| Abstract | Objective: To analyze the factors influencing device utilization in vocal interventions by Brazilian speech-language pathologists (SLPs).
Methods: This cross-sectional study was approved by the National Research Ethics Committee (Opinion 4’908’288). The authors developed a questionnaire to analyze the use of devices by SLPs. A specialist panel of three SLPs validated the questionnaire using the Content Validity Index. The validated questionnaire was answered by 148 SLPs specializing in voice through Google Forms. In addition, sociodemographic information, education, and professional practice were collected. The SPSS 25.0 software was used for data analysis. A binary logistic regression model was applied to predict device usage, using forward selection and calculating odds ratios for significant coefficients.
Results: SLPs with specialization in voice had 7.9 times more odds of using thermotherapy; 2.7 times more odds of using kinesio taping; 2.8 times more odds of using electrostimulation; 2.9 times less odds of using therapeutic ultrasound; 2.2 times less odds of use nebulizers, than non-voice specialists. SLPs who work with voice professionals had 2.7 times more odds of using vibratory stimulation, 8.6 times more odds of using hearing monitoring, 7.9 times more odds of using thermotherapy, 12 times more odds of using nebulization, and 3.9 times less odds of using electrical stimulation, than those who work with clinical voice. Photobiomodulation had 3.8 times less odds of being used by SLPs that work with children, vibratory stimulation had 2.3 times more odds of being used by SLPs that work with adolescents, and thermotherapy is 3.2 times more odds of being used by SLPs that work with older individuals, that to the other age groups. Time of clinical experience influences the odds of using photobiomodulation (OR:9.4) and hearing monitoring (OR:9.5), time since graduation affects the odds of using electrical stimulation (OR:9.6), and age of the professional impacts the odds of using vibratory stimulation (OR:9.5), with increased odds each increased year of the independent variable.
Conclusion: Specialization in voice, time since graduation, clinical experience, age of the SLP, and the age range and professional vocal use of the clients influence the odds of using devices in vocal interventions.
|
|---|