Determining Research Priorities With Teen and Adult Congenital Heart Disease Patients: A Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Children with congenital heart disease (CHD) are living longer than ever before. This growing cohort of adults with CHD has high medical and psychosocial needs. Also, patients and advocacy groups are justifiably demanding that their voices be heard in all phases of clinical and health services research. Methods: We conducted a first of its kind research priority-setting exercise with teens and adults with moderate-to-complex CHD. Focus groups were held using a fixed, mixed methods, exploratory sequential design. Objectives were to include the patient voice in all phases of the research process, determine the key needs of patients living with CHD, to guide health services research, and identify the "top 10" research priorities of teens and adults living with CHD. Results: Thirty-five patients participated in one of nine 3-hour focus groups where they shared their experiences living with CHD. They expressed a desire for connection with others living with CHD and altruistic motives for participating. Patients with CHD identified a need for information about their disease and prognosis, a need for connection through physical activity and mentorship programmes, and a need for advanced communication with health care teams. Qualitative results correlated well with quantitative ratings to create a patient-derived "top 10" research priorities list. Conclusions: Patients affected by a chronic disease like CHD want to be included in all phases of research. Our research priority-setting exercise in teens and adults with CHD has created a roadmap for clinicians and researchers to investigate issues most important to those living with CHD.
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 | 0.067 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".