Protocol for a Qualitative Study on the Acceptability of High‐ and Low‐Intensity Speech Intervention in Children With Cleft Palate: Perceptions of Children, Their Caregivers and Speech–Language Pathologists

What is already known on this subject There is an increasing interest in assessing the effectiveness of intensive speech therapy interventions in children with CP ± L. Several quantitative studies have demonstrated positive speech outcomes following high-intensity interventions. Nevertheless, the extent to which both recipients and providers perceive these interventions as acceptable remains uncertain. This study aims to compare the acceptability of high-intensity speech therapy (i.e., 5 × 30 min/week for 2 × 4 weeks [2 × 10 h]) with low-intensity speech therapy (i.e., 2 × 30 min/week for 20 weeks [20 h]), from the viewpoint of children with CP ± L, their caregivers, and primary care SLPs. What this study adds This study will contribute significantly to the existing literature by examining the perceptions and acceptability of high-intensity speech intervention among children with CP ± L. By investigating the differences between high- and low-intensity speech therapy approaches, it aims to provide valuable insights into the acceptability and feasibility of these interventions from the viewpoint of both recipients and providers. These findings will be crucial for informing clinical practices and enhancing the delivery of speech therapy services to children with CP ± L, ultimately striving for optimal outcomes in their speech development and overall well-being. What are the clinical implications of this study? Depending on the findings of this study, we might have to rethink the conventional methods of delivering cleft speech interventions, often characterized by low-intensity speech therapy. By comparing perceptions of high- and low-intensity speech interventions, we aim to identify the most feasible and acceptable method for both recipients and providers. Insights gained from this study could lead to improvements in the overall delivery of speech therapy services, potentially enhancing treatment adherence and outcomes for children with CP ± L, guiding clinical practice with evidence-based recommendations.