Cargando…
Screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
BACKGROUND: The risks associated with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are well recognized, and there is increasing evidence to support treatment of the condition. However, clear guidance on the ideal approach to screening for GDM is lacking. Professional groups continue to debate whether selecti...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3899741/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24438478 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-27 |
_version_ | 1782300615929495552 |
---|---|
author | O’Dea, Angela Infanti, Jennifer J Gillespie, Paddy Tummon, Olga Fanous, Samuel Glynn, Liam G McGuire, Brian E Newell, John Dunne, Fidelma P |
author_facet | O’Dea, Angela Infanti, Jennifer J Gillespie, Paddy Tummon, Olga Fanous, Samuel Glynn, Liam G McGuire, Brian E Newell, John Dunne, Fidelma P |
author_sort | O’Dea, Angela |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The risks associated with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are well recognized, and there is increasing evidence to support treatment of the condition. However, clear guidance on the ideal approach to screening for GDM is lacking. Professional groups continue to debate whether selective screening (based on risk factors) or universal screening is the most appropriate approach. Additionally, there is ongoing debate about what levels of glucose abnormalities during pregnancy respond best to treatment and which maternal and neonatal outcomes benefit most from treatment. Furthermore, the implications of possible screening options on health care costs are not well established. In response to this uncertainty there have been repeated calls for well-designed, randomised trials to determine the efficacy of screening, diagnosis, and management plans for GDM. We describe a randomised controlled trial to investigate screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening in primary versus secondary care settings. METHODS/DESIGN: This will be an unblinded, two-group, parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT). The target population includes 784 women presenting for their first antenatal visit at 12 to 18 weeks gestation at two hospitals in the west of Ireland: Galway University Hospital and Mayo General Hospital. Participants will be offered universal screening for GDM at 24 to 28 weeks gestation in either primary care (n = 392) or secondary care (n = 392) locations. The primary outcome variable is the uptake rate of screening. Secondary outcomes include indicators of clinical effectiveness of screening at each screening site (primary and secondary) including gestational week at time of screening, time to access antenatal diabetes services for women diagnosed with GDM, and pregnancy and neonatal outcomes for women with GDM. In addition, parallel economic and qualitative evaluations will be conducted. The trial will cover the period from the woman’s first hospital antenatal visit at 12 to 18 weeks gestation, until the completion of the pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN02232125 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3899741 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-38997412014-01-24 Screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial O’Dea, Angela Infanti, Jennifer J Gillespie, Paddy Tummon, Olga Fanous, Samuel Glynn, Liam G McGuire, Brian E Newell, John Dunne, Fidelma P Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: The risks associated with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are well recognized, and there is increasing evidence to support treatment of the condition. However, clear guidance on the ideal approach to screening for GDM is lacking. Professional groups continue to debate whether selective screening (based on risk factors) or universal screening is the most appropriate approach. Additionally, there is ongoing debate about what levels of glucose abnormalities during pregnancy respond best to treatment and which maternal and neonatal outcomes benefit most from treatment. Furthermore, the implications of possible screening options on health care costs are not well established. In response to this uncertainty there have been repeated calls for well-designed, randomised trials to determine the efficacy of screening, diagnosis, and management plans for GDM. We describe a randomised controlled trial to investigate screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening in primary versus secondary care settings. METHODS/DESIGN: This will be an unblinded, two-group, parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT). The target population includes 784 women presenting for their first antenatal visit at 12 to 18 weeks gestation at two hospitals in the west of Ireland: Galway University Hospital and Mayo General Hospital. Participants will be offered universal screening for GDM at 24 to 28 weeks gestation in either primary care (n = 392) or secondary care (n = 392) locations. The primary outcome variable is the uptake rate of screening. Secondary outcomes include indicators of clinical effectiveness of screening at each screening site (primary and secondary) including gestational week at time of screening, time to access antenatal diabetes services for women diagnosed with GDM, and pregnancy and neonatal outcomes for women with GDM. In addition, parallel economic and qualitative evaluations will be conducted. The trial will cover the period from the woman’s first hospital antenatal visit at 12 to 18 weeks gestation, until the completion of the pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN02232125 BioMed Central 2014-01-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3899741/ /pubmed/24438478 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-27 Text en Copyright © 2014 O’Dea et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol O’Dea, Angela Infanti, Jennifer J Gillespie, Paddy Tummon, Olga Fanous, Samuel Glynn, Liam G McGuire, Brian E Newell, John Dunne, Fidelma P Screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial |
title | Screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial |
title_full | Screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial |
title_short | Screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial |
title_sort | screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3899741/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24438478 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-27 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT odeaangela screeninguptakeratesandtheclinicalandcosteffectivenessofscreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusinprimaryversussecondarycarestudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT infantijenniferj screeninguptakeratesandtheclinicalandcosteffectivenessofscreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusinprimaryversussecondarycarestudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT gillespiepaddy screeninguptakeratesandtheclinicalandcosteffectivenessofscreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusinprimaryversussecondarycarestudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT tummonolga screeninguptakeratesandtheclinicalandcosteffectivenessofscreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusinprimaryversussecondarycarestudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT fanoussamuel screeninguptakeratesandtheclinicalandcosteffectivenessofscreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusinprimaryversussecondarycarestudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT glynnliamg screeninguptakeratesandtheclinicalandcosteffectivenessofscreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusinprimaryversussecondarycarestudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT mcguirebriane screeninguptakeratesandtheclinicalandcosteffectivenessofscreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusinprimaryversussecondarycarestudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT newelljohn screeninguptakeratesandtheclinicalandcosteffectivenessofscreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusinprimaryversussecondarycarestudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT dunnefidelmap screeninguptakeratesandtheclinicalandcosteffectivenessofscreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusinprimaryversussecondarycarestudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial |