Not addicted but still having an impact: children living with parents who misuse drugs and alcohol

Guest post by Dr Ruth McGovern, Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University

There is growing political interest in the misuse of alcohol and drugs by parents and its impact upon children. The newly published Drug Strategy 2017 highlights drug and alcohol dependent parents as a priority group with an estimated 360,000 children living with parents who are dependent upon alcohol or heroin.

As a registered social worker, I have often identified ‘dependent parental substance misuse’ as a risk factor in many ‘child in need’ assessments conducted by Children’s Services. Around half of all child protection cases, recurring care proceedings (repeat children removed and placed into local authority care) and serious case reviews (enquiries following child death or serious injury where neglect or abuse is known or suspected) involve parents who misuse substances. However, the impact of parental substance misuse is not limited to addicts. The number of children living with parents who misuse but aren’t dependent upon alcohol and drugs is likely to be substantially more than the number of children living with those who are addicts. As such, greater harm in the population as a whole is likely to be experienced by these children.

I have been part of a group of academics and clinicians who have recently concluded a rapid evidence review funded by Public Health England (PHE). The review found evidence that parents who misuse, but aren’t dependent on substances, can have a significant impact on the physical, psychological and social health of their child. For instance, in early childhood we found that children of mothers misusing alcohol [1] were twice as likely to suffer a long bone fracture and five times as likely to be accidentally poisoned, than children whose mothers do not drink heavily. Children of mothers misusing alcohol or drugs are also more likely to require outpatient care or to be hospitalised due to injury or illness, and for longer. The impact of substance misuse by parents continues into adolescence, with our review showing an increased likelihood of antisocial, defiant and violent behaviour in late adolescence as well as substance misuse by the child. However, many of these children and families are not identified as being affected by the substance misuse of a parent and subsequently do not receive the help they need in the form of an intervention.

Therefore, our review also examined the evidence for effective interventions to help reduce the numbers of parents misusing alcohol and drugs. Family-level interventions, particularly those that offer intensive case management, or those which provide parents with a clear motivation (such as those linked to care proceedings) show promise in reducing the problem. Unfortunately, there was little research examining the effectiveness of interventions for parents misusing but not dependent on alcohol and drugs.

PAReNTS study logo

To respond to this evidence gap, we designed the PAReNTS study (Promoting Alcohol Reduction in Non Treatment Seeking parents). Within this study we are examining the feasibility and acceptability of alcohol screening (using the AUDIT-C questionnaire [2]) and brief interventions with parents involved in early help and statutory children’s social care services. The brief intervention is an adapted version of the ‘How much is too much?’ programme for parents [3] which combines advice and behaviour change activities and is delivered by both social care practitioners and the local alcohol service. Whilst alcohol brief interventions have been found to be effective in adults who misuse alcohol, little is known about the effectiveness of such interventions for parents with additional and complex needs. This presents unique challenges, for instance, parents may be concerned about the stigma of being labelled as having an alcohol problem, particularly if this could be used as a reason to remove their child from their care. There is clearly a need for a sensitive approach. In future blog posts, I hope to update you on the progress we make with the PAReNTS study and whether it is feasible to deliver early interventions with alcohol misusing parents to improve the wellbeing of children, who are often overlooked in public health.

References:

1. Below the age of 10 years, much of the evidence focuses on mothers with alcohol misuse problems as most caregiving is carried out by mothers during early years. 
2. The AUDIT-C is a 3-item alcohol screen that can help identify persons who are hazardous drinkers or have active alcohol use disorders (including alcohol abuse or dependence): https://www.integration.samhsa.gov/images/res/tool_auditc.pdf. 
3. This programme was highlighted by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence alcohol prevention guidance (PH24): https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph24.

Image credits:

• First image: Copyright: Alcohol Concern April 2008. Taken from the report 'Keeping it in the Family Growing up with parents who misuse alcohol'. ISBN number 1 869814 92 4: https://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=399c1dd7-1cb3-407d-a093-b3d486ac034d

Who wins: the tortoise or the hare in the race for health benefits?

Posted by Liane Azevedo, Fuse staff member and Senior Lecturer in Physical Activity and Public Health, Teesside University

At the 63rd American College of Sports Medicine Annual Meeting in Boston, USA this year, an interesting debate took place which was titled ‘Who Wins: the Tortoise or the Hare?'. The debate discussed the latest research findings on a hot topic in physical activity research: what is better for your health; high intensity exercise or reducing sedentary behaviour in favour of light to moderate exercise? I was expecting a heated debate; however, the session was quite balanced with both sides presenting the pros and cons of their approach, followed by a talk on the middle ground by Tim Church suggesting that the best is exercise in moderation (the benefits of regular moderate-intensity exercise).

Let’s start with the arguments for reducing sedentary behaviour. The sedentary behaviour ‘defence’ was presented by Genevieve Healy from the University of Queensland. She talked about a study which showed that a reduction in sitting, in favour of more standing or stepping, could both promote cardio-metabolic benefits (concerning heart disease and metabolic disorders such as diabetes) to improvements in glucose and lipid metabolism (the synthesis and breakdown of glucose and fatty acids). Similar results were shown in other presentations at the conference with a number of studies also showing that interrupted sitting with walking (rather than just standing) can improve insulin response, resting blood pressure and lipid concentration. Moreover, Genevieve provided a number of examples of interventions for the workplace and for older populations, such as Small Steps, Stand Up For Health and Stand Up Australia, which have all shown to be effective

I presented evidence of this argument myself at the conference in a poster about a systematic review which we conducted on sedentary behaviour interventions for children. We found that sedentary interventions are mostly ineffective to reduce BMI (body mass index) in a mixed-weight population but can be effective for treatment of an overweight or obese population.

In the case of sedentary behaviour major questions still remain, for instance, are the risks of sedentary behaviour for cardiovascular diseases independent of physical activity? In other words, if you have a job like mine that requires you to sit for long hours and you try to compensate for this behaviour at the end of the day by doing 30-40 mins of moderate to vigorous physical activity, does this mean that you still have the same cardiovascular disease risks as, for instance, someone who does not exercise? The answer appears to be no; the risk seems lower (phew … ). However, the data in the literature is still contradictory. But it was interesting to see well known scientists in the field like Charles Matthews recognising that these behaviours might not be as independent of each other as it was originally thought when it relates to health risks.

The case for the opposite argument - that high intensity exercise is more important for your health - was made by Professor Ulrik Wisløff from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. He presented a number of studies which showed the additional benefits of vigorous activity compared to moderate or total physical activity on a number of health indicators, such as all-cause mortality, improvement of maximum aerobic capacity and in endothelial (the inner lining of blood vessels) function, and as an effective treatment of arterial fibrillation (abnormal heart rhythm) in unhealthy patients.

The audience questioned Professor Wisløff about the risk of injury when doing high intensity exercise, how to translate these findings into physical activity guidelines, and the long term sustainability of this type of exercise. Wisløff said that in their studies there were no report of injuries, but admitted that long term sustainability still needs to be investigated. A starting point for demonstrating the feasibility of high intensity exercise in a real-life setting can be found in the study completed by Dr Kathryn Weston at Teesside University. In the study she investigated the effect of a school-based high-intensity interval training on cardio-metabolic health. She found that the high intensity exercise did not only improve some cardio-metabolic parameters but was also delivered as intended.

Therefore, I would say that the answer to the question ‘who wins the tortoise or the hare?’ is that both are winners. For some people high intensity exercise can be the most exciting way to exercise, while for others just the substitution of sedentary to light and moderate is the suitable (also it doesn’t need to be one or the other). The most important point is to choose something that will encourage you to do physical activity, because the health benefit is there for both.

Acknowledgment: Liane Azevedo would like to thank Fuse and Teesside University for the support to attend this Conference.


Photo attribution: “Image from page 216 of "St. Nicholas [serial]" (1873)” by Internet Archive Book Images via Flickr.com: https://www.flickr.com/photos/internetarchivebookimages/14781657201