Parental Perceptions Following Cleft Lip Repair in Their Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cleft lip (CL) repair at 3 months is chosen mostly out of convention and offers minimal functional benefit. Potentially, a better cosmetic outcome is possible by delaying repair. This study examines parental perceptions around repair at 3 months to determine if current guidelines are appropriate. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Tertiary-care institution. PARTICIPANTS: Parents of children with CL ± P under age 6 years who underwent CL repair from 2004 to 2011 at our center were surveyed (n = 64). Response rate was 61% (n = 37). METHODS: Open-ended survey asked about various aspects of parental perceptions before and after repair. Qualitative data analysis is used to interpret survey responses. STATISTICS: Fisher exact test using contingency tables to identify statistically significant results. RESULTS: Nearly all (36/37) parents felt repair was important, citing reasons such as feeding, speech, and appearance. Most (28/37) felt surgery would fix the problem. A portion of parents (15/37) would delay repair if better aesthetics were possible later, but most would not (20/37). Most parents were satisfied with repair quality (33/37). On average, repair did not impact parent-child bonding, and eliminated negative interactions with strangers that parents found distressing. CONCLUSIONS: Arguably, positive parental perceptions of their child's condition reflect favorably on the child's well-being, and may outweigh any future aesthetic benefit. Therefore, current recommendations should be upheld. However, given that some parents would consider delaying repair, they could be offered this option. Future efforts should examine cultural factors, and aesthetic and developmental outcomes of repair at different ages to determine optimal repair timing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".