The retrospective acceptability of high intensity versus low intensity speech intervention in children with a cleft palate: A qualitative study from the parents’ point of view using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability
Authors: Alighieri Cassandra , Van Lierde Kristiane , Cammu Heleen , Vanoost Laure , Bettens Kim 
Published: October 2022

Background

Increasing attention is paid to the effectiveness of high‐intensity speech intervention in children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP±L). It is, however, unknown if high‐intensity intervention is acceptable to the intervention recipients. Parents have an integral role in supporting their children with intervention highlighting the importance of intervention acceptability to parents.

Aims

To compare the retrospective acceptability of high‐intensity speech intervention (10 1‐hr speech therapy sessions divided over 2 weeks) with the retrospective acceptability of low‐intensity speech intervention (10 1‐hr speech therapy sessions divided over 10 weeks) for children with a CP±L from the parents’ point of view.

Methods & Procedures

Twelve parents of 12 children, aged 6–0 years who received high‐intensity speech intervention (n = 6) or low‐intensity speech intervention (n = 6), were invited to participate in this study. Seven parents (n = 3 in the high‐intensity group and n = 4 in the low‐intensity group) agreed to participate (total response rate: 7/12, 58.33%). A qualitative study design using semi‐structured interviews was applied. To investigate the retrospective acceptability of the two intervention intensities, deductive coding according to the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) was used.

Outcomes & Results

With regard to the TFA construct ‘affective attitude’, results demonstrated that parents had positive feelings about the provided speech intervention regardless of the intensity. Parents of children who received high‐intensity speech intervention reported two specific benefits related to the high intervention intensity: (1) it improved their relationship with the speech‐language pathologist and (2) it improved their child's ability to make self‐corrections in his/her speech. Even though both high‐intensive and low‐intensity speech intervention were considered burdensome (TFA construct ‘burden’), parents were less likely to drop out of high‐intensity intervention because the total intervention period was kept short.

Conclusions & Implications

In conclusion, high‐intensity speech intervention seemed acceptable to parents. More positive codes were identified for some of the TFA constructs in the high‐intensity intervention group than in the low‐intensity intervention group. Considering that some parents doubted their self‐efficacy to participate in high‐intensity speech intervention, speech‐language pathologists need to counsel them so that they can adhere to the high intervention intensity. Future studies should investigate whether high‐intensity speech intervention is also acceptable to the children who receive the intervention and to the speech‐language pathologists who deliver the intervention.

What this paper adds

What is already known on this subject

Increasing attention is paid to the effectiveness of high‐intensity speech intervention in children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP±L). Different quantitative studies have shown positive speech outcomes after high‐intensity cleft speech intervention. Despite this increasing attention to high‐intensity speech intervention, it is unknown whether high‐intensity intervention is also acceptable to the intervention recipients. This study compared the retrospective acceptability of high‐intensity speech intervention (10 1‐hour speech therapy sessions divided over 2 weeks) with the retrospective acceptability of low‐intensity speech intervention (10 1‐hour speech therapy sessions divided over 10 weeks) in children with a CP±L from the parents’ point of view.

What this paper adds to existing knowledge

More positive codes were identified for some of the TFA constructs in the high‐intensity intervention group than in the low‐intensity intervention group. Nevertheless, some parents doubted their self‐efficacy to participate in high‐intensity speech intervention.

What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?

The findings of this study forces us to reconsider the traditional cleft speech intervention delivery models which usually consist of low‐intensity intervention. Speech‐language pathologists need to counsel parents and so that they can adhere to the high intervention intensity.