Variation in gestational diabetes diagnosis and care practices in maternity services in three high-income countries; a cross-sectional survey

There is limited international consensus about best diagnostic and care practices for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). This impacts consistency of care and perinatal outcomes. We aimed to explore GDM diagnostic and care practices in the UK, Ireland and Australia to better understand these variations and determine areas for improvement. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals between August 2021-November 2022. The survey evaluated the use of GDM guidelines, associated diagnostic practices and post-diagnostic care. Data were descriptively analysed. Sixty-three maternity centres were represented (35 England and Wales, 12 Ireland, 16 Australia). 94% of centres in England and Wales and Australia respectively used their national guidelines to select women for GDM testing, with a wider variety of guidelines used in Ireland. Over 80% of centres across countries test women for GDM based on risk-factors identified in early pregnancy. At 24–28 weeks’ gestation, 94% of Australian centres used universal screening as per national guidelines, compared with 3% of centres in England & Wales, and 50% in Ireland, where universal screening is not included in national guidelines. Risk factors used to select women for screening varied between countries and between centres within countries at both time points, with some centres using risk factors outside of their national guidelines. Diagnostic tests for GDM varied between countries and between centres within countries, and according to gestation and previous GDM. Insulin was the most common first-line treatment in Australia, whereas in Ireland and England and Wales it was Metformin. Birth was planned at differing gestations according to centre and country, and according to management strategy. GDM-related practices vary within and between Australia, Ireland and England and Wales. National guidelines are not adhered to in some centres, which could result in inconsistent care within countries, and could result in inequitable perinatal outcomes. Further research should address standardised, evidence-informed care and guideline implementation barriers.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published
2025-12-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-025-08472-5
Primary Topic
Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Variation in gestational diabetes diagnosis and care practices in maternity services in three high-income countries; a cross-sectional survey

Charlotte Williams, Sharleen O’Reilly, Helena Jane Teede, Aisling A. Geraghty et al.
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
article

Variation in gestational diabetes diagnosis and care practices in maternity services in three high-income countries; a cross-sectional survey

Charlotte Williams, Sharleen O’Reilly, Helena Jane Teede, Aisling A. Geraghty, Gemma Clayton, Anna Davies, Fionnuala Mary McAuliffe, Cheryce L. Harrison, Christy Burden, Amy Howell
article en

Abstract

There is limited international consensus about best diagnostic and care practices for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). This impacts consistency of care and perinatal outcomes. We aimed to explore GDM diagnostic and care practices in the UK, Ireland and Australia to better understand these variations and determine areas for improvement. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals between August 2021-November 2022. The survey evaluated the use of GDM guidelines, associated diagnostic practices and post-diagnostic care. Data were descriptively analysed. Sixty-three maternity centres were represented (35 England and Wales, 12 Ireland, 16 Australia). 94% of centres in England and Wales and Australia respectively used their national guidelines to select women for GDM testing, with a wider variety of guidelines used in Ireland. Over 80% of centres across countries test women for GDM based on risk-factors identified in early pregnancy. At 24–28 weeks’ gestation, 94% of Australian centres used universal screening as per national guidelines, compared with 3% of centres in England & Wales, and 50% in Ireland, where universal screening is not included in national guidelines. Risk factors used to select women for screening varied between countries and between centres within countries at both time points, with some centres using risk factors outside of their national guidelines. Diagnostic tests for GDM varied between countries and between centres within countries, and according to gestation and previous GDM. Insulin was the most common first-line treatment in Australia, whereas in Ireland and England and Wales it was Metformin. Birth was planned at differing gestations according to centre and country, and according to management strategy. GDM-related practices vary within and between Australia, Ireland and England and Wales. National guidelines are not adhered to in some centres, which could result in inconsistent care within countries, and could result in inequitable perinatal outcomes. Further research should address standardised, evidence-informed care and guideline implementation barriers.

BMC Pregnancy and ChildbirthVol. 26(1)
University College Dublin (IE), North Bristol NHS Trust (GB), At Bristol (GB), University of Bristol (GB), Monash Health (AU), National Maternity Hospital (IE), MRC Epidemiology Unit (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 50%
Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.