Skip to main content
Download PDF

The pregnancy-related anxiety characteristics in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: why should we care?

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume 21, Article number: 424 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is very commonly-seen in clinical settings, and GDM patients may have higher levels of anxiety. It’s necessary to evaluate the anxiety level and potentially influencing factors in patients with GDM, to provide insights for the management of anxiety of GDM patients.

Methods

Patients with GDM treated in our hospital from May, 2018 to May, 2020 were included. We evaluated the characteristics of patients and the scores of pregnancy-related anxiety scale for anxiety level, vulnerable personality style questionnaire (VPSQ) for personality, general self-efficacy scale (GSES) for self-efficacy, social support rating scale (SSRS) for social support level. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify the potential influencing factors of anxiety in GDM patients.

Results

A total of 386 GDM patients were included, the incidence of anxiety in patients with GDM was 59.07%. Anxiety was positively correlated with the susceptible personality (r = 0.604, p = 0.023), and it was negatively correlated with self-efficacy and social support (r = -0.586 and -0.598 respectively, all p < 0.05). The education level, monthly income, abnormal pregnancy (miscarriage, premature rupture of membranes) and cesarean section history and first pregnancy were the independent influencing factors for the anxiety in the patients with GDM (all p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The anxiety of GDM patients is very common, early care and interventions are warranted for those patients with abnormal pregnancy and cesarean section history, first pregnancy, lower education level, and less monthly income.

Peer Review reports

Background

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) refers to the first occurrence or discovery of impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes during pregnancy [1]. According to reports [2, 3], the global prevalence of GDM varies from 2.4% to 22.3% among pregnant women, and the prevalence of GDM in China is 9.3% to 17.1%. It has been reported that compared with normal pregnant women, the incidence of pregnancy-induced hypertension, hyperamniotic fluid, neonatal hypoglycemia, and respiratory distress in GDM patients is significantly higher, and the incidence of cesarean section in GDM pregnant women is 1.58 times that of normal pregnant women [4]. Meanwhile, the intrauterine hyperglycemia environment of GDM patients can increase the risk of obesity and diabetes in the offspring [5]. Therefore, effective management of GDM patients is an urgent problem to be solved.

The results of previous studies [6, 7] have shown that more than 40% of GDM patients are accompanied by anxiety. Besides, studies [8, 9] have shown that negative emotions such as anxiety and depression cause the sympathetic nerves to release glucagon, which in turn increases the patient's blood sugar level and affects the patient's blood sugar control. Therefore, if the anxiety level of GDM patients is not improved, it is not conducive to blood sugar control, which may affect the pregnancy outcome. Currently, the pregnancy-related anxiety characteristics and influencing factors in patients with GDM remain unclear, it’s necessary to understand the anxiety level and potentially influencing factors in patients with GDM. In this present study, we aimed to evaluate the pregnancy-related anxiety characteristics and influencing factors in patients with GDM, to provide insights into the management of GDM. We hypothesized that the incidence of anxiety in patients with GDM was high, and anxiety level was associated with many factors such as the education level, income, abnormal pregnancy et al.

Methods

Human subjects

This study protocol had been reviewed and approved by the ethical committee of Xinjiang Medical University hospital (approval number: 20180349), and written informed consents had been obtained from all the participants.

Pregnant patients with GDM treated in our hospital from May, 2018 to May, 2020 were considered for inclusion. The patients were included if they met all of following inclusion criteria: (1) routine oral glucose tolerance test screening was performed between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation, and the GDM diagnosis met the related diagnostic criteria [10, 11]; (2) adult patients with age ≥ 20 years; (3) patients were well-informed and agreed to participant in our study. The exclusion criteria were: (1) pregnant patients with other complications including hypertension, pre-eclampsia, pneumonia, fever; (2) patients who was cognitively impaired or deaf or mute, which might have biases on the survey results; (3) patients who did not agree to participant in our study.

Data collection

Following Chinese research tools were used for data collection.

Questionnaire on the general condition -This questionnaire was used to investigate the demographic and sociological information of the patient, including the patient’s age, education level, occupation, monthly family income, whether there is a history of abnormal pregnancy or cesarean section.

Pregnancy-related anxiety scale -This scale was compiled by scholar Xiao et al. [12,13,14], and it included 13 items and three subscales, namely concerns about patient herself, worry about fetal health, and worry about childbirth. It used a Likert 4-level scoring method of 1 to 4 points, 4 indicating strongly agree, 3 indicating agree, 2 indicating disagree, 1 indicating strongly disagree. Cronbach's α coefficient and the test–retest reliability was 0.81 and 0.79 respectively. A score ≥ 24 indicated pregnancy-related anxiety.

Vulnerable Personality Style Questionnaire (VPSQ)—The questionnaire contained 9 items, two subscales with a Likert 5-level method of 1 to 5 points [15]. Patient was separated from susceptibility (> 15 points) and non-susceptibility personality (≤ 15 points). The Cronbach's α coefficients of the total scale and susceptibility subscale were 0.651 and 0.776 respectively.

General Self Efficacy Scale (GSES)—This scale was compiled by Zhang et al. [16] with a total of ten items, and each item was scored as 1 to 4 points from "completely incorrect" to "completely correct". The scale is a one-dimensional scale with a total score of the sum of items. The Cronbach's α coefficients of the total scale was 0.669. A higher score indicated a higher level of self-efficacy.

Social Support-Rating Scale (SSRS)—This scale had ten items with three dimensions, including the utilization of objective support, subjective support, and social support [17]. The Cronbach's α coefficients of the total scale and susceptibility subscale were 0.683 and 0.614 respectively. The higher the value, the higher the social support patients had.

Survey process

The questionnaire survey process was approved by our hospital and the included patients. The surveys were distributed between the dates of May 2018 to May 2020, and generally it took 15 ~ 25 min to complete the survey. All questionnaires were distributed face-to-face by two of our authors with uniform instructions. For those patients who could not complete the questionnaire alone, the investigators would assist them for the interpretation of questions, and no instructive or biased suggestions were provided during the decision process of patients. Any question about the questionnaire was answered on the spot. We checked for omissions in time to ensure the completeness and accuracy of collected information. All the questionnaires had been given unique identity number for data management.

Statistical analysis

All the data were analyzed with SPSS 23.0 software. We conducted descriptive analyses on the characteristics and scores of respondents. The statistical descriptions were presented as frequency or rate, χ2 tests were used for group comparison. The continuous values were presented as mean and standard deviation, and t tests or ANOVA tests were performed for data comparison. Spearman rank correlation and Pearson correlation analysis were performed to evaluate the characteristics of elders and related scores based on the data characteristics. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify the potential risk factors for anxiety in patients with GDM. In this present study, the difference was considered as being statistically significant if p < 0.05, and all of the tests were two-sided.

Results

The characteristics of included patients

We firstly identified 400 potential patients for this survey and received 386 qualified answers, with an overall response rate of 96.50%. The general characteristics of patients were presented in Table 1, the average anxiety score for included participant was 24.20 ± 6.81, the anxiety score of 228 patients were higher than 24.00, thereby the incidence of anxiety in patients with GDM was 59.07%, indicating that most included patients had higher level of anxiety.

Table 1 The characteristics of included patients
Full size table

We further conducted the univariate analyses on the pregnancy-related anxiety in patients with gestational diabetes. As shown in Table 2, there were significant differences on the anxiety level in the patients with different education level, occupation, monthly income, abnormal pregnancy history, cesarean section history and first pregnancy (all p < 0.05), yet there was no significant difference on the anxiety level in patients with different age (p = 0.064).

Table 2 Univariate analysis on the pregnancy-related anxiety in patients with gestational diabetes patients
Full size table

The analysis of the correlation between anxiety and VPSQ, GSES, SSRS

All the data were normally distributed, the analysis of the correlation between pregnancy-related anxiety and susceptible personality, self-efficacy, and social support in GDM patients showed that pregnancy-related anxiety was positively correlated with the susceptible personality (r = 0.604, p = 0.023), and it was negatively correlated with self-efficacy and social support (r = -0.586 and -0.598 respectively, all p < 0.05).

Influencing factors for anxiety in the patients with GDM

We used the anxiety as the dependent variable, and the positive results of Table 2 as the independent variable to conduct the logistic regression analysis. As presented in Table 3, the education level, monthly income, abnormal pregnancy and cesarean section history and first pregnancy were the independent influencing factors for the anxiety in the patients with GDM (all p < 0.05), indicating that the GDM patients with abnormal pregnancy and cesarean section history, first pregnancy, lower education level, and less monthly income had higher risk for anxiety.

Table 3 Logistic regression analysis on the influencing factors for anxiety in the patients with GDM
Full size table

Discussion

GDM is a disorder of glucose metabolism that occurs during pregnancy, and patients usually do not have any conscious manifestations. However, if the elevated blood sugar is not effectively controlled in time, the incidence of maternal and infant complications increase greatly [18]. Therefore, when most pregnant women with GDM are first diagnosed, pregnant women are required to become familiar with and master the measures for blood glucose monitoring and disease treatment as soon as possible. It has been reported that most GDM patients cannot cope with it in a short time [19]. Anxiety is a psychological disorder whose main characteristics are widespread and persistent anxiety and recurring panic [20]. Studies [21,22,23] have investigated the anxiety state of pregnant women with gestational diabetes, and the results show that up to 60.8% of women with GDM may have mild or more anxiety. The incidence of anxiety in patients with GDM in this present study is 59.07%, and we have found that for GDM patients with abnormal pregnancy and cesarean section history, first pregnancy, lower education level, and less monthly income, they have higher risk for anxiety, more attention and targeted interventions are needed for those patients.

Previous study [24] has shown that the incidence of stress and depression in GDM patients is 3.79 times that of normal pregnant women. In addition, studies [25, 26] have found that 66.3% of pregnant women’s anxiety comes from lack of understanding of their own diseases and related knowledge. The main anxiety problem is worry about fetal health [27]. The high glucose status of GDM patients will cause a series of adverse effects on the fetus [28]. Therefore, compared with normal pregnant women, GDM patients pay more attention to the health of the fetus, which causes great psychological pressure [29]. Furthermore, pregnancy-related anxiety level of women with first pregnancy is higher than that of multiparas, the potential reasons may be the fact that the primiparas have not experienced pregnancy or childbirth, and the uncertainty of illness effects on the health of the fetus.

The results of this study have found that social support, self-efficacy and pregnancy-related anxiety are negatively correlated, and the anxiety was positively correlated with susceptible personality. Social support refers to the supports that an individual obtains through social contact that can reduce psychological stress and improve social adaptability [30]. Pregnancy is a sensitive stage for women. Besides, the patient's psychology is more vulnerable due to GDM. At this stage, family members and friends should pay more attention to and help patients to relieve their anxiety. Self-efficacy is the content of positive psychology, which refers to the ability, judgment and beliefs to engage in a certain behavior and achieve expected results in a specific situation [31]. The stronger the self-efficacy of patients with GDM, the stronger their confidence in overcoming the disease, and the more proactively adopting disease response measures [32]. Therefore, it is necessary to help pregnant women improve their self-management ability and promote their own healthy behaviors.

The lower the education level and the lower the economic level of GDM patients, the higher their pregnancy-related anxiety level. The reasons for this finding may be that patients with higher education level and income have a wide range of platforms for obtaining knowledge about pregnancy and diabetes, and they are better at using surrounding social resources to obtain social support, which is beneficial to reduce patient negativity mood [33]. Besides, patients with a high level of education can better understand pregnancy and diabetes-related knowledge, and have better self-management capabilities, which are conducive to restraining their own unhealthy behaviors in daily life and adhere to the principles of GDM diet and exercise [34]. Higher household income is conducive to better coping with the economic expenses related to various inspections and medications in the course of disease treatment [35, 36].

GDM patients with a history of abnormal pregnancy and cesarean section history are prone to pregnancy-related anxiety [37]. For a patient with a history of abnormal pregnancy, they may involuntarily worry that a similar situation can happen again, thus becoming more sensitive, and often become overly nervous [38]. GDM patients with a history of abnormal pregnancy are more worried about fetal health than normal pregnant women [39]. Moreover, GDM can lead to a series of adverse pregnancy outcomes such as spontaneous abortion, abruption of the placenta, polyhydramnios, infection, premature delivery, etc. [40], which may make them oversensitive. Sensitive and nervous psychology causes more anxiety in patients and affects blood sugar control, and the poor blood sugar control aggravates anxiety in patients, which leads to a vicious cycle. Therefore, for patients with a history of abnormal pregnancy, special attention should be paid to relieve anxiety.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the level of anxiety is relatively high in patients with GDM. Early nursing care and interventions are warranted for those patients with abnormal pregnancy and cesarean section history, first pregnancy, lower education level, and less monthly income to reduce the anxiety level. Early alert that they may have higher anxiety level in patients with those risk factors are needed in clinical practice. Medical staff should conduct reasonable pregnancy examinations and knowledge-rich health education for GDM patients. Besides, the family members, friends and colleagues should pay more attention to the anxiety emotions of GDM patients, patients should be encouraged to communicate with others more, and health care providers should help patients establish the health believes and behaviors to reduce the anxiety level of patients with GDM.

Availability of data and materials

We would like to share the raw data to the scholars who are interested in our study if requested, please contact Palida Maimaiti (email: parida0331@yeah.net) in that case.

Abbreviations

GDM:

Gestational diabetes mellitus

VPSQ:

Vulnerable personality style questionnaire

GSES:

General self-efficacy scale

SSRS:

Social support rating scale

References

  1. Hu CY, Gao X, Fang Y, Jiang W, Huang K, Hua XG, Yang XJ, Chen HB, Jiang ZX, Zhang XJ. Human epidemiological evidence about the association between air pollution exposure and gestational diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Res. 2020;180:108843.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Agnelli G, Becattini C, Meyer G, Munoz A, Huisman MV, Connors JM, Cohen A, Bauersachs R, Brenner B, Torbicki A, et al. Apixaban for the treatment of venous thromboembolism associated with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(17):1599–607.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Tanase-Nakao K, Arata N, Kawasaki M, Yasuhi I, Sone H, Mori R, Ota E. Potential protective effect of lactation against incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in women with previous gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2017;33(4):e2875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Homayouni A, Bagheri N, Mohammad-Alizadeh-Charandabi S, Kashani N, Mobaraki-Asl N, Mirghafurvand M, Asgharian H, Ansari F, Pourjafar H. Prevention of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and probiotics: mechanism of action: a review. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2020;16(6):538–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ashwal E, Hod M. Gestational diabetes mellitus: Where are we now? Clin Chim Acta. 2015;451(Pt A):14–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Beka Q, Bowker SL, Savu A, Kingston D, Johnson JA, Kaul P. History of mood or anxiety disorders and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus in a population-based cohort. Diabet Med. 2018;35(1):147–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee KW, Ching SM, Hoo FK, Ramachandran V, Chong SC, Tusimin M, MohdNordin N. Prevalence and factors associated with depressive, anxiety and stress symptoms among women with gestational diabetes mellitus in tertiary care centres in Malaysia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Miazgowski T, Bikowska M, Ogonowski J, Taszarek A. The impact of health locus of control and anxiety on self-monitored blood glucose concentration in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2018;27(2):209–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tang Y, Lan X, Zhang Y, Zhou F, Cai C, Zhang J, Pang X, Hao L, Li R, Zeng G. Anxiety and depression on gestational diabetes mellitus in early pregnancy. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu. 2020;49(2):179–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schafer-Graf UM, Gembruch U, Kainer F, Groten T, Hummel S, Hosli I, Grieshop M, Kaltheuner M, Buhrer C, Kautzky-Willer A, et al. Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) - diagnosis, treatment and follow-Up. Guideline of the DDG and DGGG (S3 Level, AWMF Registry Number 057/008, February 2018). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2018;78(12):1219–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Li-Zhen L, Yun X, Xiao-Dong Z, Shu-Bin H, Zi-Lian W, Adrian Sandra D, Bin L. Evaluation of guidelines on the screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e023014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Xiao L, Tao F, Zhang J. Compilation and reliability evaluation of pregnancy-related anxiety scale. Chinese Public Health. 2012;28(3):275–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jin S, Li M. The effect of susceptibility personality type scale on predicting postpartum depression. Chin J Nurs. 2006;41(9):781–4.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chan CY, Lee AM, Koh YW, Tang CSK. Validation of the Chinese version of the Pregnancy-related Anxiety Questionnaire-Revised (PRAQ-R) and its distinction from general anxiety and depression in pregnant women. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;41(3):215–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dennis CL, Boyce P. Further psychometric testing of a brief personality scale to measure vulnerability to postpartum depression. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;25(3–4):305–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang JX, Schwarzer R. Measuring optimistic self-beliefs: a Chinese adaptation of the general self-efficacy scale. Psychologia. 1995;38(3):174–81.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Qi M, Zhu S, Zhang L. Analysis of pregnancy-related anxiety and influencing factors in patients with gestational diabetes. Modern Prev Med (Chinese). 2018;45(1):189–93.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hoyer J, Wieder G, Hofler M, Krause L, Wittchen HU, Martini J. Do lifetime anxiety disorders (anxiety liability) and pregnancy-related anxiety predict complications during pregnancy and delivery? Early Hum Dev. 2020;144:105022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chan CY, Lee AM, Koh YW, Lam SK, Lee CP, Leung KY, Tang CSK. Associations of body dissatisfaction with anxiety and depression in the pregnancy and postpartum periods: a longitudinal study. J Affect Disord. 2020;263:582–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Abrar A, Fairbrother N, Smith AP, Skoll A, Albert AYK. Anxiety among women experiencing medically complicated pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Birth. 2020;47(1):13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Farren J, Jalmbrant M, Falconieri N, Mitchell-Jones N, Bobdiwala S, Al-Memar M, Tapp S, Van Calster B, Wynants L, Timmerman D, et al. Posttraumatic stress, anxiety and depression following miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy: a multicenter, prospective, cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(4):367 (e361–367 e322).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mahrer NE, Ramos IF, Guardino C, Davis EP, Ramey SL, Shalowitz M, DunkelSchetter C. Pregnancy anxiety in expectant mothers predicts offspring negative affect: the moderating role of acculturation. Early Hum Dev. 2020;141:104932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yan W, Wang X, Kuang H, Chen Y, Baktash MB, Eskenazi B, Ye L, Fang K, Xia Y. Physical activity and blood pressure during pregnancy: mediation by anxiety symptoms. J Affect Disord. 2020;264:376–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mudra S, Gobel A, Barkmann C, Goletzke J, Hecher K, Schulte-Markwort M, Diemert A, Arck P. The longitudinal course of pregnancy-related anxiety in parous and nulliparous women and its association with symptoms of social and generalized anxiety. J Affect Disord. 2020;260:111–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Adhikari K, Patten SB, Williamson T, Patel AB, Premji S, Tough S, Letourneau N, Giesbrecht G, Metcalfe A: Assessment of anxiety during pregnancy: are existing multiple anxiety scales suitable and comparable in measuring anxiety during pregnancy? J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;18:1–7.

  26. Kazemi A, Dadkhah A. Changes in prenatal depression and anxiety levels in low risk pregnancy among Iranian women: a prospective study. Asia Pac Psychiatry. 2020;10:e12419.

  27. Wang XX, Wu Y, Yan SQ, Xu YQ, Zhu P, Hao JH, Tao FB, Huang K. The relationship between maternal pregnancy-related anxiety and executive function in preschool children: a cohort study. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2020;54(5):511–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhou C, Weng J, Tan F, Wu S, Ma J, Zhang B, Yuan Q. Pregnancy-related anxiety among Chinese pregnant women in mid-late pregnancy under the two-child policy and its significant correlates. J Affect Disord. 2020;276:272–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zemestani M, FazeliNikoo Z. Effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for comorbid depression and anxiety in pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2020;23(2):207–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Asselmann E, Wittchen HU, Erler L, Martini J. Peripartum changes in social support among women with and without anxiety and depressive disorders prior to pregnancy: a prospective-longitudinal study. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2016;19(6):943–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hopkins J, Miller JL, Butler K, Gibson L, Hedrick L, Boyle DA. The relation between social support, anxiety and distress symptoms and maternal fetal attachment. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2018;36(4):381–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wernand JJ, Kunseler FC, Oosterman M, Beekman AT, Schuengel C. Prenatal changes in parenting self-efficacy: linkages with anxiety and depressive symptoms in primiparous women. Infant Ment Health J. 2014;35(1):42–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mudra S, Gobel A, Barthel D, Hecher K, Schulte-Markwort M, Goletzke J, Arck P, Diemert A. Psychometric properties of the German version of the pregnancy-related anxiety questionnaire-revised 2 (PRAQ-R2) in the third trimester of pregnancy. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):242.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Lowndes TA, Egan SJ, McEvoy PM. Efficacy of brief guided self-help cognitive behavioral treatment for perfectionism in reducing perinatal depression and anxiety: a randomized controlled trial. Cogn Behav Ther. 2019;48(2):106–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rwakarema M, Premji SS, Nyanza EC, Riziki P, Palacios-Derflingher L. Antenatal depression is associated with pregnancy-related anxiety, partner relations, and wealth in women in Northern Tanzania: a cross-sectional study. BMC Womens Health. 2015;15:68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Verbeek T, Bockting CLH, Beijers C, Meijer JL, van Pampus MG, Burger H. Low socioeconomic status increases effects of negative life events on antenatal anxiety and depression. Women Birth. 2019;32(1):e138–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Buist A, Gotman N, Yonkers KA. Generalized anxiety disorder: course and risk factors in pregnancy. J Affect Disord. 2011;131(1–3):277–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Camacho EM, Shields GE. Cost-effectiveness of interventions for perinatal anxiety and/or depression: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(8):e022022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Alipour Z, Kheirabadi GR, Eslami AA, Kazemi A. Psychological profiles of risk for antenatal depression and anxiety in Iranian sociocultural context. J Educ Health Promot. 2018;7:160.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Padmapriya N, Bernard JY, Liang S, Loy SL, Shen Z, Kwek K, Godfrey KM, Gluckman PD, Chong YS, Saw SM, et al. Association of physical activity and sedentary behavior with depression and anxiety symptoms during pregnancy in a multiethnic cohort of Asian women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2016;19(6):1119–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing, Xinjiang Medical University, No. 567, Shangde North Road, Urumqi, 830000, Xinjiang, China

    Feng Fu, Ping Yan, Shuping You, Xinmin Mao, Yanni Wang, Yali Dai & Palida Maimaiti

  2. Reproductive Medicine Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China

    Tingting Qiao

  3. Emergency Trauma Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China

    Li Fu

Authors
  1. Feng Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ping Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shuping You
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xinmin Mao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tingting Qiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Li Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yanni Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yali Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Palida Maimaiti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

F F, Y D, P M designed research; F F, P Y, S Y, X M, T Q, L F conducted research; F F, Y W, Y D, L F analyzed data; F F, Y D, P M wrote the first draft of manuscript; P M had primary responsibility for final content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Palida Maimaiti.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Our manuscript had been reviewed and verified by the ethical committee of Xinjiang Medical University (20180349), and the written informed consents had been obtained from all the participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

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

Fu, F., Yan, P., You, S. et al. The pregnancy-related anxiety characteristics in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: why should we care?. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 21, 424 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03887-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03887-2

Keywords

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Contact us