Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Orthod Craniofac Res ; 20 Suppl 2: 27-39, 2017 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28661078

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate centre-level variation in speech intervention and outcome and factors associated with a speech disorder in children in Cleft Care UK (CCUK). SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Two hundred and sixty-eight 5-year-old British children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate recruited to CCUK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Centre-based therapists undertook audio-video recordings. Perceptual analysis was undertaken using the CAPS-A tool. Speech outcomes were based on structural and articulation scores, and intelligibility/distinctiveness. Between-centre variation in treatment and outcomes were examined using multilevel models. These models were extended to estimate the association between a range of factors (hearing loss, speech intervention, fistula, secondary speech surgery for velopharyngeal insufficiency, socio-economic status, gender, and parental happiness with speech) and speech outcomes. RESULTS: There was centre-level variation in secondary speech surgery, speech intervention, structure and intelligibility outcomes. Children with a history of speech intervention had a lower odds of poor intelligibility/distinctiveness, 0.1 (95% CI: 0.0-0.4). Parental concern was associated with a higher odds of poor intelligibility/distinctiveness, 13.2 (95% CI: 4.9-35.1). Poor speech outcomes were associated with a fistula, secondary speech surgery and history of hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: Within the centralized service there is centre-level variation in secondary speech surgery, intervention and speech outcomes. These findings support the importance of early management of fistulae, effective management of velopharyngeal insufficiency and hearing impairment, and most importantly speech intervention in the preschool years. Parental concern about speech is a good indicator of speech status.


Subject(s)
Cleft Lip/epidemiology , Cleft Palate/epidemiology , Speech Disorders/epidemiology , Speech Intelligibility , Child , Clinical Audit , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Hearing Disorders/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Speech Therapy/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom/epidemiology
2.
Orthod Craniofac Res ; 20 Suppl 2: 48-51, 2017 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28661081

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To summarize and discuss centre-level variation across a range of treatment and outcome measures and examine individual and ecological determinants of outcome in children in Cleft Care UK (CCUK). SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Two hundred and sixty-eight 5-year-old British children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) recruited to CCUK and treated within a centralized service. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Children had a range of treatment and outcome measures collected at a 5-year audit clinic. These outcomes included dento-alveolar arch relationships from study models, measures of facial appearance from cropped photographs, hearing loss from audiological assessment, speech from speech recordings, self-confidence and strengths and difficulties from parental self-report. Data were collected on educational attainment at age 7 using record linkage. Centre variation was examined using hierarchical regression and associations between variables were examined using logistic or poisson regression. RESULTS: There was centre-level variation for some treatments (early grommet placement, fitting of hearing aids, fluoride treatment, secondary speech surgery and treatment for cleft speech characteristics) and for some outcomes (intelligibility of speech). Hearing loss was associated with a higher risk of poor speech while speech therapy was associated with a lower risk of poor speech. Children had high levels of caries but levels of preventative treatment (fluoride varnish and tablets) were low. CONCLUSIONS: Further improvements to and monitoring of the current centralized model of care are required to ensure the best outcomes for all children with cleft lip and palate.


Subject(s)
Cleft Lip/epidemiology , Cleft Palate/epidemiology , Cariostatic Agents/administration & dosage , Child , Clinical Audit , Cross-Sectional Studies , Dental Caries/epidemiology , Dental Caries/prevention & control , Female , Fluorides/administration & dosage , Fluorides, Topical/administration & dosage , Hearing Aids/statistics & numerical data , Hearing Loss/epidemiology , Hearing Loss/therapy , Humans , Male , Middle Ear Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Speech Disorders/epidemiology , Speech Disorders/therapy , Speech Intelligibility , Speech Therapy/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom/epidemiology
3.
Orthod Craniofac Res ; 20 Suppl 2: 1-7, 2017 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28661082

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Outline methods used to describe centre-level variation in treatment and outcome in children in the Cleft Care UK (CCUK) study. Report centre-level variation in dento-facial outcomes. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Two hundred and sixty-eight five-year-old British children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2011 and December 2012, data were collected on a comprehensive range of outcomes. Child facial appearance and symmetry were assessed using photographic pictures. Dental arch relationships were assessed from standardized dental study models. Hierarchical statistical models were used to predict overall means and the variance partition coefficient (VPC)-a measure of amount of variation in treatment or outcome explained by the centre. RESULTS: Data on dento-alveolar arch relationships and facial appearance were available on 197 and 252 children, respectively. The median age of the children was 5.5 years, and 68% were boys. Variation was described across 13 centres. There was no evidence of centre-level variation in good or poor dento-alveolar arch relationships with a VPC of 4% and 3%, respectively. Similarly, there was no evidence of centre-level variation in good or poor facial appearance with a VPC of 2% and 5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of centre-level variation for dento-facial outcomes although this study only had the power to detect large variation between sites.


Subject(s)
Cleft Lip/surgery , Cleft Palate/surgery , Patient Outcome Assessment , Child , Cleft Lip/epidemiology , Cleft Palate/epidemiology , Clinical Audit , Cross-Sectional Studies , Esthetics , Female , Humans , Male , Models, Statistical , United Kingdom/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...