A Qualitative Exploration of Barriers and Facilitators to Changing Provider's Current Evaluation and Treatment Decision-Making for Velopharyngeal Insufficiency

ObjectiveTo identify barriers and facilitators to changing provider's current approaches to evaluation and treatment decision-making for velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI).DesignCross-sectional qualitative study.SettingMedium and large multidisciplinary cleft teams in the USA and Canada engaged in clinical research.ParticipantsTwenty-eight surgeons and 16 speech-language pathologists from 12 cleft teams.InterventionsSemi-structured interviews were conducted exploring perceived barriers and facilitators to changing VPI evaluation and treatment decision-making. Interviews were analyzed using a thematic approach guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.ResultsProviders indicated that adoption of new approaches to VPI evaluation and decision-making would require evidence demonstrating improved speech outcomes or reduced risk of obstructive sleep apnea. Characteristics of persuasive evidence included prospective study design, comparable patient groups, standardized speech evaluations, and long-term follow-up. Providers favored applying new approaches to complex cases or defined subgroups, rather than broad adoption. Providers raised concerns about additional preoperative testing, perceiving it could increase treatment burden. When reflecting on prior changes in care delivery, providers indicated they started by discussing the potential change informally with team members to share information, gather input, and build consensus; in larger teams, discussions also occurred in formal meetings or through administrative hierarchies. Implementation decisions were consensus-based, although the pace of implementation varied among providers.ConclusionsProviders have processes for implementing changes in their VPI evaluation and treatment decision-making, and criteria by which they make the decision to implement. These findings can inform the design of implementation strategies to accelerate clinical uptake of research findings.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Published
2026-10-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656261496717
Primary Topic
Cleft Lip and Palate Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Qualitative Exploration of Barriers and Facilitators to Changing Provider's Current Evaluation and Treatment Decision-Making for Velopharyngeal Insufficiency

Thomas J. Sitzman, Erica M. Weidler
The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Cleft Lip and Palate Research
article

A Qualitative Exploration of Barriers and Facilitators to Changing Provider's Current Evaluation and Treatment Decision-Making for Velopharyngeal Insufficiency

Thomas J. Sitzman, Erica M. Weidler
article en

Abstract

ObjectiveTo identify barriers and facilitators to changing provider's current approaches to evaluation and treatment decision-making for velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI).DesignCross-sectional qualitative study.SettingMedium and large multidisciplinary cleft teams in the USA and Canada engaged in clinical research.ParticipantsTwenty-eight surgeons and 16 speech-language pathologists from 12 cleft teams.InterventionsSemi-structured interviews were conducted exploring perceived barriers and facilitators to changing VPI evaluation and treatment decision-making. Interviews were analyzed using a thematic approach guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.ResultsProviders indicated that adoption of new approaches to VPI evaluation and decision-making would require evidence demonstrating improved speech outcomes or reduced risk of obstructive sleep apnea. Characteristics of persuasive evidence included prospective study design, comparable patient groups, standardized speech evaluations, and long-term follow-up. Providers favored applying new approaches to complex cases or defined subgroups, rather than broad adoption. Providers raised concerns about additional preoperative testing, perceiving it could increase treatment burden. When reflecting on prior changes in care delivery, providers indicated they started by discussing the potential change informally with team members to share information, gather input, and build consensus; in larger teams, discussions also occurred in formal meetings or through administrative hierarchies. Implementation decisions were consensus-based, although the pace of implementation varied among providers.ConclusionsProviders have processes for implementing changes in their VPI evaluation and treatment decision-making, and criteria by which they make the decision to implement. These findings can inform the design of implementation strategies to accelerate clinical uptake of research findings.

The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Phoenix Children's Hospital (US), Mayo Clinic in Arizona (US), University of Arizona College of Medicine- Phoenix (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Cleft Lip and Palate Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.