Introduction: Cleft lip and palate (CL/P) requires timely, long-term multidisciplinary care to optimize functional and psychosocial outcomes. Southeast Asia faces substantial disparities in healthcare resources and geographic access, yet evidence on cleft care accessibility across the region remains fragmented. This scoping review mapped barriers and facilitators influencing access to cleft care in Southeast Asia.
Methods: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and PRISMA-ScR. A comprehensive search of PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Wiley Online Library was performed using controlled vocabulary (MeSH where applicable), free-text terms, synonyms, and related terms for CL/P, healthcare access, and Southeast Asian countries. Study selection was conducted in Covidence according to predefined eligibility criteria. Data were charted and synthesized using thematic analysis.
Results: Sixty-four studies were included. Five categories of barriers were identified: financial (travel costs, low socioeconomic status), geographic (long travel distance), health system (challenging referral procedures, prolonged surgical waiting times, inadequate facilities, absence of a follow-up reminder system), workforce (limited trained medical personnel), and information, communication, and health literacy (limited knowledge of available cleft services, language barriers, low health literacy, limited communication skills). Facilitators were grouped into five domains: health information and patient education (social media, guidebooks, translated CLEFT-Q/assessment tools, specialist and peer advice), care coordination and service delivery innovations (telemedicine, community-based speech therapy, speech camps, treatment scheduling method, integrated care and referral systems), workplace capacity building (training programs), health system strengthening (registries, geographic information systems, information and communication technology, healthcare networks), and community and organizational support (NGOs, volunteer mission teams, healthcare insurance).
Conclusion: Access to cleft care in Southeast Asia remains limited by multiple barriers. Improving outcomes requires context-specific strategies, stronger health systems, and regional collaboration. Future research should address psychosocial factors, cultural beliefs, and patient and family perspectives.