Communication after laryngectomy. An assessment of patient satisfaction.
Communication after laryngectomy. An assessment of patient satisfaction.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1001/archotol.1997.01900050039004
复制
发表时间：
1997-05
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Kelly S. Clements;C. Rassekh;H. Seikaly;J. Hokanson;K. Calhoun
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kelly S. Clements;C. Rassekh;H. Seikaly;J. Hokanson;K. Calhoun
目的 确定患者对当前喉部沟通方法的满意度。主要关注患者对自己言语的感知。设计 对因恶性肿瘤接受全喉切除术的患者进行回顾性审查，确定了 4 组患者。使用邮寄问卷的调查用于比较各组。设置 三级护理大学医院，加尔维斯顿德克萨斯大学医学分部。患者 47 名患者因癌症接受全喉切除术并幸存。 47 名患者中有 31 名对调查做出了回应。根据目前的沟通方式，患者被分为 4 组：（1）平板书写者； (2)食管言语； (3) 电喉； (4)气管食管言语。主要指标对沟通的满意度、对语音质量的满意度、通过电话沟通的能力、与他人互动的限制以及对生活质量的满意度。结果 第 4 组患者对自己的言语满意度明显更高 (P < .001)，认为自己的言语质量更好 (P < .001)，通过电话沟通的能力有所提高 (P < .001)，并且与他人互动的限制较少 (P < .004)。第 4 组患者的总体生活质量也较高 (P = .23)。结论 尽管过去的许多研究都证明了气管食管语音与其他喉部通讯方法相比的客观优越性，但大多数研究都集中在听众判断的语音清晰度上。这项研究表明，使用气管食管言语的患者对自己言语的评价显着高于使用其他方法的患者，并且很可能具有更高的整体生活质量。
OBJECTIVES To determine the satisfaction of patients with their current method of alaryngeal communication. To focus primarily on the patients' perception of their own speech. DESIGN A retrospective review of patients who underwent total laryngectomy for malignancy identified 4 groups of patients. A survey using a mailed questionnaire was used to compare groups. SETTING Tertiary care university hospital, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. PATIENTS Forty-seven patients underwent total laryngectomy for cancer and survived. Thirty-one of the 47 patients responded to the survey. Patients were divided into 4 groups by their current method of communication: (1) tablet writers; (2) esophageal speech; (3) electrolarynx; and (4) tracheoesophageal speech. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Satisfaction with communication, satisfaction with speech quality, ability to communicate over telephone, limitation of interaction with others, and satisfaction with quality of life. RESULTS Patients in group 4 were significantly more satisfied with their speech (P < .001), perceived their speech to be of better quality (P < .001), had improved ability to communicate over the telephone (P < .001), and had less limitation of their interactions with others (P < .004). Patients in group 4 also rated their overall quality of life higher (P = .23). CONCLUSION Although many studies in the past have demonstrated the objective superiority of tracheoesophageal speech compared with other methods of alaryngeal communication, most studies have focused on the intelligibility of speech judged by listeners. This study demonstrates that patients who use tracheoesophageal speech rate their own speech significantly higher than patients who use other methods and most likely have an overall superior quality of life.