IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0179487.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementation of a diabetes in pregnancy clinical register in a complex setting: Findings from a process evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Renae Kirkham
  • Cherie Whitbread
  • Christine Connors
  • Elizabeth Moore
  • Jacqueline A Boyle
  • Richa Richa
  • Federica Barzi
  • Shu Li
  • Michelle Dowden
  • Jeremy Oats
  • Chrissie Inglis
  • Margaret Cotter
  • Harold D McIntyre
  • Marie Kirkwood
  • Paula Van Dokkum
  • Stacey Svenson
  • Paul Zimmet
  • Jonathan E Shaw
  • Kerin O’Dea
  • Alex Brown
  • Louise Maple-Brown
  • on behalf of the Northern Territory Diabetes in Pregnancy Partnership

Abstract

Background: Rates of diabetes in pregnancy are disproportionately higher among Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal women in Australia. Additional challenges are posed by the context of Aboriginal health including remoteness and disadvantage. A clinical register was established in 2011 to improve care coordination, and as an epidemiological and quality assurance tool. This paper presents results from a process evaluation identifying what worked well, persisting challenges and opportunities for improvement. Methods: Clinical register data were compared to the Northern Territory Midwives Data Collection. A cross-sectional survey of 113 health professionals across the region was also conducted in 2016 to assess use and value of the register; and five focus groups (49 healthcare professionals) documented improvements to models of care. Results: From January 2012 to December 2015, 1,410 women were referred to the register, 48% of whom were Aboriginal. In 2014, women on the register represented 75% of those on the Midwives Data Collection for Aboriginal women with gestational diabetes and 100% for Aboriginal women with pre-existing diabetes. Since commencement of the register, an 80% increase in reported prevalence of gestational diabetes among Aboriginal women in the Midwives Data Collection occurred (2011–2013), prior to adoption of new diagnostic criteria (2014). As most women met both diagnostic criteria (81% in 2012 and 74% in 2015) it is unlikely that the changes in criteria contributed to this increase. Over half (57%) of survey respondents reported improvement in knowledge of the epidemiology of diabetes in pregnancy since establishment of the register. However, only 32% of survey respondents thought that the register improved care-coordination. The need for improved integration and awareness to increase use was also highlighted. Conclusion: Although the register has not been reported to improve care coordination, it has contributed to increased reported prevalence of gestational diabetes among high risk Aboriginal women, in a routinely collected jurisdiction-wide pregnancy dataset. It has therefore contributed to an improved understanding of epidemiology and disease burden and may in future contribute to improved management and outcomes. Regions with similar challenges in context and high risk populations for diabetes in pregnancy may benefit from this experience of implementing a register.

Suggested Citation

  • Renae Kirkham & Cherie Whitbread & Christine Connors & Elizabeth Moore & Jacqueline A Boyle & Richa Richa & Federica Barzi & Shu Li & Michelle Dowden & Jeremy Oats & Chrissie Inglis & Margaret Cotter , 2017. "Implementation of a diabetes in pregnancy clinical register in a complex setting: Findings from a process evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-15, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179487
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179487
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179487
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179487&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0179487?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179487. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.