Orbelo, Diana

Abstract Objective Effective communication with humans and automated voice assistants (AVA) is essential for full participation in modern life. Because AVA relies on intelligible speech, individuals with speech impairments, such as those treated for oral cavity cancer (OCC), may face barriers when interacting with AVA. We assessed self‐reported communication difficulty in patients treated for OCC related to AVA and humans. Study Design Prospective cross‐sectional cohort study. Setting Out‐patient clinics in two tertiary care centers. Methods This study was conducted between July 2024 and March 2025 and included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with and surgically treated for OCC (experimental group) and those without speech impairments (controls). Participants completed the Speech Communication Experience Survey (SCES), which assessed perceived intelligibility when communicating with familiar partners, strangers, and AVA; and, as reported elsewhere, the Speech Handicap Index (SHI). Results In total, 159 participants were included (69 OCC, 90 controls). OCC participants were more likely to report that familiar partners, strangers, and AVA “almost always” or “always” had difficulty understanding their speech ( P < .05). Free flap reconstruction and maxillectomy were associated with greater reported communication difficulty. AVA usage frequency and overall opinions toward AVA did not significantly differ between groups. Conclusion Patients treated for OCC report significantly greater difficulty being understood by both AVA and human listeners compared to controls. These perceptions may inform peri‐operative counseling and guide the development of more inclusive AVA technologies capable of accommodating diverse speakers. Level of Evidence : 3.

ABSTRACT Background Individuals with oral cavity cancer (OCC) have negatively impacted functional status and quality of life. Little is known regarding patients' perspectives of their speech impairments. This study compared self‐reported speech function between patients surgically treated for OCC and healthy controls using the Speech Handicap Index (SHI) and identified factors associated with worse scores. Methods This is a multiinstitutional cross‐sectional study of OCC patients and healthy controls recruited between July 2024 and March 2025. Participants completed the SHI and self‐reported speech quality. Demographics, tumor, and treatment details were abstracted from the electronic health record for OCC. Group differences were assessed with t ‐tests, χ 2 , and Fisher's exact tests. Results Among 69 OCC and 90 controls, OCC patients had significantly higher mean SHI scores (50.2 vs. 34.7, p < 0.01) and were less likely to rate their speech as “good” or “excellent” (47.8% vs. 85.6%, p < 0.01). Both speech and psychosocial domain scores were significantly worse among OCC. Free flap reconstruction was associated with worse scores (29.6 vs. 15.5, p = 0.02) and worse self‐rated speech quality. Conclusions Patients with surgically treated oral cavity cancer have significantly impaired self‐perceived speech and psychosocial functioning compared with healthy individuals. Greater deficits were observed in patients who required free flap reconstruction. Despite the functional deficit, nearly half of OCC patients reported satisfaction with their speech quality. These findings highlight the importance of using validated measures for speech function and support the need for early, multidisciplinary rehabilitation including speech therapy in this population, particularly for those undergoing free flap reconstruction.

Abstract Introduction Acoustic analysis of speech has discriminated decompensated acute heart failure (HF). Speech rate (SR) and cepstral peak prominence (CPP) variation are among features previously evaluated. However, the association between SR and CPP and chronic stable HF with and without pulmonary hypertension (PH) as well as PH alone have not been previously studied. Methods Patients evaluated for HF and/or PH in the outpatient setting recorded a standardized text read out loud from which a sentence was extracted and analysed to extract pre-specified acoustic features including SR and CPP calculated for voiced speech (CPP-V) and in all speech (CPP-All). Patients were grouped depending on the presence or absence of disease (HF and/or PH) and symptoms. Linear regression models were fitted to determine the association between each acoustic feature and disease status. Results In total, 2153 patients were included: age 65.32 ± 17.18 years; male n = 1246 (57.9%); 879 had HF (40.8%), 542 had PH (25.2%) and 777 had no disease and no symptoms (36.1%). After adjustment for age and sex, SR was significantly lower in patients with PH only [estimated coefficient, 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.14, −0.21 to −0.06, P = 0.0006], HF only (−0.11, −0.17 to −0.05, P = 0.0002) and HF with PH (−0.17, −0.24 to −0.10, P &lt; 0.0001) compared with no disease. CPP-V differed in patients with PH only (0.37, 0.16–0.57, P = 0.0004) and CPP-All differed significantly compared with patients without disease (0.23, 0.08–0.38, P = 0.0025). Conclusions SR is significantly slower in patients with HF alone, PH alone and HF and PH combined compared with patients without disease. CPP also differs significantly in patients with PH compared with controls. These findings suggest that acoustic analysis may be useful in discriminating chronic stable HF and PH, offering promise for the development of non-invasive screening methods for HF and PH.

Objective(s): To quantify and compare pre-procedure worry versus the experience of pain, gagging, and dyspnea during in-office laryngoscopy procedures in patients who did or did not receive pre-procedure anxiolytics, and to explore patient perception of intra-procedure interventions. Methods: Patients undergoing awake laryngology procedures at a quaternary care center were enrolled. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) Y1 and Y2 questionnaires were administered to establish baseline levels of state anxiety and trait anxiety, respectively. Pre-procedure and post-procedure surveys assessed patient perception of select interventions. Results: 34 patients were enrolled (35.3% female, 91.2% white, mean age 60 years). Pre-procedure, 51.5% of patients reported some degree of worry about pain, 61.8% about gagging, 52.9% about dyspnea, and 55.9% about having something in their nose/throat. Post-procedure, 54.5% reported experiencing pain to some degree, 63.6% had gagging, 39.4% had dyspnea, and 78.7% were bothered by having something in their nose/throat. Patients who received a pre-procedure anxiolytic were significantly more likely to report more pain compared to those who did not. The highest rated interventions were pre-procedural education (97.0% “Very helpful”), verbal reassurance (96.9%), provider communicating steps of the procedure (96.9%), and reminders to breathe (87.5%). Conclusion: For patients undergoing awake laryngology procedures, the anticipation of gagging, pain, trouble breathing, and scope-related discomfort are worrisome factors. Of these, scope-related discomfort and gagging are the most often-reported sources of intraprocedural discomfort. The interventions patients found most helpful were based on preprocedural education and clear intraprocedural communication, which suggests that purposeful communication has a role in relieving anxiety. Level of evidence: Level 4

Objective: To investigate potential associations between the Predictive Gagging Survey (PGS) with patient experience of gag and discomfort as well as provider perception of patient gag and level of laryngeal visualization during flexible laryngoscopy with stroboscopy (FL-S). Methods: A total of 53 adult patients undergoing FL-S were recruited for this prospective non-controlled study. PGS was completed before FL-S. Patients rated perceived level of gag and discomfort on a 10-point severity scale after FL-S. Additionally, providers completed a Gagging Severity Index (GSI) reflecting their impression of patient gag and level of laryngeal visualization following FL-S. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to assess associations. Results: There was a positive association with PGS score and patient perception of gagging (0.34; P = .013) and patient perception of discomfort (0.38; P = .005). No significant association was found between PGS score and provider GSI (−0.12; P = .39) or level of laryngeal visualization (0.15; P = .29). A negative association was found between level of laryngeal visualization and patient perception of gagging (−0.34; P = .012) and discomfort (−0.44; P = .001). No significant differences were found between current and former smokers compared to never smokers for GSI or patient-perceived gag or discomfort. Conclusions: While not predictive of GSI or level of laryngeal visualization, the PGS was found to be a useful tool in predicting patient experience of gagging and discomfort during FL-S, further reinforcing the subjective experience of this procedure. Use of the PGS may be helpful in identifying specific candidates who may struggle with subjective discomfort or gagging during FL-S for future studies considering interventions to manage and meaningfully decrease discomfort. Having such an instrument is important given the low number of individuals who struggle with discomfort during the exam.