTS: Eighteen papers were included in the systematic review. In the meta-analysis there was a small statistically significant improvement in HbA1c (0.39% points/4.4 mmol/mol reduction) in the insulin education group compared to control conditions (N = 10 studies, n = 3307 participants, SMD = -0.22, 95% CI = -0.34, -0.10, I2 = 66% p = 0.002). There was a small non-significant increase in weight (0.54 Kg) in the insulin education group compared to control conditions (N = 6 studies, n = 470 participants, SMD = 0.03, 95% CI = -0.10, 0.17, I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.82). Quality of evidence was rated low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced insulin education delivered by diabetes specialists is potentially more effective than standard care. Further research is required to reach robust conclusions.

Breastfeeding competency scale (BCS); development and validation of an evaluation instrument on breastfeeding competency in third trimester pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding plays an important role in the early stages of humans and throughout the development process. Breastfeeding competency is a self-assessment of pregnant women's overall competency to breastfeeding which could predict the breastfeeding behaviours of pregnant women. However, a valid and reliable scale for assessing breastfeeding competency has not yet been developed and validated. This study was conducted to develop and validate an assessment scale designed to assess pregnant women's breastfeeding competency in the third trimester: the Breastfeeding Competency Scale (BCS). METHODS: The BCS was developed and validated over three phases between September 2018 and September 2019, and these phases included item statistical analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), content validation, internal consistency assessment, split-half reliability assessment and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). RESULTS: The item statistical analysis and EFA resulted in 38 items and 4 factors that explained 66.489% of the total variance. The Cronbach's α coefficients for the total scale and the 4 factors were 0.970, 0.960, 0.940, 0.822 and 0.931. The split-half reliability of the BCS was 0.894 and 0.890. CFA model showed that the 4-factor model fits the data well. CONCLUSIONS: The BCS is a new valid and reliable instrument for assessing the breastfeeding competency of pregnant women in the third trimester.