便携式语音放大是否能改善小学教师的嗓音结局？来自空气动力学、声学和自我报告测量的证据。

文献信息

中文摘要

目的： 本研究旨在评估语音放大系统联合嗓音卫生对伴有和不伴有嗓音问题的小学教师在空气动力学、声学和自我报告结局方面的影响。
方法： 最初共招募217名小学教师：108名嗓音正常参与者和109名有嗓音主诉的参与者。两组参与者在嗓音干预前后均接受评估，观察空气动力学、声学和自我报告结局。在开始嗓音干预程序前，参与者被随机分配到两种治疗之一：（a）在教室环境中使用放大系统加嗓音卫生方案（实验条件）和（b）仅嗓音卫生方案（对照条件）。因此，本研究共生成四组。对所有因变量采用混合效应模型分析数据。
结果： 对于发声障碍教师，在嗓音疲劳指数、嗓音障碍指数和声道不适量表值上观察到显著交互作用，反映干预完成后实验组较对照组有更大改善。相反，在平滑倒谱峰突出度、气流率、声门下压或发声阈值压力方面未观察到差异效应。在嗓音正常参与者中仅检测到一项显著交互作用，提示治疗对已经患有发声障碍的教师更有效。
结论： 便携式放大系统联合嗓音卫生似乎对发声障碍学校教师的嗓音产生积极影响，尤其是在功能、躯体和情绪嗓音相关维度的自我报告改善、咽喉不适和嗓音疲劳症状方面。在空气动力学或声学结局方面未观察到统计学显著变化。这些发现连同既往证据提示，语音放大作为职业嗓音健康更广泛方法的一个组成部分、并与其他策略（如嗓音训练和教室声学干预）联合实施时可能最为有益。

英文摘要

PURPOSE: The present study aimed at evaluating the impact of a voice amplification system plus vocal hygiene on aerodynamic, acoustic, and self-reported outcomes in elementary school teachers with and without voice problems.
METHOD: A total of 217 elementary school teachers were initially recruited: 108 normal-voiced participants and 109 participants with voice complaints. Participants from both groups were assessed before and after voice intervention, with aerodynamic, acoustic, and self-reported outcomes being observed. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two treatments before starting voice intervention procedures: (a) use of amplification system in their classroom setting plus vocal hygiene program (experimental condition) and (b) vocal hygiene program only (control condition). Thus, four groups were generated for this study. Data were analyzed by implementing mixed-effects models for all dependent variables.
RESULTS: For dysphonic teachers, significant interactions were observed on Vocal Fatigue Index, Voice Handicap Index, and Vocal Tract Discomfort Scale values, reflecting greater improvement for the experimental group as compared to the control group once the intervention was completed. In contrast, no differential effects were observed for smoothed cepstral peak prominence, airflow rate, subglottal pressure, or phonation threshold pressure. Only one significant interaction was detected in participants with normal voices, suggesting that treatment is more effective for teachers already suffering from dysphonia.
CONCLUSIONS: Portable amplification system plus vocal hygiene seems to positively impact dysphonic school teachers' voice, especially in terms of self-reported improvements in functional, physical, and emotional voice-related dimensions; throat discomfort; and vocal fatigue symptoms. No statistically significant changes were observed for aerodynamic or acoustic outcomes. These findings, along with prior evidence, suggest that voice amplification may be most beneficial when implemented as one component of a broader approach to occupational vocal health, combined with other strategies such as voice training and classroom acoustic interventions.