Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Educational films for gestational diabetes do not reduce adverse perinatal outcomes in Uganda and India trialNew films for diabetes care did not lower baby risks in Uganda and India

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that educational films did not reduce adverse perinatal outcomes in pregnant women with gestational diabetes.

This cluster randomised trial was conducted across 30 government-funded health facilities in Uganda and India involving pregnant women and healthcare providers. Screening included 5495 participants in Uganda and 12045 in India, with 5102 and 10899 respectively participating.

The intervention consisted of a package of 7 interconnected culturally-tailored educational films shared with pregnant women and health professionals, compared against usual care. The primary outcome was an individual self-reported composite of unplanned caesarean section, stillbirth or neonatal death, or neonatal hospitalisation. In Uganda, the composite adverse perinatal outcome occurred in 19.7% of the control arm versus 19.8% in the intervention arm (PR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14). In India, rates were 29.5% in the control arm versus 30.6% in the intervention arm (PR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11). The pooled relative risk was 1.03 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.10).

Safety data regarding adverse events, serious adverse events, and discontinuations were not reported. Key limitations include loss to follow-up of 31.7% in Uganda and 12.1% in India. Participants, facility, and trial staff were not blinded, though data analysts were blinded to group allocation.

Practice relevance is limited as the intervention did not reduce incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes. Future evaluations should assess educational films delivered alongside more intensive intervention components.

Imagine a pregnant woman waiting at a clinic. She has been told she has gestational diabetes. She wants to know how to keep her baby safe. She watches a series of videos designed to teach her and her doctor the best ways to manage this condition.

But the results were not what anyone hoped for.

In a massive study across two countries, these helpful-looking films did not change the hard outcomes. Babies were not safer, and moms did not face fewer complications just because they watched the movies.

Gestational diabetes is a very common problem. It happens when a woman's body cannot make enough insulin during pregnancy. Insulin is the key that lets sugar enter your cells for energy. Without it, sugar builds up in the blood.

High blood sugar can cause big problems. It increases the chance of a baby being born too early or needing hospital care right after birth. In some cases, it can lead to stillbirth or the death of a newborn.

Doctors have long looked for simple ways to fix this. They thought that if you just taught people more, they would do better. But teaching alone often does not work when the system around you is struggling.

The Old Way Vs New Way

For years, the standard advice was to give patients information. We tell them to eat right and move more. We hand them pamphlets and point them to websites. The idea was that knowledge equals action.

But here is the twist. Knowing what to do is not the same as being able to do it. Many women face barriers like long wait times, lack of food, or stress at home. A video cannot fix a broken scale or a busy schedule.

This new research tested a different idea. Instead of just giving information, they gave a package of seven connected films. These were made specifically for the culture in Uganda and India. They were meant to be more relatable and easier to understand than a standard textbook.

A Switch That Needs More Power

Think of the body like a factory. Insulin is the worker that moves sugar from the bloodstream into the cells. In gestational diabetes, that worker is tired or missing.

The films tried to turn on the right behaviors. They wanted women to test their sugar more often and eat better. But behavior change is like turning on a switch in a dark room. You need light, tools, and support to see the switch and use it.

The study found that the films did not change the factory output. The rate of bad outcomes stayed almost exactly the same in both groups. Whether a woman watched the films or not, her baby faced the same risks.

The researchers looked at thousands of women. In Uganda, they checked over 5,000 women. In India, they checked over 12,000 women. That is a huge number of people to study.

They compared two groups. One group got the films and extra support. The other group got the usual care they normally receive. The main goal was to see if the films could stop unplanned surgeries, stillbirths, or hospital stays for newborns.

The numbers were clear. In Uganda, the risk was about 20% for both groups. In India, the risk was about 30% for both groups. There was no real difference between the groups that watched the films and those that did not.

The combined results from both countries showed no benefit at all. The films did not lower the risk of adverse events.

But There's A Catch

That's not the full story.

The researchers did not say the films were useless. They said the films were well made and culturally appropriate. The problem was that the films were not enough on their own.

This news might feel disappointing. You might wonder if watching health videos is a waste of time. It is not a waste. It is just not a magic bullet.

If you are pregnant and have diabetes, keep talking to your care team. Ask about a full plan that includes food support, regular check-ups, and maybe medication if needed. Videos can be part of your routine, but they must be paired with real help.

Do not stop following your doctor's advice because you watched a video. Your safety depends on a complete plan, not just information.

The Limitations Of This Research

This study was very large, but it had limits. Many women stopped coming back for follow-up visits. In Uganda, over 30% were lost to follow-up. In India, the number was lower, but still significant.

Also, the study looked at government clinics. It did not include private clinics or home births. The results might be different in other settings. We do not know if the films would work better in a different place.

So, what happens next? The researchers say we need to try something stronger. Future studies should add more intense support to the education.

Maybe the films need to be part of a larger program that includes home visits, better food access, or more frequent doctor visits. Education is important, but it must be backed by action.

We will keep looking for ways to protect moms and babies. Until then, the best tool is still a strong partnership between you and your healthcare provider.

Study Details

Study typeRct
EvidenceLevel 2
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
INTRODUCTION: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a high risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. We evaluated whether a film-based educational intervention for pregnant women and healthcare providers to improve timely detection and management of GDM could reduce the incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes. METHODS: Two parallel-group cluster randomised trials were conducted in Uganda and India. A package of 7 interconnected culturally-tailored educational films was developed following formative research. 30 government-funded health facilities (clusters) in each country were randomised (1:1) to intervention or control arm. In intervention facilities (15 in each country), films were shared with pregnant women and health professionals; control facilities (15 in each country) received usual care. The outcome was an individual self-reported composite of unplanned caesarean section, stillbirth or neonatal death, or neonatal hospitalisation. Mixed effects models were used in an intention-to-treat analysis with multiple imputation by chained equations to address missing data. Analyses were performed separately for each country; random-effects meta-analysis was used to calculate pooled prevalence ratios (PRs). Data analysts were blinded to group allocation, but participants, facility and trial staff were not. RESULTS: In Uganda, 5495 women were screened between May 2021 and April 2022, and 5102 (92.8%) participated in the trial. In India, 12 045 women were screened between July 2021 and January 2022, and 10 899 (90.5%) participated. Loss to follow-up was 31.7% in Uganda and 12.1% in India. In Uganda, the prevalence of the composite adverse perinatal outcome was 19.7% in the control arm and 19.8% in the intervention arm (PR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14). For India, the prevalence was 29.5% and 30.6%, respectively (PR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11). The pooled PR across both countries was 1.03 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.10). CONCLUSIONS: A film-based intervention did not reduce the incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes associated with GDM. Future evaluations should assess educational films delivered alongside more intensive intervention components. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03937050, ISRCTN96432637.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.