Exploring the Impact of a Structured Educational Approach on Peristomal Skin Complications: An Interim Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design
2.2. The Risk Stratification-Based Educational Approach
2.2.1. Stratification Process and Risk Calculation
2.2.2. Characteristics of Each Path in the Dermamecum
2.3. Context and Procedure
2.4. Measures
2.5. Eligibility Criteria to the Dermamecum
2.6. Ethical Considerations
2.7. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Sample Characteristics
3.2. Primary Outcome: PSCs 30 Days after Surgery
3.3. MCA of the Theoretical Predictors
3.4. Predictors of PSCs 30 Days after Surgery
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Characteristics of the Sample, Path Groups, and Comparisons
Overall (n = 226) | Green Path (n = 35; 15.5% of Total) | Yellow Path (n = 128; 56.6% of Total) | Red Path (n = 63; 27.9% of Total) | p ¥ | ||||||
N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | |||
Pre-operative information | ||||||||||
Sex | ||||||||||
Male | 131 | 58 | 9 | 25.7 | 86 | 67.2 | 36 | 57.1 | <0.001 | |
Female | 95 | 42 | 26 | 74.3 | 42 | 32.8 | 27 | 42.9 | ||
Age | ||||||||||
Years (mean; SD) | 65.96 | 14.97 | 69.69 | 13.64 | 64.79 | 15.8 | 66.27 | 13.75 | 0.226 | |
BMI | ||||||||||
Underweight | 19 | 8.4 | 2 | 5.7 | 11 | 8.6 | 6 | 9.5 | 0.002 | |
Normal | 121 | 53.5 | 28 | 80 | 71 | 55.5 | 22 | 34.9 | ||
Overweight | 64 | 28.3 | 4 | 11.4 | 36 | 28.1 | 24 | 38.1 | ||
Obese | 22 | 9.7 | 1 | 2.9 | 10 | 7.8 | 11 | 17.5 | ||
Comorbidity | ||||||||||
Diabetes | 33 | 14.6 | 3 | 8.6 | 17 | 13.3 | 13 | 20.6 | 0.219 | |
IBD | 16 | 7.1 | 2 | 5.7 | 6 | 4.7 | 8 | 12.7 | 0.12 | |
Hematologic disorders | 20 | 8.8 | 1 | 2.9 | 11 | 8.6 | 8 | 12.7 | 0.256 | |
Cardiovascular Disorders | 90 | 39.8 | 12 | 34.3 | 53 | 41.4 | 25 | 39.7 | 0.747 | |
Psoriasis | 1 | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.6 | 0.273 | |
Atopic dermatitis | 5 | 2.2 | 2 | 5.7 | 2 | 1.6 | 1 | 1.6 | 0.309 | |
Allergic dermatitis | 18 | 8 | 1 | 2.9 | 8 | 6.3 | 9 | 14.3 | 0.075 | |
Previous treatment | ||||||||||
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy | 49 | 21.7 | 7 | 20 | 32 | 25 | 10 | 15.9 | 0.343 | |
Radiotherapy | 33 | 14.6 | 2 | 5.7 | 26 | 20.3 | 5 | 7.9 | 0.02 | |
Any previous surgeries | ||||||||||
Yes | 77 | 34.1 | 12 | 34.3 | 41 | 32 | 24 | 38.1 | 0.708 | |
Type of stoma that was planned | ||||||||||
Colostomy | 84 | 37.2 | 14 | 40 | 50 | 39.1 | 20 | 31.7 | 0.028 | |
Ileostomy | 91 | 40.3 | 7 | 20 | 54 | 42.2 | 30 | 47.6 | ||
Urostomy | 51 | 22.6 | 14 | 40 | 24 | 18.8 | 13 | 20.6 | ||
A stoma siting was scheduled | ||||||||||
Yes | 184 | 81.4 | 35 | 100 | 110 | 85.9 | 39 | 61.9 | <0.001 | |
Job types | ||||||||||
Sedentary | 21 | 9.3 | 7 | 20 | 8 | 54.7 | 6 | 9.5 | 0.242 | |
Semi-sedentary | 72 | 31.9 | 9 | 25.7 | 45 | 27.3 | 18 | 28.6 | ||
Non-sedentary | 47 | 20.8 | 5 | 14.3 | 29 | 13.3 | 13 | 20.6 | ||
Not working | 86 | 38.1 | 14 | 40 | 46 | 4.7 | 26 | 41.3 | ||
Sport activity | ||||||||||
Never | 125 | 55.3 | 21 | 60 | 70 | 54.7 | 34 | 54 | 0.517 | |
Rarely | 62 | 27.4 | 8 | 22.9 | 35 | 27.3 | 19 | 30.2 | ||
Often | 28 | 12.4 | 6 | 17.1 | 17 | 13.3 | 5 | 7.9 | ||
Always | 11 | 4.9 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 4.7 | 5 | 7.9 | ||
Baseline risks | ||||||||||
% risk of dermatitis (me; IQR) | 18.21 | 2.37–18.21 | 2.71 | 0.60–2.71 | 12.23 | 1.63–12.23 | 89.52 | 78.18–89.52 | <0.001 | |
% risk of itchiness (me; IQR) | 29.46 | 16.81–29.46 | 15.15 | 10.21–15.15 | 34.52 | 24.31–34.52 | 34.52 | 22.88–34.52 | <0.001 | |
% risk of infections (me; IQR) | 5.12 | 1.30–5.12 | 4.03 | 0.93–4.03 | 4.59 | 1.02–4.60 | 5.13 | 2.48–5.13 | 0.016 | |
% risk of ulcers (me; IQR) | 20.99 | 9.1–20.99 | 9.28 | 6.65–9.28 | 18.62 | 7.27–18.62 | 46.93 | 35.57–46.93 | <0.001 | |
% average risk of complications (me; IQR) | 22.96 | 14.99–22.96 | 8.9 | 7.03–8.96 | 20.63 | 16.53–20.63 | 43.33 | 38.32–43.33 | <0.001 | |
Post-operative (15 days)— Dermamecum baseline | ||||||||||
Scheduled stoma site implemented | ||||||||||
Yes | 183 | 81 | 32 | 91.4 | 99 | 77.3 | 52 | 82.5 | 0.41 | |
Diet | ||||||||||
Low residue | 60 | 26.5 | 16 | 45.7 | 40 | 31.3 | 4 | 6.3 | <0.001 | |
For ileostomy | 72 | 31.9 | 7 | 20 | 49 | 38.3 | 16 | 25.4 | ||
No special diet | 68 | 30.1 | 7 | 20 | 26 | 20.3 | 35 | 55.6 | ||
Other | 26 | 11.5 | 5 | 14.3 | 13 | 10.2 | 8 | 12.7 | ||
Abdomen profile | ||||||||||
Regular | 158 | 69.9 | 32 | 91.4 | 87 | 68 | 39 | 61.9 | 0.03 | |
Extroflexed | 39 | 17.3 | 3 | 8.6 | 22 | 17.2 | 14 | 22.2 | ||
Introflexed | 29 | 12.8 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 14.8 | 10 | 15.9 | ||
Physical form of the stoma post-surgery ¶ | ||||||||||
Extroflexed | 57 | 29.1 | 8 | 22.9 | 42 | 32.8 | 7 | 21.2 | 0.05 | |
Normal | 60 | 30.6 | 13 | 37.1 | 40 | 31.3 | 7 | 21.2 | ||
Low | 35 | 17.9 | 6 | 17.1 | 22 | 17.2 | 7 | 21.2 | ||
Flat | 25 | 12.8 | 8 | 22.9 | 12 | 9.4 | 5 | 15.2 | ||
Introflexed | 19 | 9.7 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 9.4 | 7 | 21.2 | ||
Post-surgical herniation and Prolapse complications | ||||||||||
Incisional hernia | 7 | 3.1 | 2 | 5.7 | 5 | 3.9 | 0 | 0 | 0.213 | |
Prolapse | 5 | 2.2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3.9 | 0 | 0 | 0.141 | |
Hernia | 1 | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.8 | 0 | 0 | 0.681 | |
Device ¶ | ||||||||||
Single-piece device | 93 | 47.4 | 17 | 48.6 | 61 | 47.7 | 15 | 45.5 | 0.964 | |
Two-piece device | 103 | 52.6 | 18 | 51.4 | 67 | 52.3 | 18 | 54.5 | ||
Device baseplate ¶ | ||||||||||
Flat | 82 | 41.8 | 16 | 45.7 | 51 | 39.8 | 12 | 36.4 | <0.001 | |
Traditional convex | 109 | 55.6 | 7 | 20 | 77 | 60.2 | 16 | 48.5 | ||
Deep convex | 5 | 2.6 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 15.2 | ||||
Baseplate material ¶ | ||||||||||
Hydrocolloid | 148 | 75.5 | 32 | 91.4 | 97 | 75.8 | 19 | 57.6 | 0.005 | |
Hydrocolloid plus nonwoven textile | 48 | 24.5 | 3 | 8.6 | 31 | 24.2 | 14 | 42.4 | ||
Caregiver support ¶ | ||||||||||
Full | 65 | 33.2 | 8 | 22.9 | 40 | 31.3 | 17 | 51.5 | 0.202 | |
Partial | 46 | 23.5 | 8 | 22.9 | 31 | 24.2 | 7 | 21.2 | ||
Supervisory | 31 | 15.8 | 8 | 22.9 | 21 | 16.4 | 2 | 6.1 | ||
None | 54 | 27.6 | 11 | 31.4 | 36 | 28.1 | 7 | 21.2 | ||
Ostomy care products | ||||||||||
Paste with alcohol | 29 | 12.8 | 4 | 11.4 | 22 | 17.2 | 3 | 4.8 | 0.052 | |
Alcohol-free paste | 66 | 29.2 | 9 | 25.7 | 45 | 35.2 | 12 | 19 | 0.063 | |
Protective film | 103 | 45.6 | 22 | 62.9 | 64 | 50 | 17 | 27 | <0.001 | |
Remover utilization | 170 | 75.2 | 31 | 88.6 | 116 | 90.6 | 23 | 36.5 | <0.001 | |
Belt | 16 | 7.1 | 1 | 2.9 | 8 | 6.3 | 7 | 11.1 | 0.267 | |
Rings | 10 | 4.4 | 1 | 14.3 | 8 | 6.3 | 1 | 1.6 | 0.3 | |
Powder | 32 | 14.2 | 5 | 14.3 | 20 | 15.6 | 7 | 11.1 | 0.702 | |
Extenders | 6 | 2.7 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1.6 | 4 | 6.3 | 0.087 | |
Hygiene | ||||||||||
Neutral pH soap | 106 | 46.9 | 16 | 45.7 | 65 | 50.8 | 25 | 39.7 | 0.348 | |
Acid pH soap | 62 | 27.1 | 13 | 37.1 | 43 | 33.6 | 6 | 9.5 | <0.001 | |
Basic pH soap | 1 | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.8 | 0 | 0 | 0.681 | |
Non-woven gauze | 114 | 50.4 | 22 | 62.9 | 81 | 63.3 | 11 | 17.5 | <0.001 | |
Wet wipes | 40 | 17.7 | 9 | 25.7 | 25 | 19.5 | 6 | 9.5 | 0.094 | |
Early complications (30 days) | ||||||||||
Prevented early complication based on baseline risks | ||||||||||
Yes | 133 | 58.8 | 23 | 65.7 | 88 | 68.8 | 22 | 34.9 | <0.001 | |
Observed complications (any) | ||||||||||
Yes | 13 | 5.9 | 2 | 5.7 | 6 | 4.7 | 5 | 7.9 | 0.685 | |
Note: ¶ Missing = 30; ¥ Benjamini–Hochberg adjustment for the inferential comparisons. Me = median; IQR = interquartile range. |
References
- Dellafiore, F.; Caruso, R.; Bonavina, L.; Udugampolage, N.S.; Villa, G.; Russo, S.; Vangone, I.; BaronI, I.; Di Pasquale, C.; Nania, T.; et al. Risk Factors and Pooled Incidence of Intestinal Stoma Complications: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2022, 38, 1103–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maydick-Youngberg, D. A Descriptive Study to Explore the Effect of Peristomal Skin Complications on Quality of Life of Adults With a Permanent Ostomy. Ostomy Wound Manag. 2017, 63, 10–23. [Google Scholar]
- Tsujinaka, S.; Tan, K.-Y.; Miyakura, Y.; Fukano, R.; Oshima, M.; Konishi, F.; Rikiyama, T. Current Management of Intestinal Stomas and Their Complications. J. Anus. Rectum Colon 2020, 4, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dellafiore, F.; Conte, G.; Baroni, I.; Pittella, F.; Di Pasquale, C.; Nania, T.; Saracco, C.; Roveron, G.; Caruso, R. Ostomy Adjustment Inventory-23 (OAI-23): Development and Testing of the Italian Version. J. Wound Ostomy Cont. Nurs. 2019, 46, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alenezi, A.; McGrath, I.; Kimpton, A.; Livesay, K. Quality of Life among Ostomy Patients: A Narrative Literature Review. J. Clin. Nurs. 2021, 30, 3111–3123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dellafiore, F.; Manara, D.F.; Arrigoni, C.; Baroni, I.; Di Pasquale, C.; Nania, T.; Caruso, R.; Villa, G. Predictors of Adjustment to Living with an Ostomy: Results of a Cross-Sectional Study. Adv. Ski. Wound Care 2022, 35, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guerra, E.; Denti, F.C.; Di Pasquale, C.; Caroppo, F.; Angileri, L.; Cioni, M.; Parodi, A.; Fortina, A.B.; Ferrucci, S.; Burlando, M. Peristomal Skin Complications: Detailed Analysis of a Web-Based Survey and Predictive Risk Factors. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khalilzadeh Ganjalikhani, M.; Tirgari, B.; Roudi Rashtabadi, O.; Shahesmaeili, A. Studying the Effect of Structured Ostomy Care Training on Quality of Life and Anxiety of Patients with Permanent Ostomy. Int. Wound J. 2019, 16, 1383–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dellafiore, F.; Pittella, F.; Arrigoni, C.; Baroni, I.; Conte, G.; Di Pasquale, C.; Casole, L.; Villa, G.; Caruso, R. A Multi-Phase Study for the Development of a Self-Efficacy Measuring Scale for Ostomy Care Nursing Management. J. Adv. Nurs. 2020, 76, 409–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panattoni, N.; Mariani, R.; Spano, A.; Leo, A.D.; Iacorossi, L.; Petrone, F.; Simone, E.D. Nurse Specialist and Ostomy Patient: Competence and Skills in the Care Pathway. A Scoping Review. J. Clin. Nurs. 2023, 32, 5959–5973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P. STROBE Initiative The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2008, 61, 344–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Giordano, V.; Nicolotti, M.; Corvese, F.; Vellone, E.; Alvaro, R.; Villa, G. Describing Self-Care and Its Associated Variables in Ostomy Patients. J. Adv. Nurs. 2020, 76, 2982–2992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Corvese, F.; Giordano, V.; Alvaro, R.; Vellone, E.; Villa, G. Sociodemographic Characteristics and Self-Care Management Knowledge of Patients with an Ostomy. Br. J. Nurs. 2020, 29, S20–S26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iovino, P.; De Maria, M.; Corvese, F.; Giordano, V.; Alvaro, R.; Vellone, E.; Villa, G. The Influence of Patient and Caregiver Depression on Patient Self-Care and Caregiver Contribution to Self-Care in Ostomy: A Dyadic Analysis. J. Clin. Nurs. 2023, 32, 6441–6449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.-Y.; Feng, Z.; Yi, X. A General Introduction to Adjustment for Multiple Comparisons. J. Thorac. Dis. 2017, 9, 1725–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coxe, S.; West, S.G.; Aiken, L.S. The Analysis of Count Data: A Gentle Introduction to Poisson Regression and Its Alternatives. J. Personal. Assess. 2009, 91, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hjellbrekke, J. Multiple Correspondence Analysis for the Social Sciences; Routledge: London, UK; Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-1-315-51623-3. [Google Scholar]
- Gardner-Lubbe, S.; Le Roux, N.J.; Maunders, H.; Shah, V.; Patwardhan, S. Biplot Methodology in Exploratory Analysis of Microarray Data. Stat. Anal. 2009, 2, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moschidis, O.E. A Different Approach to Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) than That of Specific MCA. Math. Soc. Sci. 2009, 186, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lê, S.; Josse, J.; Husson, F. FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis. J. Stat. Soft. 2008, 25, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mamun, A.; Paul, S. Model Selection in Generalized Linear Models. Symmetry 2023, 15, 1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schuetz, S.J.; Sanchez, M. Preventive Stoma Care and Peristomal Skin Conditions. Semin. Colon Rectal Surg. 2023, 34, 100959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorig, K.R.; Holman, H.R. Self-Management Education: History, Definition, Outcomes, and Mechanisms. Ann. Behav. Med. 2003, 26, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Danielsen, A.K.; Burcharth, J.; Rosenberg, J. Patient Education Has a Positive Effect in Patients with a Stoma: A Systematic Review. Color. Dis. 2013, 15, e276–e283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goodman, W.; Allsop, M.; Downing, A.; Munro, J.; Taylor, C.; Hubbard, G.; Beeken, R.J. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Self-management Interventions in People with a Stoma. J. Adv. Nurs. 2022, 78, 722–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rolls, N.; Gotfredsen, J.L.; Vestergaard, M.; Hansen, A.S.; Koblauch, H. Importance of Stoma Care Nurses in Preparing Patients for Stoma Surgery and Adjustment to Life with a Stoma. Br. J. Nurs. 2023, 32, S32–S41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nenadic, O.; Greenacre, M. Correspondence Analysis in R, with Two- and Three-Dimensional Graphics: The ca Package. J. Stat. Soft. 2007, 20, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murtagh, F. Multiple Correspondence Analysis and Related Methods. Psychometrika 2007, 72, 275–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desagulier, G. Multivariate Exploratory Approaches. In A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics; Paquot, M., Gries, S.T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 435–469. ISBN 978-3-030-46215-4. [Google Scholar]
- Mori, Y.; Kuroda, M.; Makino, N. Multiple Correspondence Analysis. In Nonlinear Principal Component Analysis and Its Applications; Springer Briefs in Statistics; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 21–28. ISBN 978-981-10-0157-4. [Google Scholar]
- Thomason, H.A.; Williams, H.; Hardman, M.J. Sex and Sex Hormones Mediate Wound Healing. In Sex and Gender Differences in Infection and Treatments for Infectious Diseases; Klein, S.L., Roberts, C.W., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 31–48. ISBN 978-3-319-16437-3. [Google Scholar]
- Montesinos Gálvez, A.C.; Jódar Sánchez, F.; Alcántara Moreno, C.; Pérez Fernández, A.J.; Benítez García, R.; Coca López, M.; Bienvenido Ramírez, M.P.; Cabrera López, M.; Vázquez Burrero, L.; Jurado Berja, P.; et al. Value-Based Healthcare in Ostomies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naseh, L.; Shahriari, M.; Hayrabedian, A.; Moeini, M. Nurses’ Viewpoints on Factors Affecting Ostomy Care: A Qualitative Content Analysis. Nurs. Open 2023, 10, 5261–5270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Zhang, Q.; Wu, X.; Pang, D. The Quality and Clinical Applicability of Recommendations in Ostomy Guidelines: A Systematic Review. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy 2022, 15, 1517–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Complication Type | Predisposing Factors | Protective Factors |
---|---|---|
Dermatitis | Presence of psoriasis, chemotherapy treatment, use of one-piece ostomy devices, irregular stoma profile | Hydrocolloid plaques, low pH detergents, low-residue diet |
Itchiness (Pruritis/Xerosis) | Overweight/obesity, male gender, use of deep convex plaques | Older age, sedentary lifestyle |
Infections | Class 2 obesity or higher, frequent physical activity, hernias | Use of one-piece ostomy devices |
Ulcerations | Underweight, non-autonomous status, inflammatory bowel disease, history of radiotherapy | Use of protective film, regular abdominal stoma profile |
Initial Poisson Regression Model (AIC = 90.645; Deviance = 32.675) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Predictor | IRR | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | p |
(Intercept) | 0.00 × 100 | 0.00 × 100 | 0.00 × 100 | 0.992 |
Dimension 1 | 1.14 × 10−3 | 0.00 × 100 | 3.40 × 10 | 0.321 |
Dimension 2 | 3.12 × 10−2 | 0.00 × 100 | 1.92 × 109 | 0.470 |
Dimension 3 | 1.68 × 100 | 2.0 × 10−6 | 1.25 × 1011 | 0.941 |
Dimension 4 | 1.37 × 102 | 4.4 × 10−5 | 1.12 × 1010 | 0.498 |
Dimension 5 | 7.41 × 10−1 | 1.3 × 10−4 | 4.23 × 102 | 0.942 |
Gender (reference is male) | 1.25 × 107 | 6.7 × 10−3 | 2.34 × 1017 | 0.994 |
yellow path | 3.10 × 106 | 5.2 × 10−4 | 1.86 × 1011 | 0.994 |
red path | 4.22 × 106 | 2.0 × 10−6 | 1.45 × 1013 | 0.994 |
Interaction: Dim1 × yellow path | 1.90 × 102 | 0.00 × 100 | 5.72 ×1014 | 0.481 |
Interaction: Dim1 × red path | 2.99 × 103 | 1.7 × 10−2 | 2.53 × 1014 | 0.266 |
Interaction: Dim2 × yellow path | 1.09 × 102 | 0.00 × 100 | 3.65 × 1014 | 0.419 |
Interaction: Dim2 × red path | 6.91 × 10 | 0.00 × 100 | 2.19 × 1014 | 0.456 |
Interaction: Dim3 × yellow path | 2.27 × 10−1 | 0.00 × 100 | 3.53 × 105 | 0.838 |
Interaction: Dim3 × red path | 8.05 × 10−2 | 0.00 × 100 | 2.06 × 102 | 0.749 |
Interaction: Dim4 × yellow path | 5.40 × 10−3 | 0.00 × 100 | 3.42 × 105 | 0.505 |
Interaction: Dim4 × red path | 2.96 × 10−3 | 0.00 × 100 | 1.11 × 10 | 0.449 |
Interaction: Dim5 × yellow path | 2.68 × 10−2 | 0.00 × 100 | 7.45 × 106 | 0.525 |
Interaction: Dim5 × red path | 4.99 × 10−1 | 7.0 × 10−6 | 3.77 × 103 | 0.879 |
Interaction: Being male × yellow path | 0.00 × 100 | 0.00 × 100 | 1.46 × 107 | 0.994 |
Interaction: Being male × red path | 0.00 × 100 | 0.00 × 100 | 5.29 × 1011 | 0.994 |
Stepwise Poisson Regression Model (AIC = 62.684; Deviance = 42.684) | ||||
(Intercept) | 0.024 | 0.006 | 9.75 × 10−2 | <0.001 |
Being male | 4.033 | 1.014 | 2.00 | 0.048 |
Interaction: Dim1 × yellow path | 1.90 × 102 | 0.000 | 5.72 × 1014 | 0.481 |
Interaction: Dim1 × red path | 2.99 × 103 | 0.017 | 2.53 × 1014 | 0.266 |
Interaction: Dim2 × yellow path | 1.09 × 102 | 0.000 | 3.65 × 1014 | 0.419 |
Interaction: Dim2 × red path | 6.91 × 10 | 0.000 | 2.19 × 1014 | 0.456 |
Interaction: Dim3 × yellow path | 0.227 | 0.000 | 3.53 × 105 | 0.838 |
Interaction: Dim3 × red path | 0.080 | 0.000 | 2.06 × 102 | 0.749 |
Interaction: Dim4 × yellow path | 0.005 | 0.000 | 3.42 × 105 | 0.505 |
Interaction: Dim4 × red path | 0.003 | 0.000 | 11.1 | 0.449 |
Interaction: Dim5 × yellow path | 0.027 | 0.000 | 7.45 × 106 | 0.525 |
Interaction: Dim5 × red path | 0.499 | 0.000 | 3.77 × 103 | 0.879 |
Interaction: Being male × yellow path | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.46 × 107 | 0.994 |
Interaction: Being male × red path | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5.29 × 1011 | 0.994 |
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Denti, F.C.; Guerra, E.; Caroppo, F.; Abruzzese, P.; Alessi, F.; Barone, F.; Bernardino, P.; Bergamini, M.; Bernardo, C.; Bosio, G.; et al. Exploring the Impact of a Structured Educational Approach on Peristomal Skin Complications: An Interim Analysis. Healthcare 2024, 12, 1805. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12181805
Denti FC, Guerra E, Caroppo F, Abruzzese P, Alessi F, Barone F, Bernardino P, Bergamini M, Bernardo C, Bosio G, et al. Exploring the Impact of a Structured Educational Approach on Peristomal Skin Complications: An Interim Analysis. Healthcare. 2024; 12(18):1805. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12181805
Chicago/Turabian StyleDenti, Francesco Carlo, Eliana Guerra, Francesca Caroppo, Pietro Abruzzese, Fabrizio Alessi, Filippo Barone, Pasqualina Bernardino, Massimiliano Bergamini, Cristina Bernardo, Gloria Bosio, and et al. 2024. "Exploring the Impact of a Structured Educational Approach on Peristomal Skin Complications: An Interim Analysis" Healthcare 12, no. 18: 1805. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12181805