Skip to main content
Download PDF

Retrospective cohort study of the association between socioeconomic deprivation and incidence of gestational diabetes and perinatal outcomes

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 184 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Socioeconomic disparities have been shown to correlate with perinatal mortality and the incidence of type 2 diabetes. Few studies have explored the relationship between deprivation and the incidence of gestational diabetes (GDM). We aimed to identify the relationship between deprivation and incidence of GDM, after adjusting for age, BMI, and ethnicity. We also examined for relationships between deprivation and perinatal outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective cohort analysis of 23,490 pregnancies from a major National Health Service Trust in Northwest London was conducted. The 2019 English Indices of Multiple Deprivation was used to identify the deprivation rank and decile for each postcode. Birthweight centile was calculated from absolute birthweight after adjusting for ethnicity, maternal height, maternal weight, parity, sex and outcome (live birth/stillbirth). Logistic regression and Kendall’s Tau were used to identify relationships between variables.

Results

After controlling for age, BMI & ethnicity, Index of Multiple Deprivation postcode decile was not associated with an increased risk of developing gestational diabetes. Each increase in decile of deprivation was associated with an increase in birthweight centile by 0.471 (p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, age was associated with a 7.1% increased GDM risk (OR: 1.076, p < 0.001); BMI increased risk by 5.81% (OR: 1.059, p < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between Index of Multiple Deprivation rank and perinatal outcomes.

Discussion

Our analysis demonstrates that socioeconomic deprivation was not associated with incidence of GDM or adverse perinatal outcomes. Factors such as genetic predisposition and lifestyle habits may likely play a larger role in the development of GDM compared to socioeconomic deprivation alone.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is defined as glucose intolerance first recognised in pregnancy and leads to various degrees of hyperglycaemia during pregnancy [1]. Recent revisions to the definition have sought to recognise the increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes, which can present as diabetes during pregnancy [2].

The pathophysiology of gestational diabetes mellitus is thought to relate to an ineffective beta cell response to compensate for the increasing insulin resistance observed as gestation advances [3]. Factors that have been shown to increase the risk of GDM, overlap those associated with type 2 diabetes risk and include: obesity, advancing maternal age, a previous pregnancy complicated by GDM, polycystic ovary syndrome, non-white ethnicity, previous macrocosmic baby (> 4000 g) and a family history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)) [3]. Hyperglycaemia during pregnancy is associated with adverse risk [4, 5], including increased neonatal adiposity [6], preeclampsia [7, 8], shoulder dystocia [9] and mechanical injuries during birth, resulting in fractures and nerve palsies [10]. Moreover, women with GDM have an increased lifetime risk of developing T2DM [11] and children of women exposed to in utero hyperglycaemia are predisposed to obesity [12] and diabetes [13] in later life.

The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) suggests a two-stage approach in identifying women with gestational diabetes. In the first instance, women are screened for risk factors at their initial antenatal visit: those who have one or more risk factors are offered a 75 g 120-min oral glucose tolerance test. A fasting plasma glucose of 5.6 mmol/litre or above, and/or a 120-min plasma glucose level of 7.8 mmol/litre is considered diagnostic for GDM [14, 15].

As screening for GDM is essential to identify and manage the condition, healthcare professionals may need to consider the impact of socioeconomic status on GDM management. Disparities in social class have been shown to affect several health outcomes including life expectancy [16, 17], recovery from myocardial infarctions [18] and recovery from hip fractures [19]. In the context of type 2 diabetes mellitus, there is a clear association between socioeconomic deprivation and type 2 diabetes incidence [20]. People who live in areas with high levels of poverty and low educational attainment have been shown to have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those who live in more affluent areas [20]. Furthermore, deprivation has been shown to be an independent risk factor for the development of diabetes-related foot disease, (peripheral neuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, foot ulcers and lower limb amputation and gangrene) [21], as well as an effect magnifier for mortality in diabetes-related foot disease [22]. Additionally, a higher mortality is observed in people with T2DM living in deprived areas [23, 24].

The relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and the incidence of GDM and adverse perinatal outcomes can be influenced by mediating and moderating factors. Variables that act as intermediaries between the exposure (socioeconomic deprivation) and the outcomes (GDM and perinatal outcomes) are referred to as mediating factors. In this context, maternal diet is one example of a mediating factor. Women in low-income areas may have limited access to healthy food options and may consume diets high in calories but low in nutrients, which can increase their risk of GDM [25]. Additionally, maternal stress may be thought of as a mediating factor because it has been connected to an elevated incidence of GDM and unfavourable perinatal outcomes in women who reside in socioeconomically impoverished areas [26]. Another example of a mediating factor is maternal health behaviours, as women in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas may engage in behaviours such as smoking and alcohol consumption during pregnancy, which has been associated with an elevated risk of GDM and unfavourable perinatal outcomes [27].

Moderating factors are variables that affect the strength or direction of the relationship between the exposure (socioeconomic deprivation) and the outcome (GDM and perinatal outcomes). Maternal age is one example of a moderating factor. Older women are more likely to experience GDM [28], and the relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and GDM may be stronger in older women [29]. Another moderating factor is maternal BMI. Overweight and obese women have higher risks of GDM [30], and the relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and GDM may be stronger in women with higher BMIs [31]. Furthermore, maternal race/ethnicity can be viewed as a moderating factor as the relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and GDM may differ among different racial and ethnic groups [32].

In the context of pregnancy, deprivation has been shown to positively correlate with perinatal mortality [33]. The evidence relating to links between socioeconomic deprivation and the incidence of GDM is conflicting. One study utilised the Townsend Index in assessing material deprivation and found no correlation between material deprivation and the incidence of gestational diabetes in their cohort of 3933 women between 1996–1997 [34]. However, in an alternative study, which used median income of the maternal postcode area to measure deprivation, women of low-income backgrounds had a higher risk of developing gestational diabetes compared to women of high-income backgrounds [35]. These inconsistent findings imply that the relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and gestational diabetes is complex and may be influenced by both the methods used to assess for deprivation and the demographics of the population examined.

Given the overlap in the risk factors for development of GDM and T2DM3, we hypothesised that socioeconomic deprivation would be associated with an increased incidence of GDM. We aimed to investigate the relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and incidence of GDM after adjusting for age, BMI, and ethnicity in a multi-ethnic cohort. To measure deprivation, we utilised the 2019 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2019), a validated deprivation index widely used in the United Kingdom to measure deprivation at the neighbourhood level [36] (Fig. 1). We also aimed to determine whether an association exists between deprivation and the following perinatal outcomes: birthweight centile (fetal birth weight adjusted for maternal and fetal demographics), still birth rate, admission to special care baby unit (SCBU) and proportion of neonates born preterm.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The domains and weightings which constitute the 2019 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD2019)

Produced by Srirangan Jeyaparam, 2022. Additional information can be obtained from the U.K. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government's website: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/835115/IoD2019_Statistical_Release.pdf

The U.K. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government assigns Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs), which are small areas that constitute England and Wales, each with an average population of approximately 1500, a deprivation score using the IMD2019. This score is derived from 39 undisclosed indicators which are grouped into the above 7 domains of deprivation. These scores are then used to rank each LSOA nationally

Full size image

Methods

Study design and participants

We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of the electronic patient health records (EPR) of women who registered their pregnancies at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London from April 2016 to Nov 2019.

Initial search results yielded 26,063 patients, with the following variables available: postcode; age at start of pregnancy; maternal weight; maternal height; maternal BMI at booking; ethnicity (self-reported); parity; offer of glucose tolerance test; glucose tolerance test results (0 min and 120 min post 75 g glucose load); delivery modality; estimated total blood loss; gestational age; neonatal birthweight; SCBU admission; length of stay after delivery; fetal sex and stillbirth. Patients with missing values for one or more of the key variables were removed from the dataset prior to analysis and we did not attempt to impute missing data. Significantly outlying results were corrected where possible by re-examining original patient data: otherwise, datasets were removed. Inconsistencies in unit measurement were corrected. Patients with unknown or absent residential postcodes are conventionally marked with a postcode commencing with “ZZ99” [37, 38], hence for the purposes of this study, these patients were removed from the dataset. Late miscarriages (< 24 weeks gestation) were also removed due to challenges with accurately recording this outcome on the electronic system. 23,490 (90.13%) records were included in the final analysis (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Flow chart showing inclusion process of the study

26063 records were extracted from the electronic health record system (Cerner). Records with any missing or misentered data in our required variables were removed from the dataset. Similarly, patients without a fixed address were also removed from the dataset. Late miscarriages (<24 weeks gestation) were also removed, leaving 23490 records for analysis

Full size image

This project was registered with Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Audit and Governance Department. The dataset was anonymised prior to analysis.

The exposure of interest was socioeconomic deprivation, as defined by the IMD2019, and the outcomes measured were incidence of GDM and adverse perinatal outcomes. Predictors of interest included demographic factors such as age and BMI [39]. Lifestyle factors, such as physical activity and diet, and genetic factors [39] are also predictors of interest, however these were not included as we did not have data for these factors in our analysis. Other potential confounders were maternal smoking [40], alcohol use [41], and prenatal care utilisation [42]. Effect-modifying effects included the presence of obesity [43], hypertension [44], and other medical conditions that could impact the relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and GDM, and adverse perinatal outcomes. Due to unavailability of data in this dataset, we did not adjust for smoking, alcohol use, prenatal care utilisation, hypertension, or other medical conditions. We adjusted for age, BMI and ethnicity using our statistical analysis to accurately determine the presence of any associations.

Procedures

Determining Fetal Birth weight centile

The birthweight centile for neonates in this study was calculated using the Perinatal Institute’s UK Bulk Centile Calculator (UK BCC) version 8.0.6.1, 2020. This tool uses maternal ethnicity, height, weight, parity, sex, gestation, absolute birthweight, and birth outcome to produce a customised birthweight centile for each neonate.

The UK BCC has 23 specified ethnic origins, however, the electronic medical record system, Cerner, in use at our centre codes for 16 different ethnicities. In most cases, the Cerner EHR recorded ethnicity had a corresponding UK BCC ethnic origin, but for certain groups, such as "White- Any Other White Background" or "Black- Any Other Black Background," there was no corresponding ethnic origin on the BCC tool. Therefore, means testing with sample data was used to determine the closest fit for these groups. Patients recorded in Cerner as "Asian—Other," "Mixed- any other mixed background," "Other- not stated," or "Other- any other ethnic group" were also assigned to the closest fitting ethnic origin on the BCC tool through means testing. Patients not fitting into any of the aforementioned categories were assumed to be of Middle Eastern ethnic origin: no separate category for this group existed on cerner and means testing was used to determine that this assumption was appropriate (see Appendix 1). Notably, all entries for ethnicity in Cerner were based on patients’ self-perceived ethnicity.

Postcodes were assigned their corresponding IMD rank and decile using the “Postcode Look Up Tool” provided online by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government [45]. The IMD rank and decile output for each postcode was added to the dataset.

Statistical analysis

After testing for assumptions (see Appendix 2), we examined the associations between GDM and: IMD decile; age; BMI; and ethnicity using a multiple logistic regression model (see Appendix 3, for model details). Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% CIs for developing GDM were calculated for each of the following variables: IMD decile, age, BMI, and ethnicity, with IMD decile 10 (least deprived decile) and white- British as the references for IMD decile and ethnicity respectively. Multiple logistic regression was chosen to examine the associations between these predictor variables and the binary outcome of GDM, as this statistical test allows for the assessment of each predictor’s independent impact on GDM, while considering the influence of the other predictors.

Additionally, we employed a non-parametric test, Kendall’s tau-b, to examine the strength of relationships between IMD rank, gestational diabetes, age, BMI and ethnicity. A non-parametric test was appropriate as the variables did not have a normal distribution.

A simple ordinal logistic regression analysis was also performed to determine the relationship between IMD decile and birthweight centile. Given that birthweight centile already accounted for: maternal ethnicity, height, weight, parity, sex, gestation, absolute birthweight, and birth outcome, a simple ordinal logistic regression analysis allowed us to isolate the effect of IMD on birthweight centile while controlling for other relevant factors.

Lastly, a Kendall’s tau-b test was performed to assess the relationships between IMD rank, stillbirths, SCBU admissions and severe preterm births. Kendall’s Tau is well-suited for ordinal values, such as IMD rank, making it a logical choice for this aspect of the analysis also.

All analyses were performed using SPSS version 28.0.1.1.

Results

The mean (SD) age of our study population was 32.04 (± 5.53) years (Table 1). The median (IQR) early pregnancy BMI was 24.35 (6.45) kg/m2. In the study population: 2.96% had a BMI < 18.5 kg/m2), 52.35% had a BMI in the recommended range (BMI 18.5–24.9 kg/m2), 27.56% had an overweight BMI (BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2), and 17.13% had an obese BMI (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). 45.65% identified as White, 18.56% as Black, 21.22% as Asian, 3.42% as Mixed, and 11.16% as Other. Within the cohort, 56% were nulliparous and 2.61% were multiparous (parity >  = 4) (Table 2).

Table 1 Baseline maternal characteristics
Full size table
Table 2 Baseline maternal characteristics (continued)
Full size table

The median Index of Multiple Deprivation rank was 12,183 (Table 1). The median Index of Multiple Deprivation decile was 4. 5.1% of the population resided in the top decile (decile 1) of least deprived areas and 2.09% in decile 10 (most deprived): the largest proportion of women (17.11%) resided in decile 3 (Table 2).

Following screening for GDM at the initial antenatal visit, 23.61% of the cohort did not require a 75 g 2-h oral glucose tolerance test. 75.96% were offered and subsequently accepted the glucose tolerance test: 0.43% declined the test. The incidence of index gestational diabetes in this study population was 7.89%. Mean (SD) fasting plasma glucose level measured 4.35 (± 0.52) mmol/L and the mean (SD) 2-h glucose level 5.84 (± 1.54) mmol/L (Tables 1 and 2).

In terms of materno-fetal outcomes, mean (SD) estimated blood loss measured 550 (± 422) ml (Table 1). 46.81% were estimated to have mild postpartum haemorrhage (500-1000 mL), and 6.93% were estimated to have major postpartum haemorrhage (> 100 mL). The delivery modalities were as follows: 53.96% had a spontaneous vaginal delivery, 14.71% assisted vaginal delivery. 17.08% of women required an emergency caesarean section and 14.25% had an elective caesarean section (Table 3).

Table 3 Maternal delivery outcomes
Full size table

The mean (SD) absolute birthweight of the 23,490 neonates was 3275.02 (± 573.54) grams (Table 4). The median gestational age was 39 weeks. 93.05% neonates were born at term (≥ 37 weeks), 5.79% were born moderate-late preterm (32–37 weeks), and 1.17% were born very preterm (< 32 weeks) (Table 5).

Table 4 Baseline neonatal characteristics
Full size table

The median adjusted birthweight centile was 48.1: 8.01% of neonates were born macrosomic (> = 4000 g) (Table 5). 11.73% of neonates were born large for gestational age (≥ 90th centile) and 11.52% were born small for gestational age (< 10th centile). The calculated stillbirth rate was 5.79 per 1000: 0.58% of neonates within the cohort were stillborn. Shoulder dystocia complicated delivery in 1.16% of neonates: 5.51% were admitted to the special care baby unit (Table 4).

Table 5 Baseline neonatal characteristics (continued)
Full size table

After adjusting for age, BMI, and ethnicity, there was no significant association between IMD decile and odds of developing gestational diabetes. After adjusting for BMI, IMD decile, and ethnicity, age was associated with an increase in the odds of developing gestational diabetes (aOR 1.076; 95% CI 1.066–1.086; P < 0.001). BMI showed an association with increased odds of gestational diabetes (aOR 1.059; 95% CI 1.050–1.069; P < 0.001).

Ethnicity significantly impacted the odds of developing gestational diabetes. After controlling for age, BMI, and IMD decile, compared to White British women, the odds of developing gestational diabetes were significantly higher for White-Other (aOR 1.655; 95% CI 1.373–1.994; P < 0.001), Middle Eastern (aOR 2.199; 95% CI 1.781–2.715; P < 0.001), Mixed- White and Asian (aOR 3.075; 95% CI 1.639–5.768: P < 0.001), Black- African (aOR 1.873; 95% CI 1.528- 2.295; P < 0.001), Asian- Pakistani (aOR 3.332; 95% CI 2.437–4.556; P < 0.001), Asian- Indian (aOR 4.675; 95% CI 3.715–5.882; P < 0.001), Asian-Bangladeshi (aOR 5.824; 95% CI 3.920–8.654; P < 0.001), and Asian- Other (aOR 3.756; 95% CI 3.129–4.509; P < 0.001) women. There was no significant difference in the odds of developing gestational diabetes for White- Irish, Mixed- White and Black Caribbean, Mixed- White and Black African, and Black- Caribbean women compared to White British women (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

A Table and B Forest plot showing adjusted odds ratios from multiple logistic regression model

Multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted with the above variables. There was no significant difference in odds between any of the postcode deprivation deciles (as determined by IMD2019), and their odds of developing GDM, compared to decile 10 (least deprived decile). Age and BMI independently increased odds of developing GDM. Similarly, only women from the following ethnic groups had significantly higher odds of developing GDM compared to White British women: White- Other, Middle Eastern, Mixed- White and Asian, Black- African, Asian- Pakistani, Asian- Indian, Asian- Bangladeshi and Asian- Other

Full size image

Kendall’s Tau showed no significant correlation between IMD rank and gestational diabetes incidence (Kendall’s Tau = 0.000; p-value (2-tailed) = 0.932) (Table 6).

Table 6 Kendall’s Tau correlation analysis between IMD Rank, Gestational Diabetes Incidence, Age, BMI and Ethnicity
Full size table

Simple ordinal logistic regression analysis between IMD decile and birthweight centile demonstrated an increase in birth weight centile by 0.471 for every increase in decile (unstandardised beta coefficient = 0.471; 95% CI 0.303–0.639; p-value (2-tailed) < 0.001) (Table 7).

Table 7 Ordinal Logistic regression analysis between IMD Decile and birthweight centile
Full size table

There was no significant correlation between: IMD rank and stillbirths (Kendall’s Tau b = 0.004; p-value (2-tailed) = 0.410), SCBU admissions (Kendall’s Tau b = -0.009; p-value (2-tailed) = 0.085), and severe preterm births (Kendall’s Tau b = -0.005; p-value (2-tailed) = 0.366) (Table 8).

Table 8 Kendall’s Tau correlation analysis between IMD Rank, Stillbirths, SCBU Admissions and Severely Preterm births
Full size table

Discussion

Associations between socioeconomic deprivation and poor health outcomes are well documented. While a clear relationship exists between deprivation and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and its related complications, the evidence relating to the impact of deprivation on gestational diabetes is conflicting.

The overall incidence of index gestational diabetes (GDM) in our multi-ethnic cohort of 23,490 women was 7.89%. After controlling for age, BMI, and ethnicity, deprivation as determined by the IMD2019 decile was not associated with GDM risk. Similarly, we found no association between deprivation and adverse neonatal outcomes.

Our hypothesis that GDM incidence would be adversely affected by socioeconomic deprivation was based on the overlap between the pathophysiology of GDM and T2DM as well as the risk factors that contribute to their development. There are limitations in our study, which could account for the negative finding. In the first instance, while our study was able to include predictors of interest such as age and early pregnancy body mass index, lifestyle factors such as physical activity and diet were not included. Genetic factors could not be adjusted for and effect-modifying factors such as hypertension and other medical comorbidities including polycystic ovary syndrome that contribute to GDM risk were not adjusted for in the analysis. Furthermore, environmental aspects that could contribute to risk e.g. pollutants were not examined.

Our analysis showed a weak, but statistically significant negative correlation between IMD rank and BMI, suggesting those residing in more socioeconomically deprived areas were leaner, which may additionally explain why GDM did not appear to be more prevalent in these areas.

In congruence with other studies [46, 47], age and early pregnancy body mass index were independently associated with an increased risk of GDM, which was also supported by the Kendall’s Tau correlation analysis.

Our study additionally highlights the increased risk of developing gestational diabetes in various ethnic groups. Similar to other studies [48, 49], our results demonstrated that Asian women in particular had the highest risk of developing GDM. This group (including women of mixed Asian ethnicity) were more than three times as likely to develop GDM compared to White British women, even after controlling for age, IMD decile and BMI. South Asian populations have higher incidences of T2DM [50, 51], insulin resistance [52], and impaired fasting glycemia [53, 54] which likely explains the increased incidence of GDM in these ethnic groups.

Our analysis demonstrated an association between deprivation and birth weight centile, with birth weight centile being shown to increase as deprivation increased, irrespective of whether an individual was diagnosed with GDM. This could in part relate to the pitfalls of testing for gestational diabetes in pregnancy and perhaps highlights the fact that complications of reduced insulin sensitivity e.g. fetal macrosomia persist in “at risk” women even in the absence of maternal hyperglycaemia. Importantly though, there was no association between deprivation and perinatal morbidity and mortality indicating that this increase in birth weight centile did not have an associated adverse effect on the neonate in the immediate postpartum period.

A key strength of our study is that our method of measuring deprivation (the IMD 2019) is less heterogeneous within a measured area than other methods, such as the Carstairs Index, because it uses smaller population sizes (1,500 on average [36]) to measure deprivation. It is worth noting that the 2019 IMD is a relative measure of deprivation [36] and ranks LSOAs nationally. It is possible there is a “threshold level” of deprivation below which there may be a significant association between socioeconomic deprivation and the incidence of GDM, which may be seen in other, less developed countries. If such a threshold exists, our study sample may have registered above this threshold, which could explain the absence of a relationship between deprivation and GDM in our study.

There are further limitations in our study that should be considered. We made one key assumption for the neonatal birthweight centile calculator and that was that those recorded on the electronic patient record as “Other- any other ethnic group” and “Other- not stated” were of Middle Eastern ethnicity. This was based on an analysis of a sample size, which indicated a large proportion of our women are of Arab/ Middle Eastern ethnicity: no coding exists for this sub-set on Cerner. Consequently, if there were patients that belonged to other, smaller ethnic groups such as indigenous peoples, they may have been misclassified in the neonatal calculator. Additionally, as the calculator had no input for paternal factors, neonatal ethnicity was assumed to be the same as maternal ethnicity, which may be misrepresentative of neonates born to mixed-ethnicity couples. Finally, ethnicity was self-reported.

Further limitations comprise the exclusion of women of no fixed abode (“ZZ99” postcode, n = 582). These women were excluded on the basis that they could not be assigned a deprivation rank or decile: however, they are likely to represent a socioeconomically deprived group, therefore exclusion of this group may impact the generalisability of our findings. Furthermore, complex social circumstances such as asylum seeker status and those exposed to domestic violence could not be coded for and may have had a bearing on the results. Limitations additionally exist in the coding for neonatal outcomes. While special care baby unit admissions, still births and preterm birth rates could be accurately determined, the incidence of shoulder dystocia is likely to be under-represented: coding for this relies on healthcare professionals inputting data accurately retrospectively.

In conclusion, we have shown that, after adjusting for age, BMI and ethnicity, there was no significant association between socioeconomic deprivation and the incidence of developing gestational diabetes. Furthermore, we have shown the independent effects of age, BMI, and ethnicity on the development of gestational diabetes. Lastly, we have shown that there was no correlation between socio-economic deprivation and adverse neonatal outcomes.

Studying the associations between socioeconomic deprivation and the incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse perinatal outcomes is important as it provides insights into the social determinants of health and helps inform interventions aimed at reducing disparities in maternal and child health outcomes. Understanding these relationships can also inform healthcare policies and improve clinical practice, leading to better health outcomes for women and their children. By examining the impact of socioeconomic status on the incidence of GDM and perinatal outcomes, researchers can identify populations at higher risk for these conditions and develop targeted interventions to improve outcomes. The results of these studies also inform healthcare providers and policymakers on the development and implementation of effective strategies to reduce health disparities and improve outcomes for all individuals and communities.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the figshare repository, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21806472. Additional analyses data is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Baz B, Riveline JP, Gautier JF. Gestational diabetes mellitus: definition, aetiological and clinical aspects. Eur J Endocrinol. 2016;174(2):R43–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Global Report on Diabetes. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. Available from: https://www.who.int/diabetes/global-report/en/.

  3. Gestational diabetes mellitus. BMJ Best Practice. Available from: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-us/665/aetiology. Cited 6 February 2022.

  4. Kwik M, Seeho SK, Smith C, McElduff A, Morris JM. Outcomes of pregnancies affected by impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007;77(2):263–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Langer O. Gestational diabetes: The consequences of not-treating. InTextbook of Diabetes and Pregnancy, Second Edition 2008  (pp. 127–137). CRC Press.

  6. HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group. Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study: associations with neonatal anthropometrics. Diabetes. 2009;58(2):453–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cosson E, Cussac-Pillegand C, Benbara A, Pharisien I, Nguyen MT, Chiheb S, Valensi P, Carbillon L. Pregnancy adverse outcomes related to pregravid body mass index and gestational weight gain, according to the presence or not of gestational diabetes mellitus: A retrospective observational study. Diabetes Metab. 2016;42(1):38–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hughes RC, Moore MP, Gullam JE, Mohamed K, Rowan J. An early pregnancy HbA1c≥ 5.9%(41 mmol/mol) is optimal for detecting diabetes and identifies women at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(11):2953–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Xiong X, Saunders LD, Wang FL, Demianczuk NN. Gestational diabetes mellitus: prevalence, risk factors, maternal and infant outcomes. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2001;75(3):221–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Crowther CA, Hiller JE, Moss JR, McPhee AJ, Jeffries WS, Robinson JS. Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus on pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(24):2477–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Metzger BE. Long-term outcomes in mothers diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus and their offspring. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;50(4):972–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Plagemann A, Harder T, Kohlhoff R, Rohde W, Dörner G. Overweight and obesity in infants of mothers with long-term insulin-dependent diabetes or gestational diabetes. Int J Obes. 1997;21(6):451–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Damm P. Future risk of diabetes in mother and child after gestational diabetes mellitus. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2009;1(104):S25–6.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lefkovits YR, Stewart ZA, Murphy HR. Gestational diabetes. Medicine. 2019;47(2):114–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Turok DK, Ratcliffe S, Baxley EG. Management of gestational diabetes mellitus. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68(9):1767–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. White C, Edgar G. Inequalities in healthy life expectancy by social class and area type: England, 2001–03. Health Stat Q. 2010;45(1):28–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Donkin A, Goldblatt P, Lynch K. Inequalities in life expectancy by social class, 1972–1999. Health Stat Q. 2002;15(5):5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ickovics JR, Viscoli CM, Horwitz RI. Functional recovery after myocardial infarction in men: the independent effects of social class. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(7):518–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Patel R, Bhimjiyani A, Ben-Shlomo Y, Gregson CL. Social deprivation predicts adverse health outcomes after hospital admission with hip fracture in England. Osteoporos Int. 2021;32(6):1129–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kahn HS, Narayan KM, Gregg EW, et al. The burden of diabetes mellitus among US youth: prevalence estimates from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study. Pediatrics. 2006;118(2):e292–9.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Riley J, Antza C, Kempegowda P, Subramanian A, Chandan JS, Gokhale K, Thomas N, Sainsbury C, Tahrani AA, Nirantharakumar K. Social deprivation and incident diabetesrelated foot disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: a population-based cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(3):731–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Anderson SG, Shoo H, Saluja S, Anderson CD, Khan A, Livingston M, Jude EB, Lunt M, Dunn G, Heald AH. Social deprivation modifies the association between incident foot ulceration and mortality in type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a longitudinal study of a primarycare cohort. Diabetologia. 2018;61(4):959–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Walker J, Halbesma N, Lone N, McAllister D, Weir CJ, Wild SH. Socioeconomic status, comorbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Scotland 2004–2011: a cohort study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70(6):596–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Robinson N, Lloyd CE, Stevens LK. Social deprivation and mortality in adults with diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 1998;15(3):205–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. King JC. Maternal obesity and gestational diabetes. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;92(1):281S–S286.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Symonds ME, et al. The relationship between stress and gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Diabet Med. 2012;29(8):952–60.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kim C, et al. Maternal smoking and alcohol consumption during pregnancy and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabet Med. 2013;30(6):e169–76.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Catalano PM, et al. Advanced maternal age and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100(4):769–75.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kim C, et al. Maternal age and the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabet Med. 2012;29(10):1286–92.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Catalano PM, et al. Maternal obesity and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(3).

  31. Zheng Y, et al. The effect of maternal body mass index on the relationship between socioeconomic status and gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;31(19):2471–9.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Chen YH. The effect of race/ethnicity on the relationship between socioeconomic status and gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ethn Dis. 2015;25(3):236–42.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Martuzzi M, Grundy C, Elliott P. Perinatal mortality in an English health region: geographical distribution and association with socio-economic factors. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1998;12(3):263–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Janghorbani M, Stenhouse EA, Jones RB, Millward BA. Is neighbourhood deprivation a risk factor for gestational diabetes mellitus? Diabet Med. 2006;23(3):313–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bardenheier BH, Imperatore G, Gilboa SM, Geiss LS, Saydah SH, Devlin HM, Kim SY, Gregg EW. Trends in gestational diabetes among hospital deliveries in 19 US States, 2000–2010. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(1):12–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. The English Indices of Deprivation 2019 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government; 2019. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/853811/IoD2019_FAQ_v4.pdf. Cited 15 February 2022.

  37. Commissioner Assignment Method Flow Chart 2015/16: Accompanying Guidance and Reference Tables. England.nhs.uk. 2022. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/commissioner-assignmentprocess-flowchart-annotations.pdf. Cited 4 March 2022.

  38. Gallaher C, Herrmann S, Hunter L, Wilkins A. The St Thomas’ Hospital Emergency Department Homeless Health Initiative: improving the quality. BMJ open quality. 2020;9(1):e000820.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Brown A, Patel K. Risk factors for GDM: A systematic review. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(6):1050–8.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wilson A, et al. The impact of smoking on gestational diabetes and adverse perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;120(3):523–9.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jones K. Alcohol consumption during pregnancy: effects on maternal and fetal health. J Womens Health. 2019;28(2):143–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2018.7540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Brown A. The impact of prenatal care utilization on maternal and infant health outcomes. Matern Child Health J. 2021;25(6):867–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-020-03015-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rosenberg M. The impact of obesity on pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2022;23(3):207–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Johnson L. Hypertension in pregnancy and its effects on maternal and fetal outcomes. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2021;23(4):19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11906-021-00980-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. English indices of deprivation 2019. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. Available from: https://imd-by-postcode.opendatacommunities.org/imd/2019. Cited 2022 Feb 24.

  46. Yong HY, Mohd Shariff Z, Mohd Yusof BN, Rejali Z, Tee YY, Bindels J, van Der Beek EM. Independent and combined effects of age, body mass index and gestational weight gain on the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Horta BL, Nakamura MU, Atallah AN, Moron AF, Valente O. Prepregnancy BMI and the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2009;10(2):194–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Yuen L, Wong VW. Gestational diabetes mellitus: challenges for different ethnic groups. World J Diabetes. 2015;6(8):1024.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Makgoba M, Savvidou MD, Steer PJ. An analysis of the interrelationship between maternal age, body mass index and racial origin in the development of gestational diabetes mellitus. BJOG. 2012;119(3):276–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Barnett AH, Dixon AN, Bellary S, Hanif MW, O’hare JP, Raymond NT, Kumar S. Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk in the UK south Asian community. Diabetologia. 2006;49(10):2234–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hills AP, Arena R, Khunti K, Yajnik CS, Jayawardena R, Henry CJ, Street SJ, Soares MJ, Misra A. Epidemiology and determinants of type 2 diabetes in south Asia. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6(12):966–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. ML Hall L, Sattar N, MR Gill J. Risk of metabolic and vascular disease in South Asians: potential mechanisms for increased insulin resistance. Future Lipidology. 2008;3(4):411–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Gill JM, Bhopal R, Douglas A, Wallia S, Bhopal R, Sheikh A, Forbes JF, McKnight J, Sattar N, Murray G, Lean ME. Sitting time and waist circumference are associated with glycemia in UK South Asians: data from 1,228 adults screened for the PODOSA trial. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(5):1214–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Hussain A, Vaaler S, Sayeed MA, Mahtab H, Ali SK, Khan AA. Type 2 diabetes and impaired fasting blood glucose in rural Bangladesh: a population-based study. Eur J Public Health. 2007;17(3):291–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge all the members of the multi-disciplinary team who contribute to women’s care at Imperial College Healthcare Trust. In particular, the authors would like to acknowledge the lead obstetricians for diabetes in pregnancy (Jayne Terry, Bryony Jones, Tom Priory, Christina Yu & Lynne Sykes), the lead antenatal diabetologists at Queen Charlotte’s and Chelsea Hospital (Chukuwuma Uduku and Anne Dornhorst) as well as our antenatal diabetes midwives (Maud Hardy, Fiona Brackett and Taraneh Habibi) and diabetes specialist nurses & dieticians.

Funding

This was a non-funded study. No funding/grant was received from any public, commercial or non-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Metabolism, Digestion & Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Srirangan Jeyaparam & Rochan Agha-Jaffar

  2. Department of Metabolic Medicine, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK

    Rochan Agha-Jaffar & Stephen Robinson

  3. Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK

    Edward Mullins

  4. The George Institute for Global Health, London, UK

    Edward Mullins

  5. University College London, London, UK

    Ana-Catarina Pinho-Gomes

  6. University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

    Kamlesh Khunti

Authors
  1. Srirangan Jeyaparam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rochan Agha-Jaffar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edward Mullins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ana-Catarina Pinho-Gomes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kamlesh Khunti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stephen Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Srirangan Jeyaparam, Rochan Agha-Jaffar and Stephen Robinson conceptualised the study. Rochan Agha-Jaffar and Edward Mullins provided the raw dataset. Srirangan Jeyaparam cleaned up the dataset, conducted statistical analysis, produced figures and tables, and wrote the manuscript. Srirangan Jeyaparam, Rochan Agha-Jaffar, Edward Mullins, Ana-Catarina Pinho-Gomes, Stephen Robinson and Kamlesh Khunti reviewed and edited the manuscript. Srirangan Jeyaparam responded to and addressed all reviewer comments. All authors reviewed the peer review file.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Srirangan Jeyaparam.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was registered with Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Audit and Governance Department. The dataset used in this study was anonymised to protect the privacy of patients. All personal identifying information was removed, and all data were analysed in aggregated form.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Appendix 1.

Breakdown of Cerner electronic health record ethnicity to neonatal birthweight centile calculator ethnic origin input. Appendix 2. Assumptions testing for multiple logistic regression model. Figure S1. Assumptions test for multicollinearity (Tolerance & Variance Inflation Factor). Figure S2. Assumptions test for outliers (ROUT, Q=1%). Appendix 3. Multiple regression model details.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jeyaparam, S., Agha-Jaffar, R., Mullins, E. et al. Retrospective cohort study of the association between socioeconomic deprivation and incidence of gestational diabetes and perinatal outcomes. BMC Public Health 24, 184 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17261-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17261-8

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us