Information from the abstract
Assessment of knowledge and attitudes toward gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) across BMI categories may help identify educational gaps among women at different levels of risk and guide targeted antenatal education strategies. A cross-sectional study was conducted at Songklanagarind Hospital from April through July 2024, after receiving ethical committee approval. Knowledge and attitudes regarding GDM were evaluated using self-administered questionnaires, with a total of 24 questions to evaluate knowledge and 4 questions for attitude assessment. A total of 216 women were enrolled with a mean age of 31.4 ± 4.8 years (range 20–42 years) and were categorized into three groups based on BMI : 8 were having a higher education level (aORs 4.86 (1.81–13.09)), previous GDM screening before completing the self-admisnistered questionnaire (aORs 2.31 (1.23–4.33)), a family history of diabetes mellitus (aORs 2.60 (1.22–5.54)), a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome (aORs 7.42 (1.44–38.15)), and previously heard of GDM (aORs 5.38 (1.21–23.9)). Finally, most participants had good attitudes towards GDM. Knowledge about GDM among pregnant Thai women ranged from poor to fair, with few participants aware of their risk for developing the condition, even among overweight or obese women. However, most participants had good attitudes concerning GDM, so providing information about this condition should be encouraged.
Why this record is monitored
This record has an Impact Signal of 85/100 based on recency, source, collaboration, and bibliographic signals. It prioritizes monitoring and is not a judgment of research quality.
Related topics: Gestational Diabetes Research and Management · Diabetes Management and Education · Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Thai researcher and institutional participation
Saengthian Theerakitpaisal · Ninlapa Pruksanusak · Chitkasaem Suwanrath · Thitima Suntharasaj · Savitree Pranpanus · Prince of Songkla University
Data limitations
This page is a bibliographic record based on abstract-level information, not a full analysis or quality assessment. Verify the DOI and original article before citation.