A multinational observational investigation of illness perceptions and quality of life among patients with a Fontan circulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: First, to compare QOL and illness perceptions between patients with a Fontan circulation and patients with anatomically simple defects (ie, atrial septal defects [ASD] or ventricular septal defects [VSD]). Second, to explore illness perceptions as a mediator of the association between congenital heart disease (CHD) diagnosis and QOL. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: Twenty-four cardiology centers from 15 countries across five continents. PATIENTS: Four hundred thirty-five adult patients with congenital heart disease (177 Fontan and 258 ASD/VSD) ages 18-83 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: QOL and illness perceptions were assessed by the Satisfaction With Life Scale and the Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire, respectively. RESULTS: Patients with a Fontan circulation reported lower QOL (Wald Z = -3.59, p = <.001) and more negative perceptions of their CHD (Wald Z = -7.66, p < .001) compared with patients with ASD/VSD. After controlling for demographics, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and New York Heart Association functional class, path analyses revealed a significant mediation model, αβ = 0.15, p = .002, 95% CI = 0.06-0.25, such that CHD diagnosis was indirectly related to QOL through illness perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: The Fontan sample's more negative perceptions of CHD were likely a reflection of life with a more complex defect. Illness perceptions appear to account for unique differences in QOL between groups of varying CHD complexity. Psychosocial screening and interventions may be important treatment components for patients with CHD, particularly those with Fontan circulations.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".