TY - JOUR
T1 - Barriers and Facilitators in Using Surface Electromyography in Swallowing Management
T2 - An Implementation Science Study
AU - Bahia, Mariana M.
AU - Carpenter, Julia
AU - Cherney, Leora R.
N1 - This study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR; Grant 90ARHF0007PI: Cherney). The NIDILRR is a center within the Adistration for Community Living (ACL), Department Health and Human Services (HHS). The contents of article do not necessarily represent the policy of NIDILRACL, or HHS, and the reader should not assume endoment by the federal government. The authors would like thank the speech-language pathologists who participated the pre-implementation phase of this study and the core nicians for their collaboration and contributions to tresearch project.
PY - 2025/1
Y1 - 2025/1
N2 - Purpose: This study aimed to identify clinician-perceived barriers and facilita-tors before the implementation of surface electromyography (sEMG) for swallowing management, implement sEMG biofeedback in swallowing rehabilitation sessions using implementation strategies, and investigate the perceived benefits and drawbacks after the implementation of the sEMG device from the perspectives of speech-language pathologists (SLPs). Method: An initial pre-implementation survey characterized the SLPs’ practices in swallowing management regarding the use of biofeedback modalities as well as facilitators and barriers to the implementation of sEMG. In the implementation phase, six SLPs attended educational and training meetings, tested, and used sEMG with patients during their swallowing sessions. Finally, a postimplementa-tion survey and focus group assessed the six SLPs’ perceptions and experiences using sEMG and identified areas for improvement in the implementation process. Results: The majority of the 44 SLPs who answered the pre-implementation survey did not use sEMG in swallowing therapy. The most frequently reported barriers to implementation were reduced sEMG knowledge and lack of training (86.4%), lack of equipment access or availability (68.2%), and patient-related barriers (36.6%). The six SLPs who participated in the implementation phase used sEMG with 30 different patients, conducting a total of 105 sessions. Thereported that it was easy to use sEMG during sessions and that sEMG helpethem to teach swallowing maneuvers. Additionally, they stated that patients were motivated during sEMG sessions. Ongoing training and mentoring were some of the suggestions for implementation improvements. Conclusions: This study exemplifies the collaborative work between researchers and clinicians to facilitate the translation of technologies into clinical practice. Identifying determinants of sEMG implementation and strategies to address barriers was critical to its acceptability and adoption into clinical practice.
AB - Purpose: This study aimed to identify clinician-perceived barriers and facilita-tors before the implementation of surface electromyography (sEMG) for swallowing management, implement sEMG biofeedback in swallowing rehabilitation sessions using implementation strategies, and investigate the perceived benefits and drawbacks after the implementation of the sEMG device from the perspectives of speech-language pathologists (SLPs). Method: An initial pre-implementation survey characterized the SLPs’ practices in swallowing management regarding the use of biofeedback modalities as well as facilitators and barriers to the implementation of sEMG. In the implementation phase, six SLPs attended educational and training meetings, tested, and used sEMG with patients during their swallowing sessions. Finally, a postimplementa-tion survey and focus group assessed the six SLPs’ perceptions and experiences using sEMG and identified areas for improvement in the implementation process. Results: The majority of the 44 SLPs who answered the pre-implementation survey did not use sEMG in swallowing therapy. The most frequently reported barriers to implementation were reduced sEMG knowledge and lack of training (86.4%), lack of equipment access or availability (68.2%), and patient-related barriers (36.6%). The six SLPs who participated in the implementation phase used sEMG with 30 different patients, conducting a total of 105 sessions. Thereported that it was easy to use sEMG during sessions and that sEMG helpethem to teach swallowing maneuvers. Additionally, they stated that patients were motivated during sEMG sessions. Ongoing training and mentoring were some of the suggestions for implementation improvements. Conclusions: This study exemplifies the collaborative work between researchers and clinicians to facilitate the translation of technologies into clinical practice. Identifying determinants of sEMG implementation and strategies to address barriers was critical to its acceptability and adoption into clinical practice.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85215147237&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85215147237&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00215
DO - 10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00215
M3 - Article
C2 - 39560497
AN - SCOPUS:85215147237
SN - 1058-0360
VL - 34
JO - American journal of speech-language pathology
JF - American journal of speech-language pathology
IS - 1
ER -