PloS one · 2018
Results of the first recorded evaluation of a national gestational diabetes mellitus register: Challenges in screening, registration, and follow-up for diabetes risk.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Boyle Douglas I R, Versace Vincent L, Dunbar James A, Scheil Wendy, Janus Edward, Oats Jeremy J N, Skinner Timothy, Shih Sophy, O'Reilly Sharleen, Sikaris Ken, Kelsall Liza, Phillips Paddy A, Best James D, MAGDA Study Group
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) increases the risk of type 2 diabetes. A register can be used to follow-up high risk women for early intervention to prevent progression to type 2 diabetes. We evaluate the performance of the world's first national gestational diabetes register.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Observational study that used data linkage to merge: (1) pathology data from the Australian states of Victoria (VIC) and South Australia (SA); (2) birth records from the Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity (CCOPMM, VIC) and the South Australian Perinatal Statistics Collection (SAPSC, SA); (3) GDM and type 2 diabetes register data from the National Gestational Diabetes Register (NGDR). All pregnancies registered on CCOPMM and SAPSC for 2012 and 2013 were included-other data back to 2008 were used to support the analyses. Rates of screening for GDM, rates of registration on the NGDR, and rates of follow-up laboratory screening for type 2 diabetes are reported.
RESULTS: Estimated GDM screening rates were 86% in SA and 97% in VIC. Rates of registration on the NGDR ranged from 73% in SA (2013) to 91% in VIC (2013). During the study period rates of screening at six weeks postpartum ranged from 43% in SA (2012) to 58% in VIC (2013). There was little evidence of recall letters resulting in screening 12 months follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: GDM Screening and NGDR registration was effective in Australia. Recall by mail-out to young mothers and their GP's for type 2 diabetes follow-up testing proved ineffective.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Observational study that used data linkage to merge: (1) pathology data from the Australian states of Victoria (VIC) and South Australia (SA); (2) birth records from the Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity (CCOPMM, VIC) and the South Australian Perinatal Statistics Collection (SAPSC, SA); (3) GDM and type 2 diabetes register data from the National Gestational Diabetes Register (NGDR). All pregnancies registered on CCOPMM and SAPSC for 2012 and 2013 were included-other data back to 2008 were used to support the analyses. Rates of screening for GDM, rates of registration on the NGDR, and rates of follow-up laboratory screening for type 2 diabetes are reported.
RESULTS: Estimated GDM screening rates were 86% in SA and 97% in VIC. Rates of registration on the NGDR ranged from 73% in SA (2013) to 91% in VIC (2013). During the study period rates of screening at six weeks postpartum ranged from 43% in SA (2012) to 58% in VIC (2013). There was little evidence of recall letters resulting in screening 12 months follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: GDM Screening and NGDR registration was effective in Australia. Recall by mail-out to young mothers and their GP's for type 2 diabetes follow-up testing proved ineffective.