A study of voice therapy dropout.

Treatment dropout is a consistent problem among behavior change therapies. A recent study by the authors demonstrated that 38% of patients did not attend a voice evaluation after referral by the otolaryngologist. Further, 47% of patients who attended a voice evaluation did not return for therapy. No previous study has set out to document completion/dropout rates for voice therapy, but high rates of attrition are reported as problematic within voice therapy research studies. The purpose of this study was to quantify the problem of voice therapy dropout over the course of voice therapy and to analyze factors that may predict dropout using a retrospective chart review. Data were collected at two voice centers and included demographics (gender, age, and race/ethnicity), quality-of-life impact (Voice Handicap Index [VHI]), severity of dysphonia (Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation of Voice [CAPE-V] overall severity score), diagnosis, and completion/dropout status. Results indicated a 65% voice therapy dropout rate in this study. There was no significant difference in dropout rates for gender, age, race, VHI, CAPE-V, or diagnosis. No factor studied was strongly associated with dropout. The 65% dropout rate in this study was consistent with literature published in other behavior change fields. The variables analyzed in this study were not predictive of dropout. Future research should examine methods to effect a reduction in dropout, from otolaryngologist referral through completion of therapy.

[1]  L. Ramig,et al.  Treatment efficacy: voice disorders. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[2]  Stephen Rollnick,et al.  Health Behavior Change: A Guide for Practitioners , 1999 .

[3]  L. J. Peters,et al.  Telehealth: voice therapy using telecommunications technology. , 2003, American journal of speech-language pathology.

[4]  Susan Thibeault,et al.  Prevalence of voice disorders in teachers and the general population. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[5]  C. Newman,et al.  The Voice Handicap Index (VHI)Development and Validation , 1997 .

[6]  L. Glaze,et al.  Preliminary study of two methods of treatment for laryngeal nodules. , 1995, Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation.

[7]  S. Gray,et al.  An evaluation of the effects of two treatment approaches for teachers with voice disorders: a prospective randomized clinical trial. , 2001, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[8]  C. Shields,et al.  Where Perception and Reality Differ: Dropping Out Is Not the Same as Failure , 2005, Journal of Behavioral Medicine.

[9]  J. Stemple,et al.  Description of laryngeal pathologies by age, sex, and occupation in a treatment-seeking sample. , 1988, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[10]  W. Miller,et al.  Motivational interviewing: preparing people for change. , 2002 .

[11]  Edie R Hapner,et al.  A review of patient adherence to the recommendation for voice therapy. , 2008, Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation.

[12]  I. Deary,et al.  Is voice therapy an effective treatment for dysphonia? A randomised controlled trial , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  P H Dejonckere,et al.  Documentation of progress in voice therapy: perceptual, acoustic, and laryngostroboscopic findings pretherapy and posttherapy. , 2004, Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation.

[14]  T. Murry,et al.  A comparison of three methods for the management of vocal fold nodules , 1992 .

[15]  Jean Adams,et al.  Are activity promotion interventions based on the transtheoretical model effective? A critical review , 2003, British journal of sports medicine.