To examine relationships between Psychosocial Assessment Tool-Craniofacial Version (PAT-CV) scores and patient demographic and clinical characteristics; to evaluate changes in PAT-CV scores over time.
Design
Retrospective chart review.
Setting
US pediatric academic medical center.
Participants
Caregivers of 1323 children (mean age 6.78 ± 4.87 years, 54% male) with craniofacial conditions presenting for a team visit; 414 children had 2 consecutive visits, an average of 1.1 years apart.
Main Outcome Measures
PAT-CV scores.
Results
Cross-sectionally, higher PAT-CV total scores were associated with older child age, public insurance, craniofacial conditions other than cleft, and other chronic conditions (all P < .05). PAT-CV total scores were stable, with no significant differences for total scores and risk classification categories over about a year.
Conclusions
Demographic and clinical characteristics were significantly related to PAT-CV scores at baseline, and scores were stable over a 1-year period. Craniofacial psychosocial screening can be informed by identified risk factors within universal screening.
GallagherERCollettBR. Neurodevelopmental and academic outcomes in children with orofacial clefts: A systematic review. Pediatrics. 2019;144(1):e20184027. doi:https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-4027
2.
BransonEKBransonVMMcGrathRRausaVCKilpatrickNCroweLM. Psychological and peer difficulties of children with cleft lip and/or palate: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;10556656221125377(61):258–270. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656221125377
3.
StockNMFeragenKB. Psychological adjustment to cleft lip and/or palate: A narrative review of the literature. Psychol. Health. 2016;31(7):777-813. doi:10.1080/08870446.2016.1143944
4.
JensenEDPoirierBFOliverKJRobertsRAndersonPJJamiesonLM. Childhood experiences and perspectives of individuals with orofacial clefts: A qualitative systematic review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;60(7):888-899. doi:10.1177/10556656221084542
5.
CostaBEdwardsWWilkinson-BellKStockNM. Raising a child with craniosynostosis: Psychosocial adjustment in caregivers. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;60(10):1284-1297. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656221102043.
6.
NideyNMoreno UribeLMMarazitaMMWehbyGL. Psychosocial well-being of parents of children with oral clefts. Child Care Health Dev. 2016;42(1):42-50. doi:10.1111/cch.12276
7.
American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. Parameters of care for evaluation and treatment of individuals with cleft lip/palate and/or other craniofacial conditions. Available at: https://acpacares.org/parameters-of-care/. Accessed August 5, 2025.
8.
KazakAESciallaMDeatrickJABarakatLP. Pediatric psychosocial preventative health model: Achieving equitable psychosocial care for children and families. Fam Syst Health. 2024;42(1):76-89. doi:10.1037/fsh0000856
9.
CrerandCEKapaHMLitteralJLPearsonGDEastmanKKirschnerRE. Identifying psychosocial risk factors among families of children with craniofacial conditions: Validation of the Psychosocial Assessment Tool-Craniofacial Version. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(4):536-545. doi:10.1177/1055665617748010
10.
KapaHMLitteralJLPearsonGDEastmanKKirschnerRECrerandCE. Assessment of psychosocial risk in families of children with craniofacial conditions using the Psychosocial Assessment Tool-Craniofacial Version. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(4):556-561. doi:10.1177/1055665618791417
11.
CrerandCEO'BrienMKapaHMRabkinANSmithAKirschnerREPearsonGDValleruJBaylisA. Improving psychosocial risk assessment and service provision for craniofacial team patients: A quality improvement project. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;59(4_suppl2):S18–S27. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656211043006.
12.
HarrisPATaylorRThielkeRPayneJGonzalezNCondeJG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-381. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
13.
StockNMFeragenKB. Comparing psychological adjustment across cleft and other craniofacial conditions: Implications for outcome measurement and intervention. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(6):766-772. doi:10.1177/1055665618770183
14.
VermaRMehdianYShethNNettenKVinetteJEdwardsAPolyviouJOrkinJAminR. Screening for caregiver psychosocial risk in children with medical complexity: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2020;4(1):e000671. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2020-000671.
15.
HearpsSJMcCarthyMCMuscaraFHearpsSJCBurkeKJonesBAndersonVA. Psychosocial risk in families of infants undergoing surgery for a serious congenital heart disease. Cardiol Young. 2014;24(4):632–639. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047951113000760.
BarreraMYoungMAHancockKChungJ. Early trajectory of psychosocial risk in families of children and adolescents newly diagnosed with cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30(2):1815-1822. doi:10.1007/s00520-021-06581-3
18.
KazakAEChenFFHwangWTAskinsMAVegaGKolbEAReillyABarakatLP. Stability and change in family psychosocial risk over 6 months in pediatric cancer and its association with medical and psychosocial healthcare utilization. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2020;67(2):e28051. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.28051.
19.
AlderferMAMougianisIBarakatLPBeeleDDiTarantoSWHwangReillyATKazakAE. Family psychosocial risk, distress, and service utilization in pediatric cancer: Predictive validity of the psychosocial assessment tool. Cancer. 2009;115(18 Suppl):4339–4349. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24587.
