Beyond the test: Why some pregnant women decline oral glucose test screening for gestational diabetes — ASN Events

Beyond the test: Why some pregnant women decline oral glucose test screening for gestational diabetes (#133)

Vanessa J Watkins 1 , Georgia Griffin 1 2 , Claudia Salas 1 , Zoe Bradfield 1 2 3
  1. Curtin University School of Nursing, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
  2. King Edward Memorial Hospital, Women and Newborn Health Service, Subiaco, WA, Australia
  3. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Western Australia Medical School, Nedlands, WA, Australia

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening using the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is routinely recommended in Australia. However, researchers have reported that in some populations, as many as 20-50% of women decline OGTT testing. Little is known about how and why women make this decision, and how different maternity care contexts intersect in decision-making.

Aim: To explore and describe women’s experiences of declining OGTT screening for GDM in Australia using multiple qualitative methods.

Methods: We conducted a national cross-sectional online survey of women in Australia who had given birth within the previous two years (n=1,719). Survey respondents who reported declining OGTT were invited to provide free-text explanations; inductive content analysis was undertaken for open-ended responses (n=386). Semi-structured interviews with women who had declined OGTT (n=17) were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results: In the survey, 563/1,719 (32.8%) women reported not completing an OGTT in their most recent pregnancy. Free-text responses clustered into three categories: decision-making processes (n=697 concepts), personal context (n=311), and health service context (n=25). Within decision-making, women described preferring alternative screening approaches (e.g., fasting glucose, HbA1c, capillary blood glucose monitoring/CGM), questioning the validity of OGTT due to perceived unreliability and arbitrary diagnostic thresholds, and highlighting the time, cost and physical burden of fasting and ingesting a glucose load (particularly with nausea/vomiting). Anticipated downstream consequences of a GDM label—such as increased surveillance, reduced autonomy, and exclusion from preferred models of care—were central to risk–benefit appraisals. Interview themes extended these findings, showing decisions were values-based and shaped by lived experience, maternity care interactions, and active information seeking; supportive relationships enabled negotiated alternatives, whereas perceived pressure and stigma could contribute to disengagement.  

Conclusions: Within the populations of these national studies, declining OGTT was commonly an informed and considered choice rather than non-compliant behaviour. Offering flexible, evidence-informed screening pathways and strengthening respectful, informed decision-making - particularly within continuity models of care – is recommended as a strategy to better engage with women during childbearing.