You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Oropharyngeal dysphagia in children with cerebral palsy: comparisons between a high- and low-resource country
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Disability & Rehabilitation, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1080/09638288.2016.1229363 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katherine A. Benfer, Kelly A. Weir, Kristie L. Bell, Baitun Nahar, Robert S. Ware, Peter S. W. Davies, Roslyn N. Boyd |
| Abstract |
There is paucity of research investigating oropharyngeal dysphagia (OPD) in young children with cerebral palsy (CP), and most studies explore OPD in high-resource countries. This study aimed at determining the proportion and severity of OPD in preschool children with CP in Bangladesh, compared to Australia. Cross-sectional, comparison of two cohorts. Two hundred and eleven children with CP aged 18-36 months, 81 in Bangladesh (mean = 27.6 months, 61.7% males), and 130 in Australia (mean = 27.4 months, 62.3% males). The Dysphagia Disorders Survey (DDS) - Part 2 was the primary OPD outcome for proportion and severity of OPD. Gross motor skills were classified using the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), motor type/distribution. (i) Bangladesh sample: proportion OPD = 68.1%; severity = 10.4 SD = 7.9. Australia sample: proportion OPD = 55.7%; severity = 7.0 SD = 7.5. (ii) There were no differences in the proportion or severity of OPD between samples when stratified for GMFCS (OR = 2.4, p = 0.051 and β = 1.2, p = 0.08, respectively). Despite overall differences in patterns of OPD between Bangladesh and Australia, proportion and severity of OPD (when adjusted for the functional gross motor severity of the samples) were equivalent. This provides support for the robust association between functional motor severity and OPD proportion/severity in children with CP, regardless of the resource context. Implications for Rehabilitation The proportion and severity of OPD according to gross motor function level were equivalent between high- and low-resource countries (LCs). Literature from high-resource countries may be usefully interpreted by rehabilitation professionals for low-resource contexts using the GMFCS as a framework. The GMFCS is a useful classification in LCs to improve earlier detection of children at risk of OPD and streamline management pathways for optimal nutritional outcomes. Rehabilitation professionals working in LCs are likely to have a caseload weighted towards GMFCS III-V, with less compensatory OPD management options available (such as non-oral nutrition through tubes). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Bangladesh | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 99 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 37 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 12% |
| Psychology | 7 | 7% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unknown | 44 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 October 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Disability & Rehabilitation
#3,444
of 4,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,247
of 330,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Disability & Rehabilitation
#61
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,056 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,667 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.