Preliminary Study of the Effects of a Dysphagia Support Group on Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Dysphagia (swallowing difficulties) can greatly decrease quality of life for individuals with dysphagia and can lead to caregiver burden and third-party disability. Support groups have been shown to be effective in improving quality of life in a range of conditions, through allowing individuals to form connections with those with shared experiences and sharing and learning about relevant resources and coping skills. However, no research on the effects of dysphagia support groups on quality of life has been conducted. This preliminary study aimed to determine whether a virtual support group, facilitated by speech-language pathologists, could positively affect quality of life in similar ways for adults with dysphagia and their family caregivers. METHOD: Pre- and postsupport group surveys were sent to participants to gain information about their dysphagia, demographics, and support group feedback (e.g., access to resources). Questions were mainly multiple choice, with three open-ended questions related to the support group. RESULTS: Eight individuals participated in the surveys, with four completing both pre- and postsession surveys. Seven of eight individuals reported that they felt a support group could improve their quality of life, with the eighth being unsure. Qualitative data found the support group offered both informational (e.g., resource access) and psychosocial support (e.g., knowledge that they were not alone, emotional support). CONCLUSION: These initial results suggest that a dysphagia support group could fill a gap in the health care system to offer more holistic support to individuals with dysphagia and their family caregivers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".