Impact of 2 Intervention Techniques on the Ease of Swallowing in Participants With and Without Swallowing Difficulties
| Tablets (Pop-bottle Method) Dosage-Size Groups (N) | Capsules (Lean-forward Technique) Dosage-Size Groups (N) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Large (143)a | Very Large (140)b | Large (22)c | Very Large (13)d | |
| Impact of the interventions on participants with swallowing difficulties % (N) | ||||
| Better | 67.5 (5 4) | 67.1 (51) | 81. 8 (9) | 100 (7) |
| Worse | 13.8 (11) | 11. 8 (9) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Unchanged | 18.8 (15) | 21.1 (16) | 18.2 (2) | 0 (0) |
| Impact of the interventions on participants without swallowing difficulties % (N) | ||||
| Better | 71.4 (45) | 64.1 (41) | 90.9 (10) | 100 (6) |
| Worse | 7.9 (5) | 15.6 (10) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Unchanged | 20.6 (13) | 20.3 (13) | 9.1 (1) | 0 (0) |
This analysis includes the subjective (Likert scale) ranking of all participants whether they were ultimately able to swallow the “intervention placebo” or not.
↵a The pop-bottle method significantly improved the ease of swallowing rated on the Likert scale (change of median from 4 to 2, P <.001).
↵b The pop-bottle method significantly improved the ease of swallowing rated on the Likert scale (change of median: 5 to 4, P <.001).
↵c The lean-forward technique significantly improved the ease of swallowing rated on the Likert scale (change of median: 3 to 0, P <.001).
↵d The lean-forward technique significantly improved the ease of swallowing rated on the Likert scale (change of median: 4 to 1, P <.001).