Caregiver responses to early cleft palate care: A mixed method approach.

This study sought to understand caregivers’ (CGs’) responses to early cleft lip/palate care for their infants

Coping with Cleft: A Conceptual Framework of Caregiver Responses to Nasoalveolar Molding

To present a conceptual framework of caregiver coping and adaptation to early cleft care using nasoalveolar molding

Surgeon’s and Caregivers’ Appraisals of Primary Cleft Lip Treatment with and without Nasoalveolar Molding: A Prospective Multicenter Pilot Study

Despite the increasing use of nasoalveolar molding (NAM) in early cleft treatment, questions remain about its effectiveness. This study examines clinician and caregiver appraisals of primary cleft lip and nasal reconstruction with and without NAM in a non-randomized, prospective multicenter study

Nasoalveolar Molding: Prevalence of Cleft Centers Offering NAM and Who Seeks It

Nasoalveolar molding (NAM) is a treatment option available for early cleft care. Despite the growing debate about NAM’s efficacy, questions remain regarding its prevalence and demographic characteristics of families undergoing this technique prior to traditional cleft surgery

Caregiver responses to early cleft palate care: A mixed method approach.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to understand caregivers’ (CGs’) responses to early cleft lip/palate care for their infants. METHOD: A prospective, mixed methods multicenter longitudinal study was conducted among CGs (N=118) seeking treatment for their infants’ cleft lip and palate or cleft lip only at one of six cleft treatment centers in the United States. Participants were in one of two treatment groups: traditional care only or nasoalveolar molding (NAM) plus traditional care. The CGs completed semi-structured interviews and standardized questionnaires assessing psychosocial well-being and family impact at three time points: the beginning of treatment (~1 month of age), pre-lip surgery (~3–5 months of age), and post-palate surgery (~12–13 months of age). Multi-level modeling was used to longitudinally assess CGs’ psychosocial outcomes. RESULTS: While the first year was demanding for all CGs, NAM onset and the child’s lip surgery were particularly stressful times. CGs used optimism, problem-solving behavior, and social support to cope with this stress. Qualitatively, CGs’ ability to balance cleft treatment demands with their psychosocial resources and coping strategies influenced family adaptation. Qualitative and quantitative results indicated CGs of NAM-treated infants experienced more rapid declines in anxiety and depressive symptoms and better coping skills over time than CGs whose infants had traditional care. CONCLUSION: CGs of NAM-treated infants experienced more positive psychosocial outcomes than CGs whose infants had traditional care. Results from the mixed model support the Family Adjustment and Adaptation Response Model as used in pediatric chronic condition research