Show simple item record

Effect of Augmentative Technology on Communication and Quality of Life After Tracheostomy or Total Laryngectomy

dc.contributor.authorHaring, CT
dc.contributor.authorFarlow, JL
dc.contributor.authorLeginza, M
dc.contributor.authorVance, K
dc.contributor.authorBlakely, A
dc.contributor.authorLyden, T
dc.contributor.authorHoesli, RC
dc.contributor.authorNeal, MEH
dc.contributor.authorBrenner, MJ
dc.contributor.authorHogikyan, ND
dc.contributor.authorMorrison, RJ
dc.contributor.authorCasper, KA
dc.coverage.spatialEngland
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-09T17:17:30Z
dc.date.available2024-01-09T17:17:30Z
dc.date.issued2022-12-01
dc.identifier.issn0194-5998
dc.identifier.issn1097-6817
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34060949
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/191967en
dc.description.abstractObjective: Surgical procedures that render patients acutely aphonic can cause them to experience significant anxiety and distress. We queried patient perceptions after tracheostomy or laryngectomy and investigated whether introducing augmentative technology was associated with improvement in patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Participants included hospitalized patients who acutely lost the ability to speak due to tracheostomy or total laryngectomy from April 2018 to December 2019. We distributed questions regarding the patient communication experience and relevant questions from the validated V-RQOL questionnaire (Voice-Related Quality of Life). Patients were offered a tablet with the electronic communication application Verbally. Pre- and postintervention groups were compared with chi-square analyses. Results: Surveys were completed by 35 patients (n = 18, preintervention; n = 17, postintervention). Prior to using augmentative technology, 89% of patients who were aphonic reported difficulty communicating, specifically noting breathing or suctioning (56%), treatment and discharge plans (78%), or immediate needs, such as pain and using the bathroom (39%). Communication difficulties caused anxiety (55%), depression (44%), or frustration (62%), and 92% of patients were interested in using an electronic communication device. Patients reported less trouble communicating after the intervention versus before (53% vs 89%, P =.03), including less difficulty communicating about treatment or discharge plans (35% vs 78%, P <.01). V-RQOL scores were unchanged. Discussion: Acute loss of phonation arising from surgery can be highly distressing for patients, and use of augmentative technology may alleviate some of these challenges by improving communication. Further studies are needed to identify what additional strategies may improve overall well-being. Implications for Practice: Electronic communication devices may benefit patients with acute aphonia.
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherWiley
dc.relation.haspartARTN 01945998211013778
dc.subjectaphonia
dc.subjectaugmentative technology
dc.subjectcommunication
dc.subjectlaryngectomy
dc.subjectpatient safety
dc.subjectquality improvement
dc.subjectquality of life
dc.subjecttracheostomy
dc.subjectvoice
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectLaryngectomy
dc.subjectQuality of Life
dc.subjectTracheostomy
dc.subjectVoice Quality
dc.subjectCommunication
dc.subjectTechnology
dc.titleEffect of Augmentative Technology on Communication and Quality of Life After Tracheostomy or Total Laryngectomy
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.pmid34060949
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/191967/2/2021_Oto-HNS_Augmentative Communication for Aphonia.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/01945998211013778
dc.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.7302/21968
dc.identifier.sourceOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)
dc.description.versionPublished version
dc.date.updated2024-01-09T17:17:29Z
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-1783-4338
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-2313-8542
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-2878-3863
dc.description.filedescriptionDescription of 2021_Oto-HNS_Augmentative Communication for Aphonia.pdf : Published version
dc.identifier.volume167
dc.identifier.issue6
dc.identifier.startpage985
dc.identifier.endpage990
dc.identifier.name-orcidHaring, CT
dc.identifier.name-orcidFarlow, JL
dc.identifier.name-orcidLeginza, M
dc.identifier.name-orcidVance, K
dc.identifier.name-orcidBlakely, A
dc.identifier.name-orcidLyden, T
dc.identifier.name-orcidHoesli, RC
dc.identifier.name-orcidNeal, MEH
dc.identifier.name-orcidBrenner, MJ
dc.identifier.name-orcidHogikyan, ND; 0000-0003-1783-4338
dc.identifier.name-orcidMorrison, RJ; 0000-0002-2313-8542
dc.identifier.name-orcidCasper, KA; 0000-0003-2878-3863
dc.working.doi10.7302/21968en
dc.owningcollnameOtolaryngology, Department of


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.