Previous studies have investigated psychosocial adjustments among adolescents with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P), but our understanding of other craniofacial conditions remains limited. The objective of this study is to compare psychosocial adjustments among 3 groups of adolescents: craniofacial conditions other than cleft lip and/or palate (craniofacial anomaly [CFA]), CL/P, and controls (CON). Our secondary objective is to examine how social factors may predict the adjustments levels.
Aged 11- to 17-year olds. Craniofacial anomaly (n = 49), isolated CL/P (n = 42), and 55 CON. Total = 146.
Outcome Measures:
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (self-report, parent report, and teacher report).
Results:
All 3 informant groups displayed similar patterns, where CFA reported the highest difficulties, followed by CL/P, while CON scored the lowest. Parent reports demonstrated significant differences among the 3 groups for most subscales and were emphasized for peer problems. Self-reports showed significant differences between CFA and CON for total scores and peer problems, while teacher reports showed significant differences for peer problems only. Craniofacial anomaly displayed the highest frequency of abnormal psychosocial adjustments, followed by CL/P. Experiencing bullying or teasing predicted increased difficulties, while having a good friend predicted decreased difficulties.
Conclusions:
Adolescents with CFA, and to a lesser extent CL/P, may be at a higher risk of having psychosocial problems. Peer problems may constitute the biggest challenge that CFA and CL/P confront. Social factors, especially being bullied or having a good friend, may predict the psychosocial well-being of adolescents with craniofacial conditions.
AchenbachTMMcConaughySHHowellCT. Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychol Bull. 1987;101(2):213–232.
2.
AravenaPCGonzalezTOyarzúnTCoronadoC. Oral health-related quality of life in children in Chile treated for cleft lip and palate: a case–control approach. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2017;54(2):e15–e20.
3.
BakerSROwensJSternMWillmotD. Coping strategies and social support in the family impact of cleft lip and palate and parents’ adjustment and psychological distress. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2009;46(3):229–236.
4.
BanninkNMaliepaardMRaatHJoostenKFMathijssenIM. Health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with syndromic craniosynostosis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63(12):1972–1981.
5.
BeckerDBPetersenJDKaneAACradockMMPilgramTKMarshJL. Speech, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes in nonsyndromic craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116(2):400–407.
6.
BehereAPBasnetPCampbellP. Effects of family structure on mental health of children: a preliminary study. Indian J Psychol Med. 2017;39(4):457–463.
7.
BergerZEDaltonLJ. Coping with a cleft: psychosocial adjustment of adolescents with a cleft lip and palate and their parents. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2009;46(4):435–443.
8.
BergerZEDaltonLJ. Coping with a cleft II: factors associated with psychosocial adjustment of adolescents with a cleft lip and palate and their parents. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2011;48(1):82–90.
9.
BjerkeSMFeragenKBBergvikS. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): informant agreement between children born with cleft lip and/or palate and their parents. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2018;55(2):204–212.
10.
BrandSBlechschmidtAMüllerASaderRSchwenzer-ZimmererKZeilhoferHFHolsboer-TrachslerE. Psychosocial functioning and sleep patterns in children and adolescents with cleft lip and palate (CLP) compared with healthy controls. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2009;46(2):124–135.
11.
BroderHStraussRP. Psychosocial problems and referrals among oral-facial team patients. J Oral Rehabil. 1991;57(1):31–36.
12.
BroderHLSmithFBStraussRP. Developing a behavior rating scale for comparing teachers' ratings of children with and without craniofacial anomalies. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38(6):560–565.
ChengSKeyesKMBitfoiACartaMGKoçCGoelitzDOttenRLesinskieneSMihovaZPezO, et al.Understanding parent-teacher agreement of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): comparison across seven European countries. Int J Meth Psychiatr Res. 2018;27(1):e1589.
15.
ChristensenKMortensenPB. Facial clefting and psychiatric diseases: a follow-up of the Danish 1936-1987 facial cleft cohort. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2002;39(4):392–396.
16.
CloonanYKCollettBSpeltzMLAnderkaMWerlerMM. Psychosocial outcomes in children with and without non-syndromic craniosynostosis: findings from two studies. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2013;50(4):406–413.
17.
DaryananiIHamiltonJLAbramsonLYAlloyLB. Single mother parenting and adolescent psychopathology. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2016;44(7):1411–1423.
18.
DeERochebrochardLJoshiH. Siblings and child development. Longit Life Course Stud. 2013;4(3):276–287.
19.
DemirTKaracetinGBaghakiSAydinY. Psychiatric assessment of children with nonsyndromic cleft lip and palate. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2011;33(6):594–603.
20.
DuftonLMSpeltzMLKellyJPLerouxBCollettBRWerlerMM. Psychosocial outcomes in children with hemifacial microsomia. J Pediatr Psychol. 2011;36(7):794–805.
21.
EisermanW. Unique outcomes and positive contributions associated with facial difference: expanding research and practice. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2001;38(3):236–244.
22.
EriksonEH. Youth: Change and Challenge. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1963.
23.
FeragenKBBorgeAIH. Peer harassment and satisfaction with appearance in children with and without a facial difference. Body Image. 2010;7(2):97–105.
24.
FeragenKBKvalemILRumseyNBorgeAIH. Adolescents with and without a facial difference: the role of friendships and social acceptance in perceptions of appearance and emotional resilience. Body Image. 2010;7(4):271–279.
25.
FeragenKBStockNM. When there is more than a cleft: psychological adjustment when a cleft is associated with an additional condition. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2014;51(1):5–14.
26.
FeragenKBStockNM. A longitudinal study of 340 young people with or without a visible difference: the impact of teasing on self-perceptions of appearance and depressive symptoms. Body Image. 2016a;16:133–142.
27.
FeragenKBStockNM. Risk and protective factors at age 10: psychological adjustment in children with a cleft lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2016b;53(2):161–179.
28.
FeragenKBStockNM. Psychological adjustment to craniofacial conditions (excluding oral clefts): a review of the literature. Psychol Heal. 2017;32(3):253–288.
29.
FeragenKBStockNMRumseyN. Toward a reconsideration of inclusion and exclusion criteria in cleft lip and palate: implications for psychological research. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2014;51(5):569–578.
30.
FeragenKBStockNMSharrattNDKvalemIL. Self-perceptions of romantic appeal in adolescents with a cleft lip and/or palate. Body Image. 2016;18:143–152.
31.
GeelsLMKiefferJMHoogstratenJPrahl-AndersenB. Oral health-related quality of life of children with craniofacial conditions. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2008;45(5):461–467.
32.
GoodmanR. The extended version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire as a guide to child psychiatric caseness and consequent burden. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Discip. 1999;40(5):791–799.
33.
GoodmanR. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Discip. 1997;38(5):581–586.
34.
GoodmanR. Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001;40(11):1337–1345.
35.
GoodmanRFordTSimmonsHGatwardRMeltzerH. Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to screen for child psychiatric disorders in a community sample. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2003;15(1-2):166–172.
36.
GoodmanRScottS. Comparing the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the child behavior checklist: is small beautiful?J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1999;27(1):17–24.
37.
HarrisPATaylorRThielkeRPayneJGonzalezNCondeJG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381.
38.
HuntOBurdenDHepperPJohnstonC. The psychosocial effects of cleft lip and palate: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27(3):274–285.
39.
Kapp-SimonK. Self-concept of primary-school-age children with cleft lip, cleft palate, or both. Cleft Palate J. 1986;23(1):24–27.
40.
Kapp-SimonKAMcguireDE. Observed social interaction patterns in adolescents with and without craniofacial conditions. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 1997;34(5):380–384.
41.
KappK. Self concept of the cleft lip and or palate child. Cleft Palate J. 1979;16(2):171–176.
42.
KnudsenEMalteseGTarnowPTovetjarnRKolbyL. Parental estimation of early psychological development in children operated on for single suture synostosis. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2012;46(3-4):152–154.
43.
KostanskiMGulloneE. Adolescent body image dissatisfaction: relationships with self-esteem, anxiety, and depression controlling for body mass. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1998;39(2):255–262.
44.
LangloisJHKalakanisLRubensteinAJLarsonAHallamMSmootM. Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull. 2000;126(3):390–423.
45.
Lorot-MarchandAGuerreschiPPellerinPMartinotVGbaguidiCCNeivaCDevauchelleBFrochisseCPoli-MerolMLFrancois-FiquetC. Frequency and socio-psychological impact of taunting in school-age patients with cleft lip-palate surgical repair. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;79(7):1041–1048.
46.
MacGreggorFC. Some psycho-social problems associated with facial deformities. Am Soc Rev. 1951;16(5):629–638.
47.
MaliepaardMMathijssenIMJOosterlaanJOkkerseJME. Intellectual, behavioral, and emotional functioning in children with syndromic craniosynostosis. Pediatrics. 2014;133(6):e1608–e1615.
48.
MarcussonAPaulinGÖstrupL. Facial appearance in adults who had cleft lip and palate treated in childhood. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2002;36(1):16–23.
49.
MarisCLEndrigaMCOmnellMLSpeltzML. Psychosocial adjustment in twin pairs with and without hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36(1):43–50.
50.
ModeckiKLMinchinJHarbaughAGGuerraNGRunionsKC. Bullying prevalence across contexts: a meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. J Adolesc Heal. 2014;55(5):602–611.
51.
NanselTROverpeckMPillaRSRuanWJSimons-MortonBScheidtP. Bullying behaviors among US youth: prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. J Am Med Assoc. 2001;285(16):2094–2100.
52.
NichollsWHarperCRobinsonSPerssonMSelveyL. Adult-specific life outcomes of cleft lip and palate in a Western Australian cohort. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2018;55(10):1419–1429.
53.
NichollsWPerssonMRobinsonSSelveyLASelvey PsychosocialLA. Psychosocial impacts of cleft: a review of the literature citation. AASCIT J Psychol. 2015;1(2):14–32.
54.
OffordDRBoyleMHRacineYSzatmarijanPFlemingJELipmanELSanfordM. Integrating assessment data from multiple informants. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1996;35(8):1078–1085.
55.
OosterkampBCMDijkstraPURemmelinkHJvan OortRPGoorhuis-BrouwerSMSandhamAde BontLGM. Satisfaction with treatment outcome in bilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;36(10):890–895.
56.
PatelZRossE. Reflections on the cleft experience by South African adults: use of qualitative methodology. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2003;40(5):471–480.
57.
PopeAWSnyderHT. Psychosocial adjustment in children and adolescents with a craniofacial anomaly: age and sex patterns. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2005;42(4):349–354.
58.
PrescottTRedforsMRustadCFEiklidKLGeirdalAØStorhaugKJensenJL. Characterization of a Norwegian Cherubism cohort; molecular genetic findings, oral manifestations and quality of life. Eur J Med Genet. 2013;56(3):131–137.
59.
RamstadTOttemEShawWC. Psychosocial adjustment in Norwegian adults who had undergone standardised treatment of complete cleft lip and palate II. Self-reported problems and concerns with appearance. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1995;29(4):329–336.
60.
Raposo-AmaralCENetoJGJDenadaiRRaposo-AmaralCMRaposo-AmaralCA. Patient-reported quality of life in highest-functioning Apert and Crouzon syndromes: a comparative study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(2):182e–191e.
61.
Raposo-AmaralCERaposo-AmaralCANetoJJGFariasDBSomensiRS. Apert syndrome: quality of life and challenges of a management protocol in Brazil. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23(4):1104–1108.
62.
RichmanLC. Behavior and achievement of cleft palate children. Cleft Palate J. 1976;13(1):4–10.
63.
RichmanLCEliasonMJ. Psychological characteristics of children with cleft lip and palate: intellectual, achievement, behavioral and personality variables. Cleft Palate J. 1982;19(4):249–257.
64.
RobertsRMMathiasJL. Psychosocial functioning in adults with congenital craniofacial conditions. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2012;49(3):276–285.
65.
RumseyN. Body image and congenital conditions with visible differences. In: CashTFPruzinskyT, eds. Body Image. A Handbook of Theory, Research, and Clinical Practice. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2002: 226–233.
66.
RyanSOatenMStevensonRJCaseTI. Facial disfigurement is treated like an infectious disease. Evol Hum Behav. 2012;33(6):639–646.
67.
ShapiroDNWaljeeJRanganathanKBuchmanSWarschauskyS. Using the patient reported outcomes measurement information system to evaluate psychosocial functioning among children with craniofacial anomalies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(6):1673–1679.
68.
SinghVPMossTP. Psychological impact of visible differences in patients with congenital craniofacial anomalies. Prog Orthod. 2015;16:5.
69.
StockNMFeragenKB. Comparing psychological adjustment across cleft and other craniofacial conditions: implications for outcome measurement and intervention. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2019a;56(6):766–772.
70.
StockNMFeragenKB. Assessing psychological adjustment to congenital craniofacial anomalies: an illustration of methodological challenges. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2019b;56(1):64–73.
71.
TopolskiTDEdwardsTCPatrickDL. Quality of life: how do adolescents with facial differences compare with other adolescents?Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 2005;42(1):25–32.
72.
TovetjärnRTarnowPMalteseGFischerSSahlinPEKölbyL. Children with Apert syndrome as adults: a follow-up study of 28 Scandinavian patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(4):572e–576e.
73.
TurnerSRThomasPWNDowellTRumseyNSandyJR. Psychological outcomes amongst cleft patients and their families. Br J Plast Surg. 1997;50(1):1–9.
74.
Van RoyBGroholtBHeyerdahlSClench-AasJ. Understanding discrepancies in parent-child reporting of emotional and behavioural problems: effects of relational and socio-demographic factors. BMC Psychiatry. 2010;10:56.
75.
VolpicelliEJPfaffMJHakimiKBradleyJPSolemRCLeeJC. Age-related differences in psychosocial function of children with craniofacial anomalies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(4):776–784.
76.
VostanisP. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: research and clinical applications. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2006;19(4):367–372.
77.
WarnickEMBrackenMBKaslS. Screening efficiency of the child behavior checklist and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a systematic review. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2008:13(3):140–147.
78.
WehbyGLCassellCH. The impact of orofacial clefts on quality of life and healthcare use and costs. Oral Dis. 2010;16(1):3–10.
79.
WogeliusPGjørupHHaubekDLopezRPoulsenS. Development of Danish version of child oral-health-related quality of life questionnaires (CPQ). BMC Oral Health. 2009;9:11.
80.
ZeraatkarMAjamiSNadjmiNFaghihiSAGolkariA. A qualitative study of children’s quality of life in the context of living with cleft lip and palate. Pediatr Heal Med Ther. 2019;10:13–20.
