Prevalence and Factors Associated with Behavioral Problems in 5-Year-Old Children Born with Cleft Lip and/or Palate from the Cleft Collective.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the UK prevalence of behavioral problems in 5-year-old children born with isolated or syndromic cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) compared to the general population and identify potentially associated factors. DESIGN: Observational study using questionnaire data from the Cleft Collective 5-Year-Old Cohort study and three general population samples. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). PARTICIPANTS: Mothers of children (age: 4.9-6.8 years) born with CL/P (n = 325). UK general population cohorts for SDQ scores were: Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) (n = 12 511), Office of National Statistics (ONS) normative school-age SDQ data (n = 5855), and Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) (n = 9386). RESULTS: By maternal report, 14.2% of children born with CL/P were above clinical cut-off for behavioral problems, which was more likely than in general population samples: 7.5% of MCS (OR = 2.05 [1.49-2.82], P < 0.001), 9.8% of ONS (OR = 1.52 [1.10-2.09], P = 0.008), and 6.6% of ALSPAC (OR = 2.34 [1.70-3.24], P < 0.001). Children in the Cleft Collective had higher odds for hyperactivity, emotional and peer problems, and less prosocial behaviors. Maternal stress, lower maternal health-related quality of life and family functioning, receiving government income support, and maternal smoking showed evidence of association (OR range: 4.41-10.13) with behavioral problems, along with maternal relationship status, younger age, and lower education (OR range: 2.34-3.73). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest elevated levels of behavioral problems in children born with CL/P compared to the general population with several associated maternal factors similar to the general population.

Setting up a cohort study in speech and language therapy: lessons from The UK Cleft Collective Speech and Language (CC-SL) study.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to increase the evidence base in speech and language therapy are often limited by methodological factors that have restricted the strength of the evidence to the lower levels of the evidence hierarchy. Where higher graded studies, such as randomized controlled trials, have been carried out, it has sometimes been difficult to obtain sufficient power to detect a potential effect of intervention owing to small sample sizes or heterogeneity in the participants. With certain clinical groups such as cleft lip and palate, systematic reviews of intervention studies have shown that there is no robust evidence to support the efficacy of any one intervention protocol over another. AIMS: To describe the setting up of an observational clinical cohort study and to present this as an alternative design for answering research questions relating to prevalence, risk factors and outcomes from intervention. METHODS: The Cleft Collective Speech and Language (CC-SL) study is a national cohort study of children born with cleft palate. Working in partnership with regional clinical cleft centres, a sample size of over 600 children and 600 parents is being recruited and followed up from birth to age 5 years. Variables being collected include demographic, psychological, surgical, hearing, and speech and language data. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: The process of setting up the study has led to the creation of a unique, large-scale data set which is available for researchers to access now and in future. As well as exploring predictive factors, the data can be used to explore the impact of interventions in relation to individual differences. Findings from these investigations can be used to provide information on sample criteria and definitions of intervention and dosage which can be used in future trials. CONCLUSIONS: The observational cohort study is a useful alternative design to explore questions around prevalence, risk factors and intervention for clinical groups where robust research data are not yet available. Findings from such a study can be used to guide service-delivery decisions and to determine power for future clinical trials.

Recruiting to cohort studies in specialist healthcare services: Lessons learned from clinical research nurses in UK cleft services.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences of clinical research nurses recruiting patients in a large specialist care-based cohort study. BACKGROUND: Longitudinal studies are vital to better understand the aetiology and moderators of health conditions. This need is especially salient for congenital conditions, such as cleft lip and/or palate, where establishing large, comprehensive data sets from birth is vital to improve understanding and to inform interventions. Various barriers exist in recruiting patients to large cohort studies. The role of clinical research nurses embedded within health settings has grown over past decades to facilitate data collection, yet challenges remain. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews with 12 clinical research nurses based in 10 National Health Service cleft services across the UK, recruiting to the Cleft Collective Birth Cohort Study. RESULTS: Of seven emergent themes, three highlighted challenges to recruiting patients, another three described facilitative factors, and one theme overlapped challenges and facilitators. Challenges included the life circumstances of potential participants; language barriers; and limited clinical research nurse time for study. Facilitative factors included integrating research into clinical practice; patient information shared with clinical research nurses; and support from the university-based research study team. The theme "Method of data collection" related to both challenges and facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: The qualitative data from clinical research nurses recruiting to a large birth cohort study provide helpful practical detail for specialist healthcare teams, specialist nurses, clinical research nurses and researchers looking to optimise recruitment and data collection in longitudinal studies. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The findings suggest the importance of specialist clinical services and research study teams cooperating to embed research into everyday clinical practice, without compromising care. This should facilitate patients' willingness to participate in important research like the Cleft Collective study and provide them with a positive experience of research.

Opportunities and Challenges in Establishing a Cohort Study: An Example From Cleft Lip/Palate Research in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) is one of the most common birth conditions in the world, but little is known about its causes. Professional opinion remains divided as to which treatments may be the most beneficial for patients with CL/P, and the factors that contribute to psychological adjustment are poorly understood. The use of different methodological approaches and tools plays a key role in hampering efforts to address discrepancies within the evidence base. A new UK-wide program of research, The Cleft Collective, was established to combat many of these methodological challenges and to address some of the key research questions important to all CL/P stakeholders. OBJECTIVE: To describe the establishment of CL/P cohort studies in the United Kingdom and to consider the many opportunities this resource will generate. RESULTS: To date, protocols have been developed and implemented within most UK cleft teams. Biological samples, environmental information, and data pertaining to parental psychological well-being and child development are being collected successfully. Recruitment is currently on track to meet the ambitious target of approximately 9800 individuals from just more than 3000 families. CONCLUSIONS: The Cleft Collective cohort studies represent a significant step forward for research in the field of CL/P. The data collected will form a comprehensive resource of information about individuals with CL/P and their families. This resource will provide the basis for many future projects and collaborations, both in the United Kingdom and around the world.

The Cleft Collective: protocol for a longitudinal prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) affects 1 in 700 live births globally. Children born with CL/P and their families face various challenges throughout the child's development. Extant research is often limited by small numbers and single-centre data. The Cleft Collective, a national cohort study in the UK, aims to build a resource, available to collaborators across the globe, to understand causes, best treatments and long-term outcomes for those born with CL/P, ultimately seeking to enhance their quality of life through improved understanding and care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A longitudinal prospective cohort study of children born with CL/P and their families. Recruitment occurs across the UK and started in November 2013. Recruitment will continue until September 2027 with an estimated final sample of 4822 children born with CL/P (1157 cleft lip including/excluding the alveolus; 2112 cleft palate only; 1042 unilateral cleft lip and palate and 511 bilateral cleft lip and palate). Biological samples are collected from all recruited members of the family. Parental and child questionnaires are collected at key time points throughout the child's development. Surgical data are collected at the time of surgical repair of the child's cleft. Consent is obtained to link to external data sources. Nested substudies can be hosted within the cohort. Regular engagement with participants takes place through birthday cards for the children, social media posts and newsletters. Patient and Public Involvement is conducted through the Cleft Lip And Palate Association and Cleft Collective Patient Consultation Group who provide insightful and essential guidance to the Cleft Collective throughout planning and conducting research. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Cleft Collective was ethically approved by the National Research Ethics Service committee South West-Central Bristol (REC13/SW/0064). Parental informed consent is required for participation. Findings from the Cleft Collective are disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, newsletters and social media.

Cleft lip and palate: Care configuration, national registration, and research strategies.

A child born with a cleft lip and palate will face 20 years or more of hospital care and surgery. This is a global problem with approximately 10 million people affected worldwide. Various models of care exist around the condition, and the best configurations of services within an economy need to be optimized. We provide examples of how centralized care can improve outcomes and provide an opportunity to establish national registries, and then emphasize the opportunities for building research platforms of relevance. The default of any cleft service should be to centralize care and enable cleft teams with a sufficient volume of patients to develop proficiency and measure the quality of outcomes. The latter needs to be benchmarked against the better centers in Europe. Two areas of concern for those with cleft are morbidity/mortality and educational attainment. These two issues are placed in context within the literature and wider approaches using population genetics. Orthodontists have always played a key role in developing these initiatives and are core members of cleft teams with major responsibilities for these children and their families.

Cleft lip/palate and educational attainment: cause, consequence or correlation? A Mendelian randomization study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found that children born with a non-syndromic orofacial cleft have lower-than-average educational attainment. Differences could be due to a genetic predisposition to low intelligence and academic performance, factors arising due to the cleft phenotype (such as social stigmatization, impaired speech/language development) or confounding by the prenatal environment. A clearer understanding of this mechanism will inform interventions to improve educational attainment in individuals born with a cleft, which could substantially improve their quality of life. We assessed evidence for the hypothesis that common variant genetic liability to non-syndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate (nsCL/P) influences educational attainment. METHODS: We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analysis of nsCL/P with 1692 nsCL/P cases and 4259 parental and unrelated controls. Using GWAS summary statistics, we performed Linkage Disequilibrium (LD)-score regression to estimate the genetic correlation between nsCL/P, educational attainment (GWAS n = 766 345) and intelligence (GWAS n = 257 828). We used two-sample Mendelian randomization to evaluate the causal effects of genetic liability to nsCL/P on educational attainment and intelligence. RESULTS: There was limited evidence for shared genetic aetiology or causal relationships between nsCL/P and educational attainment [genetic correlation (rg) -0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to 0.01, P 0.13; MR estimate (ßMR) -0.002, 95% CI -0.009 to 0.006, P 0.679) or intelligence (rg -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04, P 0.34; ßMR -0.009, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.002, P 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Common variants are unlikely to predispose individuals born with nsCL/P to low educational attainment or intelligence. This is an important first step towards understanding the aetiology of low educational attainment in this group.

Distinct DNA methylation profiles in subtypes of orofacial cleft.

BACKGROUND: Epigenetic data could help identify risk factors for orofacial clefts, either by revealing a causal role for epigenetic mechanisms in causing clefts or by capturing information about causal genetic or environmental factors. Given the evidence that different subtypes of orofacial cleft have distinct aetiologies, we explored whether children with different cleft subtypes showed distinct epigenetic profiles. METHODS: In whole-blood samples from 150 children from the Cleft Collective cohort study, we measured DNA methylation at over 450,000 sites on the genome. We then carried out epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) to test the association between methylation at each site and cleft subtype (cleft lip only (CLO) n = 50; cleft palate only (CPO) n = 50; cleft lip and palate (CLP) n = 50). We also compared methylation in the blood to methylation in the lip or palate tissue using genome-wide data from the same 150 children and conducted an EWAS of CLO compared to CLP in lip tissue. RESULTS: We found four genomic regions in blood differentially methylated in CLO compared to CLP, 17 in CPO compared to CLP and 294 in CPO compared to CLO. Several regions mapped to genes that have previously been implicated in the development of orofacial clefts (for example, TBX1, COL11A2, HOXA2, PDGFRA), and over 250 associations were novel. Methylation in blood correlated with that in lip/palate at some regions. There were 14 regions differentially methylated in the lip tissue from children with CLO and CLP, with one region (near KIAA0415) showing up in both the blood and lip EWAS. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding of distinct methylation profiles in different orofacial cleft (OFC) subtypes represents a promising first step in exploring the potential role of epigenetic modifications in the aetiology of OFCs and/or as clinically useful biomarkers of OFC subtypes.

Professionally designed information materials and telephone reminders improved consent response rates: evidence from an RCT nested within a cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether different study-to-participant communication methods increase response, increase response from hard-to-engage individuals, and influence participants' consent decisions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomized controlled trial within the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Cohort members were invited to re-enroll at age 18 and consent to linkage to their health and administrative records. Participants were randomized to receive one of eight combinations of three interventions: a prior-notification postcard or no contact, a standard or professionally designed consent pack, and a phone or postal reminder. The primary outcome was return of the consent form ("response"), with consent decision being the secondary outcome. RESULTS: Of 1,950 participants, 806 (41%) responded. Response rates were 2.7% higher (95% confidence interval: -0.06, 5.5%; P = 0.06) among those receiving designed packs than among those receiving standard packs and 6.4% higher (2.3, 10.6%; P = 0.002) among those receiving phone reminders (compared with postal reminders). The prior-notification postcard did not influence response rates [difference = 0% (-2.8, 2.8%; P = 1.0)], and we found no evidence that the communication method influenced consent decision. CONCLUSION: This trial provides evidence that communication material design can influence response rates and that phone reminders have superior cost/benefit returns over designed materials. Experimental evaluation of communications strategies and dissemination of findings may benefit cohort studies.