An interventional study of High intensive combined phonetic-phonological intervention and Low intensive combined phonetic-phonological intervention in Cleft Palate Children, Speech Therapy and Speech Disorders in Children, sponsored by University Ghent. Recruiting at 1 site in Belgium. Open to participants aged 4 Years to 12 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-01-13.
Sponsored by University Ghent · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Achieving speech that is understandable and acceptable to others is the key outcome in cleft treatment. Therefore, speech therapy provided by a speech-language pathologist is necessary. This intervention is traditionally provided twice per week for 30 minutes for months or even years by first-line speech-language pathologists. Unfortunately, this low intensity intervention is based on a historical context rather than scientific evidence. This means that current speech therapy knows several shortcomings including poor outcomes, treatment fatigue and high costs related to year-long therapy. Because of these issues, the use of high intensity speech intervention is proposed. Even though solid proof-of-concepts exist for this model, it has not yet found its way into clinical practice.
Before this intensity can be implemented and utilized in clinical practice, the effect of this novel program on a larger societal scale must be determined. This project will compare the effect of high intensity and low intensity speech intervention in children with a cleft palate in terms of speech, quality of life, and cost-utility as provided by first-line speech-language pathologists by conducting a large-scale randomized controlled trial. The final goal is to utilize this program in clinical practice and to create awareness of the benefits for children with a cleft palate among stakeholders.
Objective 1: Conduct a large-scale randomized controlled trial to compare the short- and long-term sustainable effects of two different speech intervention intensities (i.e. high intensity speech intervention: 5x30 min/week during 2x4 weeks (2x10 hours) and low intensity speech intervention: 2x30 min/week during 20 weeks (20 hours)) on the speech and quality of life in Belgian Dutch-speaking children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip. Speech intervention will be provided by first-line speech language pathologists in private practices who will receive thorough training before the onset of the trial.
Hypothesis 1: Based on the state-of-the-art and our proof-of-concept, it is assumed that 20 hours of high intensity speech intervention will lead to superior speech outcomes and health-related quality of life compared to 20 hours of low intensity speech intervention.
Objective 2: To compare the cost-utility in quality-adjusted life years of two different speech intervention intensities (i.e. high intensity speech intervention: 5x30 min/week during 2x4 weeks (2x10 hours) and low intensity speech intervention: 2x30 min/week during 20 weeks (20 hours)) in Belgian Dutch-speaking children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip. Demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of high intensity speech intervention will facilitate implementation and utilization of this protocol in clinical practice as less money has to be spent in order to gain one life year in full health (QALY) when providing high intensity speech intervention compared to low intensity speech intervention.
Hypothesis 2: Besides the superior speech outcomes and health related quality of life in a shorter intervention time (cfr. hypothesis 1), it is hypothesized that less money has to be spent in order to gain one life year in full health (QALY) in the high intensity intervention group. In other words, it is hypothesized that high intensity intervention will be more cost-effective compared to low intensity speech intervention.
149 studies on the registry are indexed under Communication Disorders; 44 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 70 is above the median of 40 across 124 interventional studies indexed under Communication Disorders.
Browse Communication Disorders studies →University Ghent is the lead sponsor of 350 studies on the registry; 86 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
To investigate the (cost-)effectiveness of speech therapy for children with a cleft palate (with of without a cleft lip), we will provide a high-intensive speech intervention.
Behavioral: High intensive combined phonetic-phonological intervention
To investigate the (cost-)effectiveness of speech therapy for children with a cleft palate (with of without a cleft lip), we will provide a low-intensive speech intervention.
Behavioral: Low intensive combined phonetic-phonological intervention
Children will receive phonetic articulation therapy supplemented by phonological principles. Consonants will be treated with emphasis on phonetic placement and shaping techniques. Phonetic articulation therapy includes five different steps:(1) identification of the target consonant using visual, tactile, and auditory feedback techniques,(2) discrimination between the used and targeted consonant, (3) variation and correction, (4) stabilize the target, and (5) maintenance of the target. A next level will be introduced when the child is able to correctly produce the sound in 80% of the time with minimal cues from the therapist. Multiple errors will be targeted simultaneously by focusing on a process. Child-friendly games will be played to illustrate the contrast between concepts, for example glottal 'throat' sounds and oral 'mouth' sounds. Exercises will be embedded in meaningful language contexts such as minimal pairs. Therapy will be provided 5 times 30' per week for 2 times 4 weeks.
Children will receive phonetic articulation therapy supplemented by phonological principles. Consonants will be treated with emphasis on phonetic placement and shaping techniques. Phonetic articulation therapy includes five different steps:(1) identification of the target consonant using visual, tactile, and auditory feedback techniques,(2) discrimination between the used and targeted consonant, (3) variation and correction, (4) stabilize the target, and (5) maintenance of the target. A next level will be introduced when the child is able to correctly produce the sound in 80% of the time with minimal cues from the therapist. Multiple errors will be targeted simultaneously by focusing on a process. Child-friendly games will be played to illustrate the contrast between concepts, for example glottal 'throat' sounds and oral 'mouth' sounds. Exercises will be embedded in meaningful language contexts such as minimal pairs. Therapy will be provided 2 times 30' per week for 20 weeks.
Consonant proficiency
Consonant proficiency will be measured in terms of percentage correctly produced consonants (%)
Time frame: Assessment 2 weeks pre-intervention, immediately pre-intervention, after 10 hours of therapy, after a 12-week rest period, immediately post-intervention, at 1 week post-intervention, at 2 weeks post-intervention, at 3 months post-intervention
Incremental cost-utility ratio
The cost-utility of the high intensity speech intervention compared to the low intensity speech intervention will be examined by calculating the ratio of the incremental costs to the incremental health effects (QALYs) called the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), calculated as Cost intervention - Cost control / Effect intervention - Effect control. The EQ-5D-Youth version will be used for children aged 8-12 years and the EQ-5D proxy version for children aged 4-7 years to collect information on HRQoL ("utilities"). Cost information will be obtained using a self-reported questionnaire on health care use.
Time frame: After a 12-week rest period (high intensity arm), at 3 months post-intervention
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
The cost-effectiveness of the high intensity speech intervention compared to the low intensity speech intervention will be examined by calculating the ratio of the incremental costs to the incremental health effects (percentage correctly produced consonants) called the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), calculated as Cost intervention - Cost control / Effect intervention - Effect control. The effectiveness will be estimated using the primary outcome (percentage correctly produced consonants) obtained from the randomized controlled trial. Cost information will be obtained using a self-reported questionnaire on health care use.
Time frame: After a 12-week rest period (high intensity arm), at 3 months post-intervention
Intelligibility in Context
To assess possible transfer of learned speech skills to contexts outside the therapy setting, the Intelligibility in Context Scale (ICS) will be administered. The ICS rates the degree to which children's speech is understood by different partners (caregivers, immediate and extended family, friends, acquaintances, teachers, and strangers) on a 5-point scale (1 - never intelligible to 5 - always intelligible)
Time frame: Assessment immediately pre-intervention, after 10 hours of therapy, after a 12-week rest period, immediately post-intervention, at 3 months post-intervention
Health-related quality of life
To evaluate the psychosocial impact of the interventions, the Velopharyngeal insufficiency Effects on Life outcomes (VELO) questionnaire will be administered. This tool consists of a caregiver and child report (for children older than 8 years) addressing different domains: speech limitation, swallowing problems, situational difficulty, emotional impact, perception by others, and caregiver impact. The higher the score, the better the health related quality of life.
Time frame: Assessment immediately pre-intervention, after 10 hours of therapy, after a 12-week rest period, immediately post-intervention, at 3 months post-intervention
Speech Function
The subscale "Speech Function" from the Dutch CLEFT-Q will be administered to measure how often someone has trouble speaking. This scale consists of 10 questions. Scores range from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate less trouble speaking. This scale was developed and validated for children with CP±L between 8 and 29 years of age. Consequently, this scale will only be administered to children aged 8 years and older.
Time frame: Assessment immediately pre-intervention, after 10 hours of therapy, after a 12-week rest period, immediately post-intervention, at 3 months post-intervention
Speech Distress
The subscale "Speech Distress" from the Dutch CLEFT-Q will be administered to assess in more detail the feelings someone has regarding speaking. This scale consists of 10 questions. Scores range from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate less negative feelings. This scale was developed and validated for children with CP±L between 8 and 29 years of age. Consequently, this questionnaire will only be administered to children aged 8 years and older.
Time frame: Assessment immediately pre-intervention, after 10 hours of therapy, after a 12-week rest period, immediately post-intervention, at 3 months post-intervention
Communication attitudes of children aged 4 and 5 years
To evaluate the change in communication attitudes of children aged 4 and 5 years during the intervention, the KiddyCAT will be administered before, during and after the intervention. This questionnaire evaluates the extent to which the child has a negative attitude toward speaking. The higher the score, the more negative the attitude toward speaking. the scores range from 0 (no negative communication attitudes) to 14 (negative communication attitudes only).
Time frame: Assessment immediately pre-intervention, after 10 hours of therapy, after a 12-week rest period, immediately post-intervention, at 3 months post-intervention
Communication attitudes of children aged 6 years and older
To evaluate the change in communication attitudes of children aged 6 years and older during the intervention, the Communication Attitudes Test (CAT) will be administered before, during and after the intervention. This questionnaire evaluate the extent to which the child has a negative attitude toward speaking. The higher the score, the more negative the attitude toward speaking. the scores range from 0 (no negative communication attitudes) to 33 (negative communication attitudes only).
Time frame: Assessment immediately pre-intervention, after 10 hours of therapy, after a 12-week rest period, immediately post-intervention, at 3 months post-intervention
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
Contact study teamGet an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.