ArticlePediatric research2025
Neurodevelopmental follow-up care pathways and processes for children with congenital heart disease in Australia.
Article in Pediatric research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Family and health professional perspectives of the CHD LIFE cardiac developmental long-term care pathway: a qualitative evaluation.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Global burden of developmental intellectual disability in children and adolescents with congenital heart disease, 1990-2021: a population-based study.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Continuity of care needs among caregivers of neonates in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and the establishment of a home-based continuity of care model.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- Long term follow up for children with congenital heart disease. For want of a nail the Kingdom was lost.Pediatric research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInternational consensus exists for neurodevelopmental follow-up care of children with congenital heart disease (CHD) to support timely intervention for developmental delays. Yet, documentation of how this care is implemented in Australia is lacking. This study aimed to identify, categorise, and understand care pathways and services supporting neurodevelopmental follow-up of Australian children with CHD.
methodsA qualitative study, using semi-structured virtual interviews with healthcare professionals across Australia involved in neurodevelopmental care of children with CHD (n = 52) was conducted. Data was analysed using a rapid qualitative approach including structured templates, data reduction, and inductive-deductive analysis of matrices to synthesise data.
resultsMost neurodevelopmental follow-up was delivered as pathways through existing healthcare services rather than centre-based cardiac programmes. Service availability and accessibility varied across the country. Community-based primary care services, paediatric clinics, child development services, neonatal follow-up programmes, and allied health providers were commonly accessed pathway components. However, participants reported a lack of formal structures to coordinate care pathways.
conclusionsThe study identifies how cardiac neurodevelopmental follow-up in Australia can be embedded into existing services and adapted to meet local needs and contexts. Future approaches will benefit from integrating, leveraging, and growing existing services, although adoption of new models may be needed. IMPACT: This study found neurodevelopmental follow-up care for children with CHD in Australia to be delivered as pathways through existing services rather than the centre-based cardiac follow-up programmes common in North America. Our study describes alternate options, including providers in community settings, that can be used for follow-up care delivery and how these can adapted to local context. Future approaches will benefit from integrating, leveraging, and growing existing services, although adoption of new models may be needed. Greater systematic coordination of care pathways is still required to optimise service delivery, inform planning, and support implementation of national standards of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.