Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Jul 8;35(2):621–630. doi: 10.1111/jocn.70037

Examining the Impact of Telehealth Stoma Care Interventions on the Ostomates: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Soyeon Kim 1, Ha Na Jeong 2,✉
PMCID: PMC12779166  PMID: 40626636

ABSTRACT

Aim

To assess telehealth stoma care interventions' impact on stoma adjustment, self‐efficacy, anxiety and ostomates' quality of life.

Design

Systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Methods

Studies published until April 2025 were searched across eight databases—MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and PQDT Global. Randomised controlled trials with individuals aged 18 and older who received telehealth stoma care interventions were included. A meta‐analysis was performed using a random‐effects model, with the GRADE approach employed to evaluate evidence certainty. This systematic review and meta‐analysis complied with the PRISMA guideline and PRISMA 2020 checklist.

Results

Eight studies were included in the meta‐analysis. Telehealth interventions significantly improved stoma adjustment (SMD: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.22–2.66) and self‐efficacy (MD: 10.23, 95% CI: 3.01–17.44), but did not significantly affect anxiety, while results regarding the effect on quality of life were inconsistent. Three studies showed a high risk of bias, while five showed some concerns. Evidence certainty was moderate for stoma adjustment, self‐efficacy and stoma quality of life, and low for anxiety.

Conclusion

Telehealth can enhance stoma adjustment and self‐efficacy, thereby improving management. However, the limited and inconsistent findings on anxiety and quality of life outcomes underscore the need for further high‐quality research.

Impact

This review demonstrates that telehealth stoma care can be vital in improving stoma adjustment and self‐efficacy in ostomates.

Reporting Method

The PRISMA 2020 checklist.

Patient or Public Contribution

Not Applicable.

Summary.

  • What does this paper contribute to the wider global clinical community?
    • ○
      This study attempted to explore the effect of telehealth stoma care intervention. The results of this study demonstrate that telehealth for stoma care is effective in improving stoma adjustment and self‐efficacy but has no significant effect on anxiety and quality of life.
    • ○
      All interventions were performed by nurses who described their role in stoma care using telehealth.
    • ○
      This study provides a reference for the future comprehensive implementation of telehealth for ostomates.

1. Introduction

A bowel stoma is a surgical opening in the abdomen that is made mainly when patients have colon cancer or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), so as to remove stool (Yang et al. 2024). With the incidence of colon cancer and IBD having increased worldwide, the incidence of stoma creation surgery has also increased. Although the prevalence is unclear, approximately 725,000–1 million people in the United States (Burgess‐Stocks et al. 2022), 700,000 in Europe (Krogsgaard et al. 2022) and approximately 15,000 in Korea have bowel stomas (Yang et al. 2024).

Bowel stoma formation can significantly alter one's physical, psychological and social well‐being (Zhang et al. 2019). Although a bowel stoma can sometimes be temporary rather than permanent, it still takes several months to reverse the stoma (Batistotti et al. 2023). Unskilled stoma care can cause skin irritation and skin or stoma necrosis (D'Ambrosio et al. 2022; Malik et al. 2018). Additionally, inappropriate care of the bowel stoma can lead to stool leakage or foul odour, making ostomates reluctant to engage in social and physical activities (Alenezi et al. 2021; Russell 2017). Therefore, effective stoma care is crucial not only for the prevention of complications but also for the quality of life (QoL) of ostomates (Alenezi et al. 2021).

Traditionally, stoma care has been provided through in‐person consultations, encompassing hospital visits for patient education, physical assessments and emotional support (Goodman et al. 2022). While these face‐to‐face interactions offer the advantage of direct observation and personalised care, they often present challenges related to geographical distance, financial costs and time constraints, particularly for individuals residing in rural or underserved areas (Sun et al. 2018). Additionally, patients with mobility impairments may find it difficult to attend regular in‐person appointments (Iovino et al. 2024; Sun et al. 2018). These barriers can lead to delays in managing complications and may adversely affect adherence to stoma care routines. Consequently, there is a growing interest in alternative approaches, such as telehealth, which can provide more accessible, continuous and individualised support for colostomy patients (Almathami et al. 2020; Augestad et al. 2020).

With the advancement of telehealth methods, the COVID‐19‐induced lockdown accelerated the use of telehealth (Wijesooriya et al. 2020). Many past studies have reported that telehealth interventions are highly convenient, cost‐effective and easily accessible (Almathami et al. 2020). Additionally, patients have reported high satisfaction with telehealth interventions (Almathami et al. 2020). Therefore, it is anticipated that the use of telehealth interventions will further increase in the future (Mahar et al. 2018).

Telehealth is widely utilised for patient education and consultation (Carrillo de Albornoz et al. 2022; Hanlon et al. 2017). Given that ostomates need to take care of their bowel stomas regularly over an extended period, stoma care education and regular monitoring are crucial (Jin et al. 2022). Due to the short stay period in the hospital, patients with new ostomies may suffer from insufficient time to achieve proficiency in stoma self‐care (Bohnenkamp et al. 2004). Hence, applying telehealth interventions to ostomates can minimise unnecessary clinic visits and facilitate stoma management.

Several experimental studies have investigated the effect of telehealth stoma care interventions on ostomates' adaptation to their stomas, stoma‐management self‐efficacy and psychological factors (Lim et al. 2019; Özkaya and Harputlu 2024). Although a recent review has extensively examined and classified the wide application of telehealth in stoma care (Moulaei et al. 2023), there remains a lack of systematic reviews evaluating the interventional effects, including stoma adjustment, based on experimental studies within this domain. Therefore, the current study aimed to examine the characteristics of telehealth stoma care interventions and analyse their effects using a randomised controlled trial design through a systematic review and meta‐analysis.

2. Methods

This systematic review and meta‐analysis followed the principles and recommendations provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins et al. 2019). We complied with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and PRISMA 2020 checklist (Page et al. 2021) (Data S1). We registered our study protocol with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023417508).

2.1. Search Strategy and Study Selection

We conducted our initial search in April 2024 and updated our search in April 2025 using eight databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and PQDT Global. The search strategy employed keywords such as ‘stoma’ and ‘telehealth’ combined with the Boolean operators ‘OR’ and ‘AND’ (Data S2).

The eligibility criteria for this systematic review were as follows: (1) population: adults aged > 18 years with bowel stomas; (2) intervention: telehealth intervention, defined as ‘the delivery of healthcare provider services at a distance through telecommunications and other technologies’ (Sodhi 2020), aimed at supporting self‐care for bowel stoma; (3) comparison: usual care; (4) outcome: stoma adjustment, self‐efficacy, anxiety and QoL; and (5) study type: randomised controlled trials. Studies for which the full text was not available were excluded.

EndNote 20 (Clarivate Analytics) was used to import the search results and remove duplicates before screening. Two researchers (SK and HJ) conducted each screening process autonomously. Any disagreements between researchers were discussed until a consensus was reached. Initial screening was performed by reviewing the titles and abstracts of the articles according to the eligibility criteria. Subsequently, the researchers retrieved full articles for a thorough evaluation of their eligibility.

2.2. Data Extraction and Analysis

Data from the included studies were independently extracted by two researchers (SK and HJ). In case of disagreements, discussions and joint reviews of the original articles were then conducted. The extracted data were as follows: study characteristics (author, publication year, country, number of participants, age and sex), details of the intervention and outcomes (stoma adjustment, self‐efficacy, anxiety and QoL).

To ensure consistency across the included studies, we selected the outcomes measured immediately after the intervention and baseline data when multiple time points were available. The meta‐analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta‐Analysis software (Biostat Inc.). According to the tools used to assess each outcome, the effect sizes were calculated as the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The results were synthesised using a random‐effects model, with the heterogeneity assessed through Cochran's Q test and Higgins' I 2 statistic (Higgins et al. 2019). When meta‐analysis could not be performed due to a lack of data, we conducted a narrative synthesis according to the extracted data. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken when studies with a high risk of bias were included in the meta‐analysis by performing an additional meta‐analysis without high‐risk‐of‐bias studies to explore the robustness of the results. However, an assessment of publication bias could not be performed due to the limited number of included studies (Higgins et al. 2019). Additionally, we evaluated the certainty of evidence for each outcome according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach using the GRADEpro GDT (McMaster University and Evidence Prime).

2.3. Assessment of the Risk of Bias

Two researchers (SK and HJ) independently assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using the Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2.0) tool. The risk of bias in each study was evaluated in five domains: bias arising from the randomisation process, bias due to deviations from intended interventions, bias due to missing outcome data, bias in the measurement of the outcome and bias in the selection of reported results (Sterne et al. 2019). The risk of bias for each domain and overall risk of bias were rated as ‘low risk of bias’, ‘some concerns’ and ‘high risk of bias’. Any disagreements between researchers were resolved through discussion.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

A total of 16,453 records were identified through a comprehensive search, and 6 records were identified by manually searching relevant reference lists and Google Scholar. After independent screening, eight studies were included in our systematic review, six of which were included in the meta‐analysis. The detailed study selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

3.2. General Description of Included Studies

Eight studies were included in the systematic review. The years of publication of the included studies ranged from 2013 to 2024. The included studies were conducted in five countries: China (three studies), Turkey (two studies), Korea (one study), Singapore (one study) and Norway (one study). A total of 742 ostomates participated in the studies, ranging from 42 to 212 in each study. Table 1 provides an overview of the key characteristics of the included studies.

TABLE 1.

Characteristics of the included studies.

Author (year) Country Number of participants Age (SD) or age range (N) Sex Intervention
Telehealth group Control group Telehealth group Control group Telehealth group Control group Telehealth group Control group Duration (F/U period)
Augestad et al. (2020) Norway 52 58 65.5 (12.9) 59.3 (16.3)

M 24 (46.2%)

F 28 (53.8%)

M 31 (53.4%)

F 27 (46.6%)

 Routine care +4 teleconsultation Routine care > 12 months (> 12 months)
Kim et al. (2019) Korea 21 21

< 49 (6)

50–59 (9)

> 60 (5)

< 49 (4)

50–59 (7)

> 60 (9)

M 17 (85.0%)

F 3 (15.0%)

M 14 (70.0%)

F 6 (30.0%)

 Routine care + education video +2 text messages Routine care 1 week (2 weeks)
Lim et al. (2019) Singapore 32 31 63.5 (13.3) 62.3 (13.4)

M 16 (59.3%)

F 11 (40.7%)

M 17 (70.8%)

F 7 (29.2%)

 Routine care +1 face‐to‐face education session +5 telephone calls Routine care 1 month (4 months)
Özkaya and Harputlu (2024) Turkey 30 30 58.5 (13.5) 64.2 (10.2)

M 21 (70.0%)

F 9 (30.0%)

M 24 (80.0%)

F 6 (20.0%)

 Education booklet +4 video conferences + telephone calls Routine care

2 months

(2 months)
Quan et al. (2024) China 38 38 63.6 (9.7) 61.7 (10.3)

M 26 (70.3%)

F 11 (29.7%)

M 24 (64.9%)

F 13 (35.1%)

 2 video interviews + WeChat applet 2 in‐person interviews

2 weeks

(2 weeks)
Taylan and Aksoy (2021) Turkey 30 30 48.2 (16.0) 52.2 (13.5)

M 15 (50.0%)

F 15 (50.0%)

M 20 (66.7%)

F 10 (33.3%)

 3 interviews + telephone calls + text messages 3 interviews 8–9 weeks (8–9 weeks)
Wang et al. (2018) China 106 106 57 (14.9) 59.2 (14.1)

M 62 (62.0%)

F 38 (38.0%)

M 67 (65.0%)

F 36 (35.0%)

 Routine care +11 sessions via mobile application Routine care 6 months (6 months)
Zhang et al. (2013) China 59 60 52.9 (13.3) 55.3 (13.7)

M 31 (59.6%)

F 21 (40.4%)

M 36 (70.6%)

F 15 (29.4%)

 Routine care +2–3 telephone calls Routine care 1 month (3 months)
Open in a new tab

Note: The number of participants in sex is based on the number of participants included in the analysis.

Abbreviations: F, female; F/U, follow‐up; M, male; SD, standard deviation.

3.3. Characteristics of Interventions

The methods used for each telehealth intervention differed. Three studies gave phone calls to their participants to provide education and consultation (Lim et al. 2019; Taylan and Aksoy 2021; Zhang et al. 2013), and three studies provided video consultation (Augestad et al. 2020; Özkaya and Harputlu 2024; Quan et al. 2024). In addition, Kim et al. (2019) sent text messages to the participants to encourage them to watch an educational video and change the stoma pouch. Wang et al. (2018) used a smartphone application for consultation. Except for one study that did not clarify the intervention provider (Kim et al. 2019), all telehealth interventions were provided by nurses. Intervention duration varied from 1 week to over 12 months (Table 1).

3.4. Quality Assessment

Figure 2 shows the risk of bias of the included studies assessed using RoB 2.0. The overall risk of bias was deemed to be of concern in five studies (Augestad et al. 2020; Lim et al. 2019; Taylan and Aksoy 2021; Wang et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2013) and high in three studies (Kim et al. 2019; Özkaya and Harputlu 2024; Quan et al. 2024). While two high‐risk studies faced issues in the randomisation process due to potential allocation concealment problems caused by improper randomisation methods (Kim et al. 2019; Özkaya and Harputlu 2024), one study had issues in the selection of reported results (Quan et al. 2024). All studies showed some concerns regarding the measurement of intervention outcomes because data collectors knew which interventions participants received, potentially influencing their assessments. Additionally, five studies were marked as having some concerns for the risk of bias in selection of the reported result because they did not pre‐register their analysis plans, thus affecting the risk of bias in the selection of reported results (Augestad et al. 2020; Kim et al. 2019; Taylan and Aksoy 2021; Wang et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2013).

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Summary of the risk of bias of included studies. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

3.5. Effect of Telehealth Interventions on Stoma Adjustment

Four studies assessed the stoma adjustment of participants (Özkaya and Harputlu 2024; Taylan and Aksoy 2021; Wang et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2013). The Ostomy Adjustment Inventory‐23 (OAI‐23) and Ostomy Adjustment Scale‐34 (OAS‐34) were used to assess ostomy adjustment. Resultantly, the telehealth intervention group better adjusted to the stoma than the control group (SMD: 1.76, 95% CI: 0.66–2.86, p = 0.002, I 2 = 95%) (Figure 3a). An additional meta‐analysis was performed to identify the robustness of our study results. The study by Özkaya and Harputlu (2024) was excluded from the analysis due to its high risk of bias. Resultantly, the telehealth intervention group still had a better adjustment than the control group (SMD: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.22–2.66, p = 0.021, I 2 = 95%).

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Effects of telehealth for stoma care on stoma adjustment, self‐efficacy and anxiety.

3.6. Effect of Telehealth Interventions on Self‐Efficacy

Four studies examined the effect of telehealth interventions on ostomates' self‐efficacy (Lim et al. 2019; Özkaya and Harputlu 2024; Wang et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2013). Self‐efficacy was evaluated using a single instrument, the Stoma Self‐Efficacy Scale (SSES), in four studies. The self‐efficacy in the telehealth intervention group exhibited a more significant improvement than the control group (MD: 13.98, 95% CI: 5.71–22.26, p < 0.001, I 2 = 85%) (Figure 3b). We conducted an additional meta‐analysis to confirm the robustness of our result by excluding a high‐risk‐of‐bias study (Özkaya and Harputlu 2024). Resultantly, telehealth interventions still had a more significant effect in improving the self‐efficacy of ostomates than the control interventions (MD: 10.23, 95% CI: 3.01–17.44, p < 0.001, I 2 = 76%).

3.7. Effect of Telehealth Interventions on Anxiety

The anxiety of the ostomates was reviewed in two studies (Kim et al. 2019; Lim et al. 2019). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used to evaluate anxiety in both studies. Although there was a greater decrease in anxiety in the telehealth intervention group than in the control group, the difference was not statistically significant (MD: −0.61, 95% CI: −2.38–1.16, p = 0.498) (Figure 3c). Sensitivity analysis could not be performed due to the limited number of included studies.

3.8. Effect of Telehealth Interventions on Stoma‐Related Quality of Life

Three studies assessed the stoma‐related QoL of the participants (Augestad et al. 2020; Taylan and Aksoy 2021; Quan et al. 2024). However, only qualitative analysis was available instead of a meta‐analysis because of a lack of data. According to the study results of Augestad et al. (2020) and Quan et al. (2024), there was no significant difference between the telehealth intervention and control groups. Taylan and Aksoy (2021) reported that the telehealth intervention group demonstrated significantly higher stoma QoL scores across all subscales than the control group.

3.9. Assessment of the Evidence Certainty

The results of the evidence certainty for each outcome, as assessed using the GRADE approach, are presented in Table 2. Stoma adjustment, stoma self‐efficacy and anxiety were rated as having moderate or low certainty due to the risk of bias among the included studies. Additionally, the evidence certainty of the stoma QoL was narratively assessed, as it was not possible to conduct a meta‐analysis. The evidence certainty of stoma QoL was moderate owing to inconsistencies in the results of the included studies.

TABLE 2.

GRADE certainty assessment.

Outcomes Number of participants (studies) Absolute effect (95% CI) Impact Certainty of the evidence
Ostomy adjustment

451

(4 RCTs)

SMD 1.758

(0.66–2.86)

⨁⨁⨁◯

Moderate a

Stoma

self‐efficacy

417

(4 RCTs)

MD 13.98

(5.71–22.26)

⨁⨁⨁◯

Moderate a

Anxiety

91

(2 RCTs)

MD 0.61

(−2.38–1.16)

⨁⨁◯◯

Low a

Stoma

quality of life

 One study found a higher quality of life in the intervention group, while the other two reported no difference.

⨁⨁⨁◯

Moderate b

Open in a new tab

Note: GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; MD, mean difference; SMD, standardised mean difference.

a

Rated down for the risk of bias.

b

Rated down for the inconsistency.

4. Discussion

This systematic review and meta‐analysis examined the effects of telehealth stoma care interventions on ostomates. According to our study results, telehealth stoma care interventions showed a significant improvement in stoma adjustment and stoma care self‐efficacy. However, there was no significant reduction in anxiety with the use of telehealth stoma care interventions. Furthermore, the effect of these interventions on stoma‐related QoL exhibited inconsistent results.

Our findings indicate that telehealth can improve stoma adjustment. This result aligns with a previous study that addressed the effect of eHealth and mHealth on ostomates (Qiao et al. 2024). One possible explanation for why ostomates adjust better to their bowel stomas with telehealth interventions is the enhanced accessibility of telehealth methods. Unlike routine care, which is usually administered once in a face‐to‐face session, telehealth interventions can be offered multiple times without the constraints of distance or the need for participants to travel (Steindal et al. 2023). This continuous and convenient access to care may have contributed to better adjustment (Jin et al. 2022). Additionally, with telehealth, participants can easily reach the researchers for help, whereas with usual care, they may have to wait until the next clinic visit. Being aware of this may have given participants a sense of support, leading to a more positive perception of their bowel stomas and better adjustment (Nam et al. 2019).

Furthermore, telehealth interventions significantly enhanced the self‐efficacy of ostomates. This result is consistent with previous reviews on patients with chronic diseases (Farley 2019) and breast cancer (Singleton et al. 2022), which showed that telehealth interventions improve the self‐efficacy of the participants. This improvement in self‐efficacy can be primarily attributed to the personalised telehealth care provided. The convenience of telehealth enabled easy interaction between researchers and participants, allowing tailored support (Record et al. 2021). This tailored approach made it possible for ostomates to receive specific guidance regarding their individual needs and concerns. Additionally, persistent monitoring and counselling offered through telehealth likely empowered ostomates, contributing to their improved self‐efficacy (Jin et al. 2022).

Our review revealed that telehealth did not significantly reduce anxiety in patients undergoing ostomies. This finding aligns with results from studies on telehealth in breast cancer patients (Ajmera et al. 2023) but contrasts with those involving patients with postpartum depression (Zhao et al. 2021), lung cancer (Pang et al. 2020) and COVID‐19 (Tarhan et al. 2023). This discrepancy may have resulted from the potential anxiety that the participants were facing. Unlike postpartum, lung cancer and COVID‐19 participants, ostomates and breast cancer patients are highly likely to feel anxious due to changes in their body, such as bowel stomas and breast removal (van der Storm et al. 2024; Mishra et al. 2023). Although telehealth, through counselling or messaging, can alleviate anxiety by reducing patients' fear of the unknown (Papenfuss and Ostafin 2021), anxiety in patients with a stoma often stems from more complex psychological issues. These issues include social stigma, changes in body image and lifestyle adjustments, alongside the fear associated with having a stoma (van der Storm et al. 2024). Addressing such anxiety may require more in‐depth counselling and treatment. However, telehealth may struggle to effectively address these psychological challenges due to its limited capacity for providing the non‐verbal cues and comforting presence that are more easily conveyed in face‐to‐face interactions (Orlowski et al. 2022). To reduce anxiety in these patients, telehealth programmes must focus on individualised care and promote systematic and therapeutic counselling by nurses.

Our review identified conflicting results regarding the impact of telehealth programmes on the QoL of patients with ostomies. These differences may stem from variations in the telehealth delivery methods used in the aforementioned studies. Augestad et al. (2020) and Quan et al. (2024) utilised a telehealth system that facilitated video interviews, whereas Taylan and Aksoy (2021) relied on telephone and messaging. While video interviews require participants to be more equipped, using the phone as an intervention medium may assure broader accessibility and fewer technical issues than video interviews (Chen et al. 2022). Additionally, while video interviews require participants to be more prepared in terms of the setting and timing, phone calls and messaging are less intrusive, allowing participants to feel more comfortable (Oates et al. 2022). Therefore, the easy accessibility and easement of traditional media, such as telephone and messaging, may have led to better intervention engagements.

4.1. Limitations

Our study faces several limitations. First, there was high heterogeneity among the included studies. Specifically, the included studies used different forms of telehealth media, which may have caused the differences in the participants' engagement. Additionally, the intervention content, including differences in the frequency and duration, and the control group interventions varied among the studies. Resultantly, the diverse nature of the interventions may have resulted in high heterogeneity. Therefore, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution. Second, a limited number of studies were included, which prevented us from performing a meta‐analysis for each medium used. Notably, there were only two studies included for anxiety, which made it challenging to compare the study results. Finally, the certainty of evidence for each outcome was low to moderate, owing to the risk of bias in the included studies or inconsistency of results; as such, caution is required when interpreting the study results.

4.2. Implications for Practice and Research

As stoma adjustment and self‐efficacy play critical roles in stoma care, our study strengthens the evidence regarding the effectiveness of telehealth interventions for ostomates. Integrating telehealth interventions into routine care may enhance stoma adjustment and self‐efficacy. According to our analysis, interventions were delivered by nurses, underscoring their crucial role. Hence, nurses should receive comprehensive training in both stoma care and telehealth technologies to provide high‐quality care.

Future research should compare telehealth delivery methods, such as video interviews versus telephone and messaging, to determine which method is the most effective. Additionally, studies ought to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of each medium used by considering the expenses of equipment, Internet access and staff training in relation to patient outcomes and satisfaction.

Further high‐quality research on telehealth interventions is required to address the limitations of this study. Further investigation of various telehealth media is recommended to determine their effectiveness. After the accumulation of future studies, a meta‐analysis should be conducted to determine the most effective telehealth medium for stoma care interventions.

5. Conclusion

This systematic review and meta‐analysis underscore the potential of telehealth stoma care interventions to enhance stoma adjustment and self‐efficacy among ostomates. While telehealth interventions did not significantly reduce anxiety and exhibited inconsistent results regarding the QoL of ostomates, the effectiveness of telehealth in improving stoma adjustment and self‐efficacy highlights its value in stoma care. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because of the high heterogeneity and limited number of included studies. Future studies should investigate the effectiveness of different telehealth delivery methods to optimise stoma care outcomes.

Author Contributions

Soyeon Kim: conceptualisation, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, software, validation, visualisation, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Ha Na Jeong: conceptualisation, data curation, formal analysis, methodology, validation, supervision, investigation, validation, visualisation, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, supervision.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Data S1.

JOCN-35-621-s002.docx (32.3KB, docx)

Data S2.

JOCN-35-621-s001.docx (47.3KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

The authors have nothing to report.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Statistical advice for this study was provided by Ha Na Jeong of the author team.

Data Availability Statement

This study is a systematic review; thus, all data from this study are listed in the reference list.

References

  1. Ajmera, P. , Miraj M., Kalra S., et al. 2023. “Impact of Telehealth Interventions on Physiological and Psychological Outcomes in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.” Frontiers in Oncology 12: 1017343. 10.3389/fonc.2022.1017343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alenezi, A. , McGrath I., Kimpton A., and Livesay K.. 2021. “Quality of Life Among Ostomy Patients: A Narrative Literature Review.” Journal of Clinical Nursing 30, no. 21–22: 3111–3123. 10.1111/jocn.15840. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Almathami, H. K. Y. , Win K. T., and Vlahu‐Gjorgievska E.. 2020. “Barriers and Facilitators That Influence Telemedicine‐Based, Real‐Time, Online Consultation at Patients' Homes: Systematic Literature Review.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 22, no. 2: e16407. 10.2196/16407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Augestad, K. M. , Sneve A. M., and Lindsetmo R. O.. 2020. “Telemedicine in Postoperative Follow‐Up of STOMa PAtients: A Randomized Clinical Trial (The STOMPA Trial).” British Journal of Surgery 107, no. 5: 509–518. 10.1002/bjs.11491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Batistotti, P. , Montale A., Bruzzone M., Amato A., and Binda G. A.. 2023. “Protective Ileostomy After Low Anterior Resection for Extraperitoneal Rectal Cancer: Does the Reversal Surgery Timing Affect Closure Failure?” Updates in Surgery 75, no. 7: 1811–1818. 10.1007/s13304-023-01573-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bohnenkamp, S. K. , McDonald P., Lopez A. M., Krupinski E., and Blackett A.. 2004. “Traditional Versus Telenursing Outpatient Management of Patients With Cancer With New Ostomies.” Oncology Nursing Forum 31, no. 5: 1005–1010. 10.1188/04.ONF.1005-1010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Burgess‐Stocks, J. , Gleba J., Lawrence K., and Mueller S.. 2022. “Ostomy and Continent Diversion Patient Bill of Rights: Research Validation of Standards of Care.” Journal of Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nursing 49, no. 3: 251–260. 10.1097/WON.0000000000000876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carrillo de Albornoz, S. , Sia K. L., and Harris A.. 2022. “The Effectiveness of Teleconsultations in Primary Care: Systematic Review.” Family Practice 39, no. 1: 168–182. 10.1093/fampra/cmab077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, P. V. , Helm A., Caloudas S. G., et al. 2022. “Evidence of Phone vs. Video‐Conferencing for Mental Health Treatments: A Review of the Literature.” Current Psychiatry Reports 24, no. 10: 529–539. 10.1007/s11920-022-01359-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. D'Ambrosio, F. , Pappalardo C., Scardigno A., Maida A., Ricciardi R., and Calabrò G. E.. 2022. “Peristomal Skin Complications in Ileostomy and Colostomy Patients: What We Need to Know From a Public Health Perspective.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 1: 79. 10.3390/ijerph20010079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Farley, H. 2019. “Promoting Self‐Efficacy in Patients With Chronic Disease Beyond Traditional Education: A Literature Review.” Nursing Open 7, no. 1: 30–41. 10.1002/nop2.382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Goodman, W. , Allsop M., Downing A., et al. 2022. “A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of the Effectiveness of Self‐Management Interventions in People With a Stoma.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 78, no. 3: 722–738. 10.1111/jan.15085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hanlon, P. , Daines L., Campbell C., McKinstry B., Weller D., and Pinnock H.. 2017. “Telehealth Interventions to Support Self‐Management of Long‐Term Conditions: A Systematic Metareview of Diabetes, Heart Failure, Asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Cancer.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 19, no. 5: e172. 10.2196/jmir.6688. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Higgins, J. P. , Thomas J., Chandler J., et al. 2019. “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.4.” Cochrane, 2023. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
  15. Iovino, P. , Vellone E., Campoli A., et al. 2024. “Telehealth vs. In‐Person Education for Enhancing Self‐Care of Ostomy Patients (Self‐Stoma): Protocol for a Noninferiority, Randomized, Open‐Label, Controlled Trial.” PLoS One 19, no. 6: e0303015. 10.1371/journal.pone.0303015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Jin, Y. , Tian X., Li Y., Jiménez‐Herrera M., and Wang H.. 2022. “Effects of Continuous Care on Health Outcomes in Patients With Stoma: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Asia‐Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing 9, no. 1: 21–31. 10.1016/j.apjon.2021.12.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kim, M. J. , Kim J. H., and Choi Y. S.. 2019. “The Effect of Stoma Self‐Care Education Using Social Network Service (SNS) on Anxiety of the Stoma Owner, Ability to Exchange the Stoma Pouch and Skin Condition.” Korean Society for Wellness 14, no. 2: 395–404. 10.21097/ksw.2019.05.14.2.395. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Krogsgaard, M. , Kristensen H. Ø., Furnée E. J. B., et al. 2022. “Life With a Stoma Across Five European Countries‐A Cross‐Sectional Study on Long‐Term Rectal Cancer Survivors.” Supportive Care in Cancer 30, no. 11: 8969–8979. 10.1007/s00520-022-07293-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lim, S. H. , Chan S. W. C., Chow A., Zhu L., Lai J. H., and He H. G.. 2019. “Pilot Trial of a STOMA Psychosocial Intervention Programme for Colorectal Cancer Patients With Stomas.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 75, no. 6: 1338–1346. 10.1111/jan.13973. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Mahar, J. H. , Rosencrance J. G., and Rasmussen P. A.. 2018. “Telemedicine: Past, Present, and Future.” Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 85, no. 12: 938–942. 10.3949/ccjm.85a.17062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Malik, T. , Lee M. J., and Harikrishnan A. B.. 2018. “The Incidence of Stoma Related Morbidity–A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials.” Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 100, no. 7: 501–508. 10.1308/rcsann.2018.0126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Mishra, A. , Nair J., and Sharan A. M.. 2023. “Coping in Post‐Mastectomy Breast Cancer Survivors and Need for Intervention: Systematic Review.” Breast Cancer 17: 11782234231209126. 10.1177/11782234231209126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Moulaei, K. , Iranmanesh E., and Ahmadian L.. 2023. “The Impact of Health Technologies on Ostomy Care: A Systematic Review of Health Technologies Impact on Ostomy Care.” Journal of Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nursing 50, no. 6: 489–494. 10.1097/WON.0000000000001021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Nam, K. H. , Kim H. Y., Kim J. H., Kang K. N., Na S. Y., and Han B. H.. 2019. “Effects of Social Support and Self‐Efficacy on the Psychosocial Adjustment of Korean Ostomy Patients.” International Wound Journal 16, no. Suppl 1: 13–20. 10.1111/iwj.13038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Oates, M. , Crichton K., Cranor L., et al. 2022. “Audio, Video, Chat, Email, or Survey: How Much Does Online Interview Mode Matter?” PLoS One 17, no. 2: e0263876. 10.1371/journal.pone.0263876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Orlowski, E. W. , Friedlander M. L., Megale A., Peterson E. K., and Anderson S. R.. 2022. “Couple and Family Therapists' Experiences With Telehealth During the COVID‐19 Pandemic: A Phenomenological Analysis.” Contemporary Family Therapy 44, no. 2: 101–114. 10.1007/s10591-022-09640-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Özkaya, E. , and Harputlu D.. 2024. “The Effect of Education via Videoconferencing at Home on Individuals' Self‐Efficacy and Adaptation to Life With a Stoma: A Randomized Controlled Study.” Advances in Skin & Wound Care 37, no. 2: 86–94. 10.1097/ASW.0000000000000098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Page, M. J. , McKenzie J. E., Bossuyt P. M., et al. 2021. “The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews.” BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 372: n71. 10.1136/bmj.n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Pang, L. , Liu Z., Lin S., et al. 2020. “The Effects of Telemedicine on the Quality of Life of Patients With Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease 11: 2040622320961597. 10.1177/2040622320961597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Papenfuss, I. , and Ostafin B. D.. 2021. “A Preliminary Comparison of Fundamental Fears Related to Anxiety.” Journal of Experimental Psychopathology 12, no. 2: 20438087211007601. 10.1177/20438087211007601. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Qiao, J. , Zhao Y., Lu Y., Li Q., and Dong H. J.. 2024. “Assessing the Impact of Educational eHealth and mHealth Interventions on Health Outcomes in Continuity of Care for Enterostomy Patients: A Meta‐Analysis.” European Journal of Oncology Nursing 72: 102676. 10.1016/j.ejon.2024.102676. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Quan, H. , Wang H., Yang Y., and Yu H.. 2024. “The Safety and Effectiveness of Telemedicine for Cancer‐Related Colostomy Care in the Early Stage of Discharge: A Prospective, Randomized, Single‐Center Study.” Telemedicine Reports 5, no. 1: 212–218. 10.1089/tmr.2024.0026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Record, J. D. , Ziegelstein R. C., Christmas C., Rand C. S., and Hanyok L. A.. 2021. “Delivering Personalized Care at a Distance: How Telemedicine Can Foster Getting to Know the Patient as a Person.” Journal of Personalized Medicine 11, no. 2: 137. 10.3390/jpm11020137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Russell, S. 2017. “Physical Activity and Exercise After Stoma Surgery: Overcoming the Barriers.” British Journal of Nursing 26, no. 5: S20–S26. 10.12968/bjon.2017.26.5.S20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Singleton, A. C. , Raeside R., Hyun K. K., et al. 2022. “Electronic Health Interventions for Patients With Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analyses.” Journal of Clinical Oncology 40, no. 20: 2257–2270. 10.1200/JCO.21.01171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Sodhi, N. 2020. “Telemedicine: A Whole Other Wor(l)d.” https://southwesttrc.org/blog/2020/telemedicine‐whole‐other‐world.
  37. Steindal, S. A. , Nes A. A. G., Godskesen T. E., et al. 2023. “Advantages and Challenges of Using Telehealth for Home‐Based Palliative Care: Systematic Mixed Studies Review.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 25: e43684. 10.2196/43684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Sterne, J. A. C. , Savović J., Page M. J., et al. 2019. “RoB 2: A Revised Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials.” BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 366: l4898. 10.1136/bmj.l4898. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sun, V. , Ercolano E., McCorkle R., et al. 2018. “Ostomy Telehealth for Cancer Survivors: Design of the Ostomy Self‐Management Training (OSMT) Randomized Trial.” Contemporary Clinical Trials 64: 167–172. 10.1016/j.cct.2017.10.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Tarhan, G. , Örsal Ö., and Duru P.. 2023. “The Effect of Telehealth Interventions on Anxiety Management in the COVID‐19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Psychiatric Nursing 14, no. 1: 59–69. 10.14744/phd.2022.00378. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Taylan, S. , and Aksoy G.. 2021. “The Effect of Phone Counselling Service on Adaptation to Stoma and Quality of Life Among Patients With Intestinal Stoma: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Cukurova Medical Journal 46, no. 1: 273–282. 10.17826/cumj.794567. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. van der Storm, S. L. , van Knippenberg S. E., Eskes A. M., and Schijven M. P.. 2024. “Supporting Stoma Patients' Self‐Efficacy With a Mobile Application‐A Focus Group Interview Study.” Simulation & Gaming 55, no. 2: 249–266. 10.1177/10468781241231050. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Wang, Q. Q. , Zhao J., Huo X. R., et al. 2018. “Effects of a Home Care Mobile App on the Outcomes of Discharged Patients With a Stoma: A Randomised Controlled Trial.” Journal of Clinical Nursing 27, no. 19–20: 3592–3602. 10.1111/jocn.14515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Wijesooriya, N. R. , Mishra V., Brand P. L. P., and Rubin B. K.. 2020. “COVID‐19 and Telehealth, Education, and Research Adaptations.” Paediatric Respiratory Reviews 35: 38–42. 10.1016/j.prrv.2020.06.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Yang, S. , Park J. W., Hur H., et al. 2024. “Development of a Home Health Care Service Platform for Ostomy Patient Management.” Annals of Coloproctology 40, no. 1: 36–43. 10.3393/ac.2022.00360.0051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Zhang, J. E. , Wong F. K., You L. M., et al. 2013. “Effects of Enterostomal Nurse Telephone Follow‐Up on Postoperative Adjustment of Discharged Colostomy Patients.” Cancer Nursing 36, no. 6: 419–428. 10.1097/NCC.0b013e31826fc8eb. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhang, Y. , Xian H., Yang Y., Zhang X., and Wang X.. 2019. “Relationship Between Psychosocial Adaptation and Health‐Related Quality of Life of Patients With Stoma: A Descriptive, Cross‐Sectional Study.” Journal of Clinical Nursing 28, no. 15–16: 2880–2888. 10.1111/jocn.14876. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Zhao, L. , Chen J., Lan L., et al. 2021. “Effectiveness of Telehealth Interventions for Women With Postpartum Depression: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” JMIR mHealth and uHealth 9, no. 10: e32544. 10.2196/32544. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data S1.

JOCN-35-621-s002.docx (32.3KB, docx)

Data S2.

JOCN-35-621-s001.docx (47.3KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

This study is a systematic review; thus, all data from this study are listed in the reference list.

Articles from Journal of Clinical Nursing are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES