Adherence to gestational diabetes screening guidelines: Retrospective audit in three public hospitals in Ethiopia

INTRODUCTION: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a major contributor to adverse perinatal outcomes. Most guidelines recommend universal GDM screening using standardized testing protocols, yet implementation in low- and middle-income countries remains limited. This study evaluated GDM screening uptake and guideline-concordant testing in routine antenatal care in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. METHODS: We conducted a facility-based, cross-sectional study of pregnant women receiving antenatal care in three public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A sample of 1,050 antenatal records was abstracted for women who were ≥28 weeks of gestation and/or had delivered during March to May 2025. Using a structured checklist, we extracted maternal and obstetric characteristics, documentation of any GDM screening, risk-based indications for screening, gestational age at testing, screening methods, and GDM diagnosis. We described uptake and adherence to guideline-recommended GDM screening. Logistic regression was used to estimate crude odds ratios (COR) and adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for factors associated with being screened. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) age of participants was 27.7 (± 5.0) years. Approximately one-third (29.4%) were pregnant for the first time. Overall, 139/1050 women were screened for GDM, yielding a screening rate of 13.2%. Median gestational age at screening was 34 weeks [IQR 30-37]; only 8.6% of screened women were tested in the recommended 24-28-weeks window. The oral glucose tolerance test was the predominant method (87.8%). Screening was almost exclusively risk-based (99.3%), where testing was prompted by clinical indications including polyhydramnios, advanced maternal age, and a prior history of macrosomic birth. Among screened women, 57/139 (41.0%) were diagnosed with GDM. In adjusted analysis, facility site (hospital C), older maternal age, higher parity and earlier gestational age at first antenatal care were independently associated with higher odds of being screened. CONCLUSION: In three public hospitals in Addis Ababa, GDM screening uptake was low. The screening practice was also delayed, and risk-based. Being screened was associated with hospital site, older maternal age, higher parity, and earlier first antenatal care attendance. These findings suggest addressing patient-level factors and facility-tailored implementation strategies to achieve universal, timely GDM screening in routine antenatal care workflows.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2026-08-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0357102
Primary Topic
Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Adherence to gestational diabetes screening guidelines: Retrospective audit in three public hospitals in Ethiopia

Mistire Wolde Gebre, Meselech Assegid Roro, Melaku Taye, Saria Hassan et al.
PLoS ONE
Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
article

Adherence to gestational diabetes screening guidelines: Retrospective audit in three public hospitals in Ethiopia

Mistire Wolde Gebre, Meselech Assegid Roro, Melaku Taye, Saria Hassan, Leslie Johnson, Elizabeth Rhodes, Workeabeba Abebe, Rebecca Gary, Rosette Chakkalakal
article en

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a major contributor to adverse perinatal outcomes. Most guidelines recommend universal GDM screening using standardized testing protocols, yet implementation in low- and middle-income countries remains limited. This study evaluated GDM screening uptake and guideline-concordant testing in routine antenatal care in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. METHODS: We conducted a facility-based, cross-sectional study of pregnant women receiving antenatal care in three public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A sample of 1,050 antenatal records was abstracted for women who were ≥28 weeks of gestation and/or had delivered during March to May 2025. Using a structured checklist, we extracted maternal and obstetric characteristics, documentation of any GDM screening, risk-based indications for screening, gestational age at testing, screening methods, and GDM diagnosis. We described uptake and adherence to guideline-recommended GDM screening. Logistic regression was used to estimate crude odds ratios (COR) and adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for factors associated with being screened. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) age of participants was 27.7 (± 5.0) years. Approximately one-third (29.4%) were pregnant for the first time. Overall, 139/1050 women were screened for GDM, yielding a screening rate of 13.2%. Median gestational age at screening was 34 weeks [IQR 30-37]; only 8.6% of screened women were tested in the recommended 24-28-weeks window. The oral glucose tolerance test was the predominant method (87.8%). Screening was almost exclusively risk-based (99.3%), where testing was prompted by clinical indications including polyhydramnios, advanced maternal age, and a prior history of macrosomic birth. Among screened women, 57/139 (41.0%) were diagnosed with GDM. In adjusted analysis, facility site (hospital C), older maternal age, higher parity and earlier gestational age at first antenatal care were independently associated with higher odds of being screened. CONCLUSION: In three public hospitals in Addis Ababa, GDM screening uptake was low. The screening practice was also delayed, and risk-based. Being screened was associated with hospital site, older maternal age, higher parity, and earlier first antenatal care attendance. These findings suggest addressing patient-level factors and facility-tailored implementation strategies to achieve universal, timely GDM screening in routine antenatal care workflows.

PLoS ONEVol. 21(8)
Emory University (US), Woodruff Health Sciences Center (US), Addis Ababa University (ET)
National Institutes of Health, Fogarty International Center
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
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.