INTRODUCTION
Cleft lip and palate (CLP) is a congenital anomaly that affects approximately one
in every 700 live births1. These
deformities can cause functional problems in the dental arch, chewing,
breathing, and hearing2. The difficulty in
efficient communication and the compromise of the physical appearance make
individuals with CLP a possible target of derogatory adjectives in social
groups. These physical and functional changes may lead to other potential
damages in patients’ lives: the psychosocial ones3.
Facial appearance has a profound influence on social environments, personality
development, and educational progress. People with CLP may present unfavorable
levels of anxiety, depression, social phobia, self-esteem, and quality of
life4.
The measurement of self-esteem has been conducted worldwide via the Rosenberg
self-esteem scale (RSES), which can classify self-esteem in adolescents, adults,
and the elderly5.
The importance of the topic and the limited number of studies using reliable
assessment tools justify our interest in this subject.
OBJECTIVE
We aim to evaluate the self-esteem of individuals with CLP compared with
individuals not affected by the condition, to determine possible factors that
influence the self-esteem of these patients, and to identify the most affected
subgroups.
METHODS
This cross-sectional, contemporary study comprised 160 individuals of both
genders aged between 12 and 50 years. The study participants were equally
divided into two groups. The G1 or exposed group consisted of patients with CLP,
who had already undergone a surgery related to the condition, followed by
craniomaxillofacial plastic surgery at the Hospital de Clínicas of Porto Alegre,
RS, (HCPA). The G2 or control group consisted of individual students and
employees of the public-school system in the same city without CLP.
The minimum age of individuals for inclusion in the study was determined to be 12
years to ensure ability to understand the issues of self-esteem.
The exclusion criteria for both groups were the presence of any type of central
hearing syndromes or dysfunctions. The individuals or legal guardians who did
not provide consent for their inclusion by signing the informed consent form
(ICF) or who did not adequately fill out the questionnaire were excluded from
the study.
The G1 group consisted of patients who attended the appointment at the Cleft Lip
and Palate Ambulatory. Patients and/or family members were informed about the
study and presented with the ICF. Subsequently, self-esteem tests using RSES
and
a structured questionnaire, formulated specifically for this study, were
conducted. Data were also compiled from the medical records. The G2 individuals
were selected from the municipality’s Education Department of a public
school.
All students and school staff received sealed envelopes with the study cover
letter, the structured questionnaire, and the ICF. For the inclusion of students
under the age of 18 years, documentation for parents or guardians was sent.
After the return of the documentation, a draw of 50 students under the age of
18
years and 30 individuals over the age of 18 years was conducted. At the school,
in a reserved room, the self-esteem was tested using RSES for all included
individuals.
Data collection was carried out from August to December 2012.
For data collection, a questionnaire was prepared for each research group. For
the G2 group, the questionnaire included questions about personal information
and questions related to schooling, school retention, economic class, and family
situation. For the G1 group, in addition to the parameters mentioned above,
questions related to CLP classification, surgical procedures, and healthcare
institutions where they were when selected were also included.
The results were evaluated in terms of communication, dentition, functionality,
and aesthetics of lips and nose with the help of an assisting team including
a
speech therapist, dentist, otorhinolaryngologist, and plastic surgeon,
respectively. Patients were asked about their opinions on the results.
RSES used in this study is a scale developed for the evaluation of self-esteem
and is used globally. RSES consists of 10 items with questions regarding the
feelings of self-respect and self-acceptance. It was adapted to Portuguese with
good psychometric indices. The sum of the scores for the 10 items provided the
final score on the scale, which ranged from 10 to 40. The results were
categorized as high, normal, and low self-esteem6.
This study and the ICF were approved by the Research and Post-Graduation Group of
HCPA and its Committee of Research Ethics under protocol number 11-0021.
Authorization was requested from the Education Department of Porto Alegre to
conduct the research at the school. No permit was required for using RSES.
RESULTS
Initially, we characterized the sample as presented in Table 1. The sample was mostly homogeneous with unpaired
groups. There was a significant difference only between groups with regard to
marital status, schooling, and school repetition.
Table 1 - Characterization of the sample.
Variables |
Total sample (n = 160)
|
Cleft Lip and Palate Group (n = 80)
|
Control Group (n = 80)
|
p value*
|
Age group (years) |
|
|
|
|
12–18 |
103 (64.4) |
53 (66.3) |
50 (62.5) |
0.741 |
≥19 |
57 (35.6) |
27 (33.8) |
30 (37.5) |
Gender |
|
|
|
|
Male |
75 (46.9) |
42 (52.5) |
33 (41.3) |
0.205 |
Female |
85 (53.1) |
38 (47.5) |
47 (58.8) |
Marital status |
|
|
|
|
Not married |
128 (80.0) |
71 (88.8)
† |
57 (71.3) |
0.015 |
Married |
25 (15.6) |
8 (10.0) |
17 (21.3)
† |
Divorced/Widowed |
7 (4.4) |
1 (1.3) |
6 (7.5) |
Education |
|
|
|
|
Incomplete elementary |
71 (44.4) |
50 (62.5)
† |
21 (26.3) |
<0.001 |
Complete elementary |
32 (20.0) |
10 (12.5) |
22 (27.5)
† |
High school/College |
57 (35.6) |
20 (25.0) |
37 (46.3)
† |
School retention |
|
|
|
|
Yes |
59 (36.9) |
41 (51.3) |
18 (22.5) |
<0.001 |
No |
101 (63.1) |
39 (48.8) |
62 (77.5) |
Economic strata |
|
|
|
|
E |
36 (22.5) |
17 (21.3) |
19 (23.8) |
0.730 |
D |
48 (30.0) |
22 (27.5) |
26 (32.5) |
C |
69 (43.1) |
38 (47.5) |
31 (38.8) |
B |
7 (4.4) |
3 (3.8) |
4 (5.0) |
Family situation in childhood |
|
|
|
|
Nuclear |
106 (66.3) |
59 (73.8) |
47 (58.8) |
0.133 |
Reconstituted |
44 (27.5) |
17 (21.3) |
27 (33.8) |
Others |
10 (6.3) |
4 (5.0) |
6 (7.5) |
Current family situation |
|
|
|
|
Nuclear |
88 (55.0) |
48 (60.0) |
40 (50.0) |
0.203 |
Reconstituted |
53 (33.1) |
25 (31.3) |
28 (35.0) |
Others |
10 (6.3) |
2 (2.5) |
8 (10.0) |
Living alone |
9 (5.6) |
5 (6.3) |
4 (5.0) |
Table 1 - Characterization of the sample.
A significant association was observed between CLP and self-esteem
(p = 0.046). The CLP group had a significantly higher
proportion of individuals with normal and low self-esteem, as can be seen in
Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Association between self-esteem and cleft lip and palate.
Figure 1 - Association between self-esteem and cleft lip and palate.
In the analysis of the CLP group shown in Table 2, the variables that were found to be associated with low
self-esteem in the CLP group were female gender, incomplete elementary education
or complete elementary education, D/E strata, and reconstituted family during
childhood.
Table 2 - Multinomial logistic regression analysis to assess factors
independently associated with normal and low self-esteem.
Variables |
Normal self-esteem |
Low self-esteem |
Adjusted OR (95% CI)
|
p value
|
Adjusted OR (95% CI)
|
p value
|
CLP group |
2.20 (0.90-5.40)
|
0.085 |
3.86 (1.15-12.9)
|
0.028 |
Women |
1.82 (0.80-4.13)
|
0.153 |
3.18 (1.07-9.50)
|
0.038 |
Level of schooling |
|
|
|
|
Incomplete elementary |
1.70 (0.63-4.55)
|
0.293 |
4.74 (1.11-20.2)
|
0.035 |
Complete elementary |
1.01 (0.33-3.13)
|
0.989 |
5.29 (1.16-24.1)
|
0.032 |
With school retention |
1.53 (0.56-4.16)
|
0.405 |
0.64 (0.18-2.27)
|
0.491 |
Class of D/E |
1.35 (0.59-3.08)
|
0.483 |
4.44 (1.40-14.1)
|
0.012 |
Childhood family situation |
|
|
|
|
Nuclear |
1.0 |
|
1.0 |
|
Reconstituted |
1.63 (0.58-4.56)
|
0.353 |
4.19 (1.16-15.1)
|
0.029 |
Other |
0.38 (0.07-1.97)
|
0.250 |
1.08 (0.18-6.63)
|
0.934 |
Table 2 - Multinomial logistic regression analysis to assess factors
independently associated with normal and low self-esteem.
Table 3 shows the group under study. With
regard to the classification of the cleft, 64 (80.0%) individuals had lip and
palate clefts, 56 (70.0%) had unilateral clefts, and 65 (81.2%) had complete
clefts. With regard to treatment location for CLP, 47 individuals (58.8%) were
operated by the plastic surgery service only at HCPA, whereas 14 (17.5%)
underwent all surgeries at other institution(s) but were referred to the Cleft
Lip and Palate Ambulatory for further assistance; 19 (23.8%) patients underwent
surgical procedures at other institution(s) and the plastic surgery service.
Table 3 - Characterization of the CLP group.
Variables |
Total sample (n = 80) |
Classification of the cleft |
|
Lip and palate |
64 (80.0) |
Lip |
12 (15.0) |
Palate |
4 (5.0) |
Unilateral |
56 (70.0) |
Bilateral |
24 (30.0) |
Complete |
65 (81.2) |
Incomplete |
15 (18.8) |
Repair surgery |
|
Lip surgery only |
12 (15.0) |
Palatal surgery only |
4 (5.0) |
Lip + palatal surgery |
64 (80.0) |
Treatment |
|
Only at HCPA |
47 (58.8) |
Other institution(s) and HCPA |
33 (41.2) |
Evaluation of the results by the assisting team
regarding the following:
|
|
Communication |
|
Good |
31 (38.8) |
Fair |
19 (23.8) |
Bad |
30 (37.5) |
Dentition |
|
Good |
36 (45.0) |
Fair |
12 (15.0) |
Bad |
32 (40.0) |
Lip |
|
Good |
39 (48.8) |
Fair |
21 (26.3) |
Bad |
20 (25.0) |
Nose |
|
Good |
53 (66.3) |
Fair |
13 (16.3) |
Bad |
14 (17.5) |
Patient outcome |
|
Pleased |
20 (25.0) |
Dissatisfied |
60 (75.0) |
What do they want to change? |
|
Communication |
21 (26.3) |
Teeth |
35 (43.8) |
Lip |
31 (38.8) |
Nose |
17 (21.3) |
Table 3 - Characterization of the CLP group.
According to the assisting team for patients with CLP, the communication skills
of 31 (38.8%) patients was considered to be good, and 30 (37.5%) were assessed
to have poor communication skills. With regard to dentition, 36 (45.0%) were
evaluated to have good dentition, and 32 (40.0%) were found to have poor
dentition. Furthermore, according to the team, the lip aesthetics of 39 (48.8%)
individuals were considered to be good, whereas nose aesthetics were considered
to be good in 53 (66.3%) of the affected individuals.
Of the patients with CLP, 60 (75.0%) were dissatisfied with one or more of the
evaluated items, and dentition presented the highest indices for
dissatisfaction, 35 individuals (43.8%), followed by lip aesthetics with 31
(38.8%) dissatisfied individuals. The number of complaints concerning
communication and nose aesthetics was lower, as shown in Table 3.
Table 4 describes the association between
low self-esteem and fissure classification (p = 0.026).
Patients who had undergone only lip surgery (for cleft lip) were associated with
higher self-esteem than others (p = 0.047). Further, an
association between the quality of communication and dentition and self-esteem
(p < 0.001 and p = 0.031, respectively)
was also observed.
Table 4 - Association of cleft lip and palate group variables with
self-esteem.
Variables |
High self-esteem (n = 15)
|
Normal self-esteem (n = 47)
|
Low self-esteem (n = 18)
|
p value
|
Classification of the cleft |
|
|
|
|
Lip and palate |
10 (66.7) |
39(83.0) |
15 (83.3) |
0.241 |
Lip |
5 (33.3) |
5 (10.6) |
2 (11.1) |
Palate |
0 (0.0) |
3 (6.4) |
1 (5.6) |
Unilateral |
12 (80.0) |
36 (76.6) |
8 (44.4) |
0.026 |
Bilateral |
3 (20.0) |
11 (23.4) |
10 (55.6) |
Complete |
11 (73.3) |
38 (80.9) |
16 (88.9) |
0.519 |
Incomplete |
4 (26.7) |
9 (19.1) |
2 (11.1) |
Repair surgery |
|
|
|
|
Lip |
6 (40.0) |
4 (8.5) |
2 (11.1) |
0.047 |
Palate |
0 (0.0) |
3 (6.4) |
1 (5.6) |
Lip + Palate |
9 (60.0) |
40 (85.1) |
15 (83.3) |
Evaluation of the results by the
supporting team regarding:
|
Communication |
|
|
|
|
Good |
11 (73.3) |
18 (38.3) |
2 (11.1) |
< 0.001 |
Fair |
3 (20.0) |
14 (29.8) |
2 (11.1) |
Bad |
1 (6.7) |
15 (31.9) |
14 (77.8) |
Dentition |
|
|
|
|
Good |
11 (73.3) |
18 (38.3) |
7 (38.9) |
0.031 |
Fair |
0 (0.0) |
11 (23.4) |
1 (5.6) |
Bad |
4 (26.7) |
18 (38.3) |
10 (55.6) |
Lip |
|
|
|
|
Good |
12 (80.0) |
22 (46.8) |
5 (27.8) |
0.052 |
Fair |
2 (13.3) |
12 (25.5) |
7 (38.9) |
Bad |
1 (6.7) |
13 (27.7) |
6 (33.3) |
Nose |
|
|
|
|
Good |
13 (86.7) |
31 (66.0) |
9 (50.0) |
0.112 |
Fair |
1 (6.7) |
6 (12.8) |
6 (33.3) |
Bad |
1 (6.7) |
10 (21.3) |
3 (16.7) |
Patient Outcome |
|
|
|
|
Pleased |
10 (66.7) |
10 (21.3) |
0 (0.0) |
< 0.001 |
Dissatisfied |
5 (33.3) |
37 (78.7) |
18 (100) |
What do they want to change |
|
|
|
|
Communication |
0 (0.0) |
9 (19.1) |
12 (66.7) |
< 0.001 |
Teeth |
3 (20.0) |
21 (44.7) |
11 (61.1) |
0.059 |
Lip |
1 (6.7) |
19 (40.4) |
11 (61.1) |
0.006 |
Nose |
2 (13.3) |
10 (21.3) |
5 (27.8) |
0.600 |
Table 4 - Association of cleft lip and palate group variables with
self-esteem.
Individuals who wanted to improve communication and lip aesthetics were more
likely to have a low self-esteem (p < 0.001 and
p = 0.006, respectively). Finally, all those who were
affected and had a low self-esteem wanted to improve their results
(p < 0.001).
DISCUSSION
Patients’ perception of CLP with regard to its impact on their life is recognized
as an important health indicator. There is a notable consensus in the reports
from CLP patients concerning the difficulties faced by them and the set of
negative emotions involved, such as anxiety, fear of social assessment, low
self-esteem, unfavorable body image, and social phobia7,8.
Self-esteem is considered an important indicator of mental health9 and one of the factors that interferes the
most with human relations, educational progress, and psychosocial development.
RSES is currently the most widely used instrument for the evaluation of
self-esteem worldwide6 and is widely
accepted in the scientific community.
The results of this study indicate that single status, low educational level, and
school repetition are seen in a higher proportion in patients with CLP than in
non-affected individuals.
Some studies10,11 have indicated on the association of CLP
with school performance of affected individuals. Consequently, these individuals
also present higher rates of school retention. The emotional aspects of children
with CLP interfere with their learning ability in early school years. There is
no report associating facial deformity with intellectual deficit; on the
contrary, children with CLP have intellectual conditions similar to those of
children considered normal for good school performance.
A school is a child’s first non-family contact with the society, and facial
aesthetics form the first impression one makes of an individual. Children with
CLP are not spared criticism by their peers, which in turn negatively affects
their academic, social, and emotional lives. School failure may also be related
to changes in auditory function and/or communication, which are essential for
the learning process.
We observed that young adults with CLP feel greater difficulty in an
interpersonal and affective relationship, in accordance with previous
results12. This fact is evident in
adolescence, as it is during this phase that a greater concern with physical
appearance arises. If individuals do not feel satisfied with their appearance,
they develop a feeling of inferiority and become insecure.
In the self-esteem analysis in this study, significant indices of low self-esteem
were observed in women. Studies indicate that women express a greater
dissatisfaction level with their appearance; this feeling is justified given
the
society pressure on women to have an attractive appearance13,14.
Thus, women with CLP feel inferior, making it difficult for them to have social
and affective interactions.
In the analysis concerning family structure, we observed low self-esteem in
patients with CLP whose families during childhood did not include a father and
a
mother. The experience of parental separation or non-cohabitation of one of the
parents causes psycho-emotional damage with varying degrees of intensity in all
children.
Experiencing parental separation may have a more negative repercussion in
individuals with CLP because in addition to living with the difficulties related
to the condition, the lack of a family structure causes the feelings of
insecurity. A family structure during childhood represents a significant maker
for the affected patients as parents play an important role in the
treatment.
CLP is also associated with the socioeconomic status of the individuals affected
in the adult phase15. The results of this
study show that the most disadvantaged economic classes (strata D/E) have a
higher index of low self-esteem.
Individuals with CLP who experience social exclusion, along with the
abovementioned problems, have difficulties with professional success because
besides requiring technical and emotional competence, the professional industry
seeks people with leadership and good communication skills.
An association between bilateral clefts of the lip and/or palate and low
self-esteem was observed while evaluating factors related to affection.
Bilateral clefts cause greater aesthetic damage, and it is more difficult to
achieve satisfactory results in these patients. Concerning the classification
of
clefts, most individuals who underwent lip surgery without compromising the
palate had a high self-esteem.
Patients who expressed dissatisfaction with lip aesthetics and phonation were
more likely to have low self-esteem. All patients with low self-esteem wanted
to
improve their results with regard to aesthetics, lip, nose, or dentition, or
functional aspects of communication.
These results agree with the results of other studies on this topic as all issues
faced by the patients with CLP with regard to communication, scar of the lip,
and dentition are shown to be directly related to their self-esteem.
CONCLUSION
Individuals with CLP have low levels of self-esteem compared with non-affected
individuals.
Among patients with CLP, the subgroup of individuals with bilateral clefts,
complete clefts, female gender, economic strata D/E, low educational level,
families reconstituted during childhood, and with dissatisfaction with treatment
results concerning communication, dentition, and scar further have lower rates
of self-esteem.
Individuals with CLP have significant psycho-emotional fragility that should be
considered during their treatment. In addition to medical, speech, and dental
care, nurses, and geneticists, they need psychological support throughout their
growth, development, and rehabilitation periods for the condition.
COLLABORATIONS
AG
|
Analysis and/or interpretation of data; statistical analyses;
conception and design of the study; writing the manuscript or
critical review of its contents.
|
SSC
|
Analysis and/or interpretation of data; conception and design of the
study; writing the manuscript or critical review of its
contents.
|
MVMC
|
Analysis and/or interpretation of data; statistical analyses;
conception and design of the study; writing the manuscript or
critical review of its contents.
|
REFERENCES
1. Dixon MJ, Marazita ML, Beaty TH, Murray JC. Cleft lip and palate:
understanding genetic and environmental influences. Nat Rev Genet.
2011;12(3):167-78. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrg2933
2. Tannure PN, Oliveira CA, Maia LC, Vieira AR, Granjeiro JM, Costa Mde
C. Prevalence of dental anomalies in nonsyndromic individuals with cleft lip
and
palate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.
2012;49(2):194-200. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1597/10-043
3. Chuo CB, Searle Y, Jeremy A, Richard BM, Sharp I, Slator R. The
continuing multidisciplinary needs of adult patients with cleft lip and/or
palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(6):633-8. PMID: 18956932 DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1597/07-048.1
4. Coutinho ALF, Lima MC, Kitamura MAP, Ferreira Neto J, Pereira RM.
Perfil epidemiológico dos portadores de fissura orofaciais atendidos em um
Centro de Referência do Nordeste do Brasil. Rev Bras Saúde Matern Infant.
2009;9(2):149-56. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1519-38292009000200004
5. Santos P, Maia J. Análise factorial confirmatória e validação
preliminar de uma versão portuguesa da escala de auto-estima de Rosenberg.
Psicol Teor Invest Prát. 2003;2:253-68.
6. Sbicigo JB, Bandeira DR, Dell’Aglio DD. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(RSS): factorial validity and internal consistency. Psico-USF.
2010;15(3):395-403. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-82712010000300012
7. Bastos PRHO, Gardenal M, Bogo D. The Social Adjustment of Bearers of
Craniofacial Abnormalities and the Humanist Praxis. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol.
2008;12(2):280-8.
8. Noor SN, Musa S. Assessment of patients’ level of satisfaction with
cleft treatment using the Cleft Evaluation Profile. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.
2007;44(3):292-303. PMID: 17477746 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1597/05-151
9. Roberts RM, Mathias JL. Psychosocial functioning in adults with
congenital craniofacial conditions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(3):276-85.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1597/10-143
10. Broder HL, Richman LC, Matheson PB. Learning disability, school
achievement, and grade retention among children with cleft: a two-center study.
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1998;35(2):127-31. PMID: 9527309 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(1998)035<0127:LDSAAG>2.3.CO;2
11. Domingues ABC, Picolini MM, Lauris JRP, Maximino LP. Desempenho
escolar de alunos com fissura labiopalatina no julgamento de seus professores.
Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2011;16(3):310-6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-80342011000300012
12. Ribeiro EM, Moreira ASCG. Atualização sobre o tratamento
multidisciplinar das fissuras labiais e palatinas. Rev Bras Promoç Saúde.
2005;18(1):31-40.
13. Andrade D, Angerami ELS. A auto-estima em adolescentes com e sem
fissuras de lábio e/ou de palato. Rev Latinoam Enferm. 2001;9(6):37-41. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-11692001000600007
14. Singh VP, Moss TP. Psychological impact of visible differences in
patients with congenital craniofacial anomalies. Prog Orthod. 2015;16:5. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-015-0078-9
15. Chan RK, McPherson B, Whitehill TL. Chinese attitudes toward cleft
lip and palate: effects of personal contact. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.
2006;43(6):731-9. PMID: 17105325 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1597/05-111
1. Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Porto
Alegre, RS, Brazil.
2. Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal do
Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Corresponding author: Alesandra
Glaeser
Rua João Ernesto Schmidt, 251/701
Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Zip Code 91210-125
E-mail: aglaeser@hcpa.edu.br
Article received: November 10, 2017.
Article accepted: May 17, 2018.
Conflicts of interest: none.