Background Consumer perspectives are a cornerstone of value‐based healthcare. Screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) were among many of the rapid changes to health care recommended during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The changes provided a unique opportunity to add information about women's perspectives on the debate on GDM screening. Aims The aim of this qualitative study was to explore women's perspectives and understanding of GDM screening and diagnosis comparing the modified COVID‐19 recommendations to standard GDM screening and diagnostic practices. Methods Women who had experienced both the standard and modified GDM screening and diagnostic processes were recruited for telephone interviews. Data analysis used inductive reflexive thematic analysis. Online surveys were disseminated to any registrant not included in interviews to provide an opportunity for all interested participants to provide their perspective. Results Twenty‐nine telephone interviews were conducted and 19 survey responses were received. Seven themes were determined: (1) information provision from clinicians; (2) acceptability of GDM screening; (3) individualisation of GDM screening methods; (4) safety nets to avoid a missed diagnosis; (5) informed decision making; (6) women want information and evidence; and (7) preferred GDM screening methods for the future. Conclusions Overall, women preferred the modified GDM screening recommendations put in place due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. However, their preference was influenced by their prior screening experience and perception of personal risk profile. Women expressed a strong need for clear communication from health professionals and the opportunity to be active participants in decision making.

Aim There is no international consensus for the screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). In March 2020, modified screening and diagnostic recommendations were rapidly implemented in Queensland, Australia, in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. How clinicians perceived and used these changes can provide insights to support high‐quality clinical practice and provide lessons for future policy changes. The aim of this study was to understand clinicians' perceptions and use of COVID‐19 changes to GDM screening and diagnostic recommendations. Methods Queensland healthcare professionals responsible for diagnosing or caring for women with GDM were recruited for semi‐structured telephone interviews. Data analysis of transcribed interviews used inductive reflexive thematic analysis. Results Seventeen interviews were conducted with the following participants: six midwives/nurses, three endocrinologists, two general practitioners, two general practitioners/obstetricians, two diabetes educators, one dietitian and one obstetrician. Three themes emerged: communication and implementation, perceptions and value of evidence and diversity in perceptions of GDM screening. Overall, clinicians welcomed the rapid changes during the initial uncertainty of the pandemic, but as COVID‐19 became less of a threat to the Queensland healthcare system, some questioned the underlying evidence base. In areas where GDM was more prevalent, clinicians more frequently worried about missed diagnoses, whereas others who felt that overdiagnosis had occurred in the past continued to support the changes. Conclusions These findings highlight the challenges to changing policy when clinicians have diverse (and often strongly held) views.

No abstract

Background: The World Health Organization recommends that infants should be exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months of life and that breastfeeding should continue for 2 years and beyond. Most women initiate breastfeeding, but many do not continue for the recommended duration. While midwife-led continuity of antenatal care is linked to improved mother and infant outcomes, the influence on breastfeeding duration has not been previously reviewed. Research Aim: To critically analyze the literature that compared midwife-led continuity of antenatal care with other models of care where researchers have measured breastfeeding duration beyond postpartum hospital discharge. Methods: A systematic literature review with critical analysis was used to answer the research aim. We systematically searched and screened five databases for quantitative studies where researchers had reported breastfeeding duration beyond postpartum hospital discharge after midwife-led continuity of antenatal care, compared with another model of antenatal care. Methodological quality was assessed using tools from the Cochrane Collaboration (RoB2 and ROBINS-I). In total, nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Results: Clear conclusions about the association between midwife-led continuity of antenatal care and breastfeeding duration were not found. The risk of bias within non-randomized studies ranged from serious to critical, and a judgement of “some concerns” of risk of bias in the one randomized study. Conclusion: To date, the question of whether midwife-led continuity of antenatal care improves breastfeeding duration has not been established. There has been a lack of consistency in definitions of breastfeeding and descriptions of models of care, which has weakened the evidence-based of literature reviewed. Our review protocol was registered with PROSPERO; although due to COVID-19, this registration was not checked for eligibility by the PROSPERO team (CRD42020151276). https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020151276