Vocal Warm-up and Respiratory Muscle Training

Not Applicable

Completed

Conditions: Voice Disorders

Interventions: Behavioral: Vocal Warm-up
Behavioral: Respiratory Muscle Training

Registration Number: NCT02102399

Lead Sponsor: Federal University of Bahia

Brief Summary: The purpose of this study is to verify the effects of two speech-pathology interventions: vocal warm-up and respiratory training in teachers who work in a public school of the city of Salvador-Bahia, with or without complaints of vocal disorders. It is a preventive study and the hypothesis is that both approaches can produce positive voice changes, but the Vocal Warm-up will produce the most significant changes.

Detailed Description: Randomized Clinical Trial where participants were allocated into groups: Vocal Warm-up (to perform exercises of resistance and flexibility for 13 minutes before teaching, during six weeks) and Respiratory Muscle Training (to perform exercises to strengthen the respiratory muscles through the use of incentive respiratory equipment. Five repetitions of exhales with an interval of thirty seconds between each one were performed. It was requested rest for two minutes, repeating the procedure four times with the total of five series. These exercises were performed for 13 minutes before teaching, during six weeks).

Outcomes analyzed: demographics and teaching activity characteristics; symptoms, habits and factors associated with voice disorders; self-reported voice handicap (Voice Handicap Index-VHI-10); vocal severity rating (Vocal Severity Scale); and acoustic parameters through the computerized acoustic voice analysis program VoxMetria (CTS Informatics).

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status: COMPLETED

Sex: All

Target Recruitment: 41

Inclusion Criteria

Age between 20-60.
No occurence of speech therapy simultaneously to the intervention

Exclusion Criteria

Professional voice use in another activity;
Frequent use of alcohol and tobacco;
Influenza and/or upper respiratory tract infections (eg, rhinitis, sinusitis, pharyngitis) during the period of participation in the research.

Study & Design

Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL

Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Vocal Warm-up	Vocal Warm-up	Vocal Warm-up group performed 13 minutes of vocal warm-up exercises everyday before teaching over a course of 6 weeks, with one session exercise per day.
Respiratory Muscle Training	Respiratory Muscle Training	Respiratory Muscle Training group performed 13 minutes of Respiratory Muscle Training everyday before teaching over a course of 6 weeks, with one session exercise per day.

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Acoustic Analysis (Jitter)	Baseline, 6 weeks	Jitter is the perturbation cycle-to-cycle of the fundamental frequency. High levels of jitter are normally associated with pathological voice. The instability of the fundamental frequency can be attributed to changes in size, shape or firmness of the vocal folds. Normal values must be \< 0.6%.
Acoustic Analysis (Jitter) 2	Baseline, 6 weeks	Jitter is the perturbation cycle-to-cycle of the fundamental frequency. High levels of jitter are normally associated with pathological voice. The instability of the fundamental frequency can be attributed to changes in size, shape or firmness of the vocal folds. Normal values must be \< 0.6%.
Acoustic Analysis (Shimmer) 2	Baseline, 6 weeks	The shimmer measures the amplitude's disturbance, e. g. how fast the amplitude changes on a sustained vowel for a few seconds. Shimmer high levels are normally associated with pathological voice. This can be attributed due to changes in size, shape or firmness of the vocal folds. Normal values \< 6.5%.
Acoustic Analysis (Fundamental Frequency)	Baseline, 6 weeks	The measurement of fundamental frequency directly reflects the rate of vibration of the vocal folds. The fundamental frequency term refers to the frequency of more occurrence of vocal fold vibration, featuring a certain production.
Acoustic Analysis (Noise)	Baseline, 6 weeks	Noise is the analysis of aperiodic components of the sound's signal. It is an important correlate of that the human ear considers voice disorders. Normal levels \< 2.5 dB
Change in Noise	Baseline, 6 weeks	Noise is the analysis of aperiodic components of the sound's signal. It is an important correlate of that the human ear considers voice disorders. Normal levels \< 2.5 dB
Acoustic Analysis (Shimmer)	Baseline, 6 weeks	The shimmer measures the amplitude's disturbance, e. g. how fast the amplitude changes on a sustained vowel for a few seconds. Shimmer high levels are normally associated with pathological voice. This can be attributed due to changes in size, shape or firmness of the vocal folds. Normal values \< 6.5%.
Acoustic Analysis (GNE)	Baseline, 6 weeks	Glottal to Noise Excitation ratio (GNE) is an acoustic measurement to calculate the noise in a series of pulses produced by the oscillation of the vocal folds. This parameter is based on the hypothesis that resulting pulses of vocal fold collision generate a synchronous excitation of different frequency bands. Moreover, the noise produced by the vocal folds compressed generates uncorrelated excitations. Normal levels \> 0.5 dB
Acoustic Analysis (GNE) 2	Baseline, 6 weeks	Glottal to Noise Excitation ratio (GNE) is an acoustic measurement to calculate the noise in a series of pulses produced by the oscillation of the vocal folds. This parameter is based on the hypothesis that resulting pulses of vocal fold collision generate a synchronous excitation of different frequency bands. Moreover, the noise produced by the vocal folds compressed generates uncorrelated excitations. Normal levels \> 0.5 dB
Voice Handicap Index (VHI-10)	Baseline, 6 weeks	The voice handicap index (VHI) is a self-assessment questionnaire which quantifies the functional, physical and emotional impacts of a voice disorder on the quality of life. The VHI-10 is a reduced version and it consists of 10 questions about the severity of the voice problem perceived by the subject. It is presented as an ordinal scale (range 0-4) that indicates how frequently the subject has experienced the same situation (0 = never; 1 = almost never; 2 = sometimes; 3= almost always; 4 = always). Total VHI Score ranges from 0 (never) to 40 (always). Higher scores indicate greater voice handicap. Abnormal values \> 11.
Voice Handicap Index (VHI-10) 2	Baseline, 6 weeks	The voice handicap index (VHI) is a self-assessment questionnaire which quantifies the functional, physical and emotional impacts of a voice disorder on the quality of life. The VHI-10 is a reduced version and it consists of 10 questions about the severity of the voice problem perceived by the subject. It is presented as an ordinal scale (range 0-4) that indicates how frequently the subject has experienced the same situation (0 = never; 1 = almost never; 2 = sometimes; 3= almost always; 4 = always). Total VHI Score ranges from 0 (never) to 40 (always). Higher scores indicate greater voice handicap. Abnormal values \> 11.
Acoustic Analysis (Fundamental Frequency) 2	Baseline, 6 weeks	The measurement of fundamental frequency directly reflects the rate of vibration of the vocal folds. The fundamental frequency term refers to the frequency of more occurrence of vocal fold vibration, featuring a certain production.
Change in Fundamental Frequency	Baseline, 6 weeks	The measurement of fundamental frequency directly reflects the rate of vibration of the vocal folds. The fundamental frequency term refers to the frequency of more occurrence of vocal fold vibration, featuring a certain production.
Change in GNE	Baseline, 6 weeks	Glottal to Noise Excitation ratio (GNE) is an acoustic measurement to calculate the noise in a series of pulses produced by the oscillation of the vocal folds. This parameter is based on the hypothesis that resulting pulses of vocal fold collision generate a synchronous excitation of different frequency bands. Moreover, the noise produced by the vocal folds compressed generates uncorrelated excitations. Normal levels \> 0.5 dB
Acoustic Analysis (Noise) 2	Baseline, 6 weeks	Noise is the analysis of aperiodic components of the sound's signal. It is an important correlate of that the human ear considers voice disorders. Normal levels \< 2.5 dB
Change in Jitter	Baseline, 6 weeks	Jitter is the perturbation cycle-to-cycle of the fundamental frequency. High levels of jitter are normally associated with pathological voice. The instability of the fundamental frequency can be attributed to changes in size, shape or firmness of the vocal folds. Normal values must be \< 0.6%.
Change in Shimmer	Baseline, 6 weeks	Shimmer measures the amplitude perturbations, e. g. how fast the amplitude changes on a sustained vowel for a few seconds. Shimmer high levels are normally associated with pathological voice. This can be attributed due to changes in size, shape or firmness of the vocal folds. Normal values \< 6.5%
Change in Voice Handicap Index (VHI-10)	Baseline, 6 weeks	The voice handicap index (VHI) is a self-assessment questionnaire which quantifies the functional, physical and emotional impacts of a voice disorder on the quality of life. The VHI-10 is a reduced version and it consists of 10 questions about the severity of the voice problem perceived by the subject. It is presented as an ordinal scale (range 0-4) that indicates how frequently the subject has experienced the same situation (0 = never; 1 = almost never; 2 = sometimes; 3= almost always; 4 = always). Total VHI Score ranges from 0 (never) to 40 (always). Higher scores indicate greater voice handicap. Abnormal values \> 11.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Post-treatment Questionnaire (Voice Clearer)	After 6 weeks of intervention	The post-treatment questionnaire was based on the original designed by Roy (2003) for assessing the teachers' perception of voice improvement and compliance with the intervention. Participants rated their extent of improvement on a 3-point Likert scale ("not at all/somewhat"; "moderate"; "a lot"). The questionnaire was applied only after the intervention. The answers were dichotomized in two categories ("moderate/a lot" and "not at all/somewhat"). The results were presented in frequency/percentage of subjects that answered "moderate/a lot" in each intervention.
Post-treatment Questionnaire (Voice Symptoms Improvement)	After 6 weeks of intervention	The post-treatment questionnaire was based on the original designed by Roy (2003) for assessing the teachers' perception of voice improvement and compliance with the intervention. Participants rated their extent of improvement on a 3-point Likert scale ("not at all/somewhat"; "moderate"; "a lot"). The questionnaire was applied only after the intervention. The answers were dichotomized in two categories ("moderate/a lot" and "not at all/somewhat"). The results were presented in frequency/percentage of subjects that answered "moderate/a lot" in each intervention.
Post-treatment Questionnaire (Easier to Talk)	After 6 weeks of intervention	The post-treatment questionnaire was based on the original designed by Roy (2003) for assessing the teachers' perception of voice improvement and compliance with the intervention. Participants rated their extent of improvement on a 3-point Likert scale ("not at all/somewhat"; "moderate"; "a lot"). The questionnaire was applied only after the intervention. The answers were dichotomized in two categories ("moderate/a lot" and "not at all/somewhat"). The results were presented in frequency/percentage of subjects that answered "moderate/a lot" in each intervention.
Post-treatment Questionnaire (Compliance With Intervention)	After 6 weeks of intervention	The post-treatment questionnaire was based on the original designed by Roy (2003) for assessing the teachers' perception of voice improvement and compliance with the intervention. Participants rated their degree of compliance on a 3-point Likert scale ("not at all/somewhat"; "moderate"; "a lot"). The questionnaire was applied only after the intervention. The answers were dichotomized in two categories ("moderate/a lot" and "not at all/somewhat"). It was considered compliance the answers "moderate" and "a lot" in comparison of "not at all/somewhat", considered as no compliance. The results were presented in frequency/percentage of subjects in each intervention.