Articles summary
Br J Learn Disabil. 2017;45:95–105. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bld | 95© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Received: 22 June 2016 | Accepted: 24 October 2016 DOI: 10.1111/bld.12179
O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E
“I received a leaflet and that is all”: Father experiences of a diagnosis of autism
Carol A. Potter
Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK
Correspondence C. A. Potter, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK. Email: c.a.potter@leedsbeckett.ac.uk
Funding information This study was funded by the Leverhulme Trust as part of the Research Fellowship scheme (grant number: RF- 2013- 343). Funders were not involved in any aspect of the design or implementation of the research.
Accessible summary • Little is known about what fathers think and feel about a diagnosis of autism. • Fathers experienced strong emotion around diagnosis and were given little support. • Services should support mother and fathers in ways which meet their individual needs. • More positive messages should be given to families at diagnosis.
Abstract Background: A diagnosis of childhood autism can be an extremely stressful experience for parents, but little is known concerning paternal perceptions of the process. Methods: This study investigated father perspectives on a diagnosis of autism, through an online survey. Results: An analysis of 184 replies to an open- ended question identified the following themes: strong initial emotional response and a range of immediate anxieties about the future, struggle to gain a diagnosis; anger in response to insensitive delivery of diagnosis together with insufficient information at the time and lack of support afterwards. Conclusion: Fathers experienced a range of significant challenges during a diagnostic process in which most felt unsupported. Service provision should be more gender- differentiated, taking into account of the particular needs and perspectives of both mothers and fathers at this critical juncture in family life.
K E Y W O R D S
autism, diagnosis, fathers family support, health & social care policy and practice
1 | B A C KG R O U N D
Parenting children with disabilities is acknowledged as demanding (Beresford, Tozer, Rabiee, & Sloper, 2007), with the parenting of chil- dren with autism recognised as particularly challenging, due to the wide range of difficulties which children can experience (Fiske, Pepa, & Harris, 2014). Receiving a diagnosis of autism, therefore, can rep- resent an extremely taxing experience for many parents, sometimes resulting in depression (Taylor & Warren, 2012). Furthermore, the diag- nosis itself may often come only after a prolonged period of frustration, anxiety and delay. In a study of over a thousand UK parents, Crane, Chester, Goddard, Henry, and Hill (2015) found an average three and a half year delay in receiving a diagnosis from first contact with ser- vices. Somewhat surprisingly, no reduction in delay was in evidence since the previous large- scale UK study by Howlin and Moore (1997)
and this was suggested as being possibly due to the higher incidence of Asperger’s syndrome in the most recent sample, a diagnosis which has traditionally been more difficult to make due to the possibility of characteristics being confused with those of other disabilities (Kosger, Sevil, Subasi, & Kaptanoglu, 2015). Neither had levels of satisfaction with post- diagnostic support increased in the intervening period, in fact rather the reverse, with 61% of parents expressing dissatisfaction in the recent study (Crane et al., 2015) compared with 37% previously (Howlin & Moore, 1997), attributed by the authors to possibly increased expectations within the autism community and most especially those who had experienced a positive experience of the diagnostic process.
Furthermore, Crane et al. (2015) reported that one- third of par- ents expressed dissatisfaction with diagnostic delivery, while Harnett, Tierney, and Guerin (2009) found that four in ten parents of children with disabilities did not believe that the news had been delivered with “hope
96 | POTTER
and positive messages” (p.261). Such a situation is concerning since the manner in which a diagnosis of childhood disability is communicated may have significant implications for parents’ ability to cope in future. In a study of 85 families, Taanila, Jarvelin, and Kokkonen (1998) found that parents with poor experiences of the diagnostic interview were five times more likely to experience insecurity and helplessness than those who were satisfied with it, noting later (Taanila, 2002, p.1289):
the first information and the way it is presented can shape not only the image the parents create about their child and his/her future but also their prospects for the functioning and future of the entire family.
Although early support following an autism diagnosis is considered es- sential for better child outcomes and the reduction in parental stress (Keen & Rodger, 2012), in practice, there is often considerable delay. Crane et al. (2015) found that 35% of parents received no offers of support at all.
Father experiences of a diagnosis of childhood disability are under- reported in the literature. In one rare study, Hornby (1992) reviewed the published accounts of eight fathers, reporting on often intense emo- tional reactions to the news. In the field of autism, parental perspec- tives on diagnosis have largely been confined to quantitative studies undertaken with mothers. For example, participants in the large- scale study by Crane et al. (2015) were largely female (93%), comparable to the proportion of mothers (92%) taking part in Casey et al. (2012)’s study of post- traumatic stress following an autism diagnosis. Similarly, in Gaspar de Alba and Bodfish’s (2011) research on addressing the con- cerns of parents at the time of diagnosis, only 7% of respondents were fathers. In almost all such studies, results are not disaggregated by gen- der either because the number of fathers is too small and/or gender is not considered a significant variable for analysis.
Reasons for father exclusion in the literature have been variously suggested as men being considered hard to reach in research terms (Phares, Rojas, Thurston, & Hankinson, 2010) stereotypical gender- based assumptions concerning child- rearing roles (Flippin and Crais, 2011) and/or lack of flexible timetabling of data collection to take account of men’s employment (Fabiano, 2007). Braunstein, Peniston, Perelman, and Cassano (2013) argued that gender- blind studies make an implicit assumption that gender is not a relevant variable in anal- yses, which in turn drives a tacit conjecture that findings reported in respect of mothers will apply equally to fathers, which is often not the case. For example, Papageorgiou and Kalyva (2010) found that moth- ers and fathers of children with autism differed significantly in their stated needs and expectations in respect of support groups.
Braunstein et al. (2013) contested that the under- representation of father perspectives negatively affects the ability of service provid- ers to support them since they are lacking evidence- based guidance on men’s needs and contribution. Here, since parental experience of diag- nosis appears to influence ongoing perceptions and attitudes (Taanila et al., 1998), it seems important to explore paternal perspectives to better inform support both during and after a diagnosis of childhood autism. The research question to for this study was the following:
What are father reactions to gaining a diagnosis of autism?
2 | M E T H O D S
2.1 | Procedures
Fathers of children with ASD resident in the UK were recruited to an online survey in several ways. A web link was e-mailed to over 80 local autism voluntary groups who forwarded it to their members and web links appeared on national autism- related sites. Hard copy fliers were distributed at two national autism events and sent to several autism- specific schools. An advert was placed in a nationally distrib- uted autism- specific publication.
The survey provided information on research aims, instructions for completion and contact details for the researcher.
2.1.1 | Instrument
Data were collected through an online survey which consisted of 52 closed and five open- ended questions. Its development was in- formed by relevant research tools, including the Inventory of Father Involvement (Hawkins et al., 2002), the Brief COPE (Carver, 1997) as well as on previous research studies, including Towers’ work on fa- thers of children with developmental disabilities (2009).
This paper reports on responses to one open- ended opportunity for fathers to comment on their response to their child’s diagnosis, phrased as follows: “if you would like to tell us about your experience of diagnosis, we have included a space for you to do that here”.
2.1.2 | Participants
The sample completing the survey were 306 fathers of children up to 19 years of age, with a diagnosis of autism, autism spec- trum disorder or Asperger’s syndrome and resident in the UK. One hundred and eighty- four fathers (60% of the total) responded to the open- ended question concerning perspectives on diagnosis. Characteristics of the whole sample are provided in Table 1 and those of the subset in Table 2. This subset is largely representative of the wider sample. The most noteworthy difference was that 58% of the subset was educated to degree level or above compared with 52% in the whole sample. Most fathers responding to the open- ended question were White (94%), over 40 years of age (81%), mar- ried (82%) and with one child with autism (87%). The majority of participants were in full- time paid employment (60%), with just over half (58%) educated to degree level or above. In respect of children, 81% were boys, 52% were aged 10 or under and 48% aged be- tween 11 and 19. Regarding diagnosis, 30% of children had a diag- nosis of autism, 41% one of ASD and 29% a diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome.
2.2 | Data analysis
Data analysis consisted of initial a priori coding to broadly categorise responses according to the phase of diagnosis to which they referred: that is prior to, during and following diagnosis. This approach was
| 97POTTER
informed by the literature where there is a focus on stages to clarify aspects of the complex set of parental experiences involved in the diagnostic process (see Crane et al., 2015, for example). At the sec- ond level, a line- by- line inductive thematic analysis of 184 responses was undertaken to identify conceptual categories within each stage, for example, in relation to the delivery of diagnosis, a strong theme relating to emotional response emerged, together with perspectives on support offered at diagnosis. Representative quotations were
TABLE 1 Characteristics of whole sample (306 fathers)
Characteristic N (%)
Age
21–29 11 (4)
30–39 51 (17)
40–49 159 (52)
50–59 77 (25)
60–69 8 (3)
Number of children with autism
1 257 (84)
2 40 (13)
3 8 (3)
4 1 (0.5)
Relationship to child with autism
Biological father 287 (94)
Step- father 13 (4)
Adoptive father 4 (1)
Foster father 2 (1)
Marital status
Married 242 (79)
In a partnership 38 (12)
Separated/Divorced/Widowed 21 (6)
Single 5 (2)
Educational background (highest level)
Completed primary/secondary school 26 (9)
Passes at GCSE/ A level 61 (20)
Vocational qualifications 59 (19)
Degree/ postgraduate qualifications 160 (52)
Employment status
Full- time 190 (62)
Self- employed 42 (14)
Retired/ Not in paid work 46 (15)
Part- time 27 (9)
Ethnicity
White 286 (95)
Mixed heritage 6 (2)
Black or Black British 5 (2)
Asian or Asian British 2 (1)
Chinese 1 (1)
Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Some values were missing.
TABLE 2 Characteristics of 184 fathers responding to the open- ended question
Characteristic N (%)
Age of fathers
21–29 7 (4)
30–39 27 (15)
40–49 94 (52)
50–59 47 (26)
60–69 6 (3)
Number of children with autism
1 158 (87)
2 16 (9)
3 6 (3)
4 1 (0.5)
Sex of child
Boys 146 (82)
Girls 33 (18)
Age of child
0–2 1 (0.5)
3–5 22 (12)
6–10 73 (40)
11–14 45 (25)
15–19 40 (22)
Diagnosis of child
Autism 54 (30)
Autism Spectrum Disorder 73 (40)
Asperger’s syndrome 54 (30)
Father relationship to child with autism
Biological father 170 (94)
Step- father 7 (4)
Adoptive father 3 (2)
Foster father 1 (1)
Marital status
Married 147 (81)
Living with partner 19 (11)
Separated/Divorced 11 (6)
Single 3 (2)
Educational background (highest level)
Completed primary/secondary school 11 (6)
Passes at GCSE/ A level 38 (21)
Vocational qualifications 27 (15)
Degree/ postgraduate qualifications 105 (58)
Employment status
Full- time 106 (59)
Self- employed 25 (14)
Retired/ Not in paid work 29 (16)
Part- time 27 (9)
Ethnicity
White 167 (94)
Mixed heritage 5 (3)
Black or Black British 3 (2)
Asian or Asian British 2 (1)
Chinese 1 (1)
Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Some values were missing.
98 | POTTER
then chosen from each of these second level themes as illustrative exemplars.
2.3 | Ethics
Ethical approval for this research was given by Leeds Beckett University. Fathers were given assurances of confidentiality and ano- nymity and were informed that survey completion would be taken as consent. To provide some benefit from taking part in the study, fathers could opt to receive a summary of findings from the survey and 80% (n = 245) did so.
3 | F I N D I N G S
Information concerning the length of responses to the open- ended question is provided first below, followed by a detailed discussion of individual themes, presented in relation to the stages of the diag- nostic process. Each illustrative quotation is followed by pertinent characteristics of the father concerned and his child/children, to contextualise the data: specifically, the father’s age group and level of qualification, together with the child’s age group, diagnosis and age at diagnosis.
3.1 | Response length
Responses concerning reaction to diagnosis varied in length, be- tween 1 and 153 words, with the mean length of statement 24 words. The shortest statements were often powerful: “cried”, “angry, isolated”. The longer responses discussed a complex range of issues, reflecting on past and future concerns or the support available after diagnosis.
3.2 | Concerns before diagnosis
Over one in four fathers (n = 51) commented on prior concerns regarding aspects of their child’s behaviour, so that when the di- agnosis came it was not unexpected. However, comments ranged from an awareness that there was an issue: “was not surprised as we had felt for a while something was different” to almost com- plete certainty that their children had autism: “It confirmed what we knew”.
3.3 | Process of getting a diagnosis
Seventeen (9%) fathers commented on the process of getting a diag- nosis. Most had found the process overlong, difficult and frustrating, requiring significant amounts of ongoing pressure from parents:
The process was long, laborious, and tiresome, with very little give from the local diagnostic team.
(Father, 21–29, degree; child, 3–5, ASD; age at diagnosis, 3–5)
We had to fight every step of the way to get the diagnosis. (Father, 40–49, degree; child, 6–10, ASD;
age at diagnosis, 6–10)
Only one father commented positively on the gaining a diagnosis, describing it as “straightforward”.
Although nine in ten fathers did not choose to comment on the process of getting a diagnosis, this cannot be taken to indicate that their experience was necessarily stress free. It may be that other as- pects of the diagnostic experience were more salient for them.
3.4 | Experience of the delivery of diagnosis
Eighteen (10%) fathers, only one of whom had also commented on the process of getting a diagnosis, remarked on aspects of the delivery of the diagnosis itself, generally expressing dismay at the manner in which the news was conveyed. For some, the process was lacking in sensitivity and understanding:
My wife and I were told matter of factly ‘your son has au- tism, he may never speak’. It was devastating.
(Father, 40–49, degree; child, 6–10, ASD; age at diagnosis, 3–5)
We were just asked ‘Have you ever heard of autism?’ and then left to get on with things as best we could. It was as well for our sanity that we did not realise at the time the extent to which the diagnosis would change our lives.
(Father, 60–69, degree; child, 11–14, ASD; age at diagnosis, 0–2)
A number of men’s responses expressed implicit anger at the blunt- ness of the delivery of the news:
Your child has asd – here’s some leaflets! (Father, 30–39, vocational training; child, 6–10, ASD;
age at diagnosis, 3–5)
It was ‘your son’s autistic – off you go’. The NHS is appall- ingly bad/incompetent/neglectful about autism.
(Father, 50–59, degree; child, 6–10, autism; age at diagnosis, 3–5)
Only one father commented positively on the experience of diagno- sis, appreciating the way in which the doctor helped him to reflect on the “labelling” aspect of the process:
I think I was stunned even though I was not surprised. But I took on board the doctor’s statement that a label changed nothing about the way he is but it did enable access to greater levels of support.
(Father, 40–49, degree; child, 3–5, ASD; age at diagnosis, 3–5)
| 99POTTER
Crane et al. (2015) reported that two- thirds of parents were satis- fied with how the diagnosing professional had conducted themselves during the diagnostic interview, although only 7% of participants were fathers and no gender- differentiated analysis was undertaken to clar- ify commonalities or differences in perception in this key area of the diagnostic process.
3.5 | Emotional response to the diagnosis
Just under half of fathers (49%, n = 89) described an explicitly emo- tional reaction to receiving the diagnosis. Many statements were brief but described strong reactions.
Cried (Father, 40–49, completed secondary school; child,
11–14, ASD; age at diagnosis, 6–10)
Devastated (Father, 50–59, degree; child, 15–19, autism;
age at diagnosis, 3–5)
I was gutted (Father, 30–39, Passes at ‘A’ level; child, 6–10, ASD;
age at diagnosis, 3–5)
The diagnosis was a hammer blow (Father, 40–49, degree; child, 11–14,
Asperger syndrome; age at diagnosis, 3–5)
It was like being hit by a moving train (Father, 40–49, completed secondary school;
child, 11–14, Asperger syndrome; age at diagnosis, 6–10)
A number of fathers described a range of strong emotions
Upset, demoralised (Father, 50–59, vocational training; child, 15–19,
age at diagnosis, 11–14)
Denial, grieving, frustration (Father, 40–49, degree; child, 6–10, ASD;
age at diagnosis, 0–2)
Different emotions and different stages is the best way to describe it, guilty, angry, upset, heartbroken, fearful, anxious and confused to name a few
(Stepfather, 21–29, degree; child, 15–19, Asperger syndrome; diagnosis, 11–14)
My personal reaction was to panic. As the dust settled panic led to an array of emotions including fear, worry and general negative feelings for his future.
(Father, 40–49, ‘A’ levels; child, 3–5, ASD; age at diagnosis, 3–5)
For most fathers who had mentioned prior concerns, the diagnosis when it came still caused substantial distress:
We already knew he had autism so the diagnosis was sim- ply confirmation. Nevertheless it was a highly emotional moment.
(Father, 30–39, degree; child, 3–5, autism; diagnosis, 3–5)
Four fathers talked explicitly in terms of loss, both in the present and in the future:
I felt like I had lost my child’s future and was losing aspects of being a parent. Might never be a grandparent, send him to university etc…
(Father, 40–49, degree; child, 6–10, autism; diagnosis, 3–5)
It is noteworthy that a number of fathers (n = 23, 13%) whose chil- dren had been diagnosed with autism for at least 5 years chose to focus on their strong emotional response to the diagnosis in their comments, giving some further indication of the strength of the sentiment at the time. Additionally, the emotional nature of fathers’ responses did not seem to be related to any particular diagnosis. A large proportion of the 86 fathers of children with Asperger’s syndrome completing the survey, expressed a strong negative emotional response to diagnosis, as illus- trated in the representative quotations provided above. Nor did fathers’ educational level appear to be associated with the reporting of such a response.
3.6 | Initial anxieties
Fourteen fathers (8%) described their early anxieties following diagno- sis, especially in relation to the future. Fears for children’s safety, es- pecially when parents were no longer alive, were particularly evident:
Very little knowledge of autism, wondering how can I pro- tect him?
(Father, 30–39, degree; child, 3–5, ASD; age at diagnosis, 3–5)
I was scared. Worried what kind of life she would have par- ticularly when I am gone.
(Father, 40–49, vocational training; child, 6–10, ASD; age at diagnosis, 0–2)
100 | POTTER
I looked into the life expectancy (Father, 30–39, GCSE’s; child,
6–10, ASD; age at diagnosis, 3–5)
Some fathers described a range of anxieties concerning the kind of difficulties their children might experience. Uncertainty was a key aspect of one father’s apprehension:
To this day I have never been given an expectation of how my child will develop, what he will achieve, how much de- pendence he will have etc. Not knowing can made it hard to develop a long term plan.
(Father, 40–49, degree; child, 11–14, Asperger syn- drome; age at diagnosis, 3–5)
Fiske (2009) reported that reminders of the long- term nature of a diagnosis of autism was associated with higher levels of stress in fathers compared with mothers which resonates with the focus on the future by some fathers here.
3.7 | Benefits of diagnosis
Twenty- seven fathers (15%) highlighted relief as a major response to the diagnosis, often since it explained troubling aspects of their child’s behaviour which they had not been able to understand previously:
There was some relief through having an explanation for behaviour and confirmation of suspicions
(Father, 50–59, degree; child, 15–19, Asperger syndrome; age at diagnosis, 6–10)
Although it wasn’t good news, I mainly felt relieved, to know that my experiences was not down to being a bad parent. It enabled me to be more prepared and under- standing of the symptoms
(Father, 40–49, vocational training; child, 3–5, autism; age at diagnosis, 3–5)
Several fathers felt relieved because a diagnosis would help them to provide more appropriate support for their children:
Having a diagnosis meant that we could start understand- ing his condition and how to manage it.
(Father, 40–49, degree; child, 11–14, ASD; age at diagnosis, 3–5)
I think it was good to have the ‘label’ because with the label we could access other services.
(Father, 50–59, degree; child, 6–10, ASD; age at diagnosis, 3–5)
Two fathers talked about their children’s own responses to the diagnosis:
My son is very very proud to have Asperger’s – always has been and he tells people this.
(Father, 50–59, completed secondary school; child, 11–14, Asperger syndrome; age at diagnosis, 6–10)
My son needed it to be able to be sure and put a label on it. Since the diagnosis, he has been happy talking about it outside of the home.
(Father, 40–49, degree; child, 6–10, ASD; age at diagnosis, 11–14)
Russell and Norwich (2012) reported on parental perceptions of the benefits of a diagnosis of autism in a qualitative study of 17 parents, only two of whom were fathers. Here, a larger group of men, whose children have differing autism diagnoses, identified benefits with an emphasis on the empowering aspects of such news for them in relation to gaining a better understanding of their children and the greater potential for ac- cess to services and, in a few instances, for their children in achieving greater self- awareness.
3.8 | Impact on relationships
The responses of twelve fathers (7%) specifically referred to differ- ences or similarities in approach or response between themselves and their partners at various stages of the process. One father and his wife had disagreed about the need for a diagnosis:
I resisted the process as I didn’t want to label my child but my wife and the paediatricians didn’t respect my wish to not have him assessed.
(Father, 40–49, GCSE’s; child, 6–10, autism; diagnosis, not given)
Two fathers reported that they and their partners were not together when the diagnosis was received. Other fathers described a difference in initial reaction to the news:
Having had two older children we knew something was wrong so I had prepared myself for the diagnosis – my partner took it hard but we worked together we realised that it was about doing what we could do for our son.
(Father, 30–39, GCSE’s; child, 6–10, autism; age at diagnosis, 3–5)
Another man commented on the strain he experienced in trying to support his wife through the stressful experience:
It was a difficult issue to deal with…My wife was very upset by the diagnosis so it was important for me to main- tain a positive attitude throughout which did put a strain on me.
(Father, 40–49, degree; child, 6–10, ASD; age at diagnosis, 0–2)
| 101POTTER
For one father, the news of diagnosis had a particularly severe impact on his relationship:
Discovering that my son had autism came as no surprise but nevertheless it rocked myself and my then wife to the point of separation.
(Father, 40–49, ‘A’ levels; child, 3–5, ASD; age at diagnosis, 3–5)
Findings from the wider survey, from which the current data set is drawn found that over half of all fathers (52%, 161/306) felt that having a child with autism had negatively affected their couple rela- tionship (Potter, forthcoming) resonating with the results of a meta- analysis which found relationship satisfaction amongst couples having children with autism to be lower than amongst those having children without disabilities (Sim, Cordier, Vaz, & Falkmer, 2016). The year fol- lowing diagnosis has been reported as imposing particular stresses on couples (McGrew & Keyes, 2014) and here, insights into the kinds of pressures which diagnosis placed on relationships are provided from the paternal perspective.
3.9 | Father exclusion
Nine fathers felt that they had not been sufficiently included in the process of diagnosis due to a greater focus on their partners’ needs:
It was shocking and very depressing. Most people concen- trated on my wife’s distress not mine.
(Father, 50–59, degree; child, 15–19, autism; age at diagnosis, 0–2)
I felt unheard – all the focus was on his mum. (Father, 50–59, vocational training; child, 3–5,
autism; diagnosis, 3–5)
I was kept out of the assessment and diagnosis by my ex. The clinicians made no attempt to contact me.
(Father, 40–49, degree; child, 6–10, Asperger syndrome; age at diagnosis, 6–10)
There is. a general prejudice against fathers: the assump- tion is that daddy is either absent or useless.
(Father, 40–49, degree; child, 11–14, autism; age at diagnosis, 0–2)
Although the numbers of fathers choosing to focus on feelings of exclusion during the diagnostic process were relatively small, such com- ments can be contextualised within wider survey findings, where 60% of the whole sample completing the survey (185/306) reported that they had not felt adequately supported “as the child’s father” in the period following diagnosis (Potter, forthcoming).
3.10 | Practical response
Twenty fathers (11%) focused on the positive steps they identified or took after diagnosis, including information seeking, course attendance or in a few instances, setting up services:
My first reaction was to get as much information on it as I could (Father, 30–39, degree; child, 3–5, autism;
age at diagnosis, 3–5)
Upset but it was like an SLR (single lens reflex) camera lens coming into focus. I then read the Attwood book on Asperger’s and it all became very clear. I attended some [local] events then felt I had enough knowledge.
(Father, 40–49, degree; child, 15–19, Asperger syndrome; age at diagnosis, 3–5)
I was surprised, but I read all the books I could…I learned a lot, especially from ABA therapy.
(Father, 60–69, degree; child, 11–14, Asperger syndrome; age at diagnosis, 0–2)
Findings from the wider research associated with this study showed that “coming up with strategies for what to do” was one of the most fre- quently reported approaches to coping of fathers of children with autism (Potter, forthcoming). Furthermore, the increased use of information seeking as a coping strategy amongst fathers of children with autism, compared with fathers of typically developing children, was identified by Rodrigue, Morgan, and Geffken (1992). Such findings have implications for service providers in relation to the nature of support which could be offered at diagnosis, discussed further below.
3.11 | Support after diagnosis
More than a fifth of fathers (n = 39) talked about the significant lack of service support following the diagnosis:
We felt cast adrift by a very poor support structure. (Father, 60–69, degree; child, 15–19, autism; diagnosis, 3–5)
Following my son’s diagnosis, I received a leaflet and that is all. Any help and support I have subsequently received, I have sought out and paid for myself…. This is an area where the NHS is sorely lacking.
(Father, 40–49, degree; child, 6–10, autism; diagnosis, 3–5)
I was given the diagnosis but absolutely no advice on where to go to get any help or support…the initial months after the diagnosis were very bleak.
(Father, 30–39, degree; child, 6–10, ASD; diagnosis, 6–10)
102 | POTTER
Only one father described a positive experience of post- diagnostic support:
Without the help of the professionals, I would have found it difficult after the diagnosis, but they showed me the right direction where I could get more training and help on understand autism and how to deal with my son to under- stand his needs.
(Father, 40–49, degree; child, 6–10, autism; diagnosis, 3–5)
In this research, there appeared to be some relationship between educational level and comment on lack of service support following di- agnosis, with 75% (29/39) of men doing so educated to degree level or above. This aligns to some extent with previous research which showed that higher educational and socio- economic status was associated with greater service use in families having children with autism (Thomas, Morrissey, & McLaurin, 2007). The issue of access to services following diagnosis is clearly key.
4 | D I S C U S S I O N
This study extends our knowledge by reporting on the perspectives and experiences of 184 fathers on a diagnosis of childhood autism. The direct views of this group of parents very rarely appear in the literature in a field where mothers outnumber fathers by at least 8–1 as research participants. Fathers commented on a range of issues, in- cluding the process of gaining a diagnosis, the manner of diagnostic delivery, their often strong emotional response to the news, as well as on the lack of support and information provided at the time and after- wards. It was also evident that some fathers had not felt sufficiently included in the process.
The nature of many paternal concerns regarding delays and lack of support are generally consistent with those reported in the wider literature which is largely based on maternal experiences, as discussed above (see Crane et al., 2015; Howlin & Moore, 1997). However, the stark intensity of many fathers’ response to the diagnosis is consis- tent with findings discussed by Hornby’s (1992) small- scale qualitative study of eight fathers’ responses to a diagnosis of childhood disability. Here, the powerful and challenging experiences of a larger group of men is reported in relation to a diagnosis of autism, providing some further insight concerning relationships between characteristics of fa- ther background, the nature of children’s diagnoses and response to diagnosis. The strength and depth of emotional reactions reported is concerning when set alongside the significant lack of post-diagnos- tic support which six in ten men identified, in the wider survey from which the current data set is drawn (Potter, forthcoming). A key issue here is that the lack of effective support at such a critical time may influence men’s future ability to cope with family challenges which in turn may impact whole family functioning and relationships (Glenn, 2007). This seems especially important in relation to parents having children with autism who have been found to experience significantly
more stress than parents of typically developing children or parents of children with other kinds of disability (see Hayes & Watson, 2013 for a meta- analysis). Towers (2009) highlighted that service providers should be aware that fathers and mothers may respond to a diagno- sis of childhood disability in different ways and that therefore post- diagnostic support could be offered to them as a couple or separately.
It is argued here that approaches to supporting men during and after diagnosis could usefully be informed by research investigating men’s help- seeking behaviour. In a review of 51 studies, Hoy (2012) found that notions of masculinity negatively impacted men’s willing- ness to seek support. In the light of such findings, Oren, Egar- Carson, Stevens and Oren (2010) argued that a strengths- based approach to counselling fathers, focusing explicitly on their ability to nurture and care for their children, may be a more effective approach to recruiting men to support services. Smith (2006) noted that the shift towards a strengths- based, positive psychology model in the field of coun- selling represents a major move away from a medical, deficit model paradigm to an assets- based approach, grounded in the prevention literature. She suggested that a capacity- based strategy begins from the assumption that clients possess a range of existing strengths in areas such as knowledge, skills, emotional dispositions (including op- timism and hope) and character (including courage and perseverance) as well as sufficient resources to learn new skills to address further challenging situations. Stages of strengths- based counselling include developing a therapeutic alliance, identifying strengths, assessing challenges and instilling hope. While such capacity- driven approaches may be especially effective with men, in the light of evidenced prob- lems with help seeking, they may also be productive with mothers. A review of literature in the field of positive psychology undertaken by Rao and Donaldson (2015) concluded that although women were over- represented as participants in research studies, there had been relatively little focus on gender- specific issues in relation to them. Further research in relation to strengths- based approaches to service provision for fathers and mothers of children with disabilities is clearly indicated.
The manner of delivery of diagnosis also emerged as significant for a number of men in terms of undue brevity, lack of sensitivity and an emphasis on negative issues. There are two issues here. First, the degree of understandable anger expressed by men is particularly note- worthy in the light of Towers’ (2009) contention that the relationship between fathers and professionals is moulded around key events, one of which is diagnosis so that an overly negative experience at this crit- ical moment may exert a considerable impact on the future pattern of father relationships with professionals. Second, an undue focus on deficits and future negative outcomes reported here and in other stud- ies concerning a diagnosis of childhood disability (see Hedov, Wikblad & Annerén, 2002 and Harnett et al., 2009) is problematic for several reasons. Most significantly, as indicated above, information conveyed at diagnosis can affect perceptions concerning the family’s ability to cope, with Taanila et al. (1998) reporting that feelings of being poorly prepared to care for their child were reported four times as often by parents dissatisfied with the diagnostic interview as those who were satisfied. Furthermore, a negative appraisal of the diagnostic
| 103POTTER
experience has been found to be a strong predictor of increased mar- ital burden (Stuart & McGrew, 2009). McLaughlin and Goodley (2008) conceptualised the process of diagnosis as being driven overwhelm- ingly by a medical/tragedy model discourse, where deficits and poor outcomes are foregrounded. It is argued here that such an approach not only undermines families at such a critical moment but also fails to take account of evidence of family resilience and benefits, increasingly discussed in the literature. Nissenbaum, Tollefson, and Reese (2002) made a series of recommendations for practitioners delivering a di- agnosis of autism, one of which related to the need to provide hope and optimism within a family friendly setting. Findings from the wider study associated with the current research reported on a range of positive perspectives identified by nearly two hundred fathers asso- ciated with parenting children with autism, including valuing children’s personal strengths, as well as fathers’ own nurturing role and what they had learnt from it (Potter, 2016). Such evidence- based, hope- ful messages can and should be included in the diagnostic meetings, approaches to the delivery of which could be enhanced by further gender- differentiated training for staff in this sensitive area.
Lack of adequate information was a key concern for many fathers in this study and this is consistent with findings reported by the SCIE (2005) which noted that for many fathers obtaining accurate informa- tion on the nature of provision available for children and families was an especially important issue in the period immediately following diagno- sis. It is suggested here that services might usefully consider the devel- opment of targeted online sources of information, sensitively tailored to meet the urgent and specific requirements of mothers and fathers struggling with a newly received diagnosis. The argument for consid- eration of an online approach in this area is strong, since according to most recent figures, 99% of households with children have access to the Internet (ONS, 2016). Online information might be especially user- friendly for fathers who are often less able to access face- to- face provision available during the working week (Cutress & Muncer, 2014) and who may prefer online support and information (Seymour- Smith, 2013). Professionally developed online parenting support has been found to be highly effective in supplementing traditional face- to- face services (Niela- Vilén, Axelin, Salanterä, & Melender, 2014). However, to date such resources have been largely targeted at mothers of younger, typically developing children to address early parenting skills and health topics (Nieuwboer, Fukkink & Hermanns, 2013).
The lack of inclusion experienced by several fathers in the diag- nostic process can be contextualised within findings from the wider survey associated with this study (Potter, forthcoming) where six in ten fathers felt that they had not been adequately supported “as the child’s father” in the period following diagnosis. Such perspectives are suggestive of a deficit model approach implicit in the attitudes of practitioners encountered and it is consistent with findings from other studies in the field of disability where provision has been found to be generally targeted at mothers (see Flippin and Crais, 2011; SCIE, 2005; Towers, 2009). Meadan, Stoner, and Angell (2015) conceptu- alised the functioning of families having children with autism within a family systems framework (see Turnbull, Turnbull, Erwin, Soodak, & Shogren, 2011) in which cohesion is seen viewed as vital to healthy
family functioning, where cohesion is defined as ‘the degree to which members are “motivated to remain part of a group”’ (Schermerhorn, Hunt & Osmond, 2000, p.203, cited in Meadan et al., 2015). Father inclusion in the diagnostic process seems especially important since from a family systems point of view, such a stressful experience is likely to represent a considerable challenge to family cohesion in the immediate and longer term.
Limitations associated with this study should be noted. The sample of fathers cannot be said to be representative of all fathers of chil- dren with autism since the backgrounds of participants were relatively homogeneous with regard to ethnicity, level of education and marital status. While the response rate to the open- ended item under discus- sion is comparatively high (60% of the whole sample), nevertheless those who did not respond may have provided a range of differing perspectives. In addition, there are acknowledged limitations in the use of qualitative data gained through open- ended survey questions since as Jackson and Tochim (2002) observed, the brevity of such re- sponses can serve to decontextualise experiences and perspectives and cannot provide the richness and depth of data gained through interview approaches. However, as many quotations reported here illustrate, such data can be powerful as a result of the necessary distil- lation of thoughts and feelings. Furthermore, it has been argued that the use of such questions gives greater voice to participants, especially relevant here in relation to fathers of children with disabilities whose perspectives rarely appear in the literature and may help to redress the balance of power between the researcher and the researched (O’Cathain & Thomas, 2004). In addition, for some fathers, diagnosis occurred some years previously bringing into question issues of accu- racy of recall, although Ahn et al., (2015) maintained that long term memory is significantly enhanced by the kind of strong emotion de- scribed by fathers here.
5 | C O N C L U S I O N
Fathers in this study reported a range of strong emotions and chal- lenges during the diagnostic process within a context where most felt unsupported, indicating that much greater provision is required in this key area for both parents. Implications for service provision are that support should be gender- differentiated and strengths- based, taking account of the particular needs and perspectives of both mothers and fathers at this critical juncture in family life. In addition, more opti- mistic, evidence- based messages should be sensitively communicated during and after the diagnostic interview to help develop a more bal- anced narrative where hopeful possibilities concerning the future for children and families are set alongside potential challenges.
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
Many thanks to the fathers who took the time to complete the survey. Thanks also to Dr. Chris Whittaker for his ongoing support throughout the research project and in particular for his comments on this paper. In addition, thanks to Roger Olley, M.B.E., Phil Heslop and Professor
104 | POTTER
John Carpenter for their expert contribution to the verification group for the study. Finally, thanks to the anonymous peer reviewers for their insightful comments.
C O N F L I C T O F I N T E R E S T
There are no conflicts of interest.
R E F E R E N C E S
Ahn, H. M., Kim, S. A., Hwang, I. J., Jeong, J. W., Kim, H. T., Hamann, S., & Kim, S. H. (2015). The effect of cognitive reappraisal on long- term emo- tional experience and emotional memory. Journal of Neuropsychology, 9(1), 64–76.
Beresford, B., Tozer, R., Rabiee, P., & Sloper, P. (2007). Desired outcomes for children and adolescents with autistic spectrum disorders. Children & Society, 21(1), 4–16.
Braunstein, V. L., Peniston, N., Perelman, A., & Cassano, M. C. (2013). The inclusion of fathers in investigations of autistic spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7(7), 858–865.
Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the brief COPE. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 92–100.
Casey, L. B., Zanksas, S., Meindl, J. N., Parra, G. R., Cogdal, P., & Powell, K. (2012). Parental symptoms of posttraumatic stress following a child’s diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder: A pilot study. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1186–1193.
Crane, L., Chester, J. W., Goddard, L., Henry, L. A., & Hill, E. (2015). Experiences of autism diagnosis: A survey of over 1000 parents in the United Kingdom. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/log in?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmed m&AN=25810370&site=eds-live&scope=site
Cutress, A. L., & Muncer, S. J. (2014). Parents’ views of the National Autistic Society’s EarlyBird Plus Programme. Autism: The International Journal of Research & Practice, 18(6), 651.
Fabiano, G. A. (2007). Father participation in behavioral parent training for ADHD: Review and recommendations for increasing inclusion and en- gagement. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 683–693.
Fiske, K. E. (2009). A cross-sectional study of patterns of renewed stress among parents of children with autism. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
Fiske, K. E., Pepa, L., & Harris, S. L. (2014). Supporting parents, siblings and grandparents of individuals with autism spectrum disorders. In F. R. Volkmar & R. Paul (Ed.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (pp. 932–948). New Jersey: Wiley.
Flippin, M., & Crais, E. R. (2011). The need for more effective father involve- ment in early autism intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(1), 24–50.
Gaspar de Alba, M. J., & Bodfish, J. W. (2011). Addressing parental con- cerns at the initial diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 633–639.
Glenn, F. (2007). Growing together or drifting apart: Children with disabilities and their parents’ relationship. London: One Plus One.
Harnett, A., Tierney, E., & Guerin, S. (2009). Convention of hope – commu- nicating positive, realistic messages to families at the time of a child’s diagnosis with disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(4), 257–264 8p.
Hawkins, A. J., Bradford, K. P., Palkovitz, R., Christiansen, S. L., Day, R. D., & Call, V. R. A. (2002). The inventory of father involvement: A pilot study of a new measure of father involvement. Journal of Men’s Studies, 10(2), 183–196.
Hayes, S., & Watson, S. (2013). The impact of parenting stress: A meta- analysis of studies comparing the experience of parenting stress in
parents of children with and without autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 43(3), 629–642.
Hedov, G., Wikblad, K., & Annerén, G. (2002). First information and sup- port provided to parents of children with Down syndrome in Sweden: Clinical goals and parental experiences. Acta Paediatrica, 91(12), 1344.
Hornby, G. (1992). A review of fathers’ accounts of their experiences of parenting children with disabilities. Disability, Handicap & Society, 7(4), 363–374.
Howlin, P., & Moore, A. (1997). Diagnosis in autism: A survey of over 1200 patients in the UK. Autism: the International Journal of Research and Practice, 1(2), 135–162.
Hoy, S. (2012). Beyond men behaving badly: A meta- ethnography of men’s perspectives on psychological distress and help seeking. International Journal of Men’s Health, 11(3), 202–226 25p.
Jackson, K. M., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2002). Concept mapping as an al- ternative approach for the analysis of open- ended survey responses. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 307–336.
Keen, D., & Rodger, S. (2012). Working with parents of a newly diagnosed child with an autism spectrum disorder - a guide for professionals. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Kosger, F., Sevil, S., Subasi, Z., & Kaptanoglu, C. (2015). Asperger’s syn- drome in adulthood: A case report. Erişkin Asperger Sendromu: Olgu Sunumu., 28(4), 382–386.
McGrew, J. H., & Keyes, M. L. (2014). Caregiver stress during the first year after diagnosis of an Autism Spectrum Disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(10), 1373–1385.
McLaughlin, J., & Goodley D. (2008). Unmaking children. In J. McLaughlin, D. Goodley, E. Clavering , & P. Fisher, (Eds.), Families raising disabled babies (pp. 53–77). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Meadan, H., Stoner, J. B., & Angell, M. E. (2015). Fathers of children with autism: Perceived roles, responsibilities, and support needs. Early Child Development and Care, 185(10), 1678–1694.
Niela-Vilén, H., Axelin, A., Salanterä, S., & Melender, H.-L. (2014). Internet- based peer support for parents: A systematic integrative review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51(11), 1524–1537.
Nieuwboer, C. C., Fukkink, R. G., & Hermanns, J. M. A. (2013). Peer and professional parenting support on the internet: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(7), 518–528.
Nissenbaum, M. S., Tollefson, N., & Reese, R. M. (2002). The interpretive conference: Sharing a diagnosis of autism with families. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17(1), 30–43.
O’Cathain, A., & Thomas, K. J. (2004). “Any other comments?” Open ques- tions on questionnaires – a bane or a bonus to research? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 4, 25–27.
Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2016). Internet access – Households and individuals. Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/KScXoh
Oren, C. Z., Egar-Carson, M., Stevens, M. A., & Oren, D. C. (2010). Counseling fathers from a strengths based perspective. In C. Z. Oren & D. C. Oren(Eds.), Counseling fathers (pp. 23–47). New York: Routledge.
Papageorgiou, V., & Kalyva, E. (2010). Self- reported needs and expectations of parents of children with autism spectrum disorders who participate in support groups. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4, 653–660.
Phares, V., Rojas, A., Thurston, I. B., & Hankinson, J. C. (2010). Including fathers in clinical interventions for children and adolescents. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development, 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Potter, C. A. (2016). “I accept my son for who he is – he has incredible character and personality”: fathers’ positive experiences of parenting children with autism. Disability & Society, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.108 0/09687599.2016.1216393
Potter, C. A. Forthcoming. Fathers of Children with Autism: Experiences, Practices and Service Use. London: Routledge.
Rao, M. A., & Donaldson, S. I. (2015). Expanding opportunities for diversity in positive psychology: An examination of gender, race, and ethnicity. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 56(3), 271–282.
| 105POTTER
Rodrigue, J., Morgan, S., & Geffken, G. (1992). Psychosocial adaptation of fathers of children with autism, down syndrome, and normal de- velopment. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 22(2), 249–263.
Russell, G., & Norwich, B. (2012). Dilemmas, diagnosis and de- stigmatization: Parental perspectives on the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 229–245.
Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (2000). Organizational behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
SCIE (2005). Being a father to a child with disabilities: Issues and what helps. Social Care Institute for Excellence. Retrieved from www.scie.org.uk
Seymour-Smith, S. (2013). A reconsideration of the gendered mechanisms of support in online interactions about testicular implants: A discursive approach. Health Psychology, 32(1), 91–99.
Sim, A., Cordier, R., Vaz, S., & Falkmer, T. (2016). Relationship satis- faction in couples raising a child with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of the literature. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 31, 30–52.
Smith, E. J. (2006). The strength- based counseling model. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(1), 13–79.
Stuart, M., & McGrew, J. H. (2009). Caregiver burden after receiving a diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3(1), 86–97.
Taanila, A. (2002). Well- presented first information supports parents’ ability to cope with a chronically ill or disabled child. Acta Paediatrica, 91(12), 1289.
Taanila, A., Jarvelin, M., & Kokkonen, J. (1998). Parental guidance and coun- selling by doctors and nursing staff: Parents’ views of initial information and advice for families with disabled children. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 7(6), 505–511 7p.
Taylor, J. L., & Warren, Z. (2012). Maternal depressive symptoms follow- ing autism spectrum diagnosis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(7), 1411–1418.
Thomas, K., Morrissey, J., & McLaurin, C. (2007). Use of autism- related services by families and children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(5), 818–829.
Towers C. (2009). Recognising Fathers: A National Survey of Fathers who have Children with Learning Disabilities. Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities.
Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Erwin, E., Soodak, L., & Shogren, K. (2011). Families, pro- fessionals, and exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
How to cite this article: Potter CA. “I received a leaflet and that is all”: Father experiences of a diagnosis of autism. Br J Learn Disabil. 2017;45:95–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12179