Managing and supporting quality‐of‐life issues in dysphagia: A survey of clinical practice patterns and perspectives in the UK, Ireland and South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition that dysphagia has significant implications for a person's psychological well-being, social participation and quality of life (QOL). However, a paucity of research exists regarding the clinical management of this area. To inform future research and the development of appropriate and beneficial resources and guidelines, a better understanding of the current practice of speech and language therapists (SLTs) in this area would be useful. This information will highlight current challenges to clinical practice and the ongoing development needs of the profession, which are, as of yet, undocumented. AIMS: To determine the practices of SLTs when addressing QOL issues in individuals with dysphagia, the beliefs of SLTs regarding the impact of dysphagia on QOL, the current trends in assessing and managing QOL in dysphagia, and if variations in beliefs and practices in this area exist. METHODS & PROCEDURES: An anonymous cross-sectional, non-experimental survey study was used. The survey consisted of 18 questions exploring participants' beliefs and opinions regarding dysphagia and QOL, current clinical practice in the area, perceived facilitators and barriers, and education, training and development needs. The survey was created on Survey Monkey and disseminated by e-mail link to SLT professional bodies. Purposive and snowball sampling were used and participants self-selected based on the information provided alongside the e-mail link. Inclusion criteria for the study were a qualification in speech and language therapy, proficiency in the English language, and access to a computer with the internet. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: A total of 148 SLTs working across the UK, Ireland and South Africa completed the survey. Over 90% of respondents believe that dysphagia has a negative impact on QOL, but only 25% are currently satisfied with the amount of clinical time they can dedicate to this area. Staffing, resources, a lack of best-practice guidelines and disease-specific QOL assessment tools were cited as contributing factors. A number of facilitators and barriers to best practice were also highlighted. Based on these findings, professional development actions for the future are suggested. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: SLTs believe they have an important role to play in supporting QOL issues in dysphagia. However, it is reported that the area is currently under-developed, under-resourced and under-supported. Increased awareness raising of the role of SLT, alongside the development of best-practice guidelines and disease-specific QOL assessment tools, will enhance the quality of care that can be offered in this area.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".