Parent-reported socioemotional and cognitive development in children with a cleft lip and/or palate at 18 months: Findings from a UK birth cohort

Socioeconomic Deprivation Detrimentally Influences Language Outcomes in Toddlers With Cleft Palate

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of socioeconomic deprivation on language and developmental outcomes in toddlers with cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP ± L). Other factors known to influence language outcomes were also considered, including home language history, history of hearing problems, syndromic diagnoses, and sex.

METHOD

A multicenter, cross-sectional study design was conducted. Data for 566 16-month-old toddlers with CP ± L were collected from 17 outpatient cleft palate clinics located throughout the United States. Outcome measures included the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories, LENA Developmental Snapshot, age at first word as reported by the caregiver, and the Ages and Stages Questionnaires-Third Edition (ASQ-3). Multivariable linear or logistic regression was used to determine the influence of socioeconomic deprivation, as measured by the Area Deprivation Index, on language and developmental outcomes.

RESULTS

Greater socioeconomic deprivation significantly predicted poorer language outcomes in toddlers with CP ± L, including receptive vocabulary words (p = .02), expressive vocabulary words (p = .02), and late-developing gestures (p = .02). Additionally, toddlers from less affluent neighborhoods produced their first words significantly later than their counterparts living in more affluent areas (p < .01). Lower maternal education levels predicted significantly increased risk for problem solving delays (p < .01), and patients with subsidized insurance were at significantly increased risk for personal-social delays on the ASQ-3 (p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Children with CP ± L are susceptible to developmental delays associated with socioeconomic deprivation. These findings have implications for identifying a child's individual risk factors for developmental language disorders when conducting speech-language assessments. Future study should examine how inequities in care can be mitigated and addressed.

Breastfeeding and Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between cleft lip and/or cleft palate (CL/P) and breastfeeding (BF).

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed based on studies published in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, BBO, and Embase databases, and in the gray literature. The search occurred in September 2021 and was updated in March 2022. Observational studies evaluating the association between BF and CL/P were included. Risk of bias was analyzed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Frequency of BF in relation to the presence or absence of CL/P, as well as to the type of CL/P. The association between cleft type and BF challenges was also evaluated.

RESULTS

From a total of 6863 studies identified, 29 were included in the qualitative review. Risk of bias was moderate and high in most studies (n = 26). There was a significant association between the presence of CL/P and absence of BF (OR = 18.08; 95% CI 7.09-46.09). Individuals with cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP ± L) had a significantly lower frequency of BF (OR = 5.93; 95% CI 4.30-8.16) and a significantly higher frequency of BF challenges (OR = 13.55; 95% CI 4.91-37.43) compared to individuals with CL. Certainty of the evidence was low or very low in all analyses.

CONCLUSION

The presence of clefts, especially those with palate involvement, is associated with higher chances of absence of BF.

Developmental Risk for Infants with Cleft Lip with or Without Cleft Palate Based on Caregiver-Proxy Reports

OBJECTIVES

(1) Assess caregiver-reported development in infants born with cleft lip ± alveolus (CL ± A) and cleft lip and palate (CLP); (2) determine factors associated with increased developmental risk; and (3) determine consistency of developmental risk before and after surgery for cleft lip.

DESIGN

Prospective, longitudinal assessment of development. Time (T) 1, prior to lip closure; T2, 2 months post lip closure.

SETTING

Three US craniofacial teams and online parent support groups.

PARTICIPANTS

123 total caregivers (96% mothers); 100 at T1, 92 at T2, and 69 at both T1 and T2.

MEASURE

Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3 (ASQ-3): Communication, Gross Motor, Fine Motor, Problem Solving, Personal Social Domains.

RESULTS

At T1 47%; at T2 42% passed all 5 Domains; 36% of infants pass all 5 Domains at both T1 and T2. Infants with CLP were at greatest risk on Communication [B = 1.449 (CI = .149-20.079), p = .038; Odds Ratio (OR) = 4.3 (CI = .923-19.650)] and Gross Motor Domains [B = 1.753 (CI = .316-20.605), p = .034; OR = 5.8 (CI = 1.162-28.671)]. Male infants were at greatest risk on Fine Motor [B = 1.542 (CI = .495-20.005), p = .009; OR = 4.7 (CI = 1.278-17.101)] and Problem Solving Domains [B = 1.200 (CI = .118-19.708), p = .044; OR = 3.3 (CI = .896-12.285)].

CONCLUSIONS

Based on caregiver report, infants with CL ± A and CLP meet referral criteria at a high rate. Infants with CLP and male infants were at greatest risk. Regular developmental screening is recommended.