Struggles, strengths and strategies: an ethnographic study exploring the experiences of adolescents living with an ostomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents with IBD requiring ostomy surgery experience perioperative needs that may exceed those of patients experiencing other major abdominal surgery 1. This procedure requires ongoing and vigilant daily care and management. Gastrointestinal symptoms and complications impose psychological and social stresses on young patients 2, and the procedure results in body image changes and daily regimens of self-care. This study aimed to explore adolescents' experiences and quality of life following ostomy surgery. METHODS: Ethnographic interviews and a subsequent focus group were conducted with 20 adolescents with an ostomy or j-pouch being treated at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and subjected to theme generation. RESULTS: Findings suggest that adolescents are profoundly affected by their ostomy. Adolescents convey strength as well as adjustment struggles. Identified impacts include body intrusion and body image changes, decreased independence, secrecy about the ostomy, adjustment over time, challenges for the family, and strategies for constructively moving forward. CONCLUSION: Implications address the importance of ensuring meaningful opportunities to understand and reframe the stresses of illness. An ongoing clinical challenge involves the promotion of a healthy self-esteem and psychosocial adjustment for these adolescents and their families. Finding effective ways to minimize stress and embarrassment and reframe personal shame, constitute important clinical priorities. Opportunities for peer support and family dialogue may assist in clarifying worries and easing the burden carried by these young persons. Flexible and adequately funded resources are advocated in fostering quality of life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".