Screening and analysis of the risk of dysphonia based on general and specific screening protocols in teachers with and without voice disorders

Dias, Eric Rodrigues; Gonçalves, Renata da Silva; Simões-Zenari, Marcia; Nemr, Katia

doi:10.1590/2317-1782/e20250175pt

Sumário Anterior Atual Seguinte

Sumário

Brief Communication • CoDAS 38 (2) • 2026 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/e20250175en linkcopy

Screening and analysis of the risk of dysphonia based on general and specific screening protocols in teachers with and without voice disorders

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Purpose To assess the risk of dysphonia in teachers with and without voice disorders, compare the scores of the screening protocols, and correlate the risks with the overall severity of voice disorder.

Methods Teachers from different education levels and institutions, of both sexes, aged over 18 years, participated in the study. The study applied the General Dysphonia Risk Screening Protocol (PRRD-G) and the Specific Dysphonia Risk Screening Protocol for Teachers (PRRD-Pro) and recorded and analyzed voice samples. Participants were divided into two groups, with and without voice disorders, based on the mean overall severity in the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). Descriptive analyses and comparisons of the protocol data between the groups were performed.

Results The groups were homogeneous regarding sex and age. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in PRRD-G, PRRD-Pro, and total scores. The smoking subscore was worse in the group with voice disorders, and hydration was worse in the group without disorders. There was no correlation between the overall severity and the protocol scores.

Conclusion The mean PRRD-G scores were above the cutoff in both groups, indicating a high risk of dysphonia, even in the absence of voice disorders. Smoking and hydration were relevant in differentiating between teachers with and without voice disorders. The study is planned to continue with a larger sample size, laryngological examination, observation of voice and communication in the classroom, vocal improvement workshops, and speech therapy.

Keywords:
Voice; Teachers; Risk Factors; Dysphonia; Speech Therapy

Scores	CG		EG		Diff.	95% CI	df	p	ES
Scores	Mean (SD)	Median (Min–Max)	Mean (SD)	Median (Min–Max)	Diff.	95% CI	df	p	ES
PRRD-G	40.89	40.90	42.94	40.00	-2.04	-8.92–4.42	77	0.532	0.072
PRRD-G	(14.14)	(10–66)	(15.60)	(16–88.7)	-2.04	-8.92–4.42	77	0.532	0.072
PRRD-Pro	21.53	22.00	21.49	22.00	0.41	-2.03–2.19	77	0.971	0.004
PRRD-Pro	(4.27)	(12–30)	(5.32)	(12–34)	0.41	-2.03–2.19	77	0.971	0.004
Total	62.13	66.00	64.42	61.00	-2.30	-9.22–4.96	77	0.553	0.069
Total	(15.96)	(34–90)	(17.95)	(31–118.70)	-2.30	-9.22–4.96	77	0.553	0.069

	CG		EG		Diff.	95% CI	df	p	ES
	Mean (SD)	Median (Min–Max)	Mean (SD)	Median (Min–Max)	Diff.	95% CI	df	p	ES
PRRD-G
VAS	3.69	4.00	4.69	5.00	-1.01	-2.12–0.05	77	0.073	0.209^†
VAS	(2.23)	(0–8)	(2.53)	(0–10)	-1.01	-2.12–0.05	77	0.073	0.209^†
SS	23.35	21.50	24.73	22.00	-1.38	-6.21–3.77	77	0.611	0.017
SS	(11.12)	(2–46)	(11.81)	(6–59)	-1.38	-6.21–3.77	77	0.611	0.017
VO	2.65	3.00	2.71	3.00	-0.06	-0.58–0.48	77	0.803	0.027
VO	(1.28)	(0–5)	(1.06)	(0–5)	-0.06	-0.58–0.48	77	0.803	0.027
DI	2.29	2.00	1.98	2.00	0.32	-0.21–0.82	77	0.269	0.126^†
DI	(1.24)	(0–5)	(1.22)	(0–4)	0.32	-0.21–0.82	77	0.269	0.126^†
HY	1.50	2.00	0.96	0.00	0.54	-0.06–1.11	77	0.047*	0.224^†
HY	(1.19)	(0–3)	(1.22)	(0–3)	0.54	-0.06–1.11	77	0.047*	0.224^†
SL	1.26	1.00	1.02	1.00	0.24	-0.30–0.79	63.7	0.374	0.111^†
SL	(1.29)	(0–3)	(1.08)	(0–3)	0.24	-0.30–0.79	63.7	0.374	0.111^†
HI	1.56	1.00	1.29	1.00	0.27	-0.48–0.98	77	0.462	0.083
HI	(1.64)	(0–5)	(1.66)	(0–6)	0.27	-0.48–0.98	77	0.462	0.083
PD	1.56	2.00	1.60	2.00	-0.04	-0.35–0.30	77	0.803	0.030
PD	(0.70)	(0-2)	(0.72)	(0-2)	-0.04	-0.35–0.30	77	0.803	0.030
MD	0.29	0.00	0.56	0.00	-0.26	-0.52 - 0.01	76.1	0.070	0.207^†
MD	(0.58)	(0-2)	(0.69)	(0-2)	-0.26	-0.52 - 0.01	76.1	0.070	0.207^†
CS	0.26	0.00	0.58	0.00	-0.31	-0.67–0.04	75.2	0.088	0.199†
CS	(0.621)	(0-3)	(0.97)	(0-3)	-0.31	-0.67–0.04	75.2	0.088	0.199†
PRRD-Pro
PE	2.79	3.00	3.02	3.00	-0.23	-0.82–0.39	77	0.466	0.083
PE	(1.41)	(1–7)	(1.36)	(1–7)	-0.23	-0.82–0.39	77	0.466	0.083
TA	9.76	10.00	8.98	9.00	0.79	-0.20–1.73	77	0.116	0.176^†
TA	(2.08)	(6–12)	(2.39)	(3–12)	0.79	-0.20–1.73	77	0.116	0.176^†
WP	6.85	7.00	7.07	7.00	-0.21	-1.33–0.82	77	0.690	0.046
WP	(2.11)	(3–11)	(2.80)	(2–14)	-0.21	-1.33–0.82	77	0.690	0.046
WH	0.82	1.00	0.78	1.00	0.05	-0.25–0.34	77	0.759	0.034
WH	(0.76)	(0–3)	(0.56)	(0–2)	0.05	-0.25–0.34	77	0.759	0.034
SM	0.12	0.00	0.51	0.00	-0.39	-0.78–0.00	67.2	0.041*	0.243†
SM	(0.54)	(0-3)	(1.10)	(0-3)	-0.39	-0.78–0.00	67.2	0.041*	0.243†
DP	0.03	0.00	0.04	0.00	-0.02	-0.10–0.07	77	0.743	0.039
DP	(0.17)	(0-2)	(0.21)	(0-2)	-0.02	-0.10–0.07	77	0.743	0.039

location_on

Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia Al. Jaú, 684, 7º andar, 01420-002 São Paulo - SP Brasil, Tel./Fax 55 11 - 3873-4211 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista@codas.org.br

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Caption: SD: standard deviation; Min: Minimum; Max: Maximum; Diff.: difference between means; CI: confidence interval; df: degrees of freedom; ES: effect size