The Lived Experience of Patients with an Ostomy: A Pilot Study on the Effect of Ostomy Pouch Opacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of ostomy pouch opacity on the lived experience of patients with ostomies in the postoperative period. METHODS: This qualitative, descriptive phenomenology study used purposive sampling to recruit seven participants who were inpatients in an acute care facility in Central Ontario, Canada, after their first ostomy surgery. Face-to-face, audio-recorded, semistructured interviews were used to collect data regarding patient experience with either a transparent or opaque ostomy pouch. Data were collected between August and November 2019. Audio tapes were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a thematic analysis technique focused on describing patient lived experience. RESULTS: Five themes were discovered: "undercover," "fiscal consideration," "past medical experience," "self-esteem," and "functionality." Most participants focused on appliance functionality over pouch opacity in the immediate postoperative period. However, participants did describe difficulties adjusting to their new stoma and noted that an opaque pouch can improve postoperative comfort. Past exposure to medical devices, particularly in terms of their cost, may impact the decision to use a transparent or opaque pouching system. CONCLUSIONS: Pouching systems that are opaque while still allowing for assessment of the pouching contents and stoma are ideal. When this is not available, providers should consider the patient's wishes to alleviate any psychosocial effects the opacity of the pouching system may have.
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".