Poster Presentation The Annual Scientific Meeting of the Australian Diabetes Society and the Australian Diabetes Educators Association 2013

Evaluation of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Group Education and Individual Education via Interpreter. (#207)

Catherine Finneran 1 , Jane Payne 1 , Gael Holters 1 , Megan Stephans 1 , Robyn Barnes 1 , Simran Grover 1
  1. Diabetes Centre, Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, Bankstown, NSW, Australia

Introduction: Due to increasing Gestational Diabetes (GDM) referrals, we found it challenging to maintain individual initial education sessions. We therefore changed to group education for English-speaking patients, continuing individual education for patients requiring an interpreter.
Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of GDM education delivery in both English-speaking group and one-to-one with interpreter settings.
Methods: English-speaking patients received a two-hour education program involving both Diabetes Educator and Dietitian input. CALD patients who were Non English-speaking (NES) were seen with an interpreter for 45 minute sessions each with a Diabetes Educator and a Dietitian. An anonymous questionnaire, (assessing knowledge of GDM risk, blood glucose monitoring, diet, exercise, plus perceived ability and confidence to apply the recommendations), was developed and distributed one week post-initial education (July-September 2012). No patient characteristics were collected. All patients received the same questionnaire. NES received assistance from an interpreter or family member to complete the form.
Results: There were 54 completed questionnaires returned: (39 group; 15 NES). Both educational settings had similar knowledge results relating to GDM risk and blood glucose monitoring. Statistically significant differences related to importance of exercise as part of the GDM management; (group 100%; NES 80%), aspects of diet, and confidence in their ability to undertake regular exercise (group 12.8%; NES 46.7%). Dietary education differences related to: “which foods can raise BGL’s” (group 82.1% correct; NES 46.7%), and “what has the Dietitian recommended that you do to improve BGL’s?’ (group 84.6% correct; NES 53.3%). Regarding knowledge of potential risks to the baby from GDM, both performed poorly (group 41%; NES 60%).
Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that the delivery of GDM education in different settings is mostly effective and capable of delivering key messages. While there are some individual differences between the settings, there were some areas where both did poorly requiring attention.