Background: There is little known about nutrition intervention research involving consumer co‐design. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on the current use and extent of consumer co‐design in nutrition interventions.Methods: This scoping review is in line with the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute using an adapted 2weekSR approach. We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Cochrane. Only studies that included consumers in the co‐design and met the ‘Collaborate’ or ‘Empower’ levels of the International Association of Public Participation's Public Participation Spectrum were included. Studies were synthesised according to two main concepts: (1) co‐design for (2) nutrition interventions.Results: The initial search yielded 8157 articles, of which 19 studies were included (comprising 29 articles). The studies represented a range of intervention types and participants from seven countries. Sixteen studies were published in the past 5 years. Co‐design was most often used for intervention development, and only two studies reported a partnership with consumers across all stages of research. Overall, consumer involvement was not well documented. No preferred co‐design framework or approach was reported across the various studies.Conclusions: Consumer co‐design for nutrition interventions has become more frequent in recent years, but genuine partnerships with consumers across all stages of nutrition intervention research remain uncommon. There is an opportunity to improve the reporting of consumer involvement in co‐design and enable equal partnerships with consumers in nutrition research.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of updated gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening and diagnostic criteria on selected perinatal outcomes in Queensland, Australia. METHODS: This was a pre–post comparison study using perinatal data the year before (2014) and after (2016) the screening and diagnostic criteria for GDM was changed in Queensland, Australia. In 2015, Queensland adopted the one-step screening and diagnostic criteria based on the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups' recommendations. The data from 62,517 women in 2014 and 61,600 women in 2016 who gave birth from 24 weeks of gestation were analyzed in three groups in each year: women with GDM; women without diagnosed GDM; and total population. The outcome measures were gestational hypertension, cesarean birth, gestational age at delivery, birth weight, preterm delivery, large-for-gestational age (LGA) neonates, small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates, neonatal hypoglycemia, and respiratory distress. RESULTS: The diagnosis of GDM increased from 8.7% (n=5,462) to 11.9% (n=7,317). After changing the diagnostic criteria, the changes to outcomes, odds ratios (OR), and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) (95% CI) for outcomes with statistically significant differences for the total population were: gestational hypertension 4.6% vs 5.0%, OR 1.09 (1.03–1.15), aOR 1.07 (1.02–1.13); preterm birth 7.6% vs 8.0%, OR 1.05 (1.01–1.09), aOR 1.06 (1.02–1.10); neonatal hypoglycemia 5.3% vs 6.8%, OR 1.31 (1.25–1.37), aOR 1.32 (1.25–1.38); and respiratory distress 6.2% vs 6.0%, OR 0.96 (0.91–1.00), aOR 0.94 (0.89–0.99). There was no change to cesarean births or LGA or SGA neonates for women with or without diagnosed GDM or the total population. CONCLUSION: Except for a very small decrease in respiratory distress, changing the diagnostic criteria has resulted in more GDM diagnoses with no observed changes to measured perinatal outcomes for women with and without diagnosed GDM.

Background: There is strong evidence that women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) who receive a minimum of three appointments with a dietitian may require medication less often. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a dietitian-led model of care on clinical outcomes and to understand the utility of the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework as a prospective tool for implementation. Methods: This was a pre-post intervention study measuring outcomes before-and-after changing a gestational diabetes (GDM) model of care and included women with GDM managed at a large, regional hospital in Queensland, Australia. The i-PARIHS framework was used to develop, implement and evaluate a dietitian-led model of care which increased dietetic input for women with GDM to a minimum of one initial education and two review appointments. The outcomes were adherence to the schedule of appointments, clinician perspective of the implementation process, pharmacotherapy use, gestational age at commencement of pharmacotherapy and birth weight. Pre- and post- comparisons of outcomes were made using t-tests and chi-squared tests. Results: Adherence to the dietetic schedule of appointments was significantly increased from 29 to 82% (p < 0.001) but pharmacotherapy use also increased by 10% (p = 0.10). There were significantly more women in the post-intervention group who were diagnosed with GDM prior to 24 weeks gestation, a strong independent predictor of pharmacotherapy use. Infant birthweight remained unchanged. The i-PARIHS framework was used as a diagnostic tool and checklist in the model of care development phase; a facilitation tool during the implementation phase; and during the evaluation phase was used as a reflection tool to identify how the i-PARIHS constructs and their interactions that may have impacted on clinical outcomes. Conclusions: The i-PARIHS framework was found to be useful in the development, implementation and evaluation of a dietitian-led model of care which saw almost 90% of women with GDM meet the minimum schedule of dietetic appointments.