Table 1.
Quality of life
| Reference | No. of patients | Quality of life | Measure used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cooper et al. 25 | 26 | QoL was improved in 76 per cent, unchanged in 24 per cent | Likert scale |
| Munck et al. 21 | 23 | QoL was improved in 50 per cent, unchanged in 40 per cent | Questionnaire |
| Luther et al.24 | 74 stoma, 296 controls | No difference in QoL | Questionnaire |
| Branagan et al. 18 | 32 | QoL was improved: 78 per cent ‘much better’ and 15 per cent ‘better’ | Likert scale |
| Safadi et al. 16 | 45 | QoL was improved; QoL score improved from 60 to 80. This index was based on five general domains of QoL: physical health, psychosocial adjustment, body image, self‐efficacy and recreation/leisure | QoL index |
| De La Fuente et al. 19 | 12 | QoL was improved: 58 per cent ‘much better’ and 25 per cent ‘better’ | Likert scale |
| Rosito et al. 23 | 27 | QoL was improved. QoL index significantly improved in the stoma group. Of five QoL domains assessed, there was a statistically significant increase in four: physical health, self‐efficacy, psychosocial status and recreation/leisure. Body image was unaffected | QoL index |
| Randell et al. 22 | 52 | No difference in QoL. Areas assessed included systemic symptoms, emotional function, social function, work function and bowel function | Questionnaire |
| Kelly et al.20 | 14 | QoL was improved: 79 per cent ‘much better’ and 7 per cent ‘better’ | Likert scale |
| Craven and Etchells26 | 17 | QoL was improved. Exact figures not published, but authors commented that QoL was improved and patients consistently commented that they had more independence after stoma formation | Questionnaire |
| Stone et al. 17 | 20 | QoL was improved: 64 per cent ‘much better’, 27 per cent ‘better’ and 9 per cent unchanged | Likert scale |
QoL, quality of life.