People with oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) are at risk of developing aspiration pneumonia. However, there is no “best practice” for oral health interventions to improve swallowing-related outcomes, the incidence of aspiration pneumonia, and oral health in people with OD. Systematic literature searches were conducted for oral health interventions in OD in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until July 2021. Original articles published in English and reporting pre- and post-intervention measurements were included. The methodology and reporting were guided by the PRISMA checklist. The methodological quality of the eight included studies was rated using the QualSyst critical appraisal tool. The oral health interventions in people with OD were diverse. This study shows little evidence that regular oral care and the free water protocol or oral disinfection reduced the incidence of aspiration pneumonia in people with OD. Oral cleaning, twice a day with an antibacterial toothpaste in combination with intraoral cleaning or the free water protocol, proved to be the most promising intervention to improve oral health. The effect of improved oral health status on swallowing-related outcomes could not be established. Increasing awareness of the importance of oral health and implementing practical oral care guidelines for people involved in the daily care of people with OD are recommended.

Introduction. Patient self-evaluation is an important aspect in the assessment of dysphagia and comprises both Functional Health Status (FHS) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HR-QoL). As many measures combine both FHS and HR-QoL, disease-related functioning cannot be distinguished from disease-related quality of life as experienced by the patient. Moreover, current patient self-reported measures are limited by poor and incomplete data on psychometric properties. Objective. This study aimed to establish content validity for the development of two new self-reported measures on FHS and HR-QoL in adults with oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD), in line with the psychometric taxonomy and guidelines from the COSMIN group (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments). Methods. Using the Delphi technique, international expert consensus was achieved; participants and patients with dysphagia evaluated relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of definitions of relevant constructs (i.e., dysphagia, FHS and HR-QoL) and potential items. Results. A total of 66 Delphi participants from 45 countries achieved consensus across two rounds. The Delphi study resulted in two prototype measures, the Functional health status measure of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia (FOD) and the health-related Quality of life measure of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia (QOD), consisting of 37 and 25 items, respectively. Minimal revisions were required based on feedback by patients. Conclusions. This study provides evidence of good content validity for both newly developed prototype measures FOD and QOD. Future studies will continue the process of refining the measures, and evaluate the remaining psychometric properties using both Classic Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) models.

Background: Evidence‐based interventions are essential for school‐aged children with intellectual disabilities to facilitate development and promote future independence.Methods: Using a PRISMA approach, systematic screening of five databases was undertaken. Original randomised controlled studies with psychosocial‐behavioural interventions were included where participants were school aged (5‐18 yrs) with documented intellectual disability. Study methodology was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.Results: Two thousand three hundred and three records were screened with 27 studies included. Studies mainly included primary school participants with mild intellectual disabilities. Most interventions focused on intellectual skills (e.g., memory, attention, literacy and mathematics) followed by adaptive skills (e.g., daily living, communication, social and education/vocation) and some focused on a combination of these.Conclusion: This review highlights the gap in evidence‐base for social, communication and education/vocation interventions with school‐aged children with moderate and severe intellectual disability. Future RCTs that bridge this knowledge gap across ages and ability are required for best practice.

Background/Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of the most commonly used swallowing manoeuvres, exercises, and postural strategies as standalone interventions in the behavioural management of oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults. Methods: Systematic searches of two electronic databases, Embase and PubMed, were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify studies with comparison groups, including (pseudo) randomised controlled trials, comparative studies with concurrent controls, and within-subject or crossover study designs. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the standard quality assessment tool (QualSyst). Results: Seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria, evaluating the effects of chin tuck, effortful swallow, the Mendelsohn manoeuvre, the modified jaw opening exercise, the volitional laryngeal vestibule closure manoeuvre, and the Shaker exercise. Most studies reported positive treatment outcomes, supporting the benefits of both compensatory and rehabilitative interventions across diverse populations, mainly derived from mixed groups and individuals post stroke. However, due to the limited number and significant heterogeneity of studies, a meta-analysis was only performed for the chin tuck, which showed a moderate positive effect. Overall, the evidence is preliminary and should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions: While current findings support the benefits of standalone behavioural interventions in oropharyngeal dysphagia, future research should focus on high-quality study designs with larger populations. Such studies need to consider variability in patient characteristics, intervention protocols, and outcome measures, with the use of advanced statistical methods enabling more definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of these interventions.

Early numeracy skills are considered essential predictors for later mathematical and educational achievement. Therefore, there is a need for early numeracy measures with psychometrically sound properties. This systematic review aimed to determine the content validity of all current early numeracy measures in accordance with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) framework and methodological guidelines, and was conducted and reported by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement and checklist. Systematic literature searches were conducted in January 2024 in five electronic databases: CINAHL, Embase, Eric, PsycINFO, and PubMed. Eligible measures assessed numeracy, targeted children up to eight years of age, were published in English in 1995 or later, and had psychometric data on measure dimensionality. Eligible psychometric reports that were published in English described instrument development and/or content validity of included measures. The measures’ methodological quality was assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, after which all three aspects of content validity (i.e., relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility) were evaluated. Six early numeracy measures and eleven psychometric reports were included. None of the measures could be recommended for use in clinical practice, education, or research due to a lack of high-quality evidence on content validity. However, no high-quality evidence was found to indicate insufficient content validity, therefore, all measures still have the potential to be used. Limited access to measures in the domain of early numeracy, despite having contacted both publishers and instrument developers, may have negatively impacted the completeness of the current overview of content validity of early numeracy measures. In line with the COSMIN guidelines, after the initial evaluation of content validity, future studies should evaluate the remaining psychometric properties of the included measures to identify the most robust measures in terms of validity, reliability, and responsiveness.