Exploring the experiences of patients who receive nutrition education for ostomy care: A qualitative research design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ileostomy and colostomy patients benefit from more nutrition education than patients who receive bowel resections without ostomy creation. Nutrition can influence the adaptation to a stoma and may help manage complications. The impact of nutrition education on health outcomes is known, but a gap exists for the type and timing of nutrition information for patients with newly formed ostomies. METHODS: A survey of open-ended and closed-ended questions was designed to evaluate experiences about nutrition education provided for living with an ostomy. The survey was conducted during hospital admission for ostomy reversal: 39 patients were approached, 36 consented, and all 36 completed the survey. RESULTS: Of the 36 patients who took part in the study, 20 (56%) were male. The mean age was 57.7 years. Twenty-four (67%) patients were admitted for an ileostomy reversal and 12 (33%) patients for a colostomy reversal. When patients were asked about their preferred timing of nutrition education, 28% (n = 10) wanted information before surgery, 58% (n = 21) wanted the information in the hospital when admitted for ostomy creation, and 14% (n = 5) wanted to receive it after discharge. A total of 25% (n = 9) of patients commented on the need for a follow-up phone call after discharge to ask questions. CONCLUSION: Nutrition education is valuable for patients, and most patients want to receive nutrition information while in the hospital. A follow-up session with a dietitian after discharge could assist patients in developing strategies to manage weight changes, prevent dehydration, and lower the risk of malnutrition.
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 | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".