Changed definition of disease and broader screening criteria had little impact on prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus

To neutrally offer or strongly recommend? General practitioners' perspectives on screening for gestational diabetes according to the national guideline in Norway

OBJECTIVE

To explore general practitioners' experiences and reflections on how the current Norwegian guideline for screening for gestational diabetes affects their clinical practice.

DESIGN

A qualitive study in which data were collected through semi-structured focus group interviews and analyzed thematically.

SETTING AND SUBJECTS

Five focus groups conducted in 2020 among GPs in Norway; three interviews took place face-to-face and two were held digitally. The total number of participants was 31.

RESULTS

GPs acknowledged the potential benefits of more extensive screening, but had concerns about the medicalization of pregnancy, stating that some women experienced considerable anxiety. The GPs expressed doubts about the guideline's evidence base but differed in how they interpreted what the guideline was asking them to do. Some offered eligible women the opportunity to be screened, while other set up a screening appointment without consulting the women first. For some, fear of incrimination made them recommend screening without being convinced that it was the right thing for the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether the guideline for gestational diabetes requires GPs to recommend screening to pregnant women or if they should provide neutral information about the availability of screening. This ambiguity should be addressed, and the guideline evaluated against the core principles of general practice.

Exploring Structural Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Gestational Diabetes Screening: An Application Example from Norway

BACKGROUND

Screening pregnant women for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has recently been expanded in Norway, although screening eligibility criteria continue to be debated. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of alternative GDM screening strategies and explored structural uncertainty and the value of future research in determining the most cost-effective eligibility criteria for GDM screening in Norway.

DESIGN

We developed a probabilistic decision tree to estimate the total costs and health benefits (i.e., quality-adjusted life-years; QALYs) associated with 4 GDM screening strategies (universal, current guidelines, high-risk, and no screening). We identified the most cost-effective strategy as the strategy with the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below a Norwegian benchmark for cost-effectiveness ($28,400/QALY). We excluded inconclusive evidence on the effects of screening on later maternal type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the primary analysis but included this outcome in a secondary analysis using 2 different sources of evidence (i.e., Cochrane or US Preventive Services Task Force). To quantify decision uncertainty, we conducted scenario analysis and value-of-information analyses.

RESULTS

Current screening recommendations were considered inefficient in all analyses, while universal screening was most cost-effective in our primary analysis ($26,014/QALY gained) and remained most cost-effective when we assumed a preventive effect of GDM treatment on T2DM. When we assumed no preventive effect, high-risk screening was preferred ($19,115/QALY gained). When we assumed GDM screening does not prevent perinatal death in scenario analysis, all strategies except no screening exceeded the cost-effectiveness benchmark. In most analyses, decision uncertainty was high.

CONCLUSIONS

The most cost-effective screening strategy, ranging from no screening to universal screening, depended on the source and inclusion of GDM treatment effects on perinatal death and T2DM. Further research on these long-term outcomes could reduce decision uncertainty.

HIGHLIGHTS

This article analyses the cost-effectiveness of 4 alternative gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening strategies in Norway: universal screening, current (broad) screening, high-risk screening, and no screening.The current Norwegian screening recommendations were considered inefficient under all analyses.The most cost-effective screening strategy ranged from no screening to universal screening depending on the source and inclusion of GDM treatment effects on later maternal diabetes and perinatal death.The parameters related to later maternal diabetes and perinatal death accounted for most of the decision uncertainty.