Voice burden in teachers and non‐teachers in a UK population: A questionnaire‐based survey

The objective was to develop an abbreviated voice handicap assessment instrument and compare it with the Voice Handicap Index (VHI). Item analysis of the VHI in individuals without voice disorders and patients with voice disorders and creation and validation of the abbreviated VHI. Clinical consensus review of the VHI items was held to prioritize the clinical value of each of the VHI items (30 items in all). Item analysis of the VHI was performed using the VHI responses of 100 patients with voice problems and 159 control subjects. The 10 most robust VHI items were selected using the item analysis and clinical consensus results to form the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10). Statistical analysis comparing the validity of the VHI-10 with the VHI was performed with 819 patients representing a wide spectrum of voice disorders. Statistical analysis of the VHI and VHI-10 scores from the study group showed no statistically significant differences between the VHI and the VHI-10. Irrespective of diagnosis, the correlation between the VHI and the VHI-10 was greater than .90 (P = .01). The ratios of the VHI-10 to VHI scores for a variety of voice disorder categories were analyzed and found to be consistently greater than the expected value (33%). This suggests that the VHI-10 may be a more robust instrument than the VHI. The VHI-10 is a powerful representation of the VHI that takes less time for the patient to complete without loss of validity. Thus, the VHI-10 can replace the VHI as an instrument to quantify patients' perception of their voice handicap.

Over 3 million teachers in the United States use their voice as a primary tool of trade and are thought to be at higher risk for occupation-related voice disorders than the general population. However, estimates regarding the prevalence of voice disorders in teachers and the general population vary considerably. To determine the extent that teachers are at greater risk for voice disorders, 2,531 randomly selected participants from Iowa and Utah (1,243 teachers and 1,288 nonteachers) were interviewed by telephone using a voice disorder questionnaire. Prevalence-the number of cases per population at risk at a specific time-was determined. The prevalence of reporting a current voice problem was significantly greater in teachers compared with nonteachers (11.0% vs. 6.2%), chi(2)(1) = 18.2, p 4 weeks in duration), compared with acute voice disorders (20.9% vs. 13.3%), chi(2)(1) = 8.7, p =.003. To assess the association between past voice disorders and possible risks, adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using multiple logistic regression. The results identified that being a teacher, being a woman, being between 40 and 59 years of age, having 16 or more years of education, and having a family history of voice disorders were each positively associated with having experienced a voice disorder in the past. These results support the notion that teaching is a high-risk occupation for voice disorders. Important information is also provided regarding additional factors that might contribute to the development of voice disorders.

Epidemiologic studies of the prevalence and risk factors of voice disorders in the general adult population are rare. The purpose of this investigation was to 1) determine the prevalence of voice disorders, 2) identify variables associated with increased risk of voice disorders, and 3) establish the functional impact of voice disorders on the general population. Cross-sectional telephone survey. A random sample (n = 1,326) of adults in Iowa and Utah was interviewed using a questionnaire that addressed three areas related to voice disorders: prevalence, potential risk factors, and occupational consequences/effects. The lifetime prevalence of a voice disorder was 29.9%, with 6.6% of participants reporting a current voice disorder. Stepwise logistic regression identified specific factors that uniquely contributed to increased odds of reporting a chronic voice disorder including sex (women), age (40-59 years), voice use patterns and demands, esophageal reflux, chemical exposures, and frequent cold/sinus infections. However, tobacco or alcohol use did not independently increase the odds of reporting of a chronic voice disorder. Voice disorders adversely impacted job performance and attendance, with 4.3% of participants indicating that their voice had limited or rendered them unable to do certain tasks in their current job. Furthermore, 7.2% of employed respondents reported that they were absent from work 1 or more days in the past year because of their voice, and 2% reported more than 4 days of voice-related absence. The results of this large epidemiologic study provide valuable information regarding the prevalence of voice disorders, factors that contribute to voice disorder vulnerability, and the functional impact of voice problems on the general population.