TY - JOUR
T1 - Communication after laryngectomy
T2 - An assessment of quality of life
AU - Carr, Michele M.
AU - Schmidbauer, Judy A.
AU - Majaess, Lillian
AU - Smith, Rachael L.
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2000
Y1 - 2000
N2 - The purpose of this study was to examine quality of life in laryngectomees using different methods of communication. A survey was mailed to all the living laryngectomees in Nova Scotia. Patients were asked to rate their ability to communicate in a number of common situations, to rate their difficulty with several communication problems, and to complete the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality-of-life assessment tool. Sixty-two patients responded (return rate of 84%); 57% were using electrolaryngeal speech, 19% esophageal speech, and 8.5% tracheoesophageal speech. These groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, first language, education level, and years since laryngectomy. There were very few differences between these groups in ability to communicate in social situations and no difference in overall quality of life as measured by these scales. The most commonly cited problem was difficulty being heard in a noisy environment. Despite the fact that tracheoesophageal speech is objectively most intelligible, there does not seem to be a measurable improvement in quality of life or ability to communicate in everyday situations over electrolaryngeal or esophageal speakers.
AB - The purpose of this study was to examine quality of life in laryngectomees using different methods of communication. A survey was mailed to all the living laryngectomees in Nova Scotia. Patients were asked to rate their ability to communicate in a number of common situations, to rate their difficulty with several communication problems, and to complete the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality-of-life assessment tool. Sixty-two patients responded (return rate of 84%); 57% were using electrolaryngeal speech, 19% esophageal speech, and 8.5% tracheoesophageal speech. These groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, first language, education level, and years since laryngectomy. There were very few differences between these groups in ability to communicate in social situations and no difference in overall quality of life as measured by these scales. The most commonly cited problem was difficulty being heard in a noisy environment. Despite the fact that tracheoesophageal speech is objectively most intelligible, there does not seem to be a measurable improvement in quality of life or ability to communicate in everyday situations over electrolaryngeal or esophageal speakers.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033971752&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033971752&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S0194-5998(00)70141-0
DO - 10.1016/S0194-5998(00)70141-0
M3 - Article
C2 - 10629480
AN - SCOPUS:0033971752
SN - 0194-5998
VL - 122
SP - 39
EP - 43
JO - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
JF - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
IS - 1
ER -