ArticleDysphagia2025
Assessing Public Awareness and Understanding of Dysphagia: A Representative Survey of US Adults.
Article in Dysphagia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge Levels and Learning Needs in Dysphagia Management: Perspectives from Professional and Non-Professional Stakeholders in Five European Countries.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Dysphagia Variabilities and Identification in the Primary Care Setting.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDysphagia is a commonly occurring medical condition estimated to occur in between and 10% adults in the US. Despite this relatively high prevalence, the general population's understanding of this condition is currently unknown. Our aims were to (a) conduct a large-scale survey to determine the public's awareness and understanding of dysphagia in comparison to other three other health conditions and (b) compare this knowledge to relative prevalence rates of the conditions.
methodsThe survey was designed to measure four constructs of interest comparing dysphagia with insomnia, vertigo and ataxia. Constructs included: (1) Knowledge of the Condition, (2) Source of Knowledge, (3) Health Impact, (4) Treating Medical Professionals. The survey was launched via Qualtrics™ software and participants were recruited and paid using Prolific™. Descriptive statistics were used to compare participants knowledge of dysphagia with the other conditions. To obtain relative prevalence rates, Cosmos was used to quantify the number of Epic-based patient encounters with any ICD-10 code for each condition in 2023 and expressed as a percent of all patient encounters in the US in 2023.
results2000 adults (n = 1030 female) aged 18-95 (median 49, IQR = 33-62) completed our survey. When asked, 'Do you know what ____ is'? participants expressed higher familiarity with insomnia (99%) and vertigo (87%) in comparison to dysphagia (25%) and ataxia (18%). From a list of 8 options, 99% and 94% participants selected the correct impairment for insomnia and vertigo respectively, compared with 44% correct for dysphagia and 22% for ataxia. Participants selected an appropriate healthcare provider for dysphagia 47% of the time compared with 74% for insomnia, 56% for vertigo and 36% for ataxia. When asked to identify up to 3 sequelae (from a list of 9), only 4% of participants were able to correctly identify all three for dysphagia, in comparison to 16% for ataxia, 27% for vertigo and 60% for insomnia. The Cosmos analysis revealed that while insomnia had the highest prevalence in 2023 (5.5% of patient encounters), dysphagia occurred much more frequently (2.4%) than vertigo (0.68%) and ataxia (0.24%).
conclusionsThese discrepancies highlight a notable gap in public awareness between dysphagia and more recognized conditions of insomnia and vertigo, even though the prevalence of dysphagia is higher than vertigo. Increasing public awareness of dysphagia is vital for early intervention, increasing quality of life, and advocating for equitable access to healthcare resources.
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.