Grace Chow, Maxwell Scher, Gintas P Krisciunas, Lauren F Tracy
{"title":"Comprehensive Review of Multilingual Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Dysphonia.","authors":"Grace Chow, Maxwell Scher, Gintas P Krisciunas, Lauren F Tracy","doi":"10.1016/j.jvoice.2025.01.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) represent an important part of a comprehensive voice assessment for clinical care and research. Access to multilingual PROMs enables inclusion of information from diverse patient populations. This review compares available translated and validated PROMs for adult dysphonia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive review of Cochrane Library, PubMed, and OnBase was performed for PROMs evaluating adult dysphonia in all languages. References were additionally queried. PROM development process, available languages, and study group demographics were compared between PROMs available in at least one language other than English. Cultural validation for each PROM was assessed against Beaton et al's six-stage cross-cultural adaptation guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 21 PROMs assessing adult dysphonia, 13 (62%) were available in one or more language other than English, and nine (43%) were available in seven or more. Voice Handicap Index (VHI) and VHI-10 were the most widely available translated questionnaires (n = 29, n = 15) followed by Vocal Fatigue Index (VFI), Singing-VHI (S-VHI), and Voice-Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL) (n = 11). Identified questionnaires were available in English (n = 21), Persian (n = 9), Kannada (n = 8), and Turkish (n = 7) as the most common languages. Females averaged 60% (range 13%-81%) of dysphonic subject groups and 59% of non-dysphonic subject groups (range 20%-88%). Of the 113 articles that reported cultural validation techniques, 16 (14%) adequately fulfilled the cross-cultural adaptation guidelines used.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Multilingual PROMs for dysphonia are widely available, but linguistic representation varied. VHI, VFI, S-VHI, and V-RQOL are the most widely translated. The most represented languages were Persian, Kannada, and Turkish. Few studies adequately followed cross-cultural adaptation standards. Efforts to translate and validate questionnaires into different languages may allow more diverse assessment and comparison of larger populations with dysphonia. This review identifies translated PROMs for dysphonia and analyzes their level of cultural validation for future use.</p>","PeriodicalId":49954,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Voice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Voice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2025.01.005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) represent an important part of a comprehensive voice assessment for clinical care and research. Access to multilingual PROMs enables inclusion of information from diverse patient populations. This review compares available translated and validated PROMs for adult dysphonia.
Methods: A comprehensive review of Cochrane Library, PubMed, and OnBase was performed for PROMs evaluating adult dysphonia in all languages. References were additionally queried. PROM development process, available languages, and study group demographics were compared between PROMs available in at least one language other than English. Cultural validation for each PROM was assessed against Beaton et al's six-stage cross-cultural adaptation guidelines.
Results: Of 21 PROMs assessing adult dysphonia, 13 (62%) were available in one or more language other than English, and nine (43%) were available in seven or more. Voice Handicap Index (VHI) and VHI-10 were the most widely available translated questionnaires (n = 29, n = 15) followed by Vocal Fatigue Index (VFI), Singing-VHI (S-VHI), and Voice-Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL) (n = 11). Identified questionnaires were available in English (n = 21), Persian (n = 9), Kannada (n = 8), and Turkish (n = 7) as the most common languages. Females averaged 60% (range 13%-81%) of dysphonic subject groups and 59% of non-dysphonic subject groups (range 20%-88%). Of the 113 articles that reported cultural validation techniques, 16 (14%) adequately fulfilled the cross-cultural adaptation guidelines used.
Conclusion: Multilingual PROMs for dysphonia are widely available, but linguistic representation varied. VHI, VFI, S-VHI, and V-RQOL are the most widely translated. The most represented languages were Persian, Kannada, and Turkish. Few studies adequately followed cross-cultural adaptation standards. Efforts to translate and validate questionnaires into different languages may allow more diverse assessment and comparison of larger populations with dysphonia. This review identifies translated PROMs for dysphonia and analyzes their level of cultural validation for future use.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Voice is widely regarded as the world''s premiere journal for voice medicine and research. This peer-reviewed publication is listed in Index Medicus and is indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information. The journal contains articles written by experts throughout the world on all topics in voice sciences, voice medicine and surgery, and speech-language pathologists'' management of voice-related problems. The journal includes clinical articles, clinical research, and laboratory research. Members of the Foundation receive the journal as a benefit of membership.