A kind reminder-A qualitative process evaluation of women's perspectives on receiving a reminder of type 2 diabetes follow-up screening after gestational diabetes.
diabetes
evaluation study
gestational, diabetes mellitus, type 2
health care evaluation
program evaluation
qualitative research
Journal
Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
ISSN: 1365-2753
Titre abrégé: J Eval Clin Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9609066
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2023
06 2023
Historique:
revised:
07
12
2022
received:
07
10
2022
accepted:
13
12
2022
medline:
19
5
2023
pubmed:
1
1
2023
entrez:
31
12
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Women with previous gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are more than eight times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes (T2DM) compared to women without GDM. Annual follow-up T2DM-screening is recommended, but participation rates decrease rapidly after the first year. In the North Denmark Region, an electronic reminder has been tested with the aim of improving follow-up care for women with prior GDM. The aim of this study was to explore women's perspectives on receiving an electronic reminder, and the role of reminders in both women's decision-making and informed choice regarding participation in follow-up screening. A qualitative process evaluation informed by a critical realistic perspective. Data consisted of 20 semi-structured interviews with women previously diagnosed with GDM who had received the reminder. Interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. The reminder affected women's decision-making and informed choices through a range of mechanisms. Its personalized design prompted feelings of co-responsibility and care from the healthcare system, supported continuity in women's care pathways, and helped women bridge the gap between healthcare sectors. Women's perception of diabetes risk and the importance of follow-up influenced their decision-making. Participation in follow-up screening was influenced by several contextual factors, as women's everyday life impeded their prioritizing follow-up screening. Women who experienced being met by their general practitioner (GP) with acknowledgement rather than stigmatization and received supportive information tailored to their life situation were more motivated to participate in future follow-up screenings. The reminder indicated both concern and co-responsibility for women's follow-up care after GDM and was well received by the women. It supported participation in follow-up screening through an emphasis on shared decision-making and informed choice. Women's interaction with their GP played a significant role.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
591-601Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Jeppesen C, Maindal HT, Kristensen JK, Ovesen PG, Witte DR. National study of the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus among danish women from 2004 to 2012. Scand J Public Health. 2017;45(8):811-817. doi:10.1177/1403494817736943
International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas-Ninth Edition 2019. https://diabetesatlas.org/en/. Updated 2019. Accessed August 24, 2021.
Aguilar-Salinas CA, Andall-Brereton G, Anumah F, et al. Improving Health Outcomes of People with Diabetes Mellitus: Target Setting to Reduce the Global Burden of Diabetes Mellitus by 2030. WHO; 2021:1-26.
Dennison RA, Chen ES, Green ME, et al. The absolute and relative risk of type 2 diabetes after gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 129 studies. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2021;171:108625. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108625
Song C, Lyu Y, Li C, et al. Long-term risk of diabetes in women at varying durations after gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis with more than 2 million women. Obesity Rev. 2018;19(3):421-429. doi:10.1111/obr.12645
Olesen CR, Nielsen JH, Mortensen RN, Bøggild H, Torp-Pedersen C, Overgaard C. Associations between follow-up screening after gestational diabetes and early detection of diabetes - a register based study. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:841. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-841
NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Diabetes in Pregnancy: Management from Preconception to the Postnatal Period-NICE Guideline [NG3]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng3. Updated 2020. Accessed August 24, 2021.
American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes-2019. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(Suppl 1):S13-S28. doi:10.2337/dc19-S002
Sørensen ANW. Gestationel Diabetes Mellitus, gynaekologisk-obstetrisk aalborg universitetshospital. https://pri.rn.dk/Sider/15541.aspx. Updated 2020. Accessed August 24, 2021.
Christiansen M, Pedersen BK, Jespersen NZ, Søndergaard A, Kjeldsen HC. Laegehåndbogen. Gestationel Diabetes (GDM). https://www.sundhed.dk/sundhedsfaglig/laegehaandbogen/obstetrik/tilstande-og-sygdomme/risikofaktorer-i-svangerskabet/gestationel-diabetes-gdm/. Updated 2021. Accessed August 26, 2021.
Nielsen JH, Olesen CR, Kristiansen TM, Bak CK, Overgaard C. Reasons for women's non-participation in follow-up screening after gestational diabetes. Women Birth J Aust Coll Midwives. 2015;28(4):157-163. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2015.04.006
Dennison RA, Fox RA, Ward RJ, Griffin SJ, Usher-Smith JA. Women's views on screening for type 2 diabetes after gestational diabetes: a systematic review, qualitative synthesis and recommendations for increasing uptake. Diabetic Med. 2020;37(1):29-43. doi:10.1111/dme.14081
Jeppesen C, Kristensen JK, Ovesen P, Maindal HT. The forgotten risk? A systematic review of the effect of reminder systems for postpartum screening for type 2 diabetes in women with previous gestational diabetes. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8:373-383. doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1334-2
Martinez NG, Niznik CM, Yee LM. Optimizing postpartum care for the patient with gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(3):314-321. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.04.033
Sanderson H, Loveman E, Colquitt J, Royle P, Waugh N, Tan B. Improving uptake of postnatal checking of blood glucose in women who had gestational diabetes mellitus in universal healthcare settings: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2019;8(4):4. doi:10.3390/jcm8010004
Dennison RA, Meek CL, Usher-Smith JA, Fox RA, Aiken CE, Griffin SJ. Oh, I've got an appointment: a qualitative interview study exploring how to support attendance at diabetes screening after gestational diabetes. Diabetic Med. 2021;38:e14650. doi:10.1111/dme.14650
Clark HD, Graham ID, Karovitch A, Keely EJ. Do postal reminders increase postpartum screening of diabetes mellitus in women with gestational diabetes mellitus? A randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:634-640.
O'reilly SL, Laws R. Health-e mums: evaluating a smartphone app design for diabetes prevention in women with previous gestational diabetes. Nutr Diet. 2019;76(5):507-514. doi:10.1111/1747-0080.12461
Nielsen JH, Melendez-Torres GJ, Rotevatn TA, Peven K, Fonager K, Overgaard C. How do reminder systems in follow-up screening for women with previous gestational diabetes work? - a realist review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:535. doi:10.1186/s12913-021-06569-z
Benhalima K, Verstraete S, Muylle F, et al. Implementing a reminder system in the northern part of Belgium to stimulate postpartum screening for glucose intolerance in women with gestational diabetes: the “sweet pregnancy” project. Int J Endocrinol. 2017;2017:1-9. doi:10.1155/2017/3971914
North Denmark Region. The North Denmark region. https://rn.dk/service/english. Updated 2014. Accessed August 17, 2021.
North Region Denmark. Health Care. https://rn.dk/service/english/health-care. Updated 2015. Accessed August 17, 2021.
Life in Denmark, Agency for Digitalisation, Ministry of Finance. Digital Post. https://lifeindenmark.borger.dk/apps-and-digital-services/Digital-Post. Updated 2021. Accessed August 17, 2021.
Nielsen JH, Fonager K, Kristensen JK, Overgaard C. Effect of an Electronic Reminder of Follow-up Screening After Pregnancy Complicated by Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial. 2022.
van Agt HME, Korfage IJ, Essink-Bot ML. Interventions to enhance informed choices among invitees of screening programmes-a systematic review. Eur J Pub Health. 2014;24(5):789-801. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckt205
Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361-1367. doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6
Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: medical research council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258. doi:10.1136/bmj.h1258
Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of medical research council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374:n2061. doi:10.1136/bmj.n2061
Bonell C, Jamal F, Melendez-Torres GJ, Cummins S. “Dark logic”: theorising the harmful consequences of public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69:95-98. doi:10.1136/jech-2014-204671
Craig P, Dieppe P, Mcintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and Evaluation Complex Interventions: Following Considerable Development in the Field Since 2006, MRC and NIHR have jointly commissioned an update of this guidance to be published in 2019. https://mrc.ukri.org/documents/pdf/complex-interventions-guidance/. Updated 2008. Accessed August 24, 2021.
Bhaskar R. A Realist Theory of Science. 2nd ed. Routhedge; 1974.
Sayer AR. Realism and Social Science. SAGE Publications; 2000.
Fletcher AJ. Critical realism: philosophical and methodological considerations. In: Järvinen M, Mik-Meyer N, eds. Qualitative Analysis. SAGE Publications; 2020:173-194.
Manzano A. The craft of interviewing in realist evaluation. Evaluation. 2016;22(3):342-360. doi:10.1177/1356389016638615
Brinkman S, Kvale S. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 3rd ed.SAGE Publications Inc; 2015.
Emmel N. Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach. SAGE Publications Ltd; 2014. doi:10.4135/9781473913882
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun V, Clarke V. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. 1st ed. SAGE Publications Ltd; 2013.
Braun V, Clarke V, Heyfield N, Terry G. Thematic analysis. In: Liamputtong P, ed. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer Nature; 2019:843-860. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103
Sundheds- og AEldreministeriet. Bekendtgørelse af lov om videnskabsetisk behandling af sundhedsvidenskabelige forskningsprojekter og sundhedsdatavidenskabelige forskningsprojekter. LBK nr 1338 af 01/09/2020, retsinformation. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/1338. Updated 2020. Accessed August 13, 2021.
Sundheds- og AEldreministeriet. Bekendtgørelse af lov om videnskabsetisk behandling af sundhedsvidenskabelige forskningsprojekter. LBK nr 1083 af 15/09/2017, retsinformation. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2017/1083. Updated 2017. Accessed August 13, 2021.
World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki-Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/. Updated 2018. Accessed August 24, 2021.
Danish Ministry of Justice. Lov om supplerende bestemmelser til forordning om beskyttelse af fysiske personer i forbindelse med behandling af personoplysninger og om fri udveksling af sådanne oplysninger (databeskyttelsesloven). lov nr. 502 af 23/05/2018. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2018/502. Updated 2018. Accessed November 26, 2022.
The European Parliament and The Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). (europa.eu) Web site. Updated 2016. Accessed November 26, 2022.
Ritchie D, Van Hal G, Van den Broucke S. How is informed decision-making about breast cancer screening addressed in Europe? An international survey of 28 countries. Health Policy. 2020;124:1017-1031. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.05.011
Joseph-Williams N, Elwyn G, Edwards A. Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94:291-309. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.10.031
Durand MA, Carpenter L, Dolan H, et al. Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e94670. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094670
Rose G. Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30:427-432.
Nielsen JH, Fonager K, Kristensen JK, Overgaard C. Follow-up after gestational diabetes: a qualitative study of perspectives from general practice. BJGP Open. 2022;6(3):BJGPO.2021.0241. doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0241
Ottesen AC, Plougmann SN, Nielsen JH, Larsen R, Overgaard C. Potential improvements to women's care pathways after gestational diabetes: a qualitative study. Nordic J Nurs Res. 2022:205715852211002. doi:10.1177/20571585221100237
Lithgow GE, Rossi J, Griffin SJ, Usher-Smith JA, Dennison RA. Barriers to postpartum diabetes screening: a qualitative synthesis of clinician's views. Br J Gen Pract. 2021;71:e473-e482. doi:10.3399/BJGP.2020.0928
Pennington AVR, O'Reilly SL, Young D, Dunbar JA. Improving follow-up care for women with a history of gestational diabetes: perspectives of GPs and patients. Aust J Primary Health. 2017;23:66-74. doi:10.1071/PY15177
Lipsitz LA. Understanding health care as a complex system: the foundation for unintended consequences. JAMA. 2012;308(3):243-244. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.7551
Novick G. Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 2008;31:391-398. doi:10.1002/nur.20259
Sturges JE, Hanrahan KJ. Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: a research note. Qual Res. 2004;4(1):107-118. doi:10.1177/1468794104041110
Jenner BM, Myers KC. Intimacy, rapport, and exceptional disclosure: a comparison of in-person and mediated interview contexts. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2019;22(2):165-177. doi:10.1080/13645579.2018.1512694
Archibald MM, Ambagtsheer RC, Casey MG, Lawless M. Using zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. Int J Qual Methods. 2019;18:160940691987459. doi:10.1177/1609406919874596
Kragelund Nielsen K, Andersen GS, Damm P, Andersen AMN. Gestational diabetes risk in migrants. A nationwide, register-based study of all births in Denmark 2004 to 2015. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(3):e692-e703. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgaa024
Green LA, Nease D, Klinkman MS. Clinical reminders designed and implemented using cognitive and organizational science principles decrease reminder fatigue. J Am Board Family Med. 2015;28(3):351-359. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2015.03.140243