4.5 Review

Biopsychosocial experiences of adults with congenital heart disease: Review of the literature

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 150, 期 2, 页码 193-201

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2004.08.025

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Approximately 1% of all newborns display some form of congenital heart disease (CHID). Successful medical and surgical management of CHID has allowed 85% of these children to survive into adulthood and produced a new set of challenges for both patients and doctors with an emphasis on quality of life and psychosocial functioning. Methods The current paper has 3 aims: (1) to summarize the research literature examining the emotional adjustment among this population, (2) to detail the psychological, social, and quality-of-life factors that might result in an increased risk of psychological maladjustment,. and (3) to provide clinical management strategies to optimize health outcomes. Results Current empirical evidence has suggested that compared with same aged reference norms in US studies, adults with CHID had scores indicative of worse emotional functioning as assessed by both clinical interviews and self-report measures. Similar European studies have generally not demonstrated such differences. Additional research suggests that areas of functioning that may be particularly affected include neurocognitive functioning, body image, social and peer relationships, and mild delays in developmental functioning. Conclusions These studies suggest that patients with CHID are successfully engaging in full adult responsibilities and roles but do experience specific psychosocial challenges that may impact emotional functioning, self-perception, and peer relationships. Lifestyle considerations in young adulthood are significant and impinge on pregnancy considerations and exercise capabilities. Clinical management strategies include increased awareness and dialogue between patients with CHID and physicians regarding psychosocial concerns.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据