An Exploratory Study of Speech and Language Therapy Intervention for Children Born With Cleft Palate ± Lip

"The Decision to End Speech Therapy Brought More Peace and Tranquility Into Our Family": Exploring Speech-Related Treatment Fatigue and Dropout in Parents and Children With a Cleft Palate

PURPOSE

Treatment fatigue is a complex, multidimensional, multicausal, and subjective phenomenon that is not yet well explored and understood in the area of speech therapy. The purpose of this study was to investigate speech-related treatment fatigue and speech treatment dropout in parents and children with a cleft (lip and) palate receiving or having received speech treatment for cleft-related articulation disorders.

METHOD

Thirteen participants were included in this study (n = seven parents with a median age of 40 years and n = six children with a median age of 10 years). Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted separately with parents and children to investigate their experiences with cleft speech treatment. An inductive thematic approach was used to analyze the data and construct different themes. Rigor of the data was verified by conducting an investigator triangulation and by performing member checks.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The analyses of the interviews yielded three major themes of importance to the children and their parents: (a) physical symptoms of treatment fatigue, (b) psychological symptoms of treatment fatigue, and (c) from treatment fatigue to treatment dropout. Physical symptoms of treatment fatigue were mainly related to transportation burden. On a psychological level, speech treatment may potentially lead to a cognitive-emotional overload. These feelings are primarily related to the practical issue of scheduling required treatment sessions in the family agenda. The decision to discontinue speech treatment was reported to be multifactorial. In this decision-making process, data suggested that the child's perspective must be heard more.

Gradient speech change during intervention for school-aged children and adults with cleft palate ± lip

Gradient speech change, where speech sound production develops in a broadly step-wise fashion towards the standard adult form, is a well-recognised phenomenon in children developing typical speech, but is much less studied in speakers with developmental speech sound disorders. Instrumental techniques, such as electropalatography (EPG), may be useful for identifying gradient speech change and may supplement phonetic transcription in important ways. This study investigated whether gradient speech change occurred in six participants with cleft palate ± lip undergoing intervention within a usage-based phonology framework (2/6 participants with speech distortions; 4/6 with pattern-based speech substitutions; combined total of 25 speech sounds targeted for intervention). Participants received weekly therapy in a hospital setting and were aged 10-27 years. Gradient speech change with target speech sounds was examined using EPG analysis, which was undertaken after every fifth session of therapy. The presence of gradient change was determined by visually examining EPG palatograms and EPG indices for target speech sounds across successive EPG test points. This study found gradient speech change occurred in 22/25 target sounds over the course of intervention. This gradient change occurred for both speech distortions and pattern-based speech substitutions. The remaining 3/25 target sounds showed categorical change. Usage-based phonology was suggested as a theory with potential for explaining gradient speech change, with both typical and atypical speech, and with speech distortions and pattern-based speech substitutions. This finding adds to other research showing that the objective data provided by instrumental techniques, such as EPG, may be a valuable complement to phonetic transcription.

Outcome measures for children with speech sound disorder: an umbrella review

OBJECTIVE

Speech sound disorder (SSD) describes a 'persistent difficulty with speech sound production that interferes with speech intelligibility or prevents verbal communication'. There is a need to establish which care pathways are most effective and efficient for children with SSD. Comparison of care pathways requires clearly defined, evidence-based, interventions and agreement on how to measure the outcomes. At present, no definitive list of assessments, interventions or outcomes exists. The objective of this umbrella review paper is to provide a rigorous and detailed list of assessments, interventions and outcomes which target SSD in children.

DESIGN

In December 2022, a systematic search of Ovid Medline, OVID Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Cochrane and a number of grey literature platforms were undertaken. 18 reviews were included, and subsequently 415 primary research articles were assessed for data related to assessments, interventions or outcomes. The AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) framework was used to assess the quality of the retained reviews.

SETTING

Reviews were retained which took place in any setting.

PARTICIPANTS

The population is children of any age with a diagnosis of SSD of unknown origin.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Reviews reporting outcomes, assessment and interventions for children with SSD.

RESULTS

Extraction and analysis identified 37 assessments, 46 interventions and 30 outcome measures used in research reporting of SSD. Not all of the listed outcomes were linked to specific outcome measurement tools, but these were measurable through the use of one or more of the assessments extracted from the retained reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review will be used to develop a Core Outcome Set for children with SSD. The findings are part of a rigorous process essential for advancing healthcare research and practice in the specific area of speech and language therapy for children with SSD.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022316284.

How differences in anatomy and physiology and other aetiology affect the way we label and describe speech in individuals with cleft lip and palate

BACKGROUND

Speech in individuals with cleft lip and/or palate (CLP) is a complex myriad of presenting symptoms. It is uniquely associated with the structural difference of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI), together with a wide and heterogeneous range of other aetiologies which often co-occur. The nature of the speech sound disorder (SSD) including VPI may also change over the course of an individual's care pathway. Differences in terminology and approaches to analysis are currently used, resulting in confusion internationally. Additionally, current diagnostic labels and classification systems in SSD do not capture the complexity and full nature of speech characteristics in CLP.

AIMS

This paper aims to explore the different aetiologies of cleft palate/VPI speech and to relate aetiology with speech characteristic(s). In so doing, it attempts to unravel the different terminology used in the field, describing commonalities and differences, and identifying overlaps with the speech summary patterns used in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The paper also aims to explore the applicability of current diagnostic labels and classification systems in the non-cleft SSD literature and illustrate certain implications for speech intervention in CLP.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The different aetiologies were identified from the literature and mapped onto cleft palate/VPI speech characteristics. Different terminology and approaches to analysis are defined and overlaps described. The applicability of current classification systems in SSD is discussed including additional diagnostic labels proposed in the field.

OUTCOMES AND RESULTS

Aetiologies of cleft palate/VPI speech identified include developmental (cognitive-linguistic), middle ear disease and fluctuating hearing loss, altered oral structure, abnormal facial growth, VPI-structural (abnormal palate muscle) and VPI-iatrogenic (maxillary advancement surgery). There are four main terminologies used to describe cleft palate/VPI speech: active/passive and compensatory/obligatory, which overlap with the four categories used in the UK speech summary patterns: anterior oral cleft speech characteristics (CSCs), posterior oral CSCs, non-oral CSCs and passive CSCs, although not directly comparable. Current classification systems in non-cleft SSD do not sufficiently capture the full nature and complexity of cleft palate/VPI speech.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Our attempt at identifying the heterogeneous range of aetiologies provides clinicians with a better understanding of cleft palate/VPI speech to inform the management pathway and the nature and type of speech intervention required. We hope that the unravelling of the different terminology in relation to the UK speech summary patterns, and those used elsewhere, reduces confusion and provides more clarity for clinicians in the field. Diagnostic labels and classification require international agreement.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject Speech associated with cleft palate/velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) is a complex myriad of speech characteristics with a wide and heterogeneous range of aetiologies. Different terminology and speech summary patterns are used to describe the speech characteristics. The traditional classification of cleft palate/VPI speech is Articulation Disorder, although evidence is building for Phonological Disorder and contrastive approaches in cleft speech intervention. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This paper explores the range of aetiologies of cleft palate/VPI speech (e.g., altered oral structure, abnormal facial growth, abnormal palate muscle and iatrogenic aetiologies) and attempts to relate aetiology with speech characteristic(s). An attempt is made at unravelling the different terminology used in relation to a well-known and validated approach to analysis, used in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Complexities of current diagnostic labels and classifications in Speech Sound Disorder to describe cleft palate/VPI speech are discussed. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? There needs to be a common language for describing and summarising cleft palate/VPI speech. Speech summary patterns based on narrow phonetic transcription and correct identification of aetiology are essential for the accurate classification of the speech disorder and identification of speech intervention approaches. There is an urgent need for research to identify the most appropriate type of contrastive (phonological) approach in cleft lip and/or palate.

Scandcleft randomized trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: Speech proficiency at 10 years of age

BACKGROUND & AIM

To assess consonant proficiency and velopharyngeal function in 10-year-old children born with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) within the Scandcleft project.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

Three parallel group, randomized, clinical trials were undertaken as an international multicentre study by nine cleft teams in five countries. Three different surgical protocols for primary palate repair (Arm B-Lip and soft palate closure at 3-4 months, hard palate closure at 36 months, Arm C-Lip closure at 3-4 months, hard and soft palate closure at 12 months, and Arm D-Lip closure at 3-4 months combined with a single-layer closure of the hard palate using a vomer flap, soft palate closure at 12 months) were tested against a common procedure (Arm A-Lip and soft palate closure at 3-4 months followed by hard palate closure at 12 months) in the total cohort of 431 children born with a non-syndromic UCLP. Speech audio and video recordings of 399 children were available and perceptually analysed. Percentage of consonants correct (PCC) from a naming test, an overall rating of velopharyngeal competence (VPC) (VPC-Rate), and a composite measure (VPC-Sum) were reported.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

The mean levels of consonant proficiency (PCC score) in the trial arms were 86-92% and between 58% and 83% of the children had VPC (VPC-Sum). Only 50-73% of the participants had a consonant proficiency level with their peers. Girls performed better throughout. Long delay of the hard palate repair (Arm B) indicated lower PCC and simultaneous hard and soft palate closure higher (Arm C). However, the proportion of participants with primary VPC (not including velopharyngeal surgeries) was highest in Arm B (68%) and lowest in Arm C (47%).

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

The speech outcome in terms of PCC and VPC was low across the trials. The different protocols had their pros and cons and there is no obvious evidence to recommend any of the protocols as superior. Aspects other than primary surgical method, such as time after velopharyngeal surgery, surgical experience, hearing level, language difficulties and speech therapy, need to be thoroughly reviewed for a better understanding of what has affected speech outcome at 10 years.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject Speech outcomes at 10 years of age in children treated for UCLP are sparse and contradictory. Previous studies have examined speech outcomes and the relationship with surgical intervention in 5-year-olds. What this study adds to the existing knowledge Speech outcomes based on standardized assessment in a large group of 10-year-old children born with UCLP and surgically treated according to different protocols are presented. While speech therapy had been provided, a large proportion of the children across treatment protocols still needed further speech therapy. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Aspects other than surgery and speech function might add to the understanding of what affects speech outcome. Effective speech therapy should be available for children in addition to primary surgical repair of the cleft and secondary surgeries if needed.

The retrospective acceptability of high intensity versus low intensity speech intervention in children with a cleft palate: A qualitative study from the parents' point of view using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability

BACKGROUND

Increasing attention is paid to the effectiveness of high-intensity speech intervention in children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP±L). It is, however, unknown if high-intensity intervention is acceptable to the intervention recipients. Parents have an integral role in supporting their children with intervention highlighting the importance of intervention acceptability to parents.

AIMS

To compare the retrospective acceptability of high-intensity speech intervention (10 1-hr speech therapy sessions divided over 2 weeks) with the retrospective acceptability of low-intensity speech intervention (10 1-hr speech therapy sessions divided over 10 weeks) for children with a CP±L from the parents' point of view.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

Twelve parents of 12 children, aged 6-0 years who received high-intensity speech intervention (n = 6) or low-intensity speech intervention (n = 6), were invited to participate in this study. Seven parents (n = 3 in the high-intensity group and n = 4 in the low-intensity group) agreed to participate (total response rate: 7/12, 58.33%). A qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews was applied. To investigate the retrospective acceptability of the two intervention intensities, deductive coding according to the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) was used.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

With regard to the TFA construct 'affective attitude', results demonstrated that parents had positive feelings about the provided speech intervention regardless of the intensity. Parents of children who received high-intensity speech intervention reported two specific benefits related to the high intervention intensity: (1) it improved their relationship with the speech-language pathologist and (2) it improved their child's ability to make self-corrections in his/her speech. Even though both high-intensive and low-intensity speech intervention were considered burdensome (TFA construct 'burden'), parents were less likely to drop out of high-intensity intervention because the total intervention period was kept short.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

In conclusion, high-intensity speech intervention seemed acceptable to parents. More positive codes were identified for some of the TFA constructs in the high-intensity intervention group than in the low-intensity intervention group. Considering that some parents doubted their self-efficacy to participate in high-intensity speech intervention, speech-language pathologists need to counsel them so that they can adhere to the high intervention intensity. Future studies should investigate whether high-intensity speech intervention is also acceptable to the children who receive the intervention and to the speech-language pathologists who deliver the intervention.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on this subject Increasing attention is paid to the effectiveness of high-intensity speech intervention in children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP±L). Different quantitative studies have shown positive speech outcomes after high-intensity cleft speech intervention. Despite this increasing attention to high-intensity speech intervention, it is unknown whether high-intensity intervention is also acceptable to the intervention recipients. This study compared the retrospective acceptability of high-intensity speech intervention (10 1-hour speech therapy sessions divided over 2 weeks) with the retrospective acceptability of low-intensity speech intervention (10 1-hour speech therapy sessions divided over 10 weeks) in children with a CP±L from the parents' point of view. What this paper adds to existing knowledge More positive codes were identified for some of the TFA constructs in the high-intensity intervention group than in the low-intensity intervention group. Nevertheless, some parents doubted their self-efficacy to participate in high-intensity speech intervention. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The findings of this study forces us to reconsider the traditional cleft speech intervention delivery models which usually consist of low-intensity intervention. Speech-language pathologists need to counsel parents and so that they can adhere to the high intervention intensity.

Outcome measures for children with speech sound disorder: an umbrella review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Speech sound disorder (SSD) describes a 'persistent difficulty with speech sound production that interferes with speech intelligibility or prevents verbal communication'. There is a need to establish which care pathways are most effective and efficient for children with SSD. Comparison of care pathways requires clearly defined, evidence-based interventions and agreement on how to measure the outcomes. At present, no list of assessments, interventions or outcomes exists.The objective of this paper is to provide a rigorous and detailed protocol for an umbrella review of assessments, interventions and outcomes that target SSD in children. The protocol details the development of a search strategy and trial of an extraction tool.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

The umbrella review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022316284). Papers included can use a review methodology of any sort but must include children of any age, with an SSD of unknown origin. In accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods guidelines, an initial search of the Ovid Emcare and Ovid Medline databases was conducted. Following this, a final search strategy for these databases were produced. A draft extraction form was developed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not needed for an umbrella review protocol. Following the systematic development of an initial search strategy and extraction form, an umbrella review of this topic can take place. Dissemination of findings will be through peer-reviewed publications, social media, and patient and public engagement.

How acceptable is the use of linguistic-phonological intervention in children with cleft palate? A qualitative study in speech therapists

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Even though evidence for the use of linguistic-phonological intervention approaches in children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP±L) is still limited, these approaches are being used by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to treat active or compensatory cleft speech disorders in clinical practice. It is, however, unknown to what extent linguistic-phonological intervention is acceptable to SLPs. The aim of this study is to investigate the retrospective acceptability of linguistic-phonological intervention in children with a CP±L from the perspective of SLPs using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA).

METHODS & PROCEDURES

A total of 18 female community SLPs, aged between 23 and 63 years, were included in the study. An independent interviewer conducted semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using a deductive coding approach. Statements of the SLPs were related to the seven constructs of the TFA: affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, perceived effectiveness and self-efficacy.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

The affective attitude and perceived effectiveness of linguistic-phonological intervention differed among the SLPs: some therapists had positive attitudes towards these approaches, while others did not. Positive attitudes were related to the successful use of linguistic-phonological intervention in the past. The construct 'ethicality' revealed that negative attitudes towards these approaches were attributed to the limited available scientific evidence or negative experiences while using these approaches. In contrast, SLPs who had positive attitudes considered these interventions as 'important' and 'valuable'. Some SLPs had negative reflections on linguistic-phonological intervention as these approaches were considered demanding in terms of time needed to gain knowledge on using them in children with a CP±L (constructs 'burden' and 'opportunity costs'). Additionally, some SLPs doubted their self-efficacy to use these approaches in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

The acceptability of linguistic-phonological intervention differed between the SLPs in this sample and was most likely related to their previous experiences with these linguistic-phonological approaches. It is important to increase not only the amount of scientific evidence for linguistic-phonological approaches but also the supply of evidence-based workshops and training courses on this topic. These initiatives should distribute scientific information that is translated into guidelines that are immediately applicable in clinical practice. This may potentially reduce the time-related burden that some SLPs currently experience to gain expertise in this matter. In future research, it is necessary to investigate if there exist differences in acceptability between the different types of linguistic-phonological therapy.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on this subject Linguistic-phonological speech intervention approaches are often used by SLPs to treat active or compensatory cleft speech disorders in clinical practice. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study investigated whether linguistic-phonological intervention cleft speech intervention is acceptable to SLPs. Some therapists had positive attitudes towards these approaches, while others did not. Positive attitudes were related to the successful use of these approaches in the past. If SLPs indicated having negative attitudes, these negative feelings were attributed to the limited available scientific evidence or negative experiences while using these approaches. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work Even though linguistic-phonological speech intervention approaches are being used in clinical practice, these approaches are not always considered acceptable by SLPs. Acceptability could be enhanced by increasing the amount of scientific evidence for linguistic-phonological approaches, but also by increasing the supply of workshops and training courses on this topic. These initiatives should distribute hands-on information that is immediately applicable in clinical practice. This may potentially reduce the time-related burden that some SLPs currently experience to gain expertise in this matter.

Achieving the next level in cleft speech intervention: A protocol of a randomized sham-controlled trial to provide guidelines for a personalized approach in children with cleft palate

BACKGROUND

Compensatory cleft speech disorders can severely impact speech understandability and speech acceptability. Speech intervention is necessary to eliminate these disorders. There is, however, currently no consensus on the most effective speech therapy approach to eliminate the different subtypes of compensatory cleft speech disorders.

AIMS

To compare the immediate, short- and long-term effects of three well-defined speech intervention approaches (i.e., a motor-phonetic approach, a linguistic-phonological approach and a combined phonetic-phonological approach) on the speech and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in Belgian Dutch-speaking children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP±L) and different subtypes of compensatory speech disorders (i.e., anterior oral cleft speech characteristics (CSCs), posterior oral CSCs or non-oral CSCs). Besides, the perceived acceptability of these three speech intervention approaches will be investigated from the perspectives of caregivers and children with a CP±L.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

A two-centre longitudinal randomized sham-controlled trial was used. Children were randomly assigned to one of the three intervention programmes and received 10 h of speech intervention divided over 2 weeks. Block randomization was used, stratified by age and gender. Primary outcome measures included perceptual speech outcomes. Secondary outcome measures included patient-reported outcomes.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

The results of this trial will provide speech-language pathologists evidence-based guidelines to better tailor intervention approaches to the specific needs of a child with a defined compensatory speech disorder.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on this subject Speech therapy approaches to address cleft palate speech disorders are broadly divided into two categories: motor-phonetic interventions and linguistic-phonological interventions. Some limited evidence demonstrated the positive effects of these approaches in eliminating compensatory cleft speech disorders. Different studies have reported inter-individual variation, suggesting that one child may benefit more from a particular intervention approach than the other child. Perhaps this variation can be attributed to the specific subtype of compensatory speech disorder (i.e., anterior oral CSC, posterior oral CSC or non-oral CSC). What this paper adds to existing knowledge This paper describes a randomized sham-controlled trial that compared the immediate, short- and long-term effects of three well-defined speech intervention approaches (i.e., a motor-phonetic approach, a linguistic-phonological approach and a combined phonetic-phonological approach) on the speech and HRQoL in Belgian Dutch-speaking children with CP±L and different subtypes of compensatory cleft speech disorders (i.e., anterior oral CSCs, posterior oral CSCs or non-oral CSCs) measured by perceptual and psychosocial outcome measures. Besides, the experienced acceptability of these three speech intervention approaches were investigated from the perspectives of caregivers and children. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This project provides evidence-based knowledge on patient-tailored cleft speech intervention considering both scientific evidence and the perspectives of caregivers and children. The results aid SLPs in better tailoring intervention approaches to the needs of a child with a specific type of compensatory cleft speech disorder.

One Size Doesn't Fit All: A Pilot Study Toward Performance-Specific Speech Intervention in Children With a Cleft (Lip and) Palate

PURPOSE

Speech-language pathologists usually apply a "one size fits all" approach to eliminate compensatory cleft speech characteristics (CSCs). It is necessary to investigate what intervention works best for a particular patient. This pilot study compared the effectiveness of two therapy approaches (a motor-phonetic approach and a linguistic-phonological approach) on different subtypes of compensatory CSCs in Dutch-speaking children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP ± L).

METHOD

Fourteen children with a CP ± L (M _age = 7.71 years) were divided into two groups using block randomization stratified by age, gender, and type of compensatory CSC. Six children received intervention to eliminate anterior oral CSCs (n = 3 motor-phonetic intervention, n = 3 linguistic-phonological intervention). Eight children received intervention to eliminate non-oral CSCs (n = 4 motor-phonetic intervention, n = 4 linguistic-phonological intervention). Each child received 10 hr of speech intervention divided over 2 weeks. Perceptual and psychosocial outcome measures were used to determine intervention effects.

RESULTS

Children who received linguistic-phonological intervention to eliminate anterior oral CSCs had significantly higher correctly produced consonant scores and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores compared to children who received motor-phonetic intervention to eliminate anterior oral CSCs. In the group of children who received intervention to eliminate non-oral CSCs, no significant differences were found in the correctly produced consonant scores nor in the HRQoL scores between the two intervention approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Linguistic-phonological intervention seems to be more appropriate to eliminate anterior oral CSCs. The beneficial effects of linguistic-phonological intervention were less pronounced in children with non-oral CSCs. Perhaps, children with non-oral CSCs benefit more from a hybrid phonetic-phonological approach. This study is a step forward in the provision of performance-specific intervention in children with a CP ± L. Replication in larger samples is needed and will aid to tailor treatment plans to the needs of our patients.