AIM: To investigate the impact of dysphagia on the QoL in stroke patients.
METHODS: Relevant types of literature were searched from PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, and Google Scholar databases from inception to July 2022. Peerreviewed studies that aimed to determine the impact of dysphagia on the QoL in stroke patients were included regardless of the year of publication. The National Institutes of Health tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the selected studies. In addition, data analysis was conducted using qualitative methodology with narrative synthesis.
RESULTS: A total of 6 studies met the inclusion criteria with a total number of 381 participants. Only one study has good methodological quality while other studies have fair methodological quality. Dysphagia negatively impacts the QoL in stroke patients, especially those with severe dysphagia. However, after treatment, changes were evident through improved QoL and decreased severity of dysphagia. Moreover, the research found that patients with a higher educational level have a better QoL.
CONCLUSION: Dysphagia has a negative impact on the QoL in stroke patients, so dysphagia in stroke patients should be diagnosed and treated as soon as possible to avoid poor QoL.
METHODS: The development phase consists of both literature and expert panel review. The validation phase consists of content validity, face validity, and construct validity. Cronbach's alpha was used to verify internal consistency. The development phase produced a questionnaire with 3 domains: perception, attitude, and practice consisting of 60 items (PAP-PCP questionnaire). Item response theory analysis for perception demonstrated the difficulty and discrimination values were acceptable except for 3 items. Exploratory factor analysis for attitude and practice domains showed the psychometric properties were good except for 3 items in practice domain. Experts judgement was used to decide on the final selection of questionnaire which consists of 59 items.
RESULTS: The final validated questionnaire has 3 domains with 59 items. All domains had Cronbach's alpha above 0.65 which was reliable. 302 physicians completed the questionnaire. 98% PCPs diagnosed AR based on clinical history. Although, majority agree AR guidelines is useful (67%), they had difficulty in using it to classify AR (54.9%) and determine AR severity (73.9%). Oral anti-histamines (first and second generation) were the most prescribed (>75%) followed by intranasal corticosteroids (59%) and combined intranasal corticosteroid and oral anti-histamine (51%). Majority agreed that treatment efficacy (81.8%), adverse effects (83.8%), fear of adverse effects (73.5%), route of administration (69.4%), dosing frequency (72.5%), taste (64.6%) and cost (73.5%) affect treatment compliance.
CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed and validated questionnaire is a promising instrument in understanding the treatment gap in AR. Although further testing and refinement are needed, it provides an initial means for evaluating knowledge and understanding of PCPs in treating AR.