ArticleJACC. Advances2022
Priorities and Understanding of Pregnancy Among Women With Congenital Heart Disease: A Mixed-Methods Study.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reproductive health outcomes of congenital heart disease survivors: A report from the congenital heart disease project to understand lifelong survivor experience (CHD PULSE study).American heart journal · 2026Article
- From Insight to Action: A National Patient-Centered Strategic Framework for Improving Reproductive Health Outcomes in Individuals With Congenital Heart Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Prioritizing patient-centered research in adult congenital heart disease and pregnancy: Findings from Phase 3 of a multiphase national initiative.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Transition from Paediatric to Adult Care in Congenital Heart Disease: A Call for Action.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Congenital uterine anomalies and congenital heart disease: An underappreciated association?International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2025Article
- Congenital Heart Disease and Pregnancy Priorities: Balancing Risks and Hopes.JACC. Advances · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Many women with congenital heart disease (CHD) desire safe and successful pregnancies, but a significant proportion does not seek prepregnancy counseling. Objectives: This study aims to distinguish the personal priorities and perceptions about pregnancy in this growing population. Methods: Women aged 18 to 50 years with CHD were enrolled from 2 sites. Using a mixed-methods approach (Q-methodology), 179 participants sorted 23 statements representing a collection of views on pregnancy using priority forced ranking along a scale from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." Results: Majority of women were between 25 and 29 years of age, had moderate or severely complex CHD, and were married. Five unique group identities were elucidated from patient responses. Group 1 was centered around a strong desire to start a family. Women in group 2 had significant anxiety, and their psychological wellbeing interfered with their decision to start a family. Women in group 3 were concerned about premature death; if they do have kids, they want to be alive to see them grow old. Women in group 4 had strong objections to termination. Group 5 valued health care engagement. Group identities were unrelated to CHD complexity and demographic factors such as age and marital status. Six differentiating statements were identified that help distinguish which group a woman aligns with. Conclusions: Women with CHD have diverse priorities and values relating to pregnancy and heart disease. This study used a mixed-methods approach to provide a framework identifying several domains for targeted prepregnancy counseling in women with CHD.
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.