Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Jan;47(1):1-8.
doi: 10.1597/08-250.1.

Interdisciplinary craniofacial teams compared with individual providers: is orofacial cleft care more comprehensive and do parents perceive better outcomes?

Affiliations

Interdisciplinary craniofacial teams compared with individual providers: is orofacial cleft care more comprehensive and do parents perceive better outcomes?

April A Austin et al. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010 Jan.

Abstract

Objective: The primary objective was to examine whether children with orofacial clefts received more comprehensive care and whether their parents perceived better outcomes if the care was delivered by interdisciplinary teams compared with individual providers.

Design: Data about services received and outcomes were collected from mothers of children with orofacial clefts.

Participants: Mothers of children born between 1998 and 2003 with orofacial clefts from Arkansas, Iowa, and New York who participated in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study were eligible.

Main outcome measure(s): Services and treatments received and maternal perception of cleft care, health status, aesthetics, and speech were evaluated by team care status.

Results: Of 253 children, 24% were not receiving team care. Of those with cleft lip and palate, 86% were enrolled in team care. Compared with children with team care, those without had fewer surgeries and were less likely to have seen a dentist, received a hearing test, or had a genetic consultation. Mothers of children lacking team care were twice as likely to give lower ratings for overall cleft care; maternal perceptions of global health, facial appearance, and speech did not differ by team care status.

Conclusions: Recommended care tended to be received more often among those with team care. A larger, longitudinal study might answer questions about whether team care provides the best care and the role that type and severity of the condition and racial/ethnic differences play in the services received and outcomes experienced.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. American Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Association (ACPA) Parameters for evaluation and treatment of patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial anomalies. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993;30(suppl):S1–S16. - PubMed
    1. Ammentorp J, Mainz J, Sabroe S. Determinants of priorities and satisfaction in pediatric care. Pediatr Nurs. 2006;32:333–340. 348. - PubMed
    1. Bethell CD, Read D, Stein RE, Blumberg SJ, Wells N, Newacheck PW. Identifying children with special health care needs: development and evaluation of a short screening instrument. Ambul Pediatr. 2002;2:38–48. - PubMed
    1. Chapman KL, Graham KT, Gooch J, Visconti C. Conversational skills of preschool and school-age children with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1998;35:503–516. - PubMed
    1. Damiano PC, Tyler MC, Romitti PA, Momany ET, Canady JW, Karnell MP, Murray JC. Type of oral cleft and mothers’ perceptions of care, health status, and outcomes for preadolescent children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43:715–721. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms