Barriers to Care in ACHD: A Study of Young Adults in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) are living longer with more complex disease. Maintaining lifelong care prevents morbidity and mortality, but many patients remain lost to follow-up or experience care gaps. We sought to assess barriers to care for patients with adult CHD (ACHD) in Saskatchewan, a Canadian province with no local congenital cardiac surgical support and no clear framework for ACHD care. METHODS: We performed a telephone survey of patients with CHD transferred from pediatric to adult cardiology from 2007 to 2014. Our primary outcome was loss to follow-up > 2 years from last recommended cardiology appointment and/or multiple missed cardiology appointments. Secondary outcomes were guideline-based care (specialist training, adherence to appropriate endocarditis prophylaxis, pre-pregnancy counselling for women), presence or absence of previously described barriers to care in ACHD, and health care autonomy using the Krantz Health Opinion Survey. RESULTS: We interviewed 32 patients (30% response rate). One-quarter met the primary outcome: lost to follow-up > 2 years from last recommended cardiology appointment and/or self-report of missed cardiology appointments. Only 69% of young adults in Saskatchewan were receiving guideline-based care for their CHD (appropriate level of specialist expertise and frequency of follow-up). Only 72% of patients were adhering to endocarditis prophylaxis recommendations and 61% of women surveyed received counselling regarding pregnancy. Patients indicated a low preference for participating in decision making regarding their care on the Krantz Health Opinion Survey. CONCLUSIONS: With our survey, we have created a novel snapshot of CHD care in Saskatchewan and have identified significant deficits.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".