A mixed-methods pilot randomized control trial of ultrasound visual biofeedback versus standard intervention for children with cleft palate ± cleft lip: Parents' and children's perspectives.

Publisher: Wiley Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 9803709 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1460-6984 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 13682822 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Int J Lang Commun Disord Subsets: MEDLINE

Publication: 2011- : Malden, MA : Wiley
Original Publication: London : Taylor & Francis for the Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists, c1998-

Cleft Lip*/psychology ; Cleft Lip*/therapy ; Cleft Lip*/diagnostic imaging ; Cleft Palate*/psychology ; Cleft Palate*/therapy ; Cleft Palate*/diagnostic imaging ; Biofeedback, Psychology*/methods ; Parents*/psychology; Humans ; Pilot Projects ; Male ; Female ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Ultrasonography/methods ; Articulation Disorders/therapy ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Speech Therapy/methods ; Adult

Background: Ultrasound visual biofeedback (UVBF) has the potential to be useful for the treatment of compensatory errors in speakers with cleft palate ± lip (CP±L), but there is little research on its effectiveness, or on how acceptable families find the technique. This study reports on parents' and children's perspectives on taking part in a pilot randomized control trial of UVBF compared with articulation intervention.
Aims: To determine the acceptability of randomization, UVBF and articulation intervention to families. We set feasibility criteria of at least 75% of responses rated as acceptable or positive in order to determine progression from a pilot to a full randomized control trial.
Methods & Procedures: A total of 19 families who received UVBF therapy (11 families) and articulation intervention (eight families) were invited to participate. Mixed methods were employed: two questionnaires to determine the acceptability of UVBF and articulation intervention, respectively; and semi-structured focus groups/interviews. Questionnaires were analysed for frequency of positive versus negative acceptability and the focus groups/interviews were analysed using thematic analysis and coded using the theoretical framework of acceptability.
Outcomes & Results: More than 75% of families rated randomization as acceptable and more than 75% of families rated both interventions as acceptable, with the caveat that half of the participants did not wish to continue articulation intervention after the study. For some families, this was because they felt further intervention was not required. Six families (three in each intervention) volunteered to take part in the focus groups/interviews. Results showed more positive than negative themes regarding acceptability, particularly affective attitude where high levels of enjoyment were expressed, although some participants found the articulation intervention 'boring'. In both groups, there was a considerable burden involved in travelling to the hospital location.
Conclusions & Implications: Randomization in a clinical trial is acceptable to families; UVBF and articulation intervention are acceptable and indeed enjoyable. The burden of the additional outcome measures required for a clinical trial is manageable, although there is a travel burden for participants. Future studies should seek to mitigate the travel burden by considering additional locations for intervention.
What This Paper Adds: What is already known on the subject UVBF shows potential for teaching children with speech sound disorders new articulations. Previous studies looking at the acceptability of using ultrasound in speech intervention have only asked for the drawbacks of the intervention: finding the ultrasound gel to be cold and sticky and the probe to be uncomfortable. SLTs, however, believe that the technique offers advantages due to its ability to visualize tongue movements. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge This study asks parents and children for their full views about using ultrasound in speech intervention and compared this to articulation intervention. We also asked parents how they feel about being randomized to one of these interventions. Results were positive for both interventions, with parents highlighting the importance of intelligible speech to their child. Children enjoyed both interventions, though the articulation intervention could be 'boring' or 'repetitive'. For all families, there was a considerable burden travelling to clinics. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Clinicians can be assured that both articulation therapy and ultrasound therapy are acceptable to families. Efforts could be made to ensure that articulation intervention is not repetitive and that appointments are offered at locations which are accessible to families where possible.
(© 2024 The Author(s). International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.)

Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017 May;54(3):262-268. (PMID: 27031270)
J Commun Disord. 2020 Sep - Oct;87:106028. (PMID: 32659479)
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2022 Apr 11;53(2):307-316. (PMID: 34990562)
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2014 Jul;41(4):434-46. (PMID: 22829193)
Clin Linguist Phon. 2022 Mar 4;36(2-3):146-164. (PMID: 34496688)
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):CD006854. (PMID: 19588407)
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2008 Aug;17(3):277-98. (PMID: 18663111)
Disabil Rehabil. 2020 Oct;42(20):2935-2943. (PMID: 30925074)
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013 Jan;50(1):e1-e17. (PMID: 22433039)
Clin Linguist Phon. 2024 Dec;38(12):1116-1147. (PMID: 38282211)
Br J Orthod. 1999 Jun;26(2):121-5. (PMID: 10420246)
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2023 Jan 11;32(1):169-189. (PMID: 36475751)
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020 Dec 14;63(12):3909-3933. (PMID: 33253622)
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):88. (PMID: 28126032)
Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2024 Aug;26(4):595-610. (PMID: 37652151)
Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2023 Mar;58(2):326-341. (PMID: 36189983)
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2021 Dec;151:110958. (PMID: 34736010)
Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019 Sep;54(5):705-728. (PMID: 31179581)
Clin Linguist Phon. 2011 Nov;25(11-12):1028-33. (PMID: 21787146)
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2022 Apr 27;8(1):93. (PMID: 35477444)
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2023 May 4;32(3):1252-1274. (PMID: 36961960)
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023 Sep 16;:10556656231202448. (PMID: 37715630)
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018 May 3;27(2):813-818. (PMID: 29546269)
Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2020;72(2):120-130. (PMID: 31129664)

TCS/20/02 The Chief Scientist Office of Scotland

Keywords: acceptability; articulation intervention; cleft palate ± cleft lip; ultrasound

Date Created: 20241209 Date Completed: 20241209 Latest Revision: 20241230

20241230

PMC11626862

10.1111/1460-6984.13144

39651790