Looking beyond the biophysical realm to optimize health: results of a survey of psychological well-being in adults with congenital cardiac disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose was to examine the relationship between the complexity of structural heart disease and psychological well-being in adults with congenital cardiac disease. METHODS: A total of 380 patients registered at the Adult Congenital Heart Clinic in Calgary, Alberta, Canada were surveyed. The patients were mailed a socio-demographic questionnaire and an instrument to measure psychological well-being. The instrument of psychological well-being measures six dimensions: positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, purpose in life, and self-acceptance. Of the 380 patients surveyed, 85 of 205 patients with simple structural malformation responded, giving a response rate of 41%, and 78 of 175 patients with complex malformations, thus giving a response of 45%. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the mean scores of each of the six dimensions of psychological well-being between those patients with simple and complex malformations. Two-way analysis of variance, and multivariate analysis of variance, found significant differences in mean scores for dimensions when other socio-demographic variables were included in the analysis. For example, significantly higher mean scores for the dimension of purpose in life was found in patients who obtained a higher level of education (p = 0.009), and in patients who were employed (p < 0.001). We present the socio-demographic variables that statistically impact the mean scores for the dimension of psychological well-being. CONCLUSION: Psychological well-being is not affected by the complexity of the structural congenital cardiac disease. Certain socio-demographic variables that impact psychological well-being, nonetheless, must be considered when developing multidisciplinary programmes to care for young adults with congenitally malformed hearts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".