Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2007; 28(4): 291-300
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-986526
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Application of the ICF in Communication after Total Laryngectomy

Tanya L. Eadie1
  • 1Assistant Professor, Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
12 October 2007 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) provides a conceptual framework for assessing and treating individuals with communication disorders. This article provides an explanation and application of the ICF to communication after total laryngectomy. To evaluate outcomes associated with total laryngectomy, common assessment tools used in speech-language pathology are described in relation to communication at the levels of Body Functions and Structures, and Activities and Participation. Assessments for Contextual Factors also are discussed. Post-laryngectomy outcomes, including those related to quality of life, also are described relative to the ICF framework. In particular, the role of Environmental and Personal Factors is summarized, and implications are presented for approaches to assessment and treatment of this clinical population. A concluding case example illustrates how all of these concepts can be applied by speech-language pathologists who provide post-laryngectomy rehabilitation.

KEYWORDS

Laryngectomy - assessment - rehabilitation - ICF

REFERENCES

  • 1 World Health Organization (WHO) .ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva, Switzerland; WHO 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 2 American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) .Scope of Practice in Speech-Language Pathology. Rockville, MD; ASHA 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Eadie T L. The ICF: a proposed framework for comprehensive rehabilitation of individuals who use alaryngeal speech.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2003;  12(2) 189-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Eadie T L. The ICIDH-2: theoretical and clinical implications for speech-language pathology.  J Speech Lang Pathol Aud. 2001;  25(4) 181-200
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Threats T T. Towards an international framework for communication disorders: use of the ICF.  J Commun Disord. 2006;  39(4) 251-2655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ware J E, Snow K K, Kosinski M et al.. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretative Guide. Boston; The Health Institute 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Yorkston K M, Beukelman D R, Tice R. Sentence Intelligibility Test. Lincoln, NE; Institute for Rehabilitation Science and Engineering, Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Bennett S, Weinberg B. Acceptability ratings of normal, esophageal, and artificial larynx speech.  J Speech Hear Res. 1973;  16(4) 608-615
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Eadie T L, Yorkston K M, Klasner E R et al.. Measuring communicative participation: a review of self-report instruments in speech-language pathology.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2006;  15 307-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Jacobson B H, Johnson A, Grywalski C et al.. The Voice Handicap Index (VHI): Development and validation.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1997;  6 66-70
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hogikyan N D, Sethuraman G. Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life (V-RQoL).  J Voice. 1999;  13(4) 557-569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hassan S J, Weymuller Jr E A. Assessment of quality of life in head and neck cancer patients.  Head Neck. 1993;  15(6) 485-496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Terrell J E, Nanavati K, Esclamado R M, Bishop J, Bradford C R, Wolf G. Head and neck cancer-specific quality of life: instrument validation.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;  123 1125-1132
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Aaronson N K, Ahmedazi S, Bergman B et al.. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;  85(5) 365-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Dijkers M. Quality of life after spinal cord injury: a meta analysis of the effects of disablement components.  Spinal Cord. 1997;  35(12) 829-840
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rohe D E. Loss, grief, and depression after laryngectomy. In: Keith RL, Darley FL Laryngectomee Rehabilitation. 3rd ed. Austin, TX; Pro Ed 1986
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Doyle P C. Foundations of Voice and Speech Rehabilitation Following Laryngeal Cancer. San Diego, CA; Singular 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Weiss M S, Basili A G. Electrolaryngeal speech produced by laryngectomized subjects: perceptual characteristics.  J Speech Hear Res. 1985;  28(2) 294-300
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kalb M B, Carpenter M A. Individual speaker influence on relative intelligibility of esophageal speech and artificial larynx speech.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1981;  26 77-80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Eadie T L, Doyle P C. Auditory-perceptual scaling and quality of life in tracheoesophageal speakers.  Laryngoscope. 2004;  114(4) 753-759
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Meyer T K, Kuhn J C, Campbell B H, Marbella A M, Myers K B, Layde P M. Speech intelligibility and quality of life in head and neck cancer survivors.  Laryngoscope. 2004;  114(11) 1977-1981
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Carr M M, Schmidbauer J A, Majaess L, Smith R L. Communication after laryngectomy: an assessment of quality of life.  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;  122(1) 39-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Tardy-Mitzell S, Andrews M L, Bowman S A. Acceptability and intelligibility of tracheoesophageal speech.  Arch Otolaryngol. 1985;  111(4) 213-215
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Finizia C, Dotevall H, Lundstrom E, Lindstrom J. Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of voice and speech quality: a study of patients with laryngeal cancer treated with laryngectomy vs irradiation.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;  125(2) 157-163
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Taylor J C, Terrell J E, Ronis D L et al.. Disability in patients with head and neck cancer.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;  130(6) 764-769
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hillman R E, Walsh M J, Wolf G T, Fisher S G, Hong W K. Functional outcomes following treatment for advanced laryngeal cancer.  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1998;  172 1-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Deleyiannis F W, Weymuller Jr E A, Coltrera M D, Futran N. Quality of life after laryngectomy: are functional disabilities important?.  Head Neck. 1999;  21(4) 319-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Law I KY. Communication Activity Limitation and Participation Restriction after Laryngectomy [unpublished master's thesis]. Hong Kong; University of Hong Kong 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 29 de Graeff A, de Leeuw J R, Ros W J, Hordijk G J, Blijham G H, Winnubst J A. Pretreatment factors predicting quality of life after treatment for head and neck cancer.  Head Neck. 2000;  22(4) 398-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Terrell J E, Ronis D L, Fowler K E et al.. Clinical predictors of quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;  130(4) 401-408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Finizia C, Hammerlid E, Westin T, Lindstrom J. Quality of life and voice in patients with laryngeal carcinoma: a posttreatment comparison of laryngectomy (salvage surgery) versus radiotherapy.  Laryngoscope. 1998;  108(10) 1566-1573
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hanna E, Sherman A, Cash D et al.. Quality of life for patients following total laryngectomy vs chemoradiation for laryngeal preservation.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;  130(7) 875-879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Op de Coul B M, Ackerstaff A H, van As C J et al.. Quality of life assessment in laryngectomized individuals: do we need additions to standard questionnaires in specific clinical research projects?.  Clin Otolaryngol. 2005;  30(2) 169-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Friedman L C, Lehane D, Webb J A, Weinberg A D, Cooper H P. Anxiety and medical situations and chemotherapy-related problems among cancer patients.  J Cancer Educ. 1994;  9(1) 37-41
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Mesters I, van den Borne H, McCormick L, Pruyn J, de Boer M, Imbos T. Openness to discuss cancer in the nuclear family: scale, development, and validation.  Psychosom Med. 1997;  59(3) 269-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Palmer A D, Graham M. The relationship between communication and quality of life in alaryngeal speakers.  J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 2004;  28(1) 6-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Blood G W, Luther A R, Stemple J C. Coping and adjustment in alaryngeal speakers.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1992;  1 63-69
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Katz M R, Irish J C, Devins G M, Rodin G M, Gullane P J. Psychosocial adjustment in head and neck cancer: the impact of disfigurement, gender and social support.  Head Neck. 2003;  25(2) 103-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Meltzner G S, Hillman R E, Heaton J, Houston K, Kobler J B, Qi Y. Electrolarynx speech: The state-of-the-art and future directions for development. In: Doyle PC, Keith RL Contemporary Consideration in the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Head and Neck Cancer: Voice, Speech, and Swallowing. Austin, TX; Pro-Ed 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Hilgers F J, Ackerstaff A H. Comprehensive rehabilitation after total laryngectomy is more than voice alone.  Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2000;  52(1-3) 65-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Salmon S J. Adjusting to laryngectomy.  Semin Speech Lang. 1986;  7(1) 67-94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 American Cancer Society .Cancer Facts and Figures-2005. Atlanta, GA; American Cancer Society 2005
    Google Scholar

Tanya L EadiePh.D. CCC/SLP 

Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington

1417 NE 42nd St., Seattle, WA 98105

Email: teadie@u.washington.edu

      >