Identify factors associated with adherence to nasoalveolar molding (NAM) therapy.
Design:
Retrospective case-control study.
Setting:
Tertiary referral center.
Patients, Participants:
Infants with cleft lip, with or without cleft palate, referred for NAM. One hundred thirty-five patients met criteria.
Main Outcome Measure(s):
Adherence to NAM therapy, defined as continuous use of the appliance and attendance of NAM adjustment visits.
Results:
Female sex (OR = 2.85, 95% CI 1.21-6.74), bilateral cleft (OR = 2.88, 95% CI 1.29-6.46), and travel distance (OR = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.01) were independent predictors of nonadherence. Bilateral clefts (OR = 8.35, 95% CI 2.72-25.64) and public-payer insurance (OR = 3.67, 95% CI 1.13-11.91) for male patients were significantly associated with nonadherence, in our sex-stratified multivariate model. The majority of the families (58%) had public health insurance. Males comprised 77.0% of the cohort.
Conclusions:
NAM treatment adherence is impaired by bilateral clefts, female sex, increased travel distance, and public insurance. Further studies are warranted to investigate how these factors affect adherence, and to develop interventions to improve adherence in families at risk due to economic or psychosocial barriers.
BakkerAMaertensKJVanSMJVanLNE. Psychological consequences of pediatric burns from a child and family perspective: a review of the empirical literature. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33:361–371.
2.
BroderHTrierWC. Effectiveness of genetic counseling for families with craniofacial anomalies. Cleft Palate J. 1985; 22:157–162.
3.
BroderHLSmithFBStraussRP. Habilitation of patients with clefts: parent and child ratings of satisfaction with appearance and speech. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992; 29:262–267.
4.
CassellCHKrohmerALeeKAMendezDDStraussRPMeyerRE. Factors associated with distance and time traveled to cleft and craniofacial care. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2013;97:685–695.
5.
CassellCHMendezDDStraussRP. Maternal perspectives: qualitative responses about perceived barriers to care among children with orofacial clefts in North Carolina. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49:262–269.
6.
GarfinkleJSKingTWGraysonBHBrechtLECuttingCB. A 12-year anthropometric evaluation of the nose in bilateral cleft lip-cleft palate patients following naso-alveolar molding and cutting bilateral cleft lip and nose reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:1659–1667.
7.
GoffmanE. Stigma—Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1963.
8.
GraysonBHSantiagoPEBrechtLECuttingCB. Presurgical nasoalveolar molding in infants with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36:486–498.
9.
GuinsburgRPeresCBranco de AlmeidaMFXavierBRita deCássia BBerenguelRTonelottoJKopelmanBI. Differences in pain expression between male and female newborn infants. Pain. 2000;85:1–2.
10.
KaganJ. Acquisition and significance of sex typing and sex role identity. In: HoffmanMHoffmanL, eds. Review of Child Development Research. Vol 1. New York: Russell Sage; 1964.
11.
KozeljV. Experience with presurgical nasal molding in infants with cleft lip and nose deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:738–745.
12.
LanskySBSmithSDCairnsNUCairnsGFJ. Psychological correlates of compliance. Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1983;5:87–92.
13.
LeeCTGarfinkleJSWarrenSMBrechtLECuttingCBGraysonBH. Nasoalveolar molding improves appearance of children with bilateral cleft lip-cleft palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:1131–1137.
14.
Levy-BercowskiDAbreuADeLeonELooneySStockstillJWeilerMSantiagoPE. Complications and solutions in presurgical nasoalveolar molding therapy. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46:521–528.
15.
MayerMSlifkinRSkinnerA. The effects of rural residence and other social vulnerabilities on subjective measures of unmet need. Med Care Res Rev. 2005;62:617–628.
16.
MobinSSNKaratsonyiAVidarENGamerSGroperJHammoudehJAUrataMM. Is presurgical nasoalveolar molding therapy more effective in unilateral or bilateral cleft lip–cleft palate patients?Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(3):1263–1269.
17.
NelsonPGlennyAMKirkSCaressAL. Parents’ experiences of caring for a child with a cleft lip and/or palate: a review of the literature. Child Care Health Dev. 2012;38:6–20.
18.
NunesVNeilsonJO’FlynnNCalvertNKuntzeSSmithsonHBlairJBowserAClyneWCromeP. Clinical Guidelines and Evidence Review for Medicines Adherence: Involving Patients in Decisions About Prescribed Medicines and Supporting Adherence. London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care and Royal College of General Practitioners; 2009.
19.
ParsonsCEYoungKSParsonsEDeanAMurrayLGoodacreTDaltonLKringelbachML. The effect of cleft lip on adults’ responses to faces: cross-species findings. PLoS One. 2011;6:E25897.
20.
RapoffMA. Adherence to Pediatric Medical Regimens. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 1999.
21.
SanterMRingNYardleyLGeraghtyAWWykeS. Treatment non-adherence in pediatric long-term medical conditions: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies of caregivers’ views. BMC Pediatr. 2014;14:63.
SischoLChanJWSteinMSmithCvanAJBroderHL. Nasoalveolar molding: prevalence of cleft centers offering NAM and who seeks it. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49:270–250.
24.
ThorneCGrabbWCSmithJW. Grabb and Smith’s Plastic Surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
25.
TobiasenJM. Social judgments of facial deformity. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24:323–327.
26.
WrightB. Physical Disability—A Psychosocial Approach. New York: Harper and Row; 1983.
27.
YangJYChoAYCheonJS. Correction of unilateral cleft lip using surgeon-made nasoalveolar molding device. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;31:1–8.
28.
ZuckermanKENelsonKBryantTKHobreckerKPerrinJMDonelanK. Specialty referral communication and completion in the community health center setting. Acad Pediatr. 2011;11:288–296.
