Quality of Life in Chinese Persons Living With an Ostomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to describe health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in persons with ostomies and to explore influencing factors. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional survey. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Eight hundred twenty-seven persons living with an ostomy were enrolled from 5 provinces and cities in China from October 2010 to November 2012; the final sample comprises 729 individuals who completed data collection. Their mean ± SD age was 62.59 ± 12.40 years (range 26-93 years). METHODS: Health-related quality of life was assessed using the Chinese language version of the City of Hope-Quality of Life-Ostomy Questionnaire-Chinese Version. Sociodemographic data, clinical characteristics, self-efficacy, adjustment to an ostomy, social support, and psychological state of patients were measured by a general information questionnaire. We also administered the Stoma Self-Efficacy Scale, Ostomy Adjustment Inventory-Chinese Version, the Social Support Revalued Scale, and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale. RESULTS: Of the 729 ostomy patients, the overall HRQOL in ostomy patients was in the moderate range (mean score 5.19 ± 1.29); scores of physical domain, psychological domain, social domain, and spiritual domains also in the moderate range (5.00 ± 1.73, 5.97 ± 1.59, 4.86 ± 2.31, and 4.93 ± 2.08 respectively). Multivariate analysis found that multiple factors influenced HRQOL in persons with an ostomy; they were gender, religious belief, and marital status, psychological factors depression and anxiety, and specific components related to social support, self-efficacy in ostomy care, and adjustment to an ostomy. CONCLUSION: Health-related quality of life among Chinese patients with fecal ostomies was less than optimal and influenced by multiple demographic and psychosocial factors. Additional research is needed to design strategies to improve HRQOL in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".