| Literature DB >> 36121560 |
Margot Baudelet1,2,3, Fréderic Duprez4,5, Leen Van den Steen6,7, Sandra Nuyts8,9, Daan Nevens6,10,11, Ann Goeleven8,9, Caroline Vandenbruaene12, Hanne Massonet6,9, Alice Vergauwen7, Heleen Bollen8,9, Sarah Deschuymer5,9, Kristien Wouters6,13, Marc Peeters6,10,14, Carl Van Laer6,15, Steven Mariën7,15, Michiel Van den Brekel16, Lisette van der Molen16, Tom Vauterin12, Joost van Dinther17, Hilde Verstraete10,11, Isabel Hutsebaut12, Sabine Meersschout12, Olivier Vanderveken6,7,10, Marc De Bodt4,6, Gwen Van Nuffelen4,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prophylactic swallowing exercises (PSE) during radiotherapy can significantly reduce dysphagia after radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (HNC). However, its positive effects are hampered by low adherence rates during the burdensome therapy period. Hence, the main goal of this multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to investigate the effect of 3 different service-delivery modes on actual patients' adherence.Entities:
Keywords: (Chemo)radiotherapy; Adherence; Deglutition; Deglutition disorders; Dysphagia; Head-and-neck cancer; Prophylactic swallowing exercises; Telehealth application
Year: 2022 PMID: 36121560 PMCID: PMC9484351 DOI: 10.1007/s00455-022-10513-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dysphagia ISSN: 0179-051X Impact factor: 2.733
Fig. 1Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (model 3.2, IOPI Medical LLC, Woodinville, WA, USA)
Fig. 2Swallowing Exercise Aid (Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek, Netherlands Cancer Institute)
Fig. 3The application
Overview of VAS concerning the tablet and app
| Not user-friendly | Very user-friendly |
| Difficult | Easy |
| Unclear | Very clear |
| Unusable | Very useful |
| Unattractive | Attractive |
| No added value | Definitely added value |
| Not adequate | Very adequate |
Patients, disease and treatment characteristics
| Total cohort | Paper group | App group | Therapist group | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | M = 63 SD = 8.5 Range = 41-86 | M = 63 SD = 9.5 Range = 41-86 | M = 63 SD = 7.9 Range = 41-83 | M = 63 SD = 8.2 Range = 45-80 |
Gender Female Male | 35 (24) 113 (76) | 14 (29) 35 (71) | 11 (22) 38 (78) | 10 (20) 40 (80) |
T classification 1-2 3-4 | 75 (51) 73 (49) | 25 (51) 24 (49) | 22 (45) 27 (55) | 28 (56) 22 (44) |
N classification 0 1 2-3 | 7 (5) 23 (15) 118 (80) | 3 (6) 7 (14) 39 (80) | 3 (6) 7 (14) 39 (80) | 1 (2) 9 (18) 40 (80) |
Treatment RT CRT CRT with induction CT | 21 (14) 102 (69) 25 (17) | 6 (12) 37 (76) 6 (12) | 8 (16) 32 (65) 9 (19) | 7 (14) 33 (66) 10 (20) |
HPV status Positive Negative | 76 (51) 72 (49) | 24 (49) 25 (51) | 23 (47) 26 (53) | 29 (58) 21 (42) |
M mean, SD standard deviation, RT radiotherapy, CRT chemoradiotherapy, CT chemotherapy
Overview of drop-outs
| Timing | Reason | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before start* | During week 1 | During week 2 | During week 3 | During week 4 | After week 4 | ||
Paper group (n = 11) | 1 | 5 | 2 | - | 2 | 1 | •Hospitalization with impossibility of continuing exercises (n = 2) •Refuse to further participation (n = 8) •Died (n = 1) |
App group (n = 13) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | - | 2 | •Acute hospitalization with impossibility of continuing exercises (n = 1) •Progressive disease (n = 1) •Refuse to further participation (n = 8) •Died (n = 3) |
Therapist group (n = 6) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | - | 1 | •Acute hospitalization with impossibility of continuing exercises (n = 1) •Refuse to further participation (n = 2) •COVID-19 infection for which applicable rules required stop of study contacts (n = 2) •Submental swelling (n = 1) |
*Excluded from the statistical analysis
Fig. 4Adherence rates through time by service-delivery mode. Levels of adherence by Wall et al. (2016) applied
Post hoc comparisons between therapy groups based on linear mixed effects model for %reps with Bonferroni Holm correction for multiple testing
| Paper group vs. app group | Paper group vs. therapist group | App group vs. therapist group | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Difference (M%) | 95% CI | Difference (M%) | 95% CI | Difference (M%) | 95% CI | ||||
| W1 | .539 | 4.51 | [-9.93-18.93] | .099 | 14.95 | [-28.68- -1.22] | .035 | 19.46 | [-33.53- -5.37] |
| W2 | .035 | 21.55 | [5.46-35.69] | .112 | 10.56 | [-28.20-.37] | <.001 | 32.11 | [-49.11- -19.88] |
| W3 | .002 | 30.68 | [13.98-44.32] | .025 | 17.67 | [-35.47- -6.70] | <.001 | 48.35 | [-64.89- -35.58] |
| W4 | .006 | 28.18 | [11.27-41.99] | .025 | 18.40 | [-36.00- -7.11] | <.001 | 43.58 | [-62.96- -33.40] |
W1, week 1; W2, week2; W3, week 3; W4, week 4; M%, mean percentage; CI, confidence interval
Results of VAS concerning attitudes and experiences towards tablet/app (n = 13)
| Usability tablet | Opening + starting app | Transparency explanations and videos | Usability explanations and videos | Lay-out app | Added value game element | Adequacy of game | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M (SD) | 85 (13.7) | 93 (10.0) | 92 (11.8) | 90 (13.2) | 86 (15.1) | 59 (36.4) | 57 (35.5) |