培训手册实施前后研究和临床言语病理学家对吞咽毒性动态成像分级 (DIGEST) 评级的可靠性和可信度:多站点研究。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
C E A Barbon, C L Warneke, B Ledger, N Rogus-Pulia, L Cunningham, J L Coyle, C Levesque-Boissonneault, C Alvarez, D Valencia, K A Hutcheson
{"title":"培训手册实施前后研究和临床言语病理学家对吞咽毒性动态成像分级 (DIGEST) 评级的可靠性和可信度:多站点研究。","authors":"C E A Barbon, C L Warneke, B Ledger, N Rogus-Pulia, L Cunningham, J L Coyle, C Levesque-Boissonneault, C Alvarez, D Valencia, K A Hutcheson","doi":"10.1007/s00455-024-10733-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>DIGEST is a validated, open-source method to grade the severity of pharyngeal dysphagia from the modified barium swallow (MBS) study. Dissemination and implementation of DIGEST is rising, making it critical to understand reliability and facilitators of accurate implementation among users. The aim was to assess reliability of the tool among speech-language pathology (SLP) raters practicing at multiple sites before and after review of a DIGEST training manual and evaluate confidence of DIGEST use pre-and post-training. Thirty-two SLPs from 5 sites participated in a blinded longitudinal DIGEST rating study. Raters were provided a standardized training set of MBS (n = 19). Initial SLP ratings (round 1, R1) were followed by a 2-4 week break before raters rated a re-keyed MBS set (round 2, R2). A minimum 4-8 week wash-out period then preceded self-study of the DIGEST training manual which was followed by a final rating (round 3, R3) and a post-manual survey afterwards. Baseline reliability (R1) of overall DIGEST was on average k = 0.70, reflecting agreement in the substantial range. Seventy-five percent of raters (24/32) demonstrated reliability ≥ 0.61 in the substantial to almost perfect range prior to training. Inter-rater reliability significantly improved from R1 to R3 after review of the DIGEST manual, with the largest change in DIGEST-Efficiency (mean change: DIGEST k = .04, p = .009, DIGEST-Safety k = .07, p = 0.03, and DIGEST-Efficiency k = .14, p = 0.009). Although DIGEST reliability at baseline was adequate in the majority of raters, self-study of the DIGEST training manual significantly improved inter-rater reliability and rater confidence using the DIGEST method, particularly when assigning DIGEST-Efficiency grade. These early data show promise that provider training may be useful to aid in fidelity of DIGEST implementation among SLP clinical users with varying DIGEST experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":11508,"journal":{"name":"Dysphagia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability and Confidence of Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) Rating Among Research and Clinical Speech Pathologists Before and After Implementation of a Training Manual: A Multi-site Study.\",\"authors\":\"C E A Barbon, C L Warneke, B Ledger, N Rogus-Pulia, L Cunningham, J L Coyle, C Levesque-Boissonneault, C Alvarez, D Valencia, K A Hutcheson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00455-024-10733-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>DIGEST is a validated, open-source method to grade the severity of pharyngeal dysphagia from the modified barium swallow (MBS) study. Dissemination and implementation of DIGEST is rising, making it critical to understand reliability and facilitators of accurate implementation among users. The aim was to assess reliability of the tool among speech-language pathology (SLP) raters practicing at multiple sites before and after review of a DIGEST training manual and evaluate confidence of DIGEST use pre-and post-training. Thirty-two SLPs from 5 sites participated in a blinded longitudinal DIGEST rating study. Raters were provided a standardized training set of MBS (n = 19). Initial SLP ratings (round 1, R1) were followed by a 2-4 week break before raters rated a re-keyed MBS set (round 2, R2). A minimum 4-8 week wash-out period then preceded self-study of the DIGEST training manual which was followed by a final rating (round 3, R3) and a post-manual survey afterwards. Baseline reliability (R1) of overall DIGEST was on average k = 0.70, reflecting agreement in the substantial range. Seventy-five percent of raters (24/32) demonstrated reliability ≥ 0.61 in the substantial to almost perfect range prior to training. Inter-rater reliability significantly improved from R1 to R3 after review of the DIGEST manual, with the largest change in DIGEST-Efficiency (mean change: DIGEST k = .04, p = .009, DIGEST-Safety k = .07, p = 0.03, and DIGEST-Efficiency k = .14, p = 0.009). Although DIGEST reliability at baseline was adequate in the majority of raters, self-study of the DIGEST training manual significantly improved inter-rater reliability and rater confidence using the DIGEST method, particularly when assigning DIGEST-Efficiency grade. These early data show promise that provider training may be useful to aid in fidelity of DIGEST implementation among SLP clinical users with varying DIGEST experience.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dysphagia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dysphagia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-024-10733-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dysphagia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-024-10733-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

DIGEST 是一种经过验证的开源方法,用于根据改良钡吞咽(MBS)研究对咽部吞咽困难的严重程度进行分级。DIGEST 的传播和应用正在不断增加,因此了解其可靠性和用户准确应用的促进因素至关重要。我们的目的是评估在多个地点执业的言语病理学(SLP)评定员在阅读 DIGEST 培训手册前后使用该工具的可靠性,并评估培训前后使用 DIGEST 的信心。来自 5 个机构的 32 名语言病理学家参与了一项盲法纵向 DIGEST 评级研究。评分者接受了一套标准化的 MBS 培训(n = 19)。最初的 SLP 评级(第 1 轮,R1)之后会有 2-4 周的间歇期,然后评定者会对重新键入的 MBS 集进行评定(第 2 轮,R2)。在自学 DIGEST 培训手册之前,至少要经过 4-8 周的休整期,然后进行最终评分(第 3 轮,R3)和手册后调查。整体 DIGEST 的基准信度(R1)平均为 k = 0.70,反映了相当大的一致性。在培训前,75% 的评分者(24/32)的评分信度≥ 0.61,在相当到几乎完美的范围内。复习 DIGEST 手册后,评分者之间的信度从 R1 到 R3 有了明显改善,其中 DIGEST 效率的变化最大(平均变化:DIGEST k = .04, R3 = 0.05):DIGEST k = .04,p = .009;DIGEST-安全性 k = .07,p = 0.03;DIGEST-效率 k = .14,p = 0.009)。虽然大多数评分者在基线时的 DIGEST 可靠性足够高,但自学 DIGEST 培训手册后,评分者之间的可靠性和评分者使用 DIGEST 方法的信心都有了显著提高,尤其是在评定 DIGEST 效率等级时。这些早期数据表明,提供者培训可能有助于帮助具有不同 DIGEST 经验的 SLP 临床使用者忠实地实施 DIGEST。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Reliability and Confidence of Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) Rating Among Research and Clinical Speech Pathologists Before and After Implementation of a Training Manual: A Multi-site Study.

Reliability and Confidence of Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) Rating Among Research and Clinical Speech Pathologists Before and After Implementation of a Training Manual: A Multi-site Study.

DIGEST is a validated, open-source method to grade the severity of pharyngeal dysphagia from the modified barium swallow (MBS) study. Dissemination and implementation of DIGEST is rising, making it critical to understand reliability and facilitators of accurate implementation among users. The aim was to assess reliability of the tool among speech-language pathology (SLP) raters practicing at multiple sites before and after review of a DIGEST training manual and evaluate confidence of DIGEST use pre-and post-training. Thirty-two SLPs from 5 sites participated in a blinded longitudinal DIGEST rating study. Raters were provided a standardized training set of MBS (n = 19). Initial SLP ratings (round 1, R1) were followed by a 2-4 week break before raters rated a re-keyed MBS set (round 2, R2). A minimum 4-8 week wash-out period then preceded self-study of the DIGEST training manual which was followed by a final rating (round 3, R3) and a post-manual survey afterwards. Baseline reliability (R1) of overall DIGEST was on average k = 0.70, reflecting agreement in the substantial range. Seventy-five percent of raters (24/32) demonstrated reliability ≥ 0.61 in the substantial to almost perfect range prior to training. Inter-rater reliability significantly improved from R1 to R3 after review of the DIGEST manual, with the largest change in DIGEST-Efficiency (mean change: DIGEST k = .04, p = .009, DIGEST-Safety k = .07, p = 0.03, and DIGEST-Efficiency k = .14, p = 0.009). Although DIGEST reliability at baseline was adequate in the majority of raters, self-study of the DIGEST training manual significantly improved inter-rater reliability and rater confidence using the DIGEST method, particularly when assigning DIGEST-Efficiency grade. These early data show promise that provider training may be useful to aid in fidelity of DIGEST implementation among SLP clinical users with varying DIGEST experience.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Dysphagia
Dysphagia 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
15.40%
发文量
149
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Dysphagia aims to serve as a voice for the benefit of the patient. The journal is devoted exclusively to swallowing and its disorders. The purpose of the journal is to provide a source of information to the flourishing dysphagia community. Over the past years, the field of dysphagia has grown rapidly, and the community of dysphagia researchers have galvanized with ambition to represent dysphagia patients. In addition to covering a myriad of disciplines in medicine and speech pathology, the following topics are also covered, but are not limited to: bio-engineering, deglutition, esophageal motility, immunology, and neuro-gastroenterology. The journal aims to foster a growing need for further dysphagia investigation, to disseminate knowledge through research, and to stimulate communication among interested professionals. The journal publishes original papers, technical and instrumental notes, letters to the editor, and review articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信