针对无发音障碍女学生的行为性嗓音治疗效果研究的虚假干预。

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Youri Maryn, Marie Dedry, Valentine de Mahieu, Julie Fournier-Foch
{"title":"针对无发音障碍女学生的行为性嗓音治疗效果研究的虚假干预。","authors":"Youri Maryn, Marie Dedry, Valentine de Mahieu, Julie Fournier-Foch","doi":"10.1016/j.jvoice.2024.08.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives/hypothesis: </strong>To develop sham voice treatment techniques to be used in voice treatment outcome research, and to investigate their effectiveness as sham. This entails that the techniques induce no changes in voice or voice physiology, yet still lead to a perception of efficacy.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Prospective randomized blinded controlled study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three distinct sham intervention protocols (SIPs) were conceptualized as placebic comparators for three common voice treatment approaches with focus on vocalization (SIP1), respiration (SIP2), and manipulation (SIP3). Forty-eight female students participated in the study. Each participant attended ten 30-minute sessions over 5weeks, including a baseline evaluation, three sessions of one SIP, an inter-SIP voice assessment, three sessions of a second SIP, and a final post-SIP assessment. Auditory-perceptual and instrumental voice evaluations were used as voice treatment outcome measures. The participants' perception of voice-related quality of life was evaluated using the French Voice Handicap Index (VHI<sub>FR</sub>). Frequentist as well as Bayesian statistical methods were applied for group comparisons. The effects of combining two SIPs, the potential influence of SIP order, and experimenter/clinician effects, were also investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The respiration-based SIP2 showed changes only in sound intensity level on a sustained vowel across the three sham intervention sessions. In contrast, the vocalization-based SIP1 impacted sound intensity level on a sustained vowel, sound intensity level on read text, and maximum phonation time. The manipulation-based SIP3 affected smoothed cepstral peak prominence on read text, Acoustic Voice Quality Index, and Dysphonia Severity Index. SIP2 thus demonstrated the highest alignment with the study's objectives, followed by SIP1 and SIP3. GRBASI ratings revealed no statistical differences for any SIP. VHI<sub>Fr</sub> decreased significantly after all three SIPs. Combining the SIPs generally replicated the effects observed when each SIP was used individually. There was no order effect or experimenter/clinician effect on the results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrated significant changes in participants' perceived voice quality (measured with VHIFr) across various SIPs, despite minimal impact on objective voice function measures. Further investigation is necessary to establish one or more protocols as genuinely sham interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49954,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Voice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toward Sham Interventions for Behavioral Voice Treatment Outcome Research in Female Students Without Dysphonia.\",\"authors\":\"Youri Maryn, Marie Dedry, Valentine de Mahieu, Julie Fournier-Foch\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jvoice.2024.08.023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives/hypothesis: </strong>To develop sham voice treatment techniques to be used in voice treatment outcome research, and to investigate their effectiveness as sham. This entails that the techniques induce no changes in voice or voice physiology, yet still lead to a perception of efficacy.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Prospective randomized blinded controlled study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three distinct sham intervention protocols (SIPs) were conceptualized as placebic comparators for three common voice treatment approaches with focus on vocalization (SIP1), respiration (SIP2), and manipulation (SIP3). Forty-eight female students participated in the study. Each participant attended ten 30-minute sessions over 5weeks, including a baseline evaluation, three sessions of one SIP, an inter-SIP voice assessment, three sessions of a second SIP, and a final post-SIP assessment. Auditory-perceptual and instrumental voice evaluations were used as voice treatment outcome measures. The participants' perception of voice-related quality of life was evaluated using the French Voice Handicap Index (VHI<sub>FR</sub>). Frequentist as well as Bayesian statistical methods were applied for group comparisons. The effects of combining two SIPs, the potential influence of SIP order, and experimenter/clinician effects, were also investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The respiration-based SIP2 showed changes only in sound intensity level on a sustained vowel across the three sham intervention sessions. In contrast, the vocalization-based SIP1 impacted sound intensity level on a sustained vowel, sound intensity level on read text, and maximum phonation time. The manipulation-based SIP3 affected smoothed cepstral peak prominence on read text, Acoustic Voice Quality Index, and Dysphonia Severity Index. SIP2 thus demonstrated the highest alignment with the study's objectives, followed by SIP1 and SIP3. GRBASI ratings revealed no statistical differences for any SIP. VHI<sub>Fr</sub> decreased significantly after all three SIPs. Combining the SIPs generally replicated the effects observed when each SIP was used individually. There was no order effect or experimenter/clinician effect on the results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrated significant changes in participants' perceived voice quality (measured with VHIFr) across various SIPs, despite minimal impact on objective voice function measures. Further investigation is necessary to establish one or more protocols as genuinely sham interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Voice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-07\",\"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.2024.08.023\",\"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://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2024.08.023","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

摘要

目标/假设:开发假性嗓音治疗技术,用于嗓音治疗效果研究,并调查其作为假性技术的有效性。这就要求这些技术不会引起嗓音或嗓音生理上的变化,但仍能让人感觉到疗效:研究设计:前瞻性随机盲法对照研究:研究设计:前瞻性随机盲法对照研究。方法:将三种不同的假干预方案(SIPs)作为三种常见嗓音治疗方法的安慰剂比较方案,分别侧重于发声(SIP1)、呼吸(SIP2)和操作(SIP3)。48 名女学生参加了研究。每位参与者在 5 周内参加了 10 次 30 分钟的课程,包括基线评估、一次 SIP 的三次课程、一次 SIP 之间的嗓音评估、第二次 SIP 的三次课程以及最后一次 SIP 后评估。听觉感知和工具性嗓音评估被用作嗓音治疗结果的衡量标准。使用法国嗓音障碍指数(VHIFR)评估了参与者对嗓音相关生活质量的感知。在进行分组比较时,采用了频数法和贝叶斯统计法。此外,还研究了将两种 SIP 结合使用的效果、SIP 顺序的潜在影响以及实验者/临床医师的影响:结果:以呼吸为基础的 SIP2 在三次假干预中只显示了持续元音的声音强度水平的变化。相比之下,基于发声的 SIP1 对持续元音的声强水平、阅读文本的声强水平和最长发音时间都有影响。以操作为基础的 SIP3 对阅读文本的平滑共振峰突出度、声学语音质量指数和发音障碍严重程度指数有影响。因此,SIP2 与研究目标的一致性最高,其次是 SIP1 和 SIP3。GRBASI 评分显示,任何 SIP 均无统计学差异。在所有三个 SIP 之后,VHIFr 都明显下降。将 SIPs 结合起来,一般都能复制单独使用每个 SIP 时观察到的效果。研究结果不存在顺序效应或实验者/医师效应:本研究表明,尽管对客观嗓音功能测量的影响极小,但在不同的 SIPs 中,参与者感知到的嗓音质量(用 VHIFr 测量)发生了重大变化。有必要进行进一步调查,以确定一种或多种方案是真正的假干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Toward Sham Interventions for Behavioral Voice Treatment Outcome Research in Female Students Without Dysphonia.

Objectives/hypothesis: To develop sham voice treatment techniques to be used in voice treatment outcome research, and to investigate their effectiveness as sham. This entails that the techniques induce no changes in voice or voice physiology, yet still lead to a perception of efficacy.

Study design: Prospective randomized blinded controlled study.

Methods: Three distinct sham intervention protocols (SIPs) were conceptualized as placebic comparators for three common voice treatment approaches with focus on vocalization (SIP1), respiration (SIP2), and manipulation (SIP3). Forty-eight female students participated in the study. Each participant attended ten 30-minute sessions over 5weeks, including a baseline evaluation, three sessions of one SIP, an inter-SIP voice assessment, three sessions of a second SIP, and a final post-SIP assessment. Auditory-perceptual and instrumental voice evaluations were used as voice treatment outcome measures. The participants' perception of voice-related quality of life was evaluated using the French Voice Handicap Index (VHIFR). Frequentist as well as Bayesian statistical methods were applied for group comparisons. The effects of combining two SIPs, the potential influence of SIP order, and experimenter/clinician effects, were also investigated.

Results: The respiration-based SIP2 showed changes only in sound intensity level on a sustained vowel across the three sham intervention sessions. In contrast, the vocalization-based SIP1 impacted sound intensity level on a sustained vowel, sound intensity level on read text, and maximum phonation time. The manipulation-based SIP3 affected smoothed cepstral peak prominence on read text, Acoustic Voice Quality Index, and Dysphonia Severity Index. SIP2 thus demonstrated the highest alignment with the study's objectives, followed by SIP1 and SIP3. GRBASI ratings revealed no statistical differences for any SIP. VHIFr decreased significantly after all three SIPs. Combining the SIPs generally replicated the effects observed when each SIP was used individually. There was no order effect or experimenter/clinician effect on the results.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated significant changes in participants' perceived voice quality (measured with VHIFr) across various SIPs, despite minimal impact on objective voice function measures. Further investigation is necessary to establish one or more protocols as genuinely sham interventions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Voice
Journal of Voice 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
13.60%
发文量
395
审稿时长
59 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信