Archive
Search

You can search published articles.

Journal Information

Online ISSN
1305-3124

Established
1993

Editors-in-Chief
​Cihat Şen, ​Nicola Volpe

Editors
Cecilia Villalain, Daniel Rolnik, M. Mar Gil

Managing Editors
Murat Yayla, Oluş Api

Statistics Editor
Resul Arısoy

Dietary quality and mindful eating among pregnant women with and without gestational diabetes

Hatice Nur Özbay, Sinem Bayram, Esen Yeşil

Article info

Dietary quality and mindful eating among pregnant women with and without gestational diabetes. Perinatal Journal 2023;31(0):- DOI: 10.2399/prn.23.0311004

Author(s) Information

Hatice Nur Özbay1,
Sinem Bayram2,
Esen Yeşil2

  1. Baskent University Nutrition and Dietetics Ankara Turkiye
  2. Baskent University Nutrition and Dietetics ANKARA Turkiye
Correspondence

Sinem Bayram, Baskent University Nutrition and Dietetics ANKARA Turkiye, [email protected]

Publication History

Manuscript Received: August 12, 2022

Manuscript Accepted: October 17, 2022

Earlyview Date: October 17, 2022

Conflicts of Interest

No conflicts declared.

Objective
The incidence of Gestational Diabetes is increasing in parallel with maternal obesity. The main components of treatment are monitoring blood glucose levels with medical nutrition therapy and lifestyle modification in order to prevent short and long term materno-fetal complications. This study aimed to compare the diet quality and mindful eating among pregnant women with and without GDM.
Methods
This case-control study included 68 pregnant women. Each participant was face to face interviewed using a structured questionnaire to obtain socio-demographic information, general health information, nutritional habits, and registered three days of food record. Mindful Eating Questionnaire and Healthy Eating Index (HEI) were applied in order to assess mindful eating and diet quality, respectively.
Results
Mean prepregnancy body mass index of women was 27.42+5.44 kg/m2, 66.7% of the gestational diabetes group and 29.4% of the control group was obese. Differences in HEI adequacy subgroup scores between groups were significant. Mean Mindful Eating Questionnaire scores were 2.85+0.34 and 3.13+0.44 in the gestational diabetes and control groups, respectively. There was an intermediate level positive correlation between Mindful Eating Questionnaire and Healthy Eating Index in pregnant women with gestational diabetes (r=0.61, p=0003, p<0.05).
Conclusion
Our results showed that pregnant women with gestational diabetes had lower mindful eating and diet quality scores. 
Keywords

Gestational diabetes, mindfulness, diet quality

Introduction
Gestational diabetes (GDM) is defined as any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy. It is a common and severe pregnancy complication developing with spontaneous hyperglycemia and is associated with multiple adverse maternal and fetal outcomes (1,2). The incidence of GDM is increasing in parallel with maternal obesity. According to the Diabetes Atlas published by the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), 16% of live births had some form of hyperglycemia in pregnancy, 84% were due to GDM (3).
 
In addition to maternal obesity, certain ethnicities like African, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, and Pacific Island descent, physical inactivity, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular diseases, GDM history in previous pregnancies, advanced maternal age, low socioeconomic or education level, miscarriages or previous unexplained stillbirths, polycystic ovary syndrome, family history of GDM and severe diabetes are common risk factors for GDM (4,5).
 
The main components of GDM treatment are medical nutrition therapy, lifestyle changes and weight management for achieving target glycemic control. Many women with GDM respond to lifestyle modification like eating behaviors and physical activity which has eminent role in diabetes treatment (6-8). Individualized dietary treatment should be planned according to age, BMI, weight gained until that gestation week for every pregnant with GDM. Pharmacological treatment is preferred in women who cannot achieve target plasma glucose levels with lifestyle changes (2).
 
The purpose of mindful eating is to help individuals savor the moment and the food and encourage their full presence for the eating experience. When food is consumed, the individual should be aware of what kind of hunger she has and control herself (9). Mindful eating reduces food cravings, helps control weight, and thus plays an active role in weight control (10). According to a recent study, mindful eating was found to play a role in pregnant women's eating behaviour, with the awareness subscale associated with healthy eating and the emotional subscale associated with unhealthy eating (11).
 
The effectiveness of diet quality in the prevention and treatment of gestational diabetes is well known (7). The Healthy Eating Index (HEI) was first developed in 1995 to evaluate how Americans follow dietary recommendations and diet quality. HEI includes nutritional diversity and makes it easier to determine the diet's appropriateness with healthy and balanced nutrition recommendations (12). The HEI is useful in providing a composite measure of dietary intake during pregnancy (13).
 
There are a few studies on eating awareness in pregnancy, but the ones evaluating that in gestational diabetes are missing. Therefore, we aimed to compare the diet quality and mindful eating among women with and without GDM.
Methods
We conducted a case-control study of women with singleton pregnancies with and without  diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus who attended obstetric outpatient clinic between February and May 2020. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board ( 94603339-604.01.02). Each participant was face to face interviewed using a structured questionnaire developed by researchers according to similar studies (8, 13) to obtain socio-demographic information, general health information, nutritional habits, and registered three days of food record. Respondents were 68 pregnant women between age of 19-45 years divided into two groups: 21 pregnant in the GDM group and 47 pregnant in the control group. To calculate the sample size in this study, at least 60 women should participate in order to detect a moderate difference between the ratios of parameters of interest (diet quality and mindful eating) in women with and without gestational diabetes, with 90% power, 5% Type I error and 1:2 assignment. For this, G*Power 3.1.3 Power analysis program was used. The case-control ratio used to determine the sample was 1:2, thus the number of cases was 20 and number of controls was 40. However, when data collection was carried out, there were 21 pregnant women diagnosed as GDM who came to the hospital for the case group and 47 pregnant women for the control group, hence all of them were included as research subjects. After informing, individuals who wanted to voluntarily participate in the study were included and the 'Informed Voluntary Consent Form' was read and signed.
 
The participants had the Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) between the 24th and 28th weeks of their pregnancy. Women were diagnosed as GDM in accordance with The International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria (15). According to OGTT results and general health examination, 21 women diagnosed with GDM and 47 healthy pregnant with similar demographic characteristics was included as study groups. Adolescents or pregnant women with other chronic diseases (Type 1 or 2 diabetes, cancer, kidney, liver diseases) or twin pregnancies not included the current study. Each participant was interviewed using a structured questionnaire to obtain socio-demographic information, general health information and nutritional habits. Dietary intakes of these women were ascertained at 26–28 weeks of gestation using 3-day (2 weekdays, 1 weekend) food record. Pre-pregnancy weight, current weight and height of the pregnant women participating the study were recorded. Pre-pregnancy Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by dividing the body weight before pregnancy by the square of the height [body weight (kg) / height² (m)].
 
Healthy Eating[U1]  Index (HEI) was developed in the USA to evaluate diet quality. HEI is a method consisting of 10 components in which the intake of five food groups and four nutrients and the number of food varieties are examined. The maximum score for each component of the HEI is 10, and the total score is 100. The diet quality of an individual with a HEI score of 80 and above is classified as "good", between 51-80 as "diet that needs improvement", and 51 and below as "poor" (12). The structure of the HEI was revised and updated twice since 2005, and HEI-2015 is the most recent form in terms of compliance with the main recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines (16). We used HEI-2015 in the current study in order to evaluate diet quality.
 
Mindfulness towards eating was assessed with the Mindful Eating Questionnaire (MEQ). MEQ was developed by Framson et al (17) in 2009 with associations between eating behaviour, mindfulness and emotional state can be carefully investigated. The items in the original scale are evaluated with a 4-point Likert scale (1: none/rarely, 2: sometimes, 3: frequently, 4: usually/always). The adapted new scale used 5-degree Likert scale (1: none, 2: rarely, 3: sometimes, 4: frequently, 5: always). In total there are 30 questions and 7 subscales. These subscales are Disinhibition, Emotional Eating, Eating Control, Focusing, Eating Discipline, Mindfulness and Interference. MEQ was adapted into Turkish by Kose et al (18). The MEQ's reliability and validity was supported in pregnant women by Apolzan et al (19).
 
Data analysis was conducted using the "Statistics Package for Social Sciences" (SPSS 23.0). Quantitative data were expressed as mean (X) and standard deviation (SD). Qualitative data were stated as number (n) and percentage (%) values. Normality was tested by Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Difference between groups were tested by chi‐square test. The comparison of means was performed using Student's t‐tests. Pearson correlation test was used for correlation analysis. p values < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
 [U1]Dear referee, since this is an index and not a scale, validity and reliability analysis has not been done, but there are many studies conducted in our country and published in various journals.
Results
The mean age and prepregnancy BMI of women were 30.97±5.37 years and 27.42±5.44 kg/m2, respectively. Demographic characteristics of women with and without GDM were similar except prepregnancy BMI which is higher in GDM group (Table 1). OGTT results were not surprisingly higher in GDM group (Table 2). Results of diet quality of women according to Healthy Eating Index-2015 results is given in Table 3. Diet quality was lower in GDM group than controls (p<0.05). Total fruits, total vegetables, greens and beans, whole grains, dairy, total protein foods, sea food and plant protein, fatty acids and sodium consumptions were higher in controls than GDM (p<0.05). The mean mindful eating questionnaire scores of the GDM group was lower than the controls (p < 0.05, Table 4)
 
Correlations between Healthy Eating Index and Mindful Eating Questionnaire (MEQ) score of pregnant women are given in Table 5. A moderate positive correlation were found between the MEQ and HEI in pregnant women with gestational diabetes (r=0.61 p=0.003 p<0.05). A moderate negative correlation and statistical significance were found between BMI and HEI (r=-0.52 p=0.01 p<0.05). A moderate negative correlation and statistical significance were found between BMI and HEI (r=-0.58, p<0.05) in the control group. Significant positive correlation was found between education and HEI-2015 score in both groups. Energy intake was decreased while MEQ score was increasing only in control group (Table 5).
Discussion
GDM is the most common metabolic problem in pregnant women. Several international organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), Endocrine Society, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and American Diabetes Association (ADA), recommend universal screening for GDM in all pregnant women (1, 15). The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study, a large multinational cohort, clarified the risks of adverse outcomes associated with hyperglycemia. The findings of the study showed that maternal hyperglycemia independently increased the risk of preterm birth, cesarean delivery, babies born large for gestational age, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, neonatal hypoglycemia and hyperbilirubinemia (20).
 
Healthy Eating Index-2015 is the most up-to-date version of the HEI in compliance with the basic recommendations of the Nutrition Guidelines. HEI uses a scoring system to evaluate a range of foods (16). Obese pregnant women got lower diet quality index scores than pregnant women with underweight and normal BMI (21). Similar to our study, a cohort conducted with 787 women in Spain, the mean HEI score was 54.3 (22). In our study, we found the mean HEI score 52.6 for GDM group and 59.0 for control group (p<0.05). It is well known that the education is substantial in diabetes management, however nutritional knowledge is discussed for the past few years (23). We found significant positive correlation between years of education and HEI-2015 score in both GDM and control groups.
 
Being pregnant as obese/overweight and excessive gestational weight gain above the IOM recommendations increases GDM risk (24). Women receive information from a range of sources and make a number of dietary adaptations during pregnancy. However especially obese pregnant women with gestational diabetes generally are reluctant to follow a healthy diet (2, 11, 23). Shin et al.(25) reported women with obese pre-pregnancy BMI demonstrated significantly lower HEI-2010 compared to those were underweight or normal, respectively. In the current study, higher BMI was associated with lower HEI total score both for GDM and control group (p<0.05), which suggest that dietary quality can play an important role in gestational weight gain.
 
Lifestyle changes including dietary, physical activity, or a combination of dietary and physical activity interventions to standard antenatal care should be offered to all women with GDM. In a meta-analysis study, it was reported that multiple lifestyle changes, rather than alone, were more effective in the control of GDM. In addition to following a well-structured and balanced diet, individuals with GDM should be encouraged to lead a more physically active life (26). A recent study conducted by qualified dietitians, and individually tailored for obese pregnant women, was associated with significant improvements in diet quality among intervention participants. Authors stated that their success was due to the individualised, target orientated, culturally sensitive, supportive, nonjudgmental and nonstigmatising approaches are likely to have been essential components for achieving optimal outcomes (27). However, in obese women dietary interventions do not result in success (28). In our study women with GDM have higher pre pregnancy BMI thus the difference in HEI-2015 scores may be related to obesogenic diet pattern. In order to explain these relationships, results in women with GDM must be confirmed with a large sample.
 
Maternal eating behaviors have the potential to influence the metabolic milieu in pregnancies, with implications for the fetal programming of offspring. Evidence suggests that mindfulness during eating may influence metabolic health in non-pregnant populations, but its effects in the context of pregnancy is less well understood. Mindful eating can be describe as nonjudgmental awareness of emotional and physical sensations associated with eating. Thus, it may be helpful for weight maintenance or loss (29).  Wansink et al.(30) hypothesized that “mindful eating” is the answer for the long term weight loss success. In this manner, we thought that mindful eating can be an effective strategy to comply within the appropriate weight gain targets recommended for obese pregnant women. In our study, mindful eating summary score of the GDM group was lower than the control group (p<0.05).  Overall mindfulness as evaluated by the summary score was positively associated with HEI (r=0.61, p <0.05) only in GDM group. It is thought that it would be beneficial to plan mindfulness trainings by dietitians and psychologists to promote awareness towards eating behaviors in pregnant women in addition to healthy nutrition training.
 
Hutchinson et al.(11) observed no significant relationship between perceived social norms related to diet during pregnancy and dietary behavior reported by the individual. However, women who were more likely to eat in response to negative emotions such as stress and sadness were found to eat nutrient-dense foods with higher energy. Bijlholt et al.(31) evaluate the relationships between eating behavior (i.e., restricted eating, eating out, emotional eating, food cravings, inhibition, uncontrolled eating, intuitive eating and mindful eating) and weight changes among pregnant or postpartum period. Their systematic review showed that higher gestational weight gain was associated with lower intuitive eating and higher restrained eating, external eating, emotional eating, food cravings and disinhibition. However, there was no relationship between postpartum weight and mindful eating, food cravings and disinhibition (31).
 
We conducted an observational study and measured mindful eating and diet quality in 21 with GDM and 47 healthy pregnant women. Dietary quality associated with less awareness towards eating in our small sample sized study. In a similar study evaluated eating behavior and diet quality in 56 women with obesity, diet quality was found to be poor for 71% of women with a mean HEI score of 46.7±1.3, mindful eating score was found 2.93±0.04 (32).
 
The strengths of this study are that the 3-day food records were verified by a dietician and the pre-pregnancy weight status of women was questioned. Index and scale have been used in the study were previously validated for pregnant women. Eating behaviors were assessed by questionnaires and are prone to self-reporting bias is one of the weaknesses. The low sample size and therefore not generalizability of the results is the second weakness of our study. It is thought that developing scales that show the nutritional status and diet quality of pregnant women with GDM in a more practical way will be effective in managing GDM.
Conclusion
Women with GDM should manage their blood glucose closer to target levels in order to reduce the risk of adverse materno-fetal outcomes with the support of healthcare providers. This study provides early evidence to suggest that mindful eating has potential to improve metabolic health outcomes in pregnant women, although further researches are required to generalize the effects of diet quality, and mindful eating of pregnant women with GDM.
American Diabetes A. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(Suppl 1):S13-S27.
2.         Mirghani Dirar A, Doupis J. Gestational diabetes from A to Z. World J Diabetes. 2017;8(12):489-511.
3.         Yuen L, Saeedi P, Riaz M, Karuranga S, Divakar H, Levitt N, et al. Projections of the prevalence of hyperglycaemia in pregnancy in 2019 and beyond: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th edition. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;157:107841.
4.         Chen L, Mayo R, Chatry A, Hu G. Gestational diabetes mellitus: its epidemiology and implication beyond pregnancy. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2016;3(1):1-11.
5.         Johns EC, Denison FC, Norman JE, Reynolds RM. Gestational diabetes mellitus: mechanisms, treatment, and complications. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2018;29(11):743-54.
6.         Tam WH, Ma RCW, Ozaki R, Li AM, Chan MHM, Yuen LY, et al. In utero exposure to maternal hyperglycemia ıncreases childhood cardiometabolic risk in offspring. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(5):679-86.
7.         Franzago M, Fraticelli F, Stuppia L, Vitacolonna E. Nutrigenetics, epigenetics and gestational diabetes: consequences in mother and child. Epigenetics. 2019;14(3):215-35.
8.         Brown J, Alwan NA, West J, Brown S, McKinlay CJ, Farrar D, et al. Lifestyle interventions for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4;5(5):CD011970.
9.         Alberts HJ, Thewissen R, Raes L. Dealing with problematic eating behaviour. The effects of a mindfulness-based intervention on eating behaviour, food cravings, dichotomous thinking and body image concern. Appetite. 2012;58(3):847-51.
10.       Nelson JB. Mindful eating: the art of presence while you eat. Diabetes Spectr. 2017;30(3):171-4.
11.       Hutchinson AD, Charters M, Prichard I, Fletcher C, Wilson C. Understanding maternal dietary choices during pregnancy: The role of social norms and mindful eating. Appetite. 2017;112:227-34.
12.       Kennedy ET, Ohls J, Carlson S, Fleming K. The Healthy Eating Index: design and applications. J Am Diet Assoc. 1995;95(10):1103-8.
13.       Pick ME, Edwards M, Moreau D, Ryan EA. Assessment of diet quality in pregnant women using the Healthy Eating Index. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105(2):240-6.
14.       Lindsay KL, Most J, Buehler K, Kebbe M, Altazan AD, Redman LM. Maternal mindful eating as a target for improving metabolic outcomes in pregnant women with obesity. Frontiers in bioscience (Landmark edition), 2021 26(12), 1548-1558.
15.       International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Consensus Panel, Metzger BE, Gabbe SG, Persson B, Buchanan TA, Catalano PA, Damm P et al. International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(3):676-6.
16.       Krebs-Smith SM, Pannucci TE, Subar AF, Kirkpatrick SI, Lerman JL, Tooze JA, et al. Update of the Healthy Eating Index: HEI-2015. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2018;118(9):1591-11.
17.       Framson C, Kristal AR, Schenk JM, Littman AJ, Zeliadt S, Benitez D. Development and validation of the mindful eating questionnaire. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(8):1439-5.
18.       Köse G, Tayfur M, Birincioğlu İ, Dönmez A. Adaptation study of the Mindful Eating Questionnaire (MEQ) into Turkish. Int J Behav Consult Ther. 2016;5(3):125-34.
19.       Apolzan JW, Myers CA, Cowley AD, Brady H, Hsia DS, Stewart TM, et al. Examination of the reliability and validity of the Mindful Eating Questionnaire in pregnant women. Appetite. 2016;100:142-51.
20.       HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group. Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study: associations with neonatal anthropometrics. Diabetes. 2009 Feb;58(2):453-9.
21.       Laraia BA, Bodnar L, Siega-Riz AM. Pregravid body mass index is negatively associated with diet quality during pregnancy. Public health nutrition. 2007;10(9):920-6.
22.       Rodriguez-Bernal CL, Rebagliato M, Iniguez C, Vioque J, Navarrete-Munoz EM, Murcia M, et al. Diet quality in early pregnancy and its effects on fetal growth outcomes: the Infancia y Medio Ambiente (Childhood and Environment) Mother and Child Cohort Study in Spain. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91(6):1659-66.
23.       Wang H, Song Z, Ba Y, Zhu L, Wen Y. Nutritional and eating education improves knowledge and practice of patients with type 2 diabetes concerning dietary intake and blood glucose control in an outlying city of China. Public Health Nutr. 2014 Oct;17(10):2351-8.
24.       Gadgil MD, Ehrlich SF, Zhu Y, Brown SD, Hedderson MM, Crites Y, et al. Dietary quality and glycemic control among women with gestational diabetes mellitus. J Womens Health. 2018;28(2):178–84.
25.       Shin D, Lee KW, Song WO. Pre-Pregnancy weight status is associated with diet quality and nutritional biomarkers during pregnancy. Nutrients. 2016;8(3):162.
26.       Fair F, Soltani H. A meta-review of systematic reviews of lifestyle interventions for reducing gestational weight gain in women with overweight or obesity. Obes Rev. 2021 May;22(5):e13199.
27.       Most J, Rebello CJ, Altazan AD, Martin CK, Amant MS, Redman LM. Behavioral determinants of objectively assessed diet quality in obese pregnancy. Nutrients. 2019;11(7):1446.
28.       Catalano PM, Shankar K. Obesity and pregnancy: mechanisms of short term and long term adverse consequences for mother and child. BMJ. 2017;8;356:j1.
29.       Brown KW, Ryan RM. The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84(4):822-48.
30.       Wansink B, Painter JE, North J. Bottomless bowls: why visual cues of portion size may influence intake. Obes Res. 2005;13(1):93-100.
31.       Bijlholt M, Van Uytsel H, Ameye L, Devlieger R, Bogaerts A. Eating behaviors in relation to gestational weight gain and postpartum weight retention: A systematic review. Obes Rev. 2020;21(10):e13047.
32.       Gomes CB, Malta MB, Papini SJ, Benício MHD, Corrente JE, Carvalhaes MABL. Adherence to dietary patterns during pregnancy and association with maternal characteristics in pregnant Brazilian women. Nutrition. 2019;62:85-92.
File/Dsecription
Table-1
Demographic Characteristics of Women With and Without GDM
Table-2
OGTT Results of Women With and Without GDM
Table-3
Classifications of Healthy Eating Index of Women
Table-4
The Mean HEI and MEQ Scores of Women with and without GDM
Table-5
The Correlations Between Some Sociodemographic and Nutritional Factors both HEI-2015 and MEQ Scores of Pregnant Women