ReviewBMJ open2024
Tackling unmanaged oropharyngeal dysphagia in primary care: a behavioural science realist review of interventions.
Review in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applying the Behavioural Science Approach to Realist Reviews and Evaluations (BARR/E): A Protocol for a Review of Antidepressant Deprescribing Interventions in Primary Care.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Nursing Management Capacity Scale for Poststroke Dysphagia Based on the Donabedian Model.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of nurses on dysphagia screening and oral care in acute stroke patients.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) is difficulty manipulating a food bolus from the mouth to the throat. Up to 70% of older adults develop OD; however, it is unmanaged in primary care, leading to avoidable hospitalisation.
objectiveThis behavioural science realist review aimed to develop programme theories to describe how interventions facilitate primary care healthcare professionals (HCPs) to proactively manage OD.
methodsWe developed initial programme theories (IPTs) inductively using the expertise of stakeholders and deductively using the theoretical domains framework (TDF). Databases were searched to identify evidence regarding contexts, behavioural mechanisms and outcomes related to proactive management of OD and comparative behaviours which offer transferrable learning. IPTs were tested with the evidence to confirm, refine or refute, to produce final programme theories.
results36 sources of evidence were included. Five final programme theories were generated explaining how primary care HCPs can be facilitated to proactively manage OD: (1) OD education and training, (2) checklists with OD signs and symptoms, (3) incorporating OD identification into existing workflow, (4) making HCPs aware that older adults and carers expect them to manage OD and (5) raising awareness of the adverse outcomes of OD.
conclusionThe five programme theories provide the behavioural mechanisms by which an intervention may facilitate primary care HCPs to proactively manage OD. Through the programme theories' linkage to the TDF, behaviour change techniques (BCTs) mapped to the relevant TDF domain can be selected for an intervention. Operationalisation of selected BCTs into a coherent intervention package should be undertaken using codesign methodology. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022320327.
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.