These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of motor-phonetic versus phonetic-phonological speech therapy approaches in patients with a cleft (lip and) palate: a study in Uganda.
    Author: Alighieri C, Bettens K, Bruneel L, Sseremba D, Musasizi D, Ojok I, Van Lierde K.
    Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2020 Apr; 131():109849. PubMed ID: 31918243.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: At present, there is growing interest in combined phonetic-phonological approaches to treat active speech errors in children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP ± L). Unfortunately, evidence for these type of speech interventions in this population is lacking. Therefore, the present study investigated the effectiveness of speech intervention in Ugandan patients with CP ± L. Moreover, a comparison was made between a motor-phonetic and a phonetic-phonological speech intervention. METHODS: Eight patients (median age: 11.26y) with an isolated CP ± L were assigned into a group receiving motor-phonetic treatment (n = 4) or a group receiving combined phonetic-phonological treatment (n = 4). The participants received 6h of individual speech therapy. In both groups, perceptual and instrumental speech evaluations were performed to evaluate the patients' speech before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Speech therapy (irrespective of the used approach) was found to be effective in increasing consonant proficiency and in decreasing the occurrence of non-oral and passive CSCs. No statistically significant differences in outcome variables were found when comparing the two groups pre- and post-treatment. The descriptive results, however, revealed a larger increase in % correctly produced consonants, places and manners after the intervention in the group receiving a combined phonetic-phonological treatment compared to the group receiving a motor-phonetic treatment. CONCLUSION: This study took a first step in providing evidence concerning the effectiveness of different speech therapy approaches in children with CP ± L. The present study holds some important implications for clinical practice suggesting that an additional phonological approach may be beneficial for the patients with CP ± L. Further research including randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes is necessary to provide further evidence.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]