4.3 Article

Validity of Patient-Reported Swallowing and Speech Outcomes in Relation to Objectively Measured Oral Function Among Patients Treated for Oral or Oropharyngeal Cancer

期刊

DYSPHAGIA
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 196-204

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00455-014-9595-9

关键词

Deglutition; Deglutition disorder; Dysphagia; Speech; Oral function; Xerostomia; Trismus; Head and neck cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to test the construct validity of the patient-reported outcomes Swallowing Quality of Life Questionnaire (SWAL-QOL) and Speech Handicap Index (SHI) in relation to objectively measured oral function among patients treated for oral or oropharyngeal cancer. The study sample consisted of patients treated for oral or oropharyngeal cancer. Outcome measures were the SWAL-QOL and the SHI, and the Functional Rehabilitation Outcomes Grade (FROG), a test to measure oral and shoulder function. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to test associations between the SHI and SWAL-QOL scales, and the FROG scales. During a study period of 3 months, 38 patients (21 males, 17 females; mean age 54 years) were included who visited the outpatient clinic for follow-up care 6-155 months after surgical treatment (n = 14) or combined surgery and radiotherapy (n = 24) for oral (n = 21) or oropharyngeal cancer (n = 17). Most SWAL-QOL and SHI scales (except the SWAL-QOL Fatigue scale) correlated significantly with one or more FROG oral function scales. None of the SWAL-QOL and SHI scales correlated significantly with the FROG shoulder function scale. These results support the construct validity of the SWAL-QOL and SHI questionnaires for assessing speech and swallowing problems in daily life that are moderately but significantly related to oral function. A multidimensional assessment protocol is recommended for use in clinical practice and for research purposes for measuring oral function and swallowing- and speech-related problems in daily life among head and neck cancer patients.

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

4.3
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