Next Article in Journal
Twenty-Year Span of Global Coronavirus Research Trends: A Bibliometric Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Antecedents of Psychological Well-Being among Swedish Audit Firm Employees
Previous Article in Journal
How Employee’s Leadership Potential Leads to Leadership Ostracism Behavior: The Mediating Role of Envy, and the Moderating Role of Political Skills
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mitigating the Psychological Impact of COVID-19 on Healthcare Workers: A Digital Learning Package
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 17
Issue 9
10.3390/ijerph17093081
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Relevant Work Factors Associated with Voice Disorders in Early Childhood Teachers: A Comparison between Kindergarten and Elementary School Teachers in Yancheng, China

by
Yaping Tao
1,2,
Charles Tzu-Chi Lee
2,
Yih-Jin Hu
2,* and
Qiang Liu
1
1
Department of Preschool Education, Yancheng Teachers University, Yancheng 224002, China
2
Department of Health Promotion and Health Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei 106, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(9), 3081; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093081
Submission received: 11 March 2020 / Revised: 16 April 2020 / Accepted: 25 April 2020 / Published: 28 April 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Workplace Health and Wellbeing 2020)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Early childhood teachers consist of kindergarten and elementary school teachers in the lower grades. Young children at school may increase the vocal load of these teachers. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of voice disorders and the associated factors in early childhood teachers, and to determine if differences exist between kindergarten and elementary school teachers. Method: A cross-sectional survey was performed in July 2019 as a network questionnaire. Through cluster sampling, teachers (n = 414) from all five public kindergartens (n = 211) in the urban area of Yancheng, China, and four public elementary schools (n = 203) in the same school district participated in this study. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to analyze the associations among the prevalence of voice disorders in the teachers, school type, and relevant factors. Results: Our results indicated, based on the Voice Handicap Index scale (VHI-10, China), that the prevalence of voice disorders in early childhood teachers was 59.7%, while that in elementary school teachers (65.5%) was significantly higher than that in kindergarten teachers (54.0%) during the previous semester. Contributing factors included daily class hours, classroom air humidity, and speaking loudly during teaching. Additionally, certain types of voice usage in teaching such as falsetto speak, speaking more than other teachers, not using vocal techniques, and habitual voice clearing, were significantly associated with voice disorders. Conclusion: Most early childhood teachers have voice disorders. Compared with the kindergarten teachers, the elementary school teachers experienced a significantly higher prevalence of voice disorders. Several factors among work organization, work environment, and types of voice usage in teaching were associated with the voice disorders in early childhood teachers. The finding suggests that voice training should be provided for early childhood teachers, classroom teaching time should be decreased, and the number of teachers in basic subjects should be increased in the lower grades of elementary schools.

1. Introduction

In psychology, the term early childhood is usually defined as the time period from birth until the age of eight years, therefore covering infancy, kindergarten, and early school years up to Grade 3 (National Association for the Education of Young Children, NAEYC). At this stage, children show certain characteristics. They are full of curiosity and a desire to explore their world; however, their ability to care for themselves and demonstrate self-control is weak and they have not yet formed a sense of rules. Accordingly, in a school education setting, early childhood teachers often have to endure greater noise from the children, and, in turn, the teachers use more tactics related to oral management and guidance. A study that recorded the typical sounds present in kindergartens reported that the background noise in kindergartens is high and the voices of the teachers at work are significantly higher than the baseline [1]. In a similar study, the vocal load of kindergarten teachers was higher than that of elementary school teachers [2].
With regard to voice disorders in teachers, it has been reported that the younger the students, the higher the risk of developing a voice disorder [3]. Additionally, compared with middle school teachers, elementary school teachers and kindergarten teachers have been shown to have a higher risk of voice disorders [3,4,5,6,7]. In another study of elementary school teachers, the prevalence of voice disorders among teachers of the lower grades was greater than those of the higher grades [8]. Furthermore, teachers who taught Grade 4 or below had a higher risk of voice disorders than those who taught Grade 5 or above [9]. Compared with elementary school teachers, kindergarten teachers had a significantly higher risk of voice disorders [10]. However, some studies have not found an association between the grade taught and the prevalence of voice disorders in teachers [11,12,13,14]. One reason for a higher prevalence of voice disorders among lower grade teachers may be that early childhood teachers are primarily female, with females known to be more prone to voice disorders compared with males [15]. Therefore, the relationship between the student grade and teacher voice disorders cannot be confirmed without an adjustment for confounders, such as gender, age, and seniority.
According to student age, the six grades of elementary school are often divided into several levels, including the lower grades (1st and 2nd grade), middle grades (3rd and 4th grade), and higher grades (5th and 6th grade); or the lower grades (1st through 3rd grade) and higher grades (4th through 6th grades), depending on the educational strategy of the school. As such, the teachers of the different grades will have different vocal loads. Moreover, elementary school teachers often have their own subjects to teach. Studies have shown that physical education teachers [16,17] and music teachers [18] have a higher risk of voice disorders than teachers of other subjects. In China, it has also been shown that the prevalence of voice disorders in elementary school teachers of basic subjects (Chinese, mathematics, and English) is substantially higher than those of secondary subjects [19]. Teachers of basic subjects make up the majority of elementary school teachers, representing greater numbers than teachers of secondary subjects such as physical education and music.
Therefore, it is considered necessary to study special teacher groups to determine the prevalence of voice disorders and to clarify the risk factors. However, to date, the majority of studies focused on the development of voice disorders in teachers have been based on the school level without taking into account the age of the students. Although early childhood teachers come from different school levels, they should be considered as a special group worth studying in terms of voice disorder prevalence.
In mainland China, children under three years old are mostly educated by their families, with children at three to six years old entering kindergarten. Kindergarten education is a combination of caring and teaching, with the implementation of an integrated curriculum, including games as a basic activity [20]. Therefore, a kindergarten teacher instructs the children in all courses as a general teacher. At seven years old, children enter elementary schools, which implement departmental teaching, with the basic form of education being classroom teaching [21]. A teacher in elementary school usually teaches one course. Thus, the work environment and the education model used by kindergarten teachers and elementary school teachers in the lower grades are quite different, despite the fact that both types of teachers are considered early childhood educators.
In previous studies, together with individual factors, various work factors have been associated with the development of teacher voice disorders. These include work environment, such as noise, air quality, and sound equipment [13,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]; work organization [6,15,26,29,30], such as seniority, subject, grade, class size; and number of lessons [6,12,13,14,17,22,23,26,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37] and types of voice usage in teaching [14,17,18,30,31,37]. Together, these factors have been reported to be associated with the development of voice disorders in teachers. Therefore, it is necessary to compare kindergarten teachers with elementary school teachers in the lower grades to determine who is more at risk and which work-related factors are risk factors for the voice disorders of early childhood teachers. This would be of great significance for intervention research in the future.
The objectives of our study were to investigate the prevalence of voice disorders in early childhood teachers, to compare the voice disorders and the relevant work factors between kindergarten teachers and elementary school teachers in the lower grades, and to identify the associations among work factors in early childhood teachers.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was a cross-sectional survey that was administered through a network questionnaire. This study obtained approval from the Research Ethics Committee of Taiwan Normal University, REC no. 201907HS011.

2.1. Sampling of Participants

The survey was conducted in July 2019, just as the teachers finished a semester of work and entered the summer vacation. We hypothesized that the time after a period of work, but before the rest period, would be the most helpful time for evaluating the voice conditions of the teachers. Teachers of all five public kindergartens in the urban area of Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province, China, and four public elementary schools in the same school district with kindergartens participated in the survey. The kindergarten teachers who participated in the study were full-time teachers; class childcare workers and kindergarten administrators, such as the kindergarten headmaster and the dean of studies, who are rarely directly involved in teaching activities, were excluded. Elementary school teachers who participated in the study were teachers in the lower grades of elementary school (1st through 4th grade), and they taught basic subjects such as Chinese, mathematics, and English. All teachers must have been considered to be on duty from February to June 2019, representing exactly one semester, without taking more than one week off. Finally, all qualified teachers of the nine schools agreed to participate in the survey and a total of 429 questionnaires were collected, of which 414 (96%) were validated. Among these, 211 were from kindergarten teachers and 203 were from elementary school teachers.

2.2. Measurements

Based on previous studies and pre-interviews of the teachers participating this study, the study questionnaire was developed to include the following five sections:
(1) Background information, including gender, age, marital status (single/married, married means married, widowed or divorced), number of minor children, and level of education.
(2) Voice disorders, as four subsections: (a) Voice disease (Yes/No) and the type of voice disease in the previous five months (i.e., the previous semester), with 11 voice diseases provided to select (participants were required to report the voice diseases diagnosed by doctors when taking medical examinations or seeing a doctor at the hospital during the previous semester); (b) Voice disease (Yes/No) and the type of voice disease during the career, with 11 voice diseases provided to select; (c) Self-reported voice symptoms (Yes/No) and the type of voice symptoms in the previous semester, with 27 voice symptoms provided to select; and (d) Voice Handicap Index (VHI-10, China). The Voice Handicap Index is primarily used to evaluate the effect of voice disorders on individual quality of life. The scale used in this study, namely, the Voice Handicap Index with 10 items (VHI-10, China) was a simplified Chinese version of the Voice Handicap Index scale with 30 items (VHI-30) [38,39]. The reliability of the scale in terms of Cronbach’s α has been reported to be 0.94 [38]. The VHI-10 scale is a five-point scale as follows: 0 (never); 1 (rarely); 2 (sometimes); 3 (often); and 4 (always). The total score is 0–40, with the higher the score, the more serious the voice disorder. According to Arffa et al. [40], the cut-off point of the VHI-10 total score to define voice disorders is 11, thus several subsequent studies focused on voice disorders have adopted this criterion [28,32]. Therefore, in the current study, a teacher with a VHI-10 >11 was judged to have a voice disorder, while a teacher with a VHI-10 ≤11 was judged not to have a voice disorder.
(3) Work organization, including the number of students per class, daily class hours, years of teaching, being the head teacher or not, having other duties in school or not, daily teaching hours, daily hours outdoors with the students, and having voice training or not.
(4) Work environment. The teachers were asked to answer Yes or No with regard to 10 physical environments at school that may interfere with the teacher’s voice. These included: (a) Student noise, (b) Classroom echo, (c) Other noise in and out of the classroom and a school that may affect teaching, (d) Inconvenient amplification, (e) Bad audio quality of amplification, (f) Irritant smell in the classroom, (g) Smog, (h) Air humidity in the classroom, (i) A large space for the classroom (j), A large space for outdoor activity.
(5) Types of voice usage in teaching. Participants were asked to report Yes or No with regard to the use of six types of bad voice usage, as follows: (a) Falsetto speak; (b) Speaking loudly; (c) Speaking more than other teachers; (d) Not using vocal techniques; (e) Yelling when feeling emotional; and (f) Habitual voice clearing.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The Pearson chi-square test and t-tests were applied to compare the prevalence of voice disorders, voice diseases, voice symptoms, and all work factors among the kindergarten and elementary school teachers. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to analyze the associations between the prevalence of voice disorders in the teachers, school type, and relevant factors. The strength of the associations was shown by odds ratios. Firstly, we performed regression analysis by adding background variables, work organization variables, work environment variables, and types of voice usage in teaching into the models. In other words, we analyzed different regression models in the following manner: (1) model 1: school type + background variables; (2) model 2: model 1 + work organization variables; (3) model 3: model 2 + work environment variables; (4) model 4: model 3 + types of voice usage variables. Secondly, multivariate logistic regression with forward selection was used to reveal the most significant explanatory variables for each of the models. In this study, SPSS 23.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used for data analysis. The significance level was set at 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Background Characteristics of the Participants

The majority of the 414 participants were female (94.9%). The mean (SD) age was 33.4 (7.5), with the age of the participants primarily distributed in the 30–39 (40.6%) and 20–29 (36.5%) age groups. The majority (80.7%) of the participants were or had been married, including both divorced and widowed participants. About half (51.4%) had a minor child, 32.1% had no minor children, and 16.4% had more than one child. Most (65.7%) participants had a college degree, while the others had a bachelor’s degree or above. There were no significant differences in terms of age, marital status, or number of minor children between the elementary school teachers and kindergarten teachers; however, the proportion of kindergarten teachers that were female was significantly higher than that for elementary school teachers (χ2 = 9.019, p = 0.003). The education level of the elementary school teachers was significantly higher than that of the kindergarten teachers (χ2 = 50.673, p < 0.001) (Table 1).

3.2. Voice Conditions

Most (59.7%) of the participants had scores >11, indicating they had a voice disorder. Additionally, 70% of the participants reported having been diagnosed with a voice disease during the past semester. Furthermore, 78.3% of the participants reported having been diagnosed with a voice disease during their career. Only 7.2% of the participants had no voice symptoms. Compared with the kindergarten teachers, the elementary school teachers experienced a significantly higher prevalence of voice disorders (χ2 = 5.674, p = 0.017), voice diseases (χ2 = 8.776, p = 0.003), and voice symptoms (χ2 = 6.475, p = 0.011) over the previous semester. However, no statistical differences were observed for the prevalence of voice diseases during the course of their career (Table 2).
The average prevalence of the 11 voice diseases in early childhood teachers from high to low were chronic pharyngitis (40.3%), chronic laryngitis (23.2%), acute pharyngitis (16.7%), vocal nodules (15%), vocal fold congestion (11.8%), acute laryngitis (8.7%), vocal fold edema (5.8%), vocal fold polyps (5.3%), vocal hypertrophy (3.9%), vocal fold bleeding (3.6%), and incomplete vocal fold closure (1.2%). Figure 1 shows the distribution of voice diseases and voice symptoms among the kindergarten teachers and elementary school teachers. The prevalence of reported voice diseases in the teachers was higher during the course of their career than for the past semester. The top 15 of the 24 voice symptoms in all teachers were hoarseness (65.7%), dryness (59.9), tired voice (57.5%), ache (47.6%), scratchiness (41.3%), foreign body sensation (29.5%), frequent throat clearing (27.3%), pronunciation difficulty (26.8%), strain (24.6%), coughing easily when speaking (23.4%), phlegm (21.5%), high note difficulty (17.1%), don’t like to talk (15.7%), swallowing difficulty (14.3%), and loss of voice (14%). Compared with kindergarten teachers, elementary school teachers had a higher prevalence of 8 diseases and 14 of the top 15 voice symptoms.

3.3. Work Factors

Among the work organization factors, there was only one factor, namely, being head teacher or not (χ2 = 0.129, p > 0.72), that showed no significant difference between the kindergarten teachers and elementary school teachers. The number of students per class (t = −50.115, p < 0.001), daily class hours (t = −29.060, p < 0.001), years of teaching (χ2 = 8.989, p = 0.003), having other duties in school (χ2 = 7.818, p = 0.005), daily teaching hours (χ2 = 12.587, p = 0.002), and having voice training (χ2 = 8.319, p = 0.004) were significantly greater among elementary school teachers compared with kindergarten teachers. For the kindergarten teachers, the daily hours spent outdoors with students (χ2 = 229.177, p < 0.001) were significantly greater than those for elementary school teachers (Table 3).
Among the work environment factors, elementary school teachers reported significantly higher ratios than kindergarten teachers in terms of inconvenient amplification (χ2 = 4.030, p = 0.045), irritant smell in the classroom (χ2 = 7.310, p = 0.007), smog (χ2 = 12.990, p < 0.001), and air humidity in the classroom (χ2 = 26.155, p < 0.001). No other work environment factors showed a significant difference between the two groups of teachers. The work environments that more than half of the participants selected to have a negative impact on their voices included student noise (80.7%), other noise (62.3%), inconvenient amplification (84.5%), smog (64.3%), air humidity in the classroom (50.2%), and a large space for outdoor activity (69.3%) (Table 3).
Among the types of voice usage in teaching, only speaking loudly showed a significant difference between the elementary school teachers and kindergarten teachers (χ2 = 7.310, p = 0.001). More than half of the participants selected yes to raising their voice (82.6%), speaking more than other teachers (79.7%), not using vocal techniques (85.7%), yelling when feeling emotional (73.2%), and habitual voice clearing (60.9%) (Table 3).

3.4. Associated Factors with Voice Disorders

In Table 4, univariate analysis of logistic regression revealed the independent variables associated with voice disorders. School type, daily class hours, daily teaching hours, voice training, student noise, classroom echo, other noise, irritant smell in the classroom, smog, air humidity in the classroom, a large space for the classroom, a large space for outdoor activity, falsetto speak, speaking loudly, speaking more than other teachers, not using vocal techniques, yelling when feeling emotional, and habitual voice clearing were all associated with voice disorders in the teachers.
Adjusted model 1 presented the multivariate analysis of the logistic regression with the variables school type and five background factors. Adjusted model 2 added eight work organization factors to the variables of model 1. Adjusted model 3 added 10 work environment factors to the variables of model 2. Adjusted model 4 added six types of voice usage in teaching to the variables of model 3.
Compared with the unadjusted value (OR = 1.62; 95% CI, 1.09–2.04; p = 0.018), the strength of the association between the school type and voice disorders decreased gradually and the significance disappeared after model 1 (OR = 1.45; 95% CI, 0.93–2.25; p = 0.099) to model 4 (OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 4.15–4.94; p = 0.876) adjustments, which were explained by factors from work organization (daily class hours, daily teaching hours, daily hours outdoors with students), work environments (other noise, air humidity in classroom, large space for outdoor activity), and types of voice usage (falsetto speak, speaking loudly, speaking more than other teachers, not using vocal techniques, habitual voice clearing).
Model 4, the full adjusted model, showed daily class hours (OR = 1.68; 95% CI, 1.10–2.56; p = 0.016), air humidity in the classroom (OR = 2.94; 95% CI, 1.50–5.76; p = 0.002), falsetto speak (OR = 2.16; 95% CI, 1.13–4.13; p = 0.02), speaking loudly (OR = 2.47; 95% CI, 1.20–5.08; p = 0.014), speaking more than other teachers (OR = 2.13; 95% CI, 1.10–4.11; p = 0.025), not using vocal techniques (OR = 2.85; 95% CI, 1.37–5.96; p = 0.005), and habitual voice clearing (OR = 3.06; 95% CI, 1.78–5.25; p < 0.001) were associated with voice disorders in early school teachers.
Compared with the regression analysis above, multivariate logistic regression with forward selection presented similarly significant variables associated with the development of voice disorders in the teachers. In model 2: daily class hours (OR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.09–2.11; p = 0.015) and daily teaching hours ≥ 7 (OR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.15–3.17; p = 0.013) were significantly associated. In model 3: other noise (OR = 2.21; 95% CI, 1.40–3.49; p = 0.001), air humidity in the classroom (OR = 2.37; 95% CI, 1.47–3.81; p < 0.001), and a large space for outdoor activity (OR = 1.97; 95% CI, 1.21–3.20; p = 0.006) were significantly associated. In model 4: daily class hours (OR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.02–2.22; p = 0.038), other noise (OR = 1.72; 95% CI, 1.05–2.82; p = 0.031), air humidity in the classroom (OR = 2.84; 95% CI, 1.72–4.67; p < 0.001), falsetto speak (OR = 2.27; 95% CI, 1.24–4.13; p = 0.008), speaking loudly (OR = 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; p = 0.01), speaking more than other teachers (OR = 2.15; 95% CI, 1.19–3.89; p = 0.011), not using vocal techniques (OR = 2.60; 95% CI, 1.32–5.10; p = 0.006), and habitual voice clearing (OR = 2.47; 95% CI, 1.53–3.99; p < 0.001) were significantly associated.

4. Discussion

Based on the VHI-10 scale (China), the prevalence of voice disorders in early childhood teachers was 59.7%, with an average VHI-10 score in this study of 13.5. In comparison, 28.8% of Brazil’s primary school and kindergarten teachers [28] and 10.4% of Malaysia’s middle school teachers [32] have been reported to have a voice disorder. In contrast, an average VHI-10 score of 10 has been reported for kindergarten teachers in Greece [41]. Therefore, in this study, we found a higher prevalence of voice disorders in early childhood teachers in China. However, the prevalence of voice disorders was even higher in Egypt’s middle school and university teachers, being 80.1% [35].
Regarding the self-reported diagnosed voice diseases of early childhood teachers, the prevalence in the previous semester was as high as 70%, with kindergarten teachers at 63.5% and elementary school teachers at 76.8%. These results are similar to the survey results (65%) of kindergarten teachers in Wenzhou, China [42], but the incidence of voice diseases during the course of the career (78.3%) is far higher than that of Spanish teachers (16.4%) [17]. In general, the prevalence of voice diseases in teachers in most studies has been obtained by clinical examination at a certain point in time, and has ranged from 10.9% to 34% [11,19,43,44]. Our conclusion is consistent with a previous review of voice disorders in teachers, in which a longer recall period would be expected to result in a higher prevalence of voice disorders than a shorter recall period [15]. Chronic pharyngitis and chronic laryngitis represented the two diseases with the highest prevalence in this study, which is consistent with clinically verified findings [19,45,46]. It is worth noting that the prevalence of vocal fold nodules in teachers over one semester reached up to 11.8%, which is similar to the findings of Lv Dan et al. of 389 elementary school teachers [44], but much higher than many large-scale surveys that ranged from 1.55% to 2.58% [11,19,46,47]. Vocal nodules, chronic laryngitis, and vocal fold congestion were three diseases with a high prevalence in this study. These diseases are associated with the typical type of vocal fold lesions that are the result of bad voice behaviors, including the voice being abused for a long time and a lack of correct voice skills, which are common underlying causes of voice disorders [48]. Previous studies have shown that voice training is the basic treatment for these diseases [49,50].
This is the first study that allowed for 24 kinds of voice symptoms to be selected by the teachers, a decision based on teacher interviews and previous studies. In this manner, we believed that providing more symptoms to select would result in a more accurate determination of the voice disorder. Our results showed that every voice symptom was selected by the early childhood teachers, with 92.8% of the teachers having one or more voice symptoms, which is higher than the highest proportion reported (80%) from similar studies [51]. Among the 24 voice symptoms, hoarseness had the highest selection rate, which is consistent with other surveys. Similarly, the symptoms that ranked in the top 15 selected by the early childhood teachers were also the common symptoms found by several previous studies [14,22,34,35,52]. Some teachers stated in the interview that professional teachers always have voice disorders and it is very common to have one or more voice symptoms. Voice symptoms are not only the most direct manifestation of voice disorders, but they also are precursors of voice disorders. Therefore, teachers should pay attention to vocal symptoms, particularly when they become greater or last longer; thus, timely diagnosis and treatment are important.
To summarize, most teachers have voice disorders, voice diseases, and voice symptoms, and the rate is close to or higher than that in the previous research, which shows that the voice health of early childhood teachers in Yancheng, China is poor. In addition, teachers are familiar with this problem, and it may have a negative impact on every teacher and the entire education industry. Thus, education departments and occupational safety and health departments should attach importance to the voice disorders of early childhood teachers and put forward effective strategies to improve their voice health.
One purpose of this study was to determine if there was a difference in voice disorders between the kindergarten and elementary school teachers. After statistical analysis, we found that during the course of their career, there was no difference in the voice disorders between the two types of teachers; however, in the previous semester, the prevalence of voice disorders and voice symptoms in the elementary teachers was significantly higher than that for kindergarten teachers. These results are not consistent with the prediction that the younger the students, the higher the risk of voice disorders in the teacher. Additional multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the difference in the prevalence of voice disorders between the kindergarten and elementary school teachers was primarily due to various work factors, including:
(1) Daily class hours: Table 2 shows that the daily class hours for the kindergarten teachers were much less than for the elementary school teachers (0.77 vs. 2.57). Additionally, Table 4 shows that when the class time was increased by one hour, the teacher’s risk of a voice disorder increased 0.68 times. Other studies, including that by Pizolato et al. [6], Fu et al. [11], and Lee [33], have also reported that weekly class hours were significantly correlated with the development of voice disorders in the teachers.
(2) Air humidity in the classroom: A greater number of elementary school teachers (63.1%) reported air humidity affecting vocal use in teaching compared with kindergarten teachers (37.9%). Among these teachers, those who reported air humidity had a higher risk of a voice disorder (OR = 2.94) compared with those who did not report this parameter. This conclusion is consistent with studies by Cutiva et al. [25] and Sampaio et al. [28] using unadjusted regression analysis. However, after adjusted regression, air humidity was not associated with voice disorders in the teachers in either study.
(3) Types of voice usage in teaching: Among the five types of voice usage associated with voice disorders, speaking loudly was significantly more common in elementary school teachers than in kindergarten teachers (89.2% vs. 76.3%). In addition, we found that the risk of voice disorders was 2.47 times higher in teachers who spoke loudly during teaching. Similar results have been reported by several studies, including those by Fu et al. [11], Chen et al. [14], Ubillos et al. [17], Trinite et al. [23], and Lin et al. [53].
As early as 2014, the Jiangsu province of China started the reform of the kindergarten play-orientated curriculum [54]. Subsequently, from 2018, the ministry of education of China began to correct errors regarding the tendency of pre-school education to mimic that of elementary school, thus preventing kindergartens from adopting departmental teaching and taking classroom teaching as the main form similar to elementary school [55]. Under the influence of these policies, the number of classroom lessons in a given kindergarten was reduced from three or four per day to one or two per day, with the main activities for children being games in small groups. Accordingly, the main tasks of the kindergarten teachers are to provide supportive educational resources, observe the children, and provide individualized help and guidance when needed. It should be noted that all the kindergartens in this study were standardized, with two teachers, one nurse, and about 30 children per class. After these new policies, the teachers in these kindergarten classes spent less time on oral teaching and did not have to speak loudly all the time. According to several kindergarten teachers who were interviewed as part of this study, the teachers felt that the vocal load was much reduced compared with the previous educational policies. However, elementary school teachers in the lower grades, who also teach young children, are being tasked with as many as four lessons (40 min/lesson) per day requiring oral teaching. As such, these teachers typically have to speak loudly to be heard by all the pupils. In summary, elementary schools were found to have substantially more work factors associated with voice disorders than the kindergartens in our study.
Teachers in this study were in the same geographic area, thus the air humidity in the classroom may not have been different between the kindergartens and elementary schools. However, a greater number of elementary school teachers felt that the air humidity affected their voice, with nearly 60% of the teachers reporting dryness of the throat. We consider that this may be connected with the heavy vocal load of the elementary school teachers. As such, when voice fatigue and damage occur, the teachers may be more sensitive to air humidity.
Falsetto speak, speaking loudly, speaking more than other teachers, not using vocal techniques, and habitual voice clearing were all associated with the prevalence of voice disorders in the early childhood teachers in our study. Several studies have reported similar conclusions [11,14,17,22,23,42,53]. We suspect that one reason why so many teachers use their voice in unhealthy ways may be associated with the lack of voice training, because some studies have confirmed the correlation between voice training and a reduction in voice disorders [7,56]. The majority (91.5%) of the teachers in our study reported never having received any kind of voice training. However, numerous studies of voice disorders have suggested voice training for professional voice users in order to maintain or improve their voices.

5. Limitations

There are several limitations of this study. The study used a cross-sectional design, thus, no causal relationships should be assumed. With the exception of the VHI scale, which is standardized, most of the data were from the subjective reports of the participants, which may have led to some research errors. The 414 participants in this study were taken from public schools in the urban area of Yancheng, China, thus representing the voice conditions of only some teachers in one region of China. Therefore, the results cannot be extended to other regions or to private school teachers.

6. Conclusions

Most early childhood teachers have voice disorders. The prevalence of voice disorders in elementary school teachers was significantly higher than that in kindergarten teachers. This higher prevalence was determined to be associated with various work factors, including daily class hours, air humidity in the classroom, and speaking loudly during teaching. Recent reform in the Chinese curriculum used in kindergartens has reduced the vocal load of kindergarten teachers to a certain extent. However, teachers in the lower grades of elementary schools, who are also early childhood teachers, have a high vocal load because of longer lesson hours requiring more oral teaching. Our results also indicated that a number of particular types of voice usage in teaching were associated with voice disorders in early childhood teachers, but the majority of the teachers have not received any proper voice training. A number of studies have confirmed that voice disorders can be prevented [57,58]. Additionally, voice training has been shown to effectively improve vocal hygiene knowledge and consciousness and quality of voice, and alleviate uncomfortable voice symptoms [59]. We also consider that education departments and occupational safety and health departments should focus more on the voice health of teachers and provide voice training regarding vocal hygiene and vocal techniques. Additionally, in order to reduce the vocal load of elementary school teachers in the lower grades, classroom teaching time should be decreased and the number of teachers in basic subjects should be increased.

Author Contributions

Y.T., Y.-J.H., and C.T.-C.L. conceptualized this study, Y.T. and Q.L. collected the data; and Y.T., C.T.-C.L., and Y.-J.H. wrote the original draft. C.T.-C.L. and Y.-J.H. contributed equally in this study. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Planning Subject of National Education Sciences of China (No. BHA180144).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Södersten, M.; Granqvist, S.; Hammarberg, B.; Szabo, A. Vocal behavior and vocal loading factors for preschool teachers at work studied with binaural DAT recordings. J. Voice 2002, 16, 356–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Remacle, A.; Morsomme, D.; Finck, C. Comparison of vocal loading parameters in kindergarten and elementary school teachers. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2014, 57, 406–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Angelillo, M.; Di Maio, G.; Costa, G.; Angelillo, N.; Barillari, U. Prevalence of occupational voice disorders in teachers. J. Prev. Med. Hyg. 2009, 50, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Martins, R.H.; Pereira, E.R.; Hidalgo, C.B.; Tavares, E.L. Voice disorders in teachers. A review. J. Voice 2014, 28, 716–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yang, Y.; Wang, J.Q.; Gao, X. A survey of voice diseases among primary and secondary school teachers in Nanjing City. J. Nanjing Med. Univ. 2008, 28, 269–270. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  6. Pizolato, R.A.; Mialhe, F.L.; Cortellazzi, K.L.; Ambrosano, G.M.B.; CornacchioniRehder, M.I.B.; Pereira, A.C. Evaluation of risk factors for voice disorders in teachers and vocal acoustic analysis as an instrument of epidemiological assessment. Rev. CEFAC 2013, 15, 957–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Leao, S.H.; Oates, J.M.; Purdy, S.C.; Scott, D.; Morton, R.P. Voice problems in New Zealand teachers: A national survey. J. Voice 2015, 29, 645.e1–645.e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lou, Z.C.; Lou, Z.H.; Fong, X.Q.; Zhang, B.B.; Chen, Z.Q.; Lou, P.; Fang, W.H. Investigation and analysis on hoarseness and other voice diseases of teachers in primary and middle schools in Yiwu. Mod. Prev. Med. 2007, 34, 2871–2872; 2875. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  9. da Rocha, L.M.; de Lima Bach, S.; do Amaral, P.L.; Behlau, M.; de Mattos Souza, L.D. Risk factors for the incidence of perceived voice disorders in elementary and middle school teachers. J. Voice 2017, 31, 258.e7–258.e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Munier, C.; Brockmann-Bauser, M.; Laukkanen, A.-M.; Ilomäki, I.; Kankare, E.; Geneid, A. Relationship between laryngeal signs and symptoms, acoustic measures, and quality of life in finish primary and kindergarten school teachers. J. Voice 2020, 34, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Fu, D.H.; Chen, L.; Cui, Z.; Li, C.; Niu, J.T.; Shuang, Y.; Huang, Y.W. The prevalence and risk factors foe 47796 teachers of Tianjin middle school, elementary school and kindergartens. J. Audiol. Speech Pathol. 2016, 24, 559–564. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  12. Munier, C.; Farrell, R. Working conditions and workplace barriers to vocal health in primary school teachers. J. Voice 2016, 30, 127.e31–127.e41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Lee, S.Y.; Lao, X.Q.; Yu, I.T. A cross-sectional survey of voice disorders among primary school teachers in Hong Kong. J. Occup. Health 2010, 52, 344–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Chen, S.H.; Chiang, S.C.; Chung, Y.M.; Hsiao, L.C.; Hsiao, T.Y. Risk factors and effects of voice problems for teachers. J. Voice 2010, 24, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Cutiva, L.C.C.; Vogel, I.; Burdorf, A. Voice disorders in teachers and their associations with work-related factors: A systematic review. J. Commun. Disord. 2013, 46, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chong, E.Y.; Chan, A.H. Subjective health complaints of teachers from primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2010, 16, 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ubillos, S.; Centeno, J.; Ibanez, J.; Iraurgi, I. Protective and risk factors associated with voice strain among teachers in Castile and Leon, Spain: Recommendations for voice training. J. Voice 2015, 29, 261.e1–261.e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Thibeault, S.L.; Merrill, R.M.; Roy, N.; Gray, S.D.; Smith, E.M. Occupational risk factors associated with voice disorders among teachers. Ann. Epidemiol. 2004, 14, 786–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Li, X.; Li, Y.L.; Tian, J.D.; Zheng, Y.Q. The prevalence and risk factors of voice disorders among preschool andprimary school teachers in Panyu district in Guangzhou. Chin. J. Orl. Integr. Med. 2018, 26, 54; 72–74. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  20. China, MOE of PRC. Teaching Guideline for Preschool Education; China, MOE of PRC: Beijing, China, 2001.
  21. China, MOE of PRC. The Instruction Summary of Curriculum Reform in Elementary Education; China, MOE of PRC: Beijing, China, 2001.
  22. Devadas, U.; Bellur, R.; Maruthy, S. Prevalence and risk factors of voice problems among primary school teachers in India. J. Voice 2017, 31, 117.e1–117.e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Trinite, B. Epidemiology of voice disorders in Latvian school teachers. J. Voice 2017, 31, 508.e1–508.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Seifpanahi, S.; Izadi, F.; Jamshidi, A.A.; Torabinezhad, F.; Sarrafzadeh, J.; Sobhani-Rad, D.; Ganjuie, M. Prevalence of voice disorders and associated risk factors in teachers and nunteachers in Iran. J. Voice 2016, 30, 506.e19–506.e23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cutiva, L.C.C.; Burdorf, A. Work-related determinants of voice complaints among school workers: An eleven-month follow-up study. Am. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 2016, 25, 590–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Korn, G.P.; Pontes, A.; Abranches, D.; Pontes, P. Vocal tract discomfort and risk factors in university teachers. J. Voice 2016, 30, 507.e1–507.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Giannini, S.P.; Latorre, M.R.; Fischer, F.M.; Ghirardi, A.C.; Ferreira, L.P. Teachers’ voice disorders and loss of work ability: A case-control study. J. Voice 2015, 29, 209–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Sampaio, M.C.; dos Reis, E.J.; Carvalho, F.M.; Porto, L.A.; Araujo, T.M. Vocal effort and voice handicap among teachers. J. Voice 2012, 26, 820.e15–820.e18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Ceballos, A.G.; Carvalho, F.M.; Araújo, T.M.; Reis, E.J. Auditory vocal analysis and factors associated with voice disorders among teachers. Rev. Bras. Epidemiol. 2011, 14, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. SouzaI, C.L.; Carvalho, F.M.; Araújo, T.M.; Reis, E.J.; Lima, V.M.C.; Porto, L.A. Factors associated with vocal fold pathologies in teachers. Rev. Saúde Pública 2011, 45, 914–921. [Google Scholar]
  31. Byeon, H. The risk factors related to voice disorder in teachers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Moy, F.M.; Hoe, V.C.; Hairi, N.N.; Chu, A.H.; Bulgiba, A.; Koh, D. Determinants and effects of voice disorders among secondary school teachers in Peninsular Malaysia using a validated Malay version of VHI-10. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0141963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lee, Y.R.; Kim, H.R.; Lee, S. Effect of teacher’s working conditions on voice disorder in Korea: A nationwide survey. Ann. Occup. Environ. Med. 2018, 30, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. de Brito Mota, A.F.; Giannini, S.P.P.; de Oliveira, I.B.; Paparelli, R.; Dornelas, R.; Ferreira, L.P. Voice Disorder and Burnout Syndrome in Teachers. J. Voice 2019, 33, 581.e7–581.e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Bolbol, S.A.; Zalat, M.M.; Hammam, R.A.; Elnakeb, N.L. Risk factors of voice disorders and impact of vocal hygiene awareness program among teachers in public schools in Egypt. J. Voice 2017, 31, 251.e9–251.e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Charn, T.C.; Mok, P.K. Voice problems amongst primary school teachers in Singapore. J. Voice 2012, 26, e141–e147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Roy, N.; Merrill, R.M.; Thibeault, S.; Parsa, R.A.; Gray, S.D.; Smith, E.M. Prevalence of voice disorders in teachers and the general population. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2004, 47, 281–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Li, H.Y.; Xu, W.; Hu, R.; Zhang, L.; Han, D.M. The application of the simplified Chinese version of the Voice Handicap Index (VHI). J. Audiol. Speech Pathol. 2010, 18, 566–570. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  39. Jacobson, B.; Johnson, A.; Grywalski, C. The Voice Handicap Index (VHI): Development and validation. Am. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 1997, 6, 66–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Arffa, R.E.; Krishna, P.; Gartner-Schmidt, J.; Rosen, C.A. Normative values for the Voice Handicap Index-10. J. Voice 2012, 26, 462–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Helidoni, M.; Murry, T.; Chlouverakis, G.; Okalidou, A.; Velegrakis, G. Voice risk factors in kindergarten teachers in Greece. Folia Phoniatr. Logop. 2012, 64, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chen, E.Q. Factors associated with the voice health of kindergarten teachers: A survey from Wenzhou. Educ. Rev. 2009, 2, 120–122. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  43. Kankare, E.; Geneid, A.; Laukkanen, A.M.; Vilkman, E. Subjective evaluation of voice and working conditions and phoniatric examination in kindergarten teachers. Folia Phoniatr. Logop. 2012, 64, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Lv, D.; Yang, H.; Xu, Y.A.; Zou, J.; Zhu, J.; Xiao, H.; Zheng, Y.T. Quality of life analysis of teachers in a primary school in Chengdu. J. Clin. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2016, 30, 1385–1387. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  45. Qiao, Y.; Sheng, Y.B.; Zhang, Y.F. Study on prevalence of voice disorder and application of voice handicap index among teachers in Handan City. Occup. Health 2016, 32, 2778–2782. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  46. Han, Y.Y.; Wang, G.; Li, F.; Lin, Z.H.; Tang, Y.F.; Li, A.H.; Yang, J.J. Urumqi 11689 secondary school teachers of throat disease investigation. J. Clin. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2012, 26, 302–305. [Google Scholar]
  47. Liu, J.J.; Guo, H.L.; Zhao, Y.L.; Zhu, Y.Y. A report of 6350 teachers’ voice diseases in Dengfeng City. Chin. Community Dr. 2012, 14, 403. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  48. Yu, P.; Sun, C. Classification of voice diseases. J. Audiol. Speech Pathol. 2018, 26, 110–114. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  49. Akin Senkal, O.; Ciyiltepe, M. Effects of voice therapy in school-age children. J. Voice 2013, 27, 787.e19–787.e25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Holmberg, E.B.; Doyle, P.; Perkell, J.S.; Hammarberg, B.; Hillman, R.E. Aerodynamic and acoustic voice measurements of patients with vocal nodules: Variation in baseline and changes across voice therapy. J. Voice 2003, 17, 269–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Himberg, L.; Pentti, J. Prevalence of vocal symptoms among teachers compared with nurses: A questionnaire study. Scand. J. Logop. Phoniatr. 1992, 17, 113–117. [Google Scholar]
  52. Pereira, E.R.; Tavares, E.L.; Martins, R.H. Voice disorders in teachers: Clinical, videolaryngoscopical, and vocal aspects. J. Voice 2015, 29, 564–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lin, H.W.; Zhuo, L.H.; Yu, R.; Ting, Z.X.; Pei, C.X.; Bao, Y.T. Study on prevalence of voice disorder and its determinants among teachersin primary and secondary schools in Changsha. Chin. J. Health Stat. 2015, 32, 781–783. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  54. Jiangsu Education Department. Construction of Kindergarten Play-Oriented Curriculum; Jiangsu Education Department: Nanjing, China, 2014.
  55. China, MOE of PRC. Prevent and Correct the Errors on the Tendency of Preschool Education toward Primary School; China, MOE of PRC: Beijing, China, 2018.
  56. Niebudek-Bogusz, E.; Sznurowska-Przygocka, B.; Fiszer, M.; Kotylo, P.; Sinkiewicz, A.; Modrzewska, M.; Sliwinska-Kowalska, M. The effectiveness of voice therapy for teachers with dysphonia. Folia Phoniatr. Logop. 2008, 60, 134–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Vilkman, E. Voice problems at work: A challenge for occupational safety and health arrangement. Folia Phoniatr. Logop. 2000, 52, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Williams, N.; Carding, P. Occupational Voice Loss; Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005; pp. 65–83. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hazlett, D.E.; Duffy, O.M.; Moorhead, S.A. Review of the impact of voice training on the vocal quality of professional voice users: Implications for vocal health and recommendations for further research. J. Voice 2011, 25, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 17 03081 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Voice diseases during the past semester, (b) Voice diseases during career, (c) Top 15 Voice symptoms. Comparison of voice diseases and voice symptoms between kindergarten and elementary school teachers, Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province, China (2019), n = 414. Note: * Teachers were asked to select from 24 voice symptoms; the other 9 were pronunciation weakness, headache when speaking, tone anomaly, sore neck and shoulder when speaking, volume anomaly, whispering, breathing fast when speaking, low note difficulty, and loss of sensation in the throat.
Figure 1. (a) Voice diseases during the past semester, (b) Voice diseases during career, (c) Top 15 Voice symptoms. Comparison of voice diseases and voice symptoms between kindergarten and elementary school teachers, Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province, China (2019), n = 414. Note: * Teachers were asked to select from 24 voice symptoms; the other 9 were pronunciation weakness, headache when speaking, tone anomaly, sore neck and shoulder when speaking, volume anomaly, whispering, breathing fast when speaking, low note difficulty, and loss of sensation in the throat.
Ijerph 17 03081 g001
Table
Table 1. Distribution of the background characteristics of participants.
Table 1. Distribution of the background characteristics of participants.
CharacteristicsNumber (%)χ2 p-Value
Total
n = 414		Kindergarten
n = 211		Elementary School
n = 203
Gender
 Female393 (94.9)207 (98.1)186 (91.6)9.0190.003 **
 Male21 (5.1)4 (1.9)17 (8.4)
Age
 20–29151 (36.5)85 (40.3)66 (32.5)2.7240.436
 30–39168 (40.6)80 (37.9)88 (43.3)
 40–4985 (20.5)41 (19.4)44 (21.7)
 ≥5010 (2.4)5 (2.4)5 (2.5)
Marital status
 Single80 (19.3)36 (17.1)44 (21.7)1.4120.235
 Married159 (80.7)175 (82.9)159 (78.3)
Minor children
 0133 (32.1)66 (31.3)67 (33.0)0.2330.890
 1213 (51.4)(52.6)102(50.2)
 >168 (16.4)34 (16.1)34 (16.7)
Education
 College degree272 (65.7)173 (82.0)99 (48.8)50.6730.000 ***
 Bachelor degree and above142 (34.3)38 (18.0)104 (51.2)
Note: Married = married /widowed/divorced; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 2. Prevalence of voice disorders in early childhood teachers, Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province, China (2019), n = 414.
Table 2. Prevalence of voice disorders in early childhood teachers, Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province, China (2019), n = 414.
Voice DisordersNumber (%)χ2 p-Value
Total
n = 414		Kindergarten
n = 211		Elementary School
n = 203
Voice disorders
Yes (VHI-10 score >11)247 (59.7)114 (54.0)133 (65.5)5.6740.017 *
No (VHI-10 score ≤11)167 (40.3)97 (46.0)70 (34.5)
Voice diseases
During last semester
Yes290 (70.0)134 (63.5)156 (76.8)8.7760.003 **
No124 (30.0)77 (36.5)47 (23.2)
During Career
Yes324 (78.3)158 (74.9)166 (81.8)2.8880.089
No90 (21.7)53 (25.1)37 (18.2)
Voice symptoms
Yes384 (92.8)189 (89.6)195 (96.1)6.4750.011 *
No30 (7.2)22 (10.4)8 (3.9)
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 3. Distribution analysis of work-related factors associated with voice disorders in early childhood teachers, Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province, China (2019), n = 414.
Table 3. Distribution analysis of work-related factors associated with voice disorders in early childhood teachers, Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province, China (2019), n = 414.
VariablesNumber (%)/Mean ± SDχ2/tp-Value
Total
n = 414		Kindergarten
n = 211		Elementary School
n = 203
Work organization
Students per class41.4 ± 12.030.5 ± 3.752.7 ± 5.1−50.115 a0.000 ***
Daily class hours1.7 ± 1.10.77 ± 0.42.6 ± 0.8−29.060 a0.000 ***
Years of teaching
≤10188 (45.4)111 (52.6)77 (37.9)8.9890.003 **
>10226 (54.6)100 (47.4)126 (62.1)
Head teacher
No226 (54.6)117 (55.5)109 (53.7)0.1290.720
Yes188 (45.4)94 (44.5)94 (46.3)
Other duties in school
0333 (80.4)181 (85.8)152 (74.9)7.8180.005 **
≥181 (19.6)30 (14.2)51 (25.1)
Daily teaching hours
≤4104 (25.1)53 (25.1)51 (25.1)12.5870.002 **
4–6146 (35.3)90 (42.7)56 (27.6)
≥7164 (39.6)68 (32.2)96 (47.3)
Daily hours outdoors with students
0–1206 (49.8)28 (13.3)178 (87.7)229.1770.000 ***
1–2143 (34.5)126 (59.7)17 (8.4)
≥365 (15.7)57 (27)8 (3.9)
Voice training
No379 (91.5)185 (87.5)194 (95.6)8.3190.004 **
Yes35 (8.5)26 (12.3)9 (4.4)
Work environments (Yes)
Student noise334 (80.7)170 (80.6)164 (80.8)0.0030.955
Classroom echo84 (20.3)43 (20.4)41 (20.2)0.0020.963
Other noise258 (62.3)122 (57.8)136 (67.0)3.7090.054
Inconvenient amplification350 (84.5)171 (81.0)179 (88.2)4.0300.045 *
Bad audio quality of amplification203 (49.0)97 (46.0)106 (52.2)1.6150.204
Irritant smell in classroom78 (18.8)29 (13.7)49 (24.1)7.3100.007 **
Smog266 (64.3)118 (55.9)148 (72.9)12.9900.000 ***
Air humidity in classroom208 (50.2)80 (37.9)128 (63.1)26.1550.000 ***
Large space for classroom205 (49.5)97 (46.0)108 (53.2)2.1640.141
Large space for outdoor activity287 (69.3)148 (70.1)139 (68.5)0.1360.713
Types of voice usage in teaching (Yes)
Falsetto speak101 (24.4)55 (26.1)46 (22.7)0.6510.420
Speak loudly342 (82.6)161 (76.3)181 (89.2)11.9080.001 **
Speak more than other teachers330 (79.7)167 (79.1)163 (80.3)0.0840.771
Not use vocal techniques355 (85.7)186 (88.2)169 (83.3)2.0330.154
Yell when feeling emotional303 (73.2)151 (71.6)152 (74.9)0.5790.447
Habitually Voice clearing252 (60.9)128 (60.7)124 (61.1)0.0080.930
Note: a t-test: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 4. Multivariate logistic regression analysis for voice disorders in early childhood teachers, Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province, China (2019), n = 414.
Table 4. Multivariate logistic regression analysis for voice disorders in early childhood teachers, Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province, China (2019), n = 414.
VariableUnadjusted Model aAdjusted Model 1 bAdjusted Model 2 cAdjusted Model 3 dAdjusted Model 4 e
OR (95% CI)p-ValueOR (95% CI)p-ValueOR (95% CI)p-ValueOR (95% CI)p-ValueOR (95% CI)p-Value
School type
KindergartenReference Reference Reference Reference Reference
Elementary school1.62 (1.09–2.40)0.018 *1.45 (0.93–2.25)0.099 1.38 (0.34–5.65)0.657 1.21 (0.26–5.62)0.807 0.87 (0.15–4.94)0.876
Background
Gender
FemaleReference Reference Reference Reference Reference
Male0.90 (0.37–2.18)0.8090.71 (0.29–1.79)0.470 0.75 (0.29–1.94)0.556 0.66 (0.24–1.8)0.411 0.79 (0.26–2.37)0.668
Age
20–29Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
30–391.03 (0.66–1.61)0.9061.14 (0.62–2.07)0.681 1.35 (0.63–2.93)0.443 1.72 (0.73–4.02)0.214 1.71 (0.69–4.22)0.246
40–491.31 (0.76–2.28)0.3331.64 (0.84–3.23)0.150 2.07 (0.80–5.37)0.133 2.09 (0.74–5.91)0.165 2.97 (0.97–9.13)0.058
≥500.72 (0.20–2.58)0.6091.00 (0.25–3.97)0.996 0.93 (0.20–4.44)0.932 1.38 (0.25–7.58)0.712 1.19 (0.21–6.86)0.842
Marital status
SingleReference Reference Reference Reference Reference
Married0.86 (0.52–1.43) 0.5650.71 (0.33–1.51)0.375 0.60 (0.27–1.32)0.204 0.53 (0.23–1.25)0.146 0.45 (0.18–1.14)0.092
Minor children
0Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
11.01 (0.65–1.57) 0.9671.18 (0.63–2.20)0.607 1.17 (0.61–2.24)0.636 1.09 (0.53–2.21)0.819 1.13 (0.53–2.43)0.756
>11.04 (0.57–1.89) 0.9031.19 (0.54–2.63)0.662 1.21 (0.53–2.78)0.652 1.07 (0.43–2.66)0.886 0.94 (0.35–2.47)0.893
Education
College degreeReference Reference Reference Reference Reference
Bachelor degree and above1.45 (0.96–2.22)0.0811.37 (0.84–2.25)0.205 1.36 (0.81–2.28)0.247 1.08 (0.61–1.91)0.798 1.00 (0.53–1.87)0.987
Work organization
Students per class1.02 (1.00–1.03) 0.085 0.96 (0.91–1.01)0.080 0.96 (0.91–1.01)0.103 0.96 (0.91–1.02)0.216
Daily class hours1.38 (1.14–1.66) 0.001 ** 1.64 (1.16–2.32)0.006 **1.49 (1.03–2.17)0.035 *1.68 (1.10–2.56)0.016 *
Years of teaching
≤10Reference Reference Reference Reference
>101.05 (0.71–1.56)0.815 0.89 (0.43–1.84)0.757 0.90 (0.41–1.98)0.784 0.92 (0.39–2.13)0.837
Head teacher
NoReference Reference Reference Reference
Yes1.22 (0.82–1.81)0.331 1.18 (0.77–1.8)0.445 1.06 (0.67–1.68)0.816 0.97 (0.59–1.61)0.917
Other duties in school
0Reference Reference Reference Reference
≥11.11 (0.68–1.83)0.673 1.12 (0.65–1.96)0.679 0.89 (0.48–1.63)0.705 0.98 (0.51–1.91)0.957
Daily teaching hours
≤4Reference Reference Reference Reference
4–61.58 (0.95–2.62) 0.079 1.71 (1.00–2.92)0.049 * 1.5 (0.84–2.68)0.176 1.42 (0.75–2.67)0.283
≥72.00 (1.21–3.31) 0.007 ** 1.98 (1.16–3.35)0.012 * 1.73 (0.97–3.09)0.063 1.51 (0.81–2.82)0.200
Daily hours outdoors with students
0–1Reference Reference Reference Reference
1–20.78 (0.50–1.20) 0.255 1.03 (0.54–1.99)0.920 0.83 (0.41–1.68)0.596 0.86 (0.41–1.84)0.706
≥30.54 (0.31–0.96) 0.034 * 0.6 (0.28–1.28)0.185 0.37 (0.16–0.85)0.020 *0.41 (0.17–1.00)0.050
Voice training
NoReference Reference Reference Reference
Yes0.65 (0.35–1.39)0.301 0.79(0.37–1.65)0.525 1.16 (0.49–2.73)0.737 0.98(0.40–2.40)0.965
Work environments
Student noise (Y/N)2.54 (1.54–4.18)0.000 *** 1.27 (0.68–2.39)0.450 1.12 (0.56–2.24)0.740
Classroom echo (Y/N)3.02 (1.72–5.31)0.000 *** 1.52 (0.75–3.09)0.244 1.19 (0.55–2.58)0.651
Other noise (Y/N)3.51 (2.31–5.32)0.000 *** 1.86 (1.08–3.19)0.025 *1.46 (0.81–2.63)0.214
Inconvenient amplification (Y/N)1.48 (0.87–2.53)0.152 1.40 (0.72–2.73)0.327 1.60 (0.77–3.32)0.207
Bad audio quality (Y/N) 1.32 (0.89–1.96)0.168 0.97 (0.60–1.58)0.913 0.88 (0.52–1.48)0.623
Irritant smell in classroom (Y/N)2.89 (1.62–5.16)0.000 *** 1.14 (0.54–2.43)0.728 1.43 (0.62–3.30)0.403
Smog (Y/N)2.53 (1.67–3.83)0.000 *** 0.93 (0.52–1.67)0.807 0.82 (0.44–1.55)0.547
Air humidity in classroom (Y/N)0.25 (0.17–0.38)0.000 *** 2.45 (1.31–4.57)0.005 **2.94 (1.50–5.76)0.002 **
Large space for classroom (Y/N)2.76 (1.84–4.15)0.000 *** 0.94 (0.53–1.67)0.828 0.87 (0.46–1.65)0.678
Large space for outdoor activity (Y/N)3.21 (2.08–4.95)0.000 *** 1.93 (1.09–3.43)0.025 *1.76 (0.93–3.34)0.084
Types of voice usage
Falsetto speak (Y/N)2.89 (1.73–4.84)0.000 *** 2.16 (1.13–4.13)0.020 *
Speak loudly (Y/N)4.04 (2.35–6.96)0.000 *** 2.47 (1.20–5.08)0.014 *
Speak more (Y/N)3.69 (2.23–6.11)0.000 *** 2.13 (1.10–4.11)0.025 *
Not use vocal techniques (Y/N)1.93 (1.11–3.37) 0.020 * 2.85 (1.37–5.96)0.005 *
Yell when feeling emotional (Y/N)2.51 (1.61–3.92)0.000 *** 0.71 (0.38–1.34)0.296
Habitually Voice clearing (Y/N)3.39 (2.24–5.13)0.000 *** 3.06 (1.78–5.25)0.000 ***
Note: Abbreviation: OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; a Unadjusted Model: Univariate logistic regression analysis of all independent variables; b Adjusted Model 1: Model of multivariate logistic regression with background variables; c Adjusted Model 2: Add work organization variables to model 1; d Adjusted Model 3: Add work environment variables to model 2; e Adjusted Model 4: Add types of voice usage in teaching to model 3.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tao, Y.; Lee, C.T.-C.; Hu, Y.-J.; Liu, Q. Relevant Work Factors Associated with Voice Disorders in Early Childhood Teachers: A Comparison between Kindergarten and Elementary School Teachers in Yancheng, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3081. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093081

AMA Style

Tao Y, Lee CT-C, Hu Y-J, Liu Q. Relevant Work Factors Associated with Voice Disorders in Early Childhood Teachers: A Comparison between Kindergarten and Elementary School Teachers in Yancheng, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(9):3081. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093081

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tao, Yaping, Charles Tzu-Chi Lee, Yih-Jin Hu, and Qiang Liu. 2020. "Relevant Work Factors Associated with Voice Disorders in Early Childhood Teachers: A Comparison between Kindergarten and Elementary School Teachers in Yancheng, China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 9: 3081. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093081

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop