| Title |
Carers’ Experiences of Dysphagia in People Treated for Head and Neck Cancer: A Qualitative Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dysphagia, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00455-014-9527-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca L. Nund, Elizabeth C. Ward, Nerina A. Scarinci, Bena Cartmill, Pim Kuipers, Sandro V. Porceddu |
| Abstract |
The implication of dysphagia for people treated nonsurgically for head and neck cancer (HNC) and its detrimental effects on functioning and quality of life has been well documented. To date, however, there has been a paucity of research on the effects of dysphagia following HNC on carers, independent of the consequences of a gastrostomy. The objective of this qualitative study was to report on the experiences of carers of people with dysphagia (non-gastrostomy dependent) following nonsurgical treatment for HNC and to identify the support needs of this group. A purposive, maximum-variation sampling technique was adopted to recruit 12 carers of people treated curatively for HNC since 2007. Each participated in an in-depth interview, detailing their experience of caring for someone with dysphagia and the associated impact on their life. Thematic analysis was adopted to search the transcripts for key phases and themes that emerged from the discussions. Analysis of the transcripts revealed four themes: (1) dysphagia disrupts daily life, (2) carers make adjustments to adapt to their partner's dysphagia, (3) the disconnect between carers' expectations and the reality of dysphagia, and (4) experiences of dysphagia-related services and informal supports. Carers generally felt ill-prepared for their role in dysphagia management. The qualitative methodology successfully described the impact of dysphagia on the everyday lives of carers, particularly in regard to meal preparation, social events, and family lifestyle. Clinicians should provide adequate and timely training and support to carers and view carers as copartners in dysphagia management. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 129 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 15% |
| Unknown | 28 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 43 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 7% |
| Psychology | 8 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Unknown | 29 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 28 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,316,605
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#47
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,513
of 228,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 228,330 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.