Search

Background: : Dysphagia is prevalent in subjects with Parkinson's disease (PD). Swallowing intervention to improve or maintain swallowing function is of major importance as dysphagia may considerably impact physical and psycho‐social health. Aims: : A mixed methods systematic review was conducted to summarize and appraise literature reporting (1) effects of behavioural interventions for swallowing in individuals with PD; and (2) participants' perspectives of swallowing interventions. Methods & Procedures: : Electronic databases were searched systematically in July 2020 for articles published between 2014 and 2020. In addition, studies published between 2000 and 2014 were identified non‐systematically through previous reviews. Peer‐reviewed quantitative and qualitative research in English or German documenting behavioural interventions for swallowing in individuals with a diagnosis of PD was eligible for inclusion. Participants at all disease stages were included. Behavioural interventions included rehabilitative and compensatory strategies. Studies reporting swallowing outcomes with and without a comparative group were included. For each study, the National Health and Medical Research Council level of evidence was defined. Included studies were critically appraised using the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields. An integrated synthesis was performed after separate analysis of effect data and data reflecting participants' experiences. This review was conducted based on published JBI methodology and the guideline from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis system was followed. Main Contribution: : A total of 33 studies published in English met the inclusion criteria. Thirty‐one studies reported quantitative data, one was qualitative and one was mixed methods. Intervention effects on swallowing function, swallowing safety and swallowing‐related quality of life were reported for various treatment approaches. Three studies explored how participants perceived the intervention. Overriding themes including subjects' views regarding treatment schedules and levels of effort or comfort associated with the intervention were identified across these studies. Combining evidence of intervention effects and subjects' experiences was possible for one rehabilitative and one compensatory intervention. Conclusions & Implications: : Beneficial effects of swallowing interventions have been reported; however, most experiments were case studies of variable methodological quality. Randomized‐controlled trials with robust methodology to explore treatment effects in larger samples is needed to guide clinical practice. Research reporting subjects' views is scarce. More studies exploring how individuals perceive behavioural interventions for swallowing are necessary to inform clinical decision‐making. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Dysphagia is common in individuals with PD. Swallowing intervention is of major importance as dysphagia may negatively affect physical and psycho‐social health of subjects with PD. What this study adds: Beneficial effects of behavioural interventions for swallowing, including rehabilitative and compensatory strategies, have been reported; however, available data are mostly based on case studies of variable quality. Data on how participants perceive specific behavioural interventions are lacking. Based on the available data, integration of efficacy data and individuals' experiences is limited. What are the clinical implications of this work?: Given the current evidence of intervention effects and individuals' views on behavioural treatment strategies, interventions implemented into clinical practice require careful evaluation on a case‐by‐case basis. More high‐quality research is needed to examine interventions' short‐ and long‐term effects in larger samples to guide clinical practice. In addition to studies evaluating intervention effects, research exploring participants' experiences with interventions is required as a foundation for clinical decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech and language therapists and nurses need to work together to keep patients with swallowing difficulties safe throughout their acute stroke admission. Speech and language therapists make recommendations for safe swallowing following assessment and nurses put recommendations into practice and monitor how patients cope. There has been little research into the everyday realities of ongoing swallow safety management by these two disciplines. Patient safety research in other fields of healthcare indicates that safety can be enhanced through understanding the cultural context in which risk decisions are made. Aims: To generate new understanding for how speech and language therapists (SLTs) and nurses share information for ongoing management of swallows safety on stroke units. Methods & Procedures: An ethnographic methodology involving 40 weeks of fieldwork on three stroke wards in England between 2015 and 2017. Fieldwork observation (357 h) and interviews with 43 members of SLT and nursing staff. Observational and interview data were analysed iteratively using techniques from the constant comparative method to create a thematically organized explanation. Outcomes & Results: An explanation for how disciplinary differences in time and space influenced how SLT and nursing staff shared information for ongoing management of swallow safety, based around three themes: (1) SLTs and nurses were aligned in concern for swallow safety across all information‐sharing routes; however, (2) ambiguity was introduced by the need for the information contained in swallowing recommendations to travel across time, creating dilemmas for nurses. Patients could improve or deteriorate after recommendations were made and nurses had competing demands on their time. Ambiguity had consequences for (3) critical incident reporting and relationships. SLTs experienced dilemmas over how to act when recommendations were not followed. Conclusions & Implications: This study provides new understanding for patient safety dilemmas associated with the enactment and oversight of swallowing recommendations in context, on stroke wards. Findings can support SLTs and nurses to explore together how information for ongoing dysphagia management can be safely implemented within ward realities and kept up to date. This could include considering nursing capacity to act when SLTs are not there, mealtime staffing and SLT 7‐day working. Together they can review their understanding of risk and preferred local and formal routes for learning from it. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: It is known that information to keep swallowing safe is shared through swallowing recommendations, which are understood to involve a balance of risks between optimizing the safety of the swallow mechanism and maintaining physiological and emotional health. There is increasing appreciation from patient safety research, of the importance of understanding the context in which hospital staff make decisions about risk and patient safety. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: The paper provides new empirical understanding for the complexities of risk management associated with SLT and nursing interactions and roles with respect to ongoing swallow safety. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Findings can underpin SLT and nurse discussion about how swallow safety could be improved in their own settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies suggest swallow intervention programmes that incorporate visual biofeedback and motor programming principles can improve swallowing and quality of life for people with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (IPD) and dysphagia. Few studies have examined outcomes using instrumentation. Aims: Using fibreoptic endoscopic examination of swallowing (FEES), this study examines the effectiveness of a neurorehabilitation intervention involving biofeedback via surface electromyography (sEMG) to improve swallowing in people with IPD, and to explore the feasibility of the intervention approach. Methods & Procedures: We recruited 12 participants with IPD and dysphagia. A total of 10 completed the study. Intervention was delivered for 1 h per day, 5 days per week, for 4 weeks (20 h). Swallowing tasks using sEMG biofeedback incorporated principles of motor learning and neuroplasticity. Instrumental and non‐instrumental assessment, including quality‐of‐life measures carried out at four different time points (two pre‐treatment and two post‐treatment). The final assessment was at 3 months post‐intervention. Outcome & Results: Statistically significant improvement (p < 0.05) in oral intake methods (95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.70–5.50) and in pharyngeal residue from saliva (95% CI = 2.14–3.15) and solids (95% CI = 2.4–3.5) post‐intervention were confirmed using FEES with improvements at 3 months. The intervention protocol was well tolerated. Participants reported positive change in saliva control and duration of mealtimes as well as unanticipated improvements in voice and cognitive attention. Conclusions & Implications: An intensive neurorehabilitation with biofeedback shows positive effects in improving swallow function in IPD. This protocol is feasible with amendments to inform a larger clinical trial. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Biofeedback has positive effects on increasing swallowing function and quality of life in people with IPD and dysphagia. sEMG is the most common method used to deliver swallowing biofeedback in this population. The quality of the evidence on the intervention, based on findings from a recent systematic review, is low. Included studies in this review were heterogeneous in terms of type and frequency of biofeedback, study design and outcome measures. The majority of outcome measures were subjective and higher quality studies to examine the efficacy of biofeedback using sEMG are needed. What this study adds: Recognizing the limitations of earlier studies, this within‐subject feasibility study examined the efficacy and effectiveness of an intensive biofeedback intervention using sEMG in a sample of people with dysphagia and IPD. Valid and reliable outcome measures were used and repeated after a 3‐month period. The feasibility of the methodological approach was also tested and a qualitative component was included in the study. Positive findings were evident. Qualitative information added new perspectives and provided direction for new outcomes to be included in future studies. This study helps to inform further research trials as well as clinical practice. Clinical implications of this study: This intensive intervention using principles of neuroplasticity and motor programming with sEMG biofeedback led not only to positive swallowing outcomes but also to unexpected benefits such as improved voice production and general attention skills. No adverse events were reported. Improvement in function was retained at 3 months post‐intervention. Despite the small sample size, participants described the benefits of the treatment, and enjoyed sEMG biofeedback tasks, especially using an sEMG game mode. This suggests that intensive biofeedback not only improved swallowing but also was acceptable to these participants. This intensive protocol has merit and is worth considering further in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dysphagia is a common disorder following a cerebrovascular accident. It can cause detrimental effects on patient's quality of life and nutrition intake, especially in older adults. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation has been one of the management strategies for acceleration of the recovery. This review summarises the current evidence on sensory threshold stimulation of the procedure. Method: This review compiled data from the Internet database PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus using combination of MeSH thesaurus: 'Sensory threshold', 'electrical stimulation', 'neuromuscular stimulation', 'Deglutition', 'Dysphagia'. Eleven studies were intergraded into the review. Results: Most of the studies show significant improvement to the outcomes of sensory neuromuscular electrical stimulation treatment. In many cases, the results of the treatment are comparable or superior to motor threshold stimulation and conventional therapy. However, the study design and parameters of the procedure varied greatly without conclusive standardised guidelines. Conclusion: The sensory neuromuscular electrical stimulation (SNMES) is a viable treatment option for treating oropharyngeal dysphagia. The most suggested application parameters are an intensity at sensory threshold, a frequency of 80 Hz, an impulse time of 700 μs, a combined total duration of 20 h of stimulation in a 2‐week period, and placing the electrodes in the submental area of the neck. However, further research is necessary to construct a definitive guideline for clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The lack of high‐quality evidence to support specific treatment approaches has been widely documented in the existing literature, with evidence suggesting speech and language therapists (SLTs) frequently rely on experience and expert opinion to inform treatment. One approach that is commonly used within dysphagia management, in spite of a lack of existing evidence to support its efficacy, is the use of oral trials, otherwise known as swallow trials or tasters. This approach involves offering specified, limited amounts of oral diet or fluids for those at risk of aspiration or choking if full amounts are taken orally and may be recommended for rehabilitation or quality of life. Methods & Procedures: A total of nine SLTs working in one acute hospital volunteered to participate in focus groups in order to discuss their experience and clinical reasoning for using oral trials within one inpatient hospital setting in the UK. The objectives of this study were (1) to explore how oral trials are used within one inpatient hospital; (2) to consider the barriers and facilitators to the approach; and (3) to consider why this approach may be favoured over other evidenced dysphagia therapies. A grounded theory approach was used to guide data analysis, using two independent coders to identify themes within the focus groups. Outcomes & Results: Analysis of data revealed the following themes: (1) delivering oral trials requires 'a whole team approach'; (2) SLTs vary recommendations based on patient and environmental factors; and (3) oral trials as a holistic approach. Conclusions & Implications: The use of oral trials was considered by SLTs to be a holistic and flexible approach which can be adapted to a range of patient and environmental factors. Although clinical experience guided rationale, an understanding of the principles of neuroplasticity and swallow physiology was also integral to the approach. Further research is warranted to investigate the use and efficacy of oral trials across the SLT community and within specific patient groups and different environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]