Time to move beyond monological perspectives in health behavior change communication research and practice.

Chronic disease self-management and health behavior change programs are becoming increasingly important to health service delivery to prevent the development of chronic disease and optimize health outcomes for those who suffer from it. To train people to deliver these programs effectively, we need to understand both the what and how of program delivery. While there is an abundant literature on what, and a merging evidence about what techniques to use, such as goals setting and self-monitoring, the literature on how programs should be delivered is less well developed. This paper reviews emerging research in this area and identifies an underlying monological approach. We argue that this currently dominant model cannot address the key issues in this area. By considering the theoretical framework of Dialogism, we introduce the method of Conversation Analysis to the field of behavior change interventions. Extensive research into health communication has endeavored to show the importance of language and the organization of interactions. We demonstrate and discuss how a monological approach to interventions prevents exploration of what professionals do to deliver intervention content. In doing so, we show that techniques do not account for how successfully an intervention is delivered.

Influence of timing of delayed hard palate closure on articulation skills in 3-year-old Danish children with unilateral cleft lip and palate.

BACKGROUND: Differing results regarding articulation skills in young children with cleft palate (CP) have been reported and often interpreted as a consequence of different surgical protocols. AIMS: To assess the influence of different timing of hard palate closure in a two-stage procedure on articulation skills in 3-year-olds born with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Secondary aims were to compare results with peers without CP, and to investigate if there are gender differences in articulation skills. Furthermore, burden of treatment was to be estimated in terms of secondary surgery, hearing and speech therapy. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A randomized controlled trial (RCT). Early hard palate closure (EHPC) at 12 months versus late hard palate closure (LHPC) at 36 months in a two-stage procedure was tested in a cohort of 126 Danish-speaking children born with non-syndromic UCLP. All participants had the lip and soft palate closed around 4 months of age. Audio and video recordings of a naming test were available from 113 children (32 girls and 81 boys) and were transcribed phonetically. Recordings were obtained prior to hard palate closure in the LHPC group. The main outcome measures were percentage consonants correct adjusted (PCC-A) and consonant errors from blinded assessments. Results from 36 Danish-speaking children without CP obtained previously by Willadsen in 2012 were used for comparison. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Children with EHPC produced significantly more target consonants correctly (83%) than children with LHPC (48%; p < .001). In addition, children with LHPC produced significantly more active cleft speech characteristics than children with EHPC (p < .001). Boys achieved significantly lower PCC-A scores than girls (p = .04) and produced significantly more consonant errors than girls (p = .02). No significant differences were found between groups regarding burden of treatment. The control group performed significantly better than the EHPC and LHPC groups on all compared variables.

Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 4. Speech outcomes in 5-year-olds - velopharyngeal competency and hypernasality.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Adequate velopharyngeal function and speech are main goals in the treatment of cleft palate. The objective was to investigate if there were differences in velopharyngeal competency (VPC) and hypernasality at age 5 years in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) operated on with different surgical methods for primary palatal repair. A secondary aim was to estimate burden of care in terms of received additional secondary surgeries and speech therapy. DESIGN: Three parallel group, randomised clinical trials were undertaken as an international multicentre study by 10 cleft teams in five countries: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the UK. METHODS: Three different surgical protocols for primary palatal repair were tested against a common procedure in the total cohort of 448 children born with a non-syndromic UCLP. Speech audio and video recordings of 391 children (136 girls, 255 boys) were available and perceptually analysed. The main outcome measures were VPC and hypernasality from blinded assessments. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the prevalences in the arms in any of the trials. VPC: Trial 1, A: 58%, B: 61%; Trial 2, A: 57%, C: 54%; Trial 3, A: 35%, D: 51%. No hypernasality: Trial 1, A: 54%, B: 44%; Trial 2, A: 47%, C: 51%; Trial 3, A: 34%, D: 49%. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found regarding VPC and hypernasality at age 5 years after different methods for primary palatal repair. The burden of care in terms of secondary pharyngeal surgeries, number of fistulae, and speech therapy visits differed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN29932826.

Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 5. Speech outcomes in 5-year-olds - consonant proficiency and errors.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Normal articulation before school start is a main objective in cleft palate treatment. The aim was to investigate if differences exist in consonant proficiency at age 5 years between children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) randomised to different surgical protocols for primary palatal repair. A secondary aim was to estimate burden of care in terms of received additional secondary surgeries and speech therapy. DESIGN: Three parallel group, randomised clinical trials were undertaken as an international multicentre study by 10 cleft teams in five countries: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the UK. METHODS: Three different surgical protocols for primary palatal repair were tested against a common procedure in the total cohort of 448 children born with non-syndromic UCLP. Speech audio- and video-recordings of 391 children (136 girls and 255 boys) were available and transcribed phonetically. The main outcome measure was Percent Consonants Correct (PCC) from blinded assessments. RESULTS: In Trial 1, arm A showed statistically significant higher PCC scores (82%) than arm B (78%) (p = .045). No significant differences were found between prevalences in Trial 2, A: 79%, C: 82%; or Trial 3, A: 80%, D: 85%. Across all trials, girls achieved better PCC scores, excluding s-errors, than boys (91.0% and 87.5%, respectively) (p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: PCC scores were higher in arm A than B in Trial 1, whereas no differences were found between arms in Trials 2 or 3. The burden of care in terms of secondary pharyngeal surgeries, number of fistulae, and speech therapy visits differed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN29932826.

A Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 1. Planning and management.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Longstanding uncertainty surrounds the selection of surgical protocols for the closure of unilateral cleft lip and palate, and randomised trials have only rarely been performed. This paper is an introduction to three randomised trials of primary surgery for children born with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). It presents the protocol developed for the trials in CONSORT format, and describes the management structure that was developed to achieve the long-term engagement and commitment required to complete the project. METHOD: Ten established national or regional cleft centres participated. Lip and soft palate closure at 3-4 months, and hard palate closure at 12 months served as a common method in each trial. Trial 1 compared this with hard palate closure at 36 months. Trial 2 compared it with lip closure at 3-4 months and hard and soft palate closure at 12 months. Trial 3 compared it with lip and hard palate closure at 3-4 months and soft palate closure at 12 months. The primary outcomes were speech and dentofacial development, with a series of perioperative and longer-term secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Recruitment of 448 infants took place over a 9-year period, with 99.8% subsequent retention at 5 years. CONCLUSION: The series of reports that follow this introductory paper include comparisons at age 5 of surgical outcomes, speech outcomes, measures of dentofacial development and appearance, and parental satisfaction. The outcomes recorded and the numbers analysed for each outcome and time point are described in the series. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN29932826.