Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Poor glycemic control in younger women attending Malaysian public primary care clinics: findings from adults diabetes control and management registry

  • Ai Theng Cheong1Email author,
  • Ping Yein Lee1,
  • Shariff-Ghazali Sazlina1,
  • Bujang Mohamad Adam2,
  • Boon How Chew1,
  • Ismail Mastura3,
  • Haniff Jamaiyah2,
  • Syed-Abdul-Rahman Syed Alwi4,
  • Taher Sri Wahyu5 and
  • Mat-Nasir Nafiza6
BMC Family Practice201314:188

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-14-188

Received: 11 August 2013

Accepted: 4 December 2013

Published: 10 December 2013

Abstract

Background

Women of reproductive age are a group of particular concern as diabetes may affect their pregnancy outcome as well as long-term morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to compare the clinical profiles and glycemic control of reproductive and non-reproductive age women with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in primary care settings, and to determine the associated factors of poor glycemic control in the reproductive age group women.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study using cases reported by public primary care clinics to the Adult Diabetes Control and Management registry from 1st January to 31st December 2009. All Malaysian women aged 18 years old and above and diagnosed with T2D for at least 1 year were included in the analysis. The target for glycemic control (HbA1c < 6.5%) is in accordance to the recommended national guidelines. Both univariate and multivariate approaches of logistic regression were applied to determine whether reproductive age women have an association with poor glycemic control.

Results

Data from a total of 30,427 women were analyzed and 21.8% (6,622) were of reproductive age. There were 12.5% of reproductive age women and 18.0% of non-reproductive age women that achieved glycemic control. Reproductive age group women were associated with poorer glycemic control (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.2-1.8). The risk factors associated with poor glycemic control in the reproductive age women were being of Malay and Indian race, longer duration of diabetes, patients on anti-diabetic agents, and those who had not achieved the target total cholesterol and triglycerides.

Conclusion

Women with T2D have poor glycemic control, but being of reproductive age was associated with even poorer control. Health care providers need to pay more attention to this group of patients especially for those with risk factors. More aggressive therapeutic strategies to improve their cardiometabolic control and pregnancy outcome are warranted.

Keywords

Type 2 diabetes mellitus Reproductive age women Glycemic control Registry

Background

The number of people afflicted with diabetes is increasing both in developing and developed countries with higher prevalence in men than in women [1, 2]. However, there are more women with diabetes than men [2]; in some countries, women are more affected, and have an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases and mortality [35]. Besides this, the incidence of diabetes is increasing among the younger age groups in the developing countries, reflecting the parallel increase in the prevalence of obesity and leading of a more sedentary lifestyle [2].

Malaysia is a country with multi-ethnic population. It consists of 28.3 million population with 67.4%, Bumiputera (Malays and indigenous); 24.6% Chinese; 7.3%, Indians and 0.7%, others [6]. In West Malaysia, the Malays are the predominant ethnic group which constituted 63.1% of the population. Women represent 48.4% of the population [6]. The prevalence of diabetes in Malaysia has increased from 8.3% in 1996 to 14.9% in 2006 for those aged 30 years old and above [7]. The prevalence of diabetes among women aged 18 years and above (11.3%) was comparable to men (11.9%) [7]. As younger people become affected by diabetes, more women in the reproductive age group are also becoming affected [8, 9]. Type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains the most common type of diabetes in this country [10].

Women of reproductive age and with diabetes require special attention. Apart from being vulnerable to long-term diabetes complications such as nephropathy, retinopathy, and cardiovascular diseases [4, 11]; they are susceptible to high-risk pregnancy, which would affect both maternal and fetal outcomes [8, 9, 12]. Pregnant women with diabetes have an increased risk of developing pre-eclampsia, overt nephropathy, and proliferative retinopathy [8]. In addition, there are increased risks of an operative procedure as well as post-partum hemorrhage [12].

Glycemic control is important in diabetes management. A longitudinal study has shown the benefits of intensive glycemic control in risk reduction of microvascular and macrovascular complications and these benefits were maintained for over a decade [13, 14]. In addition, for women in reproductive age group, optimum glycemic control before and during pregnancy reduces the risks of fetal complications such as congenital malformations, macrosomia, perinatal mortality as well as risks of future childhood obesity, glucose intolerance, and diabetes mellitus [1518].

Some studies have reported that younger patients with T2D were associated with poorer glycemic control [19, 20]. However, we are unable to find literature on this among T2D women in the primary care setting. We would like to know the status of glycemic control in the reproductive age women compared to the non-reproductive age women. Thus, the objective of this study was to compare the clinical profiles and glycemic control of reproductive and non-reproductive age women with T2D in the primary care settings, and to determine the associated factors of poor glycemic control in the reproductive age group women. It is hoped that the results will provide preliminary evidence on the extent of the problem in these women in primary care and to better strategize health care planning for these patients.

Methods

Study design and population

This was a cross-sectional study of women with T2D using the data from the Adult Diabetes Control and Management (ADCM). It is a web-based diabetes registry initiated in May 2008. A total of 70,889 T2D patients aged 18 years and above from 303 public primary care clinics and hospitals in Malaysia were registered by December 2009. All the public health clinics and hospitals that managed diabetes were invited to participate in this registry. Participation in ADCM was voluntary for the patients and the health centres. The patients were informed of the on-going registry and opportunity to opt out was provided. The details of the registry have been described elsewhere [21, 22].

For our study, we extracted data of 30,427 Malaysian women with T2D from 282 public primary care clinics seen between 1st January and 31st December 2009. All patients included were women diagnosed with T2D for at least 1 year and were on treatment (diet control, oral anti-diabetic agents, and/or insulin), and on follow-up. Women who were pregnant during the period of registry entry were not registered at the outpatient clinics as they were on follow-up with the antenatal clinics. The reproductive age group of women was defined as women aged 15 to 49 years [23, 24]. However, the registry only recruited adult women 18 years old and above. Thus, we defined women in the reproductive age group as those 18 to 49 years old and for women in the non-reproductive age group as those 50 years old and above. This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Medical Research and also obtained approval from the Medical Research Ethics Committee, Ministry of Health, Malaysia (NMRR-08-12-1167).

Data collection

The details of this project’s methodology and data collection have been described in previous studies [21, 22]. The data extracted for analysis for this paper included demographic data (age and race [Malay, Chinese, Asian Indian, and indigenous Bumiputera]), duration of diabetes, co-morbidity, blood pressure (BP), weight, height, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, treatment modalities, diabetes complications, and laboratory assessments [fasting blood glucose (FBG), glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), serum creatinine, albuminuria, microalbuminuria, fasting plasma total cholesterol (T. Chol), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglyceride (TG)]. Results of clinical examination and laboratory assessments were accepted only if they were performed within 12 months of data collection. Imputation was not performed for missing values and missing values were excluded from analysis.

Presence of co-morbidity was defined as the presence of either concomitant hypertension or dyslipidemia or both. Hypertension was diagnosed if systolic BP was 130 mmHg and above and/or diastolic BP was 80 mmHg and above, persistently or those whose current treatment comprised anti-hypertensive agents [25]. The diagnosis of dyslipidemia was based on the presence of either one or in combination with elevation of LDL-C, TG, and/or reduction of HDL-C [26].

In this study, the outcome measure was control of glycemia. All the treatment targets were defined according to the Malaysian Clinical Practice Guideline on Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus [27]. Glycemic control was achieved if the HbA1c <6.5%, and BP was targeted if ≤130/80 mmHg. Body mass index (BMI) was classified into underweight (< 18.5 kg/m2), normal (18.5 – 22.9 kg/m2), pre-obese (23 – 27.4 kg/m2), and obese (≥ 27.5 kg/m2), while the waist circumference was targeted if <80 cm. The control for lipids was defined as LDL-C ≤ 2.6 mmol/L, HDL-C ≥1.1 mmol/L, and TG ≤ 1.7 mmol/L.

The diabetes complications evaluated in this study included retinopathy, nephropathy, cerebrovascular disease/stroke (CVD), ischemic heart disease, and foot problems. The diagnosis of these complications was based on symptoms, signs, laboratory and radiological evidence, as well as treatment history made by the attending doctors at the clinics.

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables were presented as frequency (n) and percentage (%), and numerical variables were presented as mean and standard deviation (SD) because the dataset was large and normality is assumed. No imputation was performed for missing data, therefore the denominator used in the analysis varied for each variable.

To determine whether reproductive and non-reproductive age group women have an association with poor glycemic control, both univariate and multivariate approaches of logistic regression were applied. The hypothesis of this model was to determine whether women in the reproductive group have a higher level of HbA1c compared to non-reproductive group. Fifteen variables were controlled in the analysis stage because these 15 variables were suspected as confounders that could also contribute to HbA1c status. In addition, the 15 confounders were confirmed significant at univariate analysis stage. The 15 confounders were ethnicity, duration of diabetes in years, treatment of diabetes, self-monitoring of blood glucose, statuses of BMI, blood pressure, foot problem, cerebrovascular disease, nephropathy, ischemic heart disease, concomitant morbidity, LDL, HDL, total cholesterol, and total triglyceride. Multivariate logistic regression was used to confirm whether the reproductive group still has poorer control after adjusting for all the remaining potential confounders.

To examine the risk factors that could contribute to the outcome of poor control of HbA1c among women in the reproductive age group, eight out of nine significant contributing factors of poor control of HbA1c for women were selected (race, BMI, blood pressure status, duration of diabetes, management, concomitant co-morbidity, total cholesterol, triglyceride status). We excluded CVD status in the multivariate analysis as the number was too small. There were 18 patients with CVD in the reproductive group, but out of 18, eight did not report their HbA1c; two patients had good control of HbA1c and the other eight patients had poor control of HbA1c. Therefore, we dropped CVD in the multivariate analysis to avoid invalid result. All analyses were carried out using PASW 18.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL).

Results

There were 30,427 women who fulfilled our inclusion criteria and they were included in the analysis, with 21.8% (6,622/30,427) in the reproductive age group. The mean age for the reproductive age group women was 43.2 (SD 5.6) years (range 18–49 years) and the mean age for the non-reproductive age group women was 62.0 (SD 8.3) years (range 50–104 years). There was higher proportion of Indian women (21.2%) in the reproductive age group than in the non-reproductive age group women (17.1%). There was higher proportion of reproductive age women with duration of diabetes for less than 5 years. A smaller proportion of women of reproductive age reported co-morbidities of hypertension and dyslipidemia as well as diabetes complications. The demographic and clinical characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1

Demographic, complications and co-morbidity of women with T2D in the reproductive age and non-reproductive age group

 

Reproductivean (%)

Non-reproductivebn (%)

P-value

Age at diagnosisc (n= 30427 )

38.7 (6.2)

55.5 (9.1)

<0.001

Duration of diabetes (n=30427)

  

<0.001

  <5 years

4115 (62.1)

10325 (43.4)

 

  5 – 10 years

2103 (31.8)

9600 (40.3)

 

  >10 years

404 (6.1)

3880 (16.3)

 

Race (n= 30417)

  

<0.001

  Malay

4597 (69.4)

14893 (62.5)

 

  Chinese

561 (8.5)

4663 (19.6)

 

  Indian

1402 (21.2)

4058 (17.1)

 

  Others

59 (0.9)

184 (0.8)

 

Complications

   

Retinopathy (n= 18678)

  

<0.001

  Yes

203 (4.8)

1387 (9.6)

 

  No

4006 (95.2)

13082 (90.4)

 

Ischemic heart disease (n= 22004)

  

<0.001

  Yes

66 (1.4)

878 (5.1)

 

  No

4766 (98.6)

16294 (94.9)

 

Cerebrovascular disease (n=23661)

  

<0.001

  Yes

18 (0.3)

213 (1.2)

 

  No

5239 (99.7)

18191 (98.8)

 

Nephropathy (n= 22209)

  

<0.001

  Yes

412 (8.4)

1886 (10.9)

 

  No

4519 (91.6)

15392 (89.1)

 

Foot problem (n=23968)

  

<0.001

  Yes

170 (3.2)

948 (5.1)

 

  No

5133 (96.8)

17717 (94.9)

 

Co – morbidity (n=30427)

  

<0.001

  No

1878 (28.4)

2686 (11.3)

 

  Hypertension only

1766 (26.6)

7322 (30.7)

 

  Dyslipidemia only

947 (14.3)

1919 (8.1)

 

  Both

2031 (30.7)

11878 (49.9)

 

a women aged 18 to 49 years, b women aged 50 and above, c Reported in mean (SD).

There was higher proportion of reproductive age women who were obese. Furthermore, significantly fewer women of reproductive age achieved the targets of HbA1c, FBG, HDL-C, and waist circumference compared to non-reproductive age women. Almost 70% to 80% of the women (reproductive and non- reproductive age) did not achieve the target for most of the clinical parameters except for TG and HDL-C (Table 2). The majority of diabetic women (both group) used oral anti-diabetic agents and only about 10% were on insulin (alone and in combination) (Table 3).
Table 2

Clinical parameters of women with T2D in the reproductive age and non-reproductive age group

 

Reproductivean (%)

Non-reproductivebn (%)

P-value

BMI category (n=28670)

  

<0.001

  Normal

553 (8.8)

3929 (17.6)

 

  Underweight

58 (0.9)

409 (1.8)

 

  Pre-obese

2043 (32.4)

8399 (37.5)

 

  Obese

3648 (57.9)

9631 (43.1)

 

Waist circumferencec (n= 14276)

91.1 (12.3)

89.7 (12.0)

<0.001

Waist circumference status(n=14276)

  

0.022

  Achieved

475 (15.3)

1900 (17.0)

 

  Not achieved

2633 (84.7)

9268 (83.0)

 

Blood pressure status (n= 29885)

  

<0.001

  Achieved

1895 (29.1)

5263 (22.5)

 

  Not achieved

4620 (70.9)

18107 (77.5)

 

HbA1cc (n=20434)

8.83 (2.21)

8.29 (2.16)

<0.001

HbA1c status (n=20434)

  

<0.001

  Achieved

550 (12.5)

2890 (18.0)

 

  Not achieved

3862 (87.5)

13132 (82.0)

 

Fasting blood glucosec (n=20188)

9.33 (3.45)

8.49 (3.39)

<0.001

Fasting blood glucose status (n= 20188)

  

<0.001

  Achieved

719 (16.3)

3843 (24.3)

 

  Not achieved

3685 (83.7)

11941 (75.7)

 

Total cholesterolc (n=24983)

5.33 (1.17)

5.44 (1.24)

<0.001

Total cholesterol status(n= 24983)

  

0.006

  Achieved

2896 (53.4)

10199 (52.7)

 

  Not achieved

2527 (46.6)

9145 (47.3)

 

HDLc (n=21466)

1.30 (0.51)

1.36 (0.51)

<0.001

HDL status (n= 21466)

  

<0.001

  Achieved

3255 (69.4)

12730 (75.9)

 

  Not achieved

1413 (30.6)

4048 (24.1)

 

LDLc (n=21275)

3.21 (1.05)

3.25 (1.11)

0.017

LDL status (n=21275)

  

0.391

  Achieved

1335 (28.7)

4882 (29.4)

 

  Not achieved

3314 (71.3)

11744 (70.6)

 

a women aged 18 to 49 years, b women aged 50 and above, c Reported in mean (SD).

Table 3

Management of diabetes for women with T2D in reproductive age and non-reproductive age group

 

Reproductivean (%)

Non-reproductivebn (%)

P-value

Treatment of diabetes (n= 29871)

  

0.107

  Diet only

90 (1.4)

277 (1.2)

 

  Oral ADA only

5559 (85.4)

20093 (86.0)

 

  Insulin only

173 (2.6)

518 (2.2)

 

  Both oral and insulin

687 (10.6)

2474 (10.6)

 

Anti-hypertensive (n= 21953)

  

<0.001

  1

2099 (58.6)

7971 (43.4)

 

  2

1053 (29.4)

6516 (35.5)

 

  >2

431 (12.0)

3883 (21.1)

 

Lipid lowering agent (n=15620)

  

<0.001

  Statin only

2448 (89.3)

11857 (92.1)

 

  Fibrate only

259 (9.4)

901 (7.0)

 

  Others#

34 (1.3)

121 (0.9)

 

Self monitoring blood glucose (n= 11756)

  

0.485

  Yes

248 (9.6)

928 (10.1)

 

  No

2325 (90.4)

8255 (89.9)

 

a women aged 18 to 49 years, b women aged 50 and above, # Refer to any combination of statin, fibrate and others, ADA = anti-diabetic agents.

In examining the risk factors towards the poor control of HbA1c of patients with T2D among women, the multiple logistic regression analysis with the control of other 15 confounders showed that age group was still found to be significant. The reproductive age group women was 1.5 times (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.2- 1.8) more likely to be associated with poor control of HbA1c compared with the non-reproductive group.

Further analysis showed that risk factors associated with poor glycemic control in the reproductive age women were being of Malay and Indian ethnicity, longer duration of diabetes, patients on anti-diabetic agents, and those who had not achieved the target of total cholesterol and triglycerides (Table 4).
Table 4

Factors associated with poor glycemic control (HbA1c ≥6.5%) among reproductive age women with T2D

 

OR

95% CI

P - value

Race

  

0.001

  Chinese

ref

  

  Malay

1.600

1.152, 2.223

0.005

  Indian

1.936

1.320, 2.839

0.001

  Others

0.756

0.346, 1.652

0.483

Duration of DM

  

<0.001

  <5 years

ref

  

  5 – 10 years

1.567

1.250, 1.965

<0.001

  >10 years

4.017

1.928, 8.369

<0.001

Treatment of diabetes

  

<0.001

  Diet only

ref

  

  Oral anti-diabetic agents only

8.103

3.777, 17.382

<0.001

  Insulin only

18.891

5.774, 61.808

<0.001

  Both oral and insulin

46.202

17.204,124.007

<0.001

Total cholesterol

   

  Not achieved

1.291

1.040, 1.603

0.020

  Achieved

ref

  

Triglyceride status

   

  Not achieved

1.788

1.453, 2.199

<0.001

  Achieved

ref

  

Control for race, BMI, blood pressure status, duration of diabetes, management, concomitant co-morbidity, total cholesterol, triglyceride status.

Discussions

In this study, it is shown that one-fifth of women with T2D were in the reproductive age group. This would contribute to a significant health care concern. Thus, the health care system needs to strategize the healthcare planning to be able to cater to their special needs and concerns.

According to the position statement of American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, the reproductive age group women require more stringent glycemic control in view of younger age, longer life expectancy, shorter duration of the disease, and lesser co-morbidities and complications [28]. However, this study showed that these women had poorer glycemic control despite majority of them having diabetes for less than 5 years and without complications. After controlling for all the potential confounders, being in the reproductive age group remained a significant factor for poor glycemic control.

The social expectation of women of reproductive age is to procreate and have a family, regardless of their medical condition. Therefore, measures need to be taken for reproductive age women with diabetes to achieve good glycemic control before and during pregnancy to improve the outcome of that pregnancy [29]. The modifiable risk factors associated with poor glycemic control identified in this study were patients on anti-diabetic agents and those who had not achieved the target level of total cholesterol and triglycerides. Multivariate logistic regression showed that those with existing extensive treatment with combination of insulin and oral anti-diabetic agents were found to have poorer glycemic control. This was most probably due to confounding by indication (i.e. they were on these agents due to poor control). Another reason could be late initiation of insulin at a later stage of disease when glycemic control became difficult. Thus, use of insulin is the result of poor glycemic control. Furthermore, a study has shown that there were delays in treatment intensification with oral anti-diabetic agents and insulin in people with T2D despite suboptimal glycemic control [30]. Hence, more aggressive management such as early initiation of insulin and intensified oral treatment is needed. This should occur early after the diagnosis was made as a study showed that achieving early and intensive glycemic control has the potential to preserve pancreatic beta cell function for at least 3.5 years [31].

Our results showed that a high proportion (71.6%) of women of reproductive age with diabetes had concomitant hypertension, dyslipidemia or both. They had poorer metabolic control in most of the clinical parameters such as HbA1c, FBG, HDL-C and LDL-C and waist circumference. Furthermore, those who had not achieved the target level of total cholesterol and triglycerides were at risk of poor glycemic control. Socio-cultural behavior such as dietary habits and lifestyle play an important role in the glycemic and lipid control. Some of the barriers reported in the literature for management of diabetic women during pregnancy included difficulty of maintaining a healthy diet and regular exercise, lack of social support and barriers for insulin injection and home sugar monitoring [32]. Further studies are needed to explore the barriers and difficulties faced by women of reproductive age with T2D in local settings to address their concerns.

Preconception, prepregnancy, and contraceptive care are of utmost importance for a good pregnancy outcome and improvement of women’s quality of life [3335]. The treatment of diabetes in women, especially in those of reproductive age, requires special consideration. The choice of anti-diabetic agents’ use must consider possible outcomes on fertility, interactions with hormonal contraception, fetal health, breastfeeding, and bone health [9, 36, 37].

Strength and limitations

The strength of this study is the data from the public primary care clinics, which serves the majority of patients with T2D in this country [38]. In addition, the data were extracted from the nationwide registry which was real-life practice data that reduced selection bias. Although the sample might not cover all women in Malaysia with T2D, this result could be generalized to the care of women with T2D in primary care setting in this country due to its large sample size. A previous study found that when the sample size reached at least 500, the statistics analyzed from the sample are likely the same with the parameters in that particular population [39].

Among the limitations of this study were those inherent to studies using secondary data. Missing values in certain variables might affect the true associations of the results. Also given the fact that this was a cross-sectional study, therefore, the causal-effect relationship between poor glycemic control and its predictors cannot be truly established. Other factors include compliance, usage of hormonal pills (oral contraceptive pills, hormone replacement therapy), and the competency of the primary care physician that were not captured and could have an effect on the results.

Conclusions

Women of reproductive age with T2D were associated with poorer glycemic control compared to non-reproductive age women. The risk factors associated with poor glycemic control in the reproductive age women were being of Malay and Indian race, longer duration of diabetes, patients on anti-diabetic agents, and those who had not achieved the target total cholesterol and triglycerides.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the Director General of the Ministry of Health for permission to publish this work. Funding for the registry was by the National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Malaysia research grant.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia
(2)
Biostatistics Unit
(3)
Seremban 2 Health Clinic
(4)
Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
(5)
Simpang Kuala Health Clinic
(6)
Faculty of Medicine UiTM, Jalan Hospital Sungai Buloh, Level 7, Academic Block, Faculty of Medicine UiTM, Sg Buloh Campus, Jalan Hospital Sungai Buloh

References

  1. International Diabetes Federation: Diabetes Atlas. 2011, Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation (IDF), 5Google Scholar
  2. Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H: Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care. 2004, 27: 1047-1053. 10.2337/diacare.27.5.1047.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Scavini M, Stidley CA, Shah VO, Narva AS, Tentori F, Kessler DS, Bobelu A, Albert CP, Bobelu J, Jamon E, Natachu K, Neha D, Waikaniwa M, Welty TK, MacCluer JW, Zager PG: Prevalence of diabetes is higher among female than male Zuni indians. Diabetes Care. 2003, 26: 55-60. 10.2337/diacare.26.1.55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Gregg EW, Gu Q, Cheng YJ, Narayan KMV, Cowie CC: Mortality trends in men and women with diabetes, 1971 to 2000. Ann Intern Med. 2007, 147: 149-155. 10.7326/0003-4819-147-3-200708070-00167.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Roche MM, Wang PP: Sex differences in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, hospitalization for individuals with and without diabetes, and patients with diabetes diagnosed early and late. Diabetes Care. 2013, doi: 10.2337/dc12-1272Google Scholar
  6. Population distribution and basic demographic characteristic report. 2010, Department of Statistic Malaysia: Putrajaya, Malaysia, Available from: http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php?option=com_content&id=1215 [Accessed 11 November 2013]
  7. Institute for Public Health(IPH): The National Health and Morbidity Survey (NHMS III) 2006. 2008, Malaysia: Ministry of HealthGoogle Scholar
  8. Feig DS, Palda VA: Type 2 diabetes in pregnancy: a growing concern. Lancet. 2002, 359: 1690-1692. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08599-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Temple R, Murphy H: Type 2 diabetes in pregnancy - An increasing problem. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010, 24: 591-603. 10.1016/j.beem.2010.05.011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Mastura I, Jamaiyah H, Bebakar WMW: Report of An Audit of Diabetes Control and Management (DRM-ADCM) January-December 2009. 2010, Kuala Lumpur: Clinical Research Centre, Ministry of Health, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  11. Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Solomon CG, Liu S, Willett WC, Speizer FE, Nathan DM, Manson JE: The impact of diabetes mellitus on mortality from all causes and coronary heart disease in women: 20 years of follow-up. Arch Intern Med. 2001, 161: 1717-1723. 10.1001/archinte.161.14.1717.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunne F: Type 2 diabetes and pregnancy. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005, 10: 333-339. 10.1016/j.siny.2005.04.007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HAW: 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008, 359: 1577-1589. 10.1056/NEJMoa0806470.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HA, Matthews DR, Manley SE, Cull CA, Hadden D, Turner RC, Holman RR: Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ. 2000, 321: 405-412. 10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Weintrob N, Karp M, Hod M: Short- and long-range complications in offspring of diabetic mothers. J Diabetes Complications. 1996, 10: 294-301. 10.1016/1056-8727(95)00080-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Inkster ME, Fahey TP, Donnan PT, Leese GP, Mires GJ, Murphy DJ: Poor glycated haemoglobin control and adverse pregnancy outcomes in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review of observational studies. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2006, 6: 30-10.1186/1471-2393-6-30.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Guerin A, Nisenbaum R, Ray JG: Use of maternal GHb concentration to estimate the risk of congenital anomalies in the offspring of women with prepregnancy diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2007, 30: 1920-1925. 10.2337/dc07-0278.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Clausen TD, Mathiesen E, Ekbom P, Hellmuth E, Mandrup-Poulsen T, Damm P: Poor pregnancy outcome in women with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005, 28: 323-328. 10.2337/diacare.28.2.323.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Nichols GA, Hillier TA, Javor K, Brown JB: Predictors of glycemic control in insulin-using adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2000, 23: 273-277. 10.2337/diacare.23.3.273.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Rothenbacher D, Rüter G, Saam S, Brenner H: Younger patients with type 2 diabetes need better glycaemic control: results of a community-based study describing factors associated with a high HbA1c value. Br J Gen Pract. 2003, 53: 389-391.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Mastura I, Chew BH, Lee PY, Cheong AT, Ghazali S: Control and Treatment Profiles of 70,889 Adult Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients in Malaysia-A Cross Sectional Survey in 2009. IJCRIMPH. 2011, 3: 98-113.Google Scholar
  22. Mastura I, Zanariah H, Fatanah I, Idzwan MF, Shaariah MYW, Jamaiyah H, Geeta A: An Audit of Diabetes Control and Management (ADCM). Med J Malaysia. 2008, 63: 76-7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Glasier A, Gülmezoglu AM, Schmid GP, Moreno CG, Van Look PFA: Sexual and reproductive health: a matter of life and death. Lancet. 2006, 368: 1595-1607. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69478-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. WHO: Family planning. Available from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs351/en/ [Acessed 18 November 2013]
  25. Hypertension Guideline working group: Clinical practice guidelines: Management of Hypertension. 2008, Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Health, Available from http://www.acadmed.org.my/index.cfm?&menuid=67, 3Google Scholar
  26. Members of the Expert Panel: Clinical practice guidelines: Management of Dyslipidemia. 2011, Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Health, Available from [http://www.acadmed.org.my/index.cfm?&menuid=67], 4Google Scholar
  27. Clinical practice guidelines task force: Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of Type 2 Diabetes. 2009, Malaysia: Ministry of Health, Available from http://www.acadmed.org.my/index.cfm?&menuid=67, 4Google Scholar
  28. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, Diamant M, Ferrannini E, Nauck M, Peters AL, Tsapas A, Wender R, Matthews DR: Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2012, 35: 1364-1379. 10.2337/dc12-0413.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Banerjee S, Ghosh US, Banerjee D: Effect of tight glycaemic control on fetal complications in diabetic pregnancies. J Assoc Physicians India. 2004, 52: 109-113.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Khunti K, Wolden ML, Thorsted BL, Andersen M, Davies MJ: Clinical Inertia in People With Type 2 Diabetes: a retrospective cohort study of more than 80,000 people. Diabetes Care. 2013, 36: 3411-3417. 10.2337/dc13-0331.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Harrison LB, Adams-Huet B, Raskin P, Lingvay I: β-cell function preservation after 3.5 years of intensive diabetes therapy. Diabetes Care. 2012, 35: 1406-1412. 10.2337/dc11-2170.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Collier SA, Mulholland C, Williams J, Mersereau P, Turay K, Prue C, J Womens Health (Larchmt): A qualitative study of perceived barriers to management of diabetes among women with a history of diabetes during pregnancy. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2011, 20: 1333-1339. 10.1089/jwh.2010.2676.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Mahmud M, Mazza D: Preconception care of women with diabetes: a review of current guideline recommendations. BMC Womens Health. 2010, 10: 5-10.1186/1472-6874-10-5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Ray JG, O’Brien TE, Chan WS: Preconception care and the risk of congenital anomalies in the offspring of women with diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. QJM. 2001, 94: 435-444. 10.1093/qjmed/94.8.435.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sacks DA: Preconception care for diabetic women: background, barriers, and strategies for effective implementation. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2006, 2: 147-161. 10.2174/157339906776818587.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Levine JP: Type 2 diabetes among women: clinical considerations for pharmacological management to achieve glycemic control and reduce cardiovascular risk. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008, 17: 249-260. 10.1089/jwh.2007.0396.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Murray S, Lazure P, Schroter S, Leuschner PJ, Posel P, Kellner T, Jenkins RD: International challenges without borders: a descriptive study of family physicians’ educational needs in the field of diabetes. BMC Fam Pract. 2011, 12: 27-10.1186/1471-2296-12-27.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Mimi O, Tong SF, Nordin S, Teng CL, Khoo EM, Kareem ARA, Zailinawati AH, Lee VKM, Chen WS, Shihabudin WM, Noridah MS, Fauziah ZE: A comparison of morbidity patterns in public and private primary care clinics in Malaysia. MFP. 2011, 6: 19-25.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Bujang MA, Ghani PA, Zolkepali NA, Selvarajah S, Haniff J: A comparison between convenience sampling versus systematic sampling in getting the true parameter in a population: explore from a clinical database: the Audit Diabetes Control Management (ADCM) registry in 2009. Int Conf Stat Sci Bus Eng. 2009, 2012: 1-5.Google Scholar
  40. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/14/188/prepub

Copyright

© Cheong et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement