To determine whether children with an orofacial cleft have higher levels of behavioral problems than the general population and whether this differs by cleft phenotype.
Design:
A cohort of children with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) born in New Zealand from January 1, 2000.
Setting:
Cleft clinics in New Zealand participating in a larger outcomes study between 2014 and 2017.
Participants:
Children (N = 378) aged 5 to 12 years of age and their parents.
Main Outcomes:
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) Generic Core Scales 4.0 and Family Impact Module 2.0.
Results:
Compared to standardized norms, children with a cleft had higher than expected (defined as 20%) levels of abnormal/borderline SDQ scores for conduct problems (27.4%, P = .0003) and peer relationship problems (31.6%, P < .0001) but lower than expected levels of problems with pro-social skills (6.3%, P < .0001). There were no significant differences by age-group and or cleft phenotype other than an increased risk of hyperactivity in children with CP compared to children with CL. Total difficulties SDQ scores had moderate correlations with the PedsQL.
Conclusions:
While over 90% of children with CL/P had normal prosocial skills, they may not be easily accepted by their peers which may result in behavioral problems. These concerns were moderately related to lower quality of life. Support for establishment and maintenance of peer relationships is important to address externalizing and peer difficulties in children with CL/P. Community knowledge and understanding of CL/P needs to continue to be promoted.
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.
2.
BotMden BouterBDAdriaanseMC. Prevalence of psychosocial problems in Dutch children aged 8-12 years and its association with risk factors and quality of life. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2011;20(4):357–365.
3.
BrandSBlechschmidtAMullerASaderRSchwenzer-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.
4.
BullingerMSchmidtSPetersenCGroupD. Assessing quality of life of children with chronic health conditions and disabilities: a European approach. Int J Rehabil Res. 2002;25(3):197–206.
5.
CornforthCM. Behavioural Problems in Preschool and School Aged Children. University of Auckland; 2007.
6.
DanckaertsMSonuga-BarkeEJBanaschewskiTBuitelaarJDöpfnerMHollisCSantoshPRothenbergerASergeantJSteinhausenHC, et al.The quality of life of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;19(2):83–105.
7.
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.
8.
FeragenKBStockNM. Risk and protective factors at age 10: psychological adjustment in children with a cleft lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(2):161–179.
9.
FowlerPVAl-AniAHThompsonJM. Bone fill following secondary alveolar bone grafting for children with cleft of the alveolus in New Zealand. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019;22(3):153–158.
10.
FowlerPVKeallHKennedyDHealeyDThompsonJM. Dental arch relationship outcomes for children with complete unilateral and complete bilateral cleft lip and palate in New Zealand. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019;22(3):147–152.
11.
FowlerPVWholleyCPerryJGThompsonJM. Craniofacial morphology and soft tissue profile outcomes for complete unilateral and complete bilateral cleft lip and palate in New Zealand. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019;22(3):139–146.
12.
FowlerPVCorbettALeeMThompsonJM. A retrospective nationwide study of the dental caries experience of New Zealand children with orofacial cleft. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2020;48(1):42–48.
13.
GlenerADAlloriACShammasRLCarlsonARPienIJAylsworthASMeyerRPimentaLStraussRWatkinsS, et al.A population-based exploration of the social implications associated with cleft lip and/or palate. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(6):e1373.
14.
GoodmanR. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1997;38(5):581–586.
15.
GoodmanRFordTSimmonsHGatwardRMeltzerH. Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to screen for child psychiatric disorders in a community sample. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;177(6):534–539.
16.
HamedAMKauerAJStevensHE. Why the diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder matters. Front Psychiatry. 2015;6(12):168.
HuntOBurdenDHepperPJohnstonC. The psychosocial effects of cleft lip and palate: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27(3);274–285.
19.
HuntOBurdenDHepperPStevensonMJohnstonC. Self-reports of psychosocial functioning among children and young adults with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(5):598–605.
20.
HuntOBurdenDHepperPStevensonMJohnstonC. Parent reports of the psychosocial functioning of children with cleft lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007;44(3):304–311.
21.
Kapp-SimonKASimonDJKristovichS. Self-perception, social skills, adjustment, and inhibition in young adolescents with craniofacial anomalies. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29(4):352–356.
22.
LambaMAlamriYGargPFramptonCRowbothamDGearryR. Predictors of non-attendance at outpatient endoscopy: a five-year multi-centre observational study from New Zealand. N Z Med J. 2019;132(1496):31–38.
23.
LovegroveERumseyN. Ignoring it doesn’t make it stop: adolescents, appearance, and bullying. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(1):33–44.
24.
MillardTRichmanLC. Different cleft conditions, facial appearance, and speech: relationship to psychological variables. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38(1):68–75.
25.
MilneVKearnsRHarrisonA. Patient age, ethnicity and waiting times determine the likelihood of non-attendance at a first specialist rheumatology assessment. Int J Rheum Dis. 2014;17(1):19–25.
26.
PinckstonMDaltonLFarrarSHottonMT. The psychosocial adjustment of children born with a cleft lip and/or palate: cross-sectional and longistudinal analyses. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(11):1280–1290.
27.
RichmanLCMillardT. Brief report: cleft lip and palate: longitudinal behavior and relationships of cleft conditions to behavior and achievement. J Pediatr Psychol. 1997;22(4):487–494.
28.
RichmanLCMcCoyTEConradALNopoulosPC. Neuropsychological, behavioral, and academic sequelae of cleft: early developmental, school age, and adolescent/young adult outcomes. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(4):387–396.
29.
SliferKJBeckMAmariADiverTHilleyLKaneAMcDonnellS. Self-concept and satisfaction with physical appearance in youth with and without oral clefts. Children’s Health Care. 2003;32(2):81–101.
30.
SliferKJDiverTAmariACohnJFHilleyLBeckMKaneA. Assessment of facial emotion encoding and decoding skills in children with and without oral clefts. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2003;31(5):304–315.
31.
StockNMFeragenKB. Psychological adjustment to cleft lip and/or palate: a narrative review of the literature. Psychol Health. 2016;31(7):777–813.
32.
SturaroCVan LierPACuijpersPKootHM. The role of peer relationships in the development of early school-age externalizing problems. Child Dev. 2011;82(3):758–765.
33.
ThompsonJMStonePRSandersMvan der ZeeHBormanBFowlerPV. The incidence of orofacial cleft in live births in New Zealand. N Z Med J. 2016;129(1440):64–71.
34.
ThompsonJMStonePRWilliamsIII KSandersMMasonNPopeRFowlerPV. Nasolabial outcomes in a nationwide study of orofacial cleft in New Zealand. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019;22(3):194–200.
35.
ThompsonJMAyreySLSlykermanRFStonePRFowlerPV. Quality of life using general population validated questionnaires in children with cleft lip and/or palate in New Zealand. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(6):779–786.
36.
TobiasenJMHiebertJM. Parents’ tolerance for the conduct problems of the child with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1984;21(2):82–85.
37.
VarniJWSeidMKurtinPS. PedsQL 4.0: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality Of Life Inventory version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Med Care. 2001;39(8):800–812.
38.
VarniJWShermanSABurwinkleTMDickinsonPEDixonP. The PedsQL family impact module: preliminary reliability and validity. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2(1):55.
39.
WaylenAMahmoudOWillsAKSellDSandyJRNessAR. Centre-level variation in behaviour and the predictors of behaviour in 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip: the cleft care UK study. Part 5. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017;20(suppl 2):40–47.
