Emerson Soares Pontes, Thays Garcia Vaiano, Roberto Sávio de Assunção Bastos, João Marcos da Trindade Duarte, Émile Rocha Santana, Leonardo Wanderley Lopes
{"title":"Photobiomodulation on vocal training and rehabilitation: Delphi consensus based on experts.","authors":"Emerson Soares Pontes, Thays Garcia Vaiano, Roberto Sávio de Assunção Bastos, João Marcos da Trindade Duarte, Émile Rocha Santana, Leonardo Wanderley Lopes","doi":"10.1590/2317-1782/e20230356pt","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To develop a consensus among speech-language pathologists who are voice specialists regarding the criteria for recommending and using photobiomodulation in the context of vocal therapy and training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seven speech-language pathologists, experts in voice, and with experience in using photobiomodulation in vocal therapy and training participated. The Delphi technique was used to achieve consensus from a panel of experts accessed independently in two phases of collection. In Phase 1, the experts were contacted individually and participated in an interview with 12 questions to gather opinions on the use of photobiomodulation in the investigated context. The experts' responses were used to construct a questionnaire with 55 items presented as statements. The experts were asked to analyze each item and indicate their level of agreement on a five-point Likert scale. The content validity coefficient (CVC) was used to investigate the degree of agreement among the judges and to select the final items of the consensus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Consensus was reached among the experts on 34 items investigated in this study, with a CVC ≥ 0.75. It was observed that 31 items achieved an excellent CVC (≥ 0.78), 14 items with a good CVC (0.60 ≥ CVC ≤ 0.77) and 10 items with a poor CVC (≤ 0.59). The total CVC was considered excellent, with a value of 0.78.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was a consensus among experts about the use of photobiomodulation in vocal habilitation and rehabilitation. It has the potential to improve the criteria for prescribing and using this device by speech-language pathologists. The findings may be useful to improve the criteria for prescribing and the use of this device by speech-language pathologists, in addition to subsidizing the development of future research and clinical recommendations in the area.</p>","PeriodicalId":46547,"journal":{"name":"CoDAS","volume":"37 2","pages":"e20230356"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CoDAS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/e20230356pt","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To develop a consensus among speech-language pathologists who are voice specialists regarding the criteria for recommending and using photobiomodulation in the context of vocal therapy and training.
Methods: Seven speech-language pathologists, experts in voice, and with experience in using photobiomodulation in vocal therapy and training participated. The Delphi technique was used to achieve consensus from a panel of experts accessed independently in two phases of collection. In Phase 1, the experts were contacted individually and participated in an interview with 12 questions to gather opinions on the use of photobiomodulation in the investigated context. The experts' responses were used to construct a questionnaire with 55 items presented as statements. The experts were asked to analyze each item and indicate their level of agreement on a five-point Likert scale. The content validity coefficient (CVC) was used to investigate the degree of agreement among the judges and to select the final items of the consensus.
Results: Consensus was reached among the experts on 34 items investigated in this study, with a CVC ≥ 0.75. It was observed that 31 items achieved an excellent CVC (≥ 0.78), 14 items with a good CVC (0.60 ≥ CVC ≤ 0.77) and 10 items with a poor CVC (≤ 0.59). The total CVC was considered excellent, with a value of 0.78.
Conclusion: There was a consensus among experts about the use of photobiomodulation in vocal habilitation and rehabilitation. It has the potential to improve the criteria for prescribing and using this device by speech-language pathologists. The findings may be useful to improve the criteria for prescribing and the use of this device by speech-language pathologists, in addition to subsidizing the development of future research and clinical recommendations in the area.