The impact of preventive voice care programs for training teachers: a longitudinal study. Vocal problems among teachers: evaluation of a preventive voice program. The effectiveness of a voice treatment approach for teachers with self-reported voice problems. The relative effectiveness of vocal hygiene training and vocal function exercises in preventing voice disorders in primary school teachers. The effectiveness of group therapy for students with mild voice disorders: a controlled clinical trial.
The teaching profession puts vocal health at a higher risk than other professions, causing what is referred to as "occupational dysphonia." There is a need for primary prevention of "occupational dysphonia" among the teaching profession, where good vocal health is promoted before a problem occurs. To investigate the primary prevention of occupational dysphonia among teachers, this study uses a sample population of 55 training teachers, in the postgraduate certificate of education (PGCE) course at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, who were randomly assigned to three training groups: control, indirect, and direct. The vocal performance of the three groups was measured at two points over the year of the PGCE course: first before any teaching or training began, and again after the first teaching practice. The training for the indirect and direct groups was provided before the teaching practices. Acoustic and self-perceptual measurements were used to assess the multidimensional outcomes. The results demonstrate interesting trends, that although not found to be significant, are approaching significance. Their voices will be reevaluated at a third point of measurement. The acoustic measurement reflects deterioration from time 1 to time 2 for the control group, improvement for the direct group, and no change for the indirect group, indicating that the training has proved beneficial. The self-rating scores vary in agreement with the acoustic results, presenting interesting findings. The findings of this study will be of benefit to teachers, their educators, voice therapists, health promoters, and human resource personnel. Vocal education programs for teachers may prevent the emergence of vocal disorders; however, only a few studies have tried to evaluate the effectiveness of these preventive programs, particularly in the long term. Two hundred and sixty-four subjects, mostly kindergarten and primary school female teachers, participated in a course on voice care, including a theoretical seminar (120 minutes) and a short voice group therapy (180 minutes, small groups of 20 subjects). For 3 months, they had to either attend the vocal ergonomics norms and, as psychological reinforcement, they had to make out a daily report of vocal abuse, or to follow the given exercises for a more efficient vocal technique, reporting on whether the time scheduled was respected or not. The effectiveness of the course was assessed in a group of 21 female teachers through a randomized controlled study. Evaluation comprehended stroboscopy, perceptual and electro-acoustical voice analysis, Voice Handicap Index, and a course benefit questionnaire. A group of 20 teachers matched for age, working years, hoarseness grade, and vocal demand served as a control group. At 3 months evaluation, participants demonstrated amelioration in the global dysphonia rates (P=0.0003), jitter (P=0.0001), shimmer (P=0.0001), MPT (P=0.0001), and VHI (P=0.0001). Twelve months after the course, the positive effects remained, although they were slightly reduced. In conclusion, a course inclusive of two lectures, a short group voice therapy, home-controlled voice exercises, and hygiene, represents a feasible and cost-effective primary prevention of voice disorders in a homogeneous and well-motivated population of teachers. Teachers are considered the professional group most at risk of developing voice-problems, but limited treatment effectiveness evidence exists. We studied prospectively the effectiveness of a 6-week combined treatment approach using vocal function exercises (VFEs) and vocal hygiene (VH) education with 20 teachers with self-reported voice problems. Twenty subjects were randomly assigned to a no-treatment control (n = 11) and a treatment group (n = 9). Fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation was carried out on all subjects before randomization. Two self-report voice outcome measures were used: the Voice-Related Quality of Life (VRQOL) and the Voice Symptom Severity Scale (VoiSS). A Voice Care Knowledge Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), developed specifically for the study, was also used to evaluate change in selected voice knowledge areas. A Student unpaired t test revealed a statistically significant (P < 0.05) improvement in the treatment group as measured by the VoiSS. There was not a significant improvement in the treatment group as measured by the V-RQOL. The difference in voice care knowledge areas was also significant for the treatment group (P < 0.05). This study suggests that a voice treatment approach of VFEs and VH education improved self-reported voice symptoms and voice care knowledge in a group of teachers. Voice disorders in teachers have a significant impact on their occupational functioning and well being. Teachers are believed to have a high prevalence of voice problems because of the unfavourable acoustic environments in which they work and the high vocal demands and stress levels associated with teaching. Although the types of voice problems teachers experience should be preventable because they are caused by factors that teachers can change, there is limited information available regarding the effectiveness of different preventative strategies. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of vocal hygiene training (VH) and vocal function exercises (VFE) in reducing vocal symptoms and vocal misuse, and increasing knowledge of voice care, maximum phonation time, and maximum phonational frequency range in school teachers. Thirty-seven teachers from four schools in Melbourne, Australia, participated in the study. Schools were randomly allocated to one of three groups: VH, VFE, and no-treatment control. The VH and VFE participants reported improved vocal characteristics and voice knowledge after training while the control group showed deterioration on most variables. The VH participants showed greater improvements than the VFE participants. These fundings indicate that preventative voice training for teachers is likely to be effective. Previous studies of students studying to be teachers have indicated that these students commonly have voice disorders. Ideally, voice disorders should be treated before students start their work as teachers, but the resources for this treatment are often limited. This study examines whether group voice therapy is effective for teacher students. Accordingly, 20 teacher students with mild voice disorders received group voice therapy (in three small groups), whereas 20 students with similar voice disorders served as a control group and consequently did not receive voice therapy. Two out of three outcome measures (perceptual evaluation of voice quality and a questionnaire on the occurrence of vocal symptoms) indicated significant changes in the treatment group compared with the control group. No differences between groups were noted in the laryngeal status. The results suggest that group voice therapy seems to be an effective method to treat students with mild voice disorders.
We found no evidence that either direct or indirect voice training or the two combined are effective in improving self-reported vocal functioning when compared to no intervention. The current practice of giving training to at-risk populations for preventing the development of voice disorders is therefore not supported by definitive evidence of effectiveness. Larger and methodologically better trials are needed with outcome measures that better reflect the aims of interventions.