Facilitators, barriers, and strategies of communication in Malaysian school-age children with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate: Results of in-depth online qualitative interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 10) were recruited via purposive sampling. Participants were selected based on resilience scores (RS-10; (Wagnild, 2015) distinguishing low (<34) from high resilience (35-40) (Wagnild, 2015). Individual in-depth interviews were conducted online and evaluated qualitatively. The analyses were conducted utilising the guidelines by Braun and Clarke (2006). Inductive thematic analysis was performed. Facilitators for communication identified by children, parents and teachers were the child's personal attributes, common interests, and helping others. Barriers that were identified were unfamiliar conversation partners, and insensitive comments or questions. Children used passive (e.g. ignored) and active (e.g. retorted, explained the condition) strategies to address social communication issues. Children with high resilience responded more actively than children with low resilience. Strategies that were described by the parents included accepting the child, empowering themselves, following the cleft management plan, and empowering the child. Teachers adopted general approaches such as giving encouragement, increasing confidence, and teaching empathy. The presence of face masks was perceived as both a facilitator and a barrier to communication. The study provides information on challenges encountered and coping mechanisms used by children with non-syndromic CL/P, their parents and their teachers. This knowledge may help the development of targeted interventions to support the communication of children with non-syndromic CL/P in school.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".