Achieving the next level in cleft speech intervention: A protocol of a randomized sham‐controlled trial to provide guidelines for a personalized approach in children with cleft palate

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundCompensatory cleft speech disorders can severely impact speech understandability and speech acceptability. Speech intervention is necessary to eliminate these disorders. There is, however, currently no consensus on the most effective speech therapy approach to eliminate the different subtypes of compensatory cleft speech disorders.AimsTo compare the immediate, short‐ and long‐term effects of three well‐defined speech intervention approaches (i.e., a motor–phonetic approach, a linguistic–phonological approach and a combined phonetic–phonological approach) on the speech and health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in Belgian Dutch‐speaking children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP±L) and different subtypes of compensatory speech disorders (i.e., anterior oral cleft speech characteristics (CSCs), posterior oral CSCs or non‐oral CSCs). Besides, the perceived acceptability of these three speech intervention approaches will be investigated from the perspectives of caregivers and children with a CP±L.Methods & ProceduresA two‐centre longitudinal randomized sham‐controlled trial was used. Children were randomly assigned to one of the three intervention programmes and received 10 h of speech intervention divided over 2 weeks. Block randomization was used, stratified by age and gender. Primary outcome measures included perceptual speech outcomes. Secondary outcome measures included patient‐reported outcomes.Outcomes & ResultsThe results of this trial will provide speech–language pathologists evidence‐based guidelines to better tailor intervention approaches to the specific needs of a child with a defined compensatory speech disorder.WHAT THIS PAPER ADDSWhat is already known on this subjectSpeech therapy approaches to address cleft palate speech disorders are broadly divided into two categories: motor–phonetic interventions and linguistic–phonological interventions. Some limited evidence demonstrated the positive effects of these approaches in eliminating compensatory cleft speech disorders. Different studies have reported inter‐individual variation, suggesting that one child may benefit more from a particular intervention approach than the other child. Perhaps this variation can be attributed to the specific subtype of compensatory speech disorder (i.e., anterior oral CSC, posterior oral CSC or non‐oral CSC).What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis paper describes a randomized sham‐controlled trial that compared the immediate, short‐ and long‐term effects of three well‐defined speech intervention approaches (i.e., a motor–phonetic approach, a linguistic–phonological approach and a combined phonetic–phonological approach) on the speech and HRQoL in Belgian Dutch‐speaking children with CP±L and different subtypes of compensatory cleft speech disorders (i.e., anterior oral CSCs, posterior oral CSCs or non‐oral CSCs) measured by perceptual and psychosocial outcome measures. Besides, the experienced acceptability of these three speech intervention approaches were investigated from the perspectives of caregivers and children.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?This project provides evidence‐based knowledge on patient‐tailored cleft speech intervention considering both scientific evidence and the perspectives of caregivers and children. The results aid SLPs in better tailoring intervention approaches to the needs of a child with a specific type of compensatory cleft speech disorder.