Perspectives on Airway Protection: A Mixed Methods Investigation in People With Parkinson's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Disordered airway protection, including both disordered swallowing (dysphagia) and disordered cough (dystussia), is highly prevalent among persons with Parkinson's disease (pwPD). A comprehensive understanding of the perspectives of pwPD as it relates to airway protection is currently lacking and is necessary to provide relevant, person-centered care. Therefore, this study used a parallel-convergent mixed methods design to quantitatively and qualitatively investigate pwPD's perspectives on airway protection. METHOD: Thirteen pwPD were consecutively recruited from a cough training trial. Quantitative data (obtained from the Swallowing Quality of Life questionnaire [SWAL-QOL] and the modified Canadian Occupational Performance Measure [mCOPM]) and qualitative data (obtained from semistructured interviews) were integrated to define participant knowledge, perceived importance, perceived performance, and psychosocial implications of airway protective deficits. RESULTS: All participants reported basic knowledge about airway protection, which centered around four themes-physiology, the interconnectedness between bulbar functions, danger, and impaired airway protection as a consequence of PD. All participants believed that airway protection was important (median mCOPM score = 10), with three primary themes related to importance-survival, anticipated future decline, and maintaining oral intake. We identified a split between participants who perceived themselves to have "a swallowing problem" and those who did not, with three themes relating to perceived impairment-use of eating strategies, unpredictable and inconsistent symptom experience, and vigilance required to mitigate symptoms. Psychosocial ramifications centered on three key themes that aligned with three SWAL-QOL domains-overall burden, fear of future decline, and social embarrassment. CONCLUSION: The integration of quantitative and qualitative data in this study highlights the importance of considering unique patient perspectives to develop personalized and relevant management plans for each unique pwPD that integrate objective and clinical findings with patient priorities and needs. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28489280.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".