Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To compare compliance and efficacy between remote interactive voice training and traditional face-to-face therapy by using propensity-score matching (PSM) .</p> Methods <p>Patients who received voice training at Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital from January 2019 to June 2022 were retrospectively enrolled. Cases treated in 2019 and 2021 (traditional voice training) were merged into a “traditional group”, whereas those treated in 2022 (remote voice training) constituted the “remote group”. PSM was performed to analyze efficacy. Compare the compliance rate and voice indicators (VHI, Jitter, Shimmer) between two groups.</p> Results <p>A total of 179 patients were included in the matching, with 125 in the traditional group and 54 in the remote group. After PSM, 89 patients in the traditional group and 51 in the remote group were analysed. In the traditional group, residence significantly impacted compliance (<i>p</i> values &lt; 0.001), but not in the remote group. In the efficacy analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in the improvements of VHI, Jitter, and Shimmer between the two groups.</p> Conclusions <p>Remote interactive voice training significantly improves compliance among non-local residents, with efficacy outcomes appearing comparable within the limits of the study design, providing a scalable telemedicine model for voice rehabilitation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The impact of remote voice training on patient compliance and treatment efficacy

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月30日

查看全文
  • Jinshan Yang,
  • Xin Zou,
  • Wenjun Chen,
  • Yangzhou Su,
  • Caipeng Liu,
  • Faya Liang

摘要

Objectives

To compare compliance and efficacy between remote interactive voice training and traditional face-to-face therapy by using propensity-score matching (PSM) .

Methods

Patients who received voice training at Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital from January 2019 to June 2022 were retrospectively enrolled. Cases treated in 2019 and 2021 (traditional voice training) were merged into a “traditional group”, whereas those treated in 2022 (remote voice training) constituted the “remote group”. PSM was performed to analyze efficacy. Compare the compliance rate and voice indicators (VHI, Jitter, Shimmer) between two groups.

Results

A total of 179 patients were included in the matching, with 125 in the traditional group and 54 in the remote group. After PSM, 89 patients in the traditional group and 51 in the remote group were analysed. In the traditional group, residence significantly impacted compliance (p values < 0.001), but not in the remote group. In the efficacy analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in the improvements of VHI, Jitter, and Shimmer between the two groups.

Conclusions

Remote interactive voice training significantly improves compliance among non-local residents, with efficacy outcomes appearing comparable within the limits of the study design, providing a scalable telemedicine model for voice rehabilitation.