ArticleJournal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation2025
Between Necessity and Feasibility: A Qualitative Study on How Clinicians Navigate Bedside Voice Assessment.
Article in Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acoustic Markers of Laryngeal Function and Swallowing Safety in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: An Exploratory Study.Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2026Article
- Low-cost contact microphones for bedside voice assessment: proof of concept.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to provide critical insights into how speech-language pathologists (SLPs) approach bedside voice assessment in medical settings, highlighting assessment strategies, practical barriers, and the feasibility of integrating objective tools into routine care.
methodsTwenty-five SLPs with experience in voice, swallowing, or upper airway disorders participated in semi-structured interviews conducted via Zoom. A hybrid inductive-deductive thematic analysis was applied to examine clinicians' perceptions of bedside voice assessment. Coding focused on assessment practices, barriers, research-practice translation, and the patient-centered role of voice in recovery.
findingsTen themes were identified across four domains: (1) clinical prioritization, (2) practical strategies, (3) research-practice gaps, and (4) patient-centered care. Clinicians consistently reported that swallowing takes precedence over voice assessment in medical care contexts due in part to workflow demands and risk prioritization. Limited access to instrumental tools and environmental constraints often led clinicians to rely on informal perceptual methods, non-standardized digital tools, and patient-reported outcomes. While these methods were practical, concerns were raised about their validity, particularly in complex inpatient populations. Many SLPs expressed frustration with the limited feasibility of implementing research-backed tools. Still, they emphasized the significance of voice for patients' emotional well-being and identity, describing vocal recovery as a marker of broader rehabilitation progress.
conclusionsDespite systemic and logistical constraints, clinicians recognize voice assessment as critical to holistic patient care. Current practices are shaped by necessity rather than preference. Bridging the gap between research and practice-through portable tools, validated protocols, and clinician-researcher collaboration-is essential to ensure voice assessments are both feasible and meaningful in medical contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.