Information regarding how caregivers cope when using presurgical infant orthopedic (PSIO) appliances is sparse. This study aimed to understand caregivers’ perspectives and experiences with contemporary PSIO treatment.
Design
PSIO videos shared on the YouTube™ platform were used as the data source. Videos with caregivers were identified (n = 21) and portions with caregiver narratives were transcribed. This was followed by the application of a six-step thematic analysis as conceptualized by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2019).
Results
Two themes were identified from the caregiver narratives in the PSIO videos. The Family Journey theme included reaction to diagnosis, choice of center, burden of care, care commitment, coping, and testimonials. The Information theme included PSIO techniques and PSIO benefits.
Conclusion
Multifaceted challenges and coping strategies were described by caregivers during the PSIO phase. Caregivers remained committed to treatment despite the burden of care, were motivated by an understanding of the benefits of PSIO, and customized care based on their individual strengths and needs. Study results can help providers gain an understanding of what caregivers experience outside the clinical environment.
SaikiaAMuthuMSOrenugaOO, et al.Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for oral health in children with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;59(6):800-814.
2.
MosseyPCastillaE. Global registry and database on craniofacial anomalies. 2001. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/ handle/10665/42840/9241591102.pdf
3.
MosseyPALittleJMungerRGDixonMJShawWC. Cleft lip and palate. Lancet. 2009;374(9703):1773-1785.
4.
MaarseWBoonackerCWBSwanenburg de VeyeHFN, et al.Parental attitude toward the prenatal diagnosis of oral cleft: A prospective cohort study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(8):1158-1165.
5.
BlackJDGirottoJAChapmanKEOppenheimerAJ. When my child was born: Cross-cultural reactions to the birth of a child with cleft lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46(5):545-548.
6.
YatesDAllareddyVCaplinJYadavSMarkiewiczMR. An overview of timeline of interventions in the continuum of cleft lip and palate care. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2020;32(2):177-186.
7.
Kuijpers-JagtmanAMPrahl-AndersenB History of Neonatal Maxillary Orthopedics: Past to Present.Cleft Lip and Palate. Springer eBooks; 2006:395-407.
8.
ShetyePRGibsonTL Nasoalveolar molding in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft and Craniofacial Orthodontics. Vol 1. John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2023:119-133.
9.
ShetyePRGibsonTL. Nasoalveolar molding in bilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft and Craniofacial Orthodontics. Vol 1. John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2023:134-148.
10.
EsenlikEGibsonTKassamS, et al.NAM therapy-Evidence-based results. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(4):529-531.
11.
GarlandKCoyleMFoleyTMaticD. Ten-year cephalometric comparison of patients with cleft palate who received treatment with active or passive pre-surgical orthopedic devices. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;60(11):1359-1365.
12.
Abd El-GhafourMAboulhassanMAEl-BeialyAR, et al.Does presurgical taping change nose and lip aesthetics in infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate? A randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;150(6):1300e-1313e.
13.
AbhinavBABatraPChander SoodSSharmaKSrivastavaARaghavanS. Comparative study of presurgical infant orthopedics by modified Grayson method and Dynacleft with nasal elevators in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate—A clinical prospective study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(2):189-201.
14.
AvinoamSKowalskiHRChayaBFShetyePR. Current presurgical infant orthopedics practices among American Cleft Palate Association–approved cleft teams in North America. J Craniofac Surg. 2022;33(8):2522-2528.
15.
JensenSWCJensenEDKaminer-LevinGCaroCStevensK. Presurgical cleft management of infants: A survey of ACPA approved and international cleft palate and craniofacial teams. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;60(12):1521-1528.
16.
KhavaninNJennyHJodehDSScottMARottgersSASteinbergJP. Cleft and craniofacial team orthodontic care in the United States: A survey of the ACPA. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(7):860-866.
17.
DunworthKPorras FimbresDTrottaR, et al.Systematic review and critical appraisal of the evidence base for nasoalveolar molding (NAM). Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;0(0). doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656221136325
18.
PadovanoWMSkolnickGBNaidooSDSnyder-WarwickAKPatelKB. Long-term effects of nasoalveolar molding in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;59(4):462-474.
19.
RochlinDHParkJParsaeiY, et al.Clinical outcomes of bilateral cleft lip and palate repair with nasoalveolar molding and gingivoperiosteoplasty to facial maturity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;152(6):1088e-1097e. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010450
20.
HathawayRRLongREJr. Early cleft management: In search of evidence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(2):135-141.
21.
HosseiniHRKaklamanosEGAthanasiouAE. Treatment outcomes of pre-surgical infant orthopedics in patients with non-syndromic cleft lip and/or palate: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLOS ONE. 2017;12(7):e0181768.
22.
BhutianiNTripathiTRaiP. Psychosocial maternal perception of the outcome of pre surgical infant orthopedics in infants born with cleft lip and palate. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2022;46(4):299-306.
23.
RothMLonicDGrillFD, et al.NAM-help or burden? Intercultural evaluation of parental stress caused by nasoalveolar molding: A retrospective multi-center study. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(9):5421-5430.
24.
SingerEDaskalogiannakisJRussellKA, et al.Burden of care of various infant orthopedic protocols for improvement of nasolabial esthetics in patients with CUCLP. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(9):1236-1243.
25.
AlfonsoARRamlyEPKantarRS, et al.What is the burden of care of nasoalveolar molding?Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(9):1078-1092.
26.
KimiaRButlerPDGuajardoI, et al.Sociodemographic factors that influence the choice to pursue nasoalveolar molding: One pediatric hospital's experience. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(9):1069-1077.
27.
GibsonTLGraysonBHShetyePR. Sociodemographic predictors of treatment success and difficulty in nasoalveolar molding. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(3):378-385.
28.
GbolahanOOAmiedeOSSamuelOA. The burden and perceived stress on family caregivers of patients with orofacial cleft deformities in the perioperative period of cleft repair. J Patient Exp. 2020;7(6):1602-1609.
29.
DeanRAWainwrightDJDoringoILTeichgraeberJFGreivesMR. Assessing burden of care in the patient with cleft lip and palate: Factors influencing completion and noncompletion of nasoalveolar molding. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(6):759-765.
30.
KhouriJSMcCheyneMJMorrisonCS. The use of social media amongst parents of infants with clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(7):974-976.
31.
ÇınarSBoztepeHProfF. The use of social media among parents of infants with cleft lip and/or palate. J Pediatr Nurs. 2020;54:e91-e96.
32.
DengreMForrestCRHoES. Impact of before and after photographs on parents of children with cleft lip. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2022;30(3):204-211.
33.
Suarez-LledoVAlvarez-GalvezJ. Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(1):e17187. doi:https://doi.org/10.2196/17187
34.
HammMPChisholmAShulhanJ, et al.Social media use among patients and caregivers: A scoping review. BMJ Open. 2013;3(5):e002819.
35.
ChambersCTDolJParkerJA, et al.Implementation effectiveness of a parent-directed YouTube video (“it doesn't have to hurt”) on evidence-based strategies to manage needle pain: Descriptive survey study. JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2020;3(1):e13552.
36.
Wittenberg-LylesEOliverDPDemirisGSwarzJRendoM. YouTube as a tool for pain management with informal caregivers of cancer patients: A systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014;48(6):1200-1210.
37.
NelsonPA. Qualitative approaches in craniofacial research. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46(3):245-251.
38.
StockNMFeragenKBMossTPRumseyN. Toward a conceptual and methodological shift in craniofacial research. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(1):105-111.
39.
MyhreAAgaiMDundasIFeragenKB. “All eyes on me”: A qualitative study of parent and patient experiences of multidisciplinary care in craniofacial conditions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(9):1187-1194.
40.
RiklinECalandrilloDBlitzAZuckerbergDAnnunziatoRA. Examining the psychosocial needs of adolescents with craniofacial conditions: A mixed-methods approach. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(2):177-185.
41.
SischoLBroderHLPhillipsC. Coping with cleft: A conceptual framework of caregiver responses to nasoalveolar molding. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(6):640-650.
42.
SischoLCloustonSAPhillipsCBroderHL. Caregiver responses to early cleft palate care: A mixed method approach. Health Psychol. 2016;35(5):474-482.
43.
BreuningEECourtemancheRJCourtemancheDJ. Experiences of Canadian parents of young children with cleft lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(5):577-586.
44.
CostaBMcWilliamsDBligheS, et al.Isolation, uncertainty and treatment delays: Parents’ experiences of having a baby with cleft lip/palate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;60(1):82-92.
45.
StockNMRumseyN. Starting a family: The experience of parents with cleft lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(4):425-436.
46.
AlemanRMMartinezMG. Thematic analysis of coping strategies used by parents of children with cleft lip and palate in El Salvador. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;60(3):336-343.
47.
KorkmazYNBuyukSK. YouTube as a patient-information source for cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(3):327-332.
48.
BozkurtAPArasI. Cleft lip and palate YouTube videos: Content usefulness and sentiment analysis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(3):362-368.
49.
ArslanCAksahinECNur YılmazRBGermec CakanD. Does YouTube offer high-quality information about nasoalveolar molding?Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;61(1):5-11.
50.
CarterSMShihPWilliamsJDegelingCMooney-SomersJ. Conducting qualitative research online: Challenges and solutions. Patient. 2021;14(6):711-718.
51.
SeymourWS. In the flesh or online? Exploring qualitative research methodologies. Qual Res.2001;1(2):147-168.
52.
PattersonAN. YouTube generated video clips as qualitative research data: One researcher’s reflections on the process. Qual Inq. 2018;24(10):759-767.
53.
VillagranM. Methodological diversity to reach patients along the margins, in the shadows, and on the cutting edge. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82(3):292-297.
DenhamAMBakerALSprattNJ, et al.YouTube as a resource for evaluating the unmet needs of caregivers of stroke survivors. Health Informatics J. 2020;26(3):1599-1616.
56.
BraunVClarkeV. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101.
57.
BraunVClarkeV. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019;11(4):589-597.
58.
NobleHHealeR. Triangulation in research, with examples. Evid Based Nurs. 2019;22(3):67-68.
59.
StockNMCostaBWilliamsJRMartindaleA. Breaking the news: Parents’ experiences of receiving an antenatal diagnosis of cleft lip. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(9):1149-1156.
60.
BradburyEHewisonJ. Early parental adjustment to visible congenital disfigurement. Child Care Health Dev. 1994;20(4):251-266.
61.
BerggrenHHanssonEUvemarkASvenssonHBeckerM. Prenatal compared with postnatal cleft diagnosis: What do the parents think?J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2012;46(3-4):235-241.
62.
O'HanlonKCamicPMShearerJ. Factors associated with parental adaptation to having a child with a cleft lip and/or palate: The impact of parental diagnosis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(6):718-729.
63.
GreivesMRAndersonCLDeanRA, et al.Survey of parent experiences in prenatal visits for infants with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(6):668-673.
64.
VillavisanisDFWagnerCSMoralesCZ, et al.Geospatial and socioeconomic factors interact to predict management and outcomes in cleft lip and palate surgery: A single institution study of 740 patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;0(0). doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656221150291
65.
Sharif-AskaryBBittarPGFarjatAELiuBVissociJRNAlloriAC. Geospatial analysis of risk factors contributing to loss to follow-up in cleft lip/palate care. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(9):e1910.
66.
VillavisanisDFBlumJDPlanaNMTaubPJTaylorJA. Choosing a multidisciplinary cleft and craniofacial team: Medical, surgical, and social considerations. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;0(0). doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656221129967
67.
BennettKGRanganathanKPattersonAK, et al.Caregiver-reported outcomes and barriers to care among patients with cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142(6):884e-891e.
68.
KayeALybrandSChewWL. Assessment and management of psychosocial needs: Social work utilization in comprehensive cleft team care. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(8):1081-1091.
69.
PfeiferTMGraysonBHCuttingCB. Nasoalveolar molding and gingivoperiosteoplasty versus alveolar bone graft: An outcome analysis of costs in the treatment of unilateral cleft alveolus. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39(1):26-29.
70.
PatelPARubinMSCloustonS, et al.Comparative study of early secondary nasal revisions and costs in patients with clefts treated with and without nasoalveolar molding. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(4):1229-1233.
71.
ShettyVThakralASreekumarC. Comparison of early onset nasoalveolar molding with patients who presented for molding up to 1 year of age. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(4):811-827.
72.
SuriS. Design features and simple methods of incorporating nasal stents in presurgical nasoalveolar molding appliances. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(Suppl 2):1889-1894.
73.
Garcés AlvearGAMoreno SozaMIBOrmeño QuintanaADPGutiérrez MelisCM. Complications during Grayson presurgical nasoalveolar molding method in nonsyndromic infants with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(6):2159-2162.
74.
MurrayLHentgesFHillJ, et al.The effect of cleft lip and palate, and the timing of lip repair on mother–infant interactions and infant development. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008;49(2):115-123.
75.
OftedalABekkhusMHaugenGHjemdalOCzajkowskiNOKaasenA. Long-term impact of diagnosed fetal anomaly on parental traumatic stress, resilience, and relationship satisfaction. J Pediatr Psychol. 2023;48(2):181-192.
76.
TedeschiRGCalhounLG. Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychol Inq.2004;15(1):1-18.
77.
PicoraroJAWomerJWKazakAEFeudtnerC. Posttraumatic growth in parents and pediatric patients. J Palliat Med. 2014;17(2):209-218.
78.
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.
79.
HaleBJGonzalesALRichardsonM. Vlogging cancer: Predictors of social support in YouTube cancer vlogs. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2018;21(9):575-581.
80.
LiuLSHuhJNeogiTInkpenKPrattW. Health vlogger-viewer interaction in chronic illness management. Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst. 2013:49–58.
81.
LynchBEinspruchELNicholGBeckerLBAufderheideTPIdrisA. Effectiveness of a 30-min CPR self-instruction program for lay responders: A controlled randomized study. Resuscitation. 2005;67(1):31-43.
82.
MadathilKCRivera-RodriguezAJGreensteinJSGramopadhyeAK. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2015;21(3):173-194.
83.
ParekhJCounihanKFlemingPSPandisNSharmaPK. Effectiveness of part-time vs full-time wear protocols of Twin-block appliance on dental and skeletal changes: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019;155(2):165-172.
84.
SinghGDLevy-BercowskiDSantiagoPE. Three-dimensional nasal changes following nasoalveolar molding in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: Geometric morphometrics. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(4):403-409.
85.
SantiagoPEGraysonBHCuttingCBGianoutsosMPBrechtLEKwonSM. Reduced need for alveolar bone grafting by presurgical orthopedics and primary gingivoperiosteoplasty. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1998;35(1):77-80.
86.
MillerCK. Feeding issues and interventions in infants and children with clefts and craniofacial syndromes. Semin Speech Lang. 2011;32(02):115-126.
87.
PrahlCKuijpers-JagtmanAMVan't HofMAPrahl-AndersenB. Infant orthopedics in UCLP: Effect on feeding, weight, and length: A randomized clinical trial (Dutchcleft). Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(2):171-177.
88.
KondraKStantonEJimenezC, et al.Rethinking the rule of 10s: Early cleft lip repair improves weight gain. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;60(3):306-312.
89.
PaiBCKoEWHuangCSLiouEJ. Symmetry of the nose after presurgical nasoalveolar molding in infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate: A preliminary study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(6):658-663.
90.
SabarinathVPThombarePHazareyPVRadhakrishnanVAgrekarS. Changes in maxillary alveolar morphology with nasoalveolar molding. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2010;35(2):207-212.
91.
CreswellJWPothCN. Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. 4th ed. Sage Los Angeles; 2018.
92.
AustinZSuttonJ. Qualitative research: Getting started. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2014;67(6):436-440.
93.
Bar-IlanJPeritzBC. The lifespan of “informetrics” on the Web: An eight year study (1998–2006). Scientometrics. 2009;79(1):7-25.
94.
SuiWSuiARhodesRE. What to watch: Practical considerations and strategies for using YouTube for research. Digit Health. 2022;8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076221123707
