Why Cohabitating couples happier than married and no safe level of alcohol in pregnancy

Warning-No Safe Level of Alcohol during Pregnancy

The authors of a study published online on Tuesday that was designed to overcome the difficulties of obtaining accurate and reliable data in Fetal Alcohol Syndrome research, say their findings reinforce the warning that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

The lead author of the study is Haruna Sawada Feldman, a post-doctoral student in the University of California, San Diego pediatrics department, where senior author Christina Chambers, is a professor. The study is published in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) is a spectrum of growth, mental and physical abnormalities that can occur in babies whose mothers drink alcohol during pregnancy.

Physical features of serious FAS include smooth philtrum (no groove between nose and upper lip), thin vermillion border (thin upper lip), short palpebral fissures (abnormally small-set eyes), microcephaly (small head circumference), and growth deficiencies in weight and height.

Feldman said in a statement that they designed the study to overcome two key problems in Fetal Alcohol Syndrome research.One is that FAS research often relies on what the mothers say about their alcohol consumption. Sourcing data in this way raises questions about inaccuracy due to recall bias and social stigma.Feldman says they overcame this by collecting data during pregnancy when women were unaware of their pregnancy outcome.

"The data were also collected by trained counseling specialists who had built a rapport with the woman and guaranteed confidentiality while collecting sensitive information," said Feldman.

An added bonus of getting the data in this way was that it included specific details about the stage of pregnancy, dose and pattern of alcohol consumption.The other difficulty with FAS research is spotting the symptoms in newborns. This requires a careful examination of specific physical features:"These alcohol-related features are often subtle, and a non-expert examiner may miss or misclassify features, and/or can be biased by subjectivity, especially if he/she suspects or knows about prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE)," said Feldman.

To overcome this second challenge, the study used an expert in dysmorphology, someone trained to look for physical abnormalities, including very subtle ones.

And the expert was exposure blinded, that is they did not know which of the babies they were examining were suspected of having FAS, and further potential bias was reduced because the exams were done in the context of a larger piece of research that was looking at over 70 different variables, of which effects of alcohol was only one.

The data for the study came from 992 women and their single babies in California gathered between 1978 and 2005. It included patterns of drinking and timing of alcohol exposure in relation to selected FAS features.Patterns of drinking were assessed in terms of drinks per day, number of binge episodes and maximum number of drinks.Timing of exposure was evaluated for zero to six weeks after conception, six to 12 weeks after conception, and during the first, second, and third trimesters.

The results showed that:

Higher prenatal alcohol exposure in every alcohol consumption pattern was significantly linked to an increased risk of the baby being born with reduced birth weight or length, having a smooth philtrum, thin vermillion border or microcephaly.

The most significant links were during the second half of the first trimester.

During this period of gestation, for every increase of one alcoholic drink in the average daily consumption, there was a 25% increase in risk for smooth philtrum, 22% increase in risk for thin vermillion border, 12% for microcephaly, 16% for reduced birth weight, and 18% for reduced birth length.

(Source-Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.)

Why Cohabitating couples happier, have better self-esteem than married counterparts

A new study, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family reveals that married couples experience few advantages for psychological well-being, health, or social ties compared to unmarried couples who live together. While both marriage and cohabitation provide benefits over being single, these reduce over time following a honeymoon period.

“Marriage has long been an important social institution, but in recent decades western societies have experienced increases in cohabitation, before or instead of marriage, and increases in children born outside of marriage,” said Dr Kelly Musick, Associate Professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University’s College of Human Ecology. “These changes have blurred the boundaries of marriage, leading to questions about what difference marriage makes in comparison to alternatives.”

Previous research has sought to prove a link between marriage and well-being, but many studies compared marriage to being single, or compared marriages and cohabitations at a single point in time.

This study compares marriage to cohabitation while using a fixed-effects approach that focuses on what changes when single men and women move into marriage or cohabitation and the extent to which any effects of marriage and cohabitation persist over time.Dr Musick drew a study sample from the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) of 2,737 single men and women, 896 of whom married or moved in with a partner over the course of 6 years. The study focused on key areas of well-being, considering questions on happiness, levels of depression, health, and social ties.

The results showed a spike in well-being immediately following both marriage and cohabitation as couples experienced a honeymoon period with higher levels of happiness and fewer depressive symptoms compared to singles. However, these advantages were short lived.

Marriage and cohabitation both resulted in less contact with parents and friends compared to remaining single – and these effects appeared to persist over time.

“We found that differences between marriage and cohabitation tend to be small and dissipate after a honeymoon period. Also while married couples experienced health gains – likely linked to the formal benefits of marriage such as shared healthcare plans – cohabiting couples experienced greater gains in happiness and self-esteem. For some, cohabitation may come with fewer unwanted obligations than marriage and allow for more flexibility, autonomy, and personal growth” said Musick.

“Compared to most industrial countries America continues to value marriage above other family forms,” concluded Musick. “However our research shows that marriage is by no means unique in promoting well-being and that other forms of romantic relationships can provide many of the same benefits.” (Source-Journal of Marriage and Family)