I also posted the following from another post. Hope you weren't looking for short replies!!
Oh, the good ol’ days when there was mostly ‘definitive answers’ (albeit often misguided) to crucial questions, whatever the health field. The administration of the Resilience questionnaire is one of these crucial questions, especially whether to give it to young mothers (and fathers!). I understand that that could be detrimentally triggering, etc. at such a very sensitive time.
Ideally I think it would be better to give the questionnaire to them BEFORE they become parents. I know the time in pregnancy can be one of the most fertile (pun not actually intended!) moments of questioning about what happened to you, where you want to be with your parenting. At least it was for me… - The other crucial time being when one leaves home, IMHO…
As I posted in Patrick’s blog, “Unintended consequences…”, knowledge is power, power gives hope and I really oppose the waiting for the dissemination of this information left to the ‘experts’, and/or until such a debate is sorted, about whether to give the Resilience questionnaire or not.
The Resilience questionnaire to me is a fundamental part of the equation of understanding more about what happened to you and why you think and behave as you do. In the “What’s Your Ace Score?” responses on the Aces Too High website, many may give a high ACE score with a high Resilience score. Then as a beneficiary of such information, one may ask, such as those in my position: Well why didn’t I bounce back as they did? Why am I still struggling and finding it so hard? It gives you two scores – a more rounded picture because it’s more ‘data’.
The cancer analogy of whether one should know or not… Is it better if one has high ACEs and low Resilience score and may be dazed, confused and trepidatious about being a parent to remain in that state, or given the Resilience score as well, possibly be depressed and triggered, but with understanding, yes, it wasn’t good. And to have less than a nebulous idea about exactly how ‘bad’/not good, especially if one compares, which one does to get an understanding of how ‘alone’ they may feel or not, in this situation. And with talking to others who may give the Just Get Over It approach. Get over what, exactly ?! Who is more likely to seek help? The earlier one comes to grips with the (reality of the horrible) truth to me the sooner one can stand on one’s own feet (still working on that one at a much older age than I would like!), knowing more clearly what it is they have to deal with. As mentioned earlier, less likely if have such information to then be triggered as adults by others. It’s not a great/ideal choice. But maybe that’s the other part: ask the client do you want a fuller understanding? Again, it’s about empowering the disempowered…
There should be a caveat to those who do the screening: if you have little/no empathy, are judgmental and lack a basic ‘bedside manner’ do not attempt this…(!!) But then some doctors aren’t necessarily good at letting people know they have a fatal disease either…
Another positive about screening for both is that the practitioner will have the demand of actually addressing trauma more ‘successfully’, as people will be asking for just that. This has to be a plus in speeding up the process of TIC, as a more integrated system.
If practitioners could say something like, “Wow! You’ve have had this many ACEs and not many people/resources to help you in childhood, yet here you are, you’ve survived and you are….. (something obviously encouraging) - wouldn’t that be empowering? Particularly if it were followed up with your Resilience score of where you are now. That’s where the Devereaux Adult Resilience survey could be used. And that’s where giving them further resources – people, reading material etc would be supportive.
A lot of screening but hey, if one wants the big picture.
There’s no science in this part. It would be very difficult. A control group that weren’t given the Resilience questionnaire and those that were and followed up years later as to how they’re moving forward/progressing? Or electrodes placed on the brain of both groups as to which parts and how much light up as well as the follow up survey years later. I don’t know. But I do have the feeling, and yes it’s only intuitive personal feeling that taking everything into account, I think it’s better to give both questionnaires… or all three.
A definitive answer would be wonderful. I know it’s not possible, as it can be situation dependent. From my end I’m talking to anyone who’ll listen and is in a position to make changes, but I need a SOMEWHAT definitive answer to tell them and I look to you guys to guide me! You’re much more in a position to answer this than me. The people I talk about ACEs etc to also need (could substitute need with: demand!) ‘definitive’ answers to even think about taking some of it onboard… Again, it’s about using the same language, the same process, the same intentional thinking that is agreed upon as much as possible. With or without the science.
Long winded of me as usual, but again, such a, or maybe, THE crucial question here to all those who are disseminating ACE etc information.
