MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406863081 · doi:10.2196/53854

Exploring Psychosocial Burdens of Diabetes in Pregnancy and the Feasibility of Technology-Based Support: Qualitative Study

2025· article· en· W4406863081 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maya Roytman, Layna Lu, Elizabeth Soyemi, Karolina Leziak, Charlotte M. Niznik, Lynn M. Yee

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Diabetes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintPsychosocialQualitative researchQualitative analysisPregnancyPsychosocial supportPsychologyMedicineGerontologySociologyComputer sciencePsychiatryBiologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus impose psychosocial burdens on pregnant individuals. As there is less evidence about the experience and management of psychosocial burdens of diabetes mellitus during pregnancy, we sought to identify these psychosocial burdens and understand how a novel smartphone app may alleviate them. The app was designed to provide supportive, educational, motivational, and logistical support content, delivered through interactive messages. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to analyze the qualitative data generated in a feasibility randomized controlled trial of a novel mobile app designed to promote self-management skills, motivate healthy behaviors, and inform low-income pregnant individuals with diabetes. METHODS: Individuals receiving routine clinical care at a single, large academic medical center in Chicago, Illinois were randomized to use of the SweetMama app (n=30) or usual care (n=10) from diagnosis of diabetes until 6 weeks post partum. All individuals completed exit interviews at delivery about their experience of having diabetes during pregnancy. Interviews were guided by a semistructured interview guide and were conducted by a single interviewer extensively trained in empathic, culturally sensitive qualitative interviewing of pregnant and postpartum people. SweetMama users were also queried about their perspectives on the app. Interview data were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. Data were analyzed by 2 researchers independently using grounded theory constant comparative techniques. RESULTS: Of the 40 participants, the majority had gestational diabetes mellitus (n=25, 63%), publicly funded prenatal care (n=33, 83%), and identified as non-Hispanic Black (n=25, 63%) or Hispanic (n=14, 35%). Participants identified multiple psychosocial burdens, including challenges taking action, negative affectivity regarding diagnosis, diet guilt, difficulties managing other responsibilities, and reluctance to use insulin. External factors, such as taking care of children or navigating the COVID-19 pandemic, affected participant self-perception and motivation to adhere to clinical recommendations. SweetMama participants largely agreed that the use of the app helped mitigate these burdens by enhancing self-efficacy, capitalizing on external motivation, validating efforts, maintaining medical nutrition therapy, extending clinical care, and building a sense of community. Participants expressed that SweetMama supported the goals they established with their clinical team and helped them harness motivating factors for self-care. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial burdens of diabetes during pregnancy present challenges with diabetes self-management. Mobile health support may be an effective tool to provide motivation, behavioral cues, and access to educational and social network resources to alleviate psychosocial burdens during pregnancy. Future incorporation of machine learning and language processing models in the app may provide further personalization of recommendations and education for individuals with DM during pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03240874; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03240874.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR DiabetesSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207