Comparison of Adjustment or Adaptation to the Formation of a Temporary Versus a Permanent Ostomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to review evidence on adjustment or adaptation to an ostomy in persons with a temporary versus permanent ostomy. METHOD: Systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY: We comprehensively searched the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs, Scopus, and EThOS and ProQuest dissertations from inception to July 21, 2021. We located 570 studies. Data were extracted into Covidence, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs tool. FINDINGS: Thirty-one studies met inclusion criteria and were included; only 2 assessed adjustment using a validated adjustment tool (Ostomy Adjustment Inventory, OAI-23). One found better adjustment in those with a permanent ostomy at 6 months; the second did not formally test for statistically significant differences between groups. Other included studies assessed aspects of adjustment such as health-related quality of life and psychological symptoms. Findings differed between studies; the majority of studies were deemed at a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of evidence among studies evaluating adjustment to an ostomy in permanent versus temporary stomas was poor; the majority did not measure adjustment using a validated adjustment instrument. Therefore, differences in the ways those with a temporary ostomy or permanent ostomy adjust or adapt remain largely unknown. IMPLICATIONS: Further high-quality studies are needed that compare adjustment to a temporary or permanent ostomy using a validated instrument. An understanding of differences in adjustment in those with a temporary and permanent ostomy is important for planning how health care services can be better tailored to meet the needs of ostomy patients beyond the initial postoperative period of recovery.
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".