Trial reportDysphagia2024
The Acceptability of Behavioural Swallowing Interventions for Head and Neck Cancer Patients During Radiotherapy: A Qualitative Study Exploring Experiences of Clinical Trial Speech-Language Pathologists.
Trial report in Dysphagia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The PRO-ACTIVE randomized clinical trial offers 3 swallowing therapies to Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) patients during radiotherapy (RT) namely: reactive, proactive low- ("EAT-RT" only) and high-intensity ("EAT-RT + exercises"). Understanding the experiences of the trial Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) will be useful to inform clinical implementation. This study assessed SLP opinions of acceptability and clinical feasibility of the 3 trial therapies. 8 SLPs from 3 Canadian PRO-ACTIVE trial sites participated in individual interviews. Using a qualitative approach, data collection and thematic analysis were guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Member checking was conducted through a follow-up focus group with willing participants. Seven themes were derived: intervention coherence, burden, barriers/facilitators, self-efficacy, attitude, ethicality, and perceived effectiveness. SLPs felt all 3 therapies had potential benefit yet perceived more advantages of proactive therapies compared to reactive. Compared to exercises, SLPs particularly endorsed the EAT-RT component. A major barrier was keeping patients motivated, which was impacted by acute toxicity and sometimes conflicting instructions from the healthcare team. Strategies utilized by to overcome barriers included: scaling exercises and/or diet up/down according to the changing patient needs and communicating therapy goals with healthcare team. A model was derived describing the perceived acceptability of the swallowing therapies according to SLPs, based on the interconnection of main themes. Proactive therapies were perceived as more acceptable to trial SLPs, for facilitating patient engagement. The perceived acceptability of the swallowing therapies was related to seven interconnected aspects of providers' experience. These findings will inform the implementation and potential uptake of the PRO-ACTIVE swallowing therapies in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.