Next Article in Journal
Magnetic Resonance Enterography Reinvented: Exploring the Potential of a New Natural Beverage as an Alternative to Polyethylene Glycol Solution
Previous Article in Journal
Hepatoprotective Effects of Liv.52 in Chronic Liver Disease Preclinical, Clinical, and Safety Evidence: A Review
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Quality of Life Assessment in Intestinal Stoma Patients in the Saudi Population: A Cross-Sectional Study

Reem Awad Alharbi
Nadeem Ahmad
Fatemah Yasser Alhedaithy
Majdoleen Dakhil N. Alnajim
Naima Waheed
Aisha A. Alessa
Banan A. Khedr
1 and
Marriyam A. Aleissa
College of Medicine, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz University Hospital, Airport Road, King Khalid International Airport, Riyadh 11564, Saudi Arabia
Sulaiman Al-Habib Medical Group, College of Medicine, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh 11671, Saudi Arabia
Department of Surgery, Alfaisal University, Riyadh 11533, Saudi Arabia
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Gastroenterol. Insights 2023, 14(3), 309-317;
Submission received: 30 May 2023 / Revised: 12 July 2023 / Accepted: 18 July 2023 / Published: 4 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Gastrointestinal Disease)


Background: A stoma poses numerous physical, social, and psychological challenges and interferes with some religious practices, thus potentially negatively affecting the quality of life. In the contemporary era of stoma care, the study sought to assess this impact in a population with distinctive sociocultural characteristics. Methods: A modified City of Hope Quality of Life ostomy questionnaire was used to survey patients with intestinal stomas. The scoring was dichotomous on a 0 to 10 scale, where 0–3 indicated severe impact, 4–6 moderate, and 7–10 minimum. Statistical analysis involved Student’s t-test, one-way ANOVA, Spearman’s correlation, and multivariate linear regression. Results: There were 108 patients, with 59 males and 49 females. The mean age was 40.8 years. The overall quality of life score was 6, for the social domain 7, the physical domain 6, the psychological domain 5, and the spiritual domain 6. The stoma’s impact on the quality of life was severe in 2%, moderate in 61%, and minimal in 37% of patients. Young patients, women, and those with benign diseases or without a job had low scores. Furthermore, 90% of patients had difficulty performing religious activities. For the regression analysis, life quality predictors were dietary, religious, pouch and stoma site issues, leak, odor, diarrhea or constipation, depression, anxiety, and future and disease concerns. Conclusions: Despite advances in stoma care, stoma patients had multiple impediments to their life quality. These were mainly psychological, but the physical and religious ones were also significant. A holistic approach to managing stoma patients is thus needed to help them have fulfilling lives.

1. Introduction

The intestinal stoma is a surgically created opening in the bowel for diverting bowel contents into a pouch for expulsion from the body. Even though contemporary surgical care makes it possible to maintain the integrity of the bowel, there are still circumstances where stoma creation is necessary. A stoma can save the lives of patients with severe sepsis and trauma, reduce the morbidity and mortality of the primary surgical procedure, and might be the definitive treatment for intractable fecal incontinence. Nonetheless, living with a stoma necessitates modifying one’s lifestyle, as well as mental adjustment [1].
A stoma may be temporary or permanent, and connected to the small or large intestine, referred to as ileostomies or colostomies, respectively. It is performed most frequently for colorectal cancer and inflammatory bowel disease [2].
Since 1771, when the first documented ostomy was performed [3], there has been continuous research and innovation to lessen the negative impact of stomas on patients’ quality of life (QoL), leading to improvements in surgical technique, appliances, and overall stoma care. However, it is unclear to what extent these developments improved the Muslim patients’ QoL, particularly those with religious obligations [4,5]. Therefore, the present study was conducted to determine the QoL in these patients and to identify areas to focus on while devising stoma coping strategies.

2. Materials and Methods

This was a survey-based study conducted at the College of Medicine, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, in Riyadh. Included patients were Saudi nationals who had an ileostomy or colostomy for more than three weeks, were at least 18 years old, and were able to provide informed consent. Those with severe disabilities, such as requiring a wheelchair, being bedridden, having advanced cancer, or having a preexisting mental disorder, were excluded. The patients were approached through a community stoma care nurse. The data were collected from August 2020 to April 2022.
We utilized a modified version of Marcia Grant’s City of Hope QoL ostomy questionnaire, which included specific questions regarding the type of stoma appliances, local culture and religious practices, and stoma care facilities. Its Arabic translation, to meet the needs of locals, was double-checked for its authenticity by two Arabic-native speakers independently. A pilot study with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.6 and Pearson’s interclass correlation coefficient of 0.3 validated the modified version. The questionnaire consisted of 63 items, covering socio-demographics and stoma-related issues (21 items), along with the physical (17 items), social (12 items), psychological (8 items), and spiritual (5 items) dimensions of quality of life.
This was cross-sectional study with systematic sampling and targeted a minimum sample size of 100. Patients self-administered their responses after giving informed consent and receiving the online questionnaire. The University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the study in a letter dated 22 June 2020, with IRB number 20-0245.
Each predictor variable was ranked by a dichotomous scale for the ease of responders and interpretation. Responses with a positive impact on QoL were scored as 1 and with a negative as 0. Contrary responses were reverse-coded. For comparison with other studies, the total scores were converted to a 0 to 10 scale. As in other studies [6], a QoL score of 0 to 3 implied severe impact, 4 to 6 moderate impact, and 7 to 10 minimal impacts. IBM SPSS version 25 was used for the data analysis. Normality of data was checked using a Q–Q plot. Numerical variables were presented as means with standard deviation and range, whereas categorical variables were presented as absolute numbers and percentages. Student’s t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to compare mean Qol scores between different groups and Spearman’s correlation was used to determine the relationship between QoL score and stoma-related factors. Using a multivariable linear regression model, significant QOL score predictors were identified.

3. Results

The response rate was 46%; 108 out of 234 patients who received the questionnaire answered it. Their mean age was 40.8 ± 13.7 years (range 20–77), with 59 (54.6%) males and 49 (45.4%) females. The majority (86%) held a high school diploma or a postsecondary degree. The proportions of married and employed patients were similar before and after the stoma. However, the marital status of some individuals changed, with 6% divorcing after the stoma. The distribution of ileostomies and colostomies and whether these were temporary or permanent was nearly identical. After Crohn’s disease, the second most common underlying cause was colorectal cancer. Many respondents preferred a particular brand of stoma bag—Hollister being the most popular. Table 1 shows the detailed sociodemographic characteristics of the patients.
The overall QoL score, and scores attained in the physical and spiritual domains were all 6 (Table 2). The psychological domain score was 5 and the social domain was 7 (all figures rounded off). As per QoL score criteria, the stoma’s impact on QoL was severe in 2% (n = 2), moderate in 61% (n = 66), and mild in 37% (n = 40) of patients.
Patients had a wide range of QoL scores based on their demographic characteristics, as shown in Table 1. For example, older patients had higher scores than younger ones, and the same was true for males versus females, married versus unmarried, and employed versus unemployed. Furthermore, patients with cancer had better scores than those with benign diseases, and those with colostomy scored better than those with an ileostomy.
Regarding religious activities, 90% of the patients felt restrictions in performing one or more of these—mainly the wudhu (ablution) keeping. Other affected activities were going to a mosque, saying regular prayers, or fasting, all of which resulted in lower QoL scores (Table 3).
In the correlation analysis, shown in Table 4, there was a statistically significant correlation between QoL and all five religious’ factors, with seven of the eight psychological factors, ten of the twelve social factors, and eight of the eighteen physical factors.
The significant predictors of QoL identified by the multivariate linear regression model were dietary and religious, pouch and stoma site issues, leak, odor, constipation or diarrhea, depression, anxiety, and concerns regarding the future and underlying disease (Table 5). Other important factors that determined QoL included the effect of the stoma on personal relationships; self-independence; ability to self-manage the stoma; and the availability of family, friends, or social services support.

4. Discussion

Stoma care has evolved significantly, becoming a specialty, along with advances in surgical techniques and effluent collection devices [7]. As a result, stoma patients are now believed to be better able to manage their stomas and carry out their daily lives, including participating in their religious practices. Still, patients from various cultural, socioreligious, and economic backgrounds are expected to adjust to their stomas differently [8]. With this perspective, the current study is valuable as it highlights these variations in the context of the Saudi population, which has unique sociocultural characteristics and religious fervor.
The questionnaire used in the present study measured various aspects of QoL as specified by WHO [9,10]. We modified the original version to meet the objectives of our study and to facilitate the patients to respond clearly and straightforwardly taking the minimum time and simplifying the scoring.
We found varied QoL scores in people with different sociodemographic groups. For instance, consistent with the results of other studies, younger patients had significantly lower scores than older ones—possibly because the former have more emotional and future concerns [11]. Women also had somewhat lower QoL scores than men, which could be due to their worries about their altered body images and constraints in doing household tasks [8]. Other studies, however, contradict this, as women were found to be more likely to seek social support and participate in social activities to improve their quality of life [7]. Obesity has been linked to stoma retraction and improper pouch fitting [12]. However, we could not find any correlation between patient body mass index and QoL. A person’s marital status also had little impact on QoL, but the post-stoma 6% divorce rate, which had equal gender distribution, is socially disturbing. The disruption to sexual life could have contributed to it.
A steady increase in the prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in Saudi Arabia explains why it was ranked as the most prevalent underlying cause of stoma in our patients. In contrast, in most published studies, it was colorectal cancer [13].
Given the high prevalence of colorectal cancer in Saudi Arabia, cancer was the second leading cause of stomas among our patients [14]. Cancer patients had slightly better QoL scores than those with benign conditions, possibly because of their better mental preparedness to cope with the consequences of a life-threatening illness. Patients with colostomies had higher scores than those with ileostomies, obviously because colostomies were easier to manage than ileostomies. The evidence that employment improves QoL, and joblessness lowers it was validated by our regression analysis [15].
The overall QoL score in our study population was 6, which was lower than what studies done in other countries have reported. For example, in Brazil it was 6.2, Australia 6.9, Netherlands 7.1, India 7.5, and the United States 7.3 [3,10,16]. None of our patients scored 10/10, which would have indicated unimpaired QoL. However, according to the score-based criteria, most of our patients had a moderate or minimal impact on QoL.
Stoma patients are likely to face several physical problems because of their changed anatomy. The most troublesome and negatively impacting QoL is a poor stoma site, precipitated by obesity, emergency surgery, cancer, and improper technique [17,18]. A poorly placed stoma increases the risk of leakage, an ill-fitting pouch, and parastomal complications, and has been associated with sexual dysfunction, insomnia, weight loss, and depression [19,20]. It was also a significant negative factor in our patients’ QoL.
Leak and offensive odor are common issues in stoma patients. These are frustrating as these interfere with activities at home, work, sports, and in social and religious settings. In the Ostomy Life Study, 91% of patients expressed concern about leakage [20]. Our study endorsed this. Steps to prevent or mitigate them are worth exploring.
About 75% of stoma patients suffer from parastomal skin complications—the majority due to leakage and adhesives [20]. These were more common in patients who had ileostomies rather than colostomies. Nevertheless, their incidence in our patients was lower (49%) than reported.
Patients’ QoL can also be negatively impacted if they develop complications such as prolapse, hernia, and obstruction. Their incidence is higher in patients treated in substandard medical facilities [21]. These could prompt patients to visit the hospital in an emergency, further adding to their stress. A third of our patients required such a visit; attention to the surgical technique safeguards against these complications [18].
Despite their widespread occurrence and contrary to common belief, physical issues were not the most crucial determinant of low QoL. This could be because the patients were mentally more prepared to deal with them. On the contrary, psychological factors bothered patients the most and thus adversely affected their QoL. Some other studies also showed similar findings [22]. Among these factors, anxiety was the most common, followed by concerns about the underlying disease, pouch problems, and depression. Included in the list by other studies were altered body image, hopelessness, stigmatization, isolation, and loneliness [16,23]. Sadly, most healthcare providers ignore these vital psychological concerns and only concentrate on physical issues [22]. However, recently, the awareness about them has increased, and many counter strategies have been proposed [22,24].
The spiritual well-being of an individual was a primary focus of our study, as were considered it to be an essential component of QoL [25]. A stoma could make it difficult for Muslims to maintain the cleanliness required to fulfill their religious obligations, necessitating frequent going to the bathroom, which might be inconvenient. Patients could be further discouraged from praying, fasting, and performing Hajj due to concerns about leaks and odor [26].
As all the participants in our study were devout Muslims, our survey questions covered all the rituals typically observed by Muslims. A very high proportion of responders reporting difficulties in performing one or more religious activities indicates that modern stoma appliances are not foul-proof and might need additional innovations to ensure patients’ comfort and convenience. Another significant issue is the need for appropriate religious counseling of the patients, as proposed by many authors [7,27,28].
Stoma patients often struggle with social dysfunction and sexual issues, lowering their QoL. Disinterest, avoiding social activities, restricted travel, strained personal relationships, loneliness, and a tendency toward isolation are of significant concern. These factors make adaptation and stoma management even more challenging. The fact that 44% of our patients exhibited social disturbances and our inference that sexual dysfunction negatively impacted QoL match with the evidence [22,23]. This negative effect can be lessened by giving patients access to pertinent information and training and by providing efficient community health services [7].
Most of our patients (91%) were able to self-manage their stomas and live independently—thanks to the quality of care they received and the support of their family and friends. Their financial difficulties were also minimal due to the country’s effective national health program.
Only Muslims of Saudi descent were included in our study. Thus, surveying people with diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds will be intriguing. We also used traditional statistical methods to analyze our data. However, future surveys of this nature should consider a more recent approach that employs multivariate statistical methods such as cluster analysis, factor analysis, and principal component analysis [29].

5. Conclusions

Stoma patients have multiple impediments to their having a good quality of life. Contrary to the common perception, the most crucial issue psychological factors. In addition, however, physical, and religious issues also remained significant, despite advances in stoma care. Thus, there is a need for a comprehensive, patient-centered approach with the integration of medical resources to address all patients’ concerns and to mitigate the negative effects of stoma fallouts.

Author Contributions

R.A.A. writing and editing the manuscript; N.A. conceptualization, data analysis, and writing and editing of the manuscript; F.Y.A. conceptualization, data collection and interpretation, writing and editing of the manuscript; M.D.N.A. conceptualization, data collection and interpretation, and writing and editing of the manuscript; N.W. data collection and processing, and writing and editing of the manuscript; A.A.A. collection and processing of references; B.A.K. collection of references and writing of the manuscript; M.A.A. collection of references and writing of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


The study didn’t receive any funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) in a letter dated 22 June 2020, with IRB number 20-0245.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Original data of the study are available on the repository, figshare. Link: (accessed on 4 January 2023).


We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to Areej M. Alqatifi, an enterostomal therapist working at King Fahd Specialist Hospital in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, for the invaluable assistance she provided with the collection of data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Podda, M.; Coccolini, F.; Gerardi, C.; Castellini, G.; Wilson, M.S.J.; Sartelli, M.; Pacella, D.; Catena, F.; Peltrini, R.; Bracale, U.; et al. Early versus delayed defunctioning ileostomy closure after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of safety and functional outcomes. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2022, 37, 737–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Burch, J. Exploring the conditions leading to stoma-forming surgery. Br. J. Nurs. 2005, 14, 94–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dorothy, D.B. History of Ostomy Surgery. J. Wound Ostomy Cont. Nurs. 2008, 35, 34–38. [Google Scholar]
  4. Iqbal, F.; Kujan, O.; Bowley, D.M.; Keighley, M.R.; Vaizey, C.J. Quality of life after ostomy surgery in Muslim patients: A systematic review of the literature and suggestions for clinical practice. J. Wound Ostomy Cont. Nurs. 2016, 43, 385–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Varma, S.; Batool, D. A survey to assess knowledge among international colorectal clinicians and enterostomal therapy nurses about stoma-related faith needs of Muslim patients. Ostomy Wound Manag. 2014, 60, 28–37. [Google Scholar]
  6. Krouse, R.S.; Herrinton, L.J.; Grant, M.; Wendel, C.S.; Green, S.B.; Mohler, M.J.; Baldwin, C.M.; McMullen, C.K.; Rawl, S.M.; Matayoshi, E.; et al. Health-related quality of life among long-term rectal cancer survivors with an ostomy: Manifestations by sex. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 27, 4664–4670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Hibbert, D. View from Here: Caring for persons with ostomies in Saudi Arabia. J. Wound Ostomy Cont. Nurs. 2016, 43, 398–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Stavropoulou, A.; Vlamakis, D.; Kaba, E.; Kalemikerakis, I.; Polikandrioti, M.; Fasoi, G.; Vasilopoulos, G.; Kelesi, M. “Living with a Stoma”: Exploring the lived experience of patients with permanent colostomy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Grant, M.; Ferrell, B.; Dean, G.; Uman, G.; Chu, D.; Krouse, R. Revision and psychometric testing of the City of Hope Quality of Life-Ostomy Questionnaire. Qual. Life Res. 2004, 13, 1445–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ketterer, S.N.; Leach, M.J.; Fraser, C. Factors Associated with Quality of Life Among People Living with a Stoma in Nonmetropolitan Areas. Nurs. Res. 2021, 70, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wong, S.K.; Young, P.Y.; Widder, S.; Khadaroo, R.G. A descriptive survey study on the effect of age on quality-of-life following stoma surgery. Ostomy Wound Manag. 2013, 59, 16–23. [Google Scholar]
  12. Skeps, R.; McMullen, C.K.; Wendel, C.S.; Bulkley, J.; Grant, M.; Mohler, J.; Hornbrook, M.C.; Krouse, R.S.; Herrinton, L.J. Changes in body mass index and stoma related problems in the Elderly. J. Geriatr. Oncol. 2013, 4, 84–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Al Fadda, M.; Peedikayil, M.C.; Kagevi, I.; Al Kahtani, K.; Al Ben Mousa, A.; Al Ashgar, H.I.; Sohaibani, F.A.; Al Quaiz, M.; Abdulla, M.; Khan, M.Q.; et al. Inflammatory bowel disease in Saudi Arabia: A hospital-based clinical study of 312 patients. Ann. Saudi Med. 2012, 32, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Almatroudi, A. The Incidence Rate of Colorectal Cancer in Saudi Arabia. An Observational Descriptive Epidemiological Analysis. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2020, 13, 977–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dabirian, A.; Yaghmaei, F.; Rassouli, M.; Tafreshi, M.Z. Quality of life in ostomy patients: A qualitative study. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2011, 5, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  16. Goldstine, J.; van Hees, R.; van de Vorst, D.; Skountrianos, G.; Nichols, T. Factors influencing health-related quality of life of those in the Netherlands living with an ostomy. Br. J. Nurs. 2019, 28, S7–S10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Mahjoubi, B.; Kiani Goodarzi, K.; Mohammad-Sadeghi, H. Quality of life in stoma patients: Appropriate and inappropriate stoma sites. World J. Surg. 2010, 34, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kwiatt, M.; Kawata, M. Avoidance and management of stomal complications. CLIN Colon Rectal Surg. 2013, 26, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Karadağ, A.; Karabulut, H.; Baykara, Z.G.; Harputlu, D.; Toyluk, E.; Ulusoy, B.; Leventoglu, S. A prospective, multicentered study to assess social adjustment in patients with an intestinal stoma in Turkey. Ostomy/Wound Manag. 2015, 61, 16–29. [Google Scholar]
  20. Nafees, B.; Storling, Z.M.; Hindsberger, C.; Lloyd, A. The ostomy leak impact tool: Development and validation of a new patient-reported tool to measure the burden of leakage in ostomy device users. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2018, 16, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Krishnamurty, D.M.; Blatnik, J.; Mutch, M. Stoma Complications. Clin. Colon. Rectal Surg. 2017, 30, 93–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Ayaz-Alkaya, S. Overview of psychosocial problems in individuals with stoma: A review of literature. Int. Wound J. 2019, 16, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Karabulut, H.K.; Dinç, L.; Karadag, A. Effects of planned group interactions on the social adaptation of individuals with an intestinal stoma: A quantitative study. Clin. Nurs. 2014, 23, 2800–2813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Knowles, S.R.; Tribbick, D.; Connell, W.R.; Castle, D.; Salzberg, M.; Kamm, M.A. Exploration of health status, illness perceptions, coping strategies, and psychological morbidity in stoma patients. J. Wound Ostomy Cont. Nurs. 2014, 41, 573–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ayik, C.Ö.; Cenan, D. Relationships among spiritual well-being, adjustment, and quality of life in patients with a stoma: A cross-sectional, descriptive study. Wound Manag. Prev. 2019, 65, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Habib, A.; Connor, M.J.; Boxall, N.E. Improving quality of life for Muslim patients requiring a stoma: A critical review of theological and psychosocial issues. Surg. Pract. 2020, 24, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Cavdar, I.; Ozbas, A.; Akyuz, N.; Findik, U.Y.; Kutlu, Y. Religious worship in patients with abdominal stoma: Praying and fasting during Ramadan. Int. J. Caring Sci. 2013, 6, 516–521. [Google Scholar]
  28. Celasin, H.; Karakoyun, R.; Yilmaz, S.; Elhan, A.H.; Erkek, B.; Kuzu, M.A. Quality of life measures in Islamic rectal carcinoma patients receiving counselling. Color. Dis. 2011, 13, 170–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nedyalkova, M.; Romanova, J.; Naneva, L.; Simeonov, V. Developing a questionnaire for diabetes mellitus type 2 risk effects and precondition factors—Multivariate statistical paths. Phys. Sci. Rev. 2022, 10, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Comparison of the sociodemographic characteristics of patients with their quality of life.
Table 1. Comparison of the sociodemographic characteristics of patients with their quality of life.
VariablesFrequencyQOL Scorep Value ^VariablesFrequencyQOL Scorep Value ^
Age Groups<60966.06 ± 1 0.74Stoma StatusTemporary40 (37%)6 ± 10.1 **
60 or more126.17 ± 1.3Permanent42 (38.9%)6 ± 1.1
GenderMale 59 (54.6%)6.28 ± 10.03Not known26 (24.1%)5.9 ± 0.9
Female 49 (45.4%)5.82 ± 1Underlying diseaseCrohn’ disease32 (29.6%)6.3 ± 1.10.3 **
BMI<35105.83 ± 0.60.4 *Cancer29 (26.9%)5.6 ± 1
35 or more986.09 ± 1.1Ulcerative Colitis8 (7.4%)6.4 ± 0.8
ResidenceEast 22 (20.4%)6 ± 10.1 **Intestinal Obstruction10 (9.3%)5.9 ± 1.1
West 21 (19.4%)5.9 ± 1Fecal Incontinence11 (10.2%)5.8 ± 0.8
North 16 (14.8%)5.8 ± 0.9Others18 (16.7%)6 ± 1.1
South13 (12%)5.7 ± 1Disease groupsCancer29 (27%)6.2 ± 1.30.5 *
Central36 (33.3%)6.1 ± 1.1Non cancer disorders79 (73%)6 ± 1
Stoma DurationUp to 1 year34 (31.5%)5.9 ± 10.8 *Pouch BrandHollister36 (33.3%)6.2 ± 10.3 **
>1 year74 (68.5%)6 ± 1Coloplast14 (13%)6.1 ± 1.4
EducationCollege61 (56.5%)5.9 ± 10.6 **Convetac4 (3.7%)5.2 ± 0.9
Diploma18 (16.7%)6.1 ± 0.74Others54 (50%)5.9 ± 0.9
Masters7 (6.5%)6.1 ±1.2Pouch PreferenceYes42 (38.9%)6 ± 1.20.8 *
Secondary19 (17.6%)6 ± 1.3No66 (61.1%)6 ± 0.9
Intermediate1 (0.9%)5.5Time for diet adjustment6 months or less80 (74.1%)6.09 ± 1.10.7 *
Illiterate2 (1.9%)6.4 ± 2>6 months28 (25.9%)6.01 ± 0.9
Marital status before stomaSingle48 (44%)5.8 ± 1.10.06 *Time for stoma adjustment6 months or less86 (79.6%)6.06 ± 10.8 *
Married60 (56%)6.2 ± 1>6 months22 (20.4%)6.11 ± 1.1
Marital after stomaSingle37 (41.7%)5.9 ± 10.2 *Job before stomaYes60 (55.6%)5.9 ± 0.90.6 *
Married63 (58.3%)6.2 ± 1No48 (44.4%)6 ± 1.2
Stoma TypeColostomy41 (38%)6.2 ± 1.10.3 **Job after stomaYes60 (55.6%)6.10 ± 10.7 *
Ileostomy45 (41.7%)5.9 ± 1.2No48 (44.4%)6.03 ± 1.1
* Student’s t-test; ** One-way ANOVA. ^ Significance level is 0.05.
Table 2. Quality of Life’s Domains and Categories’ Scores.
Table 2. Quality of Life’s Domains and Categories’ Scores.
QoL Score (Mean)6.1 ± 1.1 (3–9)
Physical5.8 ± 1.2 (3–8)Scores rangeImpact on QoLFrequency
Social6.8 ± 1.7 (2–10)0–3Severe2 (1.9%)
Psychological4.9 ± 2.1 (0–10)4–6Moderate66 (61.1%)
Spiritual6.2 ± 2.4 (0–10)7–10Mild40 (37%)
Table 3. Quality of life scores based on religious factors.
Table 3. Quality of life scores based on religious factors.
Religious FactorsNo & Percent of PatientsQoL Scorep Value *
Restriction in performing any of religious activity97 (90%)6 ± 1.10.002
No restriction in performing any of religious activity11 (10%)7.1 ± 0.8
Difficulty in visiting a Mosque46 (43%)5.7 ± 1<0.001
No difficulty in visiting a Mosque62 (57%)6.4 ± 1
Difficulty in keeping wudhu62 (57%)5.8 ± 1.2<0.001
No difficulty in keeping wudhu46 (43%)6.5 ± 0.9
Difficulty in keeping fast37 (34%)5.6 ± 1.1<0.001
No difficulty in keeping fast71 (66%)6.4 ± 1
Difficulty in saying prayers regularly37 (34%)5.6 ± 1.20.001
No difficulty in saying prayers regularly71 (66%)6.4 ± 1
Difficulty in reciting Quran22 (20%)5.8 ± 1.40.19
No difficulty in reciting Quran86 (80%)6.2 ± 1
* Student’s t-test.
Table 4. Correlations between patients’ factors and quality of life score.
Table 4. Correlations between patients’ factors and quality of life score.
Patients’ FactorsPatients’ No & PercentCorrelation Coefficient #p ValuePatients’ FactorsPatients’ No & PercentCorrelation Coefficient #p Value
Physical Dimension
Dietary restrictions:
Any such restriction
88 (81%)0.28 **0.003Stoma site problems53 (49%)0.44 **<0.001
Clothing changed78 (72%)0.25 **0.009
  Carbonated drinks 55 (51%)0.23 *0.02Low physical strength43 (40%)0.120.19
  Dairy products 41 (38%)0.110.27Fatigue27 (25%)0.060.55
  Fruits 24 (22%)0.020.86Aches & pains25 (23%)0.070.49
  Vegetables 20 (19%)0.050.58Sleep affected83 (77%)0.070.48
Leak 69 (64%)0.180.06Travelling affected39 (36%)0.39 **<0.001
Odor43 (40%)0.28 **0.003ER visits for complications39 (36%)0.110.26
Constipation12 (11%)0.20 *0.03Skin Allergy 27 (25%)0.010.95
Diarrhea19 (18%)0.170.08Skin irritation50 (46%)0.090.33
Social DimensionPsychological Dimension
Personal relations affected26 (24%)0.48 **<0.00Depression56 (51.9%)0.39 **<0.001
Self-isolation24 (22%)0.44 **<0.00
Family distress63 (58%)0.150.11Anxiety 89 (82%)0.39 **<0.001
Self-independence97 (90%)0.32 **0.001Embarrassment35 (32%)0.150.13
Self-management of stoma95 (88%)0.20 *<0.03Concern for underlying disease81 (75%)0.30 **0.001
Financial burden37 (34%)0.130.19Concern for future life73 (68%)0.31 **0.001
Friends & Family support87 (81%)0.37 **<0.001Optimism96 (89%)0.27 **0.004
Social activities affected60 (56%)0.49 **<0.001Satisfaction with stoma life84 (78%)0.34 **<0.001
Stoma care briefing by health professional79 (73%)0.21 *0.03Pouch problems concerns71 (66%)0.180.06
Stoma care education by health professional78 (72%)0.30 **0.002Spiritual Dimension
Sex life affected69 (64%)0.41 **<0.001Religious activities restrictions:
Any such restriction
97 (90%)0.3 *0.002
Social services support at home80 (74%)0.3 **0.002  Visiting Mosque46 (43%)0.33 **0.001
  Keeping Wudhu 62 (57%)0.310.001
  Keeping Fast 37 (34%)0.36 **<0.001
  Saying Regular prayers 37 (34%)0.31 **0.001
  Reciting Quran 22 (20%)0.040.67
# Spearman’s Correlation. * Correlation is significant at a 0.05 level. ** Correlation is significant at a 0.01 level.
Table 5. Quality of life predictor evaluation using multivariate linear regression #.
Table 5. Quality of life predictor evaluation using multivariate linear regression #.
Predictors Regression
p ValuePredictorsRegression
p Value
Dietary restrictions: Personal relations0.43<0.001
Carbonated drinks0.37<0.001
Dairy products 0.170.03Social Activities0.240.008
Vegetables0.270.005Family support0.030.72
Leak0.40<0.001Sex life0.250.003
Odor0.230.005Self-management of stoma0.030.82
Constipation0.260.04Stoma care briefing by healthcare provider0.180.04
Stoma location0.43<0.001
Clothing changed 0.39<0.001Home social support0.180.07
Travelling interfered0.060.52Depression0.36<0.001
Religious restrictions: Anxiety0.270.01
Going to Mosque0.33<0.001Disease concerns0.290.001
Keeping Wudhu0.250.003Future concerns0.220.01
Keeping Fasting0.28<0.001Pouch problems concerns 0.140.13
Saying Prayers0.28<0.001Satisfaction with stoma life 0.37<0.001
Reciting Quran 0.270.004Optimism0.090.47
# R Square = 0.92, F value = 39, ANOVA ≤ 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alharbi, R.A.; Ahmad, N.; Alhedaithy, F.Y.; Alnajim, M.D.N.; Waheed, N.; Alessa, A.A.; Khedr, B.A.; Aleissa, M.A. Quality of Life Assessment in Intestinal Stoma Patients in the Saudi Population: A Cross-Sectional Study. Gastroenterol. Insights 2023, 14, 309-317.

AMA Style

Alharbi RA, Ahmad N, Alhedaithy FY, Alnajim MDN, Waheed N, Alessa AA, Khedr BA, Aleissa MA. Quality of Life Assessment in Intestinal Stoma Patients in the Saudi Population: A Cross-Sectional Study. Gastroenterology Insights. 2023; 14(3):309-317.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alharbi, Reem Awad, Nadeem Ahmad, Fatemah Yasser Alhedaithy, Majdoleen Dakhil N. Alnajim, Naima Waheed, Aisha A. Alessa, Banan A. Khedr, and Marriyam A. Aleissa. 2023. "Quality of Life Assessment in Intestinal Stoma Patients in the Saudi Population: A Cross-Sectional Study" Gastroenterology Insights 14, no. 3: 309-317.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop