Descriptive survey identifies early intervention as a key predictor of speech intelligibility in children, suggesting further exploration across LMICs.
Background: Speech intelligibility is a critical challenge for individuals with orofacial clefts, as effective communication is essential for cognitive and social development. Children with orofacial clefts often experience difficulties in speech production, particularly with high-pressure consonants, due to anatomical differences and related conditions. Early and accurate identification of speech intelligibility deficits beyond age norms is crucial for timely intervention. Early intervention and psychoeducational support are commonly advocated as strategies to enhance speech intelligibility in this population. However, there is a scarcity of research on the predictive outcomes of these interventions in LMICs such as Nigeria, necessitating this study. Aims and Objectives: To determine the predictive outcomes of early intervention and psychoeducational support on speech intelligibility among children with orofacial clefts in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with a focus on South-western Nigeria. Materials and Methods: This research adopted a descriptive survey of the correlational type, utilizing self-structured and adapted questionnaires for data collection. Results: The findings revealed a positive moderate relationship between early intervention and speech intelligibility of persons with orofacial clefts ( r = 0.458, n = 106, p (.000) < 0.05) and no significant relationship between psychoeducational support and speech intelligibility of persons with orofacial clefts ( r = .101, n = 106, p (.301) > .05). The research also identified variables such as socio-economic status and time of repair as predictors of speech intelligibility of the respondents. Conclusion: These results highlight the need for further research to explore additional factors influencing speech outcomes in individuals with orofacial clefts within this context.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lawal et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: