A qualitative evaluation of provider decision-making and patient experiences with 1-step and 2-step gestational diabetes (GDM) screening
Abstract
Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects approximately 14% of pregnancies worldwide and is associated with substantial long-term risks, including type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Although the 1-step oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is more sensitive and recommended by several international organizations, the two-step approach remains standard in the United States. Concerns about fasting burden, patient anxiety, and time commitment have limited adoption of the one-step test, despite its potential to improve early diagnosis, particularly in high-risk populations such as Asian and Hispanic women.
Methods: We conducted a qualitative study to evaluate barriers and facilitators of 1-step testing at urban clinics affiliated with New York Presbyterian-Queens between June 2023 and January 2026. Pregnant Asian and Hispanic women without prior diabetes who underwent either 1-step or 2-step GDM screening ( n = 17) and obstetric providers ( N = 10) were recruited using purposive sampling. Semi-structured interviews explored experiences with screening, perceptions of testing modalities, and barriers to 1-step implementation. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis with inductive coding.
Results: Two major themes were constructed. First, commonly cited barriers to 1-step testing were less significant than anticipated: most women found fasting manageable, accepted the time commitment, and valued diagnosis despite potential anxiety, emphasizing the importance of knowledge for protecting maternal and infant health. Second, provider test selection was primarily driven by institutional norms and established protocols rather than patient preference or perceived clinical superiority. Many clinicians defaulted to the 2-step approach due to training, system constraints, and reluctance to deviate from standard practice.
Conclusion: Patient-level barriers to 1-step GDM screening may be overestimated, while institutional inertia plays a central role in limiting its adoption. Transitioning to more sensitive screening approaches will require system-level changes, including updated guidelines and infrastructure, to improve early detection and reduce long-term metabolic risk, particularly among high-risk populations.
Related
- Experiences of Shared Decision Making for Cancer Screening Among Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard of Hearing Adults Participating in an ASL-Using Community Health Navigator Program: Preliminary Findings From a Nested Qualitative Study
- “Even with one Man, but with many women, you can get cervical cancer”: Qualitative exploration of women’s perceptions and experiences of cervical cancer screening in Uganda: A community-based study
- Barriers to Effective Type 2 Diabetes Care in a Conflict-Affected Region of Syria: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Provider Perspectives
- A decade of implementing comprehensive child development services in Northwest Iran: a qualitative study of provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators
- Purrble Use Among LGBTQ+ Young People With Self-Harm Experiences: Findings From a Qualitative Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial
BibTeX
@article{gogineni2026qualitative,
title = {{A qualitative evaluation of provider decision-making and patient experiences with 1-step and 2-step gestational diabetes (GDM) screening}},
author = {Srija Gogineni and Stephanie Sirna and Shreya Chitnavis and Viviene Lin and Saourabh Desai and Rehana Sajjad and Ashlesha Dayal and Jyoti S Mathad and Radhika Sundararajan and Puja Chebrolu},
journal = {BMC Public Health},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1186/s12889-026-29819-3},
url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-026-29819-3},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - A qualitative evaluation of provider decision-making and patient experiences with 1-step and 2-step gestational diabetes (GDM) screening
AU - Srija Gogineni
AU - Stephanie Sirna
AU - Shreya Chitnavis
AU - Viviene Lin
AU - Saourabh Desai
AU - Rehana Sajjad
AU - Ashlesha Dayal
AU - Jyoti S Mathad
AU - Radhika Sundararajan
AU - Puja Chebrolu
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/20
JO - BMC Public Health
DO - 10.1186/s12889-026-29819-3
UR - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-026-29819-3
AB - Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects approximately 14% of pregnancies worldwide and is associated with substantial long-term risks, including type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Although the 1-step oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is more sensitive and recommended by several international organizations, the two-step approach remains standard in the United States. Concerns about fasting burden, patient anxiety, and time commitment have limited adoption of the one-step test, despite its potential to improve early diagnosis, particularly in high-risk populations such as Asian and Hispanic women. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study to evaluate barriers and facilitators of 1-step testing at urban clinics affiliated with New York Presbyterian-Queens between June 2023 and January 2026. Pregnant Asian and Hispanic women without prior diabetes who underwent either 1-step or 2-step GDM screening ( n = 17) and obstetric providers ( N = 10) were recruited using purposive sampling. Semi-structured interviews explored experiences with screening, perceptions of testing modalities, and barriers to 1-step implementation. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis with inductive coding. Results: Two major themes were constructed. First, commonly cited barriers to 1-step testing were less significant than anticipated: most women found fasting manageable, accepted the time commitment, and valued diagnosis despite potential anxiety, emphasizing the importance of knowledge for protecting maternal and infant health. Second, provider test selection was primarily driven by institutional norms and established protocols rather than patient preference or perceived clinical superiority. Many clinicians defaulted to the 2-step approach due to training, system constraints, and reluctance to deviate from standard practice. Conclusion: Patient-level barriers to 1-step GDM screening may be overestimated, while institutional inertia plays a central role in limiting its adoption. Transitioning to more sensitive screening approaches will require system-level changes, including updated guidelines and infrastructure, to improve early detection and reduce long-term metabolic risk, particularly among high-risk populations.
SN - 1471-2458
ER -