Quality of Life Assessment in Intestinal Stoma Patients in the Saudi Population: A Cross-Sectional Study

IF 1.5 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Gastroenterology Insights Pub Date : 2023-08-04 DOI:10.3390/gastroent14030022
Reem Awad Alharbi, N. Ahmad, F. Alhedaithy, Majdoleen Dakhil N. Alnajim, Naima Waheed, Aisha A. Alessa, B. Khedr, Marriyam A. Aleissa
{"title":"Quality of Life Assessment in Intestinal Stoma Patients in the Saudi Population: A Cross-Sectional Study","authors":"Reem Awad Alharbi, N. Ahmad, F. Alhedaithy, Majdoleen Dakhil N. Alnajim, Naima Waheed, Aisha A. Alessa, B. Khedr, Marriyam A. Aleissa","doi":"10.3390/gastroent14030022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: A stoma poses numerous physical, social, and psychological challenges and interferes with some religious practices, thus potentially negatively affecting the quality of life. In the contemporary era of stoma care, the study sought to assess this impact in a population with distinctive sociocultural characteristics. Methods: A modified City of Hope Quality of Life ostomy questionnaire was used to survey patients with intestinal stomas. The scoring was dichotomous on a 0 to 10 scale, where 0–3 indicated severe impact, 4–6 moderate, and 7–10 minimum. Statistical analysis involved Student’s t-test, one-way ANOVA, Spearman’s correlation, and multivariate linear regression. Results: There were 108 patients, with 59 males and 49 females. The mean age was 40.8 years. The overall quality of life score was 6, for the social domain 7, the physical domain 6, the psychological domain 5, and the spiritual domain 6. The stoma’s impact on the quality of life was severe in 2%, moderate in 61%, and minimal in 37% of patients. Young patients, women, and those with benign diseases or without a job had low scores. Furthermore, 90% of patients had difficulty performing religious activities. For the regression analysis, life quality predictors were dietary, religious, pouch and stoma site issues, leak, odor, diarrhea or constipation, depression, anxiety, and future and disease concerns. Conclusions: Despite advances in stoma care, stoma patients had multiple impediments to their life quality. These were mainly psychological, but the physical and religious ones were also significant. A holistic approach to managing stoma patients is thus needed to help them have fulfilling lives.","PeriodicalId":43586,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology Insights","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology Insights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/gastroent14030022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A stoma poses numerous physical, social, and psychological challenges and interferes with some religious practices, thus potentially negatively affecting the quality of life. In the contemporary era of stoma care, the study sought to assess this impact in a population with distinctive sociocultural characteristics. Methods: A modified City of Hope Quality of Life ostomy questionnaire was used to survey patients with intestinal stomas. The scoring was dichotomous on a 0 to 10 scale, where 0–3 indicated severe impact, 4–6 moderate, and 7–10 minimum. Statistical analysis involved Student’s t-test, one-way ANOVA, Spearman’s correlation, and multivariate linear regression. Results: There were 108 patients, with 59 males and 49 females. The mean age was 40.8 years. The overall quality of life score was 6, for the social domain 7, the physical domain 6, the psychological domain 5, and the spiritual domain 6. The stoma’s impact on the quality of life was severe in 2%, moderate in 61%, and minimal in 37% of patients. Young patients, women, and those with benign diseases or without a job had low scores. Furthermore, 90% of patients had difficulty performing religious activities. For the regression analysis, life quality predictors were dietary, religious, pouch and stoma site issues, leak, odor, diarrhea or constipation, depression, anxiety, and future and disease concerns. Conclusions: Despite advances in stoma care, stoma patients had multiple impediments to their life quality. These were mainly psychological, but the physical and religious ones were also significant. A holistic approach to managing stoma patients is thus needed to help them have fulfilling lives.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
沙特人口肠造口患者的生活质量评估:一项横断面研究
背景:造口会带来许多生理、社会和心理上的挑战,并干扰一些宗教活动,从而潜在地对生活质量产生负面影响。在当代造口护理时代,该研究试图评估具有独特社会文化特征的人群的影响。方法:采用改良的希望之城造口生活质量问卷对肠造口患者进行调查。评分分为0到10分,其中0 - 3表示严重影响,4-6表示中度影响,7-10表示最小影响。统计分析包括学生t检验、单因素方差分析、Spearman相关和多元线性回归。结果:108例患者,男59例,女49例。平均年龄40.8岁。总体生活质量得分为6分,其中社会领域为7分,身体领域为6分,心理领域为5分,精神领域为6分。造口对生活质量的影响有2%是严重的,61%是中度的,37%是最小的。年轻患者、女性、患有良性疾病或没有工作的患者得分较低。此外,90%的患者在进行宗教活动方面有困难。在回归分析中,生活质量预测因子包括饮食、宗教信仰、眼袋和气孔部位问题、渗漏、气味、腹泻或便秘、抑郁、焦虑以及对未来和疾病的担忧。结论:尽管造口护理取得了进步,但造口患者的生活质量仍存在多种障碍。这些主要是心理上的,但身体和宗教上的也很重要。因此,需要一种全面的方法来管理造口患者,以帮助他们过上充实的生活。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Gastroenterology Insights
Gastroenterology Insights GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
3.40%
发文量
35
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Correlation between Interleukin-17, High Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein and Pepsinogen in Helicobacter pylori Infected Gastritis Elevated Incidence and Risk of Emergent Cirrhosis Complications in Alcoholic Cirrhosis Compared with Other Etiologies Insights into the Characteristics and Functions of Mast Cells in the Gut Terlipressin for the Prevention and Treatment of Renal Decline in Hepatorenal Syndrome: A Drug Profile. Microbiome and Genetic Factors in the Pathogenesis of Liver Diseases
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1