부산대학교 도서관

PURPOSE:: The aim of this systematic review was to review evidence on adjustment or adaptation to an ostomy in persons with a temporary versus permanent ostomy. METHOD:: Systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY:: We comprehensively searched the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs, Scopus, and EThOS and ProQuest dissertations from inception to July 21, 2021. We located 570 studies. Data were extracted into Covidence, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs tool. FINDINGS:: Thirty-one studies met inclusion criteria and were included; only 2 assessed adjustment using a validated adjustment tool (Ostomy Adjustment Inventory, OAI-23). One found better adjustment in those with a permanent ostomy at 6 months; the second did not formally test for statistically significant differences between groups. Other included studies assessed aspects of adjustment such as health-related quality of life and psychological symptoms. Findings differed between studies; the majority of studies were deemed at a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS:: The quality of evidence among studies evaluating adjustment to an ostomy in permanent versus temporary stomas was poor; the majority did not measure adjustment using a validated adjustment instrument. Therefore, differences in the ways those with a temporary ostomy or permanent ostomy adjust or adapt remain largely unknown. IMPLICATIONS:: Further high-quality studies are needed that compare adjustment to a temporary or permanent ostomy using a validated instrument. An understanding of differences in adjustment in those with a temporary and permanent ostomy is important for planning how health care services can be better tailored to meet the needs of ostomy patients beyond the initial postoperative period of recovery.