| Title |
Awareness of Dysphagia by Patients Following Stroke Predicts Swallowing Performance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dysphagia, January 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00455-003-0032-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire Parker, Maxine Power, Shaheen Hamdy, Audrey Bowen, Pippa Tyrrell, David G. Thompson |
| Abstract |
Patients' awareness of their disability after stroke represents an important aspect of functional recovery. Our study aimed to assess whether patient awareness of the clinical indicators of dysphagia, used routinely in clinical assessment, related to an appreciation of "a swallowing problem" and how this awareness influenced swallowing performance and outcome in dysphagic stroke patients. Seventy patients were studied 72 h post hemispheric stroke. Patients were screened for dysphagia by clinical assessment, followed by a timed water swallow test to examine swallowing performance. Patient awareness of dysphagia and its significance were determined by detailed question-based assessment. Medical records were examined at three months. Dysphagia was identified in 27 patients, 16 of whom had poor awareness of their dysphagic symptoms. Dysphagic patients with poor awareness drank water more quickly (5 ml/s vs. <1 ml/s, p = 0.03) and took larger volumes per swallow (10 ml vs. 6 ml, p = 0.04) than patients with good awareness. By comparison, neither patients with good awareness or poor awareness perceived they had a swallowing problem. Patients with poor awareness experienced numerically more complications at three months. Stroke patients with good awareness of the clinical indicators of dysphagia modify the way they drink by taking smaller volumes per swallow and drink more slowly than those with poor awareness. Dysphagic stroke patients, regardless of good or poor awareness of the clinical indicators of dysphagia, rarely perceive they have a swallowing problem. These findings may have implications for longer-term outcome, patient compliance, and treatment of dysphagia after stroke. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 113 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Professor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 21% |
| Unknown | 26 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 15% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 14% |
| Unknown | 29 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,862,539
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#597
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,499
of 136,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 136,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.