The adapted Life! GDM programme reached more culturally diverse women but had a lower completion rate (36.7%) compared to the standard Life! programme (52.2%).
Observational (n=2,261)
Yes
Does an adapted cardiometabolic risk-reduction program improve completion rates and equitable access compared to a standard program in women with prior gestational diabetes?
An adapted cardiometabolic risk reduction program for women with prior gestational diabetes successfully reached more culturally diverse populations but had lower overall completion rates, highlighting the need for targeted retention strategies.
Absolute Event Rate: 36.7% vs 52.2%
Background: This equity audit assessed enrolment and completion of a state-funded cardiometabolic risk-reduction programme for women with prior gestational diabetes in Victoria, Australia. The analyses compared completion rates between the standard prevention programme Life! with one specifically adapted for women with prior gestational diabetes (Life! GDM) using the PROGRESS equity framework. Methods: Women with a history of GDM in the Life! GDM or the mainstream Life! programme in 2022–2025 were included. Multinomial logistic regression was used to impute categorical variables, logistic regression for binary variables, and linear regression for continuous variables. Estimates were combined across imputed datasets using Rubin’s rules. Results: A total of 2261 women were included: 370 in Life! GDM, and 1891 in Life! from 2022 to 2025, with completion rates of 36.7% and 52.2%, respectively. Compared with women in Life!, women in Life! GDM were more likely to come from non-English-speaking backgrounds, particularly South and Central Asian (30.5% vs. 17.0%) and South-East Asian backgrounds (13.0% vs. 4.3%). After multiple imputation, multivariable logistic regression showed that none of the examined participant characteristics were significantly associated with programme completion in Life! GDM. In the Life! cohort, completion was significantly associated with marital status, with single participants having lower odds of completion (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.41–0.85), and with referral channel, with self-referral associated with higher odds of completion (OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.39–2.12). Conclusions: The adapted programme appeared to have reached more culturally and linguistically diverse women; however, lower completion among those experiencing disadvantage highlights the need for enhanced support and retention strategies to ensure equitable postpartum diabetes prevention.
Dou et al. (Mon,) conducted a observational in History of gestational diabetes (n=2,261). Life! GDM programme vs. Standard Life! programme was evaluated on Programme completion. The adapted Life! GDM programme reached more culturally diverse women but had a lower completion rate (36.7%) compared to the standard Life! programme (52.2%).