The objective was to describe the lives of adolescents, who were born with cleft lip and palate (CL/P), in comparison to the general population as recorded in Growing up in Ireland (GUI), the national longitudinal study of children and youth.
Design
This was a cross-sectional study.
Setting: The study was performed in a cleft center at a university teaching hospital.
Participants: Adolescents born with CL/P in the years 2007 to 2009.
Interventions: Growing up in Ireland questionnaires, which assessed demographics, health and experience of friendship, school, leisure, and social life, were adapted and administered to adolescents and their parents/guardians, who were identified from a prospectively maintained cleft database. Data were compared to that of GUI Cohort ‘08.
Main Outcome Measures: Outcome measures comprised primary caregiver and young person self-report items. Mental health and psychological well-being were assessed using validated instruments including the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.
Results
Thirty adolescents (10 female, 20 male) participated in the LIA-Cleft group. LIA-Cleft respondents indicated poorer ratings of both medical and dental health than the GUI group. Responses to questions regarding friendship, bullying, physical activity, social media, and screen time were similar in the GUI and LIA-Cleft groups. The LIA-Cleft group were less satisfied with their lives and exhibited lower self-esteem than the GUI group, but did not differ in measures of mental health and well-being or socioemotional well-being.
Conclusions
In spite of reporting poorer medical and dental health, young people who were born with CL/P in Ireland lead lives that are broadly similar to their peers in the general population.
ModiRNBlumJDAtasevenBBelzaCCMontesELeungKLZaldana-FlynnMRapoportCSChoiAKEwingEMalcarneVLGosmanAA. To operate or not to operate? Reconstructive surgical burden and quality of life of pediatric patients with facial differences. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;61(10):1632–1638. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656231176879
2.
HuntOBurdenDHepperPJohnstonC. The psychosocial effects of cleft lip and palate: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27(3):274–285. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cji004
3.
StockNMFeragenKB. Psychological adjustment to cleft lip and/or palate: a narrative review of the literature. Psychol Health. 2016;31(7):777–813. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2016.1143944
4.
ArdouinKHareJStockNM. Emotional well-being in adults born with cleft lip and/or palate: a whole of life survey in the United Kingdom. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2020;57(7):877–885. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619896681
5.
KappenIBittermannGKPStockNMMink van der MolenABBreugemCCSwanenburg de VeyeHFN. Quality of life and patient satisfaction in adults treated for a cleft lip and palate: a qualitative analysis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(9):1171–1180. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619843410
6.
CrerandCEConradALBellucciCCAlbertMHeppnerCESheikhFWoodardSUdaipuriaSKapp-SimonKA. Psychosocial outcomes in children with cleft lip and/or palate: associations of demographic, cleft morphologic, and treatment-related variables. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;61(11):1784–1802. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656231181581
7.
NolanKMacAuleyYByrneSde BlacamC. Patient-reported outcomes in Irish adolescents who were born with cleft lip and palate. Surgeon. 2024(24). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2024.10.002
8.
SembG. International confederation for cleft lip and palate and related craniofacial anomalies task force report: beyond eurocleft. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51(6):146–155. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/14-120
9.
AlloriACKelleyTMearaJGAlbertABonanthayaKChapmanKCunninghamMDaskalogiannakisJDe GierHHeggieAA, et al.A standard set of outcome measures for the comprehensive appraisal of cleft care. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(5):540–554. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/15-292
10.
KlassenAFRiffKWWLongmireNMAlbertAAllenGCAydinMABakerSBCanoSJChanAJCourtemancheDJ, et al.Psychometric findings and normative values for the CLEFT-Q based on 2434 children and young adult patients with cleft lip and/or palate from 12 countries. CMAJ. 2018;190(15):E455–e462. doi:https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.170289
11.
SkirkoJRWeaverEMPerkinsJAKinterSEblenLSieKC. Validity and responsiveness of VELO: a velopharyngeal insufficiency quality of life measure. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;149(2):304–311. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599813486081
12.
StockNMCostaBWhitePEveLBatesAJ. Assessing appearance, speech, and hearing (dis)satisfaction in individuals with cleft lip and/or palate: a contribution to general population norms. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;10556656241241127. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656241241127
13.
Growing Up In Ireland. Growing Up In Ireland; National Longitudinal Study of Children. Accessed 5 October, 2020. https://www.growingup.ie
GoodmanR. Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001;40(11):1337–1345. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015
16.
RosenbergM. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton University Press; 1965.
17.
Rivera-RiquelmeMPiquerasJACuijpersP. The revised mental health inventory-5 (MHI-5) as an ultra-brief screening measure of bidimensional mental health in children and adolescents. Psychiatry Res. 2019;274(4):247–253. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.02.045
18.
AngoldACostelloEJMesserSCPicklesAWinderFSilverD. Development of a short questionnaire for use in epidemiological studies of depression in children and adolescents. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 1995;5:237–249.
19.
SharpCGoodyerIMCroudaceTJ. The Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ): a unidimensional item response theory and categorical data factor analysis of self-report ratings from a community sample of 7-through 11-year-old children. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2006;34(3):365–391. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-006-9027-x
20.
LimaLSRibeiroGSde AquinoSNVolpeFMMartelliDRBSwertsMSOParanaíbaLMRMartelli JúniorH. Prevalence of depressive symptoms in patients with cleft lip and palate. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;81(2):177–183. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2015.01.004
21.
ArdouinKDavisSStockNM. Physical health in adults born with cleft lip and/or palate: a whole of life survey in the United Kingdom. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(2):153–162. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620944758
22.
Ruiz-GuillénASuso-RiberaCRomero-MarotoMGallardoCPeñacobaC. Perception of quality of life by children and adolescents with cleft lip/palate after orthodontic and surgical treatment: gender and age analysis. Prog Orthod. 2021;22(1):10. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-021-00354-8
23.
ZeraatkarMAjamiSNadjmiNFaghihiSAGolkariA. A qualitative study of children's quality of life in the context of living with cleft lip and palate. Pediatric Health Med Ther. 2019;10(1):13–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.2147/phmt.S173070
24.
SaelePKMustafaMÅstrømAN. Orthodontic Status and association with oral-health-related quality of life—A study of 16-year-old Norwegians with a cleft lip and palate. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024;21(5):550. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21050550
25.
de Oliveira JúniorAGMontagnaEZaiaVBarbosaCPBiancoB. Oral health-related quality of life in patients aged 8 to 19 years with cleft lip and palate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):670. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03382-4
26.
PerssonMBeckerMConradALSvenssonH. Female and male differences in academic achievement in individuals with cleft: a population-based register study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(2):196–203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665617726990
27.
PerssonMBeckerMSvenssonH. Academic achievement in individuals with cleft: a population-based register study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(2):153–159. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/09-047
28.
YazdyMMAutryARHoneinMAFriasJL. Use of special education services by children with orofacial clefts. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2008;82(3):147–154. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.20433
29.
ChapmanKL. The relationship between early reading skills and speech and language performance in young children with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(3):301–311. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/08-213
30.
ConradAL. Are predictors of reading impairment in isolated cleft similar to those in idiopathic dyslexia?Ann Dyslexia. 2019;69(2):153–165. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-018-00166-2
FeragenKBStockNM. Risk and protective factors at age 10: psychological adjustment in children with a cleft lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(2):161–179. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/14-062
33.
FeragenKBStockNMKvalemIL. Risk and protective factors at age 16: psychological adjustment in children with a cleft lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(5):555–573. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/14-063
34.
CrutzenRBosmaHHavasJFeronF. What can we learn from a failed trial: insight into non-participation in a chat-based intervention trial for adolescents with psychosocial problems. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7(Nov):824. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-7-824
35.
MayDEHallinMJKratochvilCJPuumalaSESmithLSReineckeMASilvaSGWellerEBVitielloBBreland-NobleA, et al.Factors associated with recruitment and screening in the treatment for adolescents with depression study (TADS). J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007;46(7):801–810. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e3180582019
36.
SchwinnTHopkinsJSchinkeSPLiuX. Using Facebook ads with traditional paper mailings to recruit adolescent girls for a clinical trial. Addict Behav. 2017;65(Oct):207–213. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.10.011
37.
SmithKAMaciasKBuiKBetzCL. Brief report: adolescents’ reasons for participating in a health care transition intervention study. J Pediatr Nurs. 2015;30(5):e165–e171. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2015.05.007
38.
TaylorKThomasRMummeMGoldingJBoydANorthstoneKCaputoMLawlorD. Ascertaining and classifying cases of congenital anomalies in the ALSPAC birth cohort. Wellcome Open Res. 2020;5(Apr):231. doi:https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16339.2
39.
DograSALightfootKKerrRHallJJosephOSiddigNNuttingHShireKARobertsHSmallN, et al.Born in Bradford age of wonder cohort: a protocol for qualitative longitudinal research. Wellcome Open Res. 2022;7(Oct):270. doi:https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.18096.2
40.
RønningenKSPaltielLMeltzerHMNordhagenRLieKKHovengenRHaugenMNystadWMagnusPHoppinJA. The biobank of the Norwegian mother and child cohort study: a resource for the next 100 years. Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21(8):619–625. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-006-9041-x
41.
MiresSde JesusSEBamberARMumfordAPowerBBradshawCLawlorDGillHLuytKBaquedanoM, et al.Surgical-PEARL protocol: a multicentre prospective cohort study exploring aetiology, management and outcomes for patients with congenital anomalies potentially requiring surgical intervention. BMJ Open. 2022;12(12):e066480. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066480
42.
DaviesAJVHumphriesKLewisSJHoKSandyJRWrenY. The cleft collective: protocol for a longitudinal prospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2024;14(7):e084737. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084737
