The Influence of Illness Perception and Coping on Anxiety in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Up to one-half of adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) experience psychological distress, including anxiety. This paper sought to: 1) assess the contribution of illness perception in explaining anxiety symptoms beyond sociodemographic and medical variables in adults with CHD; and 2) investigate the potential mediating effect of coping style. CHD adult patients were recruited at Montreal Heart Institute between June 2019 and April 2021 for this cross-sectional study. Participants responded to self-reported questionnaires (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire, and Brief COPE). Medical characteristics (CHD complexity, NYHA functional class, and cardiac devices) were collected from medical records. We conducted hierarchical multiple linear regression and mediation analyses. Of the 223 participants (mean age 46 ± 14 years, 59% women), 15% had clinically significant anxiety symptoms. Medical and sociodemographic variables explained 15% of the variation in anxiety symptoms. Adding illness perception explained an additional 18% of the variation in anxiety. This R2 change was significant (F[1,188] = 49.06, P < 0.0001). Illness perception explained more variance (18%) than medical and sociodemographic variables combined. A more threatening perception of illness was associated with greater anxiety symptoms (β = 0.45, P < 0.0001). Furthermore, illness perception was associated with coping, which was linked to reduced anxiety symptoms. Coping response style accounted for 20% of the total effect of illness perception on anxiety. Illness perception and coping are associated with anxiety in adults with CHD. Future initiatives should assess whether targeting these potentially modifiable factors effectively prevents or mitigates anxious symptoms in adults 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".