↓ Skip to main content

Enablers and barriers for women with gestational diabetes mellitus to achieve optimal glycaemic control – a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
273 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Enablers and barriers for women with gestational diabetes mellitus to achieve optimal glycaemic control – a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12884-018-1710-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth Martis, Julie Brown, Judith McAra-Couper, Caroline A. Crowther

Abstract

Glycaemic target recommendations vary widely between international professional organisations for women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Some studies have reported women's experiences of having GDM, but little is known how this relates to their glycaemic targets. The aim of this study was to identify enablers and barriers for women with GDM to achieve optimal glycaemic control. Women with GDM were recruited from two large, geographically different, hospitals in New Zealand to participate in a semi-structured interview to explore their views and experiences focusing on enablers and barriers to achieving optimal glycaemic control. Final thematic analysis was performed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Sixty women participated in the study. Women reported a shift from their initial negative response to accepting their diagnosis but disliked the constant focus on numbers. Enablers and barriers were categorised into ten domains across the three study questions. Enablers included: the ability to attend group teaching sessions with family and hear from women who have had GDM; easy access to a diabetes dietitian with diet recommendations tailored to a woman's context including ethnic food and financial considerations; free capillary blood glucose (CBG) monitoring equipment, health shuttles to take women to appointments; child care when attending clinic appointments; and being taught CBG testing by a community pharmacist. Barriers included: lack of health information, teaching sessions, consultations, and food diaries in a woman's first language; long waiting times at clinic appointments; seeing a different health professional every clinic visit; inconsistent advice; no tailored physical activities assessments; not knowing where to access appropriate information on the internet; unsupportive partners, families, and workplaces; and unavailability of social media or support groups for women with GDM. Perceived judgement by others led some women only to share their GDM diagnosis with their partners. This created social isolation. Women with GDM report multiple enablers and barriers to achieving optimal glycaemic control. The findings of this study may assist health professionals and diabetes in pregnancy services to improve their care for women with GDM and support them to achieve optimal glycaemic control.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 273 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 60 22%
Student > Bachelor 39 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 11%
Researcher 17 6%
Lecturer 8 3%
Other 34 12%
Unknown 86 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 55 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 40 15%
Psychology 15 5%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Other 39 14%
Unknown 102 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,449,649
of 17,812,415 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#978
of 3,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,628
of 288,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,812,415 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,302 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,498 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them