Voice problems are a common occupational hazard of teaching school, yet few studies exist that have objectively evaluated treatment approaches aimed at rehabilitating these occupation-related voice disorders. This randomized clinical trial used patient-based treatment outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of three treatment programs. Sixty-four teachers with voice disorders were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: voice amplification using the ChatterVox portable amplifier (VA; n = 25), resonance therapy (RT; n = 19), and respiratory muscle training (RMT; n = 20). Before and after a 6-week treatment phase, all teachers completed (a) the Voice Handicap Index (VHI; B. H. Jacobson et al., 1997), an instrument designed to appraise the self-perceived psychosocial consequences of voice disorders, and (b) a voice severity self-rating scale. Both intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses revealed that only the VA and RT groups reported significant reductions in mean VHI scores and in voice severity self-ratings following treatment. Furthermore, results from a posttreatment questionnaire regarding the perceived benefits of treatment showed that compared to RT and RMT, teachers in the VA group reported significantly more overall voice improvement, greater vocal clarity, and greater ease of speaking and singing voice following treatment. These findings replicate previous results from an earlier clinical trial confirming the efficacy of VA and provide new evidence to support RT as an effective treatment alternative for voice problems in teachers. The results are discussed in the context of uneven levels of self-reported compliance and disparate dropout rates among the treatment groups.

No abstract

No abstract

Voice problems are common among schoolteachers. This prospective, randomized clinical trial used patient-based treatment outcomes measures combined with acoustic analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of two treatment programs. Forty-four voice-disordered teachers were randomly assigned to one of three groups: voice amplification using the ChatterVox portable amplifier (VA, n = 15), vocal hygiene (VH, n = 15), and a nontreatment control group (n = 14). Before and after a 6-week treatment phase, all teachers completed: (a) the Voice Handicap Index (VHI), an instrument designed to appraise the self-perceived psychosocial consequences of voice disorders; (b) a voice severity self-rating scale; and (c) an audiorecording for later acoustic analysis. Based on pre- and posttreatment comparisons, only the amplification group experienced significant reductions on mean VHI scores (p = .045), voice severity self-ratings (p = .012), and the acoustic measures of percent jitter (p = .031) and shimmer (p = .008). The nontreatment control group reported a significant increase in level of vocal handicap as assessed by the VHI (p = .012). Although most pre- to posttreatment changes were in the desired direction, no significant improvements were observed within the VH group on any of the dependent measures. Between-group comparisons involving the three possible pairings of the groups revealed a pattern of results to suggest that: (a) compared to the control group, both treatment groups (i.e., VA and VH) experienced significantly more improvement on specific outcomes measures and (b) there were no significant differences between the VA and VH groups to indicate superiority of one treatment over another. Results, however, from a posttreatment questionnaire regarding the perceived benefits of treatment revealed that, compared to the VH group, the VA group reported more clarity of their speaking and singing voice (p = .061), greater ease of voice production (p = .001), and greater compliance with the treatment program (p = .045). These findings clearly support the clinical utility of voice amplification as an alternative for the treatment of voice problems in teachers.

Decrease in glottic airflow was achieved, with a concomitant increase in subglottic pressure, but without an increase in acoustic power (comfortable and low pitch). Improvement in VFE MPT mirrored the improvement in vocal aerodynamics.

Although CTR is an effective treatment for adult LTS, it results in significant alteration of the adult voice. In particular, CTR decreases the fundamental frequency of connected speech and vowel phonation and changes the acoustic signal type. Patients should be counseled about these likely voice alterations prior to undergoing surgery.

No abstract

Objectives We performed a retrospective review to compare a subjective parental proxy-derived voice handicap survey to an observer-derived method of measuring voice perturbation in children who have undergone airway reconstruction. The main outcome measures were the Pediatric Voice Handicap Index (pVHI) total score and the Overall Severity score on the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). Methods The percent Overall Severity CAPE-V score (score divided by 100) and the percent pVHI score (score divided by 92) were calculated. A Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare CAPE-V scores with the pVHI total scores. The relationship between the pVHI scores and the CAPE-V scores was investigated with a Spearman correlation. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine the relationship of surgery type to CAPE-V and pVHI scores. Results Fifty subjects with a history of airway surgery who were evaluated between 2005 and 2008 were identified. Forty-two of the 50 subjects had complete data for review. Their median age was 7.1 years (range, 3.3 to 17.9 years). Their pVHI total scores had a median of 30 (range, 1 to 80). Their Overall Severity CAPE-V scores had a median of 50.5 (range, 0 to 98). Their median CAPE-V percent was higher than their median pVHI percent (50.5% versus 32.6%; p = 0.0003). A weak correlation was found between the Overall Severity CAPE-V score and the pVHI total score (rho = 0.41; p = 0.0003). There was a trend toward higher Overall Severity CAPE-V scores in patients who underwent cricotracheal resection. The total number of airway surgeries was significantly correlated with the Overall Severity CAPE-V score (rho = 0.6; p < 0.0001) but not with the pVHI score. Conclusions Children who undergo airway reconstruction often have a resulting voice disturbance that can affect their lives in multiple dimensions. The results of this study revealed a weak-to-fair correlation between the parent-reported pVHI total score and expert ratings of voice quality using the CAPE-V. In this patient population, both of these tools provided important information regarding the relationship of the severity of voice disturbance to its handicapping effects.