How do psychosocial challenges associated with living with congenital heart disease translate into treatment interests and preferences? A qualitative approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is an increasing amount of research being conducted regarding the psychosocial challenges associated with living with congenital heart disease (CHD), however little is known about how these challenges influence the type of psychosocial services patients want. This study investigated (1) the type of services patients want; (2) how they want to access these services; and (3) why they want these services. METHODS: Three focus groups with adults with CHD (total of 14 participants aged 19-67) were conducted and thematic analysis was used to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: Participants described wanting to access specific psychosocial services in three broad categories (counselling, connecting with other adults with CHD and psycho-education) and in three main formats (individual/group therapy, mentorship programmes and patient conferences). Reasons for wanting these services were grouped under two overarching themes, namely intrapersonal factors and interpersonal challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial challenges are part of the everyday lives of adults with CHD, yet they are rarely addressed as part of routine medical care. Patients themselves have clear opinions regarding the psychological services most appropriate to target their experiences of living with CHD.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".