Self-Reported Health Experiences of Children Living with Congenital Heart Defects: Including Patient-Reported Outcomes in a National Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding children's views about living with congenital heart defects (CHDs) is fundamental to supporting their successful participation in daily life, school and peer relationships. As an adjunct to a health and quality of life outcomes questionnaire, we asked school-age children who survived infant heart procedures to describe their experiences of living with CHDs. METHODS: In a UK-wide cohort study, children aged 10 to 14 years with CHDs self-completed postal questionnaires that included an open question about having a 'heart problem'. We compared the characteristics of children with more and less severe cardiac diagnoses and, through collaborative inductive content analysis, investigated the subjective experiences and coping strategies described by children in both clinical severity groups. RESULTS: Text and/or drawings were returned by 436 children (246 boys [56%], mean age 12.1 years [SD 1.0; range 10-14]); 313 had less severe (LS) and 123 more severe (MS) cardiac diagnoses. At the most recent hospital visit, a higher proportion of the MS group were underweight (more than two standard deviations below the mean for age) or cyanosed (underweight: MS 20.0%, LS 9.9%; cyanosed: MS 26.2%, LS 3.5%). Children in the MS group described concerns about social isolation and feeling 'different', whereas children with less severe diagnoses often characterised their CHD as 'not a big thing'. Some coping strategies were common to both severity groups, including managing health information to avoid social exclusion, however only children in the LS group considered their CHD 'in the past' or experienced a sense of survivorship. CONCLUSIONS: Children's reported experiences were not dependent on their cardiac diagnosis, although there were clear qualitative differences by clinical severity group. Children's concerns emphasised social participation and our findings imply a need to shift the clinical focus from monitoring cardiac function to optimising participation. We highlight the potential for informing and evaluating clinical practice and service provision through seeking patient-reported outcomes in paediatric care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".