ArticlePediatric cardiology2026
Organizational Factors to Support Collaborative Care in Adult Congenital Heart Disease Programs.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Collaboration among healthcare workers is critical for adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) programs to provide care to ACHD patients with complex needs. This study aimed to describe ACHD programs' organizational structure, environment, and indicators of collaboration. A cross-sectional survey among ACHD programs in the United States was conducted, including questions on characteristics, personnel, services, and ten indicators of collaboration using a model described by D'Amour. The survey was sent to 86 ACHD programs, and 36 programs (41.8%) responded. The types of ACHD programs' primary institution were combined adult and pediatric institution (61.1%, N = 22), pediatric institution (27.8%, N = 10), and adult institution (11.1%, N = 4), and most ACHD programs had 1 to 3 healthcare organization(s) participating. The median number and interquartile range (IQR) of ACHD providers, advanced practice providers (APP), clinical coordinators, and administrative coordinators or assistants were 4 (IQR 3-5), 1 (IQR 1-2), 1 (IQR, 1-3), and 1 (IQR 1-2) respectively. Among the ten indicators of collaboration, leadership and connectivity were rated higher, and goals, centrality, formalization tools, and information exchange were rated lower. When analyzed by subgroups based on the types of primary institution, statistically significant differences in responses were demonstrated in support for innovation, formalization tools, and information exchange, showing higher levels of collaboration in the combined adult and pediatric institution group compared with the pediatric institution group. This study provided descriptions of the organizational structure and environment of ACHD programs. It also described organizational factors and suggested unique challenges and opportunities ACHD programs face.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42095919What 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.