4.5 Article

Voice Function in Gender-Diverse People Assigned Female at Birth: Results From a Participant-Centered Mixed-Methods Study and Implications for Clinical Practice

期刊

出版社

AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC
DOI: 10.1044/2019_JSLHR-S-19-0063

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether there were indications of restrictions to voice function in our group of gender-diverse people assigned female at birth (GD people(AFAB)) and whether the participants would benefit from professional voice support. Method: We conducted a descriptive, cross-sectional, mixed-methods study combining qualitative content analyses of semistructured interviews, phoniatric examinations, and acoustical voice analyses. Fourteen German-speaking GD peopleAFAB participated. The data were examined for indications of restrictions to voice function according to the results of participant self-evaluation, auditory-perceptual analyses, laryngostroboscopic examinations, and acoustical measurements. Results: All participants presented with indications of restrictions to voice function, with vocal power, voice quality, singing voice, laryngeal function, pitch range/variability, and vocal control having found to be most frequently affected (in over 60% of participants). Sixtyfour percent of participants expressed an interest in professional voice support, with clinicians and researchers recommending professional voice support for 67% and 71%, respectively. Conclusions: GD peopleAFAB may experience restrictions to a range of domains of voice function and request or be recommended to participate in professional voice support. Research into this area needs to be intensified so that a more in-depth understanding of the potential voice problems GD peopleAFAB might experience can be produced and members of this group can be provided with more comprehensive, evidence-based, and high-quality professional support if and when they need it.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据