ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2016
Psychosocial acceptance of cleft patients: has something changed?
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Novel Approach to Intermediate Cleft Rhinoplasty Utilizing a Pedicled Fibrofatty Flap.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum to: Psychosocial acceptance of cleft patients: has something changed?2016 · Nattapong, Sirintawat [Corrected to Sirintawat, Nattapong]
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe main purpose of this study was to analyse the reactions of a panel (non-cleft adults) when observing cleft lip morphology. Although rehabilitation of cleft lip and palate is improving, there are still indications of social rejection of cleft patients by the people around them. Polarity profiles have been used since 1973 to measure social distance with regard to cleft patients. Because rehabilitation results and education of the society have improved in recent decades, we investigated whether social distance has been affected.
settingThe setting of this study is the Department of Oral, Craniomaxillofacial, and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital of Leipzig, Germany PATIENTS AND
participantsUsing a cross-sectional study design, we enrolled a sample of adult laypersons (n = 273). For the survey, we followed the concept of photograph presentation and questionnaire investigation reported by Sergl and Schmid (1973). We presented anonymised frontal and profile pictures of the faces of 50 cleft patients and asked the laypersons to specify social distance. Three predictor variables (layperson gender, profession and year of evaluation) were grouped.
resultsAlthough social distance has reduced during the last 40 years, life situations which require emotional proximity still cause some concern. Professional background and gender affect laypersons' attitudes.
conclusionAlthough rehabilitation of cleft lip and palate is much better than 40 years ago, social distance remains a problem in society. It is necessary to improve both results of rehabilitation of cleft patients and social acceptance by the people around them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26212596What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.