Rectal Cancer Patients’ Quality of Life With a Temporary Stoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with rectal cancer who have a temporary ostomy report good quality of life despite identifying a number of stoma-related difficulties. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to qualitatively explore the experiences of patients with rectal cancer who have a temporary ileostomy to better understand the discordant findings of previous quantitative quality-of-life studies. DESIGN/SETTING: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with patients with stage I to III rectal cancer who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery that resulted in a temporary ileostomy. PATIENTS: Twenty-six patients (54% male, median age 54) participated. Sixty-five percent had stage III disease, and 88% received neoadjuvant therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interviews examined preoperative expectations, overall experience, and stoma impact on quality of life. With the use of grounded theory, 2 investigators independently performed line-by-line content analysis to identify key themes. Analysis continued until data saturation. RESULTS: Two major themes were identified: stoma-related difficulties and perceived response shift. Patients reported difficulty in exercise, sleep, social activities, sexuality, and clothing. Patients' perception of quality of life with a temporary stoma appears to have undergone a response shift through recalibration of their standards for measuring quality of life (internal measurement scale altered by side effects of neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment, temporary nature of stoma, and accommodation to stoma) and reconceptualization of what "good quality of life" is (stoma difficulties were felt to be less important in comparison with cancer-related mortality). LIMITATIONS: Although qualitative research is, by design, not generalizable, these data support our previous quantitative work. This convergence of findings suggests that our data may be representative. CONCLUSIONS: A temporary ileostomy represents significant difficulties for patients with rectal cancer. However, because of response shift, these difficulties may not be perceived as important to overall quality of life when considered within the context of the cancer experience. Our results can inform preoperative consultations with patients who have rectal cancer to assist in aligning patient expectations of what life with a temporary ileostomy may be like.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".