ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Process evaluation of prevention in long-term care facilities - resident and therapist perspectives on the benefits and acceptance of preventive speech and swallowing sessions.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Qualitative Insights on Preventive Group Training in LTC Facilities: Key Influencing Factors.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent demographic trends make the prevention and delay of diseases and their consequences particularly relevant for older adults. A German intervention study developed a programme to prevent swallowing difficulties and language decline among individuals residing in long-term care facilities. As part of the process evaluation, this study assessed residents' satisfaction with this programme and the extent to which therapists considered the exercises feasible and beneficial for the target group.
methodsA mixed-method process evaluation was conducted. Participating residents completed a Likert-scale questionnaire to assess their satisfaction with the intervention, its organisational aspects and materials, volitional devices, and their personal success. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively using SPSS. Furthermore, seven qualitative interviews were conducted with the speech-language therapists (SLTs) who administered the sessions. These interviews were analysed using Mayring's method of content analysis, with MAXQDA software. Subsequently, a comparative analysis was conducted between the qualitative and quantitative findings.
resultsAll 56 participating residents (86% female, mean age = Ø 82 years) reported high levels of satisfaction. The SLTs demonstrated a high degree of adherence to the intervention manual and reported positive impacts on participants' performance in swallowing and semantic exercises, as well as on the transfer of these exercises into daily life. Additionally, participants were described as having increased awareness of their limitations in swallowing and speech. Potential improvements were identified with regard to the intervention materials, group composition, and organisational aspects.
conclusionResidents expressed satisfaction with the preventive intervention, which SLTs described as both feasible and beneficial. However, adjustments would need to be made to accommodate the target group's general impairments. Furthermore, positive group effects were observed, including enhanced communication, reduced loneliness and greater social participation.
trial registrationThe trial was registered with DRKS (German register for clinical trials) in 27,062,023 (study ID DRKS00031594) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (secondary register).
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.