4.4 Article

A historical comparison of long-term behavioral and emotional outcomes in children and adolescents after invasive treatment for congenital heart disease

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
Volume 43, Issue 3, Pages 534-539

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2007.10.037

Keywords

congenital heart disease; psychopathology; children; adolescents; parents

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Purpose: Children with congenital heart disease (ConHD) are known to be vulnerable to behavioral and emotional problems. In this study, a historical comparison is made between the level of behavioral and emotional problems in a sample of children and adolescents with ConHD treated recently vs a comparable historical sample operated upon before 1980 in the same institute. The hypothesis was that improvements in medical care would result in more favorable behavioral and emotional outcomes for children and adolescents with ConHD treated recently, that is, between 1990 and 1995, compared with same-aged patients operated on before 1980. Methods: To assess behavioral and emotional problems, the Child Behavior Checklist (parent report) and Youth Self-Report were used. The historical samples (n = 98 and n = 123, respectively) and recent samples (n 90 and n = 84, respectively) consisted of 4 diagnostic groups. Results: Parents and patients from the recent sample with ConHD reported fairly similar levels of behavioral and emotional problems compared with parents and patients in the historical sample with ConHD. Conclusion: Despite evident improvements in diagnostic and surgical techniques and medical treatment of ConHD over the past decades, virtually no changes were found in levels of problem behavior of the recent patient sample compared with the historical patient sample, who both underwent invasive treatment for ConHD. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available