调查当前评估和诊断嗓音疾病的临床实践:一项跨学科全球网络调查。

IF 1.5 3区 医学 Q2 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Christopher L Payten, Kelly A Weir, Catherine J Madill
{"title":"调查当前评估和诊断嗓音疾病的临床实践:一项跨学科全球网络调查。","authors":"Christopher L Payten, Kelly A Weir, Catherine J Madill","doi":"10.1111/1460-6984.13116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Published best-practice guidelines and standardized protocols for voice assessment recommend multidisciplinary evaluation utilizing a comprehensive range of clinical measures. Previous studies report variations in assessment practices when compared with these guidelines.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To provide an up-to-date evaluation of current global multidisciplinary practice patterns and the opinions of otolaryngologist, ear, nose and throat (ENT) and speech-language pathology (SLP) clinicians on initial assessment and differential diagnosis of adults with voice disorders (VDs).</p><p><strong>Methods & procedures: </strong>ENTs and SLPs worldwide who had worked with VDs within the last 10 years completed an anonymous online survey. Themes explored demographic information about the clinical practice, information about diagnostic assessment pathways, clinical assessments routinely used for initial voice evaluation and clinician perceived value of clinical assessments important for diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Outcomes & results: </strong>Patterns in the clinical practice of 88 SLPs and 21 ENTs from 18 countries with 1 to more than 25 years' experience were analysed. Clinicians provided services across a range of locations, and a range of assessment pathways was available for initial evaluation. Case history, laryngoscopy and auditory-perceptual measures were the most frequently selected assessments. Most clinicians favoured formal assessment measures for auditory-perceptual evaluation. Clinicians placed equal weighting on ENT and SLP assessment to aid diagnosis for muscle tension VDs and functional neurological voice disorders (FVDs).</p><p><strong>Conclusions & implications: </strong>Practice patterns for initial diagnostic voice assessment are largely consistent with the currently published guidelines. Decisions for the selection of assessment tools vary according to VD classification, and assessment decisions appear to be guided by case history. Clinicians are not always following established protocols for obtaining reliable standardized measures. Further research is needed to understand the barriers to adhering to standardized protocols and to develop evidence for the use of case history in the process of VD diagnosis.</p><p><strong>What this paper adds: </strong>What is already known on the subject Best-practice guidelines recommend a multidisciplinary and multidimensional assessment of adults with vocal symptoms. Prior uni-disciplinary survey studies have reported a divergence in clinical practice with the recommended guidelines. No previous studies have examined otolaryngologists and SLPs concurrently to investigate the multidisciplinary approach clinicians' use in a diagnostic voice assessment. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge This study highlights new insights into multidisciplinary voice evaluation practice patterns with an emphasis on diagnostic assessment from a global perspective. The findings build on prior research exploring clinical assessment pathways, service utilization and clinicians' preferences when selecting clinical tools to inform a differential diagnosis. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This paper provides insights to inform future service and resource planning to ensure the delivery of evidenced-based diagnostic assessment pathways. This study also makes recommendations for areas of future research to understand barriers to clinicians following recommended best-practice guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":49182,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating current clinical practice in assessment and diagnosis of voice disorders: A cross-sectional multidisciplinary global web survey.\",\"authors\":\"Christopher L Payten, Kelly A Weir, Catherine J Madill\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1460-6984.13116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Published best-practice guidelines and standardized protocols for voice assessment recommend multidisciplinary evaluation utilizing a comprehensive range of clinical measures. Previous studies report variations in assessment practices when compared with these guidelines.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To provide an up-to-date evaluation of current global multidisciplinary practice patterns and the opinions of otolaryngologist, ear, nose and throat (ENT) and speech-language pathology (SLP) clinicians on initial assessment and differential diagnosis of adults with voice disorders (VDs).</p><p><strong>Methods & procedures: </strong>ENTs and SLPs worldwide who had worked with VDs within the last 10 years completed an anonymous online survey. Themes explored demographic information about the clinical practice, information about diagnostic assessment pathways, clinical assessments routinely used for initial voice evaluation and clinician perceived value of clinical assessments important for diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Outcomes & results: </strong>Patterns in the clinical practice of 88 SLPs and 21 ENTs from 18 countries with 1 to more than 25 years' experience were analysed. Clinicians provided services across a range of locations, and a range of assessment pathways was available for initial evaluation. Case history, laryngoscopy and auditory-perceptual measures were the most frequently selected assessments. Most clinicians favoured formal assessment measures for auditory-perceptual evaluation. Clinicians placed equal weighting on ENT and SLP assessment to aid diagnosis for muscle tension VDs and functional neurological voice disorders (FVDs).</p><p><strong>Conclusions & implications: </strong>Practice patterns for initial diagnostic voice assessment are largely consistent with the currently published guidelines. Decisions for the selection of assessment tools vary according to VD classification, and assessment decisions appear to be guided by case history. Clinicians are not always following established protocols for obtaining reliable standardized measures. Further research is needed to understand the barriers to adhering to standardized protocols and to develop evidence for the use of case history in the process of VD diagnosis.</p><p><strong>What this paper adds: </strong>What is already known on the subject Best-practice guidelines recommend a multidisciplinary and multidimensional assessment of adults with vocal symptoms. Prior uni-disciplinary survey studies have reported a divergence in clinical practice with the recommended guidelines. No previous studies have examined otolaryngologists and SLPs concurrently to investigate the multidisciplinary approach clinicians' use in a diagnostic voice assessment. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge This study highlights new insights into multidisciplinary voice evaluation practice patterns with an emphasis on diagnostic assessment from a global perspective. The findings build on prior research exploring clinical assessment pathways, service utilization and clinicians' preferences when selecting clinical tools to inform a differential diagnosis. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This paper provides insights to inform future service and resource planning to ensure the delivery of evidenced-based diagnostic assessment pathways. This study also makes recommendations for areas of future research to understand barriers to clinicians following recommended best-practice guidelines.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49182,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.13116\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.13116","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:已发布的嗓音评估最佳实践指南和标准化方案建议利用一系列综合临床措施进行多学科评估。目的:对当前全球多学科实践模式以及耳鼻喉科(ENT)和语言病理学(SLP)临床医生对成人嗓音障碍(VD)的初步评估和鉴别诊断的意见进行最新评估:方法与程序: 全球在过去 10 年内从事过嗓音疾病工作的耳鼻喉科医生和语言病理医生完成了一项匿名在线调查。调查主题包括临床实践的人口统计学信息、诊断评估途径的相关信息、用于初步嗓音评估的常规临床评估以及临床医师对诊断重要临床评估价值的认知:分析了来自 18 个国家、拥有 1 至 25 年以上工作经验的 88 名语言康复师和 21 名耳鼻喉科医师的临床实践模式。临床医生在不同的地点提供服务,并为初步评估提供了一系列评估途径。病史、喉镜检查和听觉感知测量是最常选择的评估方法。大多数临床医生倾向于采用正规的评估方法进行听觉感知评估。临床医生同等重视耳鼻喉科和嗓音语言康复科的评估,以帮助诊断肌肉紧张性嗓音疾病和功能性神经性嗓音疾病(FVD):初步诊断性嗓音评估的实践模式与目前发布的指南基本一致。选择评估工具的决定因 VD 分类而异,评估决定似乎以病史为指导。临床医生并不总是按照既定方案获取可靠的标准化测量结果。需要进一步开展研究,以了解遵守标准化规程的障碍,并为在 VD 诊断过程中使用病例史提供证据:最佳实践指南建议对有发声症状的成年人进行多学科、多维度的评估。之前的单学科调查研究显示,临床实践与推荐指南存在差异。以前的研究没有同时对耳鼻喉科医生和语言康复师进行调查,以了解临床医生在诊断性嗓音评估中使用的多学科方法。本文对现有知识的补充 本研究强调了对多学科嗓音评估实践模式的新见解,重点是从全球视角进行诊断评估。研究结果建立在之前对临床评估途径、服务利用率以及临床医生在选择临床工具进行鉴别诊断时的偏好等方面的研究基础之上。这项工作有哪些潜在或实际的临床意义?本文为未来的服务和资源规划提供了启示,以确保提供以证据为基础的诊断评估途径。本研究还对未来的研究领域提出了建议,以了解临床医生在遵循推荐的最佳实践指南时遇到的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Investigating current clinical practice in assessment and diagnosis of voice disorders: A cross-sectional multidisciplinary global web survey.

Background: Published best-practice guidelines and standardized protocols for voice assessment recommend multidisciplinary evaluation utilizing a comprehensive range of clinical measures. Previous studies report variations in assessment practices when compared with these guidelines.

Aims: To provide an up-to-date evaluation of current global multidisciplinary practice patterns and the opinions of otolaryngologist, ear, nose and throat (ENT) and speech-language pathology (SLP) clinicians on initial assessment and differential diagnosis of adults with voice disorders (VDs).

Methods & procedures: ENTs and SLPs worldwide who had worked with VDs within the last 10 years completed an anonymous online survey. Themes explored demographic information about the clinical practice, information about diagnostic assessment pathways, clinical assessments routinely used for initial voice evaluation and clinician perceived value of clinical assessments important for diagnosis.

Outcomes & results: Patterns in the clinical practice of 88 SLPs and 21 ENTs from 18 countries with 1 to more than 25 years' experience were analysed. Clinicians provided services across a range of locations, and a range of assessment pathways was available for initial evaluation. Case history, laryngoscopy and auditory-perceptual measures were the most frequently selected assessments. Most clinicians favoured formal assessment measures for auditory-perceptual evaluation. Clinicians placed equal weighting on ENT and SLP assessment to aid diagnosis for muscle tension VDs and functional neurological voice disorders (FVDs).

Conclusions & implications: Practice patterns for initial diagnostic voice assessment are largely consistent with the currently published guidelines. Decisions for the selection of assessment tools vary according to VD classification, and assessment decisions appear to be guided by case history. Clinicians are not always following established protocols for obtaining reliable standardized measures. Further research is needed to understand the barriers to adhering to standardized protocols and to develop evidence for the use of case history in the process of VD diagnosis.

What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject Best-practice guidelines recommend a multidisciplinary and multidimensional assessment of adults with vocal symptoms. Prior uni-disciplinary survey studies have reported a divergence in clinical practice with the recommended guidelines. No previous studies have examined otolaryngologists and SLPs concurrently to investigate the multidisciplinary approach clinicians' use in a diagnostic voice assessment. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge This study highlights new insights into multidisciplinary voice evaluation practice patterns with an emphasis on diagnostic assessment from a global perspective. The findings build on prior research exploring clinical assessment pathways, service utilization and clinicians' preferences when selecting clinical tools to inform a differential diagnosis. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This paper provides insights to inform future service and resource planning to ensure the delivery of evidenced-based diagnostic assessment pathways. This study also makes recommendations for areas of future research to understand barriers to clinicians following recommended best-practice guidelines.

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
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders (IJLCD) is the official journal of the Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists. The Journal welcomes submissions on all aspects of speech, language, communication disorders and speech and language therapy. It provides a forum for the exchange of information and discussion of issues of clinical or theoretical relevance in the above areas.
×
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