PURPOSE: Few studies have evaluated the impact of a stoma on patient quality of life because of a lack of specific validated measures. This study documents the development and initial application of a Stoma Quality of Life Scale. METHODS: Content experts generated initial questions. Patient focus groups were conducted to ensure that the questions addressed all stoma-related issues considered important by patients. Responses from pilot groups allowed refinement to produce the final measure, the Stoma Quality of Life Scale, a 21-item questionnaire. Three scales are featured: Work/Social Function (6 items), Sexuality/Body Image (5 items), and Stoma Function (6 items). In addition, one item (scored separately) measures financial impact, one measures skin irritation, and two measure overall satisfaction. This questionnaire was administered to 100 consecutive ostomy patients, and readministered three weeks later. Reliability was assessed by using coefficient alpha for internal consistency and intraclass correlation coefficient for test-retest reproducibility. To test validity in extreme groups, scores were compared for patients with improved quality of life vs. those whose stoma worsened their quality of life. To evaluate convergent validity, we analyzed correlation of instrument scales with the SF12. RESULTS: The Stoma Quality of Life scales demonstrated adequate test-retest reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient>0.8) and acceptable internal consistency (coefficient alpha approximately 0.8). The scales were capable of discriminating between patients with better and worse quality of life after stoma formation (P<0.02 for all scales). The Stoma Quality of Life scales significantly correlated (range, 0.12-0.75) with the Physical and Mental Health Composite Scale Scores of the SF-12. CONCLUSIONS: The Stoma Quality of Life Scale demonstrates reasonable psychometric properties for measuring quality of life in patients with stomas. Further studies are needed to refine the instrument.
PURPOSE: Few studies have evaluated the impact of a stoma on patient quality of life because of a lack of specific validated measures. This study documents the development and initial application of a Stoma Quality of Life Scale. METHODS: Content experts generated initial questions. Patient focus groups were conducted to ensure that the questions addressed all stoma-related issues considered important by patients. Responses from pilot groups allowed refinement to produce the final measure, the Stoma Quality of Life Scale, a 21-item questionnaire. Three scales are featured: Work/Social Function (6 items), Sexuality/Body Image (5 items), and Stoma Function (6 items). In addition, one item (scored separately) measures financial impact, one measures skin irritation, and two measure overall satisfaction. This questionnaire was administered to 100 consecutive ostomy patients, and readministered three weeks later. Reliability was assessed by using coefficient alpha for internal consistency and intraclass correlation coefficient for test-retest reproducibility. To test validity in extreme groups, scores were compared for patients with improved quality of life vs. those whose stoma worsened their quality of life. To evaluate convergent validity, we analyzed correlation of instrument scales with the SF12. RESULTS: The Stoma Quality of Life scales demonstrated adequate test-retest reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient>0.8) and acceptable internal consistency (coefficient alpha approximately 0.8). The scales were capable of discriminating between patients with better and worse quality of life after stoma formation (P<0.02 for all scales). The Stoma Quality of Life scales significantly correlated (range, 0.12-0.75) with the Physical and Mental Health Composite Scale Scores of the SF-12. CONCLUSIONS: The Stoma Quality of Life Scale demonstrates reasonable psychometric properties for measuring quality of life in patients with stomas. Further studies are needed to refine the instrument.
Authors: Femke Jansen; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; J Annemieke Braakman; Paulina M van Keizerswaard; Birgit I Witte; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: C Kontovounisios; J Smith; P Dawson; O Warren; S Mills; A Von Roon; N Pawa; T Virgin-Elliston; M Jerome; P Tekkis Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2018-09-15 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Olivier D R van Wulfften Palthe; Stein J Janssen; Jay S Wunder; Peter C Ferguson; Guo Wei; Peter S Rose; Micheal J Yaszemski; Franklin H Sim; Patrick J Boland; John H Healey; Francis J Hornicek; Joseph H Schwab Journal: Spine J Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Maisa I Abdalla; Robert S Sandler; Michael D Kappelman; Christopher F Martin; Wenli Chen; Kristen Anton; Millie D Long Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: William Goodman; Amy Downing; Matthew Allsop; Julie Munro; Claire Taylor; Gill Hubbard; Rebecca J Beeken Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 3.440