Experiences of Speaking With Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation: A Qualitative Investigation

Deanna Britton, Jeannette Dee Hoit, Elizabeth Pullen, Joshua O. Benditt, Carolyn R. Baylor, Kathryn M. Yorkston

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to describe experiences of speaking with 2 forms of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV)-mouthpiece NPPV (M-NPPV) and nasal bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP)-in people with neuromuscular disorders who depend on NPPV for survival. Method Twelve participants (ages 22-68 years; 10 men, 2 women) with neuromuscular disorders (9 Duchenne muscular dystrophy, 1 Becker muscular dystrophy, 1 postpolio syndrome, and 1 spinal cord injury) took part in semistructured interviews about their speech. All subjects used M-NPPV during the day, and all but 1 used BPAP at night for their ventilation needs. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and verified. A qualitative descriptive phenomenological approach was used to code and develop themes. Results Three major themes emerged from the interview data: (a) M-NPPV aids speaking (by increasing loudness, utterance duration, clarity, and speaking endurance), (b) M-NPPV interferes with the flow of speaking (due to the need to pause to take a breath, problems with mouthpiece placement, and difficulty in using speech recognition software), and (c) nasal BPAP interferes with speaking (by causing abnormal nasal resonance, muffled speech, mask discomfort, and difficulty in coordinating speaking with ventilator-delivered inspirations). Conclusion These qualitative data from chronic NPPV users suggest that both M-NPPV and nasal BPAP may interfere with speaking but that speech is usually better and speaking is usually easier with M-NPPV. These findings can be explained primarily by the nature of the 2 ventilator delivery systems and their interfaces.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)784-792
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican journal of speech-language pathology
Volume28
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 15 2019

Fingerprint

Positive-Pressure Respiration
Nose
speaking
Pressure
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
Interviews
Mechanical Ventilators
Speech Recognition Software
experience
Masks
Spinal Cord Injuries
Ventilation
interview
Survival
endurance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

Experiences of Speaking With Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation : A Qualitative Investigation. / Britton, Deanna; Hoit, Jeannette Dee; Pullen, Elizabeth; Benditt, Joshua O.; Baylor, Carolyn R.; Yorkston, Kathryn M.

In: American journal of speech-language pathology, Vol. 28, No. 2, 15.07.2019, p. 784-792.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Britton, Deanna ; Hoit, Jeannette Dee ; Pullen, Elizabeth ; Benditt, Joshua O. ; Baylor, Carolyn R. ; Yorkston, Kathryn M. / Experiences of Speaking With Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation : A Qualitative Investigation. In: American journal of speech-language pathology. 2019 ; Vol. 28, No. 2. pp. 784-792.
@article{e8644f1573794250852889f8dd8ef408,
title = "Experiences of Speaking With Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation: A Qualitative Investigation",
abstract = "Purpose The aim of this study was to describe experiences of speaking with 2 forms of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV)-mouthpiece NPPV (M-NPPV) and nasal bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP)-in people with neuromuscular disorders who depend on NPPV for survival. Method Twelve participants (ages 22-68 years; 10 men, 2 women) with neuromuscular disorders (9 Duchenne muscular dystrophy, 1 Becker muscular dystrophy, 1 postpolio syndrome, and 1 spinal cord injury) took part in semistructured interviews about their speech. All subjects used M-NPPV during the day, and all but 1 used BPAP at night for their ventilation needs. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and verified. A qualitative descriptive phenomenological approach was used to code and develop themes. Results Three major themes emerged from the interview data: (a) M-NPPV aids speaking (by increasing loudness, utterance duration, clarity, and speaking endurance), (b) M-NPPV interferes with the flow of speaking (due to the need to pause to take a breath, problems with mouthpiece placement, and difficulty in using speech recognition software), and (c) nasal BPAP interferes with speaking (by causing abnormal nasal resonance, muffled speech, mask discomfort, and difficulty in coordinating speaking with ventilator-delivered inspirations). Conclusion These qualitative data from chronic NPPV users suggest that both M-NPPV and nasal BPAP may interfere with speaking but that speech is usually better and speaking is usually easier with M-NPPV. These findings can be explained primarily by the nature of the 2 ventilator delivery systems and their interfaces.",
author = "Deanna Britton and Hoit, {Jeannette Dee} and Elizabeth Pullen and Benditt, {Joshua O.} and Baylor, {Carolyn R.} and Yorkston, {Kathryn M.}",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1044/2019_AJSLP-MSC18-18-0101",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "784--792",
journal = "American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology",
issn = "1058-0360",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Experiences of Speaking With Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation

T2 - A Qualitative Investigation

AU - Britton, Deanna

AU - Hoit, Jeannette Dee

AU - Pullen, Elizabeth

AU - Benditt, Joshua O.

AU - Baylor, Carolyn R.

AU - Yorkston, Kathryn M.

PY - 2019/7/15

Y1 - 2019/7/15

N2 - Purpose The aim of this study was to describe experiences of speaking with 2 forms of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV)-mouthpiece NPPV (M-NPPV) and nasal bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP)-in people with neuromuscular disorders who depend on NPPV for survival. Method Twelve participants (ages 22-68 years; 10 men, 2 women) with neuromuscular disorders (9 Duchenne muscular dystrophy, 1 Becker muscular dystrophy, 1 postpolio syndrome, and 1 spinal cord injury) took part in semistructured interviews about their speech. All subjects used M-NPPV during the day, and all but 1 used BPAP at night for their ventilation needs. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and verified. A qualitative descriptive phenomenological approach was used to code and develop themes. Results Three major themes emerged from the interview data: (a) M-NPPV aids speaking (by increasing loudness, utterance duration, clarity, and speaking endurance), (b) M-NPPV interferes with the flow of speaking (due to the need to pause to take a breath, problems with mouthpiece placement, and difficulty in using speech recognition software), and (c) nasal BPAP interferes with speaking (by causing abnormal nasal resonance, muffled speech, mask discomfort, and difficulty in coordinating speaking with ventilator-delivered inspirations). Conclusion These qualitative data from chronic NPPV users suggest that both M-NPPV and nasal BPAP may interfere with speaking but that speech is usually better and speaking is usually easier with M-NPPV. These findings can be explained primarily by the nature of the 2 ventilator delivery systems and their interfaces.

AB - Purpose The aim of this study was to describe experiences of speaking with 2 forms of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV)-mouthpiece NPPV (M-NPPV) and nasal bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP)-in people with neuromuscular disorders who depend on NPPV for survival. Method Twelve participants (ages 22-68 years; 10 men, 2 women) with neuromuscular disorders (9 Duchenne muscular dystrophy, 1 Becker muscular dystrophy, 1 postpolio syndrome, and 1 spinal cord injury) took part in semistructured interviews about their speech. All subjects used M-NPPV during the day, and all but 1 used BPAP at night for their ventilation needs. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and verified. A qualitative descriptive phenomenological approach was used to code and develop themes. Results Three major themes emerged from the interview data: (a) M-NPPV aids speaking (by increasing loudness, utterance duration, clarity, and speaking endurance), (b) M-NPPV interferes with the flow of speaking (due to the need to pause to take a breath, problems with mouthpiece placement, and difficulty in using speech recognition software), and (c) nasal BPAP interferes with speaking (by causing abnormal nasal resonance, muffled speech, mask discomfort, and difficulty in coordinating speaking with ventilator-delivered inspirations). Conclusion These qualitative data from chronic NPPV users suggest that both M-NPPV and nasal BPAP may interfere with speaking but that speech is usually better and speaking is usually easier with M-NPPV. These findings can be explained primarily by the nature of the 2 ventilator delivery systems and their interfaces.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069897641&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85069897641&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1044/2019_AJSLP-MSC18-18-0101

DO - 10.1044/2019_AJSLP-MSC18-18-0101

M3 - Article

C2 - 31306604

AN - SCOPUS:85069897641

VL - 28

SP - 784

EP - 792

JO - American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

JF - American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

SN - 1058-0360

IS - 2

ER -