Affiliation:
1. Faculty of Medicine and Health The University of Sydney and Concord Repatriation General Hospital Concord New South Wales Australia
2. Broken Hill Department of Rural Health The University of Sydney Broken Hill New South Wales Australia
3. Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery The University of Sydney Camperdown New South Wales Australia
4. Clinical Epidemiology, School of Public Health The University of Sydney Camperdown New South Wales Australia
Abstract
AbstractAimThe aim of this work was to compare adjustment between those with a new temporary or permanent ostomy in a cohort of Australian adults.MethodThis is a multicentre, longitudinal observational study. Ostomy adjustment was measured using the Ostomy Adjustment Inventory (OAI‐23) at six possible time points ending at 9 months postsurgery or at the time of ostomy closure in those with a temporary stoma. The OAI‐23 includes four domains: anger, acceptance, anxious preoccupation and social engagement.ResultsEligibility criteria were met by 1230 patients, with 849 (69%) recruited and consented. Of these, 108 were excluded as their surgery did not result in the formation of an ostomy and a further 41 were excluded due to there being no data on ostomy type (temporary or permanent). This left a study population of 700, of whom 397 had a temporary and 303 a permanent ostomy. Only small differences were observed between the temporary and permanent ostomy groups at most time points within the four OAI‐23 domains. There were no statistically significant differences found beyond 2 weeks postdischarge and the differences were of small size. While no difference was found between the groups in the domain of anxious preoccupation, both groups demonstrated an increase in anxious preoccupation over time. Neither group regained their presurgery confidence to attend social engagements.ConclusionWe found only minor differences in adjustment in those with a new temporary ostomy compared with a new permanent ostomy. Both groups demonstrated increasing anxious preoccupation and problems with social engagement. This suggests that access to education, training and support should be equitable between these two groups in clinical practice, and needs to incorporate a focus on psychological as well as physical outcomes.