Registry-Based Study of Prevalence of Cleft Lip/Palate in Thailand from 2012 to 2015

Abstract

Objective: Two main objectives were established. First objective was to determine the prevalence of the cleft lip and/or cleft palate (CL/P) in Thailand from 2012 to 2015 using the orofacial clefts (OFCs) registry and civil registration. Second objective was to conduct a quality control of this OFC registry especially for the Birth Defects Registration (BDR). Design: Registry-based survey. Setting: Analyzing data from the Thailand National Health Security Office. Participants: Registered patients with CL/P in Thailand from 2012 to 2015. Intervention: None Main Outcome Measure: Duplicated records were verified using National Identity Number (Thai ID#) and date of birth. The prevalence of CL/P and specific phenotypes was then calculated. From this prevalence estimate method, quality assurance of the OFCs registry was possible. Results: For the main outcome, the population-weighted pool prevalence of CL/P was 2.14 per 1000 live births (95% confidence interval of 2.08-2.20). Thai ID# and expense reimbursement systems were the main factors driving this cases capturing. However, this OFCs registration still requires active case finding with clinical verification, improvement of staff training and databases networking. Conclusions: This study reported a very high CL/P prevalence of Thailand. Strengths and limitations of these OFCs registry and BDR were described.

Scoping review of outcome measures in cleft care used in research and reports

“…Three LMIC (China, Brazil, and India) managed to produce a high volume of cleft research recorded in the indexed database 7 . Moreover, several LMIC have established national birth defect surveillance systems 12–14 . These facts illustrate that there are differences in research capacity and infrastructures among LMIC.…”

“…7 Moreover, several LMIC have established national birth defect surveillance systems. [12][13][14] These facts illustrate that there are differences in research capacity and infrastructures among LMIC.…”

Efficacy of telepractice, an alternative therapy tool during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, for speech disorders related to congenital anomalies

“…Cleft palate (cleft‐palate) with/without cleft lip (cleft‐lip) is a high‐prevalent congenital anomaly 3–5 requiring long‐term treatment by a multidisciplinary team. Following surgery for cleft‐palate, a speech problem is collectively termed “cleft palate speech (cleft‐palate‐speech)” and includes speech sound errors (speech‐sound‐errors), such as glottal stops.…”

“…The HIPAA regulations regarding telepractice were eased during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing speech-language pathologists to offer medical services in the speech and language field using telepractice as an alternative to face-to-face practice (FTFP). 2 Cleft palate (cleft-palate) with/without cleft lip (cleft-lip) is a highprevalent congenital anomaly [3][4][5] requiring long-term treatment by a multidisciplinary team. Following surgery for cleft-palate, a speech problem is collectively termed "cleft palate speech (cleft-palatespeech)" and includes speech sound errors (speech-sound-errors), such as glottal stops.…”

Three-dimensional Changes of Maxillary Alveolar Morphology After Using Modified Nasoalveolar Molding in Patients with Complete Unilateral Cleft lip and Palate

“…Cleft lip and palate occur in around 2.14 cases per 1000 live births amongst the Thai population. 1 Infants born with a cleft must undergo the surgical repair of cleft lip and palate in order to obtain good orofacial function and an improved facial appearance. One procedure to reduce the severity of the cleft deformity before the surgical repair involves nasoalveolar molding therapy.…”