To evaluate the prevalence, access to care, and health outcomes of orofacial clefts (OFCs) among American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis performed in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251035364).
Setting
US-based population registries, hospital databases, and institutional or community-level retrospective studies involving AI/AN populations.
Patients and Participants
AI/AN individuals with OFCs compared with non-Hispanic White patients.
Interventions
Primary cleft lip and palate repair, secondary cleft-related procedures, and multidisciplinary cleft care.
Main Outcome Measure(s)
Prevalence of OFCs, timing of cleft surgery, discharge disposition, access to specialists, and qualitative determinants of disparities.
Results
Eighteen studies including more than 1985 AI/AN patients were identified. Meta-analysis of 5 studies estimated a pooled OFC prevalence of 15 per 10 000 live births (95% confidence interval: 5-49), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 99.8%). Individual studies reported significantly higher OFC prevalence in AI/AN populations compared to non-Hispanic Whites (odds ratio range: 1.44-2.68). Geographic maldistribution of craniofacial-trained surgeons, increased odds of nonhome discharge, and delayed cleft palate repair were consistently observed barriers. Qualitative analyses highlighted structural inequities, perceived racism, and lack of culturally responsive care as major contributors to disparities.
Conclusions
AI/AN populations face a disproportionately high burden of OFCs alongside structural barriers to timely, culturally competent care. Addressing these disparities requires community-engaged, multidisciplinary interventions that improve geographic access and integrate culturally responsive approaches to care.
AroraJSKhoshabNKanackMChaseLKadakiaNVargasSZadehTVyasRM. Newly identified developmental delays in a large population of children with nonsyndromic cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2025;13(4):e5811. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000006655
2.
De-Shing ChenDHsin-Chung ChengJWinPP. Contemporary approaches to orthodontic treatment in complex mixed dentition cases: a comparison of clear aligners and traditional fixed appliances. J Dent Sci. 2025;20(2):1242–1246. doi:10.1016/j.jds.2025.02.008
3.
Van SwolJWolfBJToumeyJPechaPPatelKG. Follow-up care barriers for patients with orofacial clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;59(10):1213–1221. doi:10.1177/10556656211042162
4.
BaigorriMCrowleyCJSommerCLMoya-GaléG. Barriers and resources to cleft lip and palate speech services globally: a descriptive study. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(8):2802–2807. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000007988
5.
DanialERiosJBadieeRRosenbluthGPomerantzJH. Analyzing linguistic disparities in telehealth care outcomes at a multidisciplinary craniofacial center. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;61(12):2086–2089. doi:10.1177/10556656231187291
6.
MasonKNKotlarekKJ. Where is the care? Identifying the impact of rurality on SLP caseloads and treatment decisions for children with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;61(11):1969–1980. doi:10.1177/10556656231189940
7.
MullenMCYanFFordMEPatelKGPechaPP. Racial and ethnic disparities in primary cleft lip and cleft palate repair. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;60(4):482–488. doi:10.1177/10556656211069828
8.
NetsonRAMillerSNuzziLCParryGJBridgesSKTaghiniaAH. Trends in outcomes and variation by race and ethnicity in pediatric plastic surgery in the United States. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2023;11(1):e5002. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000004813
9.
HubbardS. Not enough: Medicaid expansion, medical debt, and cost avoidance in rural American Indian and Alaska Native households. J Rural Health. 2025;41(1):3–13. doi:10.1111/jrh.12925
10.
JerniganVBBMaudrieTLLopezSV. Stagnating life expectancy among American Indians and Alaska Natives: understanding the drivers and recommendations for research, policy, and practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2025;46(1):193–211. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071723-110657
11.
AriasEXuJCurtinSC, BastianB, Tejada-VeraB. Mortality profile of the non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native population, 2019. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2021;70(12):1–23.
12.
BrydgesHTLasproMVerzellaANAlconASchechterJCassidyMFChayaBFIturrateEFloresRL. Contemporary prevalence of oral clefts in the US: geographic and socioeconomic considerations. J Clin Med. 2024;13(5):1189. doi:10.3390/jcm13092570
13.
HeydariM-HSadeghianAKhadiviGMustafaHJJavinaniANadjmiNKhojastehA. Prevalence, trend, and associated risk factors for cleft lip with/without cleft palate: a national study on live births from 2016 to 2021. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):559. doi:10.1186/s12903-023-03797-z
14.
HuangRSMihalacheAWong RiffKWY. Cleft lip and/or palate mortality trends in the USA: a retrospective population-based study. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2024;8(1):e002430. doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2023-002305
15.
LoCK-LMertzDLoebM. Newcastle–Ottawa scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:45. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-45
16.
MunnZBarkerTHMoolaS, TufanaruC, SternC, McArthurA, StephensonM, AromatarisE. Methodological quality of case series studies. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2019;17(1):1–9.
17.
PurssellE. Can the critical appraisal skills programme check-lists be used alongside grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation to improve transparency and decision-making?J Adv Nurs. 2020;76(5):1082–1089. doi:10.1111/jan.14303
18.
KaposFPWhiteLASchmidtKAHawesSEStarrJR. Risk of non-syndromic orofacial clefts by maternal rural–urban residence and race/ethnicity: a population-based case-control study in Washington state 1989-2014. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2020;35(3):292–301. doi:10.1111/ppe.12727
19.
MaiCTCassellCHMeyerREIsenburgJCanfieldMARickardROlneyRSStallingsEBBeckMHashmiSS, et al.Birth defects data from population-based birth defects surveillance programs in the United States, 2007 to 2011: highlighting orofacial clefts. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2014;100(11):895–904. doi:10.1002/bdra.23329
20.
CoddingtonDAHisnanickJJ. Midline congenital anomalies: the estimated occurrence among American Indian and Alaska Native infants. Clin Genet. 2008;50(2):74–77. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.1996.tb02351.x
21.
TaritsaICLedwonJKBajajAGosainAK. 12-Year trends of orofacial clefts in the United States: highlighting racial/ethnic differences in prevalence of cleft lip and cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;61(7):871–879.
22.
MarengoLKFloodTJEthenMKKirbyRSFisherSCopelandGMeyerREDunnJCanfieldMAAndersonT, et al.Study of selected birth defects among American Indian/Alaska Native population: a multi-state population-based retrospective study, 1999–2007. Birth Defects Res. 2018;110(18):1412–1418. doi:10.1002/bdr2.1397
23.
AggarwalDWarmerdamBWyattKAhmadSShawGM. Prevalence of birth defects among American-Indian births in California, 1983-2010. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2015;103(2):105–110. doi:10.1002/bdra.23341
24.
CanfieldMAMaiCTWangYO’HalloranAMarengoLKOlneyRSBorgerCLRutkowskiRFornoffJIrwinN, et al.The association between race/ethnicity and major birth defects in the United States, 1999–2007. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(9):e14–e23. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302098
25.
LeMTShumateCJHoytATWilkinsonAVCanfieldMA. The prevalence of birth defects among non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islanders and American Indians/Alaska Natives in Texas, 1999–2015. Birth Defects Res. 2019;111(18):1380–1388. doi:10.1002/bdr2.1543
26.
SaadANParinaRPTokinCChangDCGosmanA. Incidence of oral clefts among different ethnicities in the state of California. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72(2 Suppl 1):S81–S83. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000164
27.
PaliwodaNPaliwodaEDGajjarAAGoldsmithAAngnardoLBraySMC. Characterizing comprehensive cleft care in the United States: a national inpatient sample study. J Craniofac Surg. 2025;36(1):e34–e40. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000011280
28.
WolfswinkelEMHowellACMacDonaldBWilsonJP. American Indian and Alaska Native accessibility to comprehensive cleft lip and palate treatment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;60(11):1376–1384. doi:10.1177/10556656221104942
29.
RimmerARichardJFangZ, MasoumyM, MountD, FultonG. An analysis of age at cleft surgery based on gender, race, distance from treatment center, and payor status. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;60(5_suppl):S1–S148.
30.
AllareddyVTurkistaniKNandaVGajendrareddyPVenugopalanSR. Factors associated with hospitalization charges for cleft palate repairs and revisions. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(8):1968–1977. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2011.07.026
31.
TaufiqueZMEscherPJGathmanTJNickelAJLeeDBRobyBBChinnaduraiS. Demographic risk factors for malnutrition in patients with cleft lip and palate. Laryngoscope. 2021;132(7):1482–1486. doi:10.1002/lary.29899
32.
LowryRBJohnsonCYGagnonFLittleJ. Segregation analysis of cleft lip with or without cleft palate in the First Nations (Amerindian) people of British Columbia and review of isolated cleft palate etiologies. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2009;85(7):568–573. doi:10.1002/bdra.20558
33.
ShadeHRobertson HarropAMcPhalenDRoachP. First Nations patients’ experience receiving care for cleft lip and palate in a multidisciplinary clinic setting. Plast Surg. 2024;32(4):278–286.
34.
AbellaMKILLeeAYKitamuraRKAhnHJWooRK. Disparities and risk factors for surgical complication in American Indians and Native Hawaiians. J Surg Res.2023;288:99–107. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2023.02.016
35.
BrownBHoltSDindinger-HillKDindinger-HillKWolffEMJavidSNyameYGoreJL. Urgent versus elective surgical disparities among American Indian and Alaska Native patients. World J Surg. 2024;48(5):1037–1044. doi:10.1002/wjs.12132
36.
IngramM-CBeckerSOlsonSLTsaiSSarkarARothsteinDHSkarsgardEDRavalMV. Disparities in surgical health service delivery and outcomes for Indigenous children. J Pediatr Surg. 2023;58(3):375–383. doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2022.09.005
37.
StanleyLRSwaimRCKaholokulaJKKellyKJBelcourtAAllenJ. The imperative for research to promote health equity in Indigenous communities. Prev Sci. 2020;21(Suppl 1):13–21. doi:10.1007/s11121-017-0850-9
38.
CurtisEJonesRTipene-LeachD, WalkerC, LoringB, PaineSJ, PapaarangiR. Why cultural safety rather than cultural competency is required to achieve health equity: a literature review and recommended definition. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18(1):174.
39.
John-HendersonNAWhiteEJCrowderTL. Resilience and health in American Indians and Alaska Natives: a scoping review of the literature. Dev Psychopathol. 2023;35(5):2241–2252. doi:10.1017/S0954579423000640
40.
KruseGLopez-CarmenVAJensenAHardieLSequistTD. The Indian Health Service and American Indian/Alaska Native health outcomes. Annu Rev Public Health.2022;43:559–576. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-052620-103633
41.
SolomonTGAStarksRRBAttakaiAMolinaFCordova-MarksFKahn-JohnMAntoneCLFloresMGarciaF. The generational impact of racism on health: voices from American Indian communities. Health Aff. 2022;41(2):281–288. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01419
42.
KaraMCalisMKaraIIncebayOKulak KayikciMEGunaydinROOzgurF. Does early cleft palate repair make difference? Comparative evaluation of the speech outcomes using objective parameters. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020 Nov;48(11):1057–1065. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2020.09.003. PMID: 32994155.
43.
DorfDSCurtinJW. Early cleft palate repair and speech outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg.1982 Jul;70(1):74–81. doi: 10.1097/00006534-198207000-00015. PMID: 7089110.
44.
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. Cleft lip and cleft palate. Updated April 2023.
45.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. Indian Health Service: spending levels and characteristics of IHS and three other federal health care programs. GAO-19-74R. GAO; 2018, [Internet]. Available from: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-74r.pdf.
46.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. Indian Health Service: actions needed to improve oversight of patient wait times. GAO-16-333. GAO; 2016, [Internet]. Available from: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-16-333.pdf.
47.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. Indian Health Service: facilities reported expanding services following increases in health insurance coverage and collections. GAO-19-612. GAO; 2019, [Internet]. Available from: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-612.pdf.
48.
United States Commission on Civil Rights. Broken promises: continuing federal funding shortfall for Native Americans. 2018.
49.
Government Accountability Office. Indian Health service: facilities report. GAO. 2018: 19–74.
50.
Peterson-FalzoneSJTrost-CardamoneJEKarnellMP. The clinician’s guide to treating cleft palate speech. Mosby; 2010.
51.
SellDHardingAGrunwellP. Cleft palate speech: assessment and intervention. Wiley; 1999.
52.
GottliebK. The Nuka system of care: Improving health through ownership and relationships. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2013;72:21118. doi: 10.3402/ijch.v72i0.21118
53.
DriscollDLHiratsukaVJohnstonJMNormanSReillyKMShawJSmithJSzafranQNDillardD. Process and outcomes of patient-centered medical care with Alaska Native people at southcentral foundation. Ann Fam Med. 2013 May-Jun;11(Suppl 1):S41–S49. doi:10.1370/afm.1474
54.
RowanMPooleNSheaBGoneJPMykotaDFaragMHopkinsCHallLMushquashCDellC. Cultural interventions to treat addictions in Indigenous populations: findings from a scoping study. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2014 Sep 1;9:34. doi:10.1186/1747-597X-9-34
55.
McCabeG. Mind, body, emotions and spirit: reaching to the ancestors for healing. Couns Psychol Q.2008 Jun 1;21(2):143–152. doi:10.1080/09515070802066847
56.
MarshTNMarshDCOzawagoshJOzawagoshF. The sweat lodge ceremony: a healing intervention for intergenerational trauma and substance use. Int Indigenous Policy J. 2018;9(2). doi:10.18584/iipj.2018.9.2.2
57.
Office of the Surgeon General (US). Oral health in America: advances and challenges. US Department of Health and Human Services; 2021.
Nuka System of Care. Southcentral foundation. Accessed April 2025. https://scfnuka.com/.
60.
AllenLHatalaAIjazSCourcheneEDBushieEB. Indigenous-led health care partnerships in Canada. CMAJ. 2020 Mar 2;192(9):E208–E216. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.190728.
61.
ReadingCLWienF. Health inequalities and social determinants of Aboriginal Peoples’ health. National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health; 2009.
62.
DureyAThompsonSC. Reducing the health disparities of Indigenous Australians: time to change focus. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:151. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-151
63.
HarfieldSDavyCMcArthurAMunnZBrownABrownN. Characteristics of Indigenous primary health care service delivery models: a systematic scoping review. Glob Health. 2018;14(1):12. doi:10.1186/s12992-018-0332-2
64.
SmylieJFirestoneM. Back to the basics: identifying and addressing underlying challenges in achieving high quality and relevant health statistics for Indigenous populations in Canada. Stat J IAOS. 2015;31(1):67–87. doi:10.3233/SJI-150864
65.
MatthewsR. The cultural erosion of Indigenous people in health care. CMAJ. 2016;189:E78–E79. doi:10.1503/cmaj.160167
66.
PoitrasMEVaillancourtVCanapéABoudreaultABaconKHatcherS. Culturally safe Interventions in primary care for the management of chronic diseases of urban Indigenous people: a scoping review. Fam Med Community Health. 2022 May;10(Suppl 1):e001606.
67.
WarneDLajimodiereD. American Indian health disparities: psychosocial influences. Soc Work Public Health. 2015;30(1):17–29.
68.
SmithLT. Decolonizing methodologies: research and Indigenous peoples. 3rd ed. Bloomsbury Publishing; 2021.
69.
PeltierC. An application of two-eyed seeing: Indigenous research methods with participatory action research. Int J Qual Methods. 2018;17(1):160940691881234. doi:10.1177/1609406918812346
70.
WalterMSuinaM. Indigenous data, Indigenous methodologies and Indigenous data sovereignty. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2019;22(3):233–243. doi:10.1080/13645579.2018.1531228
71.
PhiriJDietschEBonnerA. Cultural safety and its importance for Australian midwifery practice. Collegian. 2010;17(3):105–111.
72.
BarnesHRichardsMMcHughM. Rural and nonrural primary care physician practices increasingly rely on nurse practitioners. Health Affairs. 2021;37(6):908–914.
73.
Sotto-SantiagoSGenaoIJohnsonM. Editorial: Breaking barriers to diversify the physician workforce. Frontiers in Public Health. 2023;11(1):1.
74.
PeckCJParsaeiYLattanziJGowdaAUYangJLopezJSteinbacherDM. Geographic availability of certified cleft care in the United States: a national geospatial analysis of 1-hour access. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;79(8):1733–1742. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2021.02.043
75.
ParhamMJMurriMSKimiaeeAAbadLMalladiPNahaiFR. Geospatial demand and approved access to cleft care in the United States. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024;12(8):e6090. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000006090
76.
StoneburnerJSanchez-LaraPAZhangJXRobyBBKohliNCarlsenBTMunabiNCONagengastESWilliamsMSGoelP, et al.Factors associated with delay in cleft surgery in low- and middle-income countries: results from smile train-supported programs. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(12):1508–1516. doi:10.1177/1055665621989508
77.
WiebeMEShawyerAC. Impact of distance on postoperative follow-up in patients of pediatric surgery: a retrospective review. World J Pediatr Surg. 2020;3(4):e000195. doi:10.1136/wjps-2020-000195
78.
MayerML. Are we there yet? Distance to care and relative supply among pediatric medical subspecialties. Pediatrics. 2006;118(6):2313–2321. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1570
79.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE). Trends in patient wait times for Indian Health Service facilities. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2023, [Internet]. Available from: https://aspe.hhs.gov/.
Association of American Indian Physicians (AAIP). About AAIP. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.aaip.org/.
91.
American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). About AISES. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.aises.org/about/.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
