The Financial Impact of Living in Canada With an Ostomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore how living with an ostomy financially impacts Canadians. METHODS: A descriptive, pan-Canadian, cross-sectional online and paper-based survey was conducted using a convenience sample. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 467 individuals. Seventy-six percent (n = 355) reported spending more than $1000 annually on ostomy supplies, with 58% (n = 271) paying partially out of pocket. Atlantic regions relied primarily on insurance (n = 81), and the central, prairies, and western regions used a combination of funding (provincial government funding and/or insurance) (n = 385) with no significant out-of-pocket funding differences between regions (χ = 18.267, P = .079). Fifteen percent (n = 70) reported frequent peristomal skin problems, and 19% (n = 89) indicated that having an ostomy negatively affected their ability to work. When experiencing ostomy-related problems, 60% (n = 280) sought assistance from a nurse specialized in wound, ostomy, and continence (NSWOC) and spent significantly less on ostomy supplies (χ = 231.267, P < .001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that living with an ostomy may result in financial burden and that Canadian regional variations in funding and access to an NSWOC should be explored.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".