MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111409076 · doi:10.1044/2020_persp-19-00152

Practice Patterns of Speech-Language Pathologists Managing Dysphagia in Dementia: A Cross-Sectional Survey in the United States

2020· article· en· W3111409076 on OpenAlexaff
Rinki Varindani Desai, Ashwini Namasivayam‐MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysphagiaDementiaMedicineSpeech-Language PathologyClinical PracticeCross-sectional studyFamily medicinePsychologyPhysical therapyDiseasePathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this study was to describe the practice patterns of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) managing dysphagia in persons with dementia (PWD) in the United States. We wanted to investigate if clinicians are (a) adequately prepared to manage dysphagia in PWD, (b) confident in their ability to manage dysphagia in PWD, (c) performing comprehensive dysphagia assessments in PWD, and (d) using evidence-based techniques to manage dysphagia in PWD. Method A web-based survey comprising 32 questions was developed, field-tested, and distributed to members of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's Special Interest Groups 13 and 15, as well as members of online SLP forums. Two hundred fifty-one responses were obtained and analyzed using descriptive methods. Results Respondents were experienced SLPs working primarily in acute care and skilled nursing facility settings. Their confidence in assessment and treatment was found to significantly increase with years of experience ( p < .001). The majority indicated more continuing education opportunities need to be offered related to managing dysphagia in PWD. Most reported using assessments that have not been validated for PWD. Clinical swallow examinations were utilized more frequently than instrumental exams to inform treatment planning. There was variability in the treatment techniques used to manage dysphagia in PWD, with a focus on use of compensatory strategies and providing caregiver training. Respondents listed several barriers to managing dysphagia in PWD and stated influences on their clinical decision making. Conclusions While some trends emerged regarding dysphagia practice patterns among SLPs managing PWD in the United States, a lack of consensus regarding best practices was apparent. The establishment of formal diagnostic standards, the elucidation of the underlying mechanisms of different types of dementia, and the development of evidence-based treatments for managing dysphagia in PWD could help improve SLP management of dysphagia in dementia and reduce the significant burden of this disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives of the ASHA Special Interest GroupsSame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207