2023
DOI: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsad015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Systematic Review of Instruments Assessing Psychosocial Adaptation and Outcomes Among Families of Children With Congenital Heart Disease

Karen J Eagleson,
Desiree McCombs,
Tiffany M Gerlich
et al.

Abstract: Objective This systematic review identified instruments quantitatively assessing psychosocial adaptation and outcomes in families of children with congenital heart disease (CHD) and evaluated instrument psychometrics. Methods Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and a prospectively registered protocol, electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 225 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is difficult to compare the results obtained in the current study with those of other authors and reach explicit conclusions because the scientific reports analyzed used questionnaires for assessing coping with stress that were different from those used in our own study. The possible discrepancy in the obtained results and the need to interpret them cautiously in the explored subject area were also pointed out by Egleson et al [51], emphasizing the need to standardize research tools.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…It is difficult to compare the results obtained in the current study with those of other authors and reach explicit conclusions because the scientific reports analyzed used questionnaires for assessing coping with stress that were different from those used in our own study. The possible discrepancy in the obtained results and the need to interpret them cautiously in the explored subject area were also pointed out by Egleson et al [51], emphasizing the need to standardize research tools.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%