Scandcleft Project Trial 2-Comparison of Speech Outcome in 1- and 2-Stage Palatal Closure in 5-Year-Olds With UCLP.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate in-depth speech results in the Scandcleft Trial 2 with comparisons between surgical protocols and centers and with benchmarks from peers without cleft palate. DESIGN: A prospective randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Two Swedish and one Finnish Cleft Palate center. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twelve participants were 5-years-old born with unilateral cleft lip and palate randomized to either lip repair and soft palate closure at 4 months and hard palate closure at 12 months or lip repair at 3 to 4 months (Arm A), or a closure of both the soft and hard palate at 12 months (Arm C). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A composite measure dichotomized into velopharyngeal competency (VPC) or velopharyngeal incompetency (VPI), overall assessment of velopharyngeal function (VPC-Rate), percentage of consonants correct (PCC score), and consonant errors. In addition, number of speech therapy visits, average hearing thresholds, and secondary surgeries were documented to assess burden of treatment. RESULTS: Across the trial, 53.5% demonstrated VPC and 46.5% VPI with no significant differences between arms or centers. In total, 27% reached age-appropriate PCC scores with no statistically significant difference between the arms. The Finnish center had significantly higher PCC scores, the Swedish centers had higher percentages of oral consonant errors. Number of speech therapy visits was significantly higher in the Finnish center. CONCLUSION: At age 5, poor speech outcomes with some differences between participating centers were seen but could not be attributed to surgical protocol. As one center had very few participants, the results from that center should be interpreted with caution.

Perceived Voice Quality and Voice-Related Problems Among Older Adults With Hearing Impairments.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate problems relating to phonation and self-perceived voice sound quality in older adults based on hearing ability and the use of hearing aids. Method: This was a cross-sectional study, with 290 participants divided into 3 groups (matched by age and gender): (a) individuals with hearing impairments who did not use hearing aids (n = 110), (b) individuals with hearing impairments who did use hearing aids (n = 110), and (c) individuals with no hearing impairments (n = 70). All participants underwent a pure-tone audiometry exam; completed standardized questionnaires regarding their hearing, voice, and general health; and were recorded speaking in a soundproof room. Results: The hearing aid users surpassed the benchmarks for having a voice disorder on the Voice Handicap Index (VHI; Jacobson et al., 1997) at almost double the rate predicted by the Swedish normative values for their age range, although there was no significant difference in acoustical measures between any of the groups. Both groups with hearing impairments scored significantly higher on the VHI than the control group, indicating more impairment. It remains inconclusive how much hearing loss versus hearing aids separately contribute to the difference in voice problems. The total scores on the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (Ventry & Weinstein, 1982), in combination with the variables gender and age, explained 21.9% of the variance on the VHI. Perceiving one's own voice as being distorted, dull, or hollow had a strong negative association with a general satisfaction about the sound quality of one's own voice. In addition, groupwise differences in own-voice descriptions suggest that a negative perception of one's voice could be influenced by alterations caused by hearing aid processing. Conclusions: The results indicate that hearing impairments and hearing aids affect several aspects of vocal satisfaction in older adults. A greater understanding of how hearing impairments and hearing aids relate to voice problems may contribute to better voice and hearing care.

Learning in the tutorial group: a balance between individual freedom and institutional control.

The study investigates factors in problem-based learning tutorial groups which promote or inhibit learning. The informants were tutors and students from speech-language pathology and physiotherapy programmes. Semi-structured focus-group interviews and individual interviews were used. Results revealed three themes: Responsibility. Time and Support. Under responsibility, the delicate balance between individual and institutional responsibility and control was shown. Time included short and long-term perspectives on learning. Under support, supporting documents, activities and personnel resources were mentioned. In summary, an increased control by the program and tutors decreases student's motivation to assume responsibility for learning. Support in tutorial groups needs to adapt to student progression and to be well aligned to tutorial work to have the intended effect. A lifelong learning perspective may help students develop a meta-awareness regarding learning that could make tutorial work more meaningful.