Assessing Psychological Adjustment to Congenital Craniofacial Anomalies: An Illustration of Methodological Challenges

Nicola Marie Stock,Kristin Billaud Feragen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665618769661

2018-04-13

Abstract:Background: Recognition of the challenges inherent in psychology research related to cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) and other craniofacial anomalies (CFAs) is far from novel; yet these challenges continue to limit progress within the field. The aim of the present article was to illustrate these challenges by utilizing data extracted from 2 recent literature reviews pertaining to psychological adjustment within CL/P and CFA research. Design: Data relating to 148 CL/P and 41 CFA studies were extracted, summarized, and compared, using percentages, figures, and χ 2 calculations. Results: Comparable patterns were observed in both populations in relation to small sample sizes, wide age ranges, a reliance on data collection from single sites, and limited global coverage. Similarly, only one-third of all studies had used a comparison group, 42% of studies did not include the patient perspective, and fewer than 10% of studies had collected data longitudinally. Qualitative research was lacking across both populations, but particularly in relation to CFA. A higher proportion of CFA studies utilized validated measures and were less likely to exclude patients with additional anomalies. CFA studies most frequently focused on behavior and overall quality of life, while CL/P studies tended to investigate emotional well-being and social experiences. Conclusions: Findings illustrate the variability in research approaches, sampling, measurement, and analysis across both populations. There is a pressing need to address key methodological issues within craniofacial research and to examine the possible similarities and condition-specific differences between CL/P and other congenital craniofacial anomalies.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The main problem that this paper attempts to solve is to identify and analyze the methodological challenges in the research on psychological adaptation in cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) and other congenital craniofacial anomalies (CFAs). Specifically, by comparing the data of two recent literature reviews, the author aims to illustrate the following points:

1. **Small sample size**: The sample sizes of many studies are small, which limits the universality and reliability of the research results.
2. **Wide age range**: The age range of the research subjects is relatively large, ranging from infants a few months old to the elderly over 80 years old, which increases the complexity of data analysis.
3. **Single - center data collection**: Most studies rely on single - center data collection and lack multi - center cooperation, which limits the representativeness and external validity of the research.
4. **Limited global coverage**: The research is mainly concentrated in Europe and North America, and there are fewer studies in other regions, resulting in insufficient global representativeness of the research results.
5. **Lack of control group**: Only one - third of the studies used a control group, which affects the interpretation and comparison of the research results.
6. **Lack of patient perspective**: More than 40% of the studies did not include the patients' self - reported data, which may lead to insufficient understanding of the patients' real experiences.
7. **Insufficient longitudinal research**: Only a few studies adopted a longitudinal design, which limits the understanding of the dynamic changes in the psychological adaptation process.
8. **Scarcity of qualitative research**: Especially in CFA research, qualitative research is very scarce, which limits the in - depth understanding of patients' subjective experiences.
9. **Inconsistent measurement tools**: The measurement tools used in different studies vary greatly, and some studies used unvalidated tools, which affects the comparability and reliability of the research results.

Through these analyses, the paper emphasizes the key methodological problems in current research and calls for more attention to these problems in future research to improve the quality and effectiveness of the research.