Comparison of Corresponding Scores From the Cleft Hearing Appearance and Speech Questionnaire (CHASQ) and CLEFT-Q in Swedish Patients With Cleft Lip and/or Palate

Assessing Appearance, Speech, and Hearing (dis)Satisfaction in Individuals with Cleft Lip and/or Palate: A Contribution to General Population Norms

BACKGROUND

Individuals with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) may grow up with a visible facial difference, alongside speech and/or hearing challenges. Self-perceptions are stronger predictors of psychosocial adjustment than objective assessments, highlighting the importance of patient-reported outcome measures. Previously titled the Satisfaction with Appearance (SwA) questionnaire, the Cleft Hearing, Appearance and Speech Questionnaire (CHASQ) has been used in several countries to assess patient satisfaction, guide clinical decision-making, and conduct craniofacial research, but has lacked general population norms from which to draw comparisons. The aim of this study was to contribute to the development of norms by utilising existing data collected in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2004 using the original SwA.

METHODS

SwA data collected from school pupils (n = 761) aged 10-16 years were analysed across age and gender.

RESULTS

Hair, Eyes and Ears received the highest ratings, while Teeth received the lowest ratings. Those who were younger, and those who were male, generally rated their appearance more favourably. Thresholds are proposed to identify young people in need of clinical monitoring (10%) and intervention (5%).

DISCUSSION

This study supports the potential of the CHASQ as a clinically useful outcome measure and research tool with the ability to identify appearance concerns in relation to specific facial features, as well as overall appearance satisfaction in young people with and without CL/P. Further validation of its use in the CL/P population and other patient groups, as well as countries outside the UK would add additional weight to the CHASQ's utility.

What is the optimal assessment of speech? A multicentre, international evaluation of speech assessment in 2500 patients with a cleft

OBJECTIVES

Speech problems in patients with a cleft palate are often complex and multifactorial. Finding the optimal way of monitoring these problems is challenging. The International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) has developed a set of standardised outcome measures at specific ages for patients with a cleft lip and/or palate, including measures of speech assessment. This study evaluates the type and timing of speech outcome measures currently included in this ICHOM Standard Set. Additionally, speech assessments in other cleft protocols and initiatives are discussed.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

An international, multicentre study was set up including centres from the USA and the Netherlands. Outcomes of clinical measures and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were collected retrospectively according to the ICHOM set. PROM data from a field test of the CLEFT-Q, a questionnaire developed and validated for patients with a cleft, were collected, including participants from countries with all sorts of income statuses, to examine the value of additional moments of measurement that are used in other cleft initiatives.Data from 2500 patients were included. Measured outcomes contained univariate regression analyses, trend analyses, t-tests, correlations and floor and ceiling effects.

RESULTS

PROMs correlated low to moderate with clinical outcome measures. Clinical outcome measures correlated low to moderate with each other too. In contrast, two CLEFT-Q Scales correlated strongly with each other. All PROMs and the Percent Consonants Correct (PCC) showed an effect of age. In patients with an isolated cleft palate, a ceiling effect was found in the Intelligibility in Context Scale.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for an optimal speech outcome assessment in cleft patients are made. Measurement moments of different cleft protocols and initiatives are considered in this proposition. Concerning the type of measures, adjustment of the current PCC score outcome seems appropriate. For centres with adequate resources and specific interest in research, translation and validation of an upcoming tool, the Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech Augmented, is recommended.

On the Benefits of Speech-Language Therapy for Individuals Born With Cleft Palate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data

PURPOSE

Cleft lip and/or palate (CLP) is a common birth defect, and after reconstructive surgery, about 50% of children at 5 years of age have speech deviations and are referred to speech-language therapy (SLT). The peer-reviewed evidence for the benefit of SLT has been uncertain. Our objective was to systematically review and meta-analytically summarize the benefit of SLT for individuals born with CLP.

METHOD

A systematic search was conducted (last search on February 19, 2021) on studies evaluating SLT with pre and post measures on speech production, language ability, intelligibility, and/or patient-reported outcomes. We sought individual participant data (IPD) and evaluated on an individual level if the outcome measure had improved to a clinically relevant degree during SLT and if the outcome measure was on a level with peers or not after SLT. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were applied to synthesize IPD across studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-four eligible studies were found. Nineteen studies provided IPD (n = 343) for the main analysis on speech production. The synthesized information suggests that, during SLT, speech production improved to a clinically relevant degree for many individuals (95% CI [61%, 87%]) and that speech production was on a level with peers for some individuals after SLT (95% CI [10%, 34%]).

CONCLUSIONS

The main strength of this meta-analysis is that we evaluated on an individual level pre- and post-intervention data based on considerations of clinical relevance. This approach allowed us to conclude that many individuals benefit from SLT and that further work on evaluating SLT in this patient group is meaningful. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.17700992.