Adults with Congenital Heart Disease: Psychological Needs and Treatment Preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Approximately one-third of adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients have mood or anxiety disorders, the majority of which go untreated. The extent to which this group of patients is interested in psychological services is, however, unknown. This study investigated the perceived psychological needs of patients and their mental health treatment preferences. DESIGN: Participants completed an anonymous survey with items regarding mental health treatment history, preferences for future treatment, Internet use, and interest in peer support. RESULTS: A total of 155 ACHD patients completed study questionnaires (mean age = 39 years; 50% female). Forty percent of patients reported previous mental health treatment. Some 51% of patients (73/142) indicated significant interest in at least 1 of 7 defined areas of psychological treatment (managing mood and/or anxiety, coping with a cardiac condition, stress management, anger management, relationship difficulties, substance use, and smoking cessation). Patients were most interested in stress management and coping with heart disease; one-third of patients (48/141 and 47/141, respectively) expressed high interest in these 2 topics. There was a consistent preference for psychological treatment to be provided over the Internet vs. in person or over the telephone; 94% of the patients had Internet access. In total, 35% of patients (51/145) were interested in receiving peer support. CONCLUSIONS: It is not only health providers who recognize the importance of psychological care for ACHD patients. As a group, patients are also interested in psychological treatment and peer support. Programs are encouraged to provide psychological services and maximize opportunities for interactions with other patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".