Vocal Symptoms and Associated Risk Factors between Male and Female University Teachers
09 September 2016
10 August 2017
26 October 2017 (eFirst)
Introduction Many recent studies on teachers warn of the adverse effects that voice problems have on work performance. However, only a few of these studies included university teachers.
Objective To compare the vocal symptoms and risk factors between male and female university teachers in a private institution within the city of São Paulo.
Methods In a cross-sectional survey, a voice self-evaluation form prepared by the Ministry of Labor in Brazil was administered to 846 university teachers at a private institution in the city of São Paulo.
Results The percentage of hoarseness, vocal tract discomfort, neck pain and foreign body sensation was significantly higher in female than in male subjects. A significantly higher percentage of males participated in other professional activities in addition to teaching, reported working in a calm environment compared with working in a moderately or severely tense and stressful environment, and rated themselves as calm, slightly stressed and anxious or moderately stressed and anxious rather than very stressed and anxious. A significantly higher percentage of females spent most of their time teaching compared with performing other professional activities, and rated themselves as chatty or impulsive.
Conclusion Among university teachers, a significantly higher percentage of females than males reported hoarseness, vocal tract discomfort, neck pain and foreign body sensation. Some risk factors related to work organization, workplace environment, voice care and quality of life variables were related to this higher prevalence in females.
- 1 Roy N, Merrill RM, Thibeault S, Parsa RA, Gray SD, Smith EM. Prevalence of voice disorders in teachers and the general population. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004; 47 (02) 281-293
- 2 Van Houtte E, Claeys S, Wuyts F, Van Lierde K. The impact of voice disorders among teachers: vocal complaints, treatment-seeking behavior, knowledge of vocal care, and voice-related absenteeism. J Voice 2011; 25 (05) 570-575
- 3 Smith E, Gray SD, Dove H, Kirchner L, Heras H. Frequency and effects of teachers' voice problems. J Voice 1997; 11 (01) 81-87
- 4 Behlau M, Zambon F, Guerrieri AC, Roy N. Epidemiology of voice disorders in teachers and nonteachers in Brazil: prevalence and adverse effects. J Voice 2012; 26 (05) 665.e9-665.e18
- 5 Korn GP, Augusto de Lima Pontes A, Abranches D, Augusto de Lima Pontes P. Hoarseness and risk factors in University teachers. J Voice 2015; 29 (04) 518.e21-518.e28
- 6 Korn GP, Augusto de Lima Pontes A, Abranches D, Augusto de Lima Pontes P. Vocal tract discomfort and risk factors in University teachers. J Voice 2016; 30 (04) 507.e1-507.e8
- 7 de Almeida SIC, Pontes P. Dysphonic occupational syndrome: new aspects of this nosological entity. Arq Int Otorrinolaringol 2010; 14 (03) 346-350
- 8 Cantor Cutiva LC, Vogel I, Burdorf A. Voice disorders in teachers and their associations with work-related factors: a systematic review. J Commun Disord 2013; 46 (02) 143-155
- 9 Ministry of Labor and Employment (BR). Labor Office in the State São Paulo SDT 1 North/SP. Occupational dysphonia program in teachers. São Paulo, BR: Labor Office in the State of São Paulo, Security Section and Health Worker; 2003
- 10 Russell A, Oates J, Greenwood KM. Prevalence of voice problems in teachers. J Voice 1998; 12 (04) 467-479
- 11 Marçal CC, Peres MA. Self-reported voice problems among teachers: prevalence and associated factors. Rev Saude Publica 2011; 45 (03) 503-511
- 12 van Houtte E, Claeys S, Wuyts F, van Lierde K. Voice disorders in teachers: occupational risk factors and psycho-emotional factors. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 2012; 37 (03) 107-116
- 13 de Jong FI, Kooijman PG, Thomas G, Huinck WJ, Graamans K, Schutte HK. Epidemiology of voice problems in Dutch teachers. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2006; 58 (03) 186-198
- 14 Nerrière E, Vercambre MN, Gilbert F, Kovess-Masféty V. Voice disorders and mental health in teachers: a cross-sectional nationwide study. BMC Public Health 2009; 9 (01) 370
- 15 Coyle SM, Weinrich BD, Stemple JC. Shifts in relative prevalence of laryngeal pathology in a treatment-seeking population. J Voice 2001; 15 (03) 424-440
- 16 Herrington-Hall BL, Lee L, Stemple JC, Niemi KR, McHone MM. Description of laryngeal pathologies by age, sex, and occupation in a treatment-seeking sample. J Speech Hear Disord 1988; 53 (01) 57-64
- 17 Zhukhovitskaya A, Battaglia D, Khosla SM, Murry T, Sulica L. Gender and age in benign vocal fold lesions. Laryngoscope 2015; 125 (01) 191-196
- 18 Titze IR. Physiologic and acoustic differences between male and female voices. J Acoust Soc Am 1989; 85 (04) 1699-1707
- 19 Pontes P, Kyrillos L, Behlau M, De Biase N, Pontes A. Vocal nodules and laryngeal morphology. J Voice 2002; 16 (03) 408-414
- 20 Hunter EJ, Tanner K, Smith ME. Gender differences affecting vocal health of women in vocally demanding careers. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 2011; 36 (03) 128-136