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
. 2021 Sep 1;32(6):2041-2044.
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007624.

Comprehensive Cleft Care Delivery in Developing Countries: Impact of Geographic and Demographic Factors

Rami S Kantar  1   2 , Omar Al Abyad  1 , Antonio Melhem  1 , Elsa M Chahine  1 , Serena N Kassam  1   3 , Beyhan Annan  1 , Marie K Nader  1   4 , Kristen Keith  1 , Corstiaan C Breugem  5   6 , Usama S Hamdan  1   7   8
Affiliations

Comprehensive Cleft Care Delivery in Developing Countries: Impact of Geographic and Demographic Factors

Rami S Kantar et al. J Craniofac Surg. .

Abstract

Introduction: The authors analyzed the insights of participants and faculty members of Global Smile Foundation's Comprehensive Cleft Care Workshops concerning the barriers and interventions to multidisciplinary cleft care delivery, after stratification based on demographic and geographic factors.

Methods: During 2 simulation-based Comprehensive Cleft Care Workshops organized by Global Smile Foundation, participants and faculty members filled a survey. Surveys included demographic and geographic data and investigated the most relevant barrier to multidisciplinary cleft care and the most significant intervention to deliver comprehensive cleft care in outreach settings, as perceived by participants.

Results: The total response rate was 57.8%. Respondents reported that the greatest barrier to comprehensive cleft care was financial, and the most relevant intervention to deliver multidisciplinary cleft care was building multidisciplinary teams. Stratification by age, gender, and geographical area showed no statistical difference in reporting that the greatest barrier to cleft care was financial. However, lack of multidisciplinary teams was the most important barrier according to respondents with less than 5 years of experience (P = 0.03). Stratification by gender, years in practice, specialty, and geographical area showed no statistical difference, with building multidisciplinary teams reported as the most significant intervention. However, increased training was reported as the main intervention to cleft care for those aged less than 30 years old (P = 0.04).

Conclusions: Our study delivers an assessment for barriers facing multidisciplinary cleft care delivery and interventions required to improve cleft care delivery. The authors are hoping that stratification by demographic and geographic factors will help them delineate community-specific road maps to refine cleft care delivery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Mai CT, Cassell CH, Meyer RE, et al. Birth defects data from population-based birth defects surveillance programs in the United States, 2007 to 2011: highlighting orofacial clefts. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2014; 100:895–904.
    1. Parker SE, Mai CT, Canfield MA, et al. Updated national birth prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the United States, 2004-2006. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2010; 88:1008–1016.
    1. Wehby GL, Cassell CH. The impact of orofacial clefts on quality of life and healthcare use and costs. Oral Dis 2010; 16:3–10.
    1. Kantar RS, Cammarata MJ, Rifkin WJ, et al. Foundation-based cleft care in developing countries. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143:1165–1178.
    1. Magee WP Jr, Vander Burg R, Hatcher KW. Cleft lip and palate as a cost-effective health care treatment in the developing world. World J Surg 2010; 34:420–427.