Ginekologia i Poloznictwo
ISSN 1896-3315 e-ISSN 1898-0759

Quality of life among women with gestational diabetes

Faeza Jalawi Alawi^1,2* and Wafaa Ahmed Ameen^{1 *}Correspondence: Faeza Jalawi Alawi, Department of Nursing, College of Nursing, University of Babylon, Iraq,

Received: 22-Nov-2024, Manuscript No. gpmp-24-153064; Editor assigned: 25-Nov-2024, Pre QC No. P-153064; Reviewed: 12-Dec-2024, QC No. Q-153064; Revised: 23-Dec-2024, Manuscript No. R-153064; Published: 30-Dec-2024

Author info »

Introduction

Pregnancy-related insulin resistance is a physiological adaptation meant to support the growing fetus, which uses glucose as its primary energy source and requires an adequate supply of carbohydrates. During pregnancy, there is a coexisting balance between this physiological insulin resistance and an adaptive rise in beta-cell insulin production [1]. GDM increases the risk of difficulties for both mother and child. These issues include pre-eclampsia, neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, hypoglycemia, respiratory distress syndrome, caesarean section, shoulder dystocia, delivery traumas, and other complications. Fetal macrosomia, a syndrome associated with gestational diabetes, mimics many of the issues associated with the condition. Women's' who have had GDM are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes later in life [2]. Because of their complexities, high-risk pregnancies can have an impact on pregnant women's quality of life (QoL). Quality of life (QoL) encompasses various aspects such as an individual's physical, psychological, and social well-being [3]. In order to plan for the care of mothers and newborns and to help legislators and the health care association understand the demand for care, it is crucial to assess the quality of life, particularly for mothers who have gestational diabetes [4]. Pregnant women's and children's health is seriously at danger from gestational diabetes mellitus, a concern that is occasionally overlooked. According to the International Diabetes Federation, one in six pregnancies worldwide (13.6%) are affected by diabetes, and the disease's impact on mothers and children is increasing [3].

Methods

Study design: A descriptive study design which was applied to assess" the quality of life among women with gestational diabetes "in Al-Hilla city during the period (4 October 2023 to 30 June 2024).

Study sample: To choose the sample, purposeful (non-probabilistic) sampling was used. 120 expectant pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus from "Babylon Teaching Hospital and Al-Imam AL-Sadiq Teaching Hospital" in Al Hilla City make up the study's sample.

Study instrument: The questionnaire is comprised of two parts as the following:

1^st Part: Socio-demographic Characteristic.

The first part socio-demographic data contain (7) items concern the pregnant women and include (women age, level of education, occupation, residency, economic status)

2^nd Part: Quality of life among women with GDM

This part includes 34 items that measure the quality of life for women with GDM. Three Likert scale levels were used. The information was rated as follows: agree, disagree, have no idea (3, 2, 1).

Data collection

Data was gathered using a questionnaire format. To get verbal consent, the researcher identified herself to the subjects and gave an explanation of the study's objectives. The researcher was on hand to reply to any queries the respondents might have needed further clarification on. The interviewing techniques were used one-on-one and for (20 to 30) minute each.

Statistical analysis

The tabulation of data collected and subjected to various statistical techniques. Using Microsoft Excel (2010) and the Statistics Package Program for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22, research findings can be obtained. The significant differences are divided into three categories: P values less than 0.01, substantial differences (0.01>P values larger than 0.05), and non-significant differences (P values greater than 0.05).

Results

The presents the distribution of demographical data for (120) women who agree to the participating in the study. shows that most of study sample 60 (50.0%) were between (27-36) years age group with mean and standard deviation 29.17 ± 5.944. Related to woman occupation this table show the high percentage for study sample 82 (68.3%) were employed. In related to education status this table also show that most of study sample 39 (32.5%) were Primary graduate. Finally, this table show most of the women 70 (58.3%) were urban residency, and not sufficient economic statues (Tab. 1.).

Tab. 1. Distribution of demographic characteristic of women with gestational diabetes (No=120).

This Tab. 2. shows that overall assessment for women’s responses regarding to quality of life concerning gestational diabetics were poor at mean and standard deviation 2.35 ± 0.253.

Tab. 2. Assessment of the responses of study sample related quality of life concerning gestational diabetes (No=120).

Tab. 3. results show that overall assessment for women’s responses regarding to quality of life concerning gestational diabetics were poor at mean and standard deviation 2.35 ± 0.253.

Tab. 3. Overall assessment of the responses of study sample related to quality of life (No=120).

The results in Tab. 4. show the differences between quality of live and socio-demographical characteristic. This table show highly significant differences between quality of live and occupation, educational status, residency, family history and economic status at p-value (0.004, 0.001, 0.001, 0.006, 0.001) which are less than 0.01. Also, this table show non-significant differences with remaining items of socio-demographical characteristic.

Tab. 4. Differences between quality of life with socio-demographical characteristic (No=120).

Discussion

The socio-demographic details of the 120 women was reveal half of group (27-36) years old. The result of this study is inconsistence with Faraj, et al. [5], done in Sulaimani, Iraq in Mosul , Iraq found that more than one third the age group (28 -36) of respondents. In terms of woman occupations, this Tab .1. shows that more than two-thirds of the study group is employed. This study is inconsistent with a cross-sectional study conducted in Africa by Byakwaga, et al. [6], who discovered that more than half of the respondentes were employed. Another study consistence with study done in Saudi Arabia by Wafa, et al. [7] who found the highest present was employed. While another's study inconsistence with study done in Saudi Arabia conducted by Alnaim, et al. [8], who justify more than three quarters unemployment. Regarding the study sample's educational level, it was found that more of one quarter of the women's were Primary graduate. While another study inconsistence with in Egypt who found that the their study nearly two thirds of women's with secondary education [9]. According to residency, the presented study results clarified that more than half of women's were live in urban areas. On the other hand, this study more supported with cross-sectional study done on 417 women in Central Ethiopia who found that more than half of the study sample from urban areas, and not sufficient status [10].

According to the findings of the present study, Tab. 2. showed that the majority of participants had good response level toward QoL for women with GDM concerning high-risk pregnancy such as (low or loss of fetal movement), perceived constraints, and complications of GDM like (premature, fetal death, baby weight gain & fetal abnormalitie). These results are corroborated by a study done by Shama, et al. [11] that was carried out in Egypt to investigate the relationship between GDM and QoL and discovered that participants' height was associated with information on intrauterine mortality, neonatal death, and obstetrical problems. The current findings are inconsistent with study conducted in Egypt by Malik, et al. [4] who evaluated the quality of life for women with GDM. They discovered that over 25% of the women reported low QoL in GDM-related problems.

According to the study's results, which are being presented, women's responses regarding the quality of life for gestational diabetics agreed with the dietary recommendations, such as using low- and determined-amount fruits and vegetables and changing the family basket to include more interesting foods. According to a research conducted in Australia by Bernier, et al. [12], nutritional interventions started early in pregnancy can improve glucose in people at risk for GDM and enhance care trajectories and policies for pregnant people at risk for GDM. These findings are consistent with the findings of this study.

According to our results, the Tab. 3. show that overall assessment for women’s responses regarding to quality of life concerning gestational diabetics were poor at mean and standard deviation 2.35 ± 0.253. This study consistence with cross-sectional carried out study done in Morocco who found that the quality of life among woman with gestational diabetics were low [13]. Which means that the quality of life decreased during pregnancy? It can be explained by the numerous biochemical, physiological changes which occur during this period. Another study who reported that the poor level of QoL among women's with GDM same result from presented study [14].

Tab. 4. Show the differences between quality of life and socio-demographical characteristic. This table show highly significant differences between quality of life and occupation, educational status, residency, family history and socio-economic status at p-value (0.004, 0.001, 0.001, 0.006, 0.001) which are less than 0.01. Also, this table show non-significant differences with remaining items of socio-demographical characteristic. In regard to observation of this study, the current study was a significantly relationship between QoL among pregnant women with GD and level of education. Our results regarding education level consistence the sample consisted conducted in West Bank, Palestine using a cross-sectional design [15]. The study revealed a statistically significant link between quality of life scores and levels of education and employment. Another study consistence with presented study. Accordingly in this study, The current study discovered a highly significant difference in QoL between pregnant women with GD and those who do not have a job. The study findings of Naghavi, et al. [16], was published in Kerman, Iran confirmed this conclusion by stating that community members are engaged in a variety of jobs. Job women how antenatal is provided in various societies, the present study found is show highly correlation relationship between QoL Women with GD and residency. This conclusion was reinforced by the study results of in Kerman, Iran, social class and place of residence have an impact on therapy compliance. All residents in urban areas were more compliant with therapy than those in rural areas for a variety of reasons, including accessibility to therapy centers, ease of travel, difficulty remember exercises, knowledge of a different study conducted [17]. The stated quality of life was also related to residence. Urban dwellers rated the highest overall quality of life (QoL), perceived health, and environmental quality of life. Another study consistence with presented study done by Bień, et al. [18].

Conclusion

The highest percentage of women were in the age group (27-36) years, more than two thirds percentage for study sample employed ,more of one quarter were primary graduate, living in urban areas, and majority of the participants were low for socio-economical statues, highly significant differences between quality of life and socio demographic. Enhancing social support from the family for the pregnant woman with diabetes by encouraging the pregnant mother to come with her husband during pregnancy to understand the mother’s needs and the problems she may be exposed to better quality of life.

Authors' Contribution

(A) Study Design · (B) Data Collection . (C) Statistical Analysis · (D) Data Interpretation · (E) Manuscript Preparation · (F) Literature Search · (G) No Fund Collection

References

1. Kampmann U, Knorr S, Fuglsang J, et al. Determinants of maternal insulin resistance during pregnancy: an updated overview. J Diabetes Res. 2019;2019(1):5320156.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Horvath K, Koch K, Jeitler K, et al. Effects of treatment in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010;340.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Marchetti D, Carrozzino D, Fraticelli F, et al. Quality of life in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. J Diabetes Res. 2017;2017(1):7058082.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Malik R, Roy SM. Assessment of quality of life among antenatal women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Int J Reprod Contracept  Obstet Gynecol. 2024;13:570-574.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Faraj F, Mahmood M, Muhammad H, et al. The effects of maternal obesity on maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes. Journal of Sulaimani Medical College. 2021;12(4):411-415.
6. Byakwaga E, Sekikubo M, Nakimuli A. Level of and factors associated with awareness of gestational diabetes mellitus among pregnant women attending antenatal care at Kawempe National Referral Hospital: a cross sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):467.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

7. Wafa MH, Ayoub AI, Bukhari TA, et al. Knowledge and attitude regarding gestational diabetes mellitus among pregnant women in Tabuk City, Saudi Arabia: an exploratory study. Cureus. 2023;15(11).

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

8. Alnaim A. Knowledge of gestational diabetes mellitus among prenatal women attending a public health center in Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia. Egypt J Hosp Med. 2020;80(1):560-569.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

9. Ali RA, Nour SA, Abdelaati IH. Effect of self-care guidelines on knowledge and practice of pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Evid Based Nurs Res. 2022;4(3):9-21.

Google Scholar

10. Dissassa HD, Tufa DG, Geleta LA, et al. Knowledge on gestational diabetes mellitus and associated factors among pregnant women attending antenatal care clinics of North Shewa zone public hospitals, Oromia region, Central Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMJ open. 2023;13(9):e073339.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

11. Shama EE, Ibrahiem NM, Ahmed AR, et al. Clinical association between gestational diabetes mellitus and quality of life among women. Malaysian J Nurs. 2020;12(2):10-21.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

12. Bernier E, Plante AS, Lemieux P, et al. Promoting healthy eating in early pregnancy in individuals at risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: does it improve glucose homeostasis? A study protocol for a randomized control trial. Front Nutr. 2024;10:1336509.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

13. Boutib A, Chergaoui S, Azizi A, et al. Health-related quality of life during three trimesters of pregnancy in Morocco: cross-sectional pilot study. EClinicalMedicine. 2023;57.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

14. Limruangrong P, Phahuwattanakorn W. The Influence of Types of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus, Self-management, Social Support, and Risk Perception on Health-related Quality of Life in Pregnant Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. PHUPONG Vorapong. 2024;32(2):156.

Google Scholar

15. Khalil RY. Quality of Life among pregnant women with Gestational Diabetes in the antenatal health care centers at West Bank/Palestine (Doctoral dissertation, Al-Quds University).
16. Naghavi S, Mehrolhassani MH, Nakhaee N, et al. Effective factors in non-compliance with therapeutic orders of specialists in outpatient clinics in Iran: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:1-6.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

17. Rosińczuk J, Pytel A, Kołtuniuk A. Sociodemographic factors affecting the disease acceptance and the quality of life in patients with parkinson's disease: a preliminary study. Rehabil Nurs. 2019;44(1):35-46.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

18. Bień A, Rzońca E, Kańczugowska A, et al. Factors affecting the quality of life and the illness acceptance of pregnant women with diabetes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(1):68.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at