Adults’ and their care partners’ perspectives of living with a stoma: a qualitative descriptive, community-based inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals living with ostomies in small communities rely on friends, family, and health-care professionals for support, otherwise, they risk becoming isolated, which may affect quality-of-life.Objective This study explored how individuals and their partners manage ostomy care and engage in daily activities.Method This study utilised semi-structured interviews to explore perspectives of six participants living with an ostomy and two care partners in eastern Canada.Participants were recruited through a hospital ostomy service and community libraries.Adults with ostomies and their partners willing to articulate the journey of living with a stoma were recruited.All data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. ResultsParticipants were challenged to receive consistent support from an ostomy nurse.Partners were not included in education sessions.Participants quickly adopted an independent self-management approach, were resilient and resourceful.Consistent connection to the ostomy clinics and accessible face-to-face or online supports were lacking.Participants searched web-based platform for support to manage complications. ConclusionNurses specialised in ostomy care are in a position to support adults living with ostomies, and their care partners.Consistent, relevant education and supports should be offered by interprofessional teams.
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".