Chin tuck against resistance exercise with feedback to improve swallowing, eating and drinking in frail older people admitted to hospital with pneumonia: a randomised controlled feasibility study (CTAR-SwiFt). (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospital admission is considered to be frequently associated with swallowing difficulties (dysphagia), is common in frail older people. A rehabilitation programme (Chin tuck against resistance (CTAR)) targeting the anterior neck musculature involved in laryngeal movement can improve swallowing safety. We have developed a swallowing exercise rehabilitation intervention (CTAR-SwiFt) by adapting a previously established swallowing exercise to ensure patient safety and ease of execution in the frail elderly population. The CTAR-SwiFt intervention consists of a feedback-enabled exercise ball that can be squeezed under the chin, with real-time feedback provided via a mobile application. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the “usability” of the CTAR-SwiFt intervention and the feasibility of recruiting participants to take part in a larger-scale multi-centre randomised controlled trial to improve swallowing ability and thus reducing community-acquired pneumonia and hospital admission. Methods: Methods Patients ≥75 years, admitted with a diagnosis of pneumonia to the acute frailty wards at two participating hospitals in the UK were recruited. Patients had to be medically stable. Study participants were randomised to one of three groups: standard care, low intensity (once daily), or high intensity (twice daily) CTAR-SwiFt exercises. The intervention period lasted for 12 weeks, the final follow-up assessment was conducted at 24 weeks. Feasibility outcomes, including participant recruitment rate and retention, compliance with the exercise regime and adverse incidents were assessed. Additionally, we assessed the usability and acceptability of the intervention device and performance of different clinical outcome measures (e.g., Chin Tuck Strength, Functional Oral Intake Scale, SWAL-QOL, EQ-5D and swallow speed). Results: 24 participants were recruited and 21 randomised, which was 40% of target, at the rate of 0.9 recruits per month (0.9-1). Of those approached 87.5% were willing to take part and of those recruited 11 (45.8%) completed the study. The major reason for failing to complete the study was medical with people becoming unwell or being re-admitted to hospital. The outcome measures assessed showed suggested that there was an improvement in the swallow assessed by the EAT-10 and 4QT though there was minimal impact on food intake (FOIS). Quality of life as measured by the EQ5D showed an improvement with time, the low intensity intervention demonstrated the best improvement. Participants were able to partake in the CTAR-SwiFt exercises and improve their consistency of ball squeeze over the course of the intervention, and increase their maximum chin touch strength, by a mean of 21%. Conclusions: CTAR has been demonstrated to improve the ability to swallow in different cohorts of patients. By improving the ability to swallow, in frail older patients admitted to hospital with pneumonia, using CTAR-SwiFt chin tuck exercises, the recurrence of pneumonia, readmission and an improvement in nutrition can be anticipated. Clinical Trial: ISRCTN, ISRCTN12813363. Registered 20 January 2020, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12813363.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".