Factors Influencing Readiness for Hospital Discharge among Patients Undergoing Enterostomy: A Descriptive, Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the factors influencing hospital discharge readiness among Chinese patients who have undergone enterostomy. METHODS: In this descriptive, cross-sectional study, researchers recruited patients with colorectal cancer who underwent enterostomy at a tertiary hospital in Guangdong Province, China, via convenience sampling between January 2021 and January 2023. Participants completed the Readiness for Hospital Discharge Scale, Ostomy Self-care Ability Scale, and Stoma-Quality of Life-Chinese Questionnaire (Chinese version) at the time of hospital discharge. Univariate, correlation, and multiple linear regression analyses were performed to explore the impact of self-care ability, quality of life, and other clinicodemographic characteristics on patients' readiness for hospital discharge. RESULTS: Of the 200 questionnaires distributed, 177 (88.5%) were completed and included in the final analysis. The median scores for the factors considered in this study were as follows: Readiness for Hospital Discharge Scale was 148.00 (interquartile range [IQR], 117.50, 164.00), self-care intention of the Ostomy Self-care Ability Scale was 36.00 (IQR, 34.00, 40.00), self-care knowledge of the Ostomy Self-care Ability Scale was 17.00 (IQR, 15.00, 19.00), self-care skill of the Ostomy Self-care Ability Scale was 5.00 (IQR, 3.00, 6.00), and the total score for quality of life was 60.00 (IQR, 49.00, 69.00). Multiple linear regression analysis identified several key factors explaining 48.2% of the variance in global readiness for hospital discharge: global quality of life (β = .347, P < .001), self-care knowledge (β = .259, P < .001), leakage during hospitalization (β = -0.241, P < .001), monthly family income (β = .148, P = .008), stoma siting before surgery (β = .130, P = .020), and self-care intention (β = .127, P = .035). CONCLUSIONS: The readiness for hospital discharge among patients undergoing enterostomy in this study was high. Factors such as quality of life, self-care knowledge, leakage during hospitalization, monthly family income, stoma siting before surgery, and self-care intention after undergoing enterostomy influenced the patients' readiness for hospital discharge. Therefore, future studies should focus on developing interventions to enhance patients' readiness for hospital discharge.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".