Abstract 4144832: Adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) as career? Examining encouraging and discouraging factors around the globe in the Global ACHD Survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is a significant shortage of specialized Adult Congenital Heart Disease (ACHD) cardiologists despite a rising prevalence of adults with this condition. AIM: Our study explores the specific motivations and deterrents that influence adult and pediatric cardiologists’ ACHD career decisions, which could serve as the basis for future solutions to overcome this shortage in each specific region. METHODS: An anonymous global survey was distributed to adult and pediatric cardiologists and trainees via email, social media, and medical society newsletters. The survey included demographics, ACHD exposure, career considerations, Likert scale ratings, and open-ended inquiries on ACHD career recommendations. Respondents included non-ACHD and ACHD cardiologists (defined as those caring for ACHD with or without formal training). The analysis covered regional variations across continents. Responses with less than 75% completion were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 811 valid responses were collected (53.5% female, 48.3% aged 31-40, and 43.3% White). ACHD cardiologists were 21%, mostly practicing in North America (44.1%) and Europe (32.9%). Almost all ACHD cardiologists (94.7%) recommended it as a career. Among the 641 non-ACHD cardiologists, 85.7% had been exposed to ACHD, however, only 35.1% considered pursuing it themselves. For ACHD cardiologists the top global motivators for pursuing an ACHD career were awareness of the field and its significance, mentor's influence, and sufficient clinical exposure during residency (Figure 1A). Factors that deterred non-ACHD cardiologists included a lack of compensation compared to other cardiology subspecialties, limited job opportunities, and the longer duration of training (Figure 1B). Absence of specialized training and educational programs emerged as a major deterrent in all continents except North America. The lack of mentorship or role models in ACHD was particularly pronounced in Africa and Central and South America. Limited exposure to ACHD during training was a significant issue in Europe and Africa. CONCLUSION: Most ACHD cardiologists recommend a career in ACHD. However, only a few non-ACHD cardiologists recommend it. Influential mentors, clinical exposure motivate; low compensation, lengthy training deter. Regional disparities require targeted interventions for better ACHD cardiologist recruitment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".