Advancements in voice assessment enhance diagnosis and clinical accuracy by complementing clinician expertise with objective data, yet many clinicians still rely primarily on subjective methods—not by choice, but because existing tools fail to integrate into workflows that provide practical clinical benefit.

Nowhere is this challenge more evident than in hospital settings, where noise, movement, and competing priorities make voice assessment difficult. A patient recovering from intubation, illness, or a neurological condition may struggle to communicate, and without accessible evaluation tools, clinicians often rely on perception alone (1,2). For voice assessment to be practical, it must be quick, reliable, and able to capture meaningful data within these constraints. That means selecting the right tasks and metrics—ones that can function in real clinical environments.

In a recent qualitative study, we asked medical SLPs what makes voice assessment challenging in daily practice (3). Their responses highlighted two key barriers: the lack of affordable, portable, and easy-to-use solutions, and the need for better training and workflow integration. One clinician summed it up: “We need something easy at the bedside … something quick and reliable.”

These insights also revealed a deeper issue: the disconnect between research and clinical application. While voice science continues to evolve, many SLPs feel research doesn’t always translate into usable tools. One noted, “Sometimes the research just isn’t clinically applicable.” Another added, “Some clinicians are afraid to talk to researchers.” Beyond the challenge itself, this reflects a missed opportunity to better align shared goals and ensure that research efforts lead to clinical benefit (4).

This disconnect between innovation and implementation may help explain why voice assessment is often deprioritized in hospital settings, particularly at the bedside, where swallowing evaluation takes precedence. However, integrating voice assessment promotes comprehensive care that recognizes communication as fundamental to personal identity and the overall recovery process. Regaining speech restores autonomy, allowing patients to express themselves and maintain dignity throughout the healing process (5,6). This comprehensive approach aligns with models of humanized care that prioritize quality of life and person-centered communication (7,8), making voice assessment not an additional burden but an essential component of holistic patient care.

Still, recognizing the value of voice is only the first step. Even as research evolves, many tools remain impractical in hospital environments. The challenge lies not in generating knowledge, but in aligning it with clinical realities. If innovations cannot adapt to the demands of busy healthcare settings, their impact remains limited. Addressing this gap is key to ensuring that voice assessment tools become part of meaningful, routine care.

Some of these challenges are already being addressed through collaborative efforts. Many clinicians cite time constraints, limited equipment budgets, unclear pathways for integrating voice assessment into clinical routines, and the absence of institutional support as key barriers to implementation—even when practical tools exist. Environmental noise, patient immobility, and the lack of validation for some tools in inpatient settings further complicate adoption (4). At the University of Iowa, we are working to co-develop practical tools through active partnerships with clinicians and scientists. For instance, our ongoing work on low-cost piezoelectric devices –contact microphones that detect vocal fold vibrations through the skin– emerged directly from interviews with hospital-based SLPs and is being refined through continuous feedback (9). These devices can provide objective voice data even in noisy environments, making them particularly promising for bedside use. Alongside hardware development, we are also advancing analysis techniques that allow for standardized voice comparisons across different clinical locations and environments. Interestingly, the spectral limitations of contact microphone recordings may actually serve as a strength, providing consistency for cross-site data comparison and longitudinal research, which is often difficult to achieve with variable acoustic recording conditions.

In addition to our own efforts, recent research has also yielded several practical tools that have been tested or implemented in hospital and clinical settings. The VoiceScreen iOS app, for example, allows quick estimation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) with built-in background noise monitoring and has demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy in clinical settings (10). Remote and mobile recording approaches using low-cost devices have been successfully integrated into high-volume clinics, enabling voice data collection outside of traditional sound booths (11,12). Additionally, brief patient-reported outcome measures such as the Voice Handicap Index offer reliable, low-burden assessments that remain effective even in noisy environments (13). These collective efforts align with broader recommendations in the literature, including involving clinicians early in study design, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, simplifying communication across fields, and ensuring institutional support for clinician participation in research (14–16). While not without limitations, this model highlights the importance of shared priorities and continuous dialogue in creating solutions that translate into clinical practice.

Looking ahead, making a real impact requires more than developing new tools; it demands solutions that are feasible, adaptable, and grounded in clinical realities. Effective collaboration must center on shared priorities, ongoing feedback, and validation of tools in the settings where they will be used. Without this alignment, even the most promising innovations may fall short of their potential. Placing communication, compassion, and clinical context at the core is essential to ensure that voice assessment evolves in ways that truly support both patients and professionals.

The next step lies in validating portable, low-cost tools in diverse hospital settings, training clinicians in standardized assessment strategies, and embedding voice evaluation into everyday workflows through practical, collaborative research.

ðREFERENCES

1. Zaga CJ, Cigognini B, Vogel AP, Berney S. Outcome measurement tools for communication, voice and speech intelligibility in the ICU and their clinimetric properties: A systematic review. Journal of the Intensive Care Society. 2022 Nov;23(4):459–72. 
2. Huang L, Athanasiadis T, Schar M, Woods C, Bassiouni A, Martin S, et al. Bedside voice assessments cannot be used as a screening test for laryngeal injury following prolonged intubation in an intensive care population. Australian Journal of Otolaryngology. 2022 Apr;5:9. 
3. Blevins D, Farmer MS, Edlund C, Sullivan G, Kirchner JE. Collaborative research between clinicians and researchers: a multiple case study of implementation. Implementation Science. 2010 Oct 14;5:76. 
4. Castillo-Allendes A, Searl J, Knowles T, Hodgman M, Salas-Pohl C, Hunter EJ. Between Necessity and Feasibility: A Qualitative Study on How Clinicians Navigate Bedside Voice Assessment. Journal of Voice. 2025 Jul 1.
5. Wallace S, McGowan S, Sutt AL. Benefits and options for voice restoration in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients with a tracheostomy. Journal of the Intensive Care Society. 2023 Feb 1;24(1):104–11. 
6. Newman H, Clunie G, Wallace S, Smith C, Martin D, Pattison N. What matters most to adults with a tracheostomy in ICU and the implications for clinical practice: a qualitative systematic review and metasynthesis. Journal of Critical Care. 2022 Dec 1;72:154145. 
7. Sanz-Osorio MT, González-Diez L, Sánchez-Rueda G, Vallès V, Escobar-Bravo MA, Monistrol O. Humanised care in acute psychiatric hospitalisation units: Definition, values and strategic initiatives from the perspective of persons with mental health problems, primary carers and professionals. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2024;31(2):228–39. 
8. Meneses-La-Riva ME, Suyo-Vega JA, Fernández-Bedoya VH. Humanized Care From the Nurse-Patient Perspective in a Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review of Experiences Disclosed in Spanish and Portuguese Scientific Articles. Frontiers in Public Health. 2021;9:737506. 
9. Castillo-Allendes A, Berardi ML, Figueroa-Martínez F, Yousef AM, Hunter EJ. Voice assessment in hospital settings: Contact microphones as a potential solution. 54th Annual Symposium of The Voice Foundation; 2025 May; Philadelphia, PA, USA. 
10. Uloza V, Ulozaite-Staniene N, Petrauskas T. An iOS-based VoiceScreen application: feasibility for use in clinical settings—a pilot study. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2023 Jan;280(1):277–84.
11. Schneider SL, Habich L, Weston ZM, Rosen CA. Observations and considerations for implementing remote acoustic voice recording and analysis in clinical practice. Journal of Voice. 2024 Jan;38(1):69–76.
12. Petrizzo D, Popolo PS. Smartphone use in clinical voice recording and acoustic analysis: a literature review. Journal of Voice. 2021 May 1;35(3):499-e23.
13. Slavych BK, Zraick RI, Ruleman A. A systematic review of voice-related patient-reported outcome measures for use with adults. Journal of Voice. 2024 Feb;38(2):544.e1–e14.
14. Goldstein KM, Gierisch JM, Tucker M, Williams JW, Dolor RJ, Henderson W. Options for Meaningful Engagement in Clinical Research for Busy Frontline Clinicians. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2021 Jul;36(7):2100–4. 
15. Williams J, Craig TJ, Robson D. Barriers and facilitators of clinician and researcher collaborations: a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research. 2020 Dec 5;20(1):1126. 
16. Chambers DW, Flores-Mir C. Building bridges from research outcomes to clinical practice decisions. The Angle Orthodontist. 2025 Mar 1;95(2):141–8. 

HOW TO CITE