The Quality of Life in Citizens with Oropharyngeal Dysphagia—A Cross-Sectional Study

Convergent and discriminant validity of the Minimal Eating Observation Form - version II: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The Minimal Eating Observation Form - Version II (MEOF-II) is a brief and easy to use screening tool for eating difficulties, that is psychometrically robust. The aim of this study was to explore convergent (measuring similar constructs) and discriminant (measuring somewhat different constructs) validity of the MEOF-II to other validated dysphagia specific, activity and participation related instruments.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, participants (n = 100, mean age 72, n = 42 women), diagnosed with either chronic pulmonary disease, Parkinson´s disease, Multiple Sclerosis, or stroke were recruited from rehabilitation centres. Patient-reported outcomes and clinical-rated assessments, capturing eating ability in general and swallowing in specific, included: The Dysphagia Handicap Index (DHI), the 4-question test (4QT), the Minimal Eating Observation Form - II, the Volume - Viscosity Swallow Test (V-VST), Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) documented according to the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS). Type of oral intake was documented using the Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS). Activities in daily living was assessed with Barthel index (BI). Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to analyze associations. The MEOF-II total score was hypothesised to have moderate correlations (r ≥ 0.3) with the other assessments, besides with PAS and FOIS (weak correlations, r < 0.3).

RESULTS

In total 78 participants had any type of eating difficulties (MEOF-II), 69 reported dysphagia (4QT), 62 had dysphagia according to V-VST, 29 showed evidence of penetration/aspiration (PAS), and 31 participants had decreased oral intake ability (FOIS). The MEOF-II total score had moderate correlations with DHI, BI, 4QT, V-VST volume, and weak correlations with V-VST dysphagia and viscosity, PAS, and FOIS. Comparing a prior hypothesised correlation strengths against empirical findings showed that 83% of the hypothesised correlations were correct.

CONCLUSIONS

The MEOF-II is a holistic and objective screening tool that can indicate the need for further assessment and corresponds well with the persons' subjective experiences. MEOF-II does not specifically assess the risk for penetration/aspiration.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Chin Tuck Against Resistance Compared to Usual Care in Citizens with Oropharyngeal Dysphagia - An Economic Evaluation

Purpose

This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of chin tuck against resistance (CTAR) for citizens suffering from dysphagia compared to the standard municipal treatment in Denmark.

Patients and Methods

A cost-utility analysis, employing a municipal perspective, was conducted using cost data collected alongside clinical data of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of CTAR training for citizens with dysphagia. The composition of the clinical randomized controlled trial, which included citizens with different diagnoses, means that participants had different disease courses. Ninety-two citizens from seven different Danish municipalities were enrolled, of whom 43 received standard care, and 49 received CTAR in addition to standard care. The effect outcome of the economic evaluation was quality-adjusted life years (QALY), estimated using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Individual resource consumption of each citizen was determined based on the use of home care, home nursing care, physio- and occupational therapy, dietitian guidance, and hospital admissions. The incremental costs and QALYs between the intervention group (CTAR in addition to standard care) and standard care group were estimated using regression analysis, and sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the robustness of the results.

Results

The base case analysis showed that the intervention group was dominant compared to the standard care group, with a decrease in incremental costs of £542.38 and an increase in incremental QALYs of 0.0118. All sensitivity analyses demonstrated similar findings as the base case analysis, supporting the robustness of the results.

Conclusion

This study found that the intervention group was the dominant alternative, hence being more effective and cost-saving, compared to the standard care group in a Danish municipality perspective with a three-month time horizon. This study adds to the scarce evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CTAR in a Danish clinical setting, but further studies should focus on estimating long-term cost-effectiveness.

Readmissions to hospital following a decision to eat and drink with acknowledged risk

People with a dysphagia may eat and drink with acknowledged risks (EDAR). The FORWARD care bundle (Feeding via the Oral Route With Acknowledged Risk of Deterioration) is used at our hospital to support patients who are EDAR. This two-year retrospective study of patients supported by FORWARD aimed to determine incidence of EDAR-related readmissions and effects of discharge location and documented preferred place of care in advance care plans. Of 316 patients supported by FORWARD, 200 were discharged alive. 63% (n=126) were not readmitted within six months. Of 74 patients readmitted, 49% had an EDAR-related readmission. Significantly fewer patients wishing to remain at home had EDAR-related readmissions (7%, n=4) than those without a documented preferred place of care (23%, n=30, p<0.01), suggesting advance care plans are effective. Significantly more (23%, n=29) patients discharged to private homes had EDAR-related readmissions than those in nursing/care homes (10%, n=6, p<0.05), which could suggest residential care provides more support.