The combined effects of prenatal alcohol exposure and childhood trauma: findings from a four-year research project at the University of Salford.

By Alan Price, PhD

Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is the range of conditions that can be caused by prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE). People with FASD can have a wide range of physical and mental difficulties, especially with planning, attention, impulsivity, coordination, social communication, emotional arousal, and memory. These difficulties can impact daily living, school, work, social relationships, and long-term health and wellbeing. In the UK, it is estimated that at least 3%, and possibly up to 17% of the population would qualify for a diagnosis on the foetal alcohol spectrum, although the majority will never be diagnosed. FASD has been known about for several decades but does not yet receive appropriate attention in schools and universities, meaning that many doctors, teachers, social workers and other professionals are not trained to spot the signs of FASD. This can leave children and adults with FASD struggling with the academic and social demands of everyday life without the support they need. Unsupported, people with FASD are more likely to be excluded from school, lose their job, struggle with addictions, and be convicted of a crime. FASD is thought to be especially common in looked after and adopted children and care leavers. Many of these individuals also have histories of traumatic experiences such as abuse or neglect in early childhood, which are also known to lead to developmental difficulties similar to those seen in FASD.

Photo by Ksenia Makagonova on Unsplash

I came to the University of Salford in 2015 to conduct research on the combined effects of PAE and childhood trauma. The project was offered as a funded PhD in partnership with the National FASD clinic in Surrey. I had just completed my degree in psychology and already had some experience in alcohol research, but like many others I had never heard of FASD. The first stage of the project was a thorough review of the published literature on FASD and trauma. I was surprised to see that very little research had been published on the combined effects of both exposures, only five studies in fact, but there did seem to be an interesting pattern of results emerging. Taken together, the studies suggested that children with both PAE and trauma were functionally similar to children with just PAE but tended to have more difficulties than children with just trauma. This suggests that, where children have both exposures, PAE is more likely to be the primary driving force behind those children’s difficulties. The published studies had tended to focus on speech, language and communication, but other areas of functioning still needed to be addressed. Therefore, during the next stage of the project I conducted studies into brain functioning, intelligence, working memory (the ability to hold and manipulate information in the short-term), inhibitory control (the ability to stop oneself from performing an action that feels natural), empathy (an understanding of the perspective and emotional state of other people) and behavioural difficulties in children with PAE, about half of whom also had a history of trauma. I was interested to see whether the children with both exposures had similar or more severe difficulties than the children with just PAE.

Using a brain-imaging technology, functional near infra-red spectroscopy (fnirs), to look at brain activity

Since FASD is largely a hidden condition, I suspected that recruitment of participants would be challenging. Most of my participants were recruited via social media, especially online FASD support groups, which had been set up by families affected by FASD to provide mutual support and information. In order to access as many participants as possible, I used an anonymous online questionnaire to ask parents and carers about their children’s PAE, trauma, empathy and behavioural problems. The strategy worked, and 245 parents or carers completed the questionnaire, many more than I had expected. As well as UK respondents, many were from the United States and Canada, which reflected the populations of the online support groups. To make as much use as possible out of the participants, I invited the UK respondents to bring their children in for some further assessments. Many of the families lived outside of the Greater Manchester area where we are based, and I only had funding to offer £10 for travel expenses, but an amazing 25 families affected by FASD came into the university, some travelling hundreds of miles at their own expense to get here. In the lab, I used a brain-imaging technology called functional near infra-red spectroscopy (fnirs) to look at brain activity, a standard IQ test to measure intelligence, and puzzles to assess working memory and inhibitory control. Finally, I also conducted interviews with 12 parents and caregivers, to explore their experiences of raising a child or children with FASD.

The results of the questionnaire and lab studies between them supported the findings of the literature review. Children with both PAE and trauma had similar brain activity, intelligence, empathy, inhibitory control, and working memory to children with just PAE. In terms of behavioural difficulties, children with both exposures had a slight tendency to have more severe conduct problems than children with just PAE, but their emotional functioning was similar. The studies also showed that children with PAE have high levels of childhood trauma, severe behavioural difficulties and poor empathy compared to typically developing children, although intelligence, working memory and inhibitory control were within the average range. In the interviews, parents’ experiences were fairly consistent, and there was little difference between the experiences of parents of children with and without trauma. I asked parents about their children’s behavioural difficulties, which I expected would be described as stress inducing. This was the case, although parents also described many positive experiences. However, even though I didn’t specifically ask, every family described some level of stress caused by dealing with service providers. Doctors and other healthcare workers often didn’t understand and were unable or reluctant to diagnose FASD. Adoption agencies and social workers were accused of playing down the impact of PAE in order to secure a placement, then leaving families to deal with FASD with no specific support or training. Parents and children were offered services designed for trauma and attachment issues, even when children had no history of trauma. There was a widespread lack of understanding and lack of services designed to deal with FASD, and this seemed to be the most stressful part of their experiences. 

Taken together, the results of the published studies, questionnaires, lab studies and interviews show that children with both PAE and a history of trauma appear to function similarly to children with just PAE and tend to have more severe difficulties than children with just trauma. Therefore, the difficulties seen in children with both of these exposures seem to be primarily caused by PAE rather than childhood trauma. Based on these findings, my recommendation would be that children seen in care, school, or in a medical setting, who have both PAE and a history of trauma, should be thought of more as a child with FASD than a child with a history of trauma. The trauma absolutely should not be overlooked, as it will definitely have had an impact, but in terms of interventions, therapies and strategies, those designed specifically for FASD may be more effective than those designed for trauma. These conclusions have led to a new project; my colleagues and I are currently developing a parent training programme designed specifically for FASD issues, something which is currently missing in the UK. The full thesis is available in the University of Salford institutional repository.

Twitter: @alandavidprice1

Email: A.D.Price2@salford.ac.uk

My PhD Journey, by Dr Faye Prior

My PhD journey started when I joined the University of Salford in 2015. Before this I had completed a BSc in Sport & Exercise Science and an MSc in Clinical Exercise Physiology, followed by several years working as a researcher in the health technology industry. Along the way I had also completed qualifications in gym instruction and exercise referral instruction. Therefore, the planets aligned well when an opportunity arose to complete a PhD about exercise referral schemes, combining research experience with personal interests.

Exercise referral schemes are one of the most common approaches to increasing physical activity levels in people with long term conditions, providing access to individualised exercise programmes and support from qualified exercise professionals. There are hundreds of these schemes operating across the UK, illustrating their popularity as a method of physical activity promotion. However, the evidence base underpinning the effectiveness of these schemes to-date has been poor. The aim of my PhD was to contribute to this evidence base, by evaluating Tameside’s “Live Active” exercise referral scheme.

Fortunately, the scope of my PhD was quite broad, meaning that I could develop and practice a wide range of research skills. The majority of my data was quantitative, some of which was secondary data collected by the scheme, and some of which I collected using accelerometers. With so many different types of data, I found myself conducting several types of statistical analyses, from simple to complex statistical tests, several of which I was trying for the first time! Fortunately, I was able to take a break from all of this quantitative data, by conducting a qualitative study. This was the most enjoyable chapter for me, and in the end, turned out to be a very important chapter, revealing findings that were central to my final conclusions.

Margaret and Faye
Dr Faye Prior with supervisor Dr Margaret Coffey at graduation

In March 2019 my PhD journey came to an end, when I successfully defended my thesis at the viva. Following this, I was fortunate enough to be offered a position as a senior research associate at the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Health inequalities were an important consideration in my thesis, and have always been an area of interest and motivation, so this is a fantastic opportunity to explore equality and human rights more broadly. I have no doubt that I would not be in this position, if it were not for the research and transferable skills that I developed throughout my PhD, with the help of my fantastic supervisors, Dr Margaret Coffey, Dr Anna Robins, and Prof Penny Cook. By the end of your PhD, you will have developed more skills than you may realise, some of which will be quite broad and highly valuable, and you must not forget this when planning your next steps after the PhD!

Of course, for myself, and many other students, the PhD journey provided an opportunity to experience and practice more than just the intricate details of research study. Throughout the three years I attended several conferences, both home and abroad, sharing the findings of my research through posters and oral presentations. I also met several other researchers at these conferences, with the same research interests as myself. It has been great to stay in touch with these people, to discuss our research, provide each other with feedback, and some have been kind enough to invite me to collaborate on their work in the future. It was also great to complete this PhD with a partner organisation, Live Active, where I got to develop my stakeholder engagement skills, and attempt to influence practice with my research findings!

Winner of the 2017 Lindsey Dugdill Memorial Prize for best PhD–Dr John Hudson

John’s PhD research: wellbeing at work

Realistic workloads, supportive managers, fairness, and a bit of recognition for good work: are things like this too much to ask for employees? I’ve always been interested in work psychology, even before I knew it was possible to study it; after all, who wouldn’t be interested in making work better and less ‘stressful’? Despite recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence that preventative interventions (strategies that target potentially stressful working conditions rather than employees’ ability to cope with them) should be prioritised, there is relatively little research of this type. Many years later, and having just completed my PhD looking at how employers might improve work for employees, and I’m probably a bit more realistic about how challenging that can be!

Who wouldn’t be interested in making work better and less ‘stressful’?

Can we make work better?

I was initially surprised when I started my research that the evidence for methods of improving work for employees and supporting their psychological health and well-being was rather mixed; some studies reported reasonable results, but many seemed to suggest they didn’t do any good at all. I soon found that this is in part because preventative approaches are usually very complex and involve lots of people and decisions, as well as relying on effective implementation. On top of that, there are likely to be many contextual and practical factors that can influence the process: unexpected events, organisational changes, limited resources, and even cynical employees, have the potential to derail even the most careful plans. So my initial focus on whether or not preventative approaches were effective quickly shifted to look at why even the most well-intentioned efforts can lead to disappointing results. My research aimed to add to our understanding of the factors that can derail them and learn lessons that can help with future efforts.

 

It’s certainly not all bad news, because there are things that employers can do to improve things, they just need to be aware of some of the pitfalls and get the planning and implementation right. For example, ensuring that employees have a say in identifying what aspects of the workplace should be prioritised, rather than senior managers deciding what’s best for them. Then there are seemingly obvious things – that are often forgotten – which can make a huge difference: communication, and follow-up. If you’re going to start a project to improve your workplace, it is vital to keep employees up to date on plans and progress, and that any promises are followed-up – fail to do that and employees might see yet another ‘well-being initiative’ introduced with great fanfare before it silently disappears under layers of new priorities. Is it any wonder employees might be cynical at times? There’s no one-size-fits-all solution, it’s incredibly complex, but thankfully the evidence suggests there are things that can be done.

Research in the ‘real world’

It can also be challenging to conduct research in organisations – although well worth doing – because, let’s face it, they are not there for the benefit of researchers. They naturally have their own priorities. For example, in my research, the organisation I worked with were supportive of my work and very keen to take action to improve things for their employees. However, because they were severely hampered by substantial cuts to their budget during my PhD project it meant large-scale restructuring was required, making it very difficult for them to fulfil all their original plans. As a researcher this was hugely frustrating, particularly as I had to complete my work within a set timescale, but it was obvious the organisation was being stretched and doing their best under very difficult circumstances. As a result, things didn’t happen when they were supposed to, or didn’t happen at all in some cases; welcome to the ‘real’ world of research! However, it taught me so much and it is probably a better piece of work because of some of these challenges, to be honest. There were also some positive outcomes (and plenty of lessons) for the organisation to use as they continue with their work to support employee well-being. And, as I graduated at The Lowry on the 18th July 2017, and having progressed to a lecturing post at Staffordshire University, I was able to look back with so much pride and wonder how on earth I got there!

The organisation was very keen to take action to improve things for their employees

Why the Lindsey Dugdill award is so special

The graduation was made all the more special by receiving the Professor Lindsey Dugdill award for my PhD thesis. Knowing how much Lindsey meant to her many friends at Salford, it’s quite hard to adequately express how much more this award means as a result. I was fortunate to meet Lindsey during my PhD, but I’d like to finish with an experience that took place several years previously when I submitted a proposal for a different PhD to the university. I had lots and lots of questions, and I was advised to contact Lindsey as the proposal was in her field. She was incredibly generous with her time and advice – spending her own time talking through my ideas and giving feedback. It is worth emphasising that this is despite Lindsey not being involved in the project, and had never even met me before – I was just a potential student with an interest in Lindsey’s field of expertise (or one of them!). It would be a better story if my application had been successful but circumstances at the university meant the funding was unavailable – Lindsey still got in touch with some encouragement. I cannot tell you how much I appreciated the time and trouble she took to help someone she didn’t even know, and I was delighted to be able to tell her in person when I actually joined the University a couple of years ago. Having met Lindsey, and having worked alongside so many of her close friends in Public Health and Psychology, I know this sort of support and encouragement was not a one off, which says it all really. A lovely person.

John Hudson receives his award from Dean of Health Sciences Kay Hack

By John Hudson

About one of our PhD Alumni – Dr James Chandler

James is a researcher with experience using both qualitative and quantitative research methods and an understanding of the social determinants of health, particularly the role of work and how the psychosocial work environment impacts on employees’ mental and physical health and wellbeing.

His PhD explored the impact of working in a social enterprise on employee health and wellbeing through the lens of ‘good’ work, culminating in the development of an empirically informed conceptual model that illustrates how working in a social enterprise may lead to improved health and wellbeing outcomes.

Following the completion of his PhD, he secured the role of Researcher at the Work Foundation, a think-tank based in London, which is dedicated to promoting the concept of ‘good’ work and its benefits for employees and employers alike. Drawing on the knowledge and research skills acquired through his PhD, he is, primarily, focused on developing evidence-based policy recommendations relating to the health and wellbeing at work agenda. Recent projects include: overseeing the development of an ‘early intervention toolkit’ designed to make the case, using the example of musculoskeletal conditions, for the implementation of early intervention services across the European Union; and a service evaluation of a newly-formed early intervention clinic, based in Leeds, which aims to get people signed-off work with a musculoskeletal condition back to work as soon as possible. To read more about this see – http://earlyinterventiontoolkit.com

About James

James was awarded a BA (Hons) in History and Politics from Keele University in 2008 and an MA in Political Economy from the University of Manchester in 2010. His MA dissertation explored the relationship between income inequality and health, which focused his interest on the areas of public health and health inequalities. Prior to starting a PhD in Public Health at the University of Salford, James conducted a literature review for the university in 2011 on the impact of working for a social enterprise on employee health and wellbeing – this project served as a platform for his PhD research.

Twitter – @jbchandler

Details of James’s PhD

His PhD explored the experience of working for a social enterprise – an organisation with social aims that uses profits for that purpose – and whether these organisations provide good quality work conducive to employee health and wellbeing. Using a mixed-methods approach, comprising (i) a mapping study that identified social enterprises active in the Greater Manchester region, (ii) semi-structured qualitative interviews, and (iii) a survey completed by social enterprise employees across the region, the research finds that social enterprises provide good quality work environments conducive to employee health and wellbeing – furthermore, when compared to a national sample of individuals working in non-social enterprise organisations, social enterprise employees report significantly higher levels of control over their work, support at work, job satisfaction and job-related wellbeing.

Chandler, James 2016, A study to explore the impact of working in a social enterprise on employee health and wellbeing in Greater Manchester , PhD thesis, University of Salford.

 

New reports :

Work Foundation’s Health at Work Policy Unit publishes its latest report: Who cares? The implications of informal care and work for policymakers and employers.

Other papers in the series include:
More than ‘women’s issues’
Men’s mental health and work: the case for a gendered approach to policy
• Managing migraine: a women’s health issue?

For more information, see our background paper and accompanying infographics.

Read the full report or executive summary.

Please feel free to contact the report’s author, Dr James Chandler, for more information.