Psychological Distress in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease Over the COVID‐19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This study sought to better understand the experiences of adults with congenital heart disease throughout the pandemic. Objectives were to determine (1) psychological distress before and throughout the pandemic; (2) changes in day-to-day functioning; and (3) the percentage of adults with congenital heart disease who experienced COVID-19 related symptoms, underwent testing, and tested positive. Methods and Results This was a cross-sectional study paired with retrospective chart review. A web-based survey was distributed to patients between December 2020 and January 2021. Patients reported on psychological distress across 5 categories (Screening Tool for Psychological Distress; depression, anxiety, stress, anger, and lack of social support), whether they experienced symptoms of COVID-19 and/or sought testing, and changes to their work and social behavior. Five hundred seventy-nine survey responses were received, of which 555 were linked to clinical data. Patients were aged 45±15 years. The proportion of patients reporting above-threshold values for all Screening Tool for Psychological Distress items significantly increased during the early pandemic compared with before the pandemic. Stress returned to baseline in December 2020/January 2021, whereas all others remained elevated. Psychological distress decreased with age, and women reported persistently elevated stress and anxiety compared with men during the pandemic. A consistent trend was not observed with regard to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association anatomic and physiologic classification. Fifty (9%) patients lost employment because of a COVID-19-related reason. COVID-19 symptoms were reported by 145 (25%) patients, 182 (31%) sought testing, and 10 (2%) tested positive. Conclusions A substantial proportion of adults with congenital heart disease reported clinically significant psychological distress during the pandemic.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".