2288-PUB: Capturing the Emotional Burden of Gestational Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gestational diabetes (GDM) is increasingly common and the burden to healthcare services is well recognized. Less understood is the emotional burden associated with a diagnosis of GDM, from the women’s perspective. A qualitative study of women attending the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney Antenatal Diabetes Service was undertaken during a 14-week period in 2018. Women were invited to complete an anonymous questionnaire which asked, “How do you feel about the diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes?” Women were included in the study at three time points, i) newly diagnosed with GDM ii) at 36 weeks gestation and iii) at 3-month follow-up post-delivery. Responses were received from 189 women; 121, 32 and 36 at diagnosis, 36 weeks and post-delivery time points respectively. Their free text responses were transcribed and a thematic analysis of content was undertaken. Results were visualized using a word cloud and tag cloud generator (www.wordclouds.com) with font size representing the prominence or frequency of words expressed. As demonstrated by the images generated, the predominant feelings expressed at diagnosis were ‘worried,’ ‘disappointed,’ ‘upset,’ ‘sad’ and ‘anxious.’ These negative emotions prevailed irrespective of previous GDM experience and maternal age. At 36 weeks the predominant feelings expressed were ‘frustrated,’ ‘disappointed,’ ‘worried,’ ‘upset’ and ‘anxious.’ The primary emotion expressed in diet treated women was ‘anxious’ and in insulin treated women ‘worried.’ Post-delivery, the predominant words were ‘relieved,’ ‘supported’ and ‘anxious.’ In conclusion, there was a high prevalence of negative emotion expressed by women with GDM at diagnosis which persisted throughout pregnancy and, for many, into the postnatal period. Clinicians need to be mindful of this high emotional burden with the aim to better support women with GDM and reduce associated distress. Disclosure A. Harding: None. M. McGill: None. A. Gauld: None. C.M. Pech: None. D. O'Connor: None. M.I. Constantino: None. G.P. Ross: Other Relationship; Self; Roche Diabetes Care Australia. T. Wu: Advisory Panel; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. J. Wong: Advisory Panel; Self; Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Lilly Diabetes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".