Successful treatment of pill-swallowing difficulties with head posture practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinics often encounter neurologically intact patients who are unable to swallow pills. All of the interventions published previously have used traditional behavioural techniques, which are time consuming and often not helpful. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether children who had never been able to swallow a whole pill could become successful as a result of an intervention based on head posture. METHOD: A novel intervention was developed based on published research showing that changing head position alters swallowing dynamics. The method was developed in two studies of 240 adults and children, pilot tested in a study of 108 university students with very mild pill-swallowing discomfort, and then evaluated in a study of 41 children who had never successfully swallowed a pill in spite of much instruction and coaxing. Children were recruited from a tertiary paediatric hospital: 34 were clinic patients, four were their siblings or friends, and three were children of hospital staff. The primary intervention involved teaching five head positions (centre, up, down, left and right) followed by a two-week period of daily practice. RESULTS: EIGHT CHILDREN (ALL CLINIC REFERRALS) WITHDREW WITHOUT PRACTICING: four were too ill to practice (primarily due to sedation or nausea) and four simply refused to do the homework practice. All 33 of the children who were able and willing to practice daily were successful. CONCLUSION: Practice with head posture variations was successful in treating pill-swallowing difficulties in all 33 children who practiced for 14 days. A training video can be viewed at www.ucalgary.ca/research4kids/pillswallowing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".