SynthesisBMJ open2026
Reproductive journey in women with congenital heart disease: a systematic review of mental health implications.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAdvances in medical care have led to increased survival rates among individuals with congenital heart disease (CHD), enabling many women to pursue pregnancy and motherhood; however, their reproductive journey remains complex, involving intertwined medical and psychological challenges that are still not fully understood. This review aimed to explore the lived experiences of women with CHD as they navigate these reproductive challenges.
designSystematic review of qualitative studies using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist was used for quality assessment. DATA SOURCES: APA PsycArticles, Medline Ultimate, APA PsycInfo, APA PsycTests and CINAHL Ultimate were searched on 10 March 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they examined the lived experiences of women with CHD, focused on reproductive health, used qualitative methods and were published in English without time or geographical limits. Exclusion criteria were studies focusing on family members, men or healthcare professionals; reproductive health in other non-communicable diseases; acquired cardiac disease; single case studies; or quantitative designs. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The data extracted from qualitative studies included author(s), aims, location, design, method, analysis, results and clinical implications. The synthesis followed the Thomas and Harden thematic synthesis approach to answer the review question.
resultsEleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Thematic synthesis identified four analytical themes: (1) the need for psychological support in high-stakes decision-making, including the emotional burden of parenthood; (2) challenges of receiving conflicting medical guidance; (3) balancing reproductive autonomy with health risks, including the influence of social norms and comparisons with peers; and (4) the impact of geographical location on access to support.
conclusionsWomen with CHD face unique challenges within their reproductive health which is shaped by medical uncertainty, challenges with healthcare systems and high-stakes decision-making. Holistic care is crucial to support women through this journey and improve their 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.