Evidence Hub

A multinational observational investigation of illness perceptions and quality of life among patients with a Fontan circulation

Christina E. Holbein, Nicholas D Fogleman, K. Hommel, S. Apers, J. Rassart, P. Moons, K. Luyckx, M. Sluman et al.

Congenital Heart Disease, 2018

435 participants · 28 citations

Abstract

Objective First, to compare QOL and illness perceptions between patients with a Fontan circulation and patients with anatomically simple defects (i.e., atrial septal defects [ASD] or ventricular septal defects [VSD]). Second, to explore illness perceptions as a mediator of the association between congenital heart disease (CHD) diagnosis and QOL. Design Cross-sectional observational study Setting 24 cardiology centers from 15 countries across five continents Patients 435 adult patients with congenital heart disease (177 Fontan and 258 ASD/VSD) ages 18-83 years Outcome Measures QOL and illness perceptions were assessed by the Satisfaction With Life Scale and the Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire, respectively. Results Patients with a Fontan circulation reported lower QOL (Wald Z=-3.59, p=<.001) and more negative perceptions of their CHD (Wald Z=-7.66, p<.001) compared to patients with ASD/VSD. After controlling for demographics, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and NYHA functional class, path analyses revealed a significant mediation model, αβ=.15, p=.002, 95% CI=.06-.25, such that CHD diagnosis was indirectly related to QOL through illness perceptions. Conclusions The Fontan sample's more negative perceptions of CHD were likely a reflection of life with a more complex defect. Illness perceptions appear to account for unique differences in QOL between groups of varying CHD complexity Psychosocial screening and interventions may be important treatment components for patients…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 435 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free