Monitoring Cough Effectiveness and Use of Airway Clearance Strategies: A Canadian and UK Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regular monitoring combined with early and appropriate use of airway clearance can reduce unplanned hospital admissions for patients with neuromuscular disease (NMD) and spinal cord injury (SCI). We aimed to describe and compare knowledge of guidelines, monitoring of cough effectiveness, clinician prescription/provision of airway clearance strategies, and service provision constraints in the United Kingdom and Canada. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of clinicians affiliated with NMD and SCI clinics in Canada, 2016 attendees at the Home Mechanical Ventilation Conference in the United Kingdom, and United Kingdom physiotherapist networks. RESULTS: We received 155 surveys (92 from Canada; 63 from the United Kingdom). More UK respondents (76%) were aware of airway clearance guidelines than Canadian (56%) respondents ( P = .02). Routine assessment of cough effectiveness was reported by more UK respondents (59%) than Canadian (42%) respondents ( P = .044). Cough peak flow (CPF) was the most common method used in both countries, although it was more commonly used in the UK (96%) than in Canada (81%, P = .02). Fewer Canadian respondents reported using CPF before initiation of airway clearance (81% vs 94%, P = .046), and fewer Canadian respondents showed results to patients for technique feedback (76% vs 97%, P = .007). Similar participant numbers reported using CPF after initiation to ensure adequate technique (73% vs 72%, P = .92). Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) + lung volume recruitment (LVR) + manually assisted cough when CPF ≤ 270 L/min was most routinely recommended (41% overall). Monotherapy was infrequent (LVR 15%, manually assisted cough 7%, and MI-E 4%). More Canadians identified constraints on service provision, specifically insufficient public funding for equipment (68% vs 39%, P = .002) and inadequate community workers' knowledge (56% vs 34%, P = .002). Funding for community support was a common constraint in both countries (49% vs 42%). CONCLUSIONS: The somewhat variable cough effectiveness monitoring and airway clearance practices identified in this survey confirm the need for further work on knowledge translation related to guideline recommendations and the need to address common constraints to optimal service delivery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".