Early language intervention for children with cleft lip and/or palate: A systematic review

Meinusch, Miriam; Romonath, Roswitha

doi:10.1080/17489539.2012.678093

Cited by 19 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Meinusch and Romonath’s (2011) systematic review of early language interventions for children with CP ± L concluded that the involvement of caregivers in the therapeutic setting enhanced the child’s language abilities. Other studies (Ha, 2015; Dobbelsteyn et al, 2014) have demonstrated positive intervention treatment effects when parents have delivered intervention in the home setting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pamplona et al (2015) suggested this might be because speech disorders related to velopharyngeal incompetence are most prominent when treating these children, hence research has been driven by this clinical priority. Nevertheless, a systematic review of early language intervention for children with CP ± L has been carried out (Meinusch and Romonath, 2011). While the authors concluded that findings were limited due to flaws in the design of the previous research, they acknowledged that inclusion of the mothers in the therapeutic setting appeared to positively influence the language abilities of children with CP ± L, supporting the use of behavior training programs for caregivers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Williams

Harding

Wren

2020

The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Children born with a cleft palate ± lip are at risk of developing speech and language difficulties, which may require intervention from a speech and language therapist (SLT). To date, there is no strong evidence to support one approach to intervention over another, neither is it clear which approaches or methods of provision are commonly used. Objectives: To describe the range of speech and language therapy interventions being used with children born with cleft palate in the United Kingdom up to 5 years of age. To explore the different ways, interventions are being delivered. Design: A prospective study to conduct 9 semi-structured focus groups. Iterative content analysis was completed. Setting: Regional Cleft Lip and Palate Centers in the United Kingdom. Participants: Sixty-two speech and language therapy professionals from specialist cleft teams and community services. Results: Four main codes were identified: “intervention approaches,” “service delivery models,” “decision-making and rationale,” and “patient-centered care.” Participants frequently discussed how they adopt an eclectic style when delivering intervention, the importance of an individualized approach for each child and service delivery constraints, such as a lack of resources. Conclusion: Insight into the multitude of intervention approaches used by SLTs, aspects which influence their decision-making and the variability of service delivery models were gained. Uncertainty regarding which intervention approaches and methods for delivery are most effective provides rationale for future research, to improve the effectiveness of speech and language intervention for children with cleft palate ± lip.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Williams

Harding

Wren

2020

The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another systematic review by Meinusch and Romonath (2011) evaluated the effectiveness of early language intervention for children with CP±L and reported that all the studies identified an improvement in linguistic abilities following intervention. Whilst the focus of this review was not speech, the findings are important because of their inclusion of samples which covered a young age range (age 18 months to 5 years old) and their report that studies which involved parent participation of parents led to an increase in children's communicative abilities.…”

Section: Evidence For Effectiveness Of Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of early speech interventions for children with cleft palate

Lane

Harding

Wren

2021

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP±L) are at high risk of problems with early speech sound production, and these difficulties can persist into later childhood. Early intervention could help to reduce the number of children whose problems become persistent. However, much research in the field to date has focused on older children. There is a need to determine if providing intervention during the phase of early typical speech development leads to better outcomes. Aims: To review the evidence for the effectiveness of interventions targeting speech, delivered in the first 3 years of life for children with CP±L, and discuss factors such as intervention type, facilitator, dosage, outcome measures and the age of the child. Methods & Procedures: The systematic review was registered with PROS-PERO (CRD42019121964). Eight bibliographic databases including CINAHL and MEDLINE were searched in August 2018. Studies were included if participants received speech and language interventions before 37 months and if they reported outcomes for speech. Two reviewers independently completed inclusion reviews, quality analysis and data extraction. Outcome & Results:The review included seven papers: one pilot randomized controlled trial, one controlled trial, four cohort studies and one case series report. Interventions largely took a naturalistic approach, namely focused stimulation and milieu teaching. The findings provide preliminary support for naturalistic interventions and suggest that these interventions can be delivered by parents with suitable training. Studies included in the review provided low-strength evidence with variation in both the type of intervention, the manner of delivery and in the risk of bias in the designs used. Conclusions & Implications:The papers included in this review suggest that early naturalistic interventions can have positive impacts on the speech development of children with CP±L. However, the reported methodological quality of the publications overall was weak, and the current evidence lacks clarity and specificity in terms of therapy technique, delivery and optimum age of delivery.Future research should use more robust methodological designs to determine whether early speech interventions are beneficial for children born with CP±L.

show abstract

“…Body Structures and Functions were found to be the focus in the speech-language pathology literature for children with CP±L (Neumann and Romonath, 2012; Nyberg and Havstam, 2016). Many articles about children with CP±L describe the importance of large-scale, longitudinal (or randomized controlled trial) studies to investigate Body Functions (eg, Meinusch and Romonath, 2011; Bessell et al, 2013). Most speech assessments (and research) for children with CP±L have focused on Body Functions, and the outcomes of surgeries with regard to Body Structures (Nyberg and Havstam, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying the ICF-CY to Specialist Speech-Language Pathologists’ Practice With Toddlers With Cleft Palate Speech

Cronin

McLeod

Verdon

2020

The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate how the practice of specialist speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with young children with cleft palate ± cleft lip (CP±L) maps onto the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health – Children and Youth version (ICF-CY) and consider the functionality of the categories of the ICF-CY for this specialist area of practice. Design: Cross-sectional, qualitative study. Setting: Semistructured face-to-face interviews were conducted with SLPs working in tertiary-level hospitals, universities, and public clinics. Participants: Six specialist SLPs with 17 to 39 years of experience working with young children with CP±L as researchers and clinicians in Australia, Brazil, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States. Main Outcome Measure(s): Specialists’ practices were captured using in-depth, semistructured interviews. Data collected were analyzed by directed content analysis applying the ICF-CY as a coding schema. Results: In total, 4077 data points were coded. Most mapped onto Body Structures (684, 16.8%), Body Functions (906, 22.2%), and Environmental Factors (1626, 39.9%) with less emphasis on Activities and Participation (560, 13.7%). A “best fit” approach was taken to topics that did not map exactly onto categories of the ICF-CY (eg, velopharyngeal insufficiency [VPI]); however, there was not always an ideally suitable category available. Conclusions: The current study revealed strengths and challenges in categorizing practice within the ICF-CY for children with CP±L, including collaboration with parents and significant others, specificity around speech, language, and articulation, and the different types of VPI. Therefore, future discussion around how best to use the framework with children with CP±L is needed.

show abstract

Early language intervention for children with cleft lip and/or palate: A systematic review

Cited by 19 publications

References 21 publications

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

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

A systematic review of early speech interventions for children with cleft palate

Applying the ICF-CY to Specialist Speech-Language Pathologists’ Practice With Toddlers With Cleft Palate Speech

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About