Evaluation of a Student-Led Community-Based Veterinary Clinic for Disabled Low-Income Clients: A Case Study of the University of Florida PAWS Program.

People with disabilities experiencing low socioeconomic position are priority populations when considering access to veterinary care. In this population, intersectional inequities lead to adverse health outcomes for both those individuals and the companion animals they care for. Community-based veterinary clinics provide an opportunity to target these inequities from a culturally sensitive lens, intending to improve human and animal outcomes. We conducted a process evaluation of a student-led community-based clinic for this population to better understand client satisfaction, assess learning outcomes among veterinary students, and improve program delivery and services. During academic year 2020-2021, the monthly clinics had 162 appointments in total with a median 15 DVM candidates volunteering at each clinic. Clients and volunteers responded to survey questionnaires designed to elicit information about their experiences with the clinic, including open-ended questions for further elucidation of measurable indicators of client-, patient-, and student-level impact. Clients attributed enrollment in the clinic with improved quality-of-life and reduction of financial burden; the program saved clients approximately $2,050 per pet during the evaluation year. Furthermore, the clinic widely facilitated completion of the college's core Primary Care and Dentistry learning outcomes. Beyond curriculum-standard learning objectives, students also reported positive attitude changes and increased readiness to provide care to people with disabilities and people experiencing low socioeconomic position. The results of this evaluation have significant implications for both veterinary and public health pedagogy. Especially, they highlight the significance of community health practice in veterinary trainee education.

The Effect of Noise on Relationships Between Speech Intelligibility and Self-Reported Communication Measures in Tracheoesophageal Speakers.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine how sentence intelligibility relates to self-reported communication in tracheoesophageal speakers when speech intelligibility is measured in quiet and noise. METHOD: Twenty-four tracheoesophageal speakers who were at least 1 year postlaryngectomy provided audio recordings of 5 sentences from the Sentence Intelligibility Test. Speakers also completed self-reported measures of communication-the Voice Handicap Index-10 and the Communicative Participation Item Bank short form. Speech recordings were presented to 2 groups of inexperienced listeners who heard sentences in quiet or noise. Listeners transcribed the sentences to yield speech intelligibility scores. RESULTS: Very weak relationships were found between intelligibility in quiet and measures of voice handicap and communicative participation. Slightly stronger, but still weak and nonsignificant, relationships were observed between measures of intelligibility in noise and both self-reported measures. However, 12 speakers who were more than 65% intelligible in noise showed strong and statistically significant relationships with both self-reported measures (R2 = .76-.79). CONCLUSIONS: Speech intelligibility in quiet is a weak predictor of self-reported communication measures in tracheoesophageal speakers. Speech intelligibility in noise may be a better metric of self-reported communicative function for speakers who demonstrate higher speech intelligibility in noise.

The relationship between communicative participation and postlaryngectomy speech outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine relationships between communicative participation and postlaryngectomy speech outcomes, including listener-rated speech intelligibility and acceptability, and patient-rated speech acceptability and voice handicap. METHODS: Thirty-six laryngectomized individuals completed the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) short form and the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10). They provided recordings from the Sentence Intelligibility Test (SIT) and a reading passage, and rated their own speech acceptability. Forty-eight inexperienced listeners transcribed the SIT sentences to derive intelligibility scores. Eighteen additional listeners judged the speech acceptability using the rating scales. RESULTS: Listeners judged tracheoesophageal speakers as significantly more intelligible and acceptable than electrolaryngeal speakers (p < .05). Speech acceptability was significantly more acceptable to speakers than listeners (p < .05). Weak, nonsignificant relationships were found between communicative participation and listener-rated outcomes. Stronger, significant relationships were found between communicative participation and self-rated speech acceptability and voice handicap (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Patient-reported communication outcomes are complementary to listener-rated outcomes. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E1955-E1961, 2016.