Skip to main content

Gestational diabetes mellitus, follow-up of future maternal risk of cardiovascular disease and the use of eHealth technologies—a scoping review

A Correction to this article was published on 16 November 2023

This article has been updated



Globally, gestational diabetes mellitus complicates 1 in 6 pregnancies and increases future risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in the affected women. There is a lack of consensus on the optimal follow-up of these women. eHealth is emerging as a health care tool, but its practical utility and advantages over standard care in the follow-up after pregnancy complications remains to be determined. Our aim was to systematically review the existing literature on cardiovascular follow-up after gestational diabetes, the utility of eHealth technology for this purpose, and to identify research gaps.


We performed a systematic scoping review following a published protocol and the Joanna Briggs methodology for studies up until May 2022. Four databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Maternity and Infant Care, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Primary research articles and systematic reviews were included in the final analyses. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and performed full text assessment. Data was extracted using a data charting form. In all stages of the process, if consensus was not reached, a third reviewer was consulted. The findings from the data charting process provided the basis for summarizing the findings from the included studies.


The search of the databases generated 2772 hits. After removing duplicates and manually adding a total of 19 studies, reviews, and guidelines, a total of 2769 titles and abstracts were screened, and 97 papers underwent full-text review. In the final analyses, 15 articles and 12 systematic reviews were included, whereas guidelines are presented as supplementary material.

No studies were identified that examined follow-up regarding long-term overall cardiovascular risk after gestational diabetes. Various lifestyle interventions were tested for individual cardiovascular risk factors, with diverging effects. eHealth technologies were found acceptable by participants but had no consistent, statistically significant effect on relevant health outcomes.


This scoping review of the existing literature revealed neither an established systematic cardiovascular follow-up strategy for women after gestational diabetes nor evidence that eHealth technologies are superior to conventional follow-up. Further research into the utility of eHealth in cardiovascular follow-up after complicated pregnancies should include longer-term follow-up and core cardiovascular outcomes.

Systematic review registration

The protocol for this scoping review was published at Open Science Framework (

Peer Review reports


Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common complication of pregnancy, with a rising incidence, affecting around 1 in 6 births globally, with prevalence varying across different regions and populations [1]. GDM impacts maternal and offspring health both in short- and long-term [2], the latter including increased risk for maternal type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) [3]. Short-term consequences include increased risk for preeclampsia, which in itself is an established risk factor for CVD [4]. Women who have had GDM in their pregnancy have an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease later in life compared to those with normoglycemic pregnancies [3]. Through meta-analyses, the size of this risk association has been estimated to be a relative risk of almost 10 for T2DM and almost 2 for cardiovascular disease [5,6,7]. Although the relatively higher progression rate to T2DM in these women partly accounts for the CVD risk increase, meta-analyses have shown that GDM per se carries a residual risk [5, 7].

Epidemiological studies indicate that a healthy diet and increased physical activity can reduce the risk of developing T2DM [8, 9]. The period after a pregnancy with GDM has been referred to as window of opportunity for prophylactic interventions that can reduce the risk of T2DM and related comorbidities [10]; however, adherence to recommended postpartum screening for DM2 appears to be low [11, 12]. eHealth (electronic health) is defined as the use of information and communication technology for health. It is emerging as a tool with the potential of transforming facets of our health care systems, including perinatal care, but their practical utility and advantages over standard care remains to be determined [13, 14]. Our aim was to systematically review the existing literature on follow-up regarding cardiovascular disease after gestational diabetes, the utility of eHealth technology for this purpose, and to identify research gaps.


Protocol and registration

Following the Joanna Briggs methodology [15], a review protocol was developed and published at Open Science Framework ( before initiating the literature search [16]. There were no major deviances from the published review protocol. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist; see Additional file 1.

Literature search and eligibility criteria

A literature search was performed by one of the authors (BSF) with the help of a librarian at the University of Oslo Library in May 2022. Four databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Maternity and Infant Care, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Some database-specific adaptions were made to the search strategy for the different databases. Detailed information on the literature search is provided in Additional file 2. We included original research articles and systematic reviews with a population of nulli- and multiparous women with GDM in a previous pregnancy, where the concept involved follow-up regarding long-term cardiovascular risk after such a pregnancy, as well as the use of eHealth technologies as a tool in such follow-up. The context was health care settings in which women receive care after a GDM pregnancy from skilled health care workers. Additionally, we included guidelines from the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) as well as national guidelines from the UK, Canada, Australia/New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. These guidelines were chosen due to having a comparable population and system of ante- and postnatal care as the Norwegian health care system, a rationale that is consistent with other reviews [17]. We limited the search to publications in languages mastered to fluency by the review authors (English, German, Norwegian, Swedish, or Danish), without any date of publication restriction.

Screening, data charting process, and synthesis of results

The results were downloaded to the EndNote reference management software (version 20; Clarivate Analytics, USA) and transferred to Covidence, a web-based collaboration software platform that streamlines the production of systematic and other literature reviews (Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia, available at

Titles and abstracts were reviewed by two of the authors (BSF and MS) for relevance. All articles deemed to be relevant or of uncertain relevance underwent full-text review. In both stages of the process, if consensus was not reached, a third reviewer (ASDP) also reviewed and cast the deciding vote. The reference lists of the selected publications were manually searched for additional relevant articles.

A data charting form was developed (by all the authors) and completed for each study by BSF and MS independently. Data retrieved included information such as country of origin, methods, population, intervention, and outcomes. Certain information was extracted for guidelines that was not extracted for the primary studies and reviews and vice versa. The data charting form is provided in Additional file 3. The final version of the data charting form was expanded compared to the original one published with the protocol, but this was done in accordance with the planned testing and alignment of the data charting form early in the process. As outlined in the protocol, prior to starting the data charting stage of the review, two of the researchers (BSF and MS) tested and validated the form by independently screening three articles, comparing the results and adjusted the form to incorporate relevant findings. The final version of the data charting form was uploaded to the Covidence software platform, where both researchers doing the data charting (BSF and MS) used this independent of each other. In cases where the software flagged discrepancies in the data charted, the two researchers assessed the conflict and reached a consensus. The final version of the data charting form for each article or review then provided the basis when one researcher (BSF) created the first draft of the different tables in summarizing the results, which were then assessed by all the authors. In accordance with the JBI framework, no formal quality assessment of the scientific articles was performed; inclusion depended solely on the eligibility criteria.


The search of the databases identified 2772 references. A further nine studies and systematic reviews were added after manual search of the reference list of other included articles. Ten guidelines also needed to be imported manually to obtain the full version in the original language. We removed 22 duplicates. Hence, in total, 2769 articles were screened for titles and abstract. This process excluded a further 2672 due to lack of relevance to the topic of interest. In total, 97 papers then underwent full-text review, in which 62 were excluded. Finally, 15 articles and 12 systematic reviews were included in the review. Data from eight gestational diabetes guidelines are presented in Additional file 4. A PRISMA flowchart of the process is shown in Fig. 1. An overview of the various definitions of GDM used in the different studies can be found in Table 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flowchart

Table 1 The criteria for GDM used in the various studies

No studies or systematic reviews were identified assessing long-term CVD risk per se; rather, the outcomes assessed were either incidence of T2DM or other markers of impaired glucose homeostasis or various CVD risk factors such weight and physical activity.


Follow-up studies regarding cardiovascular risk

Eleven trials assessing follow-up regarding cardiovascular risk (excluding those with a primarily eHealth technology-based intervention, see the “The use of eHealth technologies” section) were deemed to meet the criteria of the review [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34], of which seven were RCTs [26,27,28, 30,31,32,33], two cluster RCTs [24, 25], one randomized clinical with two interventions and no control group [34], and one an interventional cohort trial [29]. Details on the different trials are shown in Table 2. In four of the included trials, the primary outcomes were partly or exclusively related to postpartum weight change [24, 25, 27, 28], in three studies incidence of T2DM [26, 30, 32], and three studies reported other measures of glycemic status [28, 29, 31, 33, 34]. Glucose-related outcomes were additionally included among the secondary outcomes in two of the articles [25, 27]. The interventions were all different types of lifestyle interventions, focusing on diet and/or physical activity, delivered as either individual or group sessions, with different tools utilized as part of the follow-up (e.g., reminder systems using telephone or e-mail). Follow-up varied between six and 36 months for all the studies except Aroda et al., where follow-up was 10 years [32]. These authors found that compared to the placebo/standard care group the intensive lifestyle intervention reduced progression to diabetes by 35%. It should be noted that the setting of this trial was somewhat differing from the other studies, given that mean time since index GDM pregnancy was 12 years at the time of recruitment, a longer interval than in any of the other studies. In a smaller study, involving 180 participants, with two years follow-up, Zilberman-Kravits and co-workers found that a culturally tailored lifestyle intervention significantly reduced insulin resistance [33]. None of the other studies with incidence of T2DM or other glucose homeostasis-related outcomes found a significant effect. Three of the studies found significant effect of intervention on weight outcome [24, 25, 28]. Neither was there any consistent, significant effect on blood pressure, lipid profiles, or development of metabolic syndrome [24, 26, 29,30,31]

Table 2 Findings from the follow-up studies regarding cardiovascular risk

The use of eHealth technologies

Four studies on the use of eHealth measures met the criteria for this review [35,36,37,38], three utilizing smartphones [35, 37, 38] and one with the additional use of a virtual reality (VR) headset [37]. The fourth study tested the efficacy of a pedometer program linked with a web-based module, in addition to a nutrition coaching workshop [36]. Detailed information can be found in Table 3. The two trials with strictly smartphone-based interventions [35, 38] did not show significant effect on their primary outcomes of weight [38] and proportion of participants achieving a certain level of Diabetes Prevention Program goals [35] or secondary outcomes related to glucose levels or lipid profiles. Both applications were found to be acceptable by participants, as assessed by data on actual use of the apps [35, 38] and a scoring system where the users rated the app’s quality and perceived impact [35] Examining the efficacy of a mobile VR program [37], Kim and co-workers in a study from South Korea found that it significantly improved body weight and fat, fasting blood glucose, and HbA1c compared to control group after a 12-week follow-up. This was a quasi-experimental study, where 64 women with recent diabetes were included, and the control group of 64 women were selected to the intervention group by matching for age, birth experience, type of birth, family history of T2DM, and breastfeeding status. In a small trial with 31 women and 3 months follow-up, Peacock et al. [36] demonstrated a significant difference in weight loss in pedometer program intervention group compared to the control group (− 2.5 kg (SD ± 1.4) vs 0.0 kg (SD ± 2.3), p = 0.002).

Table 3 Findings from the eHealth studies


Twelve reviews in total were included [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50], of which one scoping review [39], one overview of other reviews [44], five systematic reviews [42, 45, 46, 48, 49], and five systematic reviews with meta-analyses [40, 41, 43, 47, 50]. Two of the reviews focused primarily on mHealth (mobile Health)/eHealth [39, 43], while the others mainly assessed lifestyle interventions. Of the two mHealth/eHealth reviews, the scoping review merely presented the existing literature and noted good engagement for app usage, but also a lack of studies where mHealth was the primary mode of intervention postpartum [39]. In their systematic review and meta-analysis, Halligan et al. [43] found that the results of the meta-analysis favored intervention compared to standard care for the outcomes of weight and BMI, but the results were not statistically significant. The meta-analyses of the lifestyle interventions showed somewhat mixed results. Li et al. [47] found that lifestyle interventions commenced within 3 years postpartum showed a 43% risk reduction for incidence of T2DM compared to standard care (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42–0.78), whereas the other reviews examining this outcome found statistically non-significant trend towards risk reduction [41, 50] or no effect for glucose related outcomes [40]. Hedeager Momsen and at al. [44] found in their overview of the reviews that lifestyle interventions appeared to decrease the incidence of diabetes postpartum and that the effects were larger the earlier after labor the intervention was implemented and the longer it lasted. The two meta-analyses for weight-related outcomes both showed small but statistically significant effects [40, 41]. In a review by Jones et al. [46], recruitment rates of participants to the various trials were assessed and found to be low even for primarily home-based interventions. In the systematic reviews overall, there were mixed results, but with most concluding that for outcomes such as weight/BMI, physical activity, and diet, lifestyle interventions may be beneficial. Details on the reviews is shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Findings from the reviews


Summary of evidence

The studies assessed in the present scoping review do not offer any clear evidence for how best to follow-up women after gestational diabetes regarding their increased long-term risk of cardiovascular disease. Various lifestyle interventions have been tested for outcomes such as diabetes incidence, weight-related outcomes, and other cardiovascular risk factors, most offering some version of patient education combined with individual or group sessions with health care professionals. The results from both primary studies and reviews indicate that such follow-up may be beneficial but differ between the various studies and reviews for the different outcomes to such a degree that it is not possible to conclude that any of them provide a clear template for how follow-up should be carried out.

The use of eHealth is increasing in health care systems across the world. In a recent WHO guideline [13] regarding the implementation of such measures, a degree of caution was advised, emphasizing the importance of rigorously evaluating their utility, to ensure that they do not divert resources from non-digital interventions if they are not superior. The eHealth interventions assessed in this review have not shown any clear and consistent advantages compared to standard care. However, it is possible that the lack of statistically significant results in the smartphone app trials [35, 38] was at least partly related to a relatively short follow-up period of 4 and 6 months, respectively. On the other hand, Kim et al. [37] found a statistically significant result after only a 12-week follow-up, but given the quasi-experimental design, a degree of caution is necessary when interpreting the results.

Another obstacle that needs to be overcome to improve the follow-up of this group of women after GDM is the low rate of adherence to existing follow-up recommendations such as postpartum glucose tolerance tests, which is attended by less than one in five [52]. Use of proactive reminder systems and mobile health technology have been suggested as possible remedies for this, and the latter highlighted as an area that warrants further research [14, 53].

Although it is established that women with a GDM pregnancy have a significantly increased risk of CVD later in life, even when adjusting for the risk of T2DM [5, 7], no studies were identified that assessed strategies for reducing overall cardiovascular risk. All the studies were focusing on either persistent hyperglycemia or other individual risk factors of CVD such as weight, diet, and physical activity. Taking into account that the risk of CVD to a certain degree is independent of the considerably increased incidence of T2DM in women with a previous GDM pregnancy compared to those without GDM, this is an area that warrants further research.

Given that women on average are relatively young and healthy at the time of reproduction, it might be that the next contact for a woman with prior GDM and a normal HbA1c or OGTT postpartum—if tested—might be the first trimester of a next pregnancy or even years later if she does not have any more children. This makes the pregnancy and peripartum period a missed window of opportunity for optimizing any modifiable cardiovascular risk factor. As presented in Additional file 4, guidelines generally suggest some type of postnatal testing for persistent hyperglycemia; however, few explicitly address the risk of CVD apart from T2DM, and the Norwegian guideline stands alone in offering a clear template for how this could be followed up. The Norwegian guidelines link obstetric outcomes with a follow-up by general practitioners in the public health system, which may assist in bridging the gap in the health follow-up of postpartum women. In patients with previous hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, guidelines such as NICE [54] and ACOG [55] recommend that women are followed by their primary care provider to manage risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The Norwegian guidelines [56] for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy offer a clear algorithm suggesting how this could be carried out from delivery to middle age and beyond, a flow-chart which has since been included also in the guidelines for gestational diabetes [57]. As both spectrums of obstetric disease confer an increased risk of CVD later in life, similar recommendations for follow-up might be a sensible approach. As the development of CVD is an insidious process developing over years [58], studies with a longer follow-up would be a welcome addition to the literature.

Strengths and limitations

To the best of our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive review that has been performed for this topic, encompassing both original research studies and systematic reviews and including both more conventional lifestyle interventions and also with a separate assessment of the utility of eHealth technologies The scoping review methodology does not entail quality assessment; hence, our review has not analyzed the quality of the included studies. Our review was not able to generate evidence that supports any specific follow-up regime to lower the cardiovascular risk in women with previous gestational diabetes, whether using conventional methods or eHealth measures. Some limitations should be noted. First of all, the review protocol was not peer reviewed. Another limitation to our study was that the search did not yield the full, original language version of any of the included guidelines; hence, these had to be inserted manually. We also acknowledge that more databases could have been searched, including those cataloging grey literature. Another limitation is the language restrictions. In itself, the inability to review articles written in other languages than the ones the authors of this paper are fluent in could be a source of bias. In retrospect, we also acknowledge that it would be preferable to have included language among the eligibility criteria rather than as restrictions in the search strategy.


Our scoping review has shown that although GDM is an established risk factor for CVD later in life, it is not possible to ascertain from the existing literature how women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus should be followed up in this regard. The studies and reviews assessed in this scoping review suggest that lifestyle interventions may be beneficial for certain individual risk factors, such as weight-related outcomes and risk of T2DM, but no studies assessing the overall long-term risk has been performed. eHealth technology is not an established feature in the follow-up of women after GDM, and although such measures appear to be acceptable to participants, they have yet to prove their utility for improving follow-up and lowering cardiovascular risk.

There is need for further research on how best to follow-up concerning long-term risk of overall CVD after a GDM pregnancy. Studies with longer follow-up assessing how to utilize eHealth technologies would also be a welcome addition to the literature. The increased risk of CVD and parallel recommendations for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy suggest that similar approach regarding follow-up for optimizing cardiovascular risk factors could be reasonable. However, the existing literature does not offer any clear advice on how this should be carried out.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Change history


  1. Guariguata L, Linnenkamp U, Beagley J, Whiting DR, Cho NH. Global estimates of the prevalence of hyperglycaemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014;103(2):176–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Metzger BE, Buchanan TA, Coustan DR, de Leiva A, Dunger DB, Hadden DR, et al. Summary and recommendations of the Fifth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2007;30 Suppl 2:S251–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kitzmiller JL, Dang-Kilduff L, Taslimi MM. Gestational diabetes after delivery. Short-term management and long-term risks. Diabetes Care. 2007;30 Suppl 2:S225–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Staff AC, Redman CW, Williams D, Leeson P, Moe K, Thilaganathan B, et al. Pregnancy and long-term maternal cardiovascular health: progress through harmonization of research cohorts and biobanks. Hypertension. 2016;67(2):251–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kramer CK, Campbell S, Retnakaran R. Gestational diabetes and the risk of cardiovascular disease in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia. 2019;62(6):905–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vounzoulaki E, Khunti K, Abner SC, Tan BK, Davies MJ, Gillies CL. Progression to type 2 diabetes in women with a known history of gestational diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020;369: m1361.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Xie W, Wang Y, Xiao S, Qiu L, Yu Y, Zhang Z. Association of gestational diabetes mellitus with overall and type specific cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2022;378:e070244.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bao W, Tobias DK, Bowers K, Chavarro J, Vaag A, Grunnet LG, et al. Physical activity and sedentary behaviors associated with risk of progression from gestational diabetes mellitus to type 2 diabetes mellitus: a prospective cohort study. JAMA Internal Med. 2014;174(7):1047–55.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tobias DK, Hu FB, Chavarro J, Rosner B, Mozaffarian D, Zhang C. Healthful dietary patterns and type 2 diabetes mellitus risk among women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus. Arch Internal Med. 2012;172(20):1566–72.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Phelan S. Windows of opportunity for lifestyle interventions to prevent gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Perinatol. 2016;33(13):1291–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. de Gennaro G, Bianchi C, Aragona M, Battini L, Baronti W, Brocchi A, et al. Postpartum screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in women with gestational diabetes: Is it really performed? Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2020;166:108309.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Linnenkamp U, Greiner GG, Haastert B, Adamczewski H, Kaltheuner M, Weber D, et al. Postpartum screening of women with GDM in specialised practices: Data from 12,991 women in the GestDiab register. Diabetic Med. 2022;39(7):e14861.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. WHO Guidelines Approved by the Guidelines Review Committee. WHO guideline Recommendations on Digital Interventions for Health System Strengthening. Geneva: World Health Organization. © World Health Organization 2019; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  14. van den Heuvel JF, Groenhof TK, Veerbeek JH, van Solinge WW, Lely AT, Franx A, et al. eHealth as the next-generation perinatal care: an overview of the literature. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(6):e202.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil, H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, JBI, 2020. Available from

  16. Fiskå BS, Pay ASD, Staff AC, Sugulle M. Gestational diabetes mellitus, long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and use of eHealth technologies -- a scoping review: OSF; 2022. Available from:

  17. Larun LF, MS; Håvelsrud, K; Brurberg, KG; Reinar, LM. Depresjonsscreening av gravide og barselkvinner Oslo: Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for helsetjenesten; 2013. Available from:

  18. World Health O. Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications: report of a WHO consultation. Part 1, Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  19. World Health O, International Diabetes F. Definition and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and intermediate hyperglycaemia: report of a WHO/IDF consultation. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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):676–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. World Health O. Diagnostic criteria and classification of hyperglycaemia first detected in pregnancy. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. Contract No.: WHO/NMH/MND/13.2.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Carpenter MW, Coustan DR. Criteria for screening tests for gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;144(7):768–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hoffman L, Nolan C, Wilson JD, Oats JJ, Simmons D. Gestational diabetes mellitus–management guidelines. The Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society. Med J Aust. 1998;169(2):93–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ferrara A, Hedderson MM, Brown SD, Albright CL, Ehrlich SF, Tsai AL, et al. The comparative effectiveness of diabetes prevention strategies to reduce postpartum weight retention in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: the Gestational Diabetes’ Effects on Moms (GEM) cluster randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(1):65–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Holmes VA, Draffin CR, Patterson CC, Francis L, Irwin J, McConnell M, et al. Postnatal lifestyle intervention for overweight women with previous gestational diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103(7):2478–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee KW, Tan SF, Omar A, Nasir NH, Ching SM, Mohd Noor MK, et al. Effectiveness of system-based intervention in reducing incidence of type 2 diabetes and to improve the postnatal metabolic profiles in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled study. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2022;38(1):55–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. McManus R, Miller D, Mottola M, Giroux I, Donovan L. Translating healthy living messages to postpartum women and their partners after gestational diabetes (GDM): body habitus, A1C, lifestyle habits, and program engagement results from the Families Defeating Diabetes (FDD) randomized trial. Am J Health Promot. 2018;32(6):1438–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. O’Reilly SL, Dunbar JA, Versace V, Janus E, Best JD, Carter R, et al. Mothers after Gestational Diabetes in Australia (MAGDA): a randomised controlled trial of a postnatal diabetes prevention program. PLoS Med. 2016;13(7):e1002092.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Rautio N, Jokelainen J, Korpi-Hyovalti E, Oksa H, Saaristo T, Peltonen M, et al. Lifestyle intervention in prevention of type 2 diabetes in women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus: one-year results of the FIN-D2D project. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2014;23(6):506–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shek NW, Ngai CS, Lee CP, Chan JY, Lao TT. Lifestyle modifications in the development of diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome in Chinese women who had gestational diabetes mellitus: a randomized interventional trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;289(2):319–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tandon N, Gupta Y, Kapoor D, Lakshmi JK, Praveen D, Bhattacharya A, et al. Effects of a lifestyle intervention to prevent deterioration in glycemic status among South Asian women with recent gestational diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(3):e220773.

  32. Aroda VR, Christophi CA, Edelstein SL, Zhang P, Herman WH, Barrett-Connor E, et al. The effect of lifestyle intervention and metformin on preventing or delaying diabetes among women with and without gestational diabetes: the diabetes prevention program outcomes study 10-year follow-up. Transl Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(4):1646–53.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Zilberman-Kravits D, Meyerstein N, Abu-Rabia Y, Wiznitzer A, Harman-Boehm I. The impact of a cultural lifestyle intervention on metabolic parameters after gestational diabetes mellitus a randomized controlled trial. Matern Child Health J. 2018;22(6):803–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Shyam S, Arshad F, Abdul Ghani R, Wahab NA, Safii NS, Nisak MY, et al. Low glycaemic index diets improve glucose tolerance and body weight in women with previous history of gestational diabetes: a six months randomized trial. Nutr J. 2013;12:68.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Potzel AL, Gar C, Banning F, Sacco V, Fritsche A, Fritsche L, et al. A novel smartphone app to change risk behaviors of women after gestational diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(4):e0267258.

  36. Peacock AS, Bogossian FE, Wilkinson SA, Gibbons KS, Kim C, McIntyre HD. A randomised controlled trial to delay or prevent type 2 diabetes after gestational diabetes: walking for exercise and nutrition to prevent diabetes for you. Int J Endocrinol. 2015;2015:423717.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim SH, Kim HJ, Shin G. Self-management mobile virtual reality program for women with gestational diabetes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(4):1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lim K, Chan SY, Lim SL, Tai BC, Tsai C, Wong SR, et al. A Smartphone App to Restore Optimal Weight (SPAROW) in women with recent gestational diabetes mellitus: randomized controlled trial. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2021;9(3):e22147.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Edwards KJ, Maslin K, Andrade J, Jones RB, Shawe J. Mobile health as a primary mode of intervention for women at risk of, or diagnosed with, gestational diabetes mellitus: a scoping review. JBI Evid Synthesis. 2022;20(9):2195–243.

  40. Gilinsky AS, Kirk AF, Hughes AR, Lindsay RS. Lifestyle interventions for type 2 diabetes prevention in women with prior gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of behavioural, anthropometric and metabolic outcomes. Prev Med Rep. 2015;2:448–61.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Goveia P, Canon-Montanez W, De Paula Santos D, Lopes GW, Ma RCW, Duncan BB, et al. Lifestyle intervention for the prevention of diabetes in women with previous gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2018;9:583.

  42. Guo J, Chen JL, Whittemore R, Whitaker E. Postpartum lifestyle interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes among women with history of gestational diabetes: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2016;25(1):38–49.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Halligan J, Whelan ME, Roberts N, Farmer AJ. Reducing weight and BMI following gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of digital and telemedicine interventions. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2021;9(1):e002077.

  44. Hedeager Momsen AM, Hotoft D, Ortenblad L, Friis Lauszus F, Krogh RHA, Lynggaard V, et al. Diabetes prevention interventions for women after gestational diabetes mellitus: an overview of reviews. Endocrinol. 2021;4(3):e00230.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Huang S, Magny-Normilus C, McMahon E, Whittemore R. Systematic review of lifestyle interventions for gestational diabetes mellitus in pregnancy and the postpartum period. J Obstetric Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2022;51(2):115–25.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Jones EJ, Fraley HE, Mazzawi J. Appreciating recent motherhood and culture: a systematic review of multimodal postpartum lifestyle interventions to reduce diabetes risk in women with prior gestational diabetes. Matern Child Health J. 2017;21(1):45–57.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Li N, Yang Y, Cui D, Li C, Ma RCW, Li J, et al. Effects of lifestyle intervention on long-term risk of diabetes in women with prior gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Obes Rev. 2021;22(1):e13122.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Morton S, Kirkwood S, Thangaratinam S. Interventions to modify the progression to type 2 diabetes mellitus in women with gestational diabetes: a systematic review of literature. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;26(6):476–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Peacock AS, Bogossian F, McIntyre HD, Wilkinson S. A review of interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes after gestational diabetes. Women Birth. 2014;27(4):e7–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pedersen ALW, Terkildsen Maindal H, Juul L. How to prevent type 2 diabetes in women with previous gestational diabetes? A systematic review of behavioural interventions. Primary Care Diabetes. 2017;11(5):403–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hu G, Tian H, Zhang F, Liu H, Zhang C, Zhang S, et al. Tianjin Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Prevention Program: study design, methods, and 1-year interim report on the feasibility of lifestyle intervention program. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012;98(3):508–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Pastore I, Chiefari E, Vero R, Brunetti A. Postpartum glucose intolerance: an updated overview. Endocrine. 2018;59(3):481–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Balaji B, Ranjit Mohan A, Rajendra P, Mohan D, Ram U, Viswanathan M. Gestational diabetes mellitus postpartum follow-up testing: challenges and solutions. Can J Diabetes. 2019;43(8):641–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Webster K, Fishburn S, Maresh M, Findlay SC, Chappell LC. Diagnosis and management of hypertension in pregnancy: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ. 2019;366:l5119.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Gestational Hypertension and Preeclampsia. ACOG Practice Bulletin Summary, Number 222. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(6):1492–5.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Staff AC, Kvie A, Langesæter E, Michelsen TM, Moe K, Strand KM, et al. Hypertensive svangerskapskomplikasjoner og eklampsi Oslo: Norsk gynekologisk forening; 2020. updated 16.02.2020. Available from:

  57. Friis CMR, Ellen Marie Strøm; Holm, Helene Oeding; Toft, Johanne Holm; Roland, Marie Cecilie Paasche; Thordarson, Hrafnkell Baldur. Svangerskapsdiabetes Oslo: Norsk gynekologisk forening; 2020. updated 16.02.2020. Available from:

  58. Perk J, De Backer G, Gohlke H, Graham I, Reiner Z, Verschuren M, et al. European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012). The Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts). Eur Heart J. 2012;33(13):1635–701.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors would like to thank Marie Isachsen, senior librarian at the Medical Library, University of Oslo, for her contribution in performing the literature search.


Open access funding provided by University of Oslo (incl Oslo University Hospital) The Oslo University Hospital provided PhD funding for Bendik Seth Fiskå.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors (BSF, ASDP, ACS, and MS) contributed to the development of the protocol and approved the final version. BSF worked together with a librarian (see the “Acknowledgements” section) in setting up the literature search. BSF and MS screened titles and abstracts; in cases where consensus was not reached, ASDP was consulted and cast the deciding vote. BSF and MS performed full-text review; in cases where consensus was not reached, ASDP was consulted and cast the deciding vote. BSF, MS, and ASDP developed the data charting form. BSF and MS performed the data charting. All authors (BSF, ASDP, ACS, and MS) contributed to the interpretation of findings and revision of drafts and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meryam Sugulle.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

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.

The original online version of this article was revised: The authors found one mistake while reading the article. In Fig. 1 as follows, in the second box in the right column, it should be “2672 studies irrelevant.”

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

PRISMA-ScR Checklist.

Additional file 2.

Documentation of literature search.

Additional file 3.

Data charting form.

Additional file 4.

Findings from the guidelines.

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 The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( 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

Fiskå, B.S., Pay, A.S.D., Staff, A.C. et al. Gestational diabetes mellitus, follow-up of future maternal risk of cardiovascular disease and the use of eHealth technologies—a scoping review. Syst Rev 12, 178 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: