Ecological momentary assessment combined with aromatherapy on postoperative depression in elderly patients with colostomy

Table 1 General information, mean ± SD/n (%)

	Control group (n = 50)	Observation group (n = 50)	t/χ2	P value1
Gender			0.040	0.841
Male	26 (52.00)	25 (50.00)
Female	24 (48.00)	25 (50.00)
Age (years)	68.19 ± 3.11	67.95 ± 3.06	0.258	0.797
BMI (kg/m2)	22.14 ± 2.29	22.08 ± 2.41	0.125	0.901
Nature of enterostomy
Permanent	16 (32.00)	13 (26.00)	0.437	0.509
Temporary	34 (68.00)	37 (74.00)

¹This table compares the continuous variables (e.g., age, body mass index) of the two groups of patients by t-test and the categorical variables (e.g., gender, nature of enterostomy) by χ² test, and the results show that there is no statistically significant difference between the groups (P > 0.05).

BMI: Body mass index.

Table 2 Comparison of perioperative parameters, mean ± SD

Group	n	Postoperative bowel sound recovery time (hours)	First exhaust time (hours)	Length of hospital stay (days)
Control group	50	17.23 ± 2.01	62.29 ± 3.23	18.83 ± 2.04
Observation group	50	17.18 ± 1.89	61.67 ± 3.07	14.61 ± 2.10
t		0.130	0.993	10.200
P value1		0.897	0.323	< 0.001

¹This table compares the continuous variables (postoperative bowel sound recovery time, first exhaust time, length of hospital stay) of the two groups of patients by t-test. The results show that there is no statistically significant difference in postoperative bowel sound recovery time and first exhaust time between the groups (P > 0.05), while there is a statistically significant difference in length of hospital stay (P < 0.001).

Table 3 Comparison of depression status, mean ± SD

Group	HAMD score
	1-day intervention	3-day intervention	5-day intervention	7-day intervention
Control group (n= 50)	31.18 ± 3.12	28.30 ± 3.28	26.80 ± 3.11	23.80 ± 3.69
Observation group (n= 50)	29.14 ± 3.18a	24.36 ± 4.34a	21.02 ± 3.09a	17.96 ± 3.88a
Between groups	F =178.561; P < 0.001
Time	F =122.104; P < 0.001
Between groups·time1	F =6.456; P < 0.001

¹This table compares the continuous variable (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score) of the two groups of patients at different intervention time points by repeated-measures ANOVA. The results show that there are statistically significant differences in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores between the groups, across different time points, and in the interaction between group and time (all P < 0.001).

^aP < 0.05.

HAMD: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

Table 4 Comparison of sleep status, mean ± SD

Group	PSQI index
	1-day intervention	3-day intervention	5-day intervention	7-day intervention
Control group (n = 50)	19.10 ± 2.29	17.26 ± 2.46	14.80 ± 2.04	11.22 ± 1.96
Observation group (n = 50)	18.12 ± 2.02a	14.42 ± 2.35a	11.06 ± 1.90a	8.22 ± 1.71a
Between groups	F = 142.535; P < 0.001
Time	F = 342.169; P < 0.001
Between groups·time1	F = 8.421; P < 0.001

¹This table compares the continuous variable (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index index) of the two groups at different intervention time points by repeated-measures ANOVA. The results show statistically significant differences in Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index between groups, across time points, and in the group-time interaction (all P < 0.001).

^aP < 0.05.

PSQI: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

Table 5 Comparison of quality of life, mean ± SD

Group	Stoma Quality of Life Scale score
	1-day intervention	3-day intervention	5-day intervention	7-day intervention
Control group (n = 50)	58.73 ± 3.66	61.29 ± 3.63	66.81 ± 3.24	70.33 ± 3.57
Observation group (n = 50)	60.25 ± 3.47a	64.36 ± 4.06a	67.06 ± 3.41a	75.19 ± 3.62a
Between groups	F = 61.027; P < 0.001
Time	F = 231.892; P < 0.001
Between groups·time1	F = 7.474; P < 0.001

¹This table compares the continuous variable (Stoma Quality of Life Scale score) of the two groups at different intervention time points by repeated-measures ANOVA. Statistically significant differences are observed in Stoma Quality of Life Scale score between groups, across time points, and in the group-time interaction (all P < 0.001).

^aP < 0.05.

Table 6 Comparison of postoperative complication rates, n (%)

Group	n	Stoma retraction	Edema	Infect	Prolapse	Overall incidence
Control group	50	2 (4.00)	1 (2.00)	1 (2.00)	0 (0.00)	4 (8.00)
Observation group	50	1 (2.00)	1 (2.00)	0 (0.00)	1 (2.00)	3 (6.00)
χ2						0.154
P value1						0.695

¹This table compares the categorical variable (postoperative complication incidence) of the two groups by χ² test. The results show no statistically significant difference in the overall complication incidence between the two groups (P > 0.05).