Commentary

Despite overwhelming evidence indicating vaccines are safe and effective at preventing diseases,¹ physicians are still faced with the dilemma of convincing patients to receive their recommended vaccinations. The topic comes up regularly on television talk shows; presidential debates; or in new documentary films, such as “Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe,” which was pulled from the Tribeca Film Festival in March 2016.² The central debate over vaccines traces back almost 20 years to the study published in The Lancet regarding the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and the link to autism. Although the article was retracted in 2010 and no evidence has been found linking vaccines with autism,^1,3 vaccination coverage gaps still exist. These gaps can leave communities vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases.⁴ This lack of protection is especially glaring for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, putting health care professionals including dermatologists in the position of educating parents and guardians to have their children immunized.

More than 10 years after the federal government approved the first vaccines to fight the cancer-causing HPV, less than half of adolescent girls and only a fifth of adolescent boys are getting immunized. The reasons for the low vaccination rates are particularly complicated because they play not only into fears over vaccines but also over a perceived risk the vaccine may encourage sexual activity in adolescents, which has not been proven.⁵ Another factor is reluctance on the part of physicians to discuss the vaccine with patients and to fully embrace its lifesaving potential. A recent study showed how physicians are contributing to the low rate.⁶ “The single biggest barrier to increasing HPV vaccination is not receiving a health care provider’s recommendation,” said Harvard University researcher Melissa Gilkey.⁷

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of 2014, only 40% of adolescent girls aged 13 to 17 years had completed the 3-dose course of the HPV vaccine and just 22% of adolescent boys,⁸ which is short of the 80% public health goal set in 2010 by the federal government.⁹ Vexingly, HPV vaccination rates lag behind the other 2 vaccines recommended in the same age group: the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis booster (88%) and the vaccine to prevent meningococcal disease (79%).⁸

Malo et al⁶ surveyed 776 primary care physicians and reported that more than a quarter of primary care respondents (27%) do not strongly endorse the HPV vaccine when talking with their patients’ families. Nearly 2 in 5 physicians (39%) did not recommend on-time HPV vaccination for their male patients compared to 26% for female patients.⁶

The starkest findings, however, related to how the physicians approached their discussions with parents and guardians. Only half recommended the vaccine the same day they discussed it, and 59% said they approached discussions by assessing the child’s risk for contracting the disease rather than consistently recommending it to all children as a routine immunization.⁶

Despite physician hesitancy, when looking at the facts there should be no debate. In December 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the 9-valent HPV (9vHPV) vaccine for males and females aged 9 to 26 years. The vaccine covers HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18, which are part of the quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine, along with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. The 9vHPV vaccine has the potential to offer protection against 30% to 35% more high-grade cervical lesions and to increase cervical cancer prevention from approximately 70% to 90%.¹⁰ It also will protect against 90% of the virus strains responsible for causing anogenital warts. According to CDC estimates, for every year that coverage does not increase, an additional 4400 women will develop cervical cancer. If providers can push the HPV vaccination rate up to the goal rate of 80%, the CDC estimates that 53,000 cases of cervical cancer could be prevented during the lifetime of patients younger than 12 years.¹¹

In a clinical trial of 14,215 women, Joura et al¹² reported that the 9vHPV vaccine had an efficacy of 96.7% to prevent high-grade cervical, vulvar, or vaginal dysplasia related to HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 in women. Antibody responses to HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 among participants who received the 9vHPV vaccine were noninferior to those who received the qHPV vaccine. The incidence of disease related to HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 was similar in the 2 vaccine groups. The introduction of 9vHPV vaccination in both males and females was cost saving compared to the qHPV vaccine in cost-effectiveness analyses. Injection-site reactions were slightly more common with the 9vHPV vaccine compared to the qHPV vaccine but were generally mild with less than 0.1% of study participants discontinuing due to vaccine-related adverse events.¹²

Additionally, the vaccine has the potential to offer protection against penile, anal, vulvar, vaginal, and oropharyngeal cancers (OPCs). Data from Joura et al¹² demonstrate that 55% of anal and penile cancers biopsied in the study carried the 5 HPV types that are included only in the 9vHPV vaccine.

Studies also show that the rate of OPC caused by HPV is rising rapidly and increasing more among men than women. Remarkably, OPC is projected to become more common than cervical cancer in 2020, with an estimated 70% of OPCs being caused by HPV in the United States.¹³ Theoretically, the 9vHPV vaccine has the potential to protect against even more cases of OPC because of its even broader coverage.¹⁴

Although optimal timing for the HPV vaccine would still be in preadolescence prior to sexual activity when exposure to HPV is less likely, CDC studies have shown benefit even in older patients who may have already been exposed to 1 or more HPV strains.¹⁵

Simply put, all the combined data highlight the overwhelming importance of HPV vaccination, with the 9vHPV vaccine representing a meaningful advantage over existing HPV vaccines. As physicians, we have a duty to our patients to emphasize the importance of this vaccine. It is a vaccine that has the potential to prevent multiple cancers, cancers for which we currently have no evidence-based prevention modalities, except in the case of cervical cancer. This responsibility falls on all providers, not just primary care providers. With a strong message from providers to vaccinate age-eligible males and females, we can move the United States from among the lowest rates of HPV vaccination to the highest, with subsequent reductions in the national cancer burden to follow.

Despite overwhelming evidence indicating vaccines are safe and effective at preventing diseases,¹ physicians are still faced with the dilemma of convincing patients to receive their recommended vaccinations. The topic comes up regularly on television talk shows; presidential debates; or in new documentary films, such as “Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe,” which was pulled from the Tribeca Film Festival in March 2016.² The central debate over vaccines traces back almost 20 years to the study published in The Lancet regarding the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and the link to autism. Although the article was retracted in 2010 and no evidence has been found linking vaccines with autism,^1,3 vaccination coverage gaps still exist. These gaps can leave communities vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases.⁴ This lack of protection is especially glaring for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, putting health care professionals including dermatologists in the position of educating parents and guardians to have their children immunized.

More than 10 years after the federal government approved the first vaccines to fight the cancer-causing HPV, less than half of adolescent girls and only a fifth of adolescent boys are getting immunized. The reasons for the low vaccination rates are particularly complicated because they play not only into fears over vaccines but also over a perceived risk the vaccine may encourage sexual activity in adolescents, which has not been proven.⁵ Another factor is reluctance on the part of physicians to discuss the vaccine with patients and to fully embrace its lifesaving potential. A recent study showed how physicians are contributing to the low rate.⁶ “The single biggest barrier to increasing HPV vaccination is not receiving a health care provider’s recommendation,” said Harvard University researcher Melissa Gilkey.⁷

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of 2014, only 40% of adolescent girls aged 13 to 17 years had completed the 3-dose course of the HPV vaccine and just 22% of adolescent boys,⁸ which is short of the 80% public health goal set in 2010 by the federal government.⁹ Vexingly, HPV vaccination rates lag behind the other 2 vaccines recommended in the same age group: the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis booster (88%) and the vaccine to prevent meningococcal disease (79%).⁸

Malo et al⁶ surveyed 776 primary care physicians and reported that more than a quarter of primary care respondents (27%) do not strongly endorse the HPV vaccine when talking with their patients’ families. Nearly 2 in 5 physicians (39%) did not recommend on-time HPV vaccination for their male patients compared to 26% for female patients.⁶

The starkest findings, however, related to how the physicians approached their discussions with parents and guardians. Only half recommended the vaccine the same day they discussed it, and 59% said they approached discussions by assessing the child’s risk for contracting the disease rather than consistently recommending it to all children as a routine immunization.⁶

Despite physician hesitancy, when looking at the facts there should be no debate. In December 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the 9-valent HPV (9vHPV) vaccine for males and females aged 9 to 26 years. The vaccine covers HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18, which are part of the quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine, along with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. The 9vHPV vaccine has the potential to offer protection against 30% to 35% more high-grade cervical lesions and to increase cervical cancer prevention from approximately 70% to 90%.¹⁰ It also will protect against 90% of the virus strains responsible for causing anogenital warts. According to CDC estimates, for every year that coverage does not increase, an additional 4400 women will develop cervical cancer. If providers can push the HPV vaccination rate up to the goal rate of 80%, the CDC estimates that 53,000 cases of cervical cancer could be prevented during the lifetime of patients younger than 12 years.¹¹

In a clinical trial of 14,215 women, Joura et al¹² reported that the 9vHPV vaccine had an efficacy of 96.7% to prevent high-grade cervical, vulvar, or vaginal dysplasia related to HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 in women. Antibody responses to HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 among participants who received the 9vHPV vaccine were noninferior to those who received the qHPV vaccine. The incidence of disease related to HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 was similar in the 2 vaccine groups. The introduction of 9vHPV vaccination in both males and females was cost saving compared to the qHPV vaccine in cost-effectiveness analyses. Injection-site reactions were slightly more common with the 9vHPV vaccine compared to the qHPV vaccine but were generally mild with less than 0.1% of study participants discontinuing due to vaccine-related adverse events.¹²

Additionally, the vaccine has the potential to offer protection against penile, anal, vulvar, vaginal, and oropharyngeal cancers (OPCs). Data from Joura et al¹² demonstrate that 55% of anal and penile cancers biopsied in the study carried the 5 HPV types that are included only in the 9vHPV vaccine.

Studies also show that the rate of OPC caused by HPV is rising rapidly and increasing more among men than women. Remarkably, OPC is projected to become more common than cervical cancer in 2020, with an estimated 70% of OPCs being caused by HPV in the United States.¹³ Theoretically, the 9vHPV vaccine has the potential to protect against even more cases of OPC because of its even broader coverage.¹⁴

Although optimal timing for the HPV vaccine would still be in preadolescence prior to sexual activity when exposure to HPV is less likely, CDC studies have shown benefit even in older patients who may have already been exposed to 1 or more HPV strains.¹⁵

Simply put, all the combined data highlight the overwhelming importance of HPV vaccination, with the 9vHPV vaccine representing a meaningful advantage over existing HPV vaccines. As physicians, we have a duty to our patients to emphasize the importance of this vaccine. It is a vaccine that has the potential to prevent multiple cancers, cancers for which we currently have no evidence-based prevention modalities, except in the case of cervical cancer. This responsibility falls on all providers, not just primary care providers. With a strong message from providers to vaccinate age-eligible males and females, we can move the United States from among the lowest rates of HPV vaccination to the highest, with subsequent reductions in the national cancer burden to follow.

Despite overwhelming evidence indicating vaccines are safe and effective at preventing diseases,¹ physicians are still faced with the dilemma of convincing patients to receive their recommended vaccinations. The topic comes up regularly on television talk shows; presidential debates; or in new documentary films, such as “Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe,” which was pulled from the Tribeca Film Festival in March 2016.² The central debate over vaccines traces back almost 20 years to the study published in The Lancet regarding the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and the link to autism. Although the article was retracted in 2010 and no evidence has been found linking vaccines with autism,^1,3 vaccination coverage gaps still exist. These gaps can leave communities vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases.⁴ This lack of protection is especially glaring for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, putting health care professionals including dermatologists in the position of educating parents and guardians to have their children immunized.

More than 10 years after the federal government approved the first vaccines to fight the cancer-causing HPV, less than half of adolescent girls and only a fifth of adolescent boys are getting immunized. The reasons for the low vaccination rates are particularly complicated because they play not only into fears over vaccines but also over a perceived risk the vaccine may encourage sexual activity in adolescents, which has not been proven.⁵ Another factor is reluctance on the part of physicians to discuss the vaccine with patients and to fully embrace its lifesaving potential. A recent study showed how physicians are contributing to the low rate.⁶ “The single biggest barrier to increasing HPV vaccination is not receiving a health care provider’s recommendation,” said Harvard University researcher Melissa Gilkey.⁷

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of 2014, only 40% of adolescent girls aged 13 to 17 years had completed the 3-dose course of the HPV vaccine and just 22% of adolescent boys,⁸ which is short of the 80% public health goal set in 2010 by the federal government.⁹ Vexingly, HPV vaccination rates lag behind the other 2 vaccines recommended in the same age group: the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis booster (88%) and the vaccine to prevent meningococcal disease (79%).⁸

Malo et al⁶ surveyed 776 primary care physicians and reported that more than a quarter of primary care respondents (27%) do not strongly endorse the HPV vaccine when talking with their patients’ families. Nearly 2 in 5 physicians (39%) did not recommend on-time HPV vaccination for their male patients compared to 26% for female patients.⁶

The starkest findings, however, related to how the physicians approached their discussions with parents and guardians. Only half recommended the vaccine the same day they discussed it, and 59% said they approached discussions by assessing the child’s risk for contracting the disease rather than consistently recommending it to all children as a routine immunization.⁶

Despite physician hesitancy, when looking at the facts there should be no debate. In December 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the 9-valent HPV (9vHPV) vaccine for males and females aged 9 to 26 years. The vaccine covers HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18, which are part of the quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine, along with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. The 9vHPV vaccine has the potential to offer protection against 30% to 35% more high-grade cervical lesions and to increase cervical cancer prevention from approximately 70% to 90%.¹⁰ It also will protect against 90% of the virus strains responsible for causing anogenital warts. According to CDC estimates, for every year that coverage does not increase, an additional 4400 women will develop cervical cancer. If providers can push the HPV vaccination rate up to the goal rate of 80%, the CDC estimates that 53,000 cases of cervical cancer could be prevented during the lifetime of patients younger than 12 years.¹¹

In a clinical trial of 14,215 women, Joura et al¹² reported that the 9vHPV vaccine had an efficacy of 96.7% to prevent high-grade cervical, vulvar, or vaginal dysplasia related to HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 in women. Antibody responses to HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 among participants who received the 9vHPV vaccine were noninferior to those who received the qHPV vaccine. The incidence of disease related to HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 was similar in the 2 vaccine groups. The introduction of 9vHPV vaccination in both males and females was cost saving compared to the qHPV vaccine in cost-effectiveness analyses. Injection-site reactions were slightly more common with the 9vHPV vaccine compared to the qHPV vaccine but were generally mild with less than 0.1% of study participants discontinuing due to vaccine-related adverse events.¹²

Additionally, the vaccine has the potential to offer protection against penile, anal, vulvar, vaginal, and oropharyngeal cancers (OPCs). Data from Joura et al¹² demonstrate that 55% of anal and penile cancers biopsied in the study carried the 5 HPV types that are included only in the 9vHPV vaccine.

Studies also show that the rate of OPC caused by HPV is rising rapidly and increasing more among men than women. Remarkably, OPC is projected to become more common than cervical cancer in 2020, with an estimated 70% of OPCs being caused by HPV in the United States.¹³ Theoretically, the 9vHPV vaccine has the potential to protect against even more cases of OPC because of its even broader coverage.¹⁴

Although optimal timing for the HPV vaccine would still be in preadolescence prior to sexual activity when exposure to HPV is less likely, CDC studies have shown benefit even in older patients who may have already been exposed to 1 or more HPV strains.¹⁵

Simply put, all the combined data highlight the overwhelming importance of HPV vaccination, with the 9vHPV vaccine representing a meaningful advantage over existing HPV vaccines. As physicians, we have a duty to our patients to emphasize the importance of this vaccine. It is a vaccine that has the potential to prevent multiple cancers, cancers for which we currently have no evidence-based prevention modalities, except in the case of cervical cancer. This responsibility falls on all providers, not just primary care providers. With a strong message from providers to vaccinate age-eligible males and females, we can move the United States from among the lowest rates of HPV vaccination to the highest, with subsequent reductions in the national cancer burden to follow.

“UPDATE ON CONTRACEPTION”

Mitchell D. Creinin, MD; Natasha R. Schimmoeller, MD, MPH, MA (August 2016)

Interesting anatomic variation and management for IUD placement

I recently saw a patient for insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD). On examination with a speculum, I could not find the patient’s cervix. On bimanual exam, I found the cervix to be extremely anterior. I again placed a speculum and, even knowing where to look, could not bring the cervix into view. I did a second bimanual exam and noticed that I could move the cervix into a more axial plane if I exerted suprapubic pressure. The patient’s uterus was retroverted and her cervix was behind her symphysis. When I placed the speculum again, I asked the patient to apply suprapubic pressure, as I just had. With this procedure I then found her cervix easily, grasped it with a tenaculum, and inserted the IUD, which went well.

Jeffrey Joseph, MD
Wakefield, Rhode Island

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“UPDATE ON CONTRACEPTION”

Mitchell D. Creinin, MD; Natasha R. Schimmoeller, MD, MPH, MA (August 2016)

Interesting anatomic variation and management for IUD placement

I recently saw a patient for insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD). On examination with a speculum, I could not find the patient’s cervix. On bimanual exam, I found the cervix to be extremely anterior. I again placed a speculum and, even knowing where to look, could not bring the cervix into view. I did a second bimanual exam and noticed that I could move the cervix into a more axial plane if I exerted suprapubic pressure. The patient’s uterus was retroverted and her cervix was behind her symphysis. When I placed the speculum again, I asked the patient to apply suprapubic pressure, as I just had. With this procedure I then found her cervix easily, grasped it with a tenaculum, and inserted the IUD, which went well.

Jeffrey Joseph, MD
Wakefield, Rhode Island

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“UPDATE ON CONTRACEPTION”

Mitchell D. Creinin, MD; Natasha R. Schimmoeller, MD, MPH, MA (August 2016)

Interesting anatomic variation and management for IUD placement

I recently saw a patient for insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD). On examination with a speculum, I could not find the patient’s cervix. On bimanual exam, I found the cervix to be extremely anterior. I again placed a speculum and, even knowing where to look, could not bring the cervix into view. I did a second bimanual exam and noticed that I could move the cervix into a more axial plane if I exerted suprapubic pressure. The patient’s uterus was retroverted and her cervix was behind her symphysis. When I placed the speculum again, I asked the patient to apply suprapubic pressure, as I just had. With this procedure I then found her cervix easily, grasped it with a tenaculum, and inserted the IUD, which went well.

Jeffrey Joseph, MD
Wakefield, Rhode Island

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“STOP USING RECTAL MISOPROSTOL FOR THE TREATMENT OF POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE CAUSED BY UTERINE ATONY”

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (JULY 2016)

More on rectal misoprostol for postpartum hemorrhage

We applaud Dr. Barbieri’s July Editorial urging providers to stop administering misoprostol rectally for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) given the well-documented evidence and pharmacokinetics that recommend the sublingual route. Confusion among providers may derive from the fact that not all international guidelines, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists clinical guidelines on the management of PPH, have been updated to reflect the latest evidence.¹ Guidelines from the World Health Organization and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics reflect the latest evidence and clearly recommend the evidence-based regimen of 800 μg misoprostol sublingually for treatment of PPH,² which has been shown to be comparable to 40 IU oxytocin intravenously in women who ­receive oxytocin for PPH prophylaxis.³

Although oxytocin remains the first-line treatment for PPH, evidence suggests that sublingual misoprostol should be considered a viable first alternative if oxytocin is not available or fails. There is little evidence on the benefit of methergine or carboprost over misoprostol for PPH treatment, and inclusion of these drugs in treatment guidelines and practice is based on extrapolations from studies on PPH prevention.⁴ As Dr. Barbieri noted, pyrexia from misoprostol has been cited in the literature; however, contrary to contraindications for methergine, for example, this rare event does not pose serious risks to women, is self-limiting, and appears to be most acute among certain populations.⁵

It is paramount that safe, effective, and evidence-based PPH treatments be available and known to providers both in the United States and globally in order to provide women with timely treatment. Greater discussion and research is warranted about the hierarchy of use for these drugs and the possible impact of routine use of uterotonics before and during delivery, given that overexposure to uterotonics may in fact be making PPH harder to treat.⁶

Gillian Burkhardt, MD, and Rasha Dabash, MPH
New York, New York

Dr. Barbieri responds

I thank Drs. Burkhardt and Dabash for sharing their expert perspective with our readers. They advocate for the use of sublingual misoprostol for the treatment of PPH “if oxytocin is not available or fails.” I agree that at a home birth, if oxytocin is not available, sublingual misoprostol would be of great benefit. I remain concerned that misoprostol has little clinical utility for the treatment of PPH in the hospital setting in which oxytocin, methergine, and carboprost are available alternatives. Misoprostol causes fever in many women, and women who develop a postpartum fever due to misoprostol will receive unnecessary antibiotic treatment. I recommend that our readers stop using misoprostol for the treatment of PPH in the hospital setting.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“STOP USING RECTAL MISOPROSTOL FOR THE TREATMENT OF POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE CAUSED BY UTERINE ATONY”

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (JULY 2016)

More on rectal misoprostol for postpartum hemorrhage

We applaud Dr. Barbieri’s July Editorial urging providers to stop administering misoprostol rectally for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) given the well-documented evidence and pharmacokinetics that recommend the sublingual route. Confusion among providers may derive from the fact that not all international guidelines, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists clinical guidelines on the management of PPH, have been updated to reflect the latest evidence.¹ Guidelines from the World Health Organization and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics reflect the latest evidence and clearly recommend the evidence-based regimen of 800 μg misoprostol sublingually for treatment of PPH,² which has been shown to be comparable to 40 IU oxytocin intravenously in women who ­receive oxytocin for PPH prophylaxis.³

Although oxytocin remains the first-line treatment for PPH, evidence suggests that sublingual misoprostol should be considered a viable first alternative if oxytocin is not available or fails. There is little evidence on the benefit of methergine or carboprost over misoprostol for PPH treatment, and inclusion of these drugs in treatment guidelines and practice is based on extrapolations from studies on PPH prevention.⁴ As Dr. Barbieri noted, pyrexia from misoprostol has been cited in the literature; however, contrary to contraindications for methergine, for example, this rare event does not pose serious risks to women, is self-limiting, and appears to be most acute among certain populations.⁵

It is paramount that safe, effective, and evidence-based PPH treatments be available and known to providers both in the United States and globally in order to provide women with timely treatment. Greater discussion and research is warranted about the hierarchy of use for these drugs and the possible impact of routine use of uterotonics before and during delivery, given that overexposure to uterotonics may in fact be making PPH harder to treat.⁶

Gillian Burkhardt, MD, and Rasha Dabash, MPH
New York, New York

Dr. Barbieri responds

I thank Drs. Burkhardt and Dabash for sharing their expert perspective with our readers. They advocate for the use of sublingual misoprostol for the treatment of PPH “if oxytocin is not available or fails.” I agree that at a home birth, if oxytocin is not available, sublingual misoprostol would be of great benefit. I remain concerned that misoprostol has little clinical utility for the treatment of PPH in the hospital setting in which oxytocin, methergine, and carboprost are available alternatives. Misoprostol causes fever in many women, and women who develop a postpartum fever due to misoprostol will receive unnecessary antibiotic treatment. I recommend that our readers stop using misoprostol for the treatment of PPH in the hospital setting.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“STOP USING RECTAL MISOPROSTOL FOR THE TREATMENT OF POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE CAUSED BY UTERINE ATONY”

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (JULY 2016)

More on rectal misoprostol for postpartum hemorrhage

We applaud Dr. Barbieri’s July Editorial urging providers to stop administering misoprostol rectally for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) given the well-documented evidence and pharmacokinetics that recommend the sublingual route. Confusion among providers may derive from the fact that not all international guidelines, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists clinical guidelines on the management of PPH, have been updated to reflect the latest evidence.¹ Guidelines from the World Health Organization and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics reflect the latest evidence and clearly recommend the evidence-based regimen of 800 μg misoprostol sublingually for treatment of PPH,² which has been shown to be comparable to 40 IU oxytocin intravenously in women who ­receive oxytocin for PPH prophylaxis.³

Although oxytocin remains the first-line treatment for PPH, evidence suggests that sublingual misoprostol should be considered a viable first alternative if oxytocin is not available or fails. There is little evidence on the benefit of methergine or carboprost over misoprostol for PPH treatment, and inclusion of these drugs in treatment guidelines and practice is based on extrapolations from studies on PPH prevention.⁴ As Dr. Barbieri noted, pyrexia from misoprostol has been cited in the literature; however, contrary to contraindications for methergine, for example, this rare event does not pose serious risks to women, is self-limiting, and appears to be most acute among certain populations.⁵

It is paramount that safe, effective, and evidence-based PPH treatments be available and known to providers both in the United States and globally in order to provide women with timely treatment. Greater discussion and research is warranted about the hierarchy of use for these drugs and the possible impact of routine use of uterotonics before and during delivery, given that overexposure to uterotonics may in fact be making PPH harder to treat.⁶

Gillian Burkhardt, MD, and Rasha Dabash, MPH
New York, New York

Dr. Barbieri responds

I thank Drs. Burkhardt and Dabash for sharing their expert perspective with our readers. They advocate for the use of sublingual misoprostol for the treatment of PPH “if oxytocin is not available or fails.” I agree that at a home birth, if oxytocin is not available, sublingual misoprostol would be of great benefit. I remain concerned that misoprostol has little clinical utility for the treatment of PPH in the hospital setting in which oxytocin, methergine, and carboprost are available alternatives. Misoprostol causes fever in many women, and women who develop a postpartum fever due to misoprostol will receive unnecessary antibiotic treatment. I recommend that our readers stop using misoprostol for the treatment of PPH in the hospital setting.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

With the advent of the Internet, many parents and teen patients come in armed with information and sometimes even a diagnosis. Much of our time is spent dispelling falsehoods that were posted on the Internet or clarifying information that was misinterpreted. Although generally more information is a good thing, too much false information can result in limiting health care.

Vaccine administration has suffered significantly because of this. With a simple Google search, you can find articles that do everything just short of proving that vaccines are harmful, and tear-jerking stories about children who were harmed by the administration of vaccines. Many sites – Vaxtruth.org, healthwyze.org, naturalnews.com – all present convincing data that would scare any concerned parent to not vaccinate their child. So how do medical professionals regain the trust of their parents and/or patients?

Joseph Abbott/Thinkstock

References

1. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/conv-materials.html

2. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/immunizations/Pages/Vaccine-Safety-The-Facts.aspx

3. http://www.immunize.org

Dr. Pearce is a pediatrician in Frankfort, Ill. Email her at [email protected].

With the advent of the Internet, many parents and teen patients come in armed with information and sometimes even a diagnosis. Much of our time is spent dispelling falsehoods that were posted on the Internet or clarifying information that was misinterpreted. Although generally more information is a good thing, too much false information can result in limiting health care.

Vaccine administration has suffered significantly because of this. With a simple Google search, you can find articles that do everything just short of proving that vaccines are harmful, and tear-jerking stories about children who were harmed by the administration of vaccines. Many sites – Vaxtruth.org, healthwyze.org, naturalnews.com – all present convincing data that would scare any concerned parent to not vaccinate their child. So how do medical professionals regain the trust of their parents and/or patients?

Joseph Abbott/Thinkstock

References

1. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/conv-materials.html

2. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/immunizations/Pages/Vaccine-Safety-The-Facts.aspx

3. http://www.immunize.org

Dr. Pearce is a pediatrician in Frankfort, Ill. Email her at [email protected].

With the advent of the Internet, many parents and teen patients come in armed with information and sometimes even a diagnosis. Much of our time is spent dispelling falsehoods that were posted on the Internet or clarifying information that was misinterpreted. Although generally more information is a good thing, too much false information can result in limiting health care.

Vaccine administration has suffered significantly because of this. With a simple Google search, you can find articles that do everything just short of proving that vaccines are harmful, and tear-jerking stories about children who were harmed by the administration of vaccines. Many sites – Vaxtruth.org, healthwyze.org, naturalnews.com – all present convincing data that would scare any concerned parent to not vaccinate their child. So how do medical professionals regain the trust of their parents and/or patients?

Joseph Abbott/Thinkstock

References

1. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/conv-materials.html

2. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/immunizations/Pages/Vaccine-Safety-The-Facts.aspx

3. http://www.immunize.org

Dr. Pearce is a pediatrician in Frankfort, Ill. Email her at [email protected].

One of us practices in the “new south” community of Charlotte, N.C., “a red state”; the other is in the “blue bubble” of Washington. In our respective polarized zones, the divergent reactions we heard about the presidential candidates were akin to projective responses to Rorschach tests.

As mental health clinicians, we knew that the country was wounded and in need of healing long before the outcome of the unconventional and acrimonious 2016 American presidential race. So, we were concerned about how patients, clinicians, and divergent communities would go about healing after an 18-month pre-election slugfest that revealed bigotry that persists more than 150 years after the Civil War.

Background of ‘two sides’

None of the nasty rhetoric delivered by our now president-elect or the clearly defensive responses we heard from our former secretary of state were going to be easily forgotten after Nov. 8, 2016. As the process unfolded, however, the voice of psychiatry, with some notable exceptions (the blog of Justin Frank, MD, for example), was absent from the public dialogue.

There is a virus infecting our politics and right now it’s flourishing with a scarlet fever. It feeds on fear, paranoia and bigotry. All that was required for it to spread was a timely opportunity – and an opportunist with no scruples. ... There have been stretches of history when this virus lay dormant. ... Today its carrier is Donald Trump, but others came before him: narcissistic demagogues who lie and distort in pursuit of power and self-promotion. Bullies all, swaggering across the landscape with fistfuls of false promises, smears, innuendo and hatred for others, spite and spittle for anyone of a different race, faith, gender, or nationality.¹

Alternatively, some had a smoldering fear of the progressive agenda to bring “others” – more women, African Americans, Latinos, the LGBTQ community, Muslims, and the disabled – securely under the tent of American democracy. Others, especially the underemployed cohort in neglected and struggling communities in Middle America, were simply opposed to a continuation of “politics as usual,” a.k.a. Hillary Clinton, and were desperate for change.

Causes of concern

In the months leading up to the election, violent events strained the societal divisions. The police use of force² resulted in the near-daily deaths of African American men and women and other people of color at the hands of police officers. The events built on a long and growing list of violent acts – the racially motivated shootings of nine men and women in a Charleston, S.C., church, the bombing injuries and deaths at the Boston Marathon, the shooting deaths of 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the homophobia-motivated shootings in a Florida nightclub – that have heightened levels of fear, anxiety, and concern for personal and family safety. For many, life has felt fragile and out of control, the perfect setup to motivate the electorate to cast their votes for the person they imagined had the most power and most interest in restoring their sense of control over their lives and, ultimately, their sense of safety.

Why the fear? A psychodynamic analysis

As psychiatrists trained in psychodynamic theory, we are quite familiar with the concept of identifying with the aggressor as a means of coping. The classic example is when a child watches his or her parents in an abusive relationship and identifies with the abusive parent in an attempt to avoid identifying with the victimized parent.

This dynamic is one that seems to have played out during this presidential election. By October 2016, Donald J. Trump already reportedly had insulted more than 280 people, places, and things on Twitter.³ Despite the evidence that Mr. Trump verbally bullied not only his opponents, but also the media, Latinos, women, the LGBTQ community, the Republican Party (his claimed party), and Muslims, people came out in numbers high enough to make him America’s president-elect. In the classic process of bullying his perceived enemies, those considered “the other,” he assigned names such as “crooked Hillary,” “little Marco,” and “lyin’ Ted” – just as a bully at school assigns names to the kid he’s decided does not have enough worth to be called by his given name.

He depicted women who accused him of sexual assault as either not being pretty enough to be worthy of assault or self-serving in their public accusations. Mexicans entering this country were referred to as “rapists and thugs.” African Americans were told that their lives are so bad that they “have nothing to lose” if they voted for a candidate who talked about erecting a wall to block out other people of color, and changing immigration laws that would banish an entire religion from entering our country.
 

The ‘blue bubble’ – Those who voted for Mrs. Clinton

So … this happened. And, in our consulting rooms, we are seeing a stark increase in the numbers of individuals, couples, and families reporting overwhelming anxiety, sadness, and a sense of de-realization (“it’s surreal”). At the core of their anxiety is concern for self, family, and friends as well as concern for the country as a whole.

The post-election notions that families would be immediately broken up, parents deported, the Affordable Care Act immediately dismantled, and countries bombed immediately after Election Day did not become realities. However, there is valid reason to be concerned. The Southern Poverty Law Center has noted a significant increase in post-election hate crimes throughout the nation.⁴

The new South ‘red states’ – those who voted for Mr. Trump

Trump supporters are feeling victorious because their “underdog” candidate ran an unconventional presidential campaign and won. However, some who voted for Mr. Trump will at some point experience anxiety when the excitement of “winning” wears off. Psychoanalyst Justin Frank speaks to this and more in his Nov. 9, 2016, blog in which he concludes: “While we mourn and blame others and ourselves for our American tragedy, Trump voters must eventually look at themselves in the mirror and exclaim, ‘what have we done?’ ”⁵

In his Oct. 25, 2016, New York Times article, Michael Barbaro summarized the behaviors that will become increasingly of concern to all as Mr. Trump accepts the oath of office:

The intense ambitions and undisciplined behaviors of Mr. Trump have confounded even those close to him.... In interviews, Mr. Trump makes clear just how difficult it is for him to imagine – let alone accept – defeat....

“I never had a failure,” Mr. Trump said in one of the interviews, despite his repeated corporate bankruptcies and business setbacks, “because I always turned a failure into a success.”⁶

This fundamental inability to accept responsibility and the attempt to distort reality is something that must concern each of us, regardless of our ideological differences.

Distress tolerance as a model for healing

Even before the outcome of the election, we were hearing from patients who did not feel safe and who reported being “terrified” about what our country might become. This is where a focus on processing the pain and decreasing anxiety is necessary. This is not an anxiety we can medicate with anxiolytics or rationalize by telling ourselves and our patients that the best man won “fair and square.” We have each – by this time – experienced patients who are quite shaken by this turn of events.

Although it has not received much press, many consider Mr. Trump’s victory to be, in part, a “white backlash.” Many supporters of Mr. Trump have felt too ashamed to publicly admit their support for a candidate who at least by innuendo incited fear, anger, and violence. This failure has created an anxiety reminiscent of the daytime anxiety experienced by people who survived nighttime lynchings in small Southern towns. The day after the lynching, it was not unusual for African American men, women, and children to wonder if their grocer, banker, postal carrier, or sheriff had donned a white hood the night before and lynched someone in their community.

The question of survival, how to survive the unimaginable, is what most distresses people. They’ve wondered out loud whether they, their family, and friends would be attacked and/or killed by those who now feel emboldened and authorized to act on their latent aggressive impulses. And, our patients’ fears are legitimate because, unfortunately, studies show that verbal aggression is correlated with increased risk of physical violence and even murder.⁷

In the dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) construct developed by Marsha M. Linehan, PhD, the goals of distress tolerance are crisis survival, reality acceptance, and then freedom.⁸

As we apply our skills, we are uniquely positioned to help our patients and their families survive this crisis, accept that this is our president-elect, and ultimately be free from the anxiety created by the behavior that we all witnessed. We can aid in the navigation through this storm.

Acceptance

We’re already on to reality acceptance. The reality that so many African Americans and people of color have been living is now known and experienced by many who had felt immune to being marginalized. They now understand the loss of security that accompanies overwhelming fear of being the object of verbal, emotional, and physical aggression and violence.

Some are coping by entertaining fantasies that this election outcome will be undone, that the Electoral College will not approve our president-elect when it meets on Dec. 19 or that Mr. Trump will be impeached early in this upcoming term. The results of the presidential election are unlikely to be undone, so having more than 2 months between Election Day and the inauguration to work on acceptance will be helpful. The goal here is to accept the past, be hopeful about the future, and be vigilant in the present.
 

Freedom

Now, on to freedom. Our goal is to have all of our patients, families, colleagues, and communities able to live without fear that our leaders are not able to apply humanitarian principles to keep all of us safe. The next few months are crucial. Americans must speak out and debride the wound that bullying intentionally causes. Just as with a school bully, Mr. Trump’s behavior has to be called what it is, not sugarcoated or normalized.

History is full of critical moments in time in which, even in our fear, we said nothing. Even the most empathic of us watched the bully at school and felt relief that his behavior was not directed toward us. But we must not avert our gaze.

Bill Moyers and Michael Winship compared Mr. Trump to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose reign of terror was ended when journalist Edward R. Murrow courageously spoke out in defiance of the senator. At the end of one of his segments on “See It Now,” Mr. Murrow concluded as he signed off:

We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.⁹

And, so, how do we cope?

Fortunately, we understand bullying. The bully doesn’t take over the entire school and won’t have the power to take over one’s entire life if the behavior is brought out in the open and openly discussed. But bullies need to accept responsibility, which is what Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and other legislators urged President-elect Trump to do in days immediately following the election.¹⁰ They have called on him to discourage the fear, anger, and violence leading up to and following the election. This action on Mr. Trump’s part would promote a vitally needed national healing process.

Ultimately, this is “the land of the free, the home of the brave …” and we will do what we have always done as psychiatrists and mental health professionals who help to heal wounds. Not all of us will participate in social justice initiatives. However, each of us can listen with intense compassion and interest to those with whom we identify politically and to those whose views diverge from our own. This is our most potent tool in a conflict where we don’t understand the motives of unpredictable leaders or their followers. It is only with this skilled listening that a space is created in which each “other” hears the “other.” This is where real healing begins.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors, and are not meant to represent the views of the American Psychiatric Association, Novant Health, Clinical Psychiatry News, or any other organization.

References

1. http://billposters/story/trump-virus-dark-age-unreason

2. http://blackdoctor.org/495036/national-medical-association-statement-on-police-use-of-force

3. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?_r=0

4. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/11/over-200-incidents-hateful-harassment-and-intimidation-election-day

5. http://www.obamaonthecouch.com

6. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/politics/donald-trump-interviews.html

7. “The Nature of Prejudice,” (New York: Perseus Books Publishing, 1979).

8. DBT® Skills Training Handouts and Worksheets, Second Edition (New York: The Guilford Press, 2014).

9. http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-virus-dark-age-unreason

10. http://www.reid.senate.gov/press_releases/2016-11-11-reid-statement-on-the-election-of-donald-trump#.WC0iA6IrKgR

Dr. Dunlap, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who practices in Washington, is the immediate past president of the Washington Psychiatric Society, and associate clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington. She is interested in the role “difference” – race, culture, and ethnicity – plays in interpersonal relationships and group dynamics. Dr. Ifill-Taylor, a child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist, is in practice as a medical director in Charlotte, N.C. Previously, she was in private practice in the Washington area and worked as a staff psychiatrist for the Department of Veterans Affairs. She is particularly interested in the effect of our social, political, and occupational environment on mental and physical health.

One of us practices in the “new south” community of Charlotte, N.C., “a red state”; the other is in the “blue bubble” of Washington. In our respective polarized zones, the divergent reactions we heard about the presidential candidates were akin to projective responses to Rorschach tests.

As mental health clinicians, we knew that the country was wounded and in need of healing long before the outcome of the unconventional and acrimonious 2016 American presidential race. So, we were concerned about how patients, clinicians, and divergent communities would go about healing after an 18-month pre-election slugfest that revealed bigotry that persists more than 150 years after the Civil War.

Background of ‘two sides’

None of the nasty rhetoric delivered by our now president-elect or the clearly defensive responses we heard from our former secretary of state were going to be easily forgotten after Nov. 8, 2016. As the process unfolded, however, the voice of psychiatry, with some notable exceptions (the blog of Justin Frank, MD, for example), was absent from the public dialogue.

There is a virus infecting our politics and right now it’s flourishing with a scarlet fever. It feeds on fear, paranoia and bigotry. All that was required for it to spread was a timely opportunity – and an opportunist with no scruples. ... There have been stretches of history when this virus lay dormant. ... Today its carrier is Donald Trump, but others came before him: narcissistic demagogues who lie and distort in pursuit of power and self-promotion. Bullies all, swaggering across the landscape with fistfuls of false promises, smears, innuendo and hatred for others, spite and spittle for anyone of a different race, faith, gender, or nationality.¹

Alternatively, some had a smoldering fear of the progressive agenda to bring “others” – more women, African Americans, Latinos, the LGBTQ community, Muslims, and the disabled – securely under the tent of American democracy. Others, especially the underemployed cohort in neglected and struggling communities in Middle America, were simply opposed to a continuation of “politics as usual,” a.k.a. Hillary Clinton, and were desperate for change.

Causes of concern

In the months leading up to the election, violent events strained the societal divisions. The police use of force² resulted in the near-daily deaths of African American men and women and other people of color at the hands of police officers. The events built on a long and growing list of violent acts – the racially motivated shootings of nine men and women in a Charleston, S.C., church, the bombing injuries and deaths at the Boston Marathon, the shooting deaths of 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the homophobia-motivated shootings in a Florida nightclub – that have heightened levels of fear, anxiety, and concern for personal and family safety. For many, life has felt fragile and out of control, the perfect setup to motivate the electorate to cast their votes for the person they imagined had the most power and most interest in restoring their sense of control over their lives and, ultimately, their sense of safety.

Why the fear? A psychodynamic analysis

As psychiatrists trained in psychodynamic theory, we are quite familiar with the concept of identifying with the aggressor as a means of coping. The classic example is when a child watches his or her parents in an abusive relationship and identifies with the abusive parent in an attempt to avoid identifying with the victimized parent.

This dynamic is one that seems to have played out during this presidential election. By October 2016, Donald J. Trump already reportedly had insulted more than 280 people, places, and things on Twitter.³ Despite the evidence that Mr. Trump verbally bullied not only his opponents, but also the media, Latinos, women, the LGBTQ community, the Republican Party (his claimed party), and Muslims, people came out in numbers high enough to make him America’s president-elect. In the classic process of bullying his perceived enemies, those considered “the other,” he assigned names such as “crooked Hillary,” “little Marco,” and “lyin’ Ted” – just as a bully at school assigns names to the kid he’s decided does not have enough worth to be called by his given name.

He depicted women who accused him of sexual assault as either not being pretty enough to be worthy of assault or self-serving in their public accusations. Mexicans entering this country were referred to as “rapists and thugs.” African Americans were told that their lives are so bad that they “have nothing to lose” if they voted for a candidate who talked about erecting a wall to block out other people of color, and changing immigration laws that would banish an entire religion from entering our country.
 

The ‘blue bubble’ – Those who voted for Mrs. Clinton

So … this happened. And, in our consulting rooms, we are seeing a stark increase in the numbers of individuals, couples, and families reporting overwhelming anxiety, sadness, and a sense of de-realization (“it’s surreal”). At the core of their anxiety is concern for self, family, and friends as well as concern for the country as a whole.

The post-election notions that families would be immediately broken up, parents deported, the Affordable Care Act immediately dismantled, and countries bombed immediately after Election Day did not become realities. However, there is valid reason to be concerned. The Southern Poverty Law Center has noted a significant increase in post-election hate crimes throughout the nation.⁴

The new South ‘red states’ – those who voted for Mr. Trump

Trump supporters are feeling victorious because their “underdog” candidate ran an unconventional presidential campaign and won. However, some who voted for Mr. Trump will at some point experience anxiety when the excitement of “winning” wears off. Psychoanalyst Justin Frank speaks to this and more in his Nov. 9, 2016, blog in which he concludes: “While we mourn and blame others and ourselves for our American tragedy, Trump voters must eventually look at themselves in the mirror and exclaim, ‘what have we done?’ ”⁵

In his Oct. 25, 2016, New York Times article, Michael Barbaro summarized the behaviors that will become increasingly of concern to all as Mr. Trump accepts the oath of office:

The intense ambitions and undisciplined behaviors of Mr. Trump have confounded even those close to him.... In interviews, Mr. Trump makes clear just how difficult it is for him to imagine – let alone accept – defeat....

“I never had a failure,” Mr. Trump said in one of the interviews, despite his repeated corporate bankruptcies and business setbacks, “because I always turned a failure into a success.”⁶

This fundamental inability to accept responsibility and the attempt to distort reality is something that must concern each of us, regardless of our ideological differences.

Distress tolerance as a model for healing

Even before the outcome of the election, we were hearing from patients who did not feel safe and who reported being “terrified” about what our country might become. This is where a focus on processing the pain and decreasing anxiety is necessary. This is not an anxiety we can medicate with anxiolytics or rationalize by telling ourselves and our patients that the best man won “fair and square.” We have each – by this time – experienced patients who are quite shaken by this turn of events.

Although it has not received much press, many consider Mr. Trump’s victory to be, in part, a “white backlash.” Many supporters of Mr. Trump have felt too ashamed to publicly admit their support for a candidate who at least by innuendo incited fear, anger, and violence. This failure has created an anxiety reminiscent of the daytime anxiety experienced by people who survived nighttime lynchings in small Southern towns. The day after the lynching, it was not unusual for African American men, women, and children to wonder if their grocer, banker, postal carrier, or sheriff had donned a white hood the night before and lynched someone in their community.

The question of survival, how to survive the unimaginable, is what most distresses people. They’ve wondered out loud whether they, their family, and friends would be attacked and/or killed by those who now feel emboldened and authorized to act on their latent aggressive impulses. And, our patients’ fears are legitimate because, unfortunately, studies show that verbal aggression is correlated with increased risk of physical violence and even murder.⁷

In the dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) construct developed by Marsha M. Linehan, PhD, the goals of distress tolerance are crisis survival, reality acceptance, and then freedom.⁸

As we apply our skills, we are uniquely positioned to help our patients and their families survive this crisis, accept that this is our president-elect, and ultimately be free from the anxiety created by the behavior that we all witnessed. We can aid in the navigation through this storm.

Acceptance

We’re already on to reality acceptance. The reality that so many African Americans and people of color have been living is now known and experienced by many who had felt immune to being marginalized. They now understand the loss of security that accompanies overwhelming fear of being the object of verbal, emotional, and physical aggression and violence.

Some are coping by entertaining fantasies that this election outcome will be undone, that the Electoral College will not approve our president-elect when it meets on Dec. 19 or that Mr. Trump will be impeached early in this upcoming term. The results of the presidential election are unlikely to be undone, so having more than 2 months between Election Day and the inauguration to work on acceptance will be helpful. The goal here is to accept the past, be hopeful about the future, and be vigilant in the present.
 

Freedom

Now, on to freedom. Our goal is to have all of our patients, families, colleagues, and communities able to live without fear that our leaders are not able to apply humanitarian principles to keep all of us safe. The next few months are crucial. Americans must speak out and debride the wound that bullying intentionally causes. Just as with a school bully, Mr. Trump’s behavior has to be called what it is, not sugarcoated or normalized.

History is full of critical moments in time in which, even in our fear, we said nothing. Even the most empathic of us watched the bully at school and felt relief that his behavior was not directed toward us. But we must not avert our gaze.

Bill Moyers and Michael Winship compared Mr. Trump to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose reign of terror was ended when journalist Edward R. Murrow courageously spoke out in defiance of the senator. At the end of one of his segments on “See It Now,” Mr. Murrow concluded as he signed off:

We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.⁹

And, so, how do we cope?

Fortunately, we understand bullying. The bully doesn’t take over the entire school and won’t have the power to take over one’s entire life if the behavior is brought out in the open and openly discussed. But bullies need to accept responsibility, which is what Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and other legislators urged President-elect Trump to do in days immediately following the election.¹⁰ They have called on him to discourage the fear, anger, and violence leading up to and following the election. This action on Mr. Trump’s part would promote a vitally needed national healing process.

Ultimately, this is “the land of the free, the home of the brave …” and we will do what we have always done as psychiatrists and mental health professionals who help to heal wounds. Not all of us will participate in social justice initiatives. However, each of us can listen with intense compassion and interest to those with whom we identify politically and to those whose views diverge from our own. This is our most potent tool in a conflict where we don’t understand the motives of unpredictable leaders or their followers. It is only with this skilled listening that a space is created in which each “other” hears the “other.” This is where real healing begins.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors, and are not meant to represent the views of the American Psychiatric Association, Novant Health, Clinical Psychiatry News, or any other organization.

References

1. http://billposters/story/trump-virus-dark-age-unreason

2. http://blackdoctor.org/495036/national-medical-association-statement-on-police-use-of-force

3. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?_r=0

4. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/11/over-200-incidents-hateful-harassment-and-intimidation-election-day

5. http://www.obamaonthecouch.com

6. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/politics/donald-trump-interviews.html

7. “The Nature of Prejudice,” (New York: Perseus Books Publishing, 1979).

8. DBT® Skills Training Handouts and Worksheets, Second Edition (New York: The Guilford Press, 2014).

9. http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-virus-dark-age-unreason

10. http://www.reid.senate.gov/press_releases/2016-11-11-reid-statement-on-the-election-of-donald-trump#.WC0iA6IrKgR

Dr. Dunlap, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who practices in Washington, is the immediate past president of the Washington Psychiatric Society, and associate clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington. She is interested in the role “difference” – race, culture, and ethnicity – plays in interpersonal relationships and group dynamics. Dr. Ifill-Taylor, a child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist, is in practice as a medical director in Charlotte, N.C. Previously, she was in private practice in the Washington area and worked as a staff psychiatrist for the Department of Veterans Affairs. She is particularly interested in the effect of our social, political, and occupational environment on mental and physical health.

One of us practices in the “new south” community of Charlotte, N.C., “a red state”; the other is in the “blue bubble” of Washington. In our respective polarized zones, the divergent reactions we heard about the presidential candidates were akin to projective responses to Rorschach tests.

As mental health clinicians, we knew that the country was wounded and in need of healing long before the outcome of the unconventional and acrimonious 2016 American presidential race. So, we were concerned about how patients, clinicians, and divergent communities would go about healing after an 18-month pre-election slugfest that revealed bigotry that persists more than 150 years after the Civil War.

Background of ‘two sides’

None of the nasty rhetoric delivered by our now president-elect or the clearly defensive responses we heard from our former secretary of state were going to be easily forgotten after Nov. 8, 2016. As the process unfolded, however, the voice of psychiatry, with some notable exceptions (the blog of Justin Frank, MD, for example), was absent from the public dialogue.

There is a virus infecting our politics and right now it’s flourishing with a scarlet fever. It feeds on fear, paranoia and bigotry. All that was required for it to spread was a timely opportunity – and an opportunist with no scruples. ... There have been stretches of history when this virus lay dormant. ... Today its carrier is Donald Trump, but others came before him: narcissistic demagogues who lie and distort in pursuit of power and self-promotion. Bullies all, swaggering across the landscape with fistfuls of false promises, smears, innuendo and hatred for others, spite and spittle for anyone of a different race, faith, gender, or nationality.¹

Alternatively, some had a smoldering fear of the progressive agenda to bring “others” – more women, African Americans, Latinos, the LGBTQ community, Muslims, and the disabled – securely under the tent of American democracy. Others, especially the underemployed cohort in neglected and struggling communities in Middle America, were simply opposed to a continuation of “politics as usual,” a.k.a. Hillary Clinton, and were desperate for change.

Causes of concern

In the months leading up to the election, violent events strained the societal divisions. The police use of force² resulted in the near-daily deaths of African American men and women and other people of color at the hands of police officers. The events built on a long and growing list of violent acts – the racially motivated shootings of nine men and women in a Charleston, S.C., church, the bombing injuries and deaths at the Boston Marathon, the shooting deaths of 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the homophobia-motivated shootings in a Florida nightclub – that have heightened levels of fear, anxiety, and concern for personal and family safety. For many, life has felt fragile and out of control, the perfect setup to motivate the electorate to cast their votes for the person they imagined had the most power and most interest in restoring their sense of control over their lives and, ultimately, their sense of safety.

Why the fear? A psychodynamic analysis

As psychiatrists trained in psychodynamic theory, we are quite familiar with the concept of identifying with the aggressor as a means of coping. The classic example is when a child watches his or her parents in an abusive relationship and identifies with the abusive parent in an attempt to avoid identifying with the victimized parent.

This dynamic is one that seems to have played out during this presidential election. By October 2016, Donald J. Trump already reportedly had insulted more than 280 people, places, and things on Twitter.³ Despite the evidence that Mr. Trump verbally bullied not only his opponents, but also the media, Latinos, women, the LGBTQ community, the Republican Party (his claimed party), and Muslims, people came out in numbers high enough to make him America’s president-elect. In the classic process of bullying his perceived enemies, those considered “the other,” he assigned names such as “crooked Hillary,” “little Marco,” and “lyin’ Ted” – just as a bully at school assigns names to the kid he’s decided does not have enough worth to be called by his given name.

He depicted women who accused him of sexual assault as either not being pretty enough to be worthy of assault or self-serving in their public accusations. Mexicans entering this country were referred to as “rapists and thugs.” African Americans were told that their lives are so bad that they “have nothing to lose” if they voted for a candidate who talked about erecting a wall to block out other people of color, and changing immigration laws that would banish an entire religion from entering our country.
 

The ‘blue bubble’ – Those who voted for Mrs. Clinton

So … this happened. And, in our consulting rooms, we are seeing a stark increase in the numbers of individuals, couples, and families reporting overwhelming anxiety, sadness, and a sense of de-realization (“it’s surreal”). At the core of their anxiety is concern for self, family, and friends as well as concern for the country as a whole.

The post-election notions that families would be immediately broken up, parents deported, the Affordable Care Act immediately dismantled, and countries bombed immediately after Election Day did not become realities. However, there is valid reason to be concerned. The Southern Poverty Law Center has noted a significant increase in post-election hate crimes throughout the nation.⁴

The new South ‘red states’ – those who voted for Mr. Trump

Trump supporters are feeling victorious because their “underdog” candidate ran an unconventional presidential campaign and won. However, some who voted for Mr. Trump will at some point experience anxiety when the excitement of “winning” wears off. Psychoanalyst Justin Frank speaks to this and more in his Nov. 9, 2016, blog in which he concludes: “While we mourn and blame others and ourselves for our American tragedy, Trump voters must eventually look at themselves in the mirror and exclaim, ‘what have we done?’ ”⁵

In his Oct. 25, 2016, New York Times article, Michael Barbaro summarized the behaviors that will become increasingly of concern to all as Mr. Trump accepts the oath of office:

The intense ambitions and undisciplined behaviors of Mr. Trump have confounded even those close to him.... In interviews, Mr. Trump makes clear just how difficult it is for him to imagine – let alone accept – defeat....

“I never had a failure,” Mr. Trump said in one of the interviews, despite his repeated corporate bankruptcies and business setbacks, “because I always turned a failure into a success.”⁶

This fundamental inability to accept responsibility and the attempt to distort reality is something that must concern each of us, regardless of our ideological differences.

Distress tolerance as a model for healing

Even before the outcome of the election, we were hearing from patients who did not feel safe and who reported being “terrified” about what our country might become. This is where a focus on processing the pain and decreasing anxiety is necessary. This is not an anxiety we can medicate with anxiolytics or rationalize by telling ourselves and our patients that the best man won “fair and square.” We have each – by this time – experienced patients who are quite shaken by this turn of events.

Although it has not received much press, many consider Mr. Trump’s victory to be, in part, a “white backlash.” Many supporters of Mr. Trump have felt too ashamed to publicly admit their support for a candidate who at least by innuendo incited fear, anger, and violence. This failure has created an anxiety reminiscent of the daytime anxiety experienced by people who survived nighttime lynchings in small Southern towns. The day after the lynching, it was not unusual for African American men, women, and children to wonder if their grocer, banker, postal carrier, or sheriff had donned a white hood the night before and lynched someone in their community.

The question of survival, how to survive the unimaginable, is what most distresses people. They’ve wondered out loud whether they, their family, and friends would be attacked and/or killed by those who now feel emboldened and authorized to act on their latent aggressive impulses. And, our patients’ fears are legitimate because, unfortunately, studies show that verbal aggression is correlated with increased risk of physical violence and even murder.⁷

In the dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) construct developed by Marsha M. Linehan, PhD, the goals of distress tolerance are crisis survival, reality acceptance, and then freedom.⁸

As we apply our skills, we are uniquely positioned to help our patients and their families survive this crisis, accept that this is our president-elect, and ultimately be free from the anxiety created by the behavior that we all witnessed. We can aid in the navigation through this storm.

Acceptance

We’re already on to reality acceptance. The reality that so many African Americans and people of color have been living is now known and experienced by many who had felt immune to being marginalized. They now understand the loss of security that accompanies overwhelming fear of being the object of verbal, emotional, and physical aggression and violence.

Some are coping by entertaining fantasies that this election outcome will be undone, that the Electoral College will not approve our president-elect when it meets on Dec. 19 or that Mr. Trump will be impeached early in this upcoming term. The results of the presidential election are unlikely to be undone, so having more than 2 months between Election Day and the inauguration to work on acceptance will be helpful. The goal here is to accept the past, be hopeful about the future, and be vigilant in the present.
 

Freedom

Now, on to freedom. Our goal is to have all of our patients, families, colleagues, and communities able to live without fear that our leaders are not able to apply humanitarian principles to keep all of us safe. The next few months are crucial. Americans must speak out and debride the wound that bullying intentionally causes. Just as with a school bully, Mr. Trump’s behavior has to be called what it is, not sugarcoated or normalized.

History is full of critical moments in time in which, even in our fear, we said nothing. Even the most empathic of us watched the bully at school and felt relief that his behavior was not directed toward us. But we must not avert our gaze.

Bill Moyers and Michael Winship compared Mr. Trump to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose reign of terror was ended when journalist Edward R. Murrow courageously spoke out in defiance of the senator. At the end of one of his segments on “See It Now,” Mr. Murrow concluded as he signed off:

We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.⁹

And, so, how do we cope?

Fortunately, we understand bullying. The bully doesn’t take over the entire school and won’t have the power to take over one’s entire life if the behavior is brought out in the open and openly discussed. But bullies need to accept responsibility, which is what Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and other legislators urged President-elect Trump to do in days immediately following the election.¹⁰ They have called on him to discourage the fear, anger, and violence leading up to and following the election. This action on Mr. Trump’s part would promote a vitally needed national healing process.

Ultimately, this is “the land of the free, the home of the brave …” and we will do what we have always done as psychiatrists and mental health professionals who help to heal wounds. Not all of us will participate in social justice initiatives. However, each of us can listen with intense compassion and interest to those with whom we identify politically and to those whose views diverge from our own. This is our most potent tool in a conflict where we don’t understand the motives of unpredictable leaders or their followers. It is only with this skilled listening that a space is created in which each “other” hears the “other.” This is where real healing begins.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors, and are not meant to represent the views of the American Psychiatric Association, Novant Health, Clinical Psychiatry News, or any other organization.

References

1. http://billposters/story/trump-virus-dark-age-unreason

2. http://blackdoctor.org/495036/national-medical-association-statement-on-police-use-of-force

3. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?_r=0

4. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/11/over-200-incidents-hateful-harassment-and-intimidation-election-day

5. http://www.obamaonthecouch.com

6. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/politics/donald-trump-interviews.html

7. “The Nature of Prejudice,” (New York: Perseus Books Publishing, 1979).

8. DBT® Skills Training Handouts and Worksheets, Second Edition (New York: The Guilford Press, 2014).

9. http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-virus-dark-age-unreason

10. http://www.reid.senate.gov/press_releases/2016-11-11-reid-statement-on-the-election-of-donald-trump#.WC0iA6IrKgR

Dr. Dunlap, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who practices in Washington, is the immediate past president of the Washington Psychiatric Society, and associate clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington. She is interested in the role “difference” – race, culture, and ethnicity – plays in interpersonal relationships and group dynamics. Dr. Ifill-Taylor, a child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist, is in practice as a medical director in Charlotte, N.C. Previously, she was in private practice in the Washington area and worked as a staff psychiatrist for the Department of Veterans Affairs. She is particularly interested in the effect of our social, political, and occupational environment on mental and physical health.

Nearly 2 decades ago, I was a pediatric infectious diseases fellow fielding a call from a community pediatrician seeking advice on patient management. The patient in question was a 15-year-old male with fever, rash, and cervical adenopathy – a good clinical story for Epstein-Barr virus infection. A heterophile antibody test was negative, however, as were EBV titers.

We talked for a couple of minutes about the vagaries of EBV testing, as well as other organisms that could cause a mononucleosis-like illness. “Cytomegalovirus is a possibility, along with toxoplasmosis,” I told him. “I’d also test for HIV.”

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville, Ky., and Kosair Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. Email her at [email protected].

Nearly 2 decades ago, I was a pediatric infectious diseases fellow fielding a call from a community pediatrician seeking advice on patient management. The patient in question was a 15-year-old male with fever, rash, and cervical adenopathy – a good clinical story for Epstein-Barr virus infection. A heterophile antibody test was negative, however, as were EBV titers.

We talked for a couple of minutes about the vagaries of EBV testing, as well as other organisms that could cause a mononucleosis-like illness. “Cytomegalovirus is a possibility, along with toxoplasmosis,” I told him. “I’d also test for HIV.”

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville, Ky., and Kosair Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. Email her at [email protected].

Nearly 2 decades ago, I was a pediatric infectious diseases fellow fielding a call from a community pediatrician seeking advice on patient management. The patient in question was a 15-year-old male with fever, rash, and cervical adenopathy – a good clinical story for Epstein-Barr virus infection. A heterophile antibody test was negative, however, as were EBV titers.

We talked for a couple of minutes about the vagaries of EBV testing, as well as other organisms that could cause a mononucleosis-like illness. “Cytomegalovirus is a possibility, along with toxoplasmosis,” I told him. “I’d also test for HIV.”

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville, Ky., and Kosair Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. Email her at [email protected].

One month into my doctoral program, I was stressed out, anxious, not sleeping well, and gaining weight. I expressed these concerns to my daughter, who is a professional bodybuilder and fitness coach; she offered to help me get healthy and fit while earning my doctorate from Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions in Provo, Utah. Over the next two years, I lost 35 pounds and 12 inches of fat from my belly and became more muscular than ever before! I even decided to participate in my first bodybuilding show, “Debut at 62,” on November 19th in Providence, Rhode Island.

I was honored to be the student commencement speaker and recipient of the Student Service Award for my contributions to the NP profession—but what I’m most proud of is adopting a healthy and fit lifestyle in the midst of the most stressful two years of my life. In fact, I believe learning to cope with ­extreme stress helped me perform more effectively in my doctoral program. I had more energy and concentration, better sleep, and very few physical complaints.

Certainly, I realize that it can be difficult for us to walk our talk and be role models for our patients. When faced with extreme stress we often “crash and burn.” We gain weight, get depressed, sleep poorly, stop having sex, drink excessively, you name it! We know what we should do but lack the energy, time, and motivation to implement and maintain healthy habits. In order to effectively deal with the stress in our lives, we must practice self-care. This approach may seem counterintuitive, as our natural reaction to stress is usually to abandon healthy habits and resort to eating junk food, drinking alcohol, watching TV, and not exercising. It requires conscious effort, development of new habits (and breaking of old ones!), practice, consistency, and a lot of support to cope with stress in a positive way. Mind control, meditation, and paced breathing are other cognitive-based techniques that can be used to help combat the negative effects of stress and anxiety.

As a result of my experience and transformation, my daughter and I decided to team up to help other NPs and PAs make positive changes in their lives. Under the names Coach Kat and Doctor Mimi, we developed The Secor Initiative—an intensive, one-year, online program for NPs or PAs who are seriously committed to becoming healthy, happy, and fit. Upon completion of the program, participants achieve the esteemed title of “Top NP” or “Top PA,” enabling them to be role models for their peers and patients.

The Secor Initiative helps NPs and PAs gain insight into all the sources of stress in their lives and then go on to learn how to cope with these stressors. Our program includes five (10-week) courses, with topics such as nutrition, exercise, money/wealth, stress management, and advanced women’s health; for more information, visit www.MimiSecor.com and click on The Secor Initiative or check out our Facebook page, Coach Kat and Dr. Mimi.

Let’s step up to the plate and become healthy (and happy) role models for our patients.

One month into my doctoral program, I was stressed out, anxious, not sleeping well, and gaining weight. I expressed these concerns to my daughter, who is a professional bodybuilder and fitness coach; she offered to help me get healthy and fit while earning my doctorate from Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions in Provo, Utah. Over the next two years, I lost 35 pounds and 12 inches of fat from my belly and became more muscular than ever before! I even decided to participate in my first bodybuilding show, “Debut at 62,” on November 19th in Providence, Rhode Island.

I was honored to be the student commencement speaker and recipient of the Student Service Award for my contributions to the NP profession—but what I’m most proud of is adopting a healthy and fit lifestyle in the midst of the most stressful two years of my life. In fact, I believe learning to cope with ­extreme stress helped me perform more effectively in my doctoral program. I had more energy and concentration, better sleep, and very few physical complaints.

Certainly, I realize that it can be difficult for us to walk our talk and be role models for our patients. When faced with extreme stress we often “crash and burn.” We gain weight, get depressed, sleep poorly, stop having sex, drink excessively, you name it! We know what we should do but lack the energy, time, and motivation to implement and maintain healthy habits. In order to effectively deal with the stress in our lives, we must practice self-care. This approach may seem counterintuitive, as our natural reaction to stress is usually to abandon healthy habits and resort to eating junk food, drinking alcohol, watching TV, and not exercising. It requires conscious effort, development of new habits (and breaking of old ones!), practice, consistency, and a lot of support to cope with stress in a positive way. Mind control, meditation, and paced breathing are other cognitive-based techniques that can be used to help combat the negative effects of stress and anxiety.

As a result of my experience and transformation, my daughter and I decided to team up to help other NPs and PAs make positive changes in their lives. Under the names Coach Kat and Doctor Mimi, we developed The Secor Initiative—an intensive, one-year, online program for NPs or PAs who are seriously committed to becoming healthy, happy, and fit. Upon completion of the program, participants achieve the esteemed title of “Top NP” or “Top PA,” enabling them to be role models for their peers and patients.

The Secor Initiative helps NPs and PAs gain insight into all the sources of stress in their lives and then go on to learn how to cope with these stressors. Our program includes five (10-week) courses, with topics such as nutrition, exercise, money/wealth, stress management, and advanced women’s health; for more information, visit www.MimiSecor.com and click on The Secor Initiative or check out our Facebook page, Coach Kat and Dr. Mimi.

Let’s step up to the plate and become healthy (and happy) role models for our patients.

One month into my doctoral program, I was stressed out, anxious, not sleeping well, and gaining weight. I expressed these concerns to my daughter, who is a professional bodybuilder and fitness coach; she offered to help me get healthy and fit while earning my doctorate from Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions in Provo, Utah. Over the next two years, I lost 35 pounds and 12 inches of fat from my belly and became more muscular than ever before! I even decided to participate in my first bodybuilding show, “Debut at 62,” on November 19th in Providence, Rhode Island.

I was honored to be the student commencement speaker and recipient of the Student Service Award for my contributions to the NP profession—but what I’m most proud of is adopting a healthy and fit lifestyle in the midst of the most stressful two years of my life. In fact, I believe learning to cope with ­extreme stress helped me perform more effectively in my doctoral program. I had more energy and concentration, better sleep, and very few physical complaints.

Certainly, I realize that it can be difficult for us to walk our talk and be role models for our patients. When faced with extreme stress we often “crash and burn.” We gain weight, get depressed, sleep poorly, stop having sex, drink excessively, you name it! We know what we should do but lack the energy, time, and motivation to implement and maintain healthy habits. In order to effectively deal with the stress in our lives, we must practice self-care. This approach may seem counterintuitive, as our natural reaction to stress is usually to abandon healthy habits and resort to eating junk food, drinking alcohol, watching TV, and not exercising. It requires conscious effort, development of new habits (and breaking of old ones!), practice, consistency, and a lot of support to cope with stress in a positive way. Mind control, meditation, and paced breathing are other cognitive-based techniques that can be used to help combat the negative effects of stress and anxiety.

As a result of my experience and transformation, my daughter and I decided to team up to help other NPs and PAs make positive changes in their lives. Under the names Coach Kat and Doctor Mimi, we developed The Secor Initiative—an intensive, one-year, online program for NPs or PAs who are seriously committed to becoming healthy, happy, and fit. Upon completion of the program, participants achieve the esteemed title of “Top NP” or “Top PA,” enabling them to be role models for their peers and patients.

The Secor Initiative helps NPs and PAs gain insight into all the sources of stress in their lives and then go on to learn how to cope with these stressors. Our program includes five (10-week) courses, with topics such as nutrition, exercise, money/wealth, stress management, and advanced women’s health; for more information, visit www.MimiSecor.com and click on The Secor Initiative or check out our Facebook page, Coach Kat and Dr. Mimi.

Let’s step up to the plate and become healthy (and happy) role models for our patients.

Do you remember that kid in your class threatening to beat up a peer (or maybe you) after school? Mean children are not unique to current times. But actual threat to life while in school is a more recent problem, mainly due to the availability of firearms in American homes. Although rates of victimization have actually dropped 86% from 1992 to 2014, stories about school shootings are instantly broadcast across the country, making everyone feel that it could happen to them. Such public awareness also models threatening violence as a potent attention getter.

Do you remember that kid in your class threatening to beat up a peer (or maybe you) after school? Mean children are not unique to current times. But actual threat to life while in school is a more recent problem, mainly due to the availability of firearms in American homes. Although rates of victimization have actually dropped 86% from 1992 to 2014, stories about school shootings are instantly broadcast across the country, making everyone feel that it could happen to them. Such public awareness also models threatening violence as a potent attention getter.

Do you remember that kid in your class threatening to beat up a peer (or maybe you) after school? Mean children are not unique to current times. But actual threat to life while in school is a more recent problem, mainly due to the availability of firearms in American homes. Although rates of victimization have actually dropped 86% from 1992 to 2014, stories about school shootings are instantly broadcast across the country, making everyone feel that it could happen to them. Such public awareness also models threatening violence as a potent attention getter.

The day after the election, Time magazine reported an increased call volume to the Trevor Project, an organization that provides suicide counseling for LGBT youth.¹ A colleague of mine who works closely with the Trevor Project told me that this was the second-highest call volume the organization has received since its inception.

Regardless of your political affiliation, we all can agree that this year’s election was divisive. Many minority groups, including the LGBT community, felt singled out. Although many of us have seen contentious elections in our lifetimes, teenagers, especially LGBT youth, are sensitive to this divisiveness.

Resources

The Trevor Project

AAP: Talking to your children about the election

HealthyChildren.org: How to support your child’s resilience in a time of crisis

Suicide Prevention Lifeline: Patient safety plan template

References

1. “Donald Trump Win Causes Spike in Crisis Support Line Calls,” Time magazine, Nov. 9, 2016.

2. Int Rev Psychiatry. 1992;4(2):177-84.

3. “U.S. Hate Crimes Surge 6%, Fueled by Attacks on Muslims,” the New York Times, Nov. 14, 2016.

4. Arch Suicide Res. 2015;19(3):385-400.

5. “The president of the United States shifted the mainstream in one interview,” Newsweek, May 13, 2012.

6. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment. 2013;9:449-61.

7. “This is Trump’s America: LGBT community fears surge in hate crimes following reports of homophobic attacks,” Salon magazine, Nov. 13, 2016.

8. “School officials grapple with bullying, harassment after election,” Lansing State Journal, Nov. 13, 2016.

9. “Roles for pediatricians in bullying prevention and intervention,” StopBullying.gov, 2016.

10. Adv Psych Treatment. 2014;20(3):217-24.

Dr. Montano is an adolescent medicine fellow at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and a postdoctoral fellow in the department of pediatrics the University of Pittsburgh. Email him at [email protected].

The day after the election, Time magazine reported an increased call volume to the Trevor Project, an organization that provides suicide counseling for LGBT youth.¹ A colleague of mine who works closely with the Trevor Project told me that this was the second-highest call volume the organization has received since its inception.

Regardless of your political affiliation, we all can agree that this year’s election was divisive. Many minority groups, including the LGBT community, felt singled out. Although many of us have seen contentious elections in our lifetimes, teenagers, especially LGBT youth, are sensitive to this divisiveness.

Resources

The Trevor Project

AAP: Talking to your children about the election

HealthyChildren.org: How to support your child’s resilience in a time of crisis

Suicide Prevention Lifeline: Patient safety plan template

References

1. “Donald Trump Win Causes Spike in Crisis Support Line Calls,” Time magazine, Nov. 9, 2016.

2. Int Rev Psychiatry. 1992;4(2):177-84.

3. “U.S. Hate Crimes Surge 6%, Fueled by Attacks on Muslims,” the New York Times, Nov. 14, 2016.

4. Arch Suicide Res. 2015;19(3):385-400.

5. “The president of the United States shifted the mainstream in one interview,” Newsweek, May 13, 2012.

6. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment. 2013;9:449-61.

7. “This is Trump’s America: LGBT community fears surge in hate crimes following reports of homophobic attacks,” Salon magazine, Nov. 13, 2016.

8. “School officials grapple with bullying, harassment after election,” Lansing State Journal, Nov. 13, 2016.

9. “Roles for pediatricians in bullying prevention and intervention,” StopBullying.gov, 2016.

10. Adv Psych Treatment. 2014;20(3):217-24.

Dr. Montano is an adolescent medicine fellow at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and a postdoctoral fellow in the department of pediatrics the University of Pittsburgh. Email him at [email protected].

The day after the election, Time magazine reported an increased call volume to the Trevor Project, an organization that provides suicide counseling for LGBT youth.¹ A colleague of mine who works closely with the Trevor Project told me that this was the second-highest call volume the organization has received since its inception.

Regardless of your political affiliation, we all can agree that this year’s election was divisive. Many minority groups, including the LGBT community, felt singled out. Although many of us have seen contentious elections in our lifetimes, teenagers, especially LGBT youth, are sensitive to this divisiveness.

Resources

The Trevor Project

AAP: Talking to your children about the election

HealthyChildren.org: How to support your child’s resilience in a time of crisis

Suicide Prevention Lifeline: Patient safety plan template

References

1. “Donald Trump Win Causes Spike in Crisis Support Line Calls,” Time magazine, Nov. 9, 2016.

2. Int Rev Psychiatry. 1992;4(2):177-84.

3. “U.S. Hate Crimes Surge 6%, Fueled by Attacks on Muslims,” the New York Times, Nov. 14, 2016.

4. Arch Suicide Res. 2015;19(3):385-400.

5. “The president of the United States shifted the mainstream in one interview,” Newsweek, May 13, 2012.

6. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment. 2013;9:449-61.

7. “This is Trump’s America: LGBT community fears surge in hate crimes following reports of homophobic attacks,” Salon magazine, Nov. 13, 2016.

8. “School officials grapple with bullying, harassment after election,” Lansing State Journal, Nov. 13, 2016.

9. “Roles for pediatricians in bullying prevention and intervention,” StopBullying.gov, 2016.

10. Adv Psych Treatment. 2014;20(3):217-24.

Dr. Montano is an adolescent medicine fellow at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and a postdoctoral fellow in the department of pediatrics the University of Pittsburgh. Email him at [email protected].