Health-Related Quality of Life in Persons Living with a Urostomy


Creative Commons License

Pazar B., Yava A., Başal Ş.

Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, vol.42, no.3, pp.264-270, 2015 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 42 Issue: 3
  • Publication Date: 2015
  • Doi Number: 10.1097/won.0000000000000110
  • Journal Name: Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Scopus
  • Page Numbers: pp.264-270
  • Keywords: body appearance, nursing, ostomy, quality of life, stoma, social adaptation, urostomy, RADICAL CYSTECTOMY, BLADDER-CANCER, EUROPEAN-ORGANIZATION, URINARY-DIVERSION, EORTC QLQ-C30, BODY-IMAGE, STOMA, RELIABILITY, VALIDITY, VERSION
  • Lokman Hekim University Affiliated: No

Abstract

Copyright © 2015 by the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society™.PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to determine the life experiences and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients living with a urostomy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive study. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: This prospective and descriptive study was carried out in a research and training hospital in Gaziantep, Turkey; data were collected from May 2009 to September 2011. Twenty-four participants had undergone a urostomy operation at least 4 months before study participation. METHODS: A form querying pertinent demographic and clinical information, combined with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QoL Q-C30) was used for data collection. Data collection forms were sent to the patients via mail in closed envelopes. The Mann-Whitney U, the Kruskal Wallis, and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used for the comparative statistics; statistical significance was accepted when P values were <.05. RESULTS: The mean age of the 24 participants was 63.45 ± 6.33 years (mean ± SD; range, 49-72 years). The average time since surgery was 9.83 ± 2.34 months (range, 4-18 months). Most respondents stated that their urostomy affected their dressing habits (83.4%), sleep patterns (91.7%), family life (91.7%), participation in social activities (91.7%), and occupation (75.0%). All participants reported problems with psychological health and sexual activity following urostomy surgery. Analysis of EORTC QoLQ-C3 scores revealed that general wellness, functional condition, and symptomatic condition mean scores were lower than population-based norms associated with this instrument (54.16 ± 15.29, 44.07 ± 9.62, and 64.31 ± 12.56, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Creation of a urostomy affected the patients' lifestyle and HRQOL negatively. Determining the patients' experiences, problems, and the change in HRQOL may provide assistance in designing appropriate nursing approaches to alleviate problems adapting to a urostomy.