Prevalence of Hyperglycemia in Pregnancy and Related Screening Practices in Rural Dehradun: The First Population-Based Study from Uttarakhand (PGDRD-1)

• Published in: Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolism Vol. 27; no. 2; pp. 145 - 153
• Main Authors: Mishra, S, Semwal, J, Srivastava, A, Kumar Mishra, S
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: India Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 01.03.2023; Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd; Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd; Wolters Kluwer - Medknow; Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
• Edition: 2
• Subjects: Diabetes; diabetes in pregnancy; dipsi; Gestational diabetes; gestational diabetes mellitus; Hyperglycemia; oral glucose tolerance test; Original; Original Article; Population-based studies; pre-gdm; Pregnancy; Pregnant women; Rural areas; India; Uttarakhand India; DIPSI; pre-GDM; oral glucose tolerance test; Diabetes in pregnancy; gestational diabetes mellitus
• ISSN: 2230-9500; 2230-8210; 2230-8210; 2230-9500
• DOI: 10.4103/ijem.ijem_459_22

Aims: Phase I of the Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Rural Dehradun (PGDRD) project estimates hyperglycemia in pregnancy (HIP) prevalence and identifies gaps in the utilization of community-related services in rural areas of the Dehradun district (western Uttarakhand); a state where notably no prior population-based study has ever been conducted despite being an Empowered Action Group state for more than two decades. Methods: Using a multistage random sampling technique, 1,223 pregnant women locally registered in the rural field practice area of a block were identified. Those requiring HIP screening were subjected to a 2-h 75 g oral glucose tolerance test during the house visit irrespective of their period-of-gestation and last meal timings, diagnosed using the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group India (DIPSI) criterion (when indicated). Data were collected by personal interviews using a pretested data collection tool. Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 20.0 was used for analysis. Results: The overall HIP prevalence recorded was 9.7% (95% CI: 8.1-11.5%); the majority (95.8%) were GDM followed by overt DIP (4.2%). Less than 1% of the subjects (0.7%) self-reported pre-GDM. Despite this burden, more than three-fourths were never screened for HIP in their pregnancy. Of those tested, the majority availed secondary healthcare facilities. Few even had to bear expenses in private with a very handful being tested free-of-cost by ANM in the community; findings that altogether sharply contrast to those recommended by national protocols. Conclusion: Despite the high HIP burden, beneficiaries are unable to utilize community-related universal screening protocols as desired.