Article - Limited access to UNIGE
Other version: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00783.x/asset/j.1365-2753.2007.00783.x.pdf?v=1&t=gyd0k7...
Specific information about the WHO guidelines for gestational diabetes screening improves clinical practices
|Published in||Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2008, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 36-42|
|Abstract||RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of specific information on World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening on clinical practices and to estimate its acceptance by women. METHODS: A non-randomized interventional study, comparing two periods, that is, before (period I) and after (period II) the implementation of the WHO guidelines during year 2000 in three obstetrical units, using reminders, meetings and pre-printed prescription sheets. Women were interviewed on GDM screening acceptance. RESULTS: A total of 333 pregnant women were included in period I and 345 in period II. The proportion of women who were screened significantly increased between period I and period II (0.9% in period I, 59.1% in period II, P < 10(-3)). The screening test was realized in accordance with guidelines for 80% of women in period II. The acceptability of the test by women was estimated at 98%. Furthermore, 90% of them would accept to be screened again during another pregnancy. DISCUSSION: Specific information about WHO screening guidelines improves doctor practices. Moreover, the high rate of acceptance by women is an argument to promote more widespread WHO screening for GDM during pregnancy.|
|Keywords||Adult — Diabetes, Gestational/*prevention & control — Diffusion of Innovation — Female — France — Glucose Tolerance Test — Guideline Adherence — Humans — Intervention Studies — *Mass Screening — *Practice Guidelines as Topic — Pregnancy — *World Health Organization|
|GAYET-AGERON, Angèle et al. Specific information about the WHO guidelines for gestational diabetes screening improves clinical practices. In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2008, vol. 14, n° 1, p. 36-42. https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:19136|