METHODS: Ten focus group discussions were held with opinion leaders (chiefs, elders, assemblymen, leaders of women groups) and 16 in-depth interviews were conducted with healthcare workers (District Directors of Health, Medical Assistants in-charge of health centres, and district Public Health Nurses and Midwives). The interviews and discussions were audio recorded, transcribed into English and imported into NVivo 10 for content analysis.
RESULTS: As heads of the family, men control resources, consult soothsayers to determine the health seeking or treatment for pregnant women, and serve as the final authority on where and when pregnant women should seek medical care. Beyond that, they have no expectation of any further role during antenatal care and therefore find it unnecessary to attend clinics with their partners. There were conflicting views about whether men needed to provide any extra support to their pregnant partners within the home. Health workers generally agreed that men provided little or no support to their partners. Although health workers had facilitated the formation of father support groups, there was little evidence of any impact on antenatal support.
CONCLUSIONS: In patriarchal settings, the role of men can be complex and social and cultural traditions may conflict with public health recommendations. Initiatives to promote male involvement should focus on young men and use chiefs and opinion leaders as advocates to re-orient men towards more proactive involvement in ensuring the health of their partners.
METHODS: Screening periodontal examinations were carried out on all eligible Malay pregnant women in the second trimester of pregnancy attending two randomly selected community maternal and child health clinics in Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Patients with four or more sites with pocket depth 4 mm or higher, and clinical attachment loss 3 mm or higher at the same site with presence of bleeding on probing were diagnosed as having periodontitis in this study. Using this definition, systematic random sampling was utilized for selection of 250 subjects for each exposed and non-exposed group. Of 500 subjects enrolled in the study, 28 (5.6%) were either dropped or lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 472 subjects, 232 with periodontitis were in the exposed group and 240 with healthy periodontium were in the nonexposed group.
RESULTS: The incidence of LBW was 14.2% (95% CI: 9.70-18.75) in women with periodontitis, and 3.3% (95% CI: 1.05-5.62) in women without periodontitis. The relative risk of having LBW infants was 4.27 times higher for women with periodontitis compared with those without periodontitis (95% CI: 2.01-9.04). After adjustment for potential confounders using multiple logistic regression analysis, significant association was found between maternal periodontitis and LBW (OR = 3.84; 95% CI: 1.34-11.05).
CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide additional evidence that pregnant women with periodontitis are at a significantly higher risk of delivering LBW infants.
METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled, open-label trial evaluated 50 women with insulin-treated GDM randomized to either retrospective CGM (6-day sensor) at 28, 32 and 36 weeks' gestation (Group 1, CGM, n = 25) or usual antenatal care without CGM (Group 2, control, n = 25). All women performed seven-point capillary blood glucose (CBG) profiles at least 3 days per week and recorded hypoglycaemic events (symptomatic and asymptomatic CBG care without increasing severe hypoglycaemia. (Clinical Trials Registry No.: NCT02204657).
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted, in which respondents were selected using a systematic random sampling method, and structured questionnaires were used to obtain information from them. Chi-squared test was used to determine factors associated with uptake of first IPTp dose, while a further multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine its predictors.
RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty respondents answered the survey, whose ages ranged from 15 to 45 years, and 86.8% were multigravid. Sixty five percent of them were aware of IPTp, and 34.7% believed that IPTp could be harmful to their pregnancies. Over a half of the respondents (52.9%) believed that taking all their IPTp medicines was very good for their pregnancies, while 45.0% felt that taking their IPTp medicines was very pleasant. Only two respondents (0.5%) stated that it was very untrue that their significant others thought that they should take all their IPTp medicines. Half of the respondents said it was very easy for them to take all their IPTp medicines even if they were experiencing mild discomforts while taking them. Less than a half (42.37%) had received their first dose of IPTp. In bivariate as well as multivariate analysis, only higher level of knowledge was significantly associated with uptake of first IPTp dose. Those with better knowledge of IPTp were about twice more likely to have taken their first dose of IPTp, compared to those with lower knowledge of IPTp (AOR = 1.85; 95% CI: 1.17-2.92).
CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of IPTp as well as its uptake, were sub-optimal in this study. Since knowledge of IPTp significantly predicts uptake of the first dose of IPTp, there is the need to implement health education campaigns to raise the awareness of pregnant women and their families on the need to receive and comply with it.
METHODS: A double blind randomized trial. 103 women scheduled to receive two doses of 12-mg intramuscular dexamethasone 12-hour apart were separately randomized to take prophylactic metformin or placebo after stratification according to their gestational diabetes (GDM) status. First oral dose of allocated study drug was taken at enrolment and continued 500 mg twice daily for 72 hours if not delivered. Six-point blood sugar profiles were obtained each day (pre- and two-hour post breakfast, lunch and dinner) for up to three consecutive days. A hyperglycemic episode is defined as capillary glucose fasting/pre-meal ≥ 5.3 mmol/L or two-hour post prandial/meal ≥ 6.7 mmol/L. Primary outcome was hyperglycemic episodes on Day-1 (first six blood sugar profile points) following antenatal corticosteroids.
RESULTS: Number of hyperglycemic episodes on the first day were not significantly different (mean ± standard deviation) 3.9 ± 1.4 (metformin) vs. 4.1 ± 1.6 (placebo) p = 0.64. Hyperglycemic episodes markedly reduced on second day in both arms to 0.9 ± 1.0 (metformin) vs. 1.2 ± 1.0 (placebo) p = 0.15 and further reduced to 0.6 ± 1.0 (metformin) vs. 0.7 ± 1.0 (placebo) p = 0.67 on third day. Hypoglycemic episodes during the 3-day study period were few and all other secondary outcomes were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: In euglycemic and diet controllable gestational diabetes mellitus women, antenatal corticosteroids cause sustained maternal hyperglycemia only on Day-1. The magnitude of Day-1 hyperglycemia is generally low. Prophylactic metformin does not reduce antenatal corticosteroids' hyperglycemic effect.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered in the ISRCTN registry on May 4 2017 with trial identifier https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10156101 .