ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Optimizing Care for Adults with Congenital Heart Disease: Results of a Conjoint Analysis Based on a Nationwide Sample of Patients Included in the German National Register.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Fear to Vaccination: Changing Needs of Congenital Heart Defect Patients and Relatives over the Course of the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Living with congenital heart disease: a qualitative study to explore psychosocial impacts in adulthood.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2025Article
- Article
- Conjoint Analysis: A Research Method to Study Patients' Preferences and Personalize Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Frequency, Mortality, and Predictors of Adverse Outcomes for Endocarditis in Patients with Congenital Heart Disease: Results of a Nationwide Analysis including 2512 Endocarditis Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Congenital heart disease (CHD) requires lifelong specialized care. Failure to follow up and gaps in care are common in this group and lead to increased morbidity/mortality. We evaluated patients' perceived needs and expectations regarding specialized care using state-of-the-art statistical and market research techniques based on a nationwide sample of CHD patients. (2) Methods: A random sample of adults with CHD registered in the German National Register for Congenital Heart Defects were invited to answer an adaptive online questionnaire based on the conjoint analysis (CA) technique. CA determines the relative importance of various aspects of health care provision and allows individuals to trade between characteristics, thus recognizing limited resources. (3) Results: 637 patients participated (mean age 33.8 ± 12.6 years; 55.6% female; disease complexity: simple defect 12.6%, moderate complexity 40.3%, complex CHD 40.2%) in the analysis. Patients assigned the highest relative importance to aspects of patient-physician communication, physician qualifications, waiting time, medical care, and medical equipment. Comfort-related aspects such as driving time or hotel aspects of care received much lower scores. We identified four well-defined clusters of patients with differing expectation patterns: (i) time sensitive patients; (ii) excellence seeking patients; (iii) continuity seekers, and (iv) support seeking patients. (4) Conclusions: Adult CHD patients rank effective patient-physician interaction and communication as the most important factors. As we identified significant heterogeneity between CHD patients, centers should cater for individual preferences and integrate individual needs into treatment plans to prevent failure to follow up and ensure patient compliance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.