Clinical Psychiatry News

For the first time, methamphetamines and cocaine have overtaken heroin and prescription opioids in illicit drug use involving fentanyl nationwide and in nearly every state, a new report suggested.

The use of methamphetamine among people who also use fentanyl reached a record high in 2023, urinary drug tests (UDTs) showed, while the use of prescription opioids in that same group reached an historic low. 

Investigators said the data offer further evidence that the US is experiencing a predicted “fourth wave” of the opioid crisis.

The report came on the heels of new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that showed the preferred method of fentanyl-related illicit drug use shifted from intravenous injection to smoking.

“The rise in cocaine and methamphetamine nationally does not seem to be driven by one or even a few regions of the country,” authors of the 2024 Health Signals Report wrote. “Stimulants are a serious national challenge emphasizing the need for continued progress on the national plan to address methamphetamine supply, use, and consequences.”

The report, published online on February 22 by San Diego–based drug testing lab Millennium Health, is an analysis of urine specimens from 4.1 million unique patients aged ≥ 18 years, collected in all 50 states from 2013 to 2023. 
 

A Year of Firsts

Last year, 60% of specimens that contained fentanyl also contained methamphetamine, an increase of 875% since 2015, according to Millennium’s report. It’s the first time that methamphetamine and cocaine were detected more often in urine drug tests than heroin and prescription opioids.

About a quarter of fentanyl-positive specimens also contained cocaine, 17% heroin and just 7% prescription opioids.

Almost all the fentanyl-positive specimens were positive for at least one additional substance; almost half contained three or more. Xylazine, an animal sedative known as “tranq,” was detected in nearly 14% of fentanyl-positive specimens.

“These combinations increase overdose vulnerability and may lessen responses to overdose reversal agents, making treatment as challenging as any time in history,” Millennium Senior VP and Chief Clinical Officer, Angela G. Huskey, PharmD, CPE, said in a statement.

The Millennium data back up what has been increasingly reported by the CDC and others. As reported in September by this news organization, in 2010, stimulants were co-involved in less than 1% of fentanyl overdose deaths. By 2021, stimulant-fentanyl use accounted for 32% of all fatal fentanyl overdoses.

In July 2023, the CDC reported a significant spike in overdose deaths involving cocaine or other psychostimulants and opioids from 2011 to 2021. In 2021, 79% of overdose deaths involving cocaine also involved an opioid and 66% of overdose deaths involving psychostimulants also involved an opioid, according to the CDC.

There were more overdose deaths from stimulants combined with opioids than from opioids alone in 2022, according to the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System, which includes reports from 30 jurisdictions.
 

Smoking Overtakes Injection

The route of administration for opioids and stimulants — whether used alone or in combination, has also changed, the CDC recently reported. In 2022, just 16% of overdose deaths involved injection drug use, down from 23% in 2020, according to the analysis, which included data from 28 jurisdictions. For deaths involving illegally manufactured fentanyl, just 12% of deaths involved IV drug use.

By 2022, “smoking was the most commonly documented route of use in overdose deaths,” CDC researchers wrote in their report. Almost a quarter of deaths that year involved smoking.

The increase in smoking was seen for all substances, including opioids, fentanyl and combinations of fentanyl and stimulants, reported the agency.

Users might be switching to smoking from injections because there is a perception of fewer adverse health effects such as abscesses, reduced cost and stigma, sense of more control over quantity consumed per use, and “a perception of reduced overdose risk,” the researchers wrote.

Smoking still “carries substantial overdose risk because of rapid drug absorption,” they added.

Some harm reduction programs are adapting to the change in use patterns by providing safer smoking supplies and by changing messaging to warn of the dangers associated with smoking drugs, the CDC report noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, methamphetamines and cocaine have overtaken heroin and prescription opioids in illicit drug use involving fentanyl nationwide and in nearly every state, a new report suggested.

The use of methamphetamine among people who also use fentanyl reached a record high in 2023, urinary drug tests (UDTs) showed, while the use of prescription opioids in that same group reached an historic low. 

Investigators said the data offer further evidence that the US is experiencing a predicted “fourth wave” of the opioid crisis.

The report came on the heels of new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that showed the preferred method of fentanyl-related illicit drug use shifted from intravenous injection to smoking.

“The rise in cocaine and methamphetamine nationally does not seem to be driven by one or even a few regions of the country,” authors of the 2024 Health Signals Report wrote. “Stimulants are a serious national challenge emphasizing the need for continued progress on the national plan to address methamphetamine supply, use, and consequences.”

The report, published online on February 22 by San Diego–based drug testing lab Millennium Health, is an analysis of urine specimens from 4.1 million unique patients aged ≥ 18 years, collected in all 50 states from 2013 to 2023. 
 

A Year of Firsts

Last year, 60% of specimens that contained fentanyl also contained methamphetamine, an increase of 875% since 2015, according to Millennium’s report. It’s the first time that methamphetamine and cocaine were detected more often in urine drug tests than heroin and prescription opioids.

About a quarter of fentanyl-positive specimens also contained cocaine, 17% heroin and just 7% prescription opioids.

Almost all the fentanyl-positive specimens were positive for at least one additional substance; almost half contained three or more. Xylazine, an animal sedative known as “tranq,” was detected in nearly 14% of fentanyl-positive specimens.

“These combinations increase overdose vulnerability and may lessen responses to overdose reversal agents, making treatment as challenging as any time in history,” Millennium Senior VP and Chief Clinical Officer, Angela G. Huskey, PharmD, CPE, said in a statement.

The Millennium data back up what has been increasingly reported by the CDC and others. As reported in September by this news organization, in 2010, stimulants were co-involved in less than 1% of fentanyl overdose deaths. By 2021, stimulant-fentanyl use accounted for 32% of all fatal fentanyl overdoses.

In July 2023, the CDC reported a significant spike in overdose deaths involving cocaine or other psychostimulants and opioids from 2011 to 2021. In 2021, 79% of overdose deaths involving cocaine also involved an opioid and 66% of overdose deaths involving psychostimulants also involved an opioid, according to the CDC.

There were more overdose deaths from stimulants combined with opioids than from opioids alone in 2022, according to the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System, which includes reports from 30 jurisdictions.
 

Smoking Overtakes Injection

The route of administration for opioids and stimulants — whether used alone or in combination, has also changed, the CDC recently reported. In 2022, just 16% of overdose deaths involved injection drug use, down from 23% in 2020, according to the analysis, which included data from 28 jurisdictions. For deaths involving illegally manufactured fentanyl, just 12% of deaths involved IV drug use.

By 2022, “smoking was the most commonly documented route of use in overdose deaths,” CDC researchers wrote in their report. Almost a quarter of deaths that year involved smoking.

The increase in smoking was seen for all substances, including opioids, fentanyl and combinations of fentanyl and stimulants, reported the agency.

Users might be switching to smoking from injections because there is a perception of fewer adverse health effects such as abscesses, reduced cost and stigma, sense of more control over quantity consumed per use, and “a perception of reduced overdose risk,” the researchers wrote.

Smoking still “carries substantial overdose risk because of rapid drug absorption,” they added.

Some harm reduction programs are adapting to the change in use patterns by providing safer smoking supplies and by changing messaging to warn of the dangers associated with smoking drugs, the CDC report noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, methamphetamines and cocaine have overtaken heroin and prescription opioids in illicit drug use involving fentanyl nationwide and in nearly every state, a new report suggested.

The use of methamphetamine among people who also use fentanyl reached a record high in 2023, urinary drug tests (UDTs) showed, while the use of prescription opioids in that same group reached an historic low. 

Investigators said the data offer further evidence that the US is experiencing a predicted “fourth wave” of the opioid crisis.

The report came on the heels of new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that showed the preferred method of fentanyl-related illicit drug use shifted from intravenous injection to smoking.

“The rise in cocaine and methamphetamine nationally does not seem to be driven by one or even a few regions of the country,” authors of the 2024 Health Signals Report wrote. “Stimulants are a serious national challenge emphasizing the need for continued progress on the national plan to address methamphetamine supply, use, and consequences.”

The report, published online on February 22 by San Diego–based drug testing lab Millennium Health, is an analysis of urine specimens from 4.1 million unique patients aged ≥ 18 years, collected in all 50 states from 2013 to 2023. 
 

A Year of Firsts

Last year, 60% of specimens that contained fentanyl also contained methamphetamine, an increase of 875% since 2015, according to Millennium’s report. It’s the first time that methamphetamine and cocaine were detected more often in urine drug tests than heroin and prescription opioids.

About a quarter of fentanyl-positive specimens also contained cocaine, 17% heroin and just 7% prescription opioids.

Almost all the fentanyl-positive specimens were positive for at least one additional substance; almost half contained three or more. Xylazine, an animal sedative known as “tranq,” was detected in nearly 14% of fentanyl-positive specimens.

“These combinations increase overdose vulnerability and may lessen responses to overdose reversal agents, making treatment as challenging as any time in history,” Millennium Senior VP and Chief Clinical Officer, Angela G. Huskey, PharmD, CPE, said in a statement.

The Millennium data back up what has been increasingly reported by the CDC and others. As reported in September by this news organization, in 2010, stimulants were co-involved in less than 1% of fentanyl overdose deaths. By 2021, stimulant-fentanyl use accounted for 32% of all fatal fentanyl overdoses.

In July 2023, the CDC reported a significant spike in overdose deaths involving cocaine or other psychostimulants and opioids from 2011 to 2021. In 2021, 79% of overdose deaths involving cocaine also involved an opioid and 66% of overdose deaths involving psychostimulants also involved an opioid, according to the CDC.

There were more overdose deaths from stimulants combined with opioids than from opioids alone in 2022, according to the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System, which includes reports from 30 jurisdictions.
 

Smoking Overtakes Injection

The route of administration for opioids and stimulants — whether used alone or in combination, has also changed, the CDC recently reported. In 2022, just 16% of overdose deaths involved injection drug use, down from 23% in 2020, according to the analysis, which included data from 28 jurisdictions. For deaths involving illegally manufactured fentanyl, just 12% of deaths involved IV drug use.

By 2022, “smoking was the most commonly documented route of use in overdose deaths,” CDC researchers wrote in their report. Almost a quarter of deaths that year involved smoking.

The increase in smoking was seen for all substances, including opioids, fentanyl and combinations of fentanyl and stimulants, reported the agency.

Users might be switching to smoking from injections because there is a perception of fewer adverse health effects such as abscesses, reduced cost and stigma, sense of more control over quantity consumed per use, and “a perception of reduced overdose risk,” the researchers wrote.

Smoking still “carries substantial overdose risk because of rapid drug absorption,” they added.

Some harm reduction programs are adapting to the change in use patterns by providing safer smoking supplies and by changing messaging to warn of the dangers associated with smoking drugs, the CDC report noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of stimulant therapy by adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was not associated with later prescription drug misuse (PDM), a new study showed. However, misuse of prescription stimulants during adolescence was associated with significantly higher odds of later PDM.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data came from 11,066 participants in the ongoing Monitoring the Future panel study (baseline cohort years 2005-2017), a multicohort US national longitudinal study of adolescents followed into adulthood, in which procedures and measures are kept consistent across time.
• Participants (ages 17 and 18 years, 51.7% female, 11.2% Black, 15.7% Hispanic, and 59.6% White) completed self-administered questionnaires, with biennial follow-up during young adulthood (ages 19-24 years).
• The questionnaires asked about the number of occasions (if any) in which respondents used a prescription drug (benzodiazepine, opioid, or stimulant) on their own, without a physician’s order.
• Baseline covariates included sex, race, ethnicity, grade point average during high school, parental education, past 2-week binge drinking, past-month cigarette use, and past-year marijuana use, as well as demographic factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 9.9% of participants reported lifetime stimulant therapy for ADHD, and 18.6% reported lifetime prescription stimulant misuse at baseline.
• Adolescents who received stimulant therapy for ADHD were less likely to report past-year prescription stimulant misuse as young adults compared with their same-age peers who did not receive stimulant therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99).
• The researchers found no significant differences between adolescents with or without lifetime stimulants in later incidence or prevalence of past-year PDM during young adulthood.
• The most robust predictor of prescription stimulant misuse during young adulthood was prescription stimulant misuse during adolescence; similarly, the most robust predictors of prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse during young adulthood were prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse (respectively) during adolescence.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings amplify accumulating evidence suggesting that careful monitoring and screening during adolescence could identify individuals who are at relatively greater risk for PDM and need more comprehensive substance use assessment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Sean Esteban McCabe, PhD, professor and director, Center for the Study of Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking and Health, University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on February 7 in Psychiatric Sciences.

LIMITATIONS:

Some subpopulations with higher rates of substance use, including youths who left school before completion and institutionalized populations, were excluded from the study, which may have led to an underestimation of PDM. Moreover, some potential confounders (eg, comorbid psychiatric conditions) were not assessed.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a research award from the US Food and Drug Administration and research awards from the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the NIH. Dr. McCabe reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of stimulant therapy by adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was not associated with later prescription drug misuse (PDM), a new study showed. However, misuse of prescription stimulants during adolescence was associated with significantly higher odds of later PDM.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data came from 11,066 participants in the ongoing Monitoring the Future panel study (baseline cohort years 2005-2017), a multicohort US national longitudinal study of adolescents followed into adulthood, in which procedures and measures are kept consistent across time.
• Participants (ages 17 and 18 years, 51.7% female, 11.2% Black, 15.7% Hispanic, and 59.6% White) completed self-administered questionnaires, with biennial follow-up during young adulthood (ages 19-24 years).
• The questionnaires asked about the number of occasions (if any) in which respondents used a prescription drug (benzodiazepine, opioid, or stimulant) on their own, without a physician’s order.
• Baseline covariates included sex, race, ethnicity, grade point average during high school, parental education, past 2-week binge drinking, past-month cigarette use, and past-year marijuana use, as well as demographic factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 9.9% of participants reported lifetime stimulant therapy for ADHD, and 18.6% reported lifetime prescription stimulant misuse at baseline.
• Adolescents who received stimulant therapy for ADHD were less likely to report past-year prescription stimulant misuse as young adults compared with their same-age peers who did not receive stimulant therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99).
• The researchers found no significant differences between adolescents with or without lifetime stimulants in later incidence or prevalence of past-year PDM during young adulthood.
• The most robust predictor of prescription stimulant misuse during young adulthood was prescription stimulant misuse during adolescence; similarly, the most robust predictors of prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse during young adulthood were prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse (respectively) during adolescence.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings amplify accumulating evidence suggesting that careful monitoring and screening during adolescence could identify individuals who are at relatively greater risk for PDM and need more comprehensive substance use assessment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Sean Esteban McCabe, PhD, professor and director, Center for the Study of Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking and Health, University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on February 7 in Psychiatric Sciences.

LIMITATIONS:

Some subpopulations with higher rates of substance use, including youths who left school before completion and institutionalized populations, were excluded from the study, which may have led to an underestimation of PDM. Moreover, some potential confounders (eg, comorbid psychiatric conditions) were not assessed.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a research award from the US Food and Drug Administration and research awards from the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the NIH. Dr. McCabe reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of stimulant therapy by adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was not associated with later prescription drug misuse (PDM), a new study showed. However, misuse of prescription stimulants during adolescence was associated with significantly higher odds of later PDM.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data came from 11,066 participants in the ongoing Monitoring the Future panel study (baseline cohort years 2005-2017), a multicohort US national longitudinal study of adolescents followed into adulthood, in which procedures and measures are kept consistent across time.
• Participants (ages 17 and 18 years, 51.7% female, 11.2% Black, 15.7% Hispanic, and 59.6% White) completed self-administered questionnaires, with biennial follow-up during young adulthood (ages 19-24 years).
• The questionnaires asked about the number of occasions (if any) in which respondents used a prescription drug (benzodiazepine, opioid, or stimulant) on their own, without a physician’s order.
• Baseline covariates included sex, race, ethnicity, grade point average during high school, parental education, past 2-week binge drinking, past-month cigarette use, and past-year marijuana use, as well as demographic factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 9.9% of participants reported lifetime stimulant therapy for ADHD, and 18.6% reported lifetime prescription stimulant misuse at baseline.
• Adolescents who received stimulant therapy for ADHD were less likely to report past-year prescription stimulant misuse as young adults compared with their same-age peers who did not receive stimulant therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99).
• The researchers found no significant differences between adolescents with or without lifetime stimulants in later incidence or prevalence of past-year PDM during young adulthood.
• The most robust predictor of prescription stimulant misuse during young adulthood was prescription stimulant misuse during adolescence; similarly, the most robust predictors of prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse during young adulthood were prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse (respectively) during adolescence.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings amplify accumulating evidence suggesting that careful monitoring and screening during adolescence could identify individuals who are at relatively greater risk for PDM and need more comprehensive substance use assessment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Sean Esteban McCabe, PhD, professor and director, Center for the Study of Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking and Health, University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on February 7 in Psychiatric Sciences.

LIMITATIONS:

Some subpopulations with higher rates of substance use, including youths who left school before completion and institutionalized populations, were excluded from the study, which may have led to an underestimation of PDM. Moreover, some potential confounders (eg, comorbid psychiatric conditions) were not assessed.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a research award from the US Food and Drug Administration and research awards from the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the NIH. Dr. McCabe reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In my previous article, “Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children,” we learned that in recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children. Refugee children and their families experience a variety of traumas, often sustained across years and even decades, because of armed conflict, persecution, social upheavals, or environmental disasters. Refugees are at greater risks for PTSD and affective and psychotic disorders presumably due to increased traumatic life events before, during, and after migration. I used my own experience as a child refugee from Vietnam to elucidate the stressors evident in various phases of forced displacement.¹

Risk Factors and Protective Factors

To a certain extent, the experiences of refugees are universal. All refugees experience some sort of humanitarian crisis that forces an emergent escape from their home across international borders to a new resettlement area. It is important to note that internally displaced people do not meet the United Nations’ (UN) official designation of refugee status; however, some agencies use a broader definition where they are designated as such.^2,3 We will refer to those not meeting the UN criteria as displaced people, while refugees are those that do meet the UN criteria. Dr. Mina Fazel’s 2012 systematic review in The Lancet of mental health risk factors and protective factors for displaced and refugee children is the most comprehensive of its kind.⁴ It will be summarized in this section with some relevant personal reflection.

In terms of risk factors, external displacement likely results in additional stress and trauma, presumably from the lack of assess to one’s culture and the host country’s language. Understandably, this makes rebuilding of one’s life more difficult. Several studies show that displaced/refugee children experience more difficulty with psychosocial adaptation than non-displaced children. Violence, directly experienced or indirectly feared, both to the child and their parents, was the strongest predictor of mental health problems and withdrawn behavior. Children who were separated from their parents clearly fared worst in their mental health than those who did not, which is not surprising given the nature of their dependence on caregivers for protection and guidance. During resettlement, experienced or perceived discrimination from the host country was also a risk factor, as well as instability in housing and a drawn-out resettlement process. Female sex was a risk factor mainly for emotional problems. Poor financial support post-migration is associated with depression, but it is unclear whether pre-migration financial status was protective. From my own experience, it is likely not, given that once one becomes a refugee one does not have access to one’s wealth, except that which could be hidden on one’s body. Another risk factor was also if one’s parent had psychiatric problems or was single. Due to the migration, my mother was separated permanently from her husband, which caused her extraordinary isolation and loneliness, something that was palpably felt by myself as I grew up.

In terms of protective factors, family cohesion and cultural continuity appear critical. For myself, not only would I not have survived without my mother and aunt, but they constantly protected me from the harsh realities. My mother would distract me with seemingly trivial goals once we got to America, like finally tasting a hamburger, or talking about school and being reunited with my uncle. This is in line with another finding — that children have better mental health outcomes when their parents do not talk about their hardships. Once my family was resettled with my uncle and his family, they played a critical role in smoothing our transition, not only by providing us with housing, but also cultural knowledge. Cultural havens can restore some of the social position and way of life that refugees lose when they are able to reconnect with a society that recognizes their previous achievements and status. Finally, religion also seemed to be a protective factor.
 

Mental Health Interventions

In 2018, Dr. Fazel identified mental health interventions for refugee children in a narrative review.⁵ She acknowledged that these conclusions are limited by the paucity of preventive mental health research in children in general, as well as the mobile nature and complex cultural differences of refugee children. This is exacerbated by the small evidence base. Given that, she makes these recommendations for varying levels of interventions: individual, group, family, living circumstances, social interactions, and school.

On an individual level, effective interventions developed to address PTSD include narrative exposure therapy, trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy, and eye-movement and desensitization therapy. Group-based interventions for trauma, for example school-based PTSD intervention programs in conflicted areas, have either been shown to not be effective, or only effective for reducing depression. The mental health of unaccompanied children separated from family fare better when placed in foster care, rather than other types of social support. This is further enhanced if the foster family is the same ethnicity.

On a family level, improvements in parenting style and parental mental health, family engagement with local culture and structures, and family-based mental health interventions all positively impact refugee children. Not surprisingly, refugee parents have a greater prevalence of mental health conditions. Several studies on refugeeism point out a greater occurrence of intimate partner violence (that negatively affects children) as well has harsher discipline and maltreatment of refugee children. Thus, mental health treatment for parents also directly improves the well-being of their children. Teaching parenting skills to mitigate the violent effect of their PTSD symptoms, as well as parenting classes that teach gentler styles, have been shown to reduce harsh parenting and mitigate aggressive behaviors in these children. These improvements are enhanced when these classes are taught by other refugees themselves.

School is key for helping refugee children since it is a site where they can access language proficiency, successful acculturation, and medical and mental health services. Several studies have identified the positive effects of better parental engagement with school, resulting in improved academic performance and reduced levels of depressive and PTSD symptoms. A review of learning problems in refugee children identified several factors for success. These include high academic and life ambition, parental involvement in education, accurate educational assessment and grade placement, teacher understanding of linguistic and cultural heritage, culturally appropriate school transition, supportive peer relationships, and successful acculturation. School certainly was key for my acculturation and language proficiency. When I arrived at 6 years old I was selectively mute for my year in first grade, namely because I did not know how to speak English and because I did not share the culture. However, my teacher correctly identified my deficiency and chose to place me in kindergarten, which allowed me the time to gain English proficiency. Though I was always the oldest one in class, that remediation was key in allowing eventual success in school leading up to my admission to UC Berkeley.
 

Summary

In recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children leading to traumas sustained across years and even decades, and greater risks for PTSD, as well as affective and psychotic disorders. Risk factors include the experience of violence, the separation from family, female gender, discrimination in the host country, unstable housing, and a drawn-out resettlement process. Protective factors consist of family cohesion, cultural continuity, support at schools, being protected from the truth of their harsh reality, stable housing, language acquisition, and quick resettlement. From these factors, effective mental interventions have been found to be the promotion of these protective factors as well as support for parental mental health and parenting skills, better parental engagement at school, and schools that correctly identify and address these children’s educational needs.

Dr. Nguyen is a second-year resident at UCSF Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously.*

References

1. Nguyen D. Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children. Pediatric News. 2023 Nov. 14. https://www.mdedge.com/pediatrics/article/266518/mental-health/mental-health-characteristics-refugee-children.

2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Refugee Concept Under International Law. Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. 2018 March 8. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5aa290937.pdf.

3. Winer JP. Mental Health Practice with Immigrant and Refugee Youth [Power Point Slides]. Michigan Medicine. 2021 June 24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICkg4132SQY

4. Fazel M et al. Mental Health of Displaced and Refugee Children Resettled in High-Income Countries: Risk and Protective Factors. Lancet. 2012 Jan 21;379(9812):266-282. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60051-2.

5. Fazel M, Betancourt TS. Preventive Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Children and Adolescents in High-Income Settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-132. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5.

*Correction, 2/27: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Nguyen's affiliation.

In my previous article, “Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children,” we learned that in recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children. Refugee children and their families experience a variety of traumas, often sustained across years and even decades, because of armed conflict, persecution, social upheavals, or environmental disasters. Refugees are at greater risks for PTSD and affective and psychotic disorders presumably due to increased traumatic life events before, during, and after migration. I used my own experience as a child refugee from Vietnam to elucidate the stressors evident in various phases of forced displacement.¹

Risk Factors and Protective Factors

To a certain extent, the experiences of refugees are universal. All refugees experience some sort of humanitarian crisis that forces an emergent escape from their home across international borders to a new resettlement area. It is important to note that internally displaced people do not meet the United Nations’ (UN) official designation of refugee status; however, some agencies use a broader definition where they are designated as such.^2,3 We will refer to those not meeting the UN criteria as displaced people, while refugees are those that do meet the UN criteria. Dr. Mina Fazel’s 2012 systematic review in The Lancet of mental health risk factors and protective factors for displaced and refugee children is the most comprehensive of its kind.⁴ It will be summarized in this section with some relevant personal reflection.

In terms of risk factors, external displacement likely results in additional stress and trauma, presumably from the lack of assess to one’s culture and the host country’s language. Understandably, this makes rebuilding of one’s life more difficult. Several studies show that displaced/refugee children experience more difficulty with psychosocial adaptation than non-displaced children. Violence, directly experienced or indirectly feared, both to the child and their parents, was the strongest predictor of mental health problems and withdrawn behavior. Children who were separated from their parents clearly fared worst in their mental health than those who did not, which is not surprising given the nature of their dependence on caregivers for protection and guidance. During resettlement, experienced or perceived discrimination from the host country was also a risk factor, as well as instability in housing and a drawn-out resettlement process. Female sex was a risk factor mainly for emotional problems. Poor financial support post-migration is associated with depression, but it is unclear whether pre-migration financial status was protective. From my own experience, it is likely not, given that once one becomes a refugee one does not have access to one’s wealth, except that which could be hidden on one’s body. Another risk factor was also if one’s parent had psychiatric problems or was single. Due to the migration, my mother was separated permanently from her husband, which caused her extraordinary isolation and loneliness, something that was palpably felt by myself as I grew up.

In terms of protective factors, family cohesion and cultural continuity appear critical. For myself, not only would I not have survived without my mother and aunt, but they constantly protected me from the harsh realities. My mother would distract me with seemingly trivial goals once we got to America, like finally tasting a hamburger, or talking about school and being reunited with my uncle. This is in line with another finding — that children have better mental health outcomes when their parents do not talk about their hardships. Once my family was resettled with my uncle and his family, they played a critical role in smoothing our transition, not only by providing us with housing, but also cultural knowledge. Cultural havens can restore some of the social position and way of life that refugees lose when they are able to reconnect with a society that recognizes their previous achievements and status. Finally, religion also seemed to be a protective factor.
 

Mental Health Interventions

In 2018, Dr. Fazel identified mental health interventions for refugee children in a narrative review.⁵ She acknowledged that these conclusions are limited by the paucity of preventive mental health research in children in general, as well as the mobile nature and complex cultural differences of refugee children. This is exacerbated by the small evidence base. Given that, she makes these recommendations for varying levels of interventions: individual, group, family, living circumstances, social interactions, and school.

On an individual level, effective interventions developed to address PTSD include narrative exposure therapy, trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy, and eye-movement and desensitization therapy. Group-based interventions for trauma, for example school-based PTSD intervention programs in conflicted areas, have either been shown to not be effective, or only effective for reducing depression. The mental health of unaccompanied children separated from family fare better when placed in foster care, rather than other types of social support. This is further enhanced if the foster family is the same ethnicity.

On a family level, improvements in parenting style and parental mental health, family engagement with local culture and structures, and family-based mental health interventions all positively impact refugee children. Not surprisingly, refugee parents have a greater prevalence of mental health conditions. Several studies on refugeeism point out a greater occurrence of intimate partner violence (that negatively affects children) as well has harsher discipline and maltreatment of refugee children. Thus, mental health treatment for parents also directly improves the well-being of their children. Teaching parenting skills to mitigate the violent effect of their PTSD symptoms, as well as parenting classes that teach gentler styles, have been shown to reduce harsh parenting and mitigate aggressive behaviors in these children. These improvements are enhanced when these classes are taught by other refugees themselves.

School is key for helping refugee children since it is a site where they can access language proficiency, successful acculturation, and medical and mental health services. Several studies have identified the positive effects of better parental engagement with school, resulting in improved academic performance and reduced levels of depressive and PTSD symptoms. A review of learning problems in refugee children identified several factors for success. These include high academic and life ambition, parental involvement in education, accurate educational assessment and grade placement, teacher understanding of linguistic and cultural heritage, culturally appropriate school transition, supportive peer relationships, and successful acculturation. School certainly was key for my acculturation and language proficiency. When I arrived at 6 years old I was selectively mute for my year in first grade, namely because I did not know how to speak English and because I did not share the culture. However, my teacher correctly identified my deficiency and chose to place me in kindergarten, which allowed me the time to gain English proficiency. Though I was always the oldest one in class, that remediation was key in allowing eventual success in school leading up to my admission to UC Berkeley.
 

Summary

In recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children leading to traumas sustained across years and even decades, and greater risks for PTSD, as well as affective and psychotic disorders. Risk factors include the experience of violence, the separation from family, female gender, discrimination in the host country, unstable housing, and a drawn-out resettlement process. Protective factors consist of family cohesion, cultural continuity, support at schools, being protected from the truth of their harsh reality, stable housing, language acquisition, and quick resettlement. From these factors, effective mental interventions have been found to be the promotion of these protective factors as well as support for parental mental health and parenting skills, better parental engagement at school, and schools that correctly identify and address these children’s educational needs.

Dr. Nguyen is a second-year resident at UCSF Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously.*

References

1. Nguyen D. Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children. Pediatric News. 2023 Nov. 14. https://www.mdedge.com/pediatrics/article/266518/mental-health/mental-health-characteristics-refugee-children.

2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Refugee Concept Under International Law. Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. 2018 March 8. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5aa290937.pdf.

3. Winer JP. Mental Health Practice with Immigrant and Refugee Youth [Power Point Slides]. Michigan Medicine. 2021 June 24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICkg4132SQY

4. Fazel M et al. Mental Health of Displaced and Refugee Children Resettled in High-Income Countries: Risk and Protective Factors. Lancet. 2012 Jan 21;379(9812):266-282. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60051-2.

5. Fazel M, Betancourt TS. Preventive Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Children and Adolescents in High-Income Settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-132. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5.

*Correction, 2/27: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Nguyen's affiliation.

In my previous article, “Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children,” we learned that in recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children. Refugee children and their families experience a variety of traumas, often sustained across years and even decades, because of armed conflict, persecution, social upheavals, or environmental disasters. Refugees are at greater risks for PTSD and affective and psychotic disorders presumably due to increased traumatic life events before, during, and after migration. I used my own experience as a child refugee from Vietnam to elucidate the stressors evident in various phases of forced displacement.¹

Risk Factors and Protective Factors

To a certain extent, the experiences of refugees are universal. All refugees experience some sort of humanitarian crisis that forces an emergent escape from their home across international borders to a new resettlement area. It is important to note that internally displaced people do not meet the United Nations’ (UN) official designation of refugee status; however, some agencies use a broader definition where they are designated as such.^2,3 We will refer to those not meeting the UN criteria as displaced people, while refugees are those that do meet the UN criteria. Dr. Mina Fazel’s 2012 systematic review in The Lancet of mental health risk factors and protective factors for displaced and refugee children is the most comprehensive of its kind.⁴ It will be summarized in this section with some relevant personal reflection.

In terms of risk factors, external displacement likely results in additional stress and trauma, presumably from the lack of assess to one’s culture and the host country’s language. Understandably, this makes rebuilding of one’s life more difficult. Several studies show that displaced/refugee children experience more difficulty with psychosocial adaptation than non-displaced children. Violence, directly experienced or indirectly feared, both to the child and their parents, was the strongest predictor of mental health problems and withdrawn behavior. Children who were separated from their parents clearly fared worst in their mental health than those who did not, which is not surprising given the nature of their dependence on caregivers for protection and guidance. During resettlement, experienced or perceived discrimination from the host country was also a risk factor, as well as instability in housing and a drawn-out resettlement process. Female sex was a risk factor mainly for emotional problems. Poor financial support post-migration is associated with depression, but it is unclear whether pre-migration financial status was protective. From my own experience, it is likely not, given that once one becomes a refugee one does not have access to one’s wealth, except that which could be hidden on one’s body. Another risk factor was also if one’s parent had psychiatric problems or was single. Due to the migration, my mother was separated permanently from her husband, which caused her extraordinary isolation and loneliness, something that was palpably felt by myself as I grew up.

In terms of protective factors, family cohesion and cultural continuity appear critical. For myself, not only would I not have survived without my mother and aunt, but they constantly protected me from the harsh realities. My mother would distract me with seemingly trivial goals once we got to America, like finally tasting a hamburger, or talking about school and being reunited with my uncle. This is in line with another finding — that children have better mental health outcomes when their parents do not talk about their hardships. Once my family was resettled with my uncle and his family, they played a critical role in smoothing our transition, not only by providing us with housing, but also cultural knowledge. Cultural havens can restore some of the social position and way of life that refugees lose when they are able to reconnect with a society that recognizes their previous achievements and status. Finally, religion also seemed to be a protective factor.
 

Mental Health Interventions

In 2018, Dr. Fazel identified mental health interventions for refugee children in a narrative review.⁵ She acknowledged that these conclusions are limited by the paucity of preventive mental health research in children in general, as well as the mobile nature and complex cultural differences of refugee children. This is exacerbated by the small evidence base. Given that, she makes these recommendations for varying levels of interventions: individual, group, family, living circumstances, social interactions, and school.

On an individual level, effective interventions developed to address PTSD include narrative exposure therapy, trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy, and eye-movement and desensitization therapy. Group-based interventions for trauma, for example school-based PTSD intervention programs in conflicted areas, have either been shown to not be effective, or only effective for reducing depression. The mental health of unaccompanied children separated from family fare better when placed in foster care, rather than other types of social support. This is further enhanced if the foster family is the same ethnicity.

On a family level, improvements in parenting style and parental mental health, family engagement with local culture and structures, and family-based mental health interventions all positively impact refugee children. Not surprisingly, refugee parents have a greater prevalence of mental health conditions. Several studies on refugeeism point out a greater occurrence of intimate partner violence (that negatively affects children) as well has harsher discipline and maltreatment of refugee children. Thus, mental health treatment for parents also directly improves the well-being of their children. Teaching parenting skills to mitigate the violent effect of their PTSD symptoms, as well as parenting classes that teach gentler styles, have been shown to reduce harsh parenting and mitigate aggressive behaviors in these children. These improvements are enhanced when these classes are taught by other refugees themselves.

School is key for helping refugee children since it is a site where they can access language proficiency, successful acculturation, and medical and mental health services. Several studies have identified the positive effects of better parental engagement with school, resulting in improved academic performance and reduced levels of depressive and PTSD symptoms. A review of learning problems in refugee children identified several factors for success. These include high academic and life ambition, parental involvement in education, accurate educational assessment and grade placement, teacher understanding of linguistic and cultural heritage, culturally appropriate school transition, supportive peer relationships, and successful acculturation. School certainly was key for my acculturation and language proficiency. When I arrived at 6 years old I was selectively mute for my year in first grade, namely because I did not know how to speak English and because I did not share the culture. However, my teacher correctly identified my deficiency and chose to place me in kindergarten, which allowed me the time to gain English proficiency. Though I was always the oldest one in class, that remediation was key in allowing eventual success in school leading up to my admission to UC Berkeley.
 

Summary

In recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children leading to traumas sustained across years and even decades, and greater risks for PTSD, as well as affective and psychotic disorders. Risk factors include the experience of violence, the separation from family, female gender, discrimination in the host country, unstable housing, and a drawn-out resettlement process. Protective factors consist of family cohesion, cultural continuity, support at schools, being protected from the truth of their harsh reality, stable housing, language acquisition, and quick resettlement. From these factors, effective mental interventions have been found to be the promotion of these protective factors as well as support for parental mental health and parenting skills, better parental engagement at school, and schools that correctly identify and address these children’s educational needs.

Dr. Nguyen is a second-year resident at UCSF Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously.*

References

1. Nguyen D. Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children. Pediatric News. 2023 Nov. 14. https://www.mdedge.com/pediatrics/article/266518/mental-health/mental-health-characteristics-refugee-children.

2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Refugee Concept Under International Law. Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. 2018 March 8. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5aa290937.pdf.

3. Winer JP. Mental Health Practice with Immigrant and Refugee Youth [Power Point Slides]. Michigan Medicine. 2021 June 24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICkg4132SQY

4. Fazel M et al. Mental Health of Displaced and Refugee Children Resettled in High-Income Countries: Risk and Protective Factors. Lancet. 2012 Jan 21;379(9812):266-282. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60051-2.

5. Fazel M, Betancourt TS. Preventive Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Children and Adolescents in High-Income Settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-132. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5.

*Correction, 2/27: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Nguyen's affiliation.

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An online program that helps parents apply principles of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) using digital resources and remote support from a therapist is as effective as traditional talk therapies for overcoming child anxiety problems while substantially reducing cost and therapist time, new research showed.

In a randomized controlled trial, children participating in the program Online Support and Intervention (OSI) for Child Anxiety showed similar reductions in anxiety and improvements in daily functioning as peers receiving standard CBT.

“This study shows that by making the most of digital tools, we can deliver effective treatments more efficiently, helping services to better meet the growing demand for mental health services for children in ways that can also be more accessible for many families,” lead investigator Cathy Creswell, PhD, Departments of Experimental Psychology and Psychiatry, Oxford University, Oxford, England, told this news organization.

“I believe by incorporating this approach into standard care, we could address some of the major challenges faced by services and families,” Dr. Creswell added. “We are now moving the work out of the research environment into routine practice.”

The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry
 

Care Gaps for Common Problem

Anxiety is common in children, yet gaps exist between needed and available care, which investigators say could be filled by digitally augmented psychological treatments.

OSI, the digital platform used in the current study, was designed with therapists and families to aid parents in helping their children overcome problems with anxiety with remote therapist support.

The program provides parents with the core CBT content in accessible forms, including information in text, audio, and video and exercises supported by worksheets and quizzes.

There is also an optional child game app to help motivate the child to engage with the intervention. Parents are supported with weekly brief telephone or video call sessions with the therapist.

The two-arm randomized controlled non-inferiority trial included 444 families from 34 participating Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) sites in England and Northern Ireland. Half received OSI plus therapist support and half CAMHS treatment as usual. The children were between 5 and 12 years old.

A total of 176 (79%) participants in the OSI plus therapist support group and 164 (74%) in the treatment as usual group completed the 26-week assessment.
 

‘Compelling’ Evidence

The primary clinical outcome was parent-reported interference caused by child anxiety at 26 weeks, using the Child Anxiety Impact Scale-Parent report.

On this measure, OSI plus therapist support was non-inferior to usual treatment, with a standardized mean difference of only 0.01 (95% CI, −0.15 to 0.17; P < .0001).

The intervention was also significantly non-inferior to usual treatment across all secondary outcomes, including total anxiety and depression scores, overall functioning, peer relationship problems, and prosocial behavior.

In addition, OSI plus therapist support was associated with nearly 60% less therapist time (182 min on average vs 307 min) and with lower costs than standard treatment. The OSI program was “likely to be cost-effective under several scenarios,” the researchers reported. Qualitative interviews showed “good” acceptability of the online program.

“This trial presents compelling clinical evidence and promising cost-effectiveness evidence that digitally augmented psychological therapies with therapist support can increase efficiencies in and access to child mental health services without compromising patient outcomes,” Dr. Creswell and colleagues concluded.

“Efforts are now needed to take full advantage of the opportunity that digitally augmented psychological treatments can bring to drive a step change in children’s mental health services, learning from successful examples of digital implementation elsewhere in health services,” they added.
 

‘Call to Action’

“We desperately need more trials” like this one, which showed the “clear value of a digitally augmented intervention over the usual face-to-face treatment” for child anxiety, wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

“Moreover, with the intervention delivered across 34 CAMHS settings in England and Northern Ireland, this study gives us confidence that the new intervention is effective in a range of clinical contexts at least in high-income countries and offers invaluable information about barriers and facilitators to future implementation,” wrote Sam Cartwright-Hatton, PhD, with the University of Sussex, Brighton and Hove, and Abby Dunn, PhD, with the University of Surrey, Guilford, England. “The potential benefits to overburdened services are clear.”

“That regular CAMHS clinicians, with minimal training and support from researchers, delivered the intervention within their standard caseload shows that it can be embedded within routine practice without a requirement for highly prepared and supervised clinicians,” they added.

However, more information is needed on the content and quality of the traditional CBT provided in the control group. It’s also important to determine if the program would be as effective with even less clinical support and in all types of childhood anxiety.

In addition, most clinicians in the OSI group only treated one patient with the new program and didn’t take advantage of the additional support offered by the research team, “which means we have not seen the true effectiveness of this intervention in the hands of well-practiced and well-trained staff,” Drs. Cartwright-Hatton and Dunn wrote.

Analyses included recruitment at the lower target amount, and one fifth of children were not offered treatment within the 12-week window recommended in the trial, they added.

“Although these issues place limits on the conclusions that can be drawn, they should also be seen as a call to action,” they wrote, adding that real-world clinical trials with greater clinician participation are needed. “All credit to this exceptional team for making this trial happen and for making it work as well as it did.”

The study was funded by the Department for Health and Social Care, UK Research and Innovation Research Grant, National Institute for Health and Care (NIHR) Research Policy Research Programme, Oxford and Thames Valley NIHR Applied Research Collaboration, and Oxford Health NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Creswell is co-developer of the OSI platform and the author of a book for parents that is used in many of the participating clinical teams to augment treatment as usual for child anxiety problems and receives royalties from sales. Dr. Cartwright-Hatton and Dr. Dunn had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An online program that helps parents apply principles of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) using digital resources and remote support from a therapist is as effective as traditional talk therapies for overcoming child anxiety problems while substantially reducing cost and therapist time, new research showed.

In a randomized controlled trial, children participating in the program Online Support and Intervention (OSI) for Child Anxiety showed similar reductions in anxiety and improvements in daily functioning as peers receiving standard CBT.

“This study shows that by making the most of digital tools, we can deliver effective treatments more efficiently, helping services to better meet the growing demand for mental health services for children in ways that can also be more accessible for many families,” lead investigator Cathy Creswell, PhD, Departments of Experimental Psychology and Psychiatry, Oxford University, Oxford, England, told this news organization.

“I believe by incorporating this approach into standard care, we could address some of the major challenges faced by services and families,” Dr. Creswell added. “We are now moving the work out of the research environment into routine practice.”

The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry
 

Care Gaps for Common Problem

Anxiety is common in children, yet gaps exist between needed and available care, which investigators say could be filled by digitally augmented psychological treatments.

OSI, the digital platform used in the current study, was designed with therapists and families to aid parents in helping their children overcome problems with anxiety with remote therapist support.

The program provides parents with the core CBT content in accessible forms, including information in text, audio, and video and exercises supported by worksheets and quizzes.

There is also an optional child game app to help motivate the child to engage with the intervention. Parents are supported with weekly brief telephone or video call sessions with the therapist.

The two-arm randomized controlled non-inferiority trial included 444 families from 34 participating Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) sites in England and Northern Ireland. Half received OSI plus therapist support and half CAMHS treatment as usual. The children were between 5 and 12 years old.

A total of 176 (79%) participants in the OSI plus therapist support group and 164 (74%) in the treatment as usual group completed the 26-week assessment.
 

‘Compelling’ Evidence

The primary clinical outcome was parent-reported interference caused by child anxiety at 26 weeks, using the Child Anxiety Impact Scale-Parent report.

On this measure, OSI plus therapist support was non-inferior to usual treatment, with a standardized mean difference of only 0.01 (95% CI, −0.15 to 0.17; P < .0001).

The intervention was also significantly non-inferior to usual treatment across all secondary outcomes, including total anxiety and depression scores, overall functioning, peer relationship problems, and prosocial behavior.

In addition, OSI plus therapist support was associated with nearly 60% less therapist time (182 min on average vs 307 min) and with lower costs than standard treatment. The OSI program was “likely to be cost-effective under several scenarios,” the researchers reported. Qualitative interviews showed “good” acceptability of the online program.

“This trial presents compelling clinical evidence and promising cost-effectiveness evidence that digitally augmented psychological therapies with therapist support can increase efficiencies in and access to child mental health services without compromising patient outcomes,” Dr. Creswell and colleagues concluded.

“Efforts are now needed to take full advantage of the opportunity that digitally augmented psychological treatments can bring to drive a step change in children’s mental health services, learning from successful examples of digital implementation elsewhere in health services,” they added.
 

‘Call to Action’

“We desperately need more trials” like this one, which showed the “clear value of a digitally augmented intervention over the usual face-to-face treatment” for child anxiety, wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

“Moreover, with the intervention delivered across 34 CAMHS settings in England and Northern Ireland, this study gives us confidence that the new intervention is effective in a range of clinical contexts at least in high-income countries and offers invaluable information about barriers and facilitators to future implementation,” wrote Sam Cartwright-Hatton, PhD, with the University of Sussex, Brighton and Hove, and Abby Dunn, PhD, with the University of Surrey, Guilford, England. “The potential benefits to overburdened services are clear.”

“That regular CAMHS clinicians, with minimal training and support from researchers, delivered the intervention within their standard caseload shows that it can be embedded within routine practice without a requirement for highly prepared and supervised clinicians,” they added.

However, more information is needed on the content and quality of the traditional CBT provided in the control group. It’s also important to determine if the program would be as effective with even less clinical support and in all types of childhood anxiety.

In addition, most clinicians in the OSI group only treated one patient with the new program and didn’t take advantage of the additional support offered by the research team, “which means we have not seen the true effectiveness of this intervention in the hands of well-practiced and well-trained staff,” Drs. Cartwright-Hatton and Dunn wrote.

Analyses included recruitment at the lower target amount, and one fifth of children were not offered treatment within the 12-week window recommended in the trial, they added.

“Although these issues place limits on the conclusions that can be drawn, they should also be seen as a call to action,” they wrote, adding that real-world clinical trials with greater clinician participation are needed. “All credit to this exceptional team for making this trial happen and for making it work as well as it did.”

The study was funded by the Department for Health and Social Care, UK Research and Innovation Research Grant, National Institute for Health and Care (NIHR) Research Policy Research Programme, Oxford and Thames Valley NIHR Applied Research Collaboration, and Oxford Health NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Creswell is co-developer of the OSI platform and the author of a book for parents that is used in many of the participating clinical teams to augment treatment as usual for child anxiety problems and receives royalties from sales. Dr. Cartwright-Hatton and Dr. Dunn had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An online program that helps parents apply principles of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) using digital resources and remote support from a therapist is as effective as traditional talk therapies for overcoming child anxiety problems while substantially reducing cost and therapist time, new research showed.

In a randomized controlled trial, children participating in the program Online Support and Intervention (OSI) for Child Anxiety showed similar reductions in anxiety and improvements in daily functioning as peers receiving standard CBT.

“This study shows that by making the most of digital tools, we can deliver effective treatments more efficiently, helping services to better meet the growing demand for mental health services for children in ways that can also be more accessible for many families,” lead investigator Cathy Creswell, PhD, Departments of Experimental Psychology and Psychiatry, Oxford University, Oxford, England, told this news organization.

“I believe by incorporating this approach into standard care, we could address some of the major challenges faced by services and families,” Dr. Creswell added. “We are now moving the work out of the research environment into routine practice.”

The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry
 

Care Gaps for Common Problem

Anxiety is common in children, yet gaps exist between needed and available care, which investigators say could be filled by digitally augmented psychological treatments.

OSI, the digital platform used in the current study, was designed with therapists and families to aid parents in helping their children overcome problems with anxiety with remote therapist support.

The program provides parents with the core CBT content in accessible forms, including information in text, audio, and video and exercises supported by worksheets and quizzes.

There is also an optional child game app to help motivate the child to engage with the intervention. Parents are supported with weekly brief telephone or video call sessions with the therapist.

The two-arm randomized controlled non-inferiority trial included 444 families from 34 participating Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) sites in England and Northern Ireland. Half received OSI plus therapist support and half CAMHS treatment as usual. The children were between 5 and 12 years old.

A total of 176 (79%) participants in the OSI plus therapist support group and 164 (74%) in the treatment as usual group completed the 26-week assessment.
 

‘Compelling’ Evidence

The primary clinical outcome was parent-reported interference caused by child anxiety at 26 weeks, using the Child Anxiety Impact Scale-Parent report.

On this measure, OSI plus therapist support was non-inferior to usual treatment, with a standardized mean difference of only 0.01 (95% CI, −0.15 to 0.17; P < .0001).

The intervention was also significantly non-inferior to usual treatment across all secondary outcomes, including total anxiety and depression scores, overall functioning, peer relationship problems, and prosocial behavior.

In addition, OSI plus therapist support was associated with nearly 60% less therapist time (182 min on average vs 307 min) and with lower costs than standard treatment. The OSI program was “likely to be cost-effective under several scenarios,” the researchers reported. Qualitative interviews showed “good” acceptability of the online program.

“This trial presents compelling clinical evidence and promising cost-effectiveness evidence that digitally augmented psychological therapies with therapist support can increase efficiencies in and access to child mental health services without compromising patient outcomes,” Dr. Creswell and colleagues concluded.

“Efforts are now needed to take full advantage of the opportunity that digitally augmented psychological treatments can bring to drive a step change in children’s mental health services, learning from successful examples of digital implementation elsewhere in health services,” they added.
 

‘Call to Action’

“We desperately need more trials” like this one, which showed the “clear value of a digitally augmented intervention over the usual face-to-face treatment” for child anxiety, wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

“Moreover, with the intervention delivered across 34 CAMHS settings in England and Northern Ireland, this study gives us confidence that the new intervention is effective in a range of clinical contexts at least in high-income countries and offers invaluable information about barriers and facilitators to future implementation,” wrote Sam Cartwright-Hatton, PhD, with the University of Sussex, Brighton and Hove, and Abby Dunn, PhD, with the University of Surrey, Guilford, England. “The potential benefits to overburdened services are clear.”

“That regular CAMHS clinicians, with minimal training and support from researchers, delivered the intervention within their standard caseload shows that it can be embedded within routine practice without a requirement for highly prepared and supervised clinicians,” they added.

However, more information is needed on the content and quality of the traditional CBT provided in the control group. It’s also important to determine if the program would be as effective with even less clinical support and in all types of childhood anxiety.

In addition, most clinicians in the OSI group only treated one patient with the new program and didn’t take advantage of the additional support offered by the research team, “which means we have not seen the true effectiveness of this intervention in the hands of well-practiced and well-trained staff,” Drs. Cartwright-Hatton and Dunn wrote.

Analyses included recruitment at the lower target amount, and one fifth of children were not offered treatment within the 12-week window recommended in the trial, they added.

“Although these issues place limits on the conclusions that can be drawn, they should also be seen as a call to action,” they wrote, adding that real-world clinical trials with greater clinician participation are needed. “All credit to this exceptional team for making this trial happen and for making it work as well as it did.”

The study was funded by the Department for Health and Social Care, UK Research and Innovation Research Grant, National Institute for Health and Care (NIHR) Research Policy Research Programme, Oxford and Thames Valley NIHR Applied Research Collaboration, and Oxford Health NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Creswell is co-developer of the OSI platform and the author of a book for parents that is used in many of the participating clinical teams to augment treatment as usual for child anxiety problems and receives royalties from sales. Dr. Cartwright-Hatton and Dr. Dunn had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A trio of studies (abstracts 1101, 1079, and 944) presented on February 14 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine point to the power of staying physically active during pregnancy. The work highlights the beneficial effects of exercise on a variety of outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and reducing the rate of cesarean deliveries.

“Twenty-plus years ago, there were so many recommendations for bed rest in pregnancy,” said Danielle Panelli, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine physician and research scholar at Stanford University in Stanford, California. “We’ve really come full circle on that.” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends pregnant people get at least 150 minutes of moderate activity or 75 minutes of vigorous activity per week. 

Dr. Panelli and colleagues looked at the association of physical activity and anxiety among three groups of pregnant people: 20 outpatients from low-risk obstetric clinics, 20 outpatients from high-risk obstetric clinics, and 19 inpatients. Participants wore accelerometer watches for up to seven days to measure physical activity. The primary outcome was mean daily step count, with secondary outcomes including metabolic equivalent tasks (METs), moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and anxiety as measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. 

Low-risk outpatients had an average daily step count of 9090 compared with high-risk outpatients at 8898 and inpatients at 6493. Compared with outpatients, inpatients also had significantly lower METs (adjusted beta, -0.20; 95% CI -0.26 to -0.13; P < .001), and MVPAs (adjusted beta, -43.6; 95% CI, -61.2 to -25.9; P < .001). Over the course of a week, steps progressively decreased for inpatients but not for women in either of the outpatient groups. Among the entire cohort, lower step counts correlated with higher anxiety scores (r = 0.30; P = .02).

“These results highlight the need for physical activity interventions, particularly for hospitalized pregnant people,” Dr. Panelli said. That could be something as simple as asking patients to walk three laps around the unit per day, she suggested.

A second study investigated the effect of physical activity during pregnancy on peripartum depression. Researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham reviewed data from participants in nuMoM2b, a large cohort study of pregnant women who would be delivering for the first time and had at least one medical comorbidity, such as chronic hypertension, asthma, or cardiac disease. The investigators looked at activity logs maintained by study participants and turned in at three study visits: 6-13.6 weeks, 14-21.6 weeks, and 22-29.6 weeks. 

Being physically active was associated with 15% lower odds of having an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Score (EPDS) > 10 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99). Nine percent of people in the active group and 12% of people in the nonactive group had an EPDS > 10, which is suggestive of depression. However, a change in EPDS from visit one to three and treatment for perinatal depression did not differ by physical activity. 

“One of the interesting findings are that we didn’t see any safety signals [from exercise], so there wasn’t an increase in suspected fetal growth restriction or low fluid or preterm birth, or actual birthweight being low in the people who were active,” said Charlotte McCarley, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who led the research. “A lot of studies have been done that have looked at prospective exercise in pregnancy, but they exclude the cohort that we looked at for concern that there may be a safety issue.” 

In a third study, researchers at the Rambam Health Care Campus in Haifa, Israel, looked at the effect of physical activity on mode of delivery. The prospective observational analysis included 401 women with singleton pregnancies attempting vaginal deliveries. 

The researchers tracked the number of daily steps taken during gestation using validated phone apps. They adjusted their findings for age, parity, body mass index, and medical and obstetric history. 

The investigators observed a gradual decrease in physical activity as pregnancy progressed (mean of 3184 steps in the first trimester, 2700 steps in mid-pregnancy, and 2152 steps in the third trimester). The overall incidence of cesarean delivery was 10.5%. However, women who were more active during pregnancy had a significantly lower incidence of cesarean delivery. 

Area under the ROC curve, with a cut-off of 2093.5 daily steps, was 0.694 (95% CI, 0.615-0.773), resulting in a significant risk reduction in a 78% reduction in the rate of cesarean surgery (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.104-0.465).

More active patients also had a reduced composite outcome of gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension, and preeclampsia; less use of epidural analgesia during labor; and less postpartum hemorrhage. Preterm birth, labor induction, neonatal weight, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit were not significantly affected, the researchers reported. 

“Maintaining an active lifestyle during pregnancy should be strongly encouraged,” they wrote. 

The investigators disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A trio of studies (abstracts 1101, 1079, and 944) presented on February 14 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine point to the power of staying physically active during pregnancy. The work highlights the beneficial effects of exercise on a variety of outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and reducing the rate of cesarean deliveries.

“Twenty-plus years ago, there were so many recommendations for bed rest in pregnancy,” said Danielle Panelli, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine physician and research scholar at Stanford University in Stanford, California. “We’ve really come full circle on that.” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends pregnant people get at least 150 minutes of moderate activity or 75 minutes of vigorous activity per week. 

Dr. Panelli and colleagues looked at the association of physical activity and anxiety among three groups of pregnant people: 20 outpatients from low-risk obstetric clinics, 20 outpatients from high-risk obstetric clinics, and 19 inpatients. Participants wore accelerometer watches for up to seven days to measure physical activity. The primary outcome was mean daily step count, with secondary outcomes including metabolic equivalent tasks (METs), moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and anxiety as measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. 

Low-risk outpatients had an average daily step count of 9090 compared with high-risk outpatients at 8898 and inpatients at 6493. Compared with outpatients, inpatients also had significantly lower METs (adjusted beta, -0.20; 95% CI -0.26 to -0.13; P < .001), and MVPAs (adjusted beta, -43.6; 95% CI, -61.2 to -25.9; P < .001). Over the course of a week, steps progressively decreased for inpatients but not for women in either of the outpatient groups. Among the entire cohort, lower step counts correlated with higher anxiety scores (r = 0.30; P = .02).

“These results highlight the need for physical activity interventions, particularly for hospitalized pregnant people,” Dr. Panelli said. That could be something as simple as asking patients to walk three laps around the unit per day, she suggested.

A second study investigated the effect of physical activity during pregnancy on peripartum depression. Researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham reviewed data from participants in nuMoM2b, a large cohort study of pregnant women who would be delivering for the first time and had at least one medical comorbidity, such as chronic hypertension, asthma, or cardiac disease. The investigators looked at activity logs maintained by study participants and turned in at three study visits: 6-13.6 weeks, 14-21.6 weeks, and 22-29.6 weeks. 

Being physically active was associated with 15% lower odds of having an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Score (EPDS) > 10 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99). Nine percent of people in the active group and 12% of people in the nonactive group had an EPDS > 10, which is suggestive of depression. However, a change in EPDS from visit one to three and treatment for perinatal depression did not differ by physical activity. 

“One of the interesting findings are that we didn’t see any safety signals [from exercise], so there wasn’t an increase in suspected fetal growth restriction or low fluid or preterm birth, or actual birthweight being low in the people who were active,” said Charlotte McCarley, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who led the research. “A lot of studies have been done that have looked at prospective exercise in pregnancy, but they exclude the cohort that we looked at for concern that there may be a safety issue.” 

In a third study, researchers at the Rambam Health Care Campus in Haifa, Israel, looked at the effect of physical activity on mode of delivery. The prospective observational analysis included 401 women with singleton pregnancies attempting vaginal deliveries. 

The researchers tracked the number of daily steps taken during gestation using validated phone apps. They adjusted their findings for age, parity, body mass index, and medical and obstetric history. 

The investigators observed a gradual decrease in physical activity as pregnancy progressed (mean of 3184 steps in the first trimester, 2700 steps in mid-pregnancy, and 2152 steps in the third trimester). The overall incidence of cesarean delivery was 10.5%. However, women who were more active during pregnancy had a significantly lower incidence of cesarean delivery. 

Area under the ROC curve, with a cut-off of 2093.5 daily steps, was 0.694 (95% CI, 0.615-0.773), resulting in a significant risk reduction in a 78% reduction in the rate of cesarean surgery (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.104-0.465).

More active patients also had a reduced composite outcome of gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension, and preeclampsia; less use of epidural analgesia during labor; and less postpartum hemorrhage. Preterm birth, labor induction, neonatal weight, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit were not significantly affected, the researchers reported. 

“Maintaining an active lifestyle during pregnancy should be strongly encouraged,” they wrote. 

The investigators disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A trio of studies (abstracts 1101, 1079, and 944) presented on February 14 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine point to the power of staying physically active during pregnancy. The work highlights the beneficial effects of exercise on a variety of outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and reducing the rate of cesarean deliveries.

“Twenty-plus years ago, there were so many recommendations for bed rest in pregnancy,” said Danielle Panelli, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine physician and research scholar at Stanford University in Stanford, California. “We’ve really come full circle on that.” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends pregnant people get at least 150 minutes of moderate activity or 75 minutes of vigorous activity per week. 

Dr. Panelli and colleagues looked at the association of physical activity and anxiety among three groups of pregnant people: 20 outpatients from low-risk obstetric clinics, 20 outpatients from high-risk obstetric clinics, and 19 inpatients. Participants wore accelerometer watches for up to seven days to measure physical activity. The primary outcome was mean daily step count, with secondary outcomes including metabolic equivalent tasks (METs), moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and anxiety as measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. 

Low-risk outpatients had an average daily step count of 9090 compared with high-risk outpatients at 8898 and inpatients at 6493. Compared with outpatients, inpatients also had significantly lower METs (adjusted beta, -0.20; 95% CI -0.26 to -0.13; P < .001), and MVPAs (adjusted beta, -43.6; 95% CI, -61.2 to -25.9; P < .001). Over the course of a week, steps progressively decreased for inpatients but not for women in either of the outpatient groups. Among the entire cohort, lower step counts correlated with higher anxiety scores (r = 0.30; P = .02).

“These results highlight the need for physical activity interventions, particularly for hospitalized pregnant people,” Dr. Panelli said. That could be something as simple as asking patients to walk three laps around the unit per day, she suggested.

A second study investigated the effect of physical activity during pregnancy on peripartum depression. Researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham reviewed data from participants in nuMoM2b, a large cohort study of pregnant women who would be delivering for the first time and had at least one medical comorbidity, such as chronic hypertension, asthma, or cardiac disease. The investigators looked at activity logs maintained by study participants and turned in at three study visits: 6-13.6 weeks, 14-21.6 weeks, and 22-29.6 weeks. 

Being physically active was associated with 15% lower odds of having an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Score (EPDS) > 10 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99). Nine percent of people in the active group and 12% of people in the nonactive group had an EPDS > 10, which is suggestive of depression. However, a change in EPDS from visit one to three and treatment for perinatal depression did not differ by physical activity. 

“One of the interesting findings are that we didn’t see any safety signals [from exercise], so there wasn’t an increase in suspected fetal growth restriction or low fluid or preterm birth, or actual birthweight being low in the people who were active,” said Charlotte McCarley, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who led the research. “A lot of studies have been done that have looked at prospective exercise in pregnancy, but they exclude the cohort that we looked at for concern that there may be a safety issue.” 

In a third study, researchers at the Rambam Health Care Campus in Haifa, Israel, looked at the effect of physical activity on mode of delivery. The prospective observational analysis included 401 women with singleton pregnancies attempting vaginal deliveries. 

The researchers tracked the number of daily steps taken during gestation using validated phone apps. They adjusted their findings for age, parity, body mass index, and medical and obstetric history. 

The investigators observed a gradual decrease in physical activity as pregnancy progressed (mean of 3184 steps in the first trimester, 2700 steps in mid-pregnancy, and 2152 steps in the third trimester). The overall incidence of cesarean delivery was 10.5%. However, women who were more active during pregnancy had a significantly lower incidence of cesarean delivery. 

Area under the ROC curve, with a cut-off of 2093.5 daily steps, was 0.694 (95% CI, 0.615-0.773), resulting in a significant risk reduction in a 78% reduction in the rate of cesarean surgery (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.104-0.465).

More active patients also had a reduced composite outcome of gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension, and preeclampsia; less use of epidural analgesia during labor; and less postpartum hemorrhage. Preterm birth, labor induction, neonatal weight, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit were not significantly affected, the researchers reported. 

“Maintaining an active lifestyle during pregnancy should be strongly encouraged,” they wrote. 

The investigators disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are mainly cared for in primary care settings by us. Management of this chronic neurodevelopmental condition that affects 5+% of children worldwide should include proper diagnosis, assessment for contributing and comorbid conditions, behavioral intervention (the primary treatment for preschoolers), ensuring good sleep and nutrition, and usually medication.

Because stimulants are very effective for reducing ADHD symptoms, we may readily begin these first-line medications even on the initial visit when the diagnosis is determined. But are we really thoughtful about knowing and explaining the potential short- and long-term side effects of these medications that may then be used for many years? Considerable discussion with the child and parents may be needed to address their concerns, balanced with benefits, and to make a plan for their access and use of stimulants (and other medications for ADHD not the topic here).

Consider the Side Effects

In children older than 6 years, some form of either a methylphenidate (MPH) or a dextroamphetamine (DA) class of stimulant have been shown to be equally effective in reducing symptoms of ADHD in about 77% of cases, but side effects are common, mostly mild, and mostly in the first months of use. These include reduced appetite, abdominal pain, headache, weight loss, tics, jitteriness, and delays in falling asleep. About half of all children treated will have one of these adverse effects over 5 years, with reduced appetite the most common. There is no difference in effectiveness or side effects by presentation type, i.e. hyperactive, inattentive, or combined, but the DA forms are associated with more side effects than MPH (10% vs. 6%). Medicated preschoolers have more and different side effects which, in addition to those above, may include listlessness, social withdrawal, and repetitive movements. Fortunately, we can reassure families that side effects can usually be readily managed by slower ramp up of dose, spacing to ensure appetite for meals, extra snacks, attention to bowel patterns and bedtime routines, or change in medication class.

Rates of tics while on stimulants are low irrespective of whether DA or MPH is used, and are usually transient, but difficult cases may occur, sometimes as part of Tourette’s, although not a contraindication. Additional side effects of concern are anxiety, irritability, sadness, and overfocusing that may require a change in class of stimulant or to a nonstimulant. Keep in mind that these symptoms may represent comorbid conditions to ADHD, warranting counseling intervention rather than being a medication side effect. Both initial assessment for ADHD and monitoring should look for comorbidities whether medication is used or not.

Measuring height, weight, pulse, and blood pressure should be part of ADHD care. How concerned should you and the family be about variations? Growth rate declines are more common in preschool children; in the PATS study height varied by 20.3%, and weight by 55.2%, more in heavier children. Growth can be protected by providing favored food for school, encouraging eating when hungry, and an evening fourth meal. You can reassure families that, even with continual use of stimulant medicines for years and initial deficits of 2 cm and 2.7 kg compared to expected, no significant differences remain in adulthood.

This longitudinal growth data was collected when short-acting stimulants were the usual, rather than the now common long-acting stimulants given 7 days per week, however. Children on transdermal MPH with 12-hour release over 3 years showed a small but significant delay in growth with the mean deficit rates 1.3 kg/year mainly in the first year, and 0.68 cm/year in height in the second year. If we see growth not recovering as it is expected to after the first year of treatment, we can advise shorter-acting forms, and medication “holidays” on weekends or vacations, that reduce but do not end the deficits. When concerned, a nonstimulant can be selected.

Blood pressure and pulse rate are predictably slightly increased on stimulants (about 2-4 mm Hg and about 3-6 bpm) but not clinically significantly. Although ECGs are not routinely recommended, careful consideration and consultation is warranted before starting stimulants for any patient with structural cardiac abnormalities, unexplained syncope, exertional chest pain, or a family history of sudden death in children or young adults. Neither current nor former users of stimulants for ADHD were found to have greater rates of cardiac events than the general population, however.
 

Misuse and abuse

Misuse and diversion of stimulants is common (e.g. 26% diverted MPH in the past month; 14% of 12th graders divert DA), often undetected, and potentially dangerous. And the problem is not limited to just the kids. Sixteen percent of parents reported diversion of stimulant medication to another household member, mainly to themselves. Stimulant overdose can occur, especially taken parenterally, and presents with dilated pupils, tremor, agitation, hyperreflexia, combative behavior, confusion, hallucinations, delirium, anxiety, paranoia, movement disorders, and/or seizures. Fortunately, overdose of prescribed stimulants is rarely fatal if medically managed, but recent “fake” Adderall (not from pharmacies) has been circulating. These fake drugs may contain lethal amounts of fentanyl or methamphetamine. Point out to families that a peer-provided stimulant not prescribed for them may have underlying medical or psychiatric issues that increase adverse events. Selling stimulants can have serious legal implications, with punishments ranging from fines to incarceration. A record of arrest during adolescence increases the likelihood of high school dropout, lack of 4-year college education, and later employment barriers. Besides these serious outcomes, it is useful to remind patients that if they deviate from your recommended dosing that you, and others, will not prescribe for them in the future the medication that has been supporting their successful functioning.

You can be fooled about being able to tell if your patients are misusing or diverting the stimulants you prescribe. Most (59%) physicians suspect that more than one of their patients with ADHD has diverted or feigned symptoms (66%) to get a prescription. Women were less likely to suspect their patients than are men, though, so be vigilant! Child psychiatrists had the highest suspicion with their greater proportion of patients with ADHD plus conduct or substance use disorder, who account for 83% of misusers/diverters. We can use education about misuse, pill counts, contracts on dosing, or switching to long-acting or nonstimulants to curb this.
 

Additional concerns

With more ADHD diagnosis and stimulants used for many years should we worry about longer-term issues? There have been reports in rodent models and a few children of chromosomal changes with stimulant exposure, but reviewers do not interpret these as an individual cancer risk. Record review of patients who received stimulants showed lower numbers of cancer than expected. Nor is there evidence of reproductive effects of stimulants, although use during pregnancy is not cleared.

Stimulants carry a boxed warning as having high potential for abuse and psychological or physical dependence, which is unsurprising given their effects on brain reward pathways. However, neither past nor present use of stimulants for ADHD has been associated with greater substance use long term.

To top off these issues, recent shortages of stimulants complicate ADHD management. Most states require electronic prescribing, US rules only allowing one transfer of such e-prescriptions. With many pharmacies refusing to tell families about availability, we must make multiple calls to locate a source. Pharmacists could help us by looking up patient names of abusers on the registry and identifying sites with adequate supplies.

While we need to educate ourselves and our patients about potential and manifest side effects and risks of stimulants, we need to balance those concerns with their high effectiveness for improving daily functioning of our many patients with ADHD.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are mainly cared for in primary care settings by us. Management of this chronic neurodevelopmental condition that affects 5+% of children worldwide should include proper diagnosis, assessment for contributing and comorbid conditions, behavioral intervention (the primary treatment for preschoolers), ensuring good sleep and nutrition, and usually medication.

Because stimulants are very effective for reducing ADHD symptoms, we may readily begin these first-line medications even on the initial visit when the diagnosis is determined. But are we really thoughtful about knowing and explaining the potential short- and long-term side effects of these medications that may then be used for many years? Considerable discussion with the child and parents may be needed to address their concerns, balanced with benefits, and to make a plan for their access and use of stimulants (and other medications for ADHD not the topic here).

Consider the Side Effects

In children older than 6 years, some form of either a methylphenidate (MPH) or a dextroamphetamine (DA) class of stimulant have been shown to be equally effective in reducing symptoms of ADHD in about 77% of cases, but side effects are common, mostly mild, and mostly in the first months of use. These include reduced appetite, abdominal pain, headache, weight loss, tics, jitteriness, and delays in falling asleep. About half of all children treated will have one of these adverse effects over 5 years, with reduced appetite the most common. There is no difference in effectiveness or side effects by presentation type, i.e. hyperactive, inattentive, or combined, but the DA forms are associated with more side effects than MPH (10% vs. 6%). Medicated preschoolers have more and different side effects which, in addition to those above, may include listlessness, social withdrawal, and repetitive movements. Fortunately, we can reassure families that side effects can usually be readily managed by slower ramp up of dose, spacing to ensure appetite for meals, extra snacks, attention to bowel patterns and bedtime routines, or change in medication class.

Rates of tics while on stimulants are low irrespective of whether DA or MPH is used, and are usually transient, but difficult cases may occur, sometimes as part of Tourette’s, although not a contraindication. Additional side effects of concern are anxiety, irritability, sadness, and overfocusing that may require a change in class of stimulant or to a nonstimulant. Keep in mind that these symptoms may represent comorbid conditions to ADHD, warranting counseling intervention rather than being a medication side effect. Both initial assessment for ADHD and monitoring should look for comorbidities whether medication is used or not.

Measuring height, weight, pulse, and blood pressure should be part of ADHD care. How concerned should you and the family be about variations? Growth rate declines are more common in preschool children; in the PATS study height varied by 20.3%, and weight by 55.2%, more in heavier children. Growth can be protected by providing favored food for school, encouraging eating when hungry, and an evening fourth meal. You can reassure families that, even with continual use of stimulant medicines for years and initial deficits of 2 cm and 2.7 kg compared to expected, no significant differences remain in adulthood.

This longitudinal growth data was collected when short-acting stimulants were the usual, rather than the now common long-acting stimulants given 7 days per week, however. Children on transdermal MPH with 12-hour release over 3 years showed a small but significant delay in growth with the mean deficit rates 1.3 kg/year mainly in the first year, and 0.68 cm/year in height in the second year. If we see growth not recovering as it is expected to after the first year of treatment, we can advise shorter-acting forms, and medication “holidays” on weekends or vacations, that reduce but do not end the deficits. When concerned, a nonstimulant can be selected.

Blood pressure and pulse rate are predictably slightly increased on stimulants (about 2-4 mm Hg and about 3-6 bpm) but not clinically significantly. Although ECGs are not routinely recommended, careful consideration and consultation is warranted before starting stimulants for any patient with structural cardiac abnormalities, unexplained syncope, exertional chest pain, or a family history of sudden death in children or young adults. Neither current nor former users of stimulants for ADHD were found to have greater rates of cardiac events than the general population, however.
 

Misuse and abuse

Misuse and diversion of stimulants is common (e.g. 26% diverted MPH in the past month; 14% of 12th graders divert DA), often undetected, and potentially dangerous. And the problem is not limited to just the kids. Sixteen percent of parents reported diversion of stimulant medication to another household member, mainly to themselves. Stimulant overdose can occur, especially taken parenterally, and presents with dilated pupils, tremor, agitation, hyperreflexia, combative behavior, confusion, hallucinations, delirium, anxiety, paranoia, movement disorders, and/or seizures. Fortunately, overdose of prescribed stimulants is rarely fatal if medically managed, but recent “fake” Adderall (not from pharmacies) has been circulating. These fake drugs may contain lethal amounts of fentanyl or methamphetamine. Point out to families that a peer-provided stimulant not prescribed for them may have underlying medical or psychiatric issues that increase adverse events. Selling stimulants can have serious legal implications, with punishments ranging from fines to incarceration. A record of arrest during adolescence increases the likelihood of high school dropout, lack of 4-year college education, and later employment barriers. Besides these serious outcomes, it is useful to remind patients that if they deviate from your recommended dosing that you, and others, will not prescribe for them in the future the medication that has been supporting their successful functioning.

You can be fooled about being able to tell if your patients are misusing or diverting the stimulants you prescribe. Most (59%) physicians suspect that more than one of their patients with ADHD has diverted or feigned symptoms (66%) to get a prescription. Women were less likely to suspect their patients than are men, though, so be vigilant! Child psychiatrists had the highest suspicion with their greater proportion of patients with ADHD plus conduct or substance use disorder, who account for 83% of misusers/diverters. We can use education about misuse, pill counts, contracts on dosing, or switching to long-acting or nonstimulants to curb this.
 

Additional concerns

With more ADHD diagnosis and stimulants used for many years should we worry about longer-term issues? There have been reports in rodent models and a few children of chromosomal changes with stimulant exposure, but reviewers do not interpret these as an individual cancer risk. Record review of patients who received stimulants showed lower numbers of cancer than expected. Nor is there evidence of reproductive effects of stimulants, although use during pregnancy is not cleared.

Stimulants carry a boxed warning as having high potential for abuse and psychological or physical dependence, which is unsurprising given their effects on brain reward pathways. However, neither past nor present use of stimulants for ADHD has been associated with greater substance use long term.

To top off these issues, recent shortages of stimulants complicate ADHD management. Most states require electronic prescribing, US rules only allowing one transfer of such e-prescriptions. With many pharmacies refusing to tell families about availability, we must make multiple calls to locate a source. Pharmacists could help us by looking up patient names of abusers on the registry and identifying sites with adequate supplies.

While we need to educate ourselves and our patients about potential and manifest side effects and risks of stimulants, we need to balance those concerns with their high effectiveness for improving daily functioning of our many patients with ADHD.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are mainly cared for in primary care settings by us. Management of this chronic neurodevelopmental condition that affects 5+% of children worldwide should include proper diagnosis, assessment for contributing and comorbid conditions, behavioral intervention (the primary treatment for preschoolers), ensuring good sleep and nutrition, and usually medication.

Because stimulants are very effective for reducing ADHD symptoms, we may readily begin these first-line medications even on the initial visit when the diagnosis is determined. But are we really thoughtful about knowing and explaining the potential short- and long-term side effects of these medications that may then be used for many years? Considerable discussion with the child and parents may be needed to address their concerns, balanced with benefits, and to make a plan for their access and use of stimulants (and other medications for ADHD not the topic here).

Consider the Side Effects

In children older than 6 years, some form of either a methylphenidate (MPH) or a dextroamphetamine (DA) class of stimulant have been shown to be equally effective in reducing symptoms of ADHD in about 77% of cases, but side effects are common, mostly mild, and mostly in the first months of use. These include reduced appetite, abdominal pain, headache, weight loss, tics, jitteriness, and delays in falling asleep. About half of all children treated will have one of these adverse effects over 5 years, with reduced appetite the most common. There is no difference in effectiveness or side effects by presentation type, i.e. hyperactive, inattentive, or combined, but the DA forms are associated with more side effects than MPH (10% vs. 6%). Medicated preschoolers have more and different side effects which, in addition to those above, may include listlessness, social withdrawal, and repetitive movements. Fortunately, we can reassure families that side effects can usually be readily managed by slower ramp up of dose, spacing to ensure appetite for meals, extra snacks, attention to bowel patterns and bedtime routines, or change in medication class.

Rates of tics while on stimulants are low irrespective of whether DA or MPH is used, and are usually transient, but difficult cases may occur, sometimes as part of Tourette’s, although not a contraindication. Additional side effects of concern are anxiety, irritability, sadness, and overfocusing that may require a change in class of stimulant or to a nonstimulant. Keep in mind that these symptoms may represent comorbid conditions to ADHD, warranting counseling intervention rather than being a medication side effect. Both initial assessment for ADHD and monitoring should look for comorbidities whether medication is used or not.

Measuring height, weight, pulse, and blood pressure should be part of ADHD care. How concerned should you and the family be about variations? Growth rate declines are more common in preschool children; in the PATS study height varied by 20.3%, and weight by 55.2%, more in heavier children. Growth can be protected by providing favored food for school, encouraging eating when hungry, and an evening fourth meal. You can reassure families that, even with continual use of stimulant medicines for years and initial deficits of 2 cm and 2.7 kg compared to expected, no significant differences remain in adulthood.

This longitudinal growth data was collected when short-acting stimulants were the usual, rather than the now common long-acting stimulants given 7 days per week, however. Children on transdermal MPH with 12-hour release over 3 years showed a small but significant delay in growth with the mean deficit rates 1.3 kg/year mainly in the first year, and 0.68 cm/year in height in the second year. If we see growth not recovering as it is expected to after the first year of treatment, we can advise shorter-acting forms, and medication “holidays” on weekends or vacations, that reduce but do not end the deficits. When concerned, a nonstimulant can be selected.

Blood pressure and pulse rate are predictably slightly increased on stimulants (about 2-4 mm Hg and about 3-6 bpm) but not clinically significantly. Although ECGs are not routinely recommended, careful consideration and consultation is warranted before starting stimulants for any patient with structural cardiac abnormalities, unexplained syncope, exertional chest pain, or a family history of sudden death in children or young adults. Neither current nor former users of stimulants for ADHD were found to have greater rates of cardiac events than the general population, however.
 

Misuse and abuse

Misuse and diversion of stimulants is common (e.g. 26% diverted MPH in the past month; 14% of 12th graders divert DA), often undetected, and potentially dangerous. And the problem is not limited to just the kids. Sixteen percent of parents reported diversion of stimulant medication to another household member, mainly to themselves. Stimulant overdose can occur, especially taken parenterally, and presents with dilated pupils, tremor, agitation, hyperreflexia, combative behavior, confusion, hallucinations, delirium, anxiety, paranoia, movement disorders, and/or seizures. Fortunately, overdose of prescribed stimulants is rarely fatal if medically managed, but recent “fake” Adderall (not from pharmacies) has been circulating. These fake drugs may contain lethal amounts of fentanyl or methamphetamine. Point out to families that a peer-provided stimulant not prescribed for them may have underlying medical or psychiatric issues that increase adverse events. Selling stimulants can have serious legal implications, with punishments ranging from fines to incarceration. A record of arrest during adolescence increases the likelihood of high school dropout, lack of 4-year college education, and later employment barriers. Besides these serious outcomes, it is useful to remind patients that if they deviate from your recommended dosing that you, and others, will not prescribe for them in the future the medication that has been supporting their successful functioning.

You can be fooled about being able to tell if your patients are misusing or diverting the stimulants you prescribe. Most (59%) physicians suspect that more than one of their patients with ADHD has diverted or feigned symptoms (66%) to get a prescription. Women were less likely to suspect their patients than are men, though, so be vigilant! Child psychiatrists had the highest suspicion with their greater proportion of patients with ADHD plus conduct or substance use disorder, who account for 83% of misusers/diverters. We can use education about misuse, pill counts, contracts on dosing, or switching to long-acting or nonstimulants to curb this.
 

Additional concerns

With more ADHD diagnosis and stimulants used for many years should we worry about longer-term issues? There have been reports in rodent models and a few children of chromosomal changes with stimulant exposure, but reviewers do not interpret these as an individual cancer risk. Record review of patients who received stimulants showed lower numbers of cancer than expected. Nor is there evidence of reproductive effects of stimulants, although use during pregnancy is not cleared.

Stimulants carry a boxed warning as having high potential for abuse and psychological or physical dependence, which is unsurprising given their effects on brain reward pathways. However, neither past nor present use of stimulants for ADHD has been associated with greater substance use long term.

To top off these issues, recent shortages of stimulants complicate ADHD management. Most states require electronic prescribing, US rules only allowing one transfer of such e-prescriptions. With many pharmacies refusing to tell families about availability, we must make multiple calls to locate a source. Pharmacists could help us by looking up patient names of abusers on the registry and identifying sites with adequate supplies.

While we need to educate ourselves and our patients about potential and manifest side effects and risks of stimulants, we need to balance those concerns with their high effectiveness for improving daily functioning of our many patients with ADHD.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].