| Title |
A Survey of Australian Dysphagia Practice Patterns
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dysphagia, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00455-017-9849-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna Rumbach, Caitlin Coombes, Sebastian Doeltgen |
| Abstract |
Dysphagia assessment and rehabilitation practice is complex, and significant variability in speech-language pathology approaches has been documented internationally. The aim of this study was to evaluate swallowing-related assessment and rehabilitation practices of SLPs currently working in Australia. One hundred and fifty-four SLPs completed an online questionnaire administered via QuickSurveys from May to July 2015. Results were analysed descriptively. The majority of clinicians had accessed post-graduate training in dysphagia management and assessment (66.23%). Referral and screening were typically on an ad hoc basis (74.03%). Clinical swallow examination (CSE) and Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Study were used by 93.51 and 88.31% of respondents, respectively. CSE was the assessment that predominantly informed clinical decision-making (52.63%). Clinicians typically treated clients with dysphagia for 30 min per session (46.10%), with recommendations of repetition of exercises inconsistent across settings. Outcome measures were utilised by many (67.53%), which however were typically informal. Results indicate variable practice patterns for dysphagia assessment and management across Australia. This variability may reflect the heterogeneous nature of dysphagia and the varying needs of patients accessing different services. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 7% |
| Japan | 1 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 89 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 34 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 13% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 2% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 36 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,771,095
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#257
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,157
of 320,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#13
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 well, scoring higher than 80% 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 320,165 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.