Knowledge, Attitude and Practices of Swallowing and Dysphagia: A Cross-Sectional Survey Among the Community Dwelling Adults of South India.
Thejaswi Dodderi, Snezan Wayne Dsouza, Viola Maryann Dsouza and 2 others
Community adults in Mangalore, India knew the basics of swallowing but could not name the professionals who treat it, missed key warning signs, and would give water to someone choking rather than perform first aid.
Key findings
1Most adults correctly identified basic swallowing facts (87.90% knew food in the lungs is unsafe; 93.82% knew saliva's role) but only 34.09% named diet modification as a treatment, and 54.57% pointed to ENT surgeons rather than speech-language pathologists as the primary professional for dysphagia.
2Three-quarters feared choking (78.81%) and three-quarters preferred eating through a nasal tube (76.88%), yet 95.97% said they would follow medical advice and 91.67% would accept family help at mealtimes.
3Most adults did not seek help for swallowing problems: 89.78% did not use the internet for solutions, 86.02% did not visit a doctor, 39.64% would give water to someone choking, and 90.59% never changed food consistencies.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
All participants were from one urban city (Mangalore), so the findings cannot be generalised to rural India or other regions. Convenience sampling means the sample may not represent the broader community; people who responded to a public survey may differ from those who did not. Binary and forced-choice questions may not capture the full range of a participant's understanding or belief. Open-ended questions allowed multiple responses per item, and the authors treated each response as a separate data point, which may inflate apparent knowledge. The questionnaire weighted knowledge questions more heavily than attitude and practice items, so the knowledge findings are better supported than the others. All data are self-reported; no clinical swallowing assessment was performed to verify actual ability.
Declared interests
The authors report no funding and no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the 87.90% correct rate on basic swallowing facts as evidence that the public can safely self-manage dysphagia. The same group would give water to someone choking (39.64%) rather than perform first aid, and 90.59% never changed food consistencies. These are the actions that prevent harm, and the survey shows they are not happening.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →