An update in thinking about nonorganic voice disorders

OBJECTIVE: To describe and evaluate psychosocial factors in nonorganic voice disorders (NVDs). Nonorganic voice disorders are presumed to be the result of increased muscular tension that is caused to varying extents by vocal misuse and emotional stress. It is therefore necessary to include both of these in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with voice disorders. DESIGN: Clinical survey. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: To evaluate psychosocial factors in NVDs, a sample of 74 patients with NVDs was examined psychologically using the Giessen Test and Picture Frustration Test. The results were compared with a control group of 19 patients with an organic dysphonia (vocal cord paralysis). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Six scales of the Giessen Test (social response, dominance, control, underlying mood, permeability, and social potency), 3 reaction types of the Picture Frustration Test (obstacle dominance, ego defense, and need persistence), and 3 aggression categories of the Picture Frustration Test (extrapunitivity, intropunitivity, and impunitivity). RESULTS: The most striking significant difference between the 2 groups was that in conflict situations, patients with NVDs sought a quick solution or expected other people to provide one, which prevented them from understanding the underlying causes of the conflict. CONCLUSIONS: Only if the psychosocial aspects are taken into account can patients with NVD be offered a therapy that treats the causes of the voice disorder. It must be decided individually whether and when a voice training approach or a more psychological-psychotherapeutical approach is preferable.

Trade-offs between voice and silence: a qualitative exploration of oncology staff's decisions to speak up about safety concerns

BACKGROUND Research suggests that "silence", i.e., not voicing safety concerns, is common among health care professionals (HCPs). Speaking up about patient safety is vital to avoid errors reaching the patient and thus to prevent harm and also to improve a culture of teamwork and safety. The aim of our study was to explore factors that affect oncology staff's decision to voice safety concerns or to remain silent and to describe the trade-offs they make. METHODS In a qualitative interview study with 32 doctors and nurses from 7 oncology units we investigated motivations and barriers to speaking up towards co-workers and supervisors. An inductive thematic content analysis framework was applied to the transcripts. Based on the individual experiences of participants, we conceptualize the choice to voice concerns and the trade-offs involved. RESULTS Preventing patients from serious harm constitutes a strong motivation to speaking up but competes with anticipated negative outcomes. Decisions whether and how to voice concerns involved complex considerations and trade-offs. Many respondents reflected on whether the level of risk for a patient "justifies" the costs of speaking up. Various barriers for voicing concerns were reported, e.g., damaging relationships. Contextual factors, such as the presence of patients and co-workers in the alarming situation, affect the likelihood of anticipated negative outcomes. Speaking up to well-known co-workers was described as considerably easier whereas "not knowing the actor well" increases risks and potential costs of speaking up. CONCLUSIONS While doctors and nurses felt strong obligation to prevent errors reaching individual patients, they were not engaged in voicing concerns beyond this immediacy. Our results offer in-depth insight into fears and conditions conducive of silence and voicing and can be used for educational interventions and leader reinforcement.