3.9 Article

Psychosocial Functioning in Adults With Congenital Craniofacial Conditions

Journal

CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL
Volume 49, Issue 3, Pages 276-285

Publisher

ALLIANCE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP DIVISION ALLEN PRESS
DOI: 10.1597/10-143

Keywords

adults; craniofacial; outcomes; psychosocial; quality of life

Funding

  1. Faculty of Health Science, University of Adelaide

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To examine the psychosocial functioning of adults with congenital craniofacial conditions relative to normative data. Design: Single sample cross-sectional design. Setting: The Australian Craniofacial Unit, Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide, which is one of the main craniofacial treatment centers in Australia. Participants: Adults (N = 93) with congenital craniofacial conditions (excluding cleft lip/palate) who were treated in the Australian Craniofacial Unit. Main Outcome Measures: All participants completed self-report scales assessing health-related quality of life (SF-36); life satisfaction, anxiety, and depression (HADS); self-esteem (Rosenberg); appearance-related concerns; perceived social support; and social anxiety. Results: Overall, participants were very similar in psychosocial function to the general population. However, adults with craniofacial conditions were less likely to be married and have children (females), were more likely to be receiving a disability pension, and reported more appearance-related concerns and less social support from friends. They also reported more limitations in both their social activities, due to physical or emotional problems, and usual role activities, because of emotional problems, as well as poorer mental health. Conclusions: These results give cause to be very positive about the long-term outcomes of children who are undergoing treatment for craniofacial conditions, while also identifying specific areas that interventions could target.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available