ArticleBMC health services research2026
Bridging communication gaps to improve adult congenital heart disease care: patient perspectives from a qualitative study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdults with Congenital Heart Disease (CHD) require lifelong specialist care, yet many report communication challenges that undermine health understanding, managing their condition and their overall wellbeing. Effective specialist-patient communication is associated with better outcomes, but little research has explored adult CHD (ACHD) patients’ perspectives on these interactions.
methodsThis qualitative study was conducted as part of a larger investigation of ACHD care in Australia. Using purposive sampling, 43 adults aged 20–54 years with mild, moderate, or severe CHD were recruited from four hospitals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via video conferencing, transcribed, and analysed using Framework Analysis. Rigour was maintained through double coding, iterative refinement of the thematic framework, and multidisciplinary team review.
resultsFour themes shaped patient experiences of communication: (1) fragmented communication between providers; (2) inadequate patient-facing communication; (3) gaps in understanding of condition; and (4) emotional impacts of suboptimal communication. Conversely, clear, respectful, and empathic communication fostered trust, confidence, and adherence. Participants recommended structured handovers, accessible records, plain-language explanations, visual and written aids, and routine psychosocial support.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that communication in ACHD care is not merely an aide to clinical management but a defining element of quality, continuity, and patient wellbeing. Participants’ experiences revealed that fragmented inter-specialist communication and limited patient-facing explanations contribute to confusion, care discontinuity, and emotional distress. These findings highlight that improving communication practices is essential to strengthening patient autonomy, mitigating psychosocial burden, and sustaining engagement in lifelong specialist care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: ACHD services should establish structured handover pathways, shared records, and designated care coordinators to minimise fragmentation. Specialists could engage patients more directly with age-appropriate, plain-language discussions, progressive transfer of responsibility during adolescence, and revisiting knowledge in adulthood. Incorporating visual aids, written summaries, and psychosocial screening into routine practice, alongside training specialists in empathic, patient-centred communication, could strengthen trust, improve adherence, and enhance long-term outcomes.
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.