Communication after laryngectomy: An assessment of quality of life

Michele M. Carr, Judy A. Schmidbauer, Lillian Majaess, Rachael L. Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)39-43
Number of pages5
JournalOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Volume122
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000

Fingerprint

Laryngectomy
Aptitude
Communication
Quality of Life
Esophageal Speech
Nova Scotia
Language
Education

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Carr, Michele M. ; Schmidbauer, Judy A. ; Majaess, Lillian ; Smith, Rachael L. / Communication after laryngectomy : An assessment of quality of life. In: Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2000 ; Vol. 122, No. 1. pp. 39-43.
@article{d6e03cd9748d479eb6dc6e233fb0f43e,
title = "Communication after laryngectomy: An assessment of quality of life",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Carr, {Michele M.} and Schmidbauer, {Judy A.} and Lillian Majaess and Smith, {Rachael L.}",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0194-5998(00)70141-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "122",
pages = "39--43",
journal = "Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery",
issn = "0194-5998",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "1",

}

Communication after laryngectomy : An assessment of quality of life. / Carr, Michele M.; Schmidbauer, Judy A.; Majaess, Lillian; Smith, Rachael L.

In: Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 122, No. 1, 01.01.2000, p. 39-43.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

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

VL - 122

SP - 39

EP - 43

JO - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

JF - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

SN - 0194-5998

IS - 1

ER -