Skip to main content
Download PDF

Do glycaemic treatment targets affect the perinatal mental health status of women with gestational diabetes? – Data from the TARGET Trial

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume 23, Article number: 869 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Gestational diabetes mellitus is associated with perinatal mental disorders. Effective management may reduce this risk, but there is little evidence on effects of different glycaemic treatment targets. We assessed whether tight glycaemic treatment targets compared with less-tight targets reduce the risk of poor mental health outcomes in women with gestational diabetes.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of data from women who consented to complete perinatal mental health questionnaires as participants in the TARGET Trial, a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in 10 hospitals in New Zealand. All hospitals initially used less tight glycaemic targets for management of gestational diabetes and were sequentially randomized, in clusters of two at 4-monthly intervals, to using tighter glycaemic targets.

Data were collected from 414 participants on anxiety (6-item Spielberger State Anxiety scale), depression (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale), and health-related quality of life (36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey) at the time of diagnosis (baseline), 36 weeks of gestation, and 6 months postpartum. The primary outcome was composite poor mental health (any of anxiety, vulnerability to depression, or poor mental health-related quality of life). Generalized linear mixed models were used to determine the main treatment effect with 95% confidence intervals using an intention-to-treat approach.

Results

We found no differences between randomised glycaemic target groups in the primary outcome at 36 weeks’ (relative risk (RR): 1.07; 95% confidence interval 0.58, 1.95) and 6 months postpartum (RR: 1.03; 0.58, 1.81). There were similarly no differences in the components of the primary outcome at 36 weeks’ [anxiety (RR: 0.85; 0.44, 1.62), vulnerability to depression (RR: 1.10; 0.43, 2.83), or poor mental health-related quality of life (RR: 1.05; 0.50, 2.20)] or at 6 months postpartum [anxiety (RR:1.21; 0.59, 2.48), vulnerability to depression (RR:1.41; 0.53, 3.79), poor mental health-related quality of life (RR: 1.11; 0.59, 2.08)].

Conclusion

We found no evidence that adoption of tighter glycaemic treatment targets in women with gestational diabetes alters their mental health status at 36 weeks’ gestation and at 6 months postpartum.

Trial registration

The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). ACTRN12615000282583 (ANZCTR—Registration). Date of registration: 25 March 2015.

Peer Review reports

Background

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) refers to hyperglycaemia detected during pregnancy where glucose concentrations are above normal but below the diagnostic criteria of diabetes mellitus [1] GDM is the commonest metabolic diseases experienced in pregnancy, with an estimated one in six pregnant women affected globally [2]. GDM prevalence is increasing worldwide, with New Zealand experiencing an annual 14% increase in national prevalence from 2001 to 2012 [3], and the United Sates reporting an increase from 0.3% in 1979–81 to 5.8% in 2008–10 [4]. GDM can cause serious short and long term maternal and offspring complications, including poor maternal psychological outcomes. Results from two longitudinal studies indicated that women who had a diagnosis of GDM were 2–4 times more likely to experience perinatal depression compared with women without GDM [5, 6]. Two systematic reviews including observational and intervention studies reported that GDM diagnosis doubled the risk of antenatal depression and increased the risk of postnatal depression by more than 60% [7, 8]. Other psychological outcomes including anxiety and stress have also been reported to be higher among women with GDM compared to women without GDM [9,10,11]. Women with a concurrent diagnosis of GDM and antenatal depression have higher rates of poor perinatal outcomes including gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia, preterm birth, and neonatal respiratory distress compared with those with GDM without depression [12, 13]. Potential mechanisms mediating this increased risk include biological, psychological, and environmental changes associated with depression, the pregnancy state and GDM management [14,15,16].

Poor glycaemic control has been associated with depression in people with diabetes outside of pregnancy [17]. However, in women with GDM, evidence on this is limited. The Australian Carbohydrate Intolerance Study in Pregnant Women (ACHOIS) Trial reported lower rates of depression and improved maternal health-related quality of life three months post-partum for women with GDM who received treatment compared with those with GDM who only received routine antenatal care [18]. That trial used glycaemic targets for management of GDM that were previously recommended in New Zealand (fasting plasma glucose < 5.5 mmol/L (< 99 mg/dl); 1-h postprandial < 8.0 mmol/L (< 144 mg/dl); 2-h postprandial < 7.0 mmol/L (< 126 mg/dl)) [19]. There has since been an international trend towards recommending tighter glycaemic targets (fasting plasma glucose ≤ 5.0 mmol/L (≤ 90 mg/dl), 1-h postprandial ≤ 7.4 mmol/L (≤ 133 mg/dl); 2-h postprandial ≤ 6.7 mmol/L (≤ 121 mg/dl)) for management of GDM [20, 21]. A 2016 systematic review of optimal glycaemic treatment targets for GDM concluded from observational studies that there were greater maternal and neonatal metabolic benefits when a fasting plasma glucose target of < 5.0 mmol/L was used [22]. The effect of these tighter glycaemic targets on maternal psychological well-being is, however, not known. The review highlighted the need for high-quality clinical trial evidence on different glycaemic targets and their impact on maternal and neonatal well-being.

To provide high quality evidence and based on recommendations from the New Zealand Ministry of Health [3], the TARGET Trial assessed the effect of different glycaemic treatment targets on maternal and infant health [23]. This study reports on the maternal mental health outcomes. We aimed to assess if tighter glycaemic treatment targets compared with less-tight targets reduced the risk of adverse mental health outcomes, namely anxiety, depression, and poor health-related quality of life in women with GDM.

Methods

This study was nested within the TARGET Trial, a nationally representative multi-center stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in 10 publicly funded participating hospitals in New Zealand [24]. Participating hospitals were cluster randomised and the intervention of tighter targets (fasting plasma glucose ≤ 5.0 mmol/L ( ≤ 90 mg/dl), 1-h postprandial ≤ 7.4 mmol/L ( ≤ 133 mg/dl); 2-h postprandial ≤ 6.7 mmol/L ( ≤ 121 mg/dl) sequentially implemented at 4-monthly intervals in place of the less-tight targets (fasting plasma glucose < 5.5 mmol/L (< 99 mg/dl); 1-h postprandial < 8.0 mmol/L (< 144 mg/dl); 2-h postprandial < 7.0 mmol/L (< 126 mg/dl). The allocation sequence of the hospitals to the implementation of the tight glycaemic targets was prepared by a statistician using a computer-generated random number table. Women diagnosed with GDM were treated based on the targets being used by the hospital at the time they received their antenatal care. The care the women in our study received were guided by the New Zealand guidelines for management of gestational diabetes [3]. The guideline recommends specialised dietary and lifestyle advice, and medication if required to achieve glycaemic treatment targets. Postpartum follow up care is recommended at 3 months after birth for glucose screening. Health professionals involved in their care included their lead maternity carers (midwives and obstetricians) and health professionals of their local Diabetes Pregnancy Service (diabetes specialists, diabetes nurses, and dieticians). Women were blinded to their glycaemic target groups as per the study protocol [24].

Women who were recruited to the TARGET Trial were invited to participate in this nested study and complete questionnaires about self-reported depression, anxiety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at the time of diagnosis of GDM (baseline), 36 weeks’ gestation, and 6 months after the birth. Questionnaires were provided by designated study health professionals in each hospital and the women independently completed them and returned them during their clinic appointments or by post. The TARGET Trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry—ACTRN 12615000282583. Human ethics approval was granted by the Northern A Health and Disability Ethics Committee in New Zealand (14/NTA/163/AMO1). All participants provided written informed consent for participation in this nested study.

Outcomes

The primary outcome of this study was the proportion of women with a composite of poor mental health outcomes (defined as any of vulnerability to depression, anxiety, or poor mental HRQoL) at 36 weeks’ gestation and 6 months after birth.

Depression was measured using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), a validated tool for assessing postpartum depression among pregnant women [25]. The tool comprises 10 items with each item scored on a 4-point scale (0 – 3) for a maximum score of 30. A cut-off score of > 12 indicates significant vulnerability to depression [18, 26]. Anxiety was measured using the shortened 6-item Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) [27]. The STAI accurately reflects the anxiety‐related experiences of pregnant women [28]. In our study we used the shortened form (6-item STAI) which has been shown as a valid alternative to the full version for use in research as it improves acceptability while maintaining its validity [27].The tool includes 6 items using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all to 4 = very much so), with scores > 15 indicating presence of symptoms of anxiety [29, 30] as used in similar studies [18]. HRQoL was assessed using the 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36), a validated tool for assessing quality of life measures during pregnancy [31]. The tool uses 36 items to assess eight aspects of health status: general health, mental health, physical functioning, social functioning, role physical, role emotional, bodily pain, and vitality [32]. The scores range from 0–100 and two summary measures, namely physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS), can also be calculated [33] with higher scores being associated with higher levels of functioning. We assigned a cut-off value of MCS < 40 (less than minus one standard deviation from the New Zealand standardized mean of 50) [34] to denote poor mental HRQoL, as this measure adequately captures mental health outcomes [35]. This cut-off has good positive predictive value for poor mental health outcomes compared to other validated psychological instruments [36].

Secondary outcomes assessed included incidence of anxiety, depression, and poor mental HRQoL at 36 weeks and 6 months postpartum, and mean STAI, EPDS, and SF-36 (all eight scales of the SF-36 and the two summary measures) scores at 36 weeks’ gestation and 6 months postpartum.

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics of the participants were compared between the two glycaemic target groups using student’s t-tests or chi-squared tests where appropriate. Psychological outcomes were analyzed both as continuous and categorical variables to enhance clinical interpretations using the intention-to-treat approach [37, 38]. Generalised linear mixed models were used to determine the main treatment effect with random effect for hospitals, and fixed effects for the intervention, and time interval between initiation of the assigned target and GDM diagnosis. The analyses were adjusted for predefined confounding effect of gestational age at trial entry, body mass index (BMI), ethnicity, and history of GDM. Binary outcomes were analysed using a log Poisson mixed-effects regression with robust variance estimation and the treatment effect was reported as relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI). A linear mixed-effects regression was conducted to analyse continuous outcomes with further adjustment for their value at the study entry to obtain the mean difference and 95% CI. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. A 2-sided p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, United States of America).

Results

Baseline characteristics and outcome measures of the study population

Women were recruited to the TARGET trial between May 29, 2015 and November 7, 2017. Of the 455 eligible women, 414 completed the psychological questionnaires (Fig. 1). Of those, 225 (54.3%) women were randomised to the tighter glycemic targets and 189 (45.7%) to the less tight targets. Baseline characteristics were generally similar among women in the two treatment groups (Table 1). However, there were more European women in the less-tight treatment group and more Pacific women in the tighter treatment group. Most of the women in the study were overweight or obese (90%), with more obese women in the tighter target group.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study eligibility and inclusion. Figure shows the eligibility and inclusion of women in our study from the TARGET Trial

Full size image
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of women randomized to tight or less tight glycaemic targets
Full size table

At entry into the trial there were no differences in mental health composite outcome or its components between the two target groups (Table 2). The tighter target group had higher scores in the vitality domain of the SF-36 (54.5 ± 14.4 vs 51.5 ± 14.7, p = 0.04), but there were no significant differences between groups in the other domains or in the overall summary scores.

Table 2 Mental health measures at trial entry (baseline)
Full size table

Incidence of anxiety, depression and poor mental HRQoL at 36 weeks’ gestation and 6 months after birth

After adjustment for potential confounders, there were no differences between the two treatment groups at 36 weeks’ gestation in the composite of poor mental health outcomes [adjusted relative risk (aRR) 1.07 (95% CI 0.58, 1.95)] or its components [anxiety: aRR 0.85 (0.44, 1.62), vulnerability to depression: aRR: 1.10 (0.43, 2.83), poor mental HRQoL: aRR: 1.05 (0.50, 2.20)]. Similarly, there was no difference in mean scores for anxiety [adjusted mean difference (aMD) (95% CI) 0.00 (-0.80, 0.81)], depression [-0.12 (-0.90, 0.66)] and HRQoL MCS [0.20 (-1.36, 1.76)] (Table 3).

Table 3 Comparison of mental health outcomes at 36 weeks’ gestation
Full size table

At 6 months post-partum there were no differences between the treatment target groups for the composite of poor mental health outcomes [aRR 1.03 (0.58, 1.81)] or its components [anxiety: aRR 1.21 (0.59, 2.48), vulnerability to depression: aRR 1.41 (0.53, 3.79), poor mental HRQoL: aRR 1.11 (0.59, 2.08)]; or in scores for anxiety [aMD (95%CI) -0.05 (-0.86,0.76)], depression [0.47 (-0.52, 1.45)] and HRQoL MCS [0.44 (-1.60, 2.48)] (Table 4).

Table 4 Comparison of mental health outcomes at 6 months postpartum
Full size table

Discussion

We found no significant differences in the proportion of women with anxiety, vulnerability for depression and poor mental HRQoL among women in the two glycaemic target groups. The mean scores for the measures of anxiety, depression and HRQoL were also not different between the two groups.

Currently recommended glycaemic treatment targets for the management of GDM differ across countries and professional associations. In the United States, the American Diabetes Association recommends fasting plasma glucose < 95 mg/dL (< 5.3 mmol/L); 1-h postprandial < 140 mg/dL (< 7.8 mmol/L); and 2-h postprandial < 120 mg/dL (< 6.7 mmol/L) [39], the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom recommends a fasting plasma glucose < 5.3 mmol/L (< 95 mg/dL); 1 h postprandial < 7.8 mmol/L (< 140 mg/dL); and 2-h postprandial < 6.4 mmol/L (< 126 mg/dl) [40], and the World Health Organization a fasting plasma glucose ≤ 7.0 mmol/L (≤ 126 mg/dl); and 2-h postprandial ≤ 9.0 mmol/L (≤ 160 mg/dl) [41]. Most of these recommendations are not based on evidence from clinical trials but rather guideline panel consensus, with the relevant Cochrane systematic review reporting insufficient evidence on optimal glycemic targets to minimise adverse maternal and fetal health outcomes [42].

Studies assessing the association between glycaemic control and mental well-being in the general diabetes population have produced varying results. While some studies have showed good mental well-being is associated with intense glycaemic control [17, 43, 44], a few studies have reported the inverse (i.e., better mental well-being in women with poor glycaemic control) [45,46,47]. One of the reasons suggested for the latter finding is that more intense glycaemic control may require adherence to strict treatment practices, including dietary changes and addition of medication, which may cause anxiety and depression leading to lower mental well-being.

In women with GDM, evidence of a relationship between glycaemic control with psychological well-being is limited. In the TARGET Trial, women who were allocated to the tighter treatment target group had higher rates of use of pharmacological agents compared to those managed with the less-tight targets [23]. However, this does not seem to have resulted in poorer mental health outcomes. One cohort study of 68 women with GDM in the United States found no differences in psychological well-being between women who were diet-controlled compared with those who required insulin in addition to dietary therapy (intensive control) [48]. That study suggested that since blood glucose concentrations in women with GDM were less labile than in non-insulin dependent diabetics, the population amongst whom most studies have been conducted, this could explain the lack of association between mental health well-being and plasma glucose concentrations.

The improvement in maternal mental health outcomes found in the Australian Carbohydrate Intolerance Study in Pregnant Women (ACHOIS) trial has been suggested to represent the beneficial effect of increased care that women with GDM may receive when treatment is offered [49]. The lack of benefit or harm found in our study suggests additional care and monitoring generally associated with more intense management, as might be expected with tighter treatment targets, does not appear to either distress or reassure mothers.

Some studies have suggested that the link between GDM and poor mental health outcomes, especially depression, may be bidirectional i.e., depression may also precede GDM [14, 49, 50]. In our study, the incidence of vulnerability to depression in both treatment groups at baseline and 36 weeks’ gestation were lower than estimates from similar developed countries in the second and third trimesters [51], making this explanation unlikely in this cohort.

Additionally, some studies have suggested depression is associated with poor perceived glycaemic control in the general diabetes population [52, 53]. In our study, it may be that women in both treatment groups had a good perceived glycaemic control (albeit at different treatment targets) and hence showed no difference in the self-reported mental health outcomes. However, we had limited data on compliance to glycaemic treatment targets in our study and therefore could not explore this assumption further.

The incidence of depression and anxiety were similar between the two treatment groups at baseline, 36 weeks’ gestation, and 6 months postpartum. However, the incidence of depression and anxiety in both groups decreased at 36 weeks’ gestation compared to baseline. This result differs from some previous studies which reported a similar incidence of poor psychological outcome in the second and third trimesters in women with diabetes [54, 55]. However, it is consistent with other studies [56, 57], that reported better HRQoL scores among women with GDM at 36 weeks’ gestation compared to 6 months after birth. In comparison to the general population of pregnant women in New Zealand, the incidence of depression in our study in both treatment groups at 36 weeks’ gestation was lower than that estimated in pregnant women in their third trimester using nationally representative data (8.9% and 7.1% for tight target and less-tight target groups versus 11.9% using data from the Growing Up in New Zealand cohort) [58].

Strengths and limitations

This study has several strengths. The data are from a randomised trial. Using a post-hoc power analysis, the study sample size is adequately powered to detect a difference of 0.3 between the two groups in incidence of poor psychological outcomes at 90% power and an alpha value of 0.05; an effect size that is considered small using Cohen’s standardized effect size criteria [59] Secondly, the study used objective and valid instruments to assess the different outcomes. Thirdly, this is one of few studies to assess the effect of different glycaemic treatment targets on mental health outcomes in women with GDM. Additionally, the results of this study are generalisable for use in healthcare settings managing women with GDM in New Zealand, as the study recruited hospitals nationwide. However, the study is specific to the New Zealand population of women with GDM and healthcare context, and whilst likely generalisable to women with GDM in similar healthcare settings may not be to those in low- and middle-income countries.

The main limitation of our study is that women who did not participate in our study (did not consent to completion of questionnaires on mental health) may differ from those who did with regards to the outcome (e.g., may have been suffering from poor mental health) which may result in a selection bias. Secondly, we used self-reported measures to assess mental health outcomes in our study which are not considered as diagnostic gold standards. The EPDS cut-off used in our study has, however, been reported as similar in accuracy to clinical interviews which are considered as the gold standard for diagnosis of depression during pregnancy and in the postpartum period [60]. Although the SF-36 questionnaire has been validated for use in the New Zealand population [61], the EPDS and short-item STAI have not been validated for use across all ethnicities in the New Zealand population to determine the optimal cut-off points. Additionally, the tight glycemic targets used in this study [(fasting ≤ 5.0 mmol/L (≤ 90 mg/dl), 1-h postprandial ≤ 7.4 mmol/L (≤ 133 mg/dl); 2-h postprandial ≤ 6.7 mmol/L (≤ 121 mg/dl)] differ slightly from tight targets recommended in other settings, like the United States [(fasting < 95 mg/dL (< 5.3 mmol/L); 1-h postprandial < 140 mg/dL (< 7.8 mmol/L); 2-h postprandial < 120 mg/dL (< 6.7 mmol/L)] [39].

Conclusion

In summary, we found no difference in maternal mental health outcomes, namely anxiety, depression, and health-related quality of life, measured at 36 weeks’ gestation and 6 months after birth among women with GDM treated with tighter recommended glycaemic treatment targets compared to the previously used less tight glycemic targets in New Zealand. These findings suggest adoption of tighter glycaemic treatment targets in GDM care does not appear to benefit nor harm maternal mental well-being assessed at 36 weeks and 6 months after the birth.

Availability of data and materials

The data and materials used in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. Data and associated documentation are available to users under the data sharing arrangements provided by the Maternal and Perinatal Research Hub, based at the Liggins Institute, University of Auckland. Proposals should be directed to researchhub@auckland.ac.nz.

Abbreviations

aMD:

Adjusted Mean Difference

aRR:

Adjusted Relative Risk

BMI:

Body Mass Index

CI:

Confidence Interval

EPDS:

Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale

GDM:

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

HRQoL:

Health-Related Quality of Life

MCS:

Mental Component Summary

OGTT:

Oral Glucose Tolerance Test

PCS:

Physical Component Summary

SAS:

Statistical Analysis System

SF-36:

36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey

STAI:

Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

References

  1. World Health Organization. Global report on diabetes. Geneva: WHO Press; 2016. Available from: http://www.who.int

  2. Cho NH, Shaw JE, Karuranga S, Huang Y, da Rocha Fernandes JD, Ohlrogge AW, et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas: global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;138:271–81. Available from: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.diabres.2018.02.023

  3. Ministry of Health. Screening, Diagnosis and Management of Gestational Diabetes in New Zealand: a clinical practice guideline. Wellington; 2014 [cited 2021 Jun 29]. Available from: www.health.govt.nz

  4. Lavery JA, Friedman AM, Keyes KM, Wright JD, Ananth CV. Gestational diabetes in the United States: temporal changes in prevalence rates between 1979 and 2010. BJOG. 2017 Apr 1 [cited 2022 Apr 30];124(5):804–13. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC5303559/

  5. Miller NE, Curry E, Laabs SB, Manhas M, Angstman K. Impact of gestational diabetes diagnosis on concurrent depression in pregnancy. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2021 [cited 2022 Jul 1];42(3):190–3. Available from: https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/doi/abs/10.1080/0167482X.2019.1709816

  6. Hinkle SN, Buck Louis GM, Rawal S, Zhu Y, Albert PS, Zhang C. A longitudinal study of depression and gestational diabetes in pregnancy and the postpartum period. Diabetologia. 2016 [cited 2022 Jul 5];59(12):2594–602. https://0-link-springer-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.1007/s00125-016-4086-1

  7. Azami M, Badfar G, Soleymani A, Rahmati S. The association between gestational diabetes and postpartum depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;149:147–55. Available from: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.diabres.2019.01.034

  8. Wilson CA, Newham J, Rankin J, Ismail K, Simonoff E, Reynolds RM, et al. Is there an increased risk of perinatal mental disorder in women with gestational diabetes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetic Medicine. 2020 Apr 1 [cited 2022 Sep 23];37(4):602–22. Available from: https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/doi/full/10.1111/dme.14170

  9. Hayase M, Shimada M, Seki H. Sleep quality and stress in women with pregnancy-induced hypertension and gestational diabetes mellitus. Women Birth. 2014;27(3):190–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Egan AM, Dunne FP, Lydon K, Conneely S, Sarma K, McGuire BE. Diabetes in pregnancy: Worse medical outcomes in type 1 diabetes but worse psychological outcomes in gestational diabetes. QJM. 2017 [cited 2022 Sep 27];110(10):721–7. Available from: https://0-academic-oup-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/qjmed/article/110/11/721/4060480

  11. Daniells S, Grenyer BFS, Davis WS, Coleman KJ, Burgess JAP, Moses RG. Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Is a diagnosis associated with an increase in maternal anxiety and stress in the short and intermediate term? Diabetes Care. 2003 [cited 2022 Sep 23];26(2):385–9. Available from: https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/26/2/385/23113/Gestational-Diabetes-Mellitus-Is-a-diagnosis

  12. Packer CH, Pilliod RA, Chatroux LR, Caughey AB, Valent AM. Increased rates of adverse perinatal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes and depression. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021 [cited 2022 Jul 1];34(23):3862–6. Available from: https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/doi/abs/10.1080/14767058.2019.1701647

  13. Lee KW, Ching SM, Hoo FK, Ramachandran V, Chong SC, Tusimin M, et al. Neonatal outcomes and its association among gestational diabetes mellitus with and without depression, anxiety and stress symptoms in Malaysia: a cross-sectional study. Midwifery. 2020;81:102586. Available from: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.midw.2019.102586

  14. Riggin L. Association between gestational diabetes and mental illness. Can J Diabetes. 2020;44(6):566–71. Available from: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.jcjd.2020.06.014

  15. Osborne LM, Monk C. Perinatal depression: The fourth inflammatory morbidity of pregnancy? Theory and literature review. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2013 [cited 2022 Sep 23];38(10):1929–52. Available from: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.03.019

  16. Laake JPS, Stahl D, Amiel SA, Petrak F, Sherwood RA, Pickup JC, et al. The association between depressive symptoms and systemic inflammation in people with type 2 diabetes: Findings from the South London diabetes study. Diabetes Care. 2014 [cited 2022 Sep 23];37(8):2186–92. Available from: https://diabetesjournals-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/care/article/37/8/2186/29946/The-Association-Between-Depressive-Symptoms-and

  17. Lustman PJ, Anderson RJ, Freedland KE, de Groot M, Carney RM, Clouse RE. Depression and poor glycemic control: a meta-analytic review of the literature. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(7):934–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Crowther CA, Hiller JE, Moss JR, McPhee AJ, Jeffries WS, Robinson JS. Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus on pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2005 [cited 2022 May 20];352(24):2477–86. Available from: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa042973

  19. Hoffman L, Nolan C, Wilson JD, Oats JJN, Simmons D. Gestational diabetes mellitus - management guidelines: the Australasian diabetes in pregnancy society. Med J Australia. 1998 Jul 1 [cited 2022 Jul 6];169(2):93–7. Available from: https://0-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1998.tb140192.x

  20. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 190: Gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstetrics Gynecology. 2018;131(2):e49–64.

  21. Rudland VL, Price SAL, Hughes R, Barrett HL, Lagstrom J, Porter C, et al. ADIPS 2020 guideline for pre-existing diabetes and pregnancy. Aust N Z J Obstetr Gynaecol. 2020  [cited 2022 May 24];60(6):E18–52. Available from: https://0-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1111/ajo.13265

  22. Prutsky GJ, Domecq JP, Wang Z, Carranza Leon BG, Elraiyah T, Nabhan M, et al. Glucose targets in pregnant women with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metabol. 2013 [cited 2022 May 24];98(11):4319–24. Available from: https://0-academic-oup-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/jcem/article/98/11/4319/2834809

  23. Crowther CA, Samuel D, Hughes R, Tran T, Brown J, Alsweiler JM. Tighter or less tight glycaemic targets for women with gestational diabetes mellitus for reducing maternal and perinatal morbidity: a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial. Myers JE, editor. PLoS Med. 2022 [cited 2022 Sep 14];19(9):e1004087. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36074760/

  24. Crowther CA, Alsweiler JM, Hughes R, Brown J. Tight or less tight glycaemic targets for women with gestational diabetes mellitus for reducing maternal and perinatal morbidity? (TARGET): study protocol for a stepped wedge randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 [cited 2022 May 24];18(1). Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC6206938/

  25. Cox JL, Holden JM, Sagovsky R. Detection of postnatal depression: development of the 10-item Edinburgh postnatal depression scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1987;150:782–6. Available from: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1192/bjp.150.6.782

  26. Abdollahi F, Zarghami M, Azhar MZ, Sazlina SG, Lye MS. Predictors and incidence of post-partum depression: a longitudinal cohort study. J Obstetr Gynaecol Res. 2014 [cited 2022 Jul 11];40(12):2191–200. Available from: https://0-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1111/jog.12471

  27. Court H, Greenland K, Margrain TH. Measuring patient anxiety in primary care: Rasch analysis of the 6-item Spielberger state anxiety scale. Value in Health. 2010;13(6):813–9. Available from: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00758.x

  28. Gunning MD, Denison FC, Stockley CJ, Ho SP, Sandhu HK, Reynolds RM. Assessing maternal anxiety in pregnancy with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI): issues of validity, location and participation. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2010 [cited 2023 Oct 30];28(3):266–73. Available from: https://0-www-tandfonline-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjri20

  29. Skapinakis P. Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. In: Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer, Dordrecht; 2014 [cited 2022 Jul 1]. p. 6261–4. Available from: https://0-link-springer-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2825

  30. Marteau TM, Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State—Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol. 1992;31(3):301–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jomeen J, Martin CR. The factor structure of the SF-36 in early pregnancy. J Psychosom Res. 2005;59(3):131–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ware JE, Sherbourn CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ware JE. SF-36 Health Survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3130–9.

  34. The Ministry of Health New Zealand. Taking the Pulse - The 1996/97 New Zealand Health Survey - SF-36 data analysis. Wellington; 1999 [cited 2022 Jul 29]. Available from: https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/taking-pulse-1996-97-new-zealand-health-survey-sf-36-data-analysis

  35. Ware JE, Kosinski MA, Keller SD. SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: A user’s manual [Internet]. Boston, MA; 1993. 1–147 p. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Ware/publication/292390260_SF-36_Physical_and_Mental_Health_Summary_Scales_a_User’s_Manual/links/5af580264585157136caee31/SF-36-Physical-and-Mental-Health-Summary-Scales-a-Users-Manual.pdf

  36. Pfoh ER, Chan KS, Dinglas VD, Cuthbertson BH, Elliott D, Porter R, et al. The SF-36 offers a strong measure of mental health symptoms in survivors of acute respiratory failure: a tri-national analysis. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016 [cited 2022 Jul 29];13(8):1343–50. Available from: www.atsjournals.org

  37. Lazic SE. Why we should use simpler models if the data allow this: relevance for ANOVA designs in experimental biology. BMC Physiol. 2008 [cited 2022 Jul 18];8(1):16. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC2496911/

  38. Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. Br Med J. 2006 May 5 [cited 2022 Jul 18];332:1080. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC1458573/

  39. American Diabetes Association. Management of diabetes in pregnancy: Standards of medical care in diabetes-2021. Diabetes Care. 2021 [cited 2022 Aug 8];44:S200–10. Available from: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.2337/dc21-S014

  40. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE GUIDELINES. 2015 [cited 2022 May 18]. Diabetes in pregnancy: management from preconception to the postnatal period. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng3

  41. World Health Organization. Diagnosis and management of type 2 diabetes (HEARTS-D). Geneva; 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/who-ucn-ncd-20.1

  42. Martis R, Brown J, Alsweiler J, Crawford TJ, Crowther CA. Different intensities of glycaemic control for women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016 Apr 7 [cited 2022 Jul 4];(4). Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7100550/

  43. Mazze RS, Lucido D, Shamoon H. Psychological and social correlates of glycemic control. Diabetes Care. 1984;7(4):360–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Barglow P, Hatcher R, Berndt D, Phelps R. Psychosocial childbearing stress and metabolic control in pregnant diabetics. J Nervous Mental Dis. 1985;173(10):615–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Néss S, Midthjell K, Moum T, Sørensen T, Tambs K. Diabetes mellitus and psychological well-being. Results of the Nord-Trøndelag health survey. Scand J Public Health. 1995;23(3):179–88.

  46. Wikby A, Hörnquist JO, Stenström U, Andersson PO. Background factors, long-term complications, quality of life and metabolic control in insulin dependent diabetes. Qual Life Res. 1993;2(4):281–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hanestad BR, Hörnquist JO, Albrektsen G. Self-assessed quality of life and metabolic control in persons with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). Scand J Soc Med. 1991;19(1):57–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Spirito A, Williams C, Ruggiero L, Bond A, McGarvey ST, Coustan D. Psychological impact of the diagnosis of gestational diabetes. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;73(4):562–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. McIntyre HD, Catalano P, Zhang C, Desoye G, Mathiesen ER, Damm P. Gestational diabetes mellitus. Nat Rev. 2019 [cited 2022 Sep 20];5(47). Available from: www.nature.com/nrdp

  50. Arafa A, Dong JY. Depression and risk of gestational diabetes: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;1(156).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Bennett HA, Einarson A, Taddio A, Koren G, Einarson TR. Prevalence of depression during pregnancy: systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(4):698–709.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Gonzalez JS, Safren SA, Cagliero E, Wexler DJ, Delahanty L, Wittenberg E, et al. Depression, self-care, and medication adherence in type 2 diabetes: relationships across the full range of symptom severity. Diabetes Care. 2007 [cited 2022 Oct 6];30(9):2222–7. Available from: https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/30/9/2222/29379/Depression-Self-Care-and-Medication-Adherence-in

  53. Egede LE, Osborn CY. Role of motivation in the relationship between depression, self-care, and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diab Educ. 2010;36(2):276–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Munda A, Fekonja U, Pongrac Barlovič D. Prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms in women with gestational diabetes: a longitudinal cohort study. Acta Diabetol. 2021 [cited 2022 Dec 15];58(8):1091–100. Available from: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s00592-021-01706-w

  55. Ásbjörnsdóttir B, Vestgaard M, Do NC, Ringholm L, Andersen LLT, Jensen DM, et al. Prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms in pregnant women with type 2 diabetes and the impact on glycaemic control. Diabetic Medicine. 2021 [cited 2022 Dec 15];38(3):e14506. Available from: https://0-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1111/dme.14506

  56. Huang T, Rifas-Shiman SL, Ertel KA, Rich-Edwards J, Kleinman K, Gillman MW, et al. Pregnancy hyperglycaemia and risk of prenatal and postpartum depressive symptoms. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2015 [cited 2022 Dec 15];29(4):281–9. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC4642439/

  57. Dalfrà MG, Nicolucci A, Bisson T, Bonsembiante B, Lapolla A. Quality of life in pregnancy and post-partum: a study in diabetic patients. Vol. 21, Quality of Life Research. Springer; 2012 [cited 2022 Sep 23]. p. 291–8. Available from: https://0-link-springer-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.1007/s11136-011-9940-5

  58. Waldie KE, Peterson ER, D’Souza S, Underwood L, Pryor JE, Carr PA, et al. Depression symptoms during pregnancy: evidence from Growing Up in New Zealand. J Affect Disord. 2015;31(186):66–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Levis B, Negeri Z, Sun Y, Benedetti A, Thombs BD. Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2020;371.

  61. Scott KM, Tobias MI, Sarfati D, Haslett SJ. SF-36 health survey reliability, validity and norms for New Zealand. Aust N Z J Public Health. 1999 [cited 2022 Dec 15];23(4):401–6. Available from: https://0-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/j.1467-842X.1999.tb01282.x

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the 414 women who participated in this study.

Funding

The TARGET Trial was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (Grant Number 14/499). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Phyllis Ohene-Agyei, Jane E. Harding & Caroline A. Crowther

  2. School of Biomedical Engineering, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Thach Tran

Authors
  1. Phyllis Ohene-Agyei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thach Tran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jane E. Harding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Caroline A. Crowther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors were involved in the conceptualisation of the manuscript. PO wrote the main manuscript and JH and CC critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. TT and CC developed the methodology and TT carried out the statistical analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline A. Crowther.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Human ethics approval was obtained from the Northern A Health and Disability Ethics Committee in New Zealand (14/NTA/163/AMO1). Women who were eligible for our study provided informed written consent before psychometric questionnaires were administered.

All methods were carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ohene-Agyei, P., Tran, T., Harding, J.E. et al. Do glycaemic treatment targets affect the perinatal mental health status of women with gestational diabetes? – Data from the TARGET Trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 23, 869 (2023). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12884-023-06190-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12884-023-06190-4

Keywords

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Contact us