The intergenerational impact of the Contaminated Blood Scandal: a qualitative study

Sally-Anne Wherry; Liz Berragan; Roz Jennings

doi:10.2478/jhp-2025-0014

Abstract

Abstract Background

The Contaminated Blood Scandal (CBS) infected many people with haemophilia (PwH) with blood-borne diseases. While studies have focused on those directly affected, little is known about the intergenerational impact on their children and siblings. Many adult children were subject to multiple adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) as relatives became unwell or died, experiencing isolation, stigma, grief and loss, from both society and healthcare professionals (HCPs). These experiences occurred within broader ecological systems that compounded their impact across individual, family, community, and societal levels.

Aims

To explore the impact of the CBS on adult children and siblings of affected PwH, including effects on trust in healthcare professionals and engagement with healthcare services; and to understand how individual, family, community, and societal factors interacted to influence development and trauma transmission across generations.

Methods

This qualitative research study used an interpretivist approach, conducted within the haemophilia community by a researcher with member status. Semi-structured interviews with adult children and siblings (13 participants) of PwH affected by the CBS were undertaken. An autoethnographic approach allowed consideration of the researcher’s insider status influences, embracing positionality and subjectivity. Interviews were analysed using six-stage Reflective Thematic Analysis in NVIVO.

Results

Key themes included silence and stigma, mental health impact, intergenerational trauma transmission, life path disruption (education, relationships), and effects on healthcare trust and choices. Participants demonstrated patterns consistent with ACE research, reporting significant psychological impacts, altered treatment choices, and heightened information needs. Many expressed specific needs for understanding and compassionate care from HCPs, with some continuing to self-silence fears to protect their children. Through the Bio-Ecological Systems Framework lens, multiple system levels – from disrupted family microsystems to stigmatising societal macrosystems during the HIV/AIDS era – synthesised to create an environment where compounded effects caused lasting harm.

Conclusion

This group’s life paths have been severely disrupted, resulting in psychological and socioeconomic disadvantage that can impact their children, passing trauma through generations. The trauma level experienced and continued through silencing and denial resulted in PTSD symptoms for some. Participants identified specific needs for healthcare interactions acknowledging their experiences and providing compassionate, transparent communication. Urgent research is needed into care approaches within specialist centres and integration of CBS learning into healthcare education, centring voices of people and families with haemophilia in developing responses.

Article

View Full Article

References

1. Lee CA. Blood borne infections and haemophilia: the worst of times. J Haem Pract 2015; 2(2): 5–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.17225/jhp00049.
2. Infected Blood Inquiry. Expert Report to the Infected Blood Inquiry: Psychosocial Issues – Childhood Bereavement (Supplementary). November 2022. Available from https://www.infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk/reports/childhood-bereavement.html (accessed March 2025).
3. Edwards R, Gillies V, Lee E, et al. The problem with ‘ACEs’. Edwards et al.’s submission to the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee Inquiry into the evidence-base for early years intervention (EY10039). 12 December 2017. Available from https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/parentingculturestudies/files/2018/01/The-Problem-with-ACEs-EY10039-Edwards-et-al.-2017-1.pdf (accessed March 2025).
4. Fitzgerald M, Gallus KL. Conceptualizing and measuring childhood adversity: A comprehensive critique of the adverse childhood experiences measure and offering a new conceptualization of childhood adversity. Am J Orthopsychiatry 2025; 95(3): 274–287. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000785.
5. McEwen CA, Gregerson SF. A critical assessment of the adverse childhood experiences study at 20 years. Am J Prev Med 2019; 56(6): 790–794. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.10.016.
6. Houtepen LC, Heron J, Suderman MJ, et al. Association of adverse childhood experiences with educational attainment and adolescent health, and the role of socioeconomic factors: analysis of a prospective cohort study. Lancet 2018; 392: S43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32067-1.
7. Narayan AJ, Lieberman AF, Masten AS. Intergenerational transmission and prevention of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Clin Psychol Rev 2021; 85: 101997. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.101997.
8. Ross DB, Coambs E, Johnson E. Trauma of the past: The impact of adverse childhood experiences on adult attachment, money beliefs and behaviors, and financial transparency. Journal of Financial Therapy 2022; 13(1): 39–59. doi: https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-9771.1280.
9. Corcoran R. Poverty, ACEs and stigmatised places: The application of psychology to the challenges of disadvantage. Psychology Psychother 2023; 96(3): 577–589. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12457.
10. Macvarish J, Lee E. Constructions of parents in adverse childhood experiences discourse. Social Policy and Society 2019; 18(3): 467–477. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474746419000083.
11. Hayes N, O’Toole L, Halpenny AM. Introducing Bronfenbrenner: A Guide for Practitioners and Students in Early Years Education. London: Routledge, 2017.
12. Tudge JR, Merçon-Vargas EA, Payir A. Urie Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory: Its development, core concepts, and critical issues. In: Adamsons K, Few-Demo AL, Proulx C, Roy K (eds). Sourcebook Of Family Theories and Methodologies: A Dynamic Approach. Cham.: Springer; 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92002-9_16.
13. Bronfenbrenner U. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Harvard University Press; 1979. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv26071r6.
14. Frosh S. The unsaid and the unheard: Acknowledgement, accountability, and recognition in the face of silence. In: Murray AJ, Durrheim K (eds). Qualitative Studies of Silence: The Unsaid as Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019.
15. Nasar S, Schaffer G. The poetics of narrativity: Understanding trauma, temporality, and spatiality forty years after the Birmingham pub bombings. Journal of Social History 2020; 53(4): 1008–1032. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jsh/shz004.
16. Landau J, Saul J. Facilitating family and community resilience in response to major disaster. In: Walsh F, McGoldrick M (eds). Living Beyond Loss: Death in the Family. 2nd edn. WW Norton & Co.; 2004. Pp. 285–309.
17. Danieli Y. International Handbook of Multigenerational Legacies of Trauma. Springer Science & Business Media; 1998.
18. Keilson H, Sarphatie HR. Sequential Traumatization in Children: A Clinical and Statistical Follow-Up Study on the Fate of the Jewish War Orphans in the Netherlands. Magnes Press; 1992.
19. Symonds M. The “second injury” to victims. Evaluation and Change 1980; 7(1): 36–38.
20. Ryan G. Introduction to positivism, interpretivism and critical theory. Nurse Res 2018; 25(4): 41–49. doi: https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2018.e1466.
21. Giazitzoglu A, Payne G. A 3-level model of insider ethnography. The Qualitative Report 2018; 23(5): 1149–1159. doi: https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3151.
22. Anderson L.. Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 2006; 35(4): 373–395. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241605280449.
23. Adams TE, Holman Jones S, Ellis C. Autoethnographic research design and philosophy. In: Autoethnography: Understanding Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press; 2015.
24. Adams TE, Herrmann AF. Good autoethnography. Journal of Autoethnography 2023; 4: 1–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/joae.2023.4.1.1.
25. Boll T. Meet “me” in the field (-notes): The selves and self-relations of autoethnography. Qualitative Inquiry 2023; 30(8-9): 674–683. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004231196921.
26. Ellis C. Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry 2007; 13(1): 3–29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406294947.
27. Ellis C. Revision: Autoethnographic Reflections on Life and Work. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press; 2009.
28. Murphy E, Dingwall R. The ethics of ethnography. In: Atkinson P, Coffey A, Delamont S, Lofland J, Lofland L (eds). Handbook of Ethnography. Sage; 2001. doi: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608337.n23.
29. Nordstrom SN. Not so innocent anymore: Making recording devices matter in qualitative interviews. Qualitative Inquiry 2015; 21(4): 388–401. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414563804.
30. Barad K. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Duke University Press; 2007
31. Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage; 2021.
32. Byrne D. A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity 2022; 56(2). doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y.
33. Danieli Y. The treatment and prevention of long-term effects and intergenerational transmission of victimization: A lesson from Holocaust Survivors and their children. In Figley CR (ed.). Trauma and its Wake. New York: Brunner/Mazel; 1985
34. Thomson P, Jaque SV. Adverse childhood experiences (ACE) and adult attachment interview (AAI) in a non-clinical population. Child Abuse Negl 2017;70: 255–263. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.06.001.
35. Sheridan N, Thompson B, Lichten L, Coleman K, Sidonio R. The emotional experience of mothers of children with haemophilia: maternal guilt, effective coping strategies and resilience within the haemophilia community. Haemophilia 2023;29(2): 513–520. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14746.
36. Johansson-Everday A. “They Told Me the Pills Were Safe”: Understanding the Experience of Iatrogenic Injury from Psychiatric Treatment. 2023. PhD Thesis. Uppsala University. Available from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1809190/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed March 2025).
37. Infected Blood Inquiry. Expert Report to the Infected Blood Inquiry: Psychosocial Issues (Supplementary). September 2020. Available from https://www.infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2020-09-16%20Psychosocial%20Supplementary%20Report.pdf (accessed March 2025).
38. Fillion E. Clinical relationships tested by iatrogenicity: The case of haemophiliac patients faced with the epidemic of transfusional AIDS. Soc Sci Med 2008; 67(9): 1400–1409. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.07.008.
39. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Practical Guide for Implementing a Trauma-Informed Approach: SAMHSA publication no. PEP23-06-05-005. Released 2023. Available from https://archive.org/details/tr-inf-care (accessed March 2025).
40. Keshavjee S, Weiser S, Kleinman A. Medicine betrayed: hemophilia patients and HIV in the US. Soc Sci Med 2001; 53(8): 1081–1094. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00403-2.
41. South E, Khair K. You think you know the patient inside-out. But do you know the patient outside-in? J Haem Pract 2018; 5(1): 130–137. doi: https://doi.org/10.17225/jhp00125.

PDF Download

Download PDF

Open in full-page viewer

Authors

Sally-Anne Wherry

swherry@glos.ac.uk

School of Health and Social Care, University of Gloucester, Gloucester, UK
Liz Berragan

School of Health and Social Care, University of Gloucester, Gloucester, UK
Roz Jennings

School of Health and Social Care, University of Gloucester, Gloucester, UK