Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Pregnancy
Volume 2016, Article ID 1454707, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/1454707
Research Article

Opinions and Practice of US-Based Obstetrician-Gynecologists regarding Vitamin D Screening and Supplementation of Pregnant Women

1Medical College of Georgia, Georgia Regents University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA
2The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC 20024, USA

Received 11 May 2016; Revised 22 July 2016; Accepted 31 July 2016

Academic Editor: Deborah A. Wing

Copyright © 2016 Sara A. Mohamed et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency is prevalent among pregnant women. Recommendations for adequate levels of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D and appropriate vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy differ between the Institute of Medicine and the Endocrine Society. Obstetrician-gynecologists must make clinical decisions in this environment of uncertain guidance. An online questionnaire regarding physician practice patterns for screening and supplementing pregnant women was administered to 225 randomly selected practicing obstetrician-gynecologists of whom 101 (45%) completed the questionnaire. A majority indicated that vitamin D insufficiency was a problem in their patient population (68.4%) and that most of their pregnant patients would benefit from vitamin D supplementation (66.3%). Half (52.5%) would recommend vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy to some patients, but only 16.8% to all. Only one in four (25.8%) routinely screen their pregnant patients for vitamin D status. Physicians who indicated that vitamin D status was a problem in their patient population were more likely to screen routinely (32.8% versus 9.7%, ) and believe their patients would benefit from supplementation (91.2% versus 16.1%, ). Opinion regarding supplementation levels and indicators of adequacy were split between the two competing recommendations, suggesting that clinical practice will likely remain variable across physicians, with uncertain public health consequences.