Current Practices in the Assessment of Voice: A Comparison of Providers Across Different Clinical Settings.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the current assessment practices of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the United States working with adult clients with voice disorders with regard to the frequency, utility, and confidence in the use of five elements of a comprehensive voice evaluation, as well as training, access to instrumentation, and the use of published scales. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to SLPs who currently see adults with dysphonia as part of their caseload. Clinicians in a voice-focused setting were compared to those who worked in a general medical setting. RESULTS: Nearly all of the 86 participants reported using published validated scales for patient self-assessment and auditory-perceptual ratings. Most respondents had received training in auditory-perceptual voice assessment, acoustic assessment, and videostroboscopy, but a minority reported training in aerodynamic assessment. The majority of SLPs had access to acoustic equipment but a minority had access to the instrumentation for videostroboscopic or aerodynamic assessment. Auditory-perceptual voice evaluation was the procedure most commonly performed and most highly rated for diagnostic utility. Postgraduate training and access to instrumentation were associated with significantly higher frequency of use and confidence with all three instrumental assessment methods. SLPs in voice-focused settings were significantly more likely to have received training in videostroboscopy and perform or interpret it. SLPs in voice-focused settings were also significantly more likely to have access to equipment for all three instrumental techniques and reported significantly higher confidence in their use. Both groups rated the utility of the different components of a voice evaluation similarly and there were no significant differences between the groups in the use of validated patient questionnaires or auditory-perceptual scales. CONCLUSIONS: Most clinicians in our survey reported following practice guidelines when performing comprehensive voice evaluations across settings, despite barriers of training and access to instrumentation.

Characteristics associated with communicative participation after total laryngectomy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify individual characteristics that are associated with communicative participation after total laryngectomy (TL). METHODS: This study was a single-institution investigation of individuals who had undergone TL. Data were collected at a single timepoint via patient self-report and medical record review. Thirty-five participants completed a questionnaire containing a communication survey as well as several published, validated instruments. Independent variables included characteristics related to demographics, health and medical history, social network composition, and communication. The dependent variable was communicative participation, which was assessed using the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB). Correlations between the independent variables and CPIB scores were calculated to assess the influence of these characteristics on communicative participation. The study participants were subdivided into three distinct groups based on whether their primary method of communication was spoken or non-spoken and the frequency of using alternate methods of communication. Outcomes across the three groups were then compared. A follow-up survey was also conducted to examine the impact of "stay at home" orders during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020-21. RESULTS: There were significant correlations between communicative participation and some non-communication-related characteristics. Reduced communicative participation was associated with younger age, less time since TL, a history of reconstructive surgery, poorer self-rated health, more depressive symptoms, worse quality of life, and a weaker social network of friends. Several communication-related characteristics were also associated with CPIB scores. Increased communicative participation was associated with using fewer non-spoken communication methods, higher levels of satisfaction with speech and communication, and better communicative effectiveness. There were significant differences between the three groups for communicative effectiveness and satisfaction with speech. The three groups did not differ significantly for satisfaction with communication or communicative participation. There were no significant differences in CPIB scores measured before and during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Communicative participation is a complex measure that may be affected by a variety of factors related to demographics, health, social network status, and communication. Despite poorer communicative effectiveness and lower levels of satisfaction, individuals who use non-spoken methods of communication after TL did not demonstrate worse communicative participation than those using spoken methods. Surprisingly, CPIB scores did not decline as a result of social distancing.

The Association between Paradoxical Vocal Fold Motion and Dysphonia in Adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: Associations between dysphonia and paradoxical vocal fold motion (PVFM) have been previously reported in adults, but it is unclear whether similar associations exist for adolescents. The goals of this study were to identify the prevalence and severity of voice disorders in adolescent patients with PVFM, identify differences between those with and without clinician-identified dysphonia, and investigate what factors were associated with voice handicap in this population. METHODS: A retrospective review of eligible adolescent patients diagnosed with PVFM over a 1-year period at a single institution was undertaken. Data collected from the medical record included demographic background, medical history and workup, patient- and family-reported symptoms, and findings from the laryngeal examination. The presence or absence of clinician-diagnosed dysphonia was used to subdivide the sample for analysis. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients with PVFM were included. The sample was primarily female (73%) with a median age of 15 years. Few patients had voice complaints (5%), but clinician-diagnosed dysphonia was common (52%) and ranged from mild to moderate. Vocal hyperfunction was frequently observed (55%), but anatomic abnormalities associated with dysphonia were rare (6%). Adolescents with dysphonia were significantly older, more likely to have vocal hyperfunction on laryngoscopy, and more likely to return for therapy than those without dysphonia. No notable differences existed in the number of behavioral therapy sessions or in the likelihood of completing treatment between the two groups. The majority of participants (79%) had at least one "confounding factor" (i.e., were currently taking a medication for asthma, allergies, or reflux, or had a laryngeal abnormality) but this did not differ significantly between those with and without dysphonia. A minority of individuals (28%) had abnormal scores on the Voice Handicap Index (VHI). Age was positively correlated with dysphonia severity but no other significant associations were observed. CONCLUSION: Although voice complaints are rare, dysphonia among adolescents with PVFM is common and can occur in the absence of laryngeal abnormalities and medical comorbidities, typically as a result of vocal hyperfunction. Dysphonia does not appear to be a barrier to PVFM treatment and may be a useful target in therapy.

The Use of Technology for Phone and Face-to-Face Communication After Total Laryngectomy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to describe the characteristics and experiences of individuals who use technology to support telephone or face-to-face communication after total laryngectomy. METHOD: An online questionnaire was used to identify potential participants. Seventeen individuals met inclusion criteria and participated in an in-depth survey. They were compared with a reference group matched for age, gender, and time postsurgery who did not use these technologies. Open-ended responses were summarized. RESULTS: Compared with the matched reference group, individuals who used technology to support verbal communication had undergone more aggressive cancer treatment and used more communication methods. They were less likely to use an alaryngeal speech method, had greater difficulty over the telephone, and used more repair strategies in face-to-face communication. The 2 groups did not differ significantly in the frequency or success of their communication, however. Open-ended responses revealed great variety with regard to their reasons, purposes, and timing of technology use. CONCLUSIONS: There is a subset of individuals using technology to support verbal communication very successfully after laryngectomy. Usage was not limited to those who were unable to communicate verbally and often continued long after the initial postoperative period in many settings, for various purposes, and in combination with other methods of communication.

Reliability of clinician-based (GRBAS and CAPE-V) and patient-based (V-RQOL and IPVI) documentation of voice disorders.

This study examined the reliability of two methods for documenting voice quality by clinicians and compared the methods for documenting patients' perceptions of voice quality. It involved a prospective reliability study and a retrospective chart review. Reliability of two clinician-based voice assessment protocols-Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, Strain (GRBAS) and Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation-Voice (CAPE-V)-was evaluated. These two protocols were then compared after use in voice assessments of 42 males and 61 females performed by a certified speech-language pathologist specializing in the assessment of voice disorders. In addition, two patient-based scales (Voice Related Quality of Life, or V-RQOL, and Iowa Patient's Voice Index, or IPVI) obtained from the same patients were compared with each other and with the clinician-based scales. Reliability of clinicians' ratings of overall severity of dysphonia using GRBAS and CAPE-V scales was very good (r>0.80). Agreement between V-RQOL Total scores and IPVI ratings of the patient's perceptions of impact of dysphonia was less strong (Spearman's r=-0.76). There was relatively weak agreement between patient-based and clinician-based scales. Clinician's perceptions of dysphonia appeared to be reliable and unaffected by rating tool, as indicated by the high level of agreement between the two rating systems when they were used together. The CAPE-V system appeared to be more sensitive to small differences within and among patients than the GRBAS system. The V-RQOL and IPVI approaches to documenting patient's perceptions of dysphonia agreed less well possibly due to differences in patient dependence on voice and on interpretation of the rating tool items. The differences between clinician-based and patient-based data support the conclusion that clinicians and patients experience and consider dysphonia very differently.