Speech and language therapy interventions for children with cleft palate: a systematic review.

Objective : (1) To examine the evidence for the effectiveness of differences in timing and type of speech and language therapy for children with cleft palate with or without a cleft lip and (2) to identify types of interventions assessed. Design : Nine databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched between inception and March 2011 to identify published articles relating to speech and language therapy for children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip. Studies that included at least 10 participants and reported outcome measures for speech and/or language measures were included. Studies where the experimental group had less than 90% of children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip were excluded. Two reviewers independently completed inclusion assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment for all studies identified. Results : A total of 17 papers were evaluated: six randomized control trials and 11 observational studies. Studies varied widely on risk of bias, intervention used, and outcome measures reported. None of the studies had a low risk of bias. In terms of intervention approaches, seven studies evaluated linguistic approaches and 10 evaluated motor approaches. Outcomes measures did not support either approach over the other, and based on data reported it was difficult to ascertain which approach is more effective for children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip. Conclusions : The review found little evidence to support any specific intervention. Key uncertainties need to be identified and adequately powered, methodologically rigorous studies conducted to provide a secure evidence base for speech-language therapy practice in children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip.

Addressing appearance-related distress across clinical conditions.

Evidence is accumulating about the nature and prevalence of appearance-related distress across a variety of clinical populations. Health professionals working with specific patient groups are often aware of these difficulties and their detrimental effect on quality of life and wellbeing. However, many health professionals lack knowledge and skills on how to support patients, either within the team or via referral to relevant service providers who have expertise in managing appearance-related distress. This is mainly owing to a lack of information about screening, assessment measures and available interventions. The aim of this article is to consider how health professionals can support patients who experience distress as a result of living with a long-term physical health condition that has altered their appearance. This article summarises the challenges for patients and health professionals surrounding body image, altered appearance and associated distress. Gaps in relation to screening measures, differing types of intervention, appearance-related skills training for healthcare teams, care pathways and access to services are identified. A summary of the limited range of interventions currently available has been mapped onto a stepped model of care, ranging from self-help to intensive therapies. Finally, readers are pointed to helpful resources for understanding, identifying, addressing and signposting patients with appearance-related distress.

Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is an important part of the management of oral cavity cancer with regard to both the removal of the primary tumour and removal of lymph nodes in the neck. Surgery is less frequently used in oropharyngeal cancer. Surgery alone may be treatment for early stage disease or surgery may be used in combination with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy/biotherapy. There is variation in the recommended timing and extent of surgery in the overall treatment regimens of people with these cancers. OBJECTIVES: To determine which surgical treatment modalities for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease free survival, progression free survival and reduced recurrence. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 February 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 17 February 2011) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 February 2011). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared two or more surgical treatment modalities or surgery versus other treatment modalities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was undertaken independently by two or more review authors. Study authors were contacted for additional information as required. Adverse events data were collected from published trials. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials (n = 669; 667 with cancers of the oral cavity) satisfied the inclusion criteria, but none were assessed as low risk of bias. Trials were grouped into three main comparisons. Four trials compared elective neck dissection (ND) with therapeutic neck dissection in patients with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes, but differences in type of surgery and duration of follow-up made meta-analysis inappropriate. Three of these trials reported overall and disease free survival. One trial showed a benefit for elective supraomohyoid neck dissection compared to therapeutic ND in overall and disease free survival. Two trials found no difference between elective radical ND and therapeutic ND for the outcomes of overall survival and disease free survival. All four trials found reduced locoregional recurrence following elective ND.A further two trials compared elective radical ND with elective selective ND and found no difference in overall survival, disease free survival or recurrence. The final trial compared surgery plus radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone but data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and there were multiple protocol violations.None of the trials reported quality of life as an outcome. Two trials, evaluating different comparisons reported adverse effects of treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Seven included trials evaluated neck dissection surgery in patients with oral cavity cancers. The review found weak evidence that elective neck dissection of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary tumour results in reduced locoregional recurrence, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that elective neck dissection increases overall survival or disease free survival compared to therapeutic neck dissection. There is very weak evidence from one trial that elective supraomohyoid neck dissection may be associated with increased overall and disease free survival. There is no evidence that radical neck dissection increases overall survival compared to conservative neck dissection surgery. Reporting of adverse events in all trials was poor and it was not possible to compare the quality of life of patients undergoing different surgeries.

Feeding interventions for growth and development in infants with cleft lip, cleft palate or cleft lip and palate.

BACKGROUND: Cleft lip and cleft palate are common birth defects, affecting about one baby of every 700 born. Feeding these babies is an immediate concern and there is evidence of delay in growth of children with a cleft as compared to those without clefting. In an effort to combat reduced weight for height, a variety of advice and devices are recommended to aid feeding of babies with clefts. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to assess the effects of these feeding interventions in babies with cleft lip and/or palate on growth, development and parental satisfaction. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 27 October 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 27 October 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 27 October 2010), PsycINFO via OVID (1950 to 27 October 2010) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 27 October 2010). Attempts were made to identify both unpublished and ongoing studies. There was no restriction with regard to language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of feeding interventions for babies born with cleft lip, cleft palate or cleft lip and palate up to the age of 6 months (from term). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were assessed for relevance independently and in duplicate. All studies meeting the inclusion criteria were data extracted and assessed for validity independently by each member of the review team. Authors were contacted for clarification or missing information whenever possible. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs with a total of 292 babies, were included in the review. Comparisons made within the RCTs were squeezable versus rigid feeding bottles (two studies), breastfeeding versus spoon-feeding (one study) and maxillary plate versus no plate (two studies). No statistically significant differences were shown for any of the primary outcomes when comparing bottle types, although squeezable bottles were less likely to require modification. No difference was shown for infants fitted with a maxillary plate compared to no plate. However, there was some evidence of an effect on weight at 6 weeks post-surgery in favour of breastfeeding when compared to spoon-feeding (mean difference 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.74). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Squeezable bottles appear easier to use than rigid feeding bottles for babies born with clefts of the lip and/or palate, however, there is no evidence of a difference in growth outcomes between the bottle types. There is weak evidence that breastfeeding is better than spoon-feeding following surgery for cleft. There was no evidence to suggest that maxillary plates assist growth in babies with clefts of the palate. No evidence was found to assess the use of any types of maternal advice and/or support for these babies.

Incorporating user perspectives in the design of an online intervention tool for people with visible differences: face IT.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with visible differences can experience social anxiety in relation to their appearance. Social skills-based psychosocial interventions have to date shown only limited effectiveness at addressing their concerns. AIMS: To incorporate user perspectives in the development of an online psychosocial intervention, known as Face IT. METHOD AND RESULTS: Study one consisted of a needs assessment with 12 individuals with a visible difference and six health professionals in order to identify the difficulties experienced by those with visible difference and obtain feedback on the proposed content of Face IT. The findings demonstrated support for the social skills model and the use of an online intervention. Study two consisted of an empirical usability evaluation of Face IT with 14 potential users and 14 health professionals. Based on feedback from the participants, changes were made to the graphics and navigation of the programme. The clinical content has been made more acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate support for the importance of social skills-based psychosocial interventions for addressing the needs of those with a visible difference, and have allowed modifications to be made to Face IT ahead of a randomized controlled trial of effectiveness.

Evaluating the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for individuals with visible differences: a systematic review of the empirical literature.

The objective of this review was to systematically identify and evaluate all known studies testing empirically the efficacy of psychosocial intervention programmes for adults with visible differences. Twelve papers met the inclusion criteria. None of the papers demonstrated adequately the clinical effectiveness of the interventions. The review concluded that further research was needed to demonstrate adequately the effectiveness of existing interventions, and a greater number of Randomised Controlled Trials and experimental studies were required to increase the methodological validity of intervention studies.