| 1. |
- Jensen, Diana, et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of Chin Tuck against Resistance Exercise in Citizens with Oropharyngeal Dysphagia : A Randomised Controlled Study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Geriatrics (Switzerland). - : MDPI Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. - 2308-3417. ; 7:6, s. 1-12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) impacts the safety and efficacy of the swallowing function. The aim was to uncover the effect of chin tuck against resistance (CTAR) exercises compared to standard care in relation to the swallowing function in citizens with OD. Ninety-two citizens (46% male, median age 78 years (IQR 71, 84)) with OD confirmed by the Volume-Viscosity Swallow Test and/or Minimal Eating Observation Form version II were randomised to standard care with the addition of CTAR daily for six weeks or standard care only. The participants were included from seven Danish municipalities from March 2019 to October 2020. A nonsignificant effect on dysphagia of CTAR training combined with standard care versus standard care alone was documented. Both CTAR training combined with standard care and standard care alone had a significant effect on the swallowing function in citizens with OD, with the best effect in the group receiving CTAR training combined with standard care. A significant effect compared to baselinewas observed in all participants ( p = 0.03) after 12 weeks. Participants in both groups had a significant reduction in problems with manipulating food in the mouth ( p = 0.005), swallowing ( p = 0.005), and chewing ( p = 0.03) but an increased appetite ( p = 0.01). The reported quality of life scored with DHI-DK was significantly improved in both groups.
|
|
| 2. |
- Westergren, Albert, et al.
(författare)
-
Convergent and discriminant validity of the Minimal Eating Observation Form - version II : a cross-sectional study
- 2024
-
Ingår i: BMC Geriatrics. - : BioMed Central Ltd.. - 1471-2318. ; 24:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND : The Minimal Eating Observation Form - Version II (MEOF-II) is a brief and easy to use screening tool for eating difficulties, that is psychometrically robust. The aim of this study was to explore convergent (measuring similar constructs) and discriminant (measuring somewhat different constructs) validity of the MEOF-II to other validated dysphagia specific, activity and participation related instruments. METHODS : In this cross-sectional study, participants (n = 100, mean age 72, n = 42 women), diagnosed with either chronic pulmonary disease, Parkinson´s disease, Multiple Sclerosis, or stroke were recruited from rehabilitation centres. Patient-reported outcomes and clinical-rated assessments, capturing eating ability in general and swallowing in specific, included: The Dysphagia Handicap Index (DHI), the 4-question test (4QT), the Minimal Eating Observation Form - II, the Volume - Viscosity Swallow Test (V-VST), Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) documented according to the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS). Type of oral intake was documented using the Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS). Activities in daily living was assessed with Barthel index (BI). Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to analyze associations. The MEOF-II total score was hypothesised to have moderate correlations (r ≥ 0.3) with the other assessments, besides with PAS and FOIS (weak correlations, r < 0.3). RESULTS : In total 78 participants had any type of eating difficulties (MEOF-II), 69 reported dysphagia (4QT), 62 had dysphagia according to V-VST, 29 showed evidence of penetration/aspiration (PAS), and 31 participants had decreased oral intake ability (FOIS). The MEOF-II total score had moderate correlations with DHI, BI, 4QT, V-VST volume, and weak correlations with V-VST dysphagia and viscosity, PAS, and FOIS. Comparing a prior hypothesised correlation strengths against empirical findings showed that 83% of the hypothesised correlations were correct. CONCLUSIONS : The MEOF-II is a holistic and objective screening tool that can indicate the need for further assessment and corresponds well with the persons' subjective experiences. MEOF-II does not specifically assess the risk for penetration/aspiration.
|
|
