{"title":"职业性嗓音障碍是否得到准确测量?对学校教师报告嗓音障碍的流行率和方法的系统回顾。","authors":"Mauricio González-Gamboa , Hugo Segura-Pujol , Patricia Oyarzún Díaz , Sandra Rojas","doi":"10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.10.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Different measuring instruments have been described to determine the prevalence of voice disorders in schoolteachers. However, the heterogeneity of prevalence figures has made it difficult in determining the impact of voice disorders in this group. This investigation aims to review and identify scientific evidence of methodological analysis of voice disorders in teachers, the relevance of measuring instruments, the prevalence of dysphonia, and the impact on the development of vocal health prevention programs.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic review was conducted by searching six important scientific databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines were carried out. Articles were included whether they presented data related to the prevalence of dysphonia and the impact of therapy programs on teachers.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Twenty articles out of 8,998 were selected<strong>.</strong><span> The cross-sectional design type was predominant throughout the investigations. Differences were observed in the number of participants across studies, leading to heterogeneous prevalence figures – which ranged from 10.5% to 69.1%. The assessment instruments are not standardly used to effectively determine the disease burden. Despite the fact of the extensive evidence of the effectiveness of programs that address dysphonia in teachers, the scarcity of literature is yet evident on systematic programs promoted by either the government or educational institutions.</span></div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Findings suggest that future investigations should consider the consensus of a global definition for occupational dysphonia in teachers in order to develop accurately measuring instruments and to assist with voice care programs and treatment approaches in this population. This might be crucial since it could also assist with the implementation of Delphi-type studies that could support the development of further evidence-based agreements around these programs (voice care and treatment approaches) in schoolteachers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49954,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Voice","volume":"39 3","pages":"Pages 842.e1-842.e14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Occupational Voice Disorders Accurately Measured? A Systematic Review of Prevalence and Methodologies in Schoolteachers to Report Voice Disorders\",\"authors\":\"Mauricio González-Gamboa , Hugo Segura-Pujol , Patricia Oyarzún Díaz , Sandra Rojas\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.10.023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Different measuring instruments have been described to determine the prevalence of voice disorders in schoolteachers. However, the heterogeneity of prevalence figures has made it difficult in determining the impact of voice disorders in this group. This investigation aims to review and identify scientific evidence of methodological analysis of voice disorders in teachers, the relevance of measuring instruments, the prevalence of dysphonia, and the impact on the development of vocal health prevention programs.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic review was conducted by searching six important scientific databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines were carried out. Articles were included whether they presented data related to the prevalence of dysphonia and the impact of therapy programs on teachers.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Twenty articles out of 8,998 were selected<strong>.</strong><span> The cross-sectional design type was predominant throughout the investigations. Differences were observed in the number of participants across studies, leading to heterogeneous prevalence figures – which ranged from 10.5% to 69.1%. The assessment instruments are not standardly used to effectively determine the disease burden. Despite the fact of the extensive evidence of the effectiveness of programs that address dysphonia in teachers, the scarcity of literature is yet evident on systematic programs promoted by either the government or educational institutions.</span></div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Findings suggest that future investigations should consider the consensus of a global definition for occupational dysphonia in teachers in order to develop accurately measuring instruments and to assist with voice care programs and treatment approaches in this population. This might be crucial since it could also assist with the implementation of Delphi-type studies that could support the development of further evidence-based agreements around these programs (voice care and treatment approaches) in schoolteachers.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Voice\",\"volume\":\"39 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 842.e1-842.e14\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Voice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892199722003484\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Voice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892199722003484","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}
Are Occupational Voice Disorders Accurately Measured? A Systematic Review of Prevalence and Methodologies in Schoolteachers to Report Voice Disorders
Purpose
Different measuring instruments have been described to determine the prevalence of voice disorders in schoolteachers. However, the heterogeneity of prevalence figures has made it difficult in determining the impact of voice disorders in this group. This investigation aims to review and identify scientific evidence of methodological analysis of voice disorders in teachers, the relevance of measuring instruments, the prevalence of dysphonia, and the impact on the development of vocal health prevention programs.
Methods
A systematic review was conducted by searching six important scientific databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines were carried out. Articles were included whether they presented data related to the prevalence of dysphonia and the impact of therapy programs on teachers.
Results
Twenty articles out of 8,998 were selected. The cross-sectional design type was predominant throughout the investigations. Differences were observed in the number of participants across studies, leading to heterogeneous prevalence figures – which ranged from 10.5% to 69.1%. The assessment instruments are not standardly used to effectively determine the disease burden. Despite the fact of the extensive evidence of the effectiveness of programs that address dysphonia in teachers, the scarcity of literature is yet evident on systematic programs promoted by either the government or educational institutions.
Conclusion
Findings suggest that future investigations should consider the consensus of a global definition for occupational dysphonia in teachers in order to develop accurately measuring instruments and to assist with voice care programs and treatment approaches in this population. This might be crucial since it could also assist with the implementation of Delphi-type studies that could support the development of further evidence-based agreements around these programs (voice care and treatment approaches) in schoolteachers.
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.