Table 1.
Description of selected pupil characteristics by categories of Special Education Needs provision in Year One.
Fig 1.
Diagram depicting cohort derivation. This figure depicts the derivation of the cohort starting from combining births in hospital episode statistics with evidence of cleft lip and/or palate between 2003 and 2013 who are linkable to the national pupil database between 2008/2009 and 2018/2019. Exclusion criteria were: pupils with multiple links between hospital episode statistics and the national pupil database, had no record in reception class, has no birth record in hospital episode statistics, has a recorded major congenital anomaly in hospital episode statistics, a first phenotypical recording of cleft lip and/or palate after reception, an unknown cleft lip and/or palate type, conflicting date information (e.g., linked mortality data states a death before school start), and a recorded attendance at a special school.
Table 2.
Description of the study outcomes by categories of SEN provision in Year 1(a).
Table 3.
Estimated causal rate ratios (RaR) and causal risk ratios (RiR) of the effect of Special Education Needs Support versus No provision for unplanned hospitalization and absences by estimation method.
Fig 2.
Predicted propensity score distributions by observed special educational needs category for Special Educational Needs Support versus None.
This diagram depicts the density distribution of the probability of receiving SEN Support in reference to None. Predictors used to estimate treatment probability included: gender, gestational age, birthweight category, maternal age, ethnic group, language group, income deprivation affecting children index quintile, free school meal eligibility, academic year, type of cleft lip and/or palate, chronic conditions, early years foundation profile z-score and relative age.
Fig 3.
Predicted propensity score distribution by observed special educational needs category for Education and Healthcare Plan versus None.
This diagram depicts the density distribution of the probability of receiving an Education and Healthcare Plan in reference to None. Predictors used to estimate treatment probability included: gender, gestational age, birthweight category, maternal age, ethnic group, language group, income deprivation affecting children index quintile, free school meal eligibility, academic year, type of cleft lip and/or palate, chronic conditions, early years foundation profile z-score.
Fig 4.
Predicted propensity score distribution by observed special educational needs category for Education and Healthcare Plan versus Special Education Needs Support.
This diagram depicts the density distribution of the probability of receiving an Education and Healthcare Plan in reference to Special Education Needs Support. Predictors used to estimate treatment probability included: gender, gestational age, birthweight category, maternal age, ethnic group, language group, income deprivation affecting children index quintile, free school meal eligibility, academic year, type of cleft lip and/or palate, chronic conditions, early years foundation profile z-score.
Table 4.
Estimated causal mean differences (Δ) of the effect of SEN Support versus No SEN provision for key stage test results by estimation method.
Table 5.
Estimated causal rate ratios (RR) and causal odds ratios (OR) of the effect of Special Education Needs Support versus No provision for unplanned hospitalization and absences restricted to follow-up up to end of Year Two, by estimation methods.