The Effect of Vocal Hygiene Education Programs on Voice Quality in Professional Voice Users: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to critically appraise recent peer-reviewed scientific evidence on the effect of vocal hygiene education on voice quality and function directly and indirectly measured by auditory-perceptual, acoustic, and self-report measures in professional voice users. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Five databases were searched using the keywords "vocal hygiene," "vocal hygiene education," "vocal health," "vocal quality," and "voice quality" with Boolean phrases "AND" and "OR." Twenty-three studies that met the eligibility criteria were included. Scoring was based on the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's levels of evidence and quality indicators, as well as the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for assessing the risk of bias. RESULTS: = 10; 43%) showed that adequate voice training or vocal hygiene education was linked to positive voice outcomes. Six studies (6.26%), however, demonstrated that vocal hygiene education is more effective when combined with direct voice therapy. When vocal hygiene education is presented in isolation, the superiority of a direct voice therapy approach, with or without vocal hygiene education, is seen over a vocal hygiene education program alone (indirect treatment). CONCLUSIONS: Recent literature demonstrates mixed results obtained through auditory-perceptual, acoustic, and self-rating measures on the effects of vocal hygiene instruction on vocal quality and function in professional voice users. However, the compelling positive outcomes presented do warrant implementation of vocal hygiene education programs in combination with direct voice therapy for professional voice users.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".