ArticleDysphagia2026
Transitional Foods in Dysphagia and Feeding Management: Perspectives of Speech-Language Therapists in Singapore.
Article in Dysphagia, 2026. 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Transitional foods (TFs) are foods that change texture with moisture and/or temperature. Despite their potential to aid chewing development and swallowing rehabilitation, TFs remain underutilized in clinical practice. This study explored the perspectives of speech and language therapists (SLTs) in Singapore regarding TFs in dysphagia and feeding management, aiming to inform the development of TF products to expand available food options. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among actively practicing SLTs. The survey included closed and open-ended questions on understanding of TFs and its usage, and perceived facilitators and barriers to the use of TFs. Fifty-eight registered SLTs who had managed clients with feeding difficulties and/or dysphagia within the last five years participated. Most worked in public health institutions with adult clients. While 93.1% had heard of TFs, only 22.4% accurately described them per the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) definition; 56.9% provided partially correct descriptions lacking key defining features, and 12.1% gave erroneous definitions. Over half (58.6%) had recommended TFs, primarily to expand food options and support therapy, despite infrequent client-driven requests for TFs. Key barriers included concerns about swallowing safety, variability in texture transitions, limited training, and institutional constraints. The findings highlight a gap in SLTs' knowledge and confidence regarding TFs. Despite the perceived benefits of TFs, unclear definitions, lack of safety data, and systemic barriers hinder consistent use. The broad IDDSI definition may limit clinical applicability; refining it through subcategorization based on specific characteristics could improve safety assessment and support wider adoption in dysphagia and feeding management.
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.