Measuring the impact of dysphonia on quality of life using health state preferences

Abstract

Objectives Formal evaluation of health states related to dysphonia have not been rigorously evaluated in affected patients. The objective of this project was to evaluate the health states of mild, moderate, and severe dysphonia using formal health state preference evaluation, and to compare these outcomes with the degree of voice handicap. Design Prospective health state preference assessment. Methods A convenience sample of patients presenting with voice complaints were enrolled from an academic voice center. Demographic and voice handicap index (VHI‐10) data were obtained, and an assessment of preference for five health states (monocular blindness, binocular blindness, mild dysphonia, moderate dysphonia, and severe dysphonia) was performed. Utility scores were calculated on a scale from 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health). Analysis was performed with ANOVA testing with post‐hoc comparisons and correlation statistics. Results Of 209 assessments, 149 (75.6%) met quality criteria. Relative to monocular blindness (score 0.61 [CI 0.57–0.64]), moderate dysphonia (0.58 [0.54–0.62]) was rated equivalently, with severe dysphonia (0.33 [0.29–0.37]) ranking significantly worse and mild dysphonia (0.96 [0.95–0.98]) significantly better. Binocular blindness (0.18 [0.15–0.21]) was the worst‐ranked health state. There was a weak inverse correlation of VHI‐10 with dysphonia‐related preference scores; with worsening reported voice handicap, scores decreased. Conclusion This study demonstrated that dysphonia had a significant impact of quality of life, with moderate dysphonia ranking equivalently with monocular blindness. These numerical estimates may be used for ongoing research into the value and cost‐effectiveness of medical, therapeutic, and surgical interventions for voice disorders. Level of Evidence 2c (outcomes research) Laryngoscope, 130:E177–E182, 2020

A visual analog scale for patient‐reported voice outcomes: The VAS voice

“…In recent years, particular attention has been given to patient‐reported outcomes (referred to variably as PROMs or PRO measures) in clinical trial design, device development, and routine medical care . These may be general measures of quality of life (eg, SF‐36 and EQ‐5D), disease‐specific measures of utility, or other disease‐specific measure designed to capture quality of life or disability. Otolaryngology, which tends to see a large percentage of quality‐of‐life complaints particularly suited to patient‐centric assessment, has likewise had an explosion of PROMs across many different subspecialties and topics, including voice …”

Voice‐Related Quality of Life in Idiopathic Subglottic Stenosis: Effect of Serial Intralesional Steroid Injections

“…For laryngologists treating benign and malignant conditions, voice outcomes are critical because they can significantly impact quality of life and health utility 6,7 . SILSI has been demonstrated to be safe, with few complications, 1,2,8 but its effect on voice is not well described.…”

“…4,5 For laryngologists treating benign and malignant conditions, voice outcomes are critical because they can significantly impact quality of life and health utility. 6,7 SILSI has been demonstrated to be safe, with few complications, 1,2,8 but its effect on voice is not well described. Most patients with ISGS have mild to no voice complaints, but several series suggests that there is improvement of voice-related patient-reported outcome measures after treatment of ISGS with dilation.…”

Establishment of Immortalized Laryngeal Epithelial Cells Transfected with Bmi1

“…Laryngeal and voice diseases are progressively becoming more common and can have severe impacts on the quality of life of patients 1 , 2 . Although laryngeal and voice disorders are associated with a variety of pathogenic factors, such as alcohol, smoking, human papillomavirus (HPV), and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) 3 – 5 , the exact mechanism governing pathogenesis is not fully understood.…”