Patient Experience With Absolute Voice Rest Following Phonomicrosurgery: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE(S): Voice rest is commonly recommended following phonomicrosurgery to minimize vocal fold scarring, but associated quality of life (QoL) is low resulting in poor compliance. This study aimed to explore patients' experiences with voice rest following phonomicrosurgery to identify facilitators and barriers. METHODS: This qualitative study used prospective, typical case technique for purposive sampling of consecutive patients who underwent voice rest following phonomicrosurgery for benign vocal fold lesions. Participants were enrolled at a single tertiary Laryngology center located at Unity Health Toronto - St. Michael's Hospital from 2020 to 2022. Semi-structured virtual interviews were conducted 4 weeks following patients' surgery. All interview transcripts were transcribed verbatim and underwent thematic analysis. Participant recruitment was stopped once thematic saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Twenty participants were recruited and 4 withdrew due to scheduling conflicts. Sixteen participants completed interviews, all of whom reported minimal impact of postoperative voice rest on QoL. The participants attributed their success to facilitators such as notifying close contacts of their situation beforehand and adopting nonverbal forms of communication. No participant endorsed a negative attitude toward voice rest. Understanding the rationale for voice rest and the consequences of noncompliance were reported to be effective in encouraging compliance. CONCLUSION: Overall, the participants tolerated voice rest well owing to facilitators such as early preparation, lifestyle modifications, and understanding the rationale for voice rest. Social disconnect and work demands were barriers of voice rest. Moving forward, facilitators and barriers should be addressed in efforts to optimize the voice rest experience for future patient populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 134:361-366, 2024.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".