Wellbeing
How do stigma and acceptance shape life after a stoma?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Among 259 Chinese stoma patients, stigma was severe and psychosocial adaptation poor; disability acceptance improved adaptation and statistically mediated stigma’s harmful association.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Cross-sectional — Multicenter SEM of stigma, disability acceptance, and psychosocial adaptation in stoma patients (STROBE; SPSS/AMOS path model)
- N
- N=259 · 259 patients with stoma from 6 hospitals in southeast China
- Population
- Adults with stoma recruited from six hospitals in southeast China
- Outcome
- Social Impact Scale stigma, Acceptance of Disability Scale, Ostomy Adjustment Inventory-20 psychosocial adaptation
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Inspect source passages
How do stigma and acceptance shape life after a stoma?
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
259 stoma patients in 6 hospitals.
A total of 259 patients with stoma in 6 hospitals from southeast China were enrolled.
Stigma 72.76 ± 12.73; acceptance 179.24 ± 32.29; adaptation 38.06 ± 8.76.
The sense of stigma was severe (72.76 ± 12.73), the acceptance of disability was medium (179.24 ± 32.29) and the psychosocial adaptation was poor (38.06 ± 8.76).
Key findings
Mean stigma 72.76, medium acceptance 179.24, poor adaptation 38.06. The model fit (AGFI = 0.967; χ²/df = 1.723, p = 0.08). Acceptance positively, and stigma negatively, predicted psychosocial adaptation; acceptance mediated the stigma–adaptation path (p < 0.01).
Methodology
Enrolled 259 patients from 6 southeast China hospitals (STROBE; hospital ethics). Measured stigma (Social Impact Scale), disability acceptance, and ostomy adjustment (OAI-20), then tested a path model in SPSS 22 and AMOS 26.
Limitations
A cross-sectional SEM cannot prove that reducing stigma will causally raise adaptation, and the sample is limited to six hospitals in one region.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.