Risk-Prioritised Versus Universal Medical Nutrition Therapy for Gestational Diabetes: A Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND

The optimal application of medical nutrition therapy (MNT) in treating gestational diabetes remains uncertain. MNT involves individualised nutrition assessment and counselling, which is labour-intensive and is not the sole type of intervention offered by clinical dietitians.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether pregnancy outcomes differed for individuals with gestational diabetes who were offered MNT on a risk-prioritised (RP) versus universal basis.

METHODS

Observational data from two cohorts of individuals who were offered MNT only if they met the high-risk criteria following general group-based dietary education (RP1, = 369; RP2, = 446) were compared with a baseline cohort who were universally offered at least one MNT consultation (UM, = 649). The RP1 cohort were seen during community-wide COVID-19 restrictions in 2021, while RP2 were seen after restrictions had lifted in 2022. Furthermore, the RP approach primarily utilised telemedicine, while the UM approach was delivered in person.

RESULTS

MNT consultations halved under the RP approach (59 vs. 119 sessions per 100 diagnoses for RP2 vs. UM) and saved more than 20 h of dietitian time per 100 diagnoses (95 vs. 73 h for RP2 vs. UM). No significant increases were observed ( < 0.05) for any pregnancy outcomes in the RP cohorts compared with the UM cohort, including usage of diabetes medications, maternal weight gain below and above target, early deliveries, induced deliveries, emergency caesarean sections, large- and small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants, infant macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycaemia and neonatal intensive care admissions. The use of both basal insulin (27% vs. 33%, OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84) and metformin (6% vs. 10%, OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88) was lower in the RP1 cohort during pandemic restrictions compared with the UM cohort; however, these differences were not retained in the RP2 cohort. Additionally, there were fewer SGA infants under the RP approach, particularly for the RP2 cohort (6% vs. 11% for RP2 vs. UM, OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

Risk-prioritised MNT was a more efficient dietetic service approach to gestational diabetes than the universal MNT model, with comparable pregnancy outcomes. Similar approaches may represent a strategic way to address sustainable health service planning amidst the rising global prevalence of this condition. However, further research is needed to investigate consumer perspectives, wider service impacts and post-partum maternal and child health outcomes.