↓ Skip to main content

Identification of behaviour change components in swallowing interventions for head and neck cancer patients: protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Identification of behaviour change components in swallowing interventions for head and neck cancer patients: protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0077-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roganie Govender, Christina H Smith, Stuart A Taylor, Daphne Grey, Jane Wardle, Benjamin Gardner

Abstract

Dysphagia (difficulty in swallowing) is a predictable consequence of head and neck cancer and its treatment. Loss of the ability to eat and drink normally has a devastating impact on quality of life for survivors of this type of cancer. Most rehabilitation programmes involve behavioural interventions that include swallowing exercises to help improve swallowing function. Such interventions are complex; consisting of multiple components that may influence outcomes. These interventions usually require patient adherence to recommended behaviour change advice. To date, reviews of this literature have explored whether variation in effectiveness can be attributed to the type of swallowing exercise, the use of devices to facilitate use of swallowing muscles, and the timing (before, during or after cancer treatment). This systematic review will use a behavioural science lens to examine the content of previous interventions in this field. It aims to identify (a) which behaviour change components are present, and (b) the frequency with which they occur in interventions deemed to be effective and non-effective. Clinical trials of behavioural interventions to improve swallowing outcomes in patients with head and neck cancers will be identified via a systematic and comprehensive search of relevant electronic health databases, trial registers, systematic review databases and Web of Science. To ascertain behaviour change intervention components, we will code the content for its theory basis, intervention functions and specific behaviour change techniques, using validated tools: the Theory Coding Scheme, Behaviour Change Wheel and Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1. Study quality will be assessed for descriptive purposes only. Given the specialisation and focus of this review, a small yield of studies with heterogeneous outcome measures is anticipated. Therefore, narrative synthesis is considered more appropriate than meta-analysis. We will also compare the frequency of behavioural components in effective versus non-effective interventions, where effectiveness is indicated by statistically significant changes in swallowing outcomes. This review will provide a synthesis of the behaviour change components in studies that currently represent best evidence for behavioural swallowing interventions for head and neck cancer patients. Results will provide some guidance on the choice of optimal behavioural strategies for the development of future interventions. PROSPERO CRD42015017048.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 116 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Student > Master 16 13%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 27 23%
Unknown 30 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 18%
Psychology 13 11%
Sports and Recreations 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 35 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,996,910
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#336
of 1,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,893
of 264,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#7
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,998 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.