User login
Let ’em Play: In Defense of Youth Football
Over the last couple of decades, I have become increasingly more uncomfortable watching American-style football on television. Lax refereeing coupled with over-juiced players who can generate g-forces previously attainable only on a NASA rocket sled has resulted in a spate of injuries I find unacceptable. The revolving door of transfers from college to college has made the term scholar-athlete a relic that can be applied to only a handful of players at the smallest uncompetitive schools.
Many of you who are regular readers of Letters from Maine have probably tired of my boasting that when I played football in high school we wore leather helmets. I enjoyed playing football and continued playing in college for a couple of years until it became obvious that “bench” was going to be my usual position. But, I would not want my grandson to play college football. Certainly, not at the elite college level. Were he to do so, he would be putting himself at risk for significant injury by participating in what I no longer view as an appealing activity. Let me add that I am not including chronic traumatic encephalopathy among my concerns, because I think its association with football injuries is far from settled. My concern is more about spinal cord injuries, which, although infrequent, are almost always devastating.
I should also make it perfectly clear that my lack of enthusiasm for college and professional football does not place me among the increasingly vocal throng calling for the elimination of youth football. For the 5- to 12-year-olds, putting on pads and a helmet and scrambling around on a grassy field bumping shoulders and heads with their peers is a wonderful way to burn off energy and satisfies a need for roughhousing that comes naturally to most young boys (and many girls). The chance of anyone of those kids playing youth football reaching the elite college or professional level is extremely unlikely. Other activities and the realization that football is not in their future weeds the field during adolescence.
Although there have been some studies suggesting that starting football at an early age is associated with increased injury risk, a recent and well-controlled study published in the journal Sports Medicine has found no such association in professional football players. This finding makes some sense when you consider that most of the children in this age group are not mustering g-forces anywhere close to those a college or professional athlete can generate.
Another recent study published in the Journal of Pediatrics offers more evidence to consider before one passes judgment on youth football. When reviewing the records of nearly 1500 patients in a specialty-care concussion setting at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, investigators found that recreation-related concussions and non–sport- or recreation-related concussions were more prevalent than sports-related concussions. The authors propose that “less supervision at the time of injury and less access to established concussion healthcare following injury” may explain their observations.
Of course as a card-carrying AARP old fogey, I long for the good old days when youth sports were organized by the kids in backyards and playgrounds. There we learned to pick teams and deal with the disappointment of not being a first-round pick and the embarrassment of being a last rounder. We settled out-of-bounds calls and arguments about ball possession without adults’ assistance — or video replays for that matter. But those days are gone and likely never to return, with parental anxiety running at record highs. We must accept youth sports organized for kids by adults is the way it’s going to be for the foreseeable future.
As long as the program is organized with the emphasis on fun nor structured as a fast track to elite play it will be healthier for the kids than sitting on the couch at home watching the carnage on TV.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Over the last couple of decades, I have become increasingly more uncomfortable watching American-style football on television. Lax refereeing coupled with over-juiced players who can generate g-forces previously attainable only on a NASA rocket sled has resulted in a spate of injuries I find unacceptable. The revolving door of transfers from college to college has made the term scholar-athlete a relic that can be applied to only a handful of players at the smallest uncompetitive schools.
Many of you who are regular readers of Letters from Maine have probably tired of my boasting that when I played football in high school we wore leather helmets. I enjoyed playing football and continued playing in college for a couple of years until it became obvious that “bench” was going to be my usual position. But, I would not want my grandson to play college football. Certainly, not at the elite college level. Were he to do so, he would be putting himself at risk for significant injury by participating in what I no longer view as an appealing activity. Let me add that I am not including chronic traumatic encephalopathy among my concerns, because I think its association with football injuries is far from settled. My concern is more about spinal cord injuries, which, although infrequent, are almost always devastating.
I should also make it perfectly clear that my lack of enthusiasm for college and professional football does not place me among the increasingly vocal throng calling for the elimination of youth football. For the 5- to 12-year-olds, putting on pads and a helmet and scrambling around on a grassy field bumping shoulders and heads with their peers is a wonderful way to burn off energy and satisfies a need for roughhousing that comes naturally to most young boys (and many girls). The chance of anyone of those kids playing youth football reaching the elite college or professional level is extremely unlikely. Other activities and the realization that football is not in their future weeds the field during adolescence.
Although there have been some studies suggesting that starting football at an early age is associated with increased injury risk, a recent and well-controlled study published in the journal Sports Medicine has found no such association in professional football players. This finding makes some sense when you consider that most of the children in this age group are not mustering g-forces anywhere close to those a college or professional athlete can generate.
Another recent study published in the Journal of Pediatrics offers more evidence to consider before one passes judgment on youth football. When reviewing the records of nearly 1500 patients in a specialty-care concussion setting at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, investigators found that recreation-related concussions and non–sport- or recreation-related concussions were more prevalent than sports-related concussions. The authors propose that “less supervision at the time of injury and less access to established concussion healthcare following injury” may explain their observations.
Of course as a card-carrying AARP old fogey, I long for the good old days when youth sports were organized by the kids in backyards and playgrounds. There we learned to pick teams and deal with the disappointment of not being a first-round pick and the embarrassment of being a last rounder. We settled out-of-bounds calls and arguments about ball possession without adults’ assistance — or video replays for that matter. But those days are gone and likely never to return, with parental anxiety running at record highs. We must accept youth sports organized for kids by adults is the way it’s going to be for the foreseeable future.
As long as the program is organized with the emphasis on fun nor structured as a fast track to elite play it will be healthier for the kids than sitting on the couch at home watching the carnage on TV.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Over the last couple of decades, I have become increasingly more uncomfortable watching American-style football on television. Lax refereeing coupled with over-juiced players who can generate g-forces previously attainable only on a NASA rocket sled has resulted in a spate of injuries I find unacceptable. The revolving door of transfers from college to college has made the term scholar-athlete a relic that can be applied to only a handful of players at the smallest uncompetitive schools.
Many of you who are regular readers of Letters from Maine have probably tired of my boasting that when I played football in high school we wore leather helmets. I enjoyed playing football and continued playing in college for a couple of years until it became obvious that “bench” was going to be my usual position. But, I would not want my grandson to play college football. Certainly, not at the elite college level. Were he to do so, he would be putting himself at risk for significant injury by participating in what I no longer view as an appealing activity. Let me add that I am not including chronic traumatic encephalopathy among my concerns, because I think its association with football injuries is far from settled. My concern is more about spinal cord injuries, which, although infrequent, are almost always devastating.
I should also make it perfectly clear that my lack of enthusiasm for college and professional football does not place me among the increasingly vocal throng calling for the elimination of youth football. For the 5- to 12-year-olds, putting on pads and a helmet and scrambling around on a grassy field bumping shoulders and heads with their peers is a wonderful way to burn off energy and satisfies a need for roughhousing that comes naturally to most young boys (and many girls). The chance of anyone of those kids playing youth football reaching the elite college or professional level is extremely unlikely. Other activities and the realization that football is not in their future weeds the field during adolescence.
Although there have been some studies suggesting that starting football at an early age is associated with increased injury risk, a recent and well-controlled study published in the journal Sports Medicine has found no such association in professional football players. This finding makes some sense when you consider that most of the children in this age group are not mustering g-forces anywhere close to those a college or professional athlete can generate.
Another recent study published in the Journal of Pediatrics offers more evidence to consider before one passes judgment on youth football. When reviewing the records of nearly 1500 patients in a specialty-care concussion setting at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, investigators found that recreation-related concussions and non–sport- or recreation-related concussions were more prevalent than sports-related concussions. The authors propose that “less supervision at the time of injury and less access to established concussion healthcare following injury” may explain their observations.
Of course as a card-carrying AARP old fogey, I long for the good old days when youth sports were organized by the kids in backyards and playgrounds. There we learned to pick teams and deal with the disappointment of not being a first-round pick and the embarrassment of being a last rounder. We settled out-of-bounds calls and arguments about ball possession without adults’ assistance — or video replays for that matter. But those days are gone and likely never to return, with parental anxiety running at record highs. We must accept youth sports organized for kids by adults is the way it’s going to be for the foreseeable future.
As long as the program is organized with the emphasis on fun nor structured as a fast track to elite play it will be healthier for the kids than sitting on the couch at home watching the carnage on TV.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
An Overview of Gender-Affirming Care for Children and Adolescents
As Pride Month drew to a close, the Supreme Court made a shocking announcement. For the first time in the history of the court, it is willing to hear a legal challenge regarding gender-affirming care for minors. The justices will review whether a 2023 Tennessee law, SB1, which bans hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and surgery for transgender minors, is unconstitutional. This is the first time the Supreme Court will directly weigh in on gender-affirming care.
There are few topics as politically and medically divisive as gender-affirming care for minors. When the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) released its updated Standards of Care, SOC8, one of the noticeable changes to the document was its approach to caring for transgender children and adolescents.
Before I highlight these recommendations and the ensuing controversy, it is imperative to establish proper terminology. Unfortunately, medical and legal terms often differ. Both activists and opponents use these terms interchangeably, which makes discourse about an already emotionally charged topic extremely difficult. From a legal perspective, the terms “minor” and “child” often refer to individuals under the age of majority. In the United States, the age of majority is 18. However, the term child also has a well-established medical definition. A child is an individual between the stages of infancy and puberty. Adolescence is a transitional period marked by the onset of puberty until adulthood (typically the age of majority). As medical providers, understanding these definitions is essential to identifying misinformation pertaining to this type of healthcare.
For the purposes of this article, I will be adhering to the medical terminology. Now, I want to be very clear. WPATH does not endorse surgical procedures on children. Furthermore, surgeons are not performing gender-affirming surgeries on children. On adolescents, rarely. But children, never.
According to the updated SOC8, the only acceptable gender-affirming intervention for children is psychosocial support.1 This does not include puberty blockers, hormones, or surgery, but rather allowing a child to explore their gender identity by experimenting with different clothing, toys, hairstyles, and even an alternative name that aligns more closely with their gender identity.1
It is only after children reach adolescence that medical, and in rare cases, surgical interventions, can be considered. Puberty blockers are appropriate for patients who have started puberty and experience gender dysphoria. These medications are reversible, and their purpose is to temporarily pause puberty to allow the adolescent to further explore their gender identity.
The most significant side effect of puberty blockers is decreased bone density.1 As a result, providers typically do not prescribe these medications for more than 2-3 years. After discontinuation of the medication, bone density returns to baseline.1 If the adolescent’s gender identity is marked and sustained over time, hormone therapy, such as testosterone or estrogen is then considered. Unlike puberty blockers, these medications can have permanent side effects. Testosterone use can lead to irreversible hair growth, alopecia, clitoromegaly, and voice deepening, while estrogen can cause permanent breast growth and halt sperm production.1 Future fertility and these side effects are discussed with the patient in detail prior to the initiation of these medications.
Contrary to the current political narrative, gender-affirming care for children and adolescents is not taken lightly. These individuals often receive years of multidisciplinary assessments, with a focus on gender identity development, social development and support, and diagnostic assessment of possible co-occurring mental health or developmental concerns and capacity for decision making.1 The clinical visits also occur with parental support and consent.
WPATH SOC8 also delineates the provider qualifications for health care professionals assessing these patients. Providers must be licensed by their statutory bodies and hold a postgraduate degree by a nationally accredited statutory institution; receive theoretical and evidence-based training and develop expertise in child, adolescent, and family mental health across the developmental spectrum; receive training and have expertise in gender identity development and gender diversity in children and adolescence; have the ability to assess capacity to assent/consent; receive training and develop expertise in autism spectrum disorders and other neurodevelopmental presentations; and to continue engaging in professional development in all areas relevant to gender-diverse children, adolescents, and families.1
The most controversial aspect of gender-affirming care for children and adolescents relates to surgical treatment. While the rates of gender-affirming surgeries have increased for this age group over the years, the overall rate of gender-affirming surgery for adolescents is markedly lower compared with other adolescents seeking cosmetic surgeries and compared with transgender adults undergoing gender-affirming surgery.
In a cohort study conducted between 2016 to 2020, 48,019 patients were identified who had undergone gender-affirming surgery.2 Only 3678 or 7.7% of patients were aged between 12 and 18, with the most common procedure being chest/breast surgery.2 So, under about 1000 cases per year were gender-affirming surgeries on patients under 18.
During 2020 alone, the number of cisgender adolescents between the ages of 13 and 19 who underwent breast augmentation and breast reduction was 3233 and 4666, respectively.3 The outrage about gender-affirming surgeries on transgender youth, yet the silence on cosmetic procedures in this same age group, speaks volumes.
All surgeries on adolescents should be taken seriously and with caution, regardless of gender identity. However, current legislation disproportionately targets only transgender youth. For whatever reason, surgeries on transgender individuals are labeled as “body mutilation,” whereas surgeries on cisgender youth are not even discussed. Such inflammatory rhetoric and complete lack of empathy impedes the common goal of all parties: what is in the best interest of the minor? Unfortunately, in a few short months, the answer to this question will be determined by a group of nine justices who have no experience in medicine or transgender health care, instead of by medical experts and the parents who care for these individuals.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pennsylvania. She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Coleman E et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, version 8. Int J Transgender Health. 2022;23(sup):S1-S259.
2. Wright JD et al. National estimates of gender affirming surgery in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Aug 1;6(8):e2330348.
3. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. ASPS National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. 2020.
As Pride Month drew to a close, the Supreme Court made a shocking announcement. For the first time in the history of the court, it is willing to hear a legal challenge regarding gender-affirming care for minors. The justices will review whether a 2023 Tennessee law, SB1, which bans hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and surgery for transgender minors, is unconstitutional. This is the first time the Supreme Court will directly weigh in on gender-affirming care.
There are few topics as politically and medically divisive as gender-affirming care for minors. When the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) released its updated Standards of Care, SOC8, one of the noticeable changes to the document was its approach to caring for transgender children and adolescents.
Before I highlight these recommendations and the ensuing controversy, it is imperative to establish proper terminology. Unfortunately, medical and legal terms often differ. Both activists and opponents use these terms interchangeably, which makes discourse about an already emotionally charged topic extremely difficult. From a legal perspective, the terms “minor” and “child” often refer to individuals under the age of majority. In the United States, the age of majority is 18. However, the term child also has a well-established medical definition. A child is an individual between the stages of infancy and puberty. Adolescence is a transitional period marked by the onset of puberty until adulthood (typically the age of majority). As medical providers, understanding these definitions is essential to identifying misinformation pertaining to this type of healthcare.
For the purposes of this article, I will be adhering to the medical terminology. Now, I want to be very clear. WPATH does not endorse surgical procedures on children. Furthermore, surgeons are not performing gender-affirming surgeries on children. On adolescents, rarely. But children, never.
According to the updated SOC8, the only acceptable gender-affirming intervention for children is psychosocial support.1 This does not include puberty blockers, hormones, or surgery, but rather allowing a child to explore their gender identity by experimenting with different clothing, toys, hairstyles, and even an alternative name that aligns more closely with their gender identity.1
It is only after children reach adolescence that medical, and in rare cases, surgical interventions, can be considered. Puberty blockers are appropriate for patients who have started puberty and experience gender dysphoria. These medications are reversible, and their purpose is to temporarily pause puberty to allow the adolescent to further explore their gender identity.
The most significant side effect of puberty blockers is decreased bone density.1 As a result, providers typically do not prescribe these medications for more than 2-3 years. After discontinuation of the medication, bone density returns to baseline.1 If the adolescent’s gender identity is marked and sustained over time, hormone therapy, such as testosterone or estrogen is then considered. Unlike puberty blockers, these medications can have permanent side effects. Testosterone use can lead to irreversible hair growth, alopecia, clitoromegaly, and voice deepening, while estrogen can cause permanent breast growth and halt sperm production.1 Future fertility and these side effects are discussed with the patient in detail prior to the initiation of these medications.
Contrary to the current political narrative, gender-affirming care for children and adolescents is not taken lightly. These individuals often receive years of multidisciplinary assessments, with a focus on gender identity development, social development and support, and diagnostic assessment of possible co-occurring mental health or developmental concerns and capacity for decision making.1 The clinical visits also occur with parental support and consent.
WPATH SOC8 also delineates the provider qualifications for health care professionals assessing these patients. Providers must be licensed by their statutory bodies and hold a postgraduate degree by a nationally accredited statutory institution; receive theoretical and evidence-based training and develop expertise in child, adolescent, and family mental health across the developmental spectrum; receive training and have expertise in gender identity development and gender diversity in children and adolescence; have the ability to assess capacity to assent/consent; receive training and develop expertise in autism spectrum disorders and other neurodevelopmental presentations; and to continue engaging in professional development in all areas relevant to gender-diverse children, adolescents, and families.1
The most controversial aspect of gender-affirming care for children and adolescents relates to surgical treatment. While the rates of gender-affirming surgeries have increased for this age group over the years, the overall rate of gender-affirming surgery for adolescents is markedly lower compared with other adolescents seeking cosmetic surgeries and compared with transgender adults undergoing gender-affirming surgery.
In a cohort study conducted between 2016 to 2020, 48,019 patients were identified who had undergone gender-affirming surgery.2 Only 3678 or 7.7% of patients were aged between 12 and 18, with the most common procedure being chest/breast surgery.2 So, under about 1000 cases per year were gender-affirming surgeries on patients under 18.
During 2020 alone, the number of cisgender adolescents between the ages of 13 and 19 who underwent breast augmentation and breast reduction was 3233 and 4666, respectively.3 The outrage about gender-affirming surgeries on transgender youth, yet the silence on cosmetic procedures in this same age group, speaks volumes.
All surgeries on adolescents should be taken seriously and with caution, regardless of gender identity. However, current legislation disproportionately targets only transgender youth. For whatever reason, surgeries on transgender individuals are labeled as “body mutilation,” whereas surgeries on cisgender youth are not even discussed. Such inflammatory rhetoric and complete lack of empathy impedes the common goal of all parties: what is in the best interest of the minor? Unfortunately, in a few short months, the answer to this question will be determined by a group of nine justices who have no experience in medicine or transgender health care, instead of by medical experts and the parents who care for these individuals.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pennsylvania. She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Coleman E et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, version 8. Int J Transgender Health. 2022;23(sup):S1-S259.
2. Wright JD et al. National estimates of gender affirming surgery in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Aug 1;6(8):e2330348.
3. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. ASPS National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. 2020.
As Pride Month drew to a close, the Supreme Court made a shocking announcement. For the first time in the history of the court, it is willing to hear a legal challenge regarding gender-affirming care for minors. The justices will review whether a 2023 Tennessee law, SB1, which bans hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and surgery for transgender minors, is unconstitutional. This is the first time the Supreme Court will directly weigh in on gender-affirming care.
There are few topics as politically and medically divisive as gender-affirming care for minors. When the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) released its updated Standards of Care, SOC8, one of the noticeable changes to the document was its approach to caring for transgender children and adolescents.
Before I highlight these recommendations and the ensuing controversy, it is imperative to establish proper terminology. Unfortunately, medical and legal terms often differ. Both activists and opponents use these terms interchangeably, which makes discourse about an already emotionally charged topic extremely difficult. From a legal perspective, the terms “minor” and “child” often refer to individuals under the age of majority. In the United States, the age of majority is 18. However, the term child also has a well-established medical definition. A child is an individual between the stages of infancy and puberty. Adolescence is a transitional period marked by the onset of puberty until adulthood (typically the age of majority). As medical providers, understanding these definitions is essential to identifying misinformation pertaining to this type of healthcare.
For the purposes of this article, I will be adhering to the medical terminology. Now, I want to be very clear. WPATH does not endorse surgical procedures on children. Furthermore, surgeons are not performing gender-affirming surgeries on children. On adolescents, rarely. But children, never.
According to the updated SOC8, the only acceptable gender-affirming intervention for children is psychosocial support.1 This does not include puberty blockers, hormones, or surgery, but rather allowing a child to explore their gender identity by experimenting with different clothing, toys, hairstyles, and even an alternative name that aligns more closely with their gender identity.1
It is only after children reach adolescence that medical, and in rare cases, surgical interventions, can be considered. Puberty blockers are appropriate for patients who have started puberty and experience gender dysphoria. These medications are reversible, and their purpose is to temporarily pause puberty to allow the adolescent to further explore their gender identity.
The most significant side effect of puberty blockers is decreased bone density.1 As a result, providers typically do not prescribe these medications for more than 2-3 years. After discontinuation of the medication, bone density returns to baseline.1 If the adolescent’s gender identity is marked and sustained over time, hormone therapy, such as testosterone or estrogen is then considered. Unlike puberty blockers, these medications can have permanent side effects. Testosterone use can lead to irreversible hair growth, alopecia, clitoromegaly, and voice deepening, while estrogen can cause permanent breast growth and halt sperm production.1 Future fertility and these side effects are discussed with the patient in detail prior to the initiation of these medications.
Contrary to the current political narrative, gender-affirming care for children and adolescents is not taken lightly. These individuals often receive years of multidisciplinary assessments, with a focus on gender identity development, social development and support, and diagnostic assessment of possible co-occurring mental health or developmental concerns and capacity for decision making.1 The clinical visits also occur with parental support and consent.
WPATH SOC8 also delineates the provider qualifications for health care professionals assessing these patients. Providers must be licensed by their statutory bodies and hold a postgraduate degree by a nationally accredited statutory institution; receive theoretical and evidence-based training and develop expertise in child, adolescent, and family mental health across the developmental spectrum; receive training and have expertise in gender identity development and gender diversity in children and adolescence; have the ability to assess capacity to assent/consent; receive training and develop expertise in autism spectrum disorders and other neurodevelopmental presentations; and to continue engaging in professional development in all areas relevant to gender-diverse children, adolescents, and families.1
The most controversial aspect of gender-affirming care for children and adolescents relates to surgical treatment. While the rates of gender-affirming surgeries have increased for this age group over the years, the overall rate of gender-affirming surgery for adolescents is markedly lower compared with other adolescents seeking cosmetic surgeries and compared with transgender adults undergoing gender-affirming surgery.
In a cohort study conducted between 2016 to 2020, 48,019 patients were identified who had undergone gender-affirming surgery.2 Only 3678 or 7.7% of patients were aged between 12 and 18, with the most common procedure being chest/breast surgery.2 So, under about 1000 cases per year were gender-affirming surgeries on patients under 18.
During 2020 alone, the number of cisgender adolescents between the ages of 13 and 19 who underwent breast augmentation and breast reduction was 3233 and 4666, respectively.3 The outrage about gender-affirming surgeries on transgender youth, yet the silence on cosmetic procedures in this same age group, speaks volumes.
All surgeries on adolescents should be taken seriously and with caution, regardless of gender identity. However, current legislation disproportionately targets only transgender youth. For whatever reason, surgeries on transgender individuals are labeled as “body mutilation,” whereas surgeries on cisgender youth are not even discussed. Such inflammatory rhetoric and complete lack of empathy impedes the common goal of all parties: what is in the best interest of the minor? Unfortunately, in a few short months, the answer to this question will be determined by a group of nine justices who have no experience in medicine or transgender health care, instead of by medical experts and the parents who care for these individuals.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pennsylvania. She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Coleman E et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, version 8. Int J Transgender Health. 2022;23(sup):S1-S259.
2. Wright JD et al. National estimates of gender affirming surgery in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Aug 1;6(8):e2330348.
3. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. ASPS National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. 2020.
How Well Do Clinicians Support Patients’ Sexual Health?
From adolescence onward, the need for sexual health is particularly important. Yet, information and healthcare services are limited, which often leaves patients in distress and subject to misconceptions. What are the specific issues related to sexuality in adolescence, middle age, and beyond? This news organization interviewed Carol Burté, MD, a specialist in sexual medicine from Monaco.
Question: Regarding young individuals, what about sex education in schools?
Dr. Burté: The French law of 2018 specifies that at least three annual sessions must be devoted to sex education in elementary school, middle school, and high school.
In practice, this is not always the case, and interventions are very focused on prevention and rules. Sexuality is almost always absent from the program. Sexuality means: What does it mean to have desire? How does pleasure work? At what age do we have sex? etc. Young people receive prevention advice, but the link with sexuality is not made.
Sexuality remains taboo. You know, like in books: “They got married and had many children ...” End of the story, we don’t know more [laughs].
Question: And outside the school setting, do doctors sufficiently address sexual health issues with adolescents?
Dr. Burté: Rarely. I understand that a general practitioner has little time, but they can still ask the young person if they have any questions. They can refer them to someone or provide reading recommendations. Regarding sex education on the Internet, there are many well-made websites, such as the one by the national education system.
Also, it is important to give young people lifestyle advice to combat overweight, sedentary behavior, etc., by explaining to them that these factors can lead to sexual disorders later as well as infertility.
Another very important point: There is an inequality between boys and girls, but this time, to the disadvantage of boys. We have a sexual health consultation dedicated to young girls for the pill, but no one examines the boys. However, testicular cancer or undescended testicles can occur. I think we really need to change things and establish a clinical examination for boys in adolescence.
Question: More and more young people identify as asexual. What do you think of this?
Dr. Burté: People who identify as asexual represent about 1% of the population. These are individuals who are not attracted to having sexual relationships with someone. This does not prevent them from having a boyfriend, a girlfriend, masturbating, etc. It is sexual intercourse that does not interest them. These young people often say they have done it all. They have seen a lot of images, viewed sexuality as gymnastics with all the positions, tricks. They are jaded. Also, when you are faced with an image that provides a very strong and rapid stimulation, human relationships seem much more difficult because, obviously, you will never reproduce that sensation when you are with your partner with whom you must connect. The relationship is no longer emotional and shared. Yet, sexuality is emotional, relational, intellectual.
I think people go through phases. At a certain point, they feel asexual, but they can change their minds and think differently if they have real encounters, encounters that are increasingly difficult. Today, we are witnessing a loss of confidence. Young people, but also others, want to protect themselves from everything, especially from falling in love, not get back into a relationship because it is constraining.
Question: Data show that young people are exposed to pornography at an increasingly early age. Is this a problem for their future sexuality?
Dr. Burté: The exposure to pornography at an early age, around 11 years old, has only been a reality for the past decade. It is too early to say how it will impact their sexuality. When examining the literature on this subject, some publications indicate that the consequences can be dramatic for children. Others show that children can distinguish between reality and fantasy.
Whenever I see young people in consultation, I ask them whether they feel pornography has helped or hindered them, whether it is the cause of the issue they are facing. I would say that, other than those who have viewed pornography under duress, which is of the order of violence, pornography does not seem to pose a problem. It can even provide certain knowledge.
Question: What about sexual violence in children? What are the consequences?
Dr. Burté: In sexual medicine, this is one of the questions we ask systematically because it is very common. It is important to keep in mind that this not only affects girls; boys are also sexually abused. The consequences are dramatic in terms of psychosexual development. Each case is different.
Question: At the other end of life, is it “normal” to have sexual disorders at a certain age? Should we resign ourselves?
Dr. Burté: When it comes to sexuality, people have many misconceptions and beliefs that are conveyed through media and the Internet. One of them is to believe that because we are aging, we cannot have a proper sexuality. Sexuality slows down with age, as all sensitivities decrease, but desire is something present throughout life. Yet, seniors are rarely questioned about their sexual health by the media.
Note that older people in institutions face an additional obstacle: lack of privacy. Is this normal? Sexuality releases endorphins, oxytocin, it is well-being that costs nothing. It is something that should be prescribed!
Question: Chronic diseases, disabilities with incidence increases with age — are they not inevitable obstacles to a fulfilling sexuality?
Dr. Burté: It is possible to have a sexual life regardless of the disease one has, cancer, diabetes, rheumatic disease — regardless of the disability.
A collaboration with the National Cancer Institute on the preservation of sexual health after cancer in which I participated shows that people are extremely demanding of care and that this care is still very insufficient, unfortunately, even in the case of prostate cancer, for example, when it should be obvious.
Question: But aging itself brings challenges in terms of sexuality.
Dr. Burté: Yes, in men, the consequences of low testosterone levels are well known. Therefore, we must stop thinking that men do not have their “menopause.” Men often have a testosterone deficiency after a certain age. This is very annoying because they have many symptoms that are truly unpleasant and yet can be corrected by completely reliable treatments.
Men are very misinformed on this subject. We talk about gender inequality, but in this area, a young woman who has her first period knows very well that one day she will go through menopause, but a boy has no idea that one day he will have hormone problems.
Question: Therefore, is it important to question men past the age of 50 years?
Dr. Burté: Yes. Faced with sexual symptoms or simply fatigue, or among those who are a bit depressed, investigating a testosterone deficiency should be part of the reflexes.
Also, if you ask a man in general, “How is it going from a sexual point of view,” and he answers that everything is going well, this means he has good arteries, good veins, a good nervous system, sufficient hormones, and psychologically, everything is going rather well. Conversely, erectile dysfunction can be one of the first symptoms of cardiovascular pathologies.
After a certain age, there is no test that provides as much information about people’s health as this question about sexual health.
Question: On their side, are women better cared for at menopause?
Dr. Burté: Yes, but women still lack explanations. I work in sexual medicine, and in my consultation, I see women who come simply to get information about menopause.
Women must know that menopause is a turning point in life because they will spend 30%-40% of their lives without hormones.
It is important to explain that indeed, after menopause, without treatment, it is not the same. There are genital and urinary, psychological, sexual, and skin consequences. It is important to provide true data on the influence of hormonal treatments. Today, hormone fear is not over. I think we need to rehabilitate treatments, care for women.
Question: So we must not forget men or women.
Dr. Burté: Yes. It is also very important to adopt a perspective not only for the individual but also for the couple. If you treat a man with testosterone, after 3 months, he will be in great shape. However, if the couple has long been accustomed to having a limited sexual life, if the woman is not supported on her side, the couple will be unbalanced. The couple is concerned with managing the hormonal changes of both.
Question: Sexual medicine is essential, yet it seems inaccessible.
Dr. Burté: There are very few specialists in sexual medicine because there is no legal provision for it. These consultations are lengthy but not valued. Who wants to work for that?
If there was reimbursement for sexual medicine consultations at age 15 years, at menopause, and for men around the age of 50 years, it would change mentalities. Sexual medicine must be integrated into medicine. It should also be noted that not all sexologists are physicians.
Some people are very well trained through universities, and others are not. Ideally, someone with a sexual disorder should first have a sexual medicine consultation to understand the situation. Then, the physician can refer the patient to a competent sexologist because we work in a network.
Dr. Burté has no conflicts of interest related to the subject.
This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
From adolescence onward, the need for sexual health is particularly important. Yet, information and healthcare services are limited, which often leaves patients in distress and subject to misconceptions. What are the specific issues related to sexuality in adolescence, middle age, and beyond? This news organization interviewed Carol Burté, MD, a specialist in sexual medicine from Monaco.
Question: Regarding young individuals, what about sex education in schools?
Dr. Burté: The French law of 2018 specifies that at least three annual sessions must be devoted to sex education in elementary school, middle school, and high school.
In practice, this is not always the case, and interventions are very focused on prevention and rules. Sexuality is almost always absent from the program. Sexuality means: What does it mean to have desire? How does pleasure work? At what age do we have sex? etc. Young people receive prevention advice, but the link with sexuality is not made.
Sexuality remains taboo. You know, like in books: “They got married and had many children ...” End of the story, we don’t know more [laughs].
Question: And outside the school setting, do doctors sufficiently address sexual health issues with adolescents?
Dr. Burté: Rarely. I understand that a general practitioner has little time, but they can still ask the young person if they have any questions. They can refer them to someone or provide reading recommendations. Regarding sex education on the Internet, there are many well-made websites, such as the one by the national education system.
Also, it is important to give young people lifestyle advice to combat overweight, sedentary behavior, etc., by explaining to them that these factors can lead to sexual disorders later as well as infertility.
Another very important point: There is an inequality between boys and girls, but this time, to the disadvantage of boys. We have a sexual health consultation dedicated to young girls for the pill, but no one examines the boys. However, testicular cancer or undescended testicles can occur. I think we really need to change things and establish a clinical examination for boys in adolescence.
Question: More and more young people identify as asexual. What do you think of this?
Dr. Burté: People who identify as asexual represent about 1% of the population. These are individuals who are not attracted to having sexual relationships with someone. This does not prevent them from having a boyfriend, a girlfriend, masturbating, etc. It is sexual intercourse that does not interest them. These young people often say they have done it all. They have seen a lot of images, viewed sexuality as gymnastics with all the positions, tricks. They are jaded. Also, when you are faced with an image that provides a very strong and rapid stimulation, human relationships seem much more difficult because, obviously, you will never reproduce that sensation when you are with your partner with whom you must connect. The relationship is no longer emotional and shared. Yet, sexuality is emotional, relational, intellectual.
I think people go through phases. At a certain point, they feel asexual, but they can change their minds and think differently if they have real encounters, encounters that are increasingly difficult. Today, we are witnessing a loss of confidence. Young people, but also others, want to protect themselves from everything, especially from falling in love, not get back into a relationship because it is constraining.
Question: Data show that young people are exposed to pornography at an increasingly early age. Is this a problem for their future sexuality?
Dr. Burté: The exposure to pornography at an early age, around 11 years old, has only been a reality for the past decade. It is too early to say how it will impact their sexuality. When examining the literature on this subject, some publications indicate that the consequences can be dramatic for children. Others show that children can distinguish between reality and fantasy.
Whenever I see young people in consultation, I ask them whether they feel pornography has helped or hindered them, whether it is the cause of the issue they are facing. I would say that, other than those who have viewed pornography under duress, which is of the order of violence, pornography does not seem to pose a problem. It can even provide certain knowledge.
Question: What about sexual violence in children? What are the consequences?
Dr. Burté: In sexual medicine, this is one of the questions we ask systematically because it is very common. It is important to keep in mind that this not only affects girls; boys are also sexually abused. The consequences are dramatic in terms of psychosexual development. Each case is different.
Question: At the other end of life, is it “normal” to have sexual disorders at a certain age? Should we resign ourselves?
Dr. Burté: When it comes to sexuality, people have many misconceptions and beliefs that are conveyed through media and the Internet. One of them is to believe that because we are aging, we cannot have a proper sexuality. Sexuality slows down with age, as all sensitivities decrease, but desire is something present throughout life. Yet, seniors are rarely questioned about their sexual health by the media.
Note that older people in institutions face an additional obstacle: lack of privacy. Is this normal? Sexuality releases endorphins, oxytocin, it is well-being that costs nothing. It is something that should be prescribed!
Question: Chronic diseases, disabilities with incidence increases with age — are they not inevitable obstacles to a fulfilling sexuality?
Dr. Burté: It is possible to have a sexual life regardless of the disease one has, cancer, diabetes, rheumatic disease — regardless of the disability.
A collaboration with the National Cancer Institute on the preservation of sexual health after cancer in which I participated shows that people are extremely demanding of care and that this care is still very insufficient, unfortunately, even in the case of prostate cancer, for example, when it should be obvious.
Question: But aging itself brings challenges in terms of sexuality.
Dr. Burté: Yes, in men, the consequences of low testosterone levels are well known. Therefore, we must stop thinking that men do not have their “menopause.” Men often have a testosterone deficiency after a certain age. This is very annoying because they have many symptoms that are truly unpleasant and yet can be corrected by completely reliable treatments.
Men are very misinformed on this subject. We talk about gender inequality, but in this area, a young woman who has her first period knows very well that one day she will go through menopause, but a boy has no idea that one day he will have hormone problems.
Question: Therefore, is it important to question men past the age of 50 years?
Dr. Burté: Yes. Faced with sexual symptoms or simply fatigue, or among those who are a bit depressed, investigating a testosterone deficiency should be part of the reflexes.
Also, if you ask a man in general, “How is it going from a sexual point of view,” and he answers that everything is going well, this means he has good arteries, good veins, a good nervous system, sufficient hormones, and psychologically, everything is going rather well. Conversely, erectile dysfunction can be one of the first symptoms of cardiovascular pathologies.
After a certain age, there is no test that provides as much information about people’s health as this question about sexual health.
Question: On their side, are women better cared for at menopause?
Dr. Burté: Yes, but women still lack explanations. I work in sexual medicine, and in my consultation, I see women who come simply to get information about menopause.
Women must know that menopause is a turning point in life because they will spend 30%-40% of their lives without hormones.
It is important to explain that indeed, after menopause, without treatment, it is not the same. There are genital and urinary, psychological, sexual, and skin consequences. It is important to provide true data on the influence of hormonal treatments. Today, hormone fear is not over. I think we need to rehabilitate treatments, care for women.
Question: So we must not forget men or women.
Dr. Burté: Yes. It is also very important to adopt a perspective not only for the individual but also for the couple. If you treat a man with testosterone, after 3 months, he will be in great shape. However, if the couple has long been accustomed to having a limited sexual life, if the woman is not supported on her side, the couple will be unbalanced. The couple is concerned with managing the hormonal changes of both.
Question: Sexual medicine is essential, yet it seems inaccessible.
Dr. Burté: There are very few specialists in sexual medicine because there is no legal provision for it. These consultations are lengthy but not valued. Who wants to work for that?
If there was reimbursement for sexual medicine consultations at age 15 years, at menopause, and for men around the age of 50 years, it would change mentalities. Sexual medicine must be integrated into medicine. It should also be noted that not all sexologists are physicians.
Some people are very well trained through universities, and others are not. Ideally, someone with a sexual disorder should first have a sexual medicine consultation to understand the situation. Then, the physician can refer the patient to a competent sexologist because we work in a network.
Dr. Burté has no conflicts of interest related to the subject.
This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
From adolescence onward, the need for sexual health is particularly important. Yet, information and healthcare services are limited, which often leaves patients in distress and subject to misconceptions. What are the specific issues related to sexuality in adolescence, middle age, and beyond? This news organization interviewed Carol Burté, MD, a specialist in sexual medicine from Monaco.
Question: Regarding young individuals, what about sex education in schools?
Dr. Burté: The French law of 2018 specifies that at least three annual sessions must be devoted to sex education in elementary school, middle school, and high school.
In practice, this is not always the case, and interventions are very focused on prevention and rules. Sexuality is almost always absent from the program. Sexuality means: What does it mean to have desire? How does pleasure work? At what age do we have sex? etc. Young people receive prevention advice, but the link with sexuality is not made.
Sexuality remains taboo. You know, like in books: “They got married and had many children ...” End of the story, we don’t know more [laughs].
Question: And outside the school setting, do doctors sufficiently address sexual health issues with adolescents?
Dr. Burté: Rarely. I understand that a general practitioner has little time, but they can still ask the young person if they have any questions. They can refer them to someone or provide reading recommendations. Regarding sex education on the Internet, there are many well-made websites, such as the one by the national education system.
Also, it is important to give young people lifestyle advice to combat overweight, sedentary behavior, etc., by explaining to them that these factors can lead to sexual disorders later as well as infertility.
Another very important point: There is an inequality between boys and girls, but this time, to the disadvantage of boys. We have a sexual health consultation dedicated to young girls for the pill, but no one examines the boys. However, testicular cancer or undescended testicles can occur. I think we really need to change things and establish a clinical examination for boys in adolescence.
Question: More and more young people identify as asexual. What do you think of this?
Dr. Burté: People who identify as asexual represent about 1% of the population. These are individuals who are not attracted to having sexual relationships with someone. This does not prevent them from having a boyfriend, a girlfriend, masturbating, etc. It is sexual intercourse that does not interest them. These young people often say they have done it all. They have seen a lot of images, viewed sexuality as gymnastics with all the positions, tricks. They are jaded. Also, when you are faced with an image that provides a very strong and rapid stimulation, human relationships seem much more difficult because, obviously, you will never reproduce that sensation when you are with your partner with whom you must connect. The relationship is no longer emotional and shared. Yet, sexuality is emotional, relational, intellectual.
I think people go through phases. At a certain point, they feel asexual, but they can change their minds and think differently if they have real encounters, encounters that are increasingly difficult. Today, we are witnessing a loss of confidence. Young people, but also others, want to protect themselves from everything, especially from falling in love, not get back into a relationship because it is constraining.
Question: Data show that young people are exposed to pornography at an increasingly early age. Is this a problem for their future sexuality?
Dr. Burté: The exposure to pornography at an early age, around 11 years old, has only been a reality for the past decade. It is too early to say how it will impact their sexuality. When examining the literature on this subject, some publications indicate that the consequences can be dramatic for children. Others show that children can distinguish between reality and fantasy.
Whenever I see young people in consultation, I ask them whether they feel pornography has helped or hindered them, whether it is the cause of the issue they are facing. I would say that, other than those who have viewed pornography under duress, which is of the order of violence, pornography does not seem to pose a problem. It can even provide certain knowledge.
Question: What about sexual violence in children? What are the consequences?
Dr. Burté: In sexual medicine, this is one of the questions we ask systematically because it is very common. It is important to keep in mind that this not only affects girls; boys are also sexually abused. The consequences are dramatic in terms of psychosexual development. Each case is different.
Question: At the other end of life, is it “normal” to have sexual disorders at a certain age? Should we resign ourselves?
Dr. Burté: When it comes to sexuality, people have many misconceptions and beliefs that are conveyed through media and the Internet. One of them is to believe that because we are aging, we cannot have a proper sexuality. Sexuality slows down with age, as all sensitivities decrease, but desire is something present throughout life. Yet, seniors are rarely questioned about their sexual health by the media.
Note that older people in institutions face an additional obstacle: lack of privacy. Is this normal? Sexuality releases endorphins, oxytocin, it is well-being that costs nothing. It is something that should be prescribed!
Question: Chronic diseases, disabilities with incidence increases with age — are they not inevitable obstacles to a fulfilling sexuality?
Dr. Burté: It is possible to have a sexual life regardless of the disease one has, cancer, diabetes, rheumatic disease — regardless of the disability.
A collaboration with the National Cancer Institute on the preservation of sexual health after cancer in which I participated shows that people are extremely demanding of care and that this care is still very insufficient, unfortunately, even in the case of prostate cancer, for example, when it should be obvious.
Question: But aging itself brings challenges in terms of sexuality.
Dr. Burté: Yes, in men, the consequences of low testosterone levels are well known. Therefore, we must stop thinking that men do not have their “menopause.” Men often have a testosterone deficiency after a certain age. This is very annoying because they have many symptoms that are truly unpleasant and yet can be corrected by completely reliable treatments.
Men are very misinformed on this subject. We talk about gender inequality, but in this area, a young woman who has her first period knows very well that one day she will go through menopause, but a boy has no idea that one day he will have hormone problems.
Question: Therefore, is it important to question men past the age of 50 years?
Dr. Burté: Yes. Faced with sexual symptoms or simply fatigue, or among those who are a bit depressed, investigating a testosterone deficiency should be part of the reflexes.
Also, if you ask a man in general, “How is it going from a sexual point of view,” and he answers that everything is going well, this means he has good arteries, good veins, a good nervous system, sufficient hormones, and psychologically, everything is going rather well. Conversely, erectile dysfunction can be one of the first symptoms of cardiovascular pathologies.
After a certain age, there is no test that provides as much information about people’s health as this question about sexual health.
Question: On their side, are women better cared for at menopause?
Dr. Burté: Yes, but women still lack explanations. I work in sexual medicine, and in my consultation, I see women who come simply to get information about menopause.
Women must know that menopause is a turning point in life because they will spend 30%-40% of their lives without hormones.
It is important to explain that indeed, after menopause, without treatment, it is not the same. There are genital and urinary, psychological, sexual, and skin consequences. It is important to provide true data on the influence of hormonal treatments. Today, hormone fear is not over. I think we need to rehabilitate treatments, care for women.
Question: So we must not forget men or women.
Dr. Burté: Yes. It is also very important to adopt a perspective not only for the individual but also for the couple. If you treat a man with testosterone, after 3 months, he will be in great shape. However, if the couple has long been accustomed to having a limited sexual life, if the woman is not supported on her side, the couple will be unbalanced. The couple is concerned with managing the hormonal changes of both.
Question: Sexual medicine is essential, yet it seems inaccessible.
Dr. Burté: There are very few specialists in sexual medicine because there is no legal provision for it. These consultations are lengthy but not valued. Who wants to work for that?
If there was reimbursement for sexual medicine consultations at age 15 years, at menopause, and for men around the age of 50 years, it would change mentalities. Sexual medicine must be integrated into medicine. It should also be noted that not all sexologists are physicians.
Some people are very well trained through universities, and others are not. Ideally, someone with a sexual disorder should first have a sexual medicine consultation to understand the situation. Then, the physician can refer the patient to a competent sexologist because we work in a network.
Dr. Burté has no conflicts of interest related to the subject.
This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Atopic Dermatitis: Study Compares Prevalence by Gender, Age, and Ethnic Background
than adults from other ethnic backgrounds.
Those are among the key findings from an analysis of nationally representative cross-sectional data that were presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference in Chicago.
“In the past few years, there has been a much-needed focus on better understanding disparities in atopic dermatitis,” one of the study authors, Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor at Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University, North Chicago, told this news organization after the conference.
“Epidemiology is one of the key ways in which we can query differences in AD at a population level.”
Drawing from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey, the researchers identified 3103 respondents who reported being diagnosed with AD or eczema. They estimated the prevalence rates of AD for the overall population and each subgroup by dividing US frequency estimates by their corresponding US population totals and used multivariable logistic regression to assess the odds of having AD.
More than half of the respondents (1643) were aged between 18 and 64 years, 522 were aged 65 years and older, and 922 were children younger than 18 years. Overall, the prevalence of AD was 7.6% in adults aged 18-64 years and 6.1% in adults aged 65 years and older, for a weighted US estimate of 15.3 and 3.2 million, respectively. The prevalence of AD varied by race/ethnicity and was highest for those from “other single and multiple races” group (12.4%), followed by Black/African American (8.5%), White (7.7%), Asian (6.5%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (4.9%), and Hispanic (4.8%) populations.
In children, race/ethnicity prevalence were highest for those from other single and multiple races (15.2.%), followed by Black/African American (14.2%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (12%), White (10.2%), Hispanic (9.5%), and Asian (9%) populations.
When the researchers combined all age groups, they observed higher prevalence rates of AD among females than among males. However, in an analysis limited to children, the prevalence rates were similar between girls and boys (10.8% vs 10.7%, respectively), for a weighted US estimate of 7.8 million children with AD.
On multiple regression, the odds of having AD were greater among women than among men (odds ratio [OR], 1.4), among adults aged 18-64 years than among those aged 65 years and older (OR, 1.4), among those younger than 18 years than among those aged 65 years and older (OR, 2.0), and among Black/African American individuals than among White individuals (OR, 1.2). Hispanic adults had a lower risk for AD than non-Hispanic White adults (OR, 0.69) as did Asian adults than White adults (OR, 0.82).
“We found AD prevalence rates were higher in children and adult females, Hispanic adults had a lower prevalence of AD than all other adult groups, and there were numerical differences in AD prevalence across racial groups,” Dr. Chovatiya said in the interview. “While there are of course limitations to the use of any nationally representative cross-sectional dataset that requires weighting to project results from a smaller sample to reflect a larger more heterogeneous group, these results are important for us to consider targeted strategies to address AD burden.”
Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at The George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that while the prevalence of AD in children has been well documented in prior research, “this study fills an important gap by showing us that the prevalence does remain high in adults.”
In addition, “it has not shown any evidence of AD decreasing over time; if anything, it might be slightly increasing,” he said. “We’re also seeing differences [in AD] by race and ethnicity. We have seen that demonstrated in children but [has been] less clearly demonstrated in adults.”
Eli Lilly and Company funded the analysis. Dr. Chovatiya and Dr. Silverberg disclosed ties to several pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
than adults from other ethnic backgrounds.
Those are among the key findings from an analysis of nationally representative cross-sectional data that were presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference in Chicago.
“In the past few years, there has been a much-needed focus on better understanding disparities in atopic dermatitis,” one of the study authors, Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor at Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University, North Chicago, told this news organization after the conference.
“Epidemiology is one of the key ways in which we can query differences in AD at a population level.”
Drawing from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey, the researchers identified 3103 respondents who reported being diagnosed with AD or eczema. They estimated the prevalence rates of AD for the overall population and each subgroup by dividing US frequency estimates by their corresponding US population totals and used multivariable logistic regression to assess the odds of having AD.
More than half of the respondents (1643) were aged between 18 and 64 years, 522 were aged 65 years and older, and 922 were children younger than 18 years. Overall, the prevalence of AD was 7.6% in adults aged 18-64 years and 6.1% in adults aged 65 years and older, for a weighted US estimate of 15.3 and 3.2 million, respectively. The prevalence of AD varied by race/ethnicity and was highest for those from “other single and multiple races” group (12.4%), followed by Black/African American (8.5%), White (7.7%), Asian (6.5%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (4.9%), and Hispanic (4.8%) populations.
In children, race/ethnicity prevalence were highest for those from other single and multiple races (15.2.%), followed by Black/African American (14.2%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (12%), White (10.2%), Hispanic (9.5%), and Asian (9%) populations.
When the researchers combined all age groups, they observed higher prevalence rates of AD among females than among males. However, in an analysis limited to children, the prevalence rates were similar between girls and boys (10.8% vs 10.7%, respectively), for a weighted US estimate of 7.8 million children with AD.
On multiple regression, the odds of having AD were greater among women than among men (odds ratio [OR], 1.4), among adults aged 18-64 years than among those aged 65 years and older (OR, 1.4), among those younger than 18 years than among those aged 65 years and older (OR, 2.0), and among Black/African American individuals than among White individuals (OR, 1.2). Hispanic adults had a lower risk for AD than non-Hispanic White adults (OR, 0.69) as did Asian adults than White adults (OR, 0.82).
“We found AD prevalence rates were higher in children and adult females, Hispanic adults had a lower prevalence of AD than all other adult groups, and there were numerical differences in AD prevalence across racial groups,” Dr. Chovatiya said in the interview. “While there are of course limitations to the use of any nationally representative cross-sectional dataset that requires weighting to project results from a smaller sample to reflect a larger more heterogeneous group, these results are important for us to consider targeted strategies to address AD burden.”
Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at The George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that while the prevalence of AD in children has been well documented in prior research, “this study fills an important gap by showing us that the prevalence does remain high in adults.”
In addition, “it has not shown any evidence of AD decreasing over time; if anything, it might be slightly increasing,” he said. “We’re also seeing differences [in AD] by race and ethnicity. We have seen that demonstrated in children but [has been] less clearly demonstrated in adults.”
Eli Lilly and Company funded the analysis. Dr. Chovatiya and Dr. Silverberg disclosed ties to several pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
than adults from other ethnic backgrounds.
Those are among the key findings from an analysis of nationally representative cross-sectional data that were presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference in Chicago.
“In the past few years, there has been a much-needed focus on better understanding disparities in atopic dermatitis,” one of the study authors, Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor at Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University, North Chicago, told this news organization after the conference.
“Epidemiology is one of the key ways in which we can query differences in AD at a population level.”
Drawing from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey, the researchers identified 3103 respondents who reported being diagnosed with AD or eczema. They estimated the prevalence rates of AD for the overall population and each subgroup by dividing US frequency estimates by their corresponding US population totals and used multivariable logistic regression to assess the odds of having AD.
More than half of the respondents (1643) were aged between 18 and 64 years, 522 were aged 65 years and older, and 922 were children younger than 18 years. Overall, the prevalence of AD was 7.6% in adults aged 18-64 years and 6.1% in adults aged 65 years and older, for a weighted US estimate of 15.3 and 3.2 million, respectively. The prevalence of AD varied by race/ethnicity and was highest for those from “other single and multiple races” group (12.4%), followed by Black/African American (8.5%), White (7.7%), Asian (6.5%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (4.9%), and Hispanic (4.8%) populations.
In children, race/ethnicity prevalence were highest for those from other single and multiple races (15.2.%), followed by Black/African American (14.2%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (12%), White (10.2%), Hispanic (9.5%), and Asian (9%) populations.
When the researchers combined all age groups, they observed higher prevalence rates of AD among females than among males. However, in an analysis limited to children, the prevalence rates were similar between girls and boys (10.8% vs 10.7%, respectively), for a weighted US estimate of 7.8 million children with AD.
On multiple regression, the odds of having AD were greater among women than among men (odds ratio [OR], 1.4), among adults aged 18-64 years than among those aged 65 years and older (OR, 1.4), among those younger than 18 years than among those aged 65 years and older (OR, 2.0), and among Black/African American individuals than among White individuals (OR, 1.2). Hispanic adults had a lower risk for AD than non-Hispanic White adults (OR, 0.69) as did Asian adults than White adults (OR, 0.82).
“We found AD prevalence rates were higher in children and adult females, Hispanic adults had a lower prevalence of AD than all other adult groups, and there were numerical differences in AD prevalence across racial groups,” Dr. Chovatiya said in the interview. “While there are of course limitations to the use of any nationally representative cross-sectional dataset that requires weighting to project results from a smaller sample to reflect a larger more heterogeneous group, these results are important for us to consider targeted strategies to address AD burden.”
Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at The George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that while the prevalence of AD in children has been well documented in prior research, “this study fills an important gap by showing us that the prevalence does remain high in adults.”
In addition, “it has not shown any evidence of AD decreasing over time; if anything, it might be slightly increasing,” he said. “We’re also seeing differences [in AD] by race and ethnicity. We have seen that demonstrated in children but [has been] less clearly demonstrated in adults.”
Eli Lilly and Company funded the analysis. Dr. Chovatiya and Dr. Silverberg disclosed ties to several pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
PPEs — Haystacks and Needles
A story in a recent edition of this newspaper reported on a disturbing, but not surprising, study by a third-year pediatric resident at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine. Looking at just the Preparticipaton Physical Evaluations (PPEs) she could find at her institution, Tammy Ng, MD, found that only slightly more than a quarter “addressed all the criteria” on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) standardized form. Although more than half included inquiries about respiratory symptoms, less than half contained questions about a cardiovascular history. The lack of consistency across all the forms reviewed was the most dramatic finding.
Having participated in more than my share of PPEs as a school physician, a primary care pediatrician, and a multi-sport high school and college athlete, I was not surprised by Dr. Ng’s findings. In high school my teammates and I considered our trip to see Old Doctor Hinds (not his real name) in the second week of August “a joke.” A few of us with “white coat” hypertension, like myself, had to be settled down and have our blood pressure retaken. But other than that wrinkle, we all passed. The football coach had his own eyeball screening tool and wouldn’t allow kids he thought were too small to play football.
Reading this study rekindled a question that surfaced every sports season as I faced days of looking at forms, many of them fished out of backpacks in a crumbled mass. I squeezed in new patients or old patients who were out of date on their physicals, not wanting any youngster to miss out on the politically important first practice of the pre-season. Why was I doing it? What was my goal? In more than four hundred thousand office visit encounters, I had never knowingly missed a case that resulted in a sudden sports-related death. Where was the evidence that PPEs had any protective value? Now a third-year pediatric resident is bold enough to tell us that we have done such a sloppy job of collecting data that we aren’t anywhere close to having the raw material with which to answer my decades-old questions and concerns.
Has our needles-in-the-haystack strategy saved any lives? I suspect a few of you can describe scenarios in which asking the right question of the right person at the right time prevented a sports-related sudden death. But, looking at bigger picture, what were the downsides for the entire population with a system in which those questions weren’t asked?
How many young people didn’t play a sport because their parents couldn’t afford the doctor visit or maintain a family structure that would allow them to find the lost form and drive it to the doctor’s office on Friday afternoon. Not every athletic director or physician’s staff is flexible or sympathetic enough to deal with that level of family dysfunction.
The AAP has recently focused its attention on the problems associated with overspecialization and overtraining in an attempt to make youth sports more safe. But, in reality that target audience is a small, elite, highly motivated group. The bigger problem is the rest of the population, in which too few children are physically active and participation in organized youth sports is decreasing. There are many reasons for that trajectory, but shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to reduce the barriers preventing young people from being more active? One of those barriers is a PPE system that is so riddled with inconsistencies that we have no idea as to its utility.
Certainly, bigger and more robust studies can be done, but there will be a long lead time to determine if a better PPE system might be effective. But there is a different approach. Instead of looking for needles with retrospective questions relying on patients’ and parents’ memories, why not use AI to mine patients’ old records for any language that may be buried in the history that could raise a yellow flag. Of course not every significant episode of syncope results in a chart entry. But, if we can make EMRs do our bidding instead being a thorn in our sides, records from long-forgotten episodes at an urgent care center while on vacation should merge with patients global record and light up when AI goes hunting.
If we can get our act together, the process that my teenage buddies and I considered a joke could become an efficient and possibly life-saving exercise.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
A story in a recent edition of this newspaper reported on a disturbing, but not surprising, study by a third-year pediatric resident at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine. Looking at just the Preparticipaton Physical Evaluations (PPEs) she could find at her institution, Tammy Ng, MD, found that only slightly more than a quarter “addressed all the criteria” on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) standardized form. Although more than half included inquiries about respiratory symptoms, less than half contained questions about a cardiovascular history. The lack of consistency across all the forms reviewed was the most dramatic finding.
Having participated in more than my share of PPEs as a school physician, a primary care pediatrician, and a multi-sport high school and college athlete, I was not surprised by Dr. Ng’s findings. In high school my teammates and I considered our trip to see Old Doctor Hinds (not his real name) in the second week of August “a joke.” A few of us with “white coat” hypertension, like myself, had to be settled down and have our blood pressure retaken. But other than that wrinkle, we all passed. The football coach had his own eyeball screening tool and wouldn’t allow kids he thought were too small to play football.
Reading this study rekindled a question that surfaced every sports season as I faced days of looking at forms, many of them fished out of backpacks in a crumbled mass. I squeezed in new patients or old patients who were out of date on their physicals, not wanting any youngster to miss out on the politically important first practice of the pre-season. Why was I doing it? What was my goal? In more than four hundred thousand office visit encounters, I had never knowingly missed a case that resulted in a sudden sports-related death. Where was the evidence that PPEs had any protective value? Now a third-year pediatric resident is bold enough to tell us that we have done such a sloppy job of collecting data that we aren’t anywhere close to having the raw material with which to answer my decades-old questions and concerns.
Has our needles-in-the-haystack strategy saved any lives? I suspect a few of you can describe scenarios in which asking the right question of the right person at the right time prevented a sports-related sudden death. But, looking at bigger picture, what were the downsides for the entire population with a system in which those questions weren’t asked?
How many young people didn’t play a sport because their parents couldn’t afford the doctor visit or maintain a family structure that would allow them to find the lost form and drive it to the doctor’s office on Friday afternoon. Not every athletic director or physician’s staff is flexible or sympathetic enough to deal with that level of family dysfunction.
The AAP has recently focused its attention on the problems associated with overspecialization and overtraining in an attempt to make youth sports more safe. But, in reality that target audience is a small, elite, highly motivated group. The bigger problem is the rest of the population, in which too few children are physically active and participation in organized youth sports is decreasing. There are many reasons for that trajectory, but shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to reduce the barriers preventing young people from being more active? One of those barriers is a PPE system that is so riddled with inconsistencies that we have no idea as to its utility.
Certainly, bigger and more robust studies can be done, but there will be a long lead time to determine if a better PPE system might be effective. But there is a different approach. Instead of looking for needles with retrospective questions relying on patients’ and parents’ memories, why not use AI to mine patients’ old records for any language that may be buried in the history that could raise a yellow flag. Of course not every significant episode of syncope results in a chart entry. But, if we can make EMRs do our bidding instead being a thorn in our sides, records from long-forgotten episodes at an urgent care center while on vacation should merge with patients global record and light up when AI goes hunting.
If we can get our act together, the process that my teenage buddies and I considered a joke could become an efficient and possibly life-saving exercise.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
A story in a recent edition of this newspaper reported on a disturbing, but not surprising, study by a third-year pediatric resident at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine. Looking at just the Preparticipaton Physical Evaluations (PPEs) she could find at her institution, Tammy Ng, MD, found that only slightly more than a quarter “addressed all the criteria” on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) standardized form. Although more than half included inquiries about respiratory symptoms, less than half contained questions about a cardiovascular history. The lack of consistency across all the forms reviewed was the most dramatic finding.
Having participated in more than my share of PPEs as a school physician, a primary care pediatrician, and a multi-sport high school and college athlete, I was not surprised by Dr. Ng’s findings. In high school my teammates and I considered our trip to see Old Doctor Hinds (not his real name) in the second week of August “a joke.” A few of us with “white coat” hypertension, like myself, had to be settled down and have our blood pressure retaken. But other than that wrinkle, we all passed. The football coach had his own eyeball screening tool and wouldn’t allow kids he thought were too small to play football.
Reading this study rekindled a question that surfaced every sports season as I faced days of looking at forms, many of them fished out of backpacks in a crumbled mass. I squeezed in new patients or old patients who were out of date on their physicals, not wanting any youngster to miss out on the politically important first practice of the pre-season. Why was I doing it? What was my goal? In more than four hundred thousand office visit encounters, I had never knowingly missed a case that resulted in a sudden sports-related death. Where was the evidence that PPEs had any protective value? Now a third-year pediatric resident is bold enough to tell us that we have done such a sloppy job of collecting data that we aren’t anywhere close to having the raw material with which to answer my decades-old questions and concerns.
Has our needles-in-the-haystack strategy saved any lives? I suspect a few of you can describe scenarios in which asking the right question of the right person at the right time prevented a sports-related sudden death. But, looking at bigger picture, what were the downsides for the entire population with a system in which those questions weren’t asked?
How many young people didn’t play a sport because their parents couldn’t afford the doctor visit or maintain a family structure that would allow them to find the lost form and drive it to the doctor’s office on Friday afternoon. Not every athletic director or physician’s staff is flexible or sympathetic enough to deal with that level of family dysfunction.
The AAP has recently focused its attention on the problems associated with overspecialization and overtraining in an attempt to make youth sports more safe. But, in reality that target audience is a small, elite, highly motivated group. The bigger problem is the rest of the population, in which too few children are physically active and participation in organized youth sports is decreasing. There are many reasons for that trajectory, but shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to reduce the barriers preventing young people from being more active? One of those barriers is a PPE system that is so riddled with inconsistencies that we have no idea as to its utility.
Certainly, bigger and more robust studies can be done, but there will be a long lead time to determine if a better PPE system might be effective. But there is a different approach. Instead of looking for needles with retrospective questions relying on patients’ and parents’ memories, why not use AI to mine patients’ old records for any language that may be buried in the history that could raise a yellow flag. Of course not every significant episode of syncope results in a chart entry. But, if we can make EMRs do our bidding instead being a thorn in our sides, records from long-forgotten episodes at an urgent care center while on vacation should merge with patients global record and light up when AI goes hunting.
If we can get our act together, the process that my teenage buddies and I considered a joke could become an efficient and possibly life-saving exercise.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Psychiatric Comorbidity Tied to Early Mortality in Anorexia
TOPLINE:
Anorexia nervosa (AN) is associated with a 4.5-fold increased risk for mortality — a rate that nearly doubles when AN patients have psychiatric comorbidities.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from 14,774 patients diagnosed with AN at age ≥ 6 years from 1977 to 2018.
- Patients were followed-up for a median time of 9.1 years, with some followed-up for ≤ 40 years and matched 1:10 with age- and sex-matched controls.
- Investigators calculated adjusted hazard ratios for mortality, considering psychiatric comorbidity, sex, and age at diagnosis.
TAKEAWAY:
- AN is associated with a 4.5-fold increased mortality risk vs the general population.
- About half of the sample with AN (47%) had a psychiatric comorbidity, which is associated with a 7.7% mortality risk at 10 years.
- Psychiatric comorbidity in anorexia nervosa patients nearly doubles the 10-year mortality risk.
- Suicide was the primary cause of unnatural death (9% died by suicide), and the rate was higher among patients with a psychiatric comorbidity.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings highlight the crucial need for clinicians to recognize additional mental health disorders in adolescents and adults with anorexia,” author Mette Søeby, MD, Aarhus University/Aarhus University Hospital, in Aarhus, Denmark, said in a press release.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Dr. Søeby and was published online on June 12, 2024, in the International Journal of Eating Disorders.
LIMITATIONS:
The transition from International Classification of Diseases, 8th edition (ICD-8) to ICD-10 and inclusion of outpatient visits may have influenced the study’s results by including more patients with less severe illness. The ICD-10 diagnosis code for anorexia nervosa in Danish registers has not been validated, potentially affecting the accuracy of the study’s findings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Novo Nordic Foundation and The Danish Foundation for Research in Mental Disorders. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Anorexia nervosa (AN) is associated with a 4.5-fold increased risk for mortality — a rate that nearly doubles when AN patients have psychiatric comorbidities.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from 14,774 patients diagnosed with AN at age ≥ 6 years from 1977 to 2018.
- Patients were followed-up for a median time of 9.1 years, with some followed-up for ≤ 40 years and matched 1:10 with age- and sex-matched controls.
- Investigators calculated adjusted hazard ratios for mortality, considering psychiatric comorbidity, sex, and age at diagnosis.
TAKEAWAY:
- AN is associated with a 4.5-fold increased mortality risk vs the general population.
- About half of the sample with AN (47%) had a psychiatric comorbidity, which is associated with a 7.7% mortality risk at 10 years.
- Psychiatric comorbidity in anorexia nervosa patients nearly doubles the 10-year mortality risk.
- Suicide was the primary cause of unnatural death (9% died by suicide), and the rate was higher among patients with a psychiatric comorbidity.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings highlight the crucial need for clinicians to recognize additional mental health disorders in adolescents and adults with anorexia,” author Mette Søeby, MD, Aarhus University/Aarhus University Hospital, in Aarhus, Denmark, said in a press release.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Dr. Søeby and was published online on June 12, 2024, in the International Journal of Eating Disorders.
LIMITATIONS:
The transition from International Classification of Diseases, 8th edition (ICD-8) to ICD-10 and inclusion of outpatient visits may have influenced the study’s results by including more patients with less severe illness. The ICD-10 diagnosis code for anorexia nervosa in Danish registers has not been validated, potentially affecting the accuracy of the study’s findings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Novo Nordic Foundation and The Danish Foundation for Research in Mental Disorders. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Anorexia nervosa (AN) is associated with a 4.5-fold increased risk for mortality — a rate that nearly doubles when AN patients have psychiatric comorbidities.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from 14,774 patients diagnosed with AN at age ≥ 6 years from 1977 to 2018.
- Patients were followed-up for a median time of 9.1 years, with some followed-up for ≤ 40 years and matched 1:10 with age- and sex-matched controls.
- Investigators calculated adjusted hazard ratios for mortality, considering psychiatric comorbidity, sex, and age at diagnosis.
TAKEAWAY:
- AN is associated with a 4.5-fold increased mortality risk vs the general population.
- About half of the sample with AN (47%) had a psychiatric comorbidity, which is associated with a 7.7% mortality risk at 10 years.
- Psychiatric comorbidity in anorexia nervosa patients nearly doubles the 10-year mortality risk.
- Suicide was the primary cause of unnatural death (9% died by suicide), and the rate was higher among patients with a psychiatric comorbidity.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings highlight the crucial need for clinicians to recognize additional mental health disorders in adolescents and adults with anorexia,” author Mette Søeby, MD, Aarhus University/Aarhus University Hospital, in Aarhus, Denmark, said in a press release.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Dr. Søeby and was published online on June 12, 2024, in the International Journal of Eating Disorders.
LIMITATIONS:
The transition from International Classification of Diseases, 8th edition (ICD-8) to ICD-10 and inclusion of outpatient visits may have influenced the study’s results by including more patients with less severe illness. The ICD-10 diagnosis code for anorexia nervosa in Danish registers has not been validated, potentially affecting the accuracy of the study’s findings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Novo Nordic Foundation and The Danish Foundation for Research in Mental Disorders. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Chronic Absenteeism
Among the more unheralded examples of collateral damage of the COVID epidemic is chronic absenteeism. A recent NPR/Ipsos poll found that parents ranked chronic absenteeism last in a list of 12 school-related concerns. Only 5% listed it first.
This is surprising and concerning, given that In fact, in some states the chronic absenteeism rate is 40%. In 2020 8 million students were chronically absent. This number is now over 14 million. Chronic absenteeism is a metric defined as a student absent for 15 days or more, which comes out to around 10% of the school year. Chronic absenteeism has been used as a predictor of the student dropout rate.
The initial contribution of the pandemic is easily explained, as parents were understandably concerned about sending their children into an environment that might cause disease, or at least bring the disease home to a more vulnerable family member. The reasons behind the trend’s persistence are a bit more complicated.
Family schedules initially disrupted by the pandemic have settled back into a pattern that may make it more difficult for a child to get to school. Day care and work schedules may have changed, but not yet readjusted to sync with the school schedule.
In the simplest terms, children and their families may have simply fallen out of the habit of going to school. For children (and maybe their parents) who had always struggled with an unresolved separation anxiety, the time at home — or at least not in school — came as a relief. Which, in turn, meant that any gains in dealing with the anxiety have been undone. The child who was already struggling academically or socially found being at home much less challenging. It’s not surprising that he/she might resist climbing back in the academic saddle.
It is very likely that a significant contributor to the persistent trend in chronic absenteeism is what social scientists call “norm erosion.” Not just children, but families may have developed an attitude that time spent in school just isn’t as valuable as they once believed, or were at least told that it was. There seems to be more parents questioning what their children are being taught in school. The home schooling movement existed before the pandemic. Its roots may be growing under the surface in the form of general skepticism about the importance of school in the bigger scheme of things. The home schooling movement was ready to blossom when the COVID pandemic triggered school closures. We hoped and dreamed that remote learning would be just as good as in-person school. We now realize that, in most cases, that was wishful thinking.
It feels as though a “Perfect Attendance Record” may have lost the cachet it once had. During the pandemic anyone claiming to have never missed a day at school lost that gold star. Did opening your computer every day to watch a remote learning session count for anything?
The threshold for allowing a child to stay home from school may be reaching a historic low. Families seem to regard the school schedule as a guideline that can easily be ignored when planning a vacation. Take little brother out of school to attend big brother’s lacrosse playoff game, not to worry if the youngster misses school days for a trip.
Who is responsible for reversing the trend? Teachers already know it is a serious problem. They view attendance as important. Maybe educators could make school more appealing. But to whom? Sounds like this message should be targeted at the parents. Would stiff penalties for parents whose children are chronically absent help? Would demanding a note from a physician after a certain number of absences help? It might. But, are pediatricians and educators ready to take on one more task in which parents have dropped the ball?
An unknown percentage of chronically absent children are missing school because of a previously unrecognized or inadequately treated mental health condition or learning disability. Involving physicians in a community’s response to chronic absenteeism may be the first step in getting a child back on track. If socioeconomic factors are contributing to a child’s truancy, the involvement of social service agencies may be the answer.
I have a friend who is often asked to address graduating classes at both the high school and college level. One of his standard pieces of advice, whether it be about school or a workplace you may not be in love with, is to at least “show up.” The family that treats school attendance as optional is likely to produce adults who take a similarly nonchalant attitude toward their employment opportunities — with unfortunate results.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Among the more unheralded examples of collateral damage of the COVID epidemic is chronic absenteeism. A recent NPR/Ipsos poll found that parents ranked chronic absenteeism last in a list of 12 school-related concerns. Only 5% listed it first.
This is surprising and concerning, given that In fact, in some states the chronic absenteeism rate is 40%. In 2020 8 million students were chronically absent. This number is now over 14 million. Chronic absenteeism is a metric defined as a student absent for 15 days or more, which comes out to around 10% of the school year. Chronic absenteeism has been used as a predictor of the student dropout rate.
The initial contribution of the pandemic is easily explained, as parents were understandably concerned about sending their children into an environment that might cause disease, or at least bring the disease home to a more vulnerable family member. The reasons behind the trend’s persistence are a bit more complicated.
Family schedules initially disrupted by the pandemic have settled back into a pattern that may make it more difficult for a child to get to school. Day care and work schedules may have changed, but not yet readjusted to sync with the school schedule.
In the simplest terms, children and their families may have simply fallen out of the habit of going to school. For children (and maybe their parents) who had always struggled with an unresolved separation anxiety, the time at home — or at least not in school — came as a relief. Which, in turn, meant that any gains in dealing with the anxiety have been undone. The child who was already struggling academically or socially found being at home much less challenging. It’s not surprising that he/she might resist climbing back in the academic saddle.
It is very likely that a significant contributor to the persistent trend in chronic absenteeism is what social scientists call “norm erosion.” Not just children, but families may have developed an attitude that time spent in school just isn’t as valuable as they once believed, or were at least told that it was. There seems to be more parents questioning what their children are being taught in school. The home schooling movement existed before the pandemic. Its roots may be growing under the surface in the form of general skepticism about the importance of school in the bigger scheme of things. The home schooling movement was ready to blossom when the COVID pandemic triggered school closures. We hoped and dreamed that remote learning would be just as good as in-person school. We now realize that, in most cases, that was wishful thinking.
It feels as though a “Perfect Attendance Record” may have lost the cachet it once had. During the pandemic anyone claiming to have never missed a day at school lost that gold star. Did opening your computer every day to watch a remote learning session count for anything?
The threshold for allowing a child to stay home from school may be reaching a historic low. Families seem to regard the school schedule as a guideline that can easily be ignored when planning a vacation. Take little brother out of school to attend big brother’s lacrosse playoff game, not to worry if the youngster misses school days for a trip.
Who is responsible for reversing the trend? Teachers already know it is a serious problem. They view attendance as important. Maybe educators could make school more appealing. But to whom? Sounds like this message should be targeted at the parents. Would stiff penalties for parents whose children are chronically absent help? Would demanding a note from a physician after a certain number of absences help? It might. But, are pediatricians and educators ready to take on one more task in which parents have dropped the ball?
An unknown percentage of chronically absent children are missing school because of a previously unrecognized or inadequately treated mental health condition or learning disability. Involving physicians in a community’s response to chronic absenteeism may be the first step in getting a child back on track. If socioeconomic factors are contributing to a child’s truancy, the involvement of social service agencies may be the answer.
I have a friend who is often asked to address graduating classes at both the high school and college level. One of his standard pieces of advice, whether it be about school or a workplace you may not be in love with, is to at least “show up.” The family that treats school attendance as optional is likely to produce adults who take a similarly nonchalant attitude toward their employment opportunities — with unfortunate results.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Among the more unheralded examples of collateral damage of the COVID epidemic is chronic absenteeism. A recent NPR/Ipsos poll found that parents ranked chronic absenteeism last in a list of 12 school-related concerns. Only 5% listed it first.
This is surprising and concerning, given that In fact, in some states the chronic absenteeism rate is 40%. In 2020 8 million students were chronically absent. This number is now over 14 million. Chronic absenteeism is a metric defined as a student absent for 15 days or more, which comes out to around 10% of the school year. Chronic absenteeism has been used as a predictor of the student dropout rate.
The initial contribution of the pandemic is easily explained, as parents were understandably concerned about sending their children into an environment that might cause disease, or at least bring the disease home to a more vulnerable family member. The reasons behind the trend’s persistence are a bit more complicated.
Family schedules initially disrupted by the pandemic have settled back into a pattern that may make it more difficult for a child to get to school. Day care and work schedules may have changed, but not yet readjusted to sync with the school schedule.
In the simplest terms, children and their families may have simply fallen out of the habit of going to school. For children (and maybe their parents) who had always struggled with an unresolved separation anxiety, the time at home — or at least not in school — came as a relief. Which, in turn, meant that any gains in dealing with the anxiety have been undone. The child who was already struggling academically or socially found being at home much less challenging. It’s not surprising that he/she might resist climbing back in the academic saddle.
It is very likely that a significant contributor to the persistent trend in chronic absenteeism is what social scientists call “norm erosion.” Not just children, but families may have developed an attitude that time spent in school just isn’t as valuable as they once believed, or were at least told that it was. There seems to be more parents questioning what their children are being taught in school. The home schooling movement existed before the pandemic. Its roots may be growing under the surface in the form of general skepticism about the importance of school in the bigger scheme of things. The home schooling movement was ready to blossom when the COVID pandemic triggered school closures. We hoped and dreamed that remote learning would be just as good as in-person school. We now realize that, in most cases, that was wishful thinking.
It feels as though a “Perfect Attendance Record” may have lost the cachet it once had. During the pandemic anyone claiming to have never missed a day at school lost that gold star. Did opening your computer every day to watch a remote learning session count for anything?
The threshold for allowing a child to stay home from school may be reaching a historic low. Families seem to regard the school schedule as a guideline that can easily be ignored when planning a vacation. Take little brother out of school to attend big brother’s lacrosse playoff game, not to worry if the youngster misses school days for a trip.
Who is responsible for reversing the trend? Teachers already know it is a serious problem. They view attendance as important. Maybe educators could make school more appealing. But to whom? Sounds like this message should be targeted at the parents. Would stiff penalties for parents whose children are chronically absent help? Would demanding a note from a physician after a certain number of absences help? It might. But, are pediatricians and educators ready to take on one more task in which parents have dropped the ball?
An unknown percentage of chronically absent children are missing school because of a previously unrecognized or inadequately treated mental health condition or learning disability. Involving physicians in a community’s response to chronic absenteeism may be the first step in getting a child back on track. If socioeconomic factors are contributing to a child’s truancy, the involvement of social service agencies may be the answer.
I have a friend who is often asked to address graduating classes at both the high school and college level. One of his standard pieces of advice, whether it be about school or a workplace you may not be in love with, is to at least “show up.” The family that treats school attendance as optional is likely to produce adults who take a similarly nonchalant attitude toward their employment opportunities — with unfortunate results.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
PTSD Rates Soar Among College Students
TOPLINE:
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rates among college students more than doubled between 2017 and 2022, new data showed. Rates of acute stress disorder (ASD) also increased during that time.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted five waves of cross-sectional study from 2017 to 2022, involving 392,377 participants across 332 colleges and universities.
- The study utilized the Healthy Minds Study data, ensuring representativeness by applying sample weights based on institutional demographics.
- Outcome variables were diagnoses of PTSD and ASD, confirmed by healthcare practitioners, with statistical analysis assessing change in odds of estimated prevalence during 2017-2022.
TAKEAWAY:
- The prevalence of PTSD among US college students increased from 3.4% in 2017-2018 to 7.5% in 2021-2022.
- ASD diagnoses also rose from 0.2% in 2017-2018 to 0.7% in 2021-2022, with both increases remaining statistically significant after adjusting for demographic differences.
- Investigators noted that these findings underscore the need for targeted, trauma-informed intervention strategies in college settings.
IN PRACTICE:
“These trends highlight the escalating mental health challenges among college students, which is consistent with recent research reporting a surge in psychiatric diagnoses,” the authors wrote. “Factors contributing to this rise may include pandemic-related stressors (eg, loss of loved ones) and the effect of traumatic events (eg, campus shootings and racial trauma),” they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Yusen Zhai, PhD, University of Alabama at Birmingham. It was published online on May 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s reliance on self-reported data and single questions for diagnosed PTSD and ASD may have limited the accuracy of the findings. The retrospective design and the absence of longitudinal follow-up may have restricted the ability to infer causality from the observed trends.
DISCLOSURES:
No disclosures were reported. No funding information was available.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rates among college students more than doubled between 2017 and 2022, new data showed. Rates of acute stress disorder (ASD) also increased during that time.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted five waves of cross-sectional study from 2017 to 2022, involving 392,377 participants across 332 colleges and universities.
- The study utilized the Healthy Minds Study data, ensuring representativeness by applying sample weights based on institutional demographics.
- Outcome variables were diagnoses of PTSD and ASD, confirmed by healthcare practitioners, with statistical analysis assessing change in odds of estimated prevalence during 2017-2022.
TAKEAWAY:
- The prevalence of PTSD among US college students increased from 3.4% in 2017-2018 to 7.5% in 2021-2022.
- ASD diagnoses also rose from 0.2% in 2017-2018 to 0.7% in 2021-2022, with both increases remaining statistically significant after adjusting for demographic differences.
- Investigators noted that these findings underscore the need for targeted, trauma-informed intervention strategies in college settings.
IN PRACTICE:
“These trends highlight the escalating mental health challenges among college students, which is consistent with recent research reporting a surge in psychiatric diagnoses,” the authors wrote. “Factors contributing to this rise may include pandemic-related stressors (eg, loss of loved ones) and the effect of traumatic events (eg, campus shootings and racial trauma),” they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Yusen Zhai, PhD, University of Alabama at Birmingham. It was published online on May 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s reliance on self-reported data and single questions for diagnosed PTSD and ASD may have limited the accuracy of the findings. The retrospective design and the absence of longitudinal follow-up may have restricted the ability to infer causality from the observed trends.
DISCLOSURES:
No disclosures were reported. No funding information was available.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rates among college students more than doubled between 2017 and 2022, new data showed. Rates of acute stress disorder (ASD) also increased during that time.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted five waves of cross-sectional study from 2017 to 2022, involving 392,377 participants across 332 colleges and universities.
- The study utilized the Healthy Minds Study data, ensuring representativeness by applying sample weights based on institutional demographics.
- Outcome variables were diagnoses of PTSD and ASD, confirmed by healthcare practitioners, with statistical analysis assessing change in odds of estimated prevalence during 2017-2022.
TAKEAWAY:
- The prevalence of PTSD among US college students increased from 3.4% in 2017-2018 to 7.5% in 2021-2022.
- ASD diagnoses also rose from 0.2% in 2017-2018 to 0.7% in 2021-2022, with both increases remaining statistically significant after adjusting for demographic differences.
- Investigators noted that these findings underscore the need for targeted, trauma-informed intervention strategies in college settings.
IN PRACTICE:
“These trends highlight the escalating mental health challenges among college students, which is consistent with recent research reporting a surge in psychiatric diagnoses,” the authors wrote. “Factors contributing to this rise may include pandemic-related stressors (eg, loss of loved ones) and the effect of traumatic events (eg, campus shootings and racial trauma),” they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Yusen Zhai, PhD, University of Alabama at Birmingham. It was published online on May 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s reliance on self-reported data and single questions for diagnosed PTSD and ASD may have limited the accuracy of the findings. The retrospective design and the absence of longitudinal follow-up may have restricted the ability to infer causality from the observed trends.
DISCLOSURES:
No disclosures were reported. No funding information was available.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Early-Life Exposure to Pollution Linked to Psychosis, Anxiety, Depression
Early-life exposure to air and noise pollution is associated with a higher risk for psychosis, depression, and anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood, results from a longitudinal birth cohort study showed.
While air pollution was associated primarily with psychotic experiences and depression, noise pollution was more likely to be associated with anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood.
“Early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given the extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero and during infancy,” the researchers, led by Joanne Newbury, PhD, of Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, England, wrote, adding that “the results of this cohort study provide novel evidence that early-life exposure to particulate matter is prospectively associated with the development of psychotic experiences and depression in youth.”
The findings were published online on May 28 in JAMA Network Open.
Large, Longitudinal Study
To learn more about how air and noise pollution may affect the brain from an early age, the investigators used data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, an ongoing longitudinal birth cohort capturing data on new births in Southwest England from 1991 to 1992.
Investigators captured levels of air pollutants, which included nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 2.5 µm (PM2.5), in the areas where expectant mothers lived and where their children lived until age 12.
They also collected decibel levels of noise pollution in neighborhoods where expectant mothers and their children lived.
Participants were assessed for psychotic experiences, depression, and anxiety when they were 13, 18, and 24 years old.
Among the 9065 participants who had mental health data, 20% reported psychotic experiences, 11% reported depression, and 10% reported anxiety. About 60% of the participants had a family history of mental illness.
When they were age 13, 13.6% of participants reported psychotic experiences; 9.2% reported them at age 18, and 12.6% at age 24.
A lower number of participants reported feeling depressed and anxious at 13 years (5.6% for depression and 3.6% for anxiety) and 18 years (7.9% for depression and 5.7% for anxiety).
After adjusting for individual and family-level variables, including family psychiatric history, maternal social class, and neighborhood deprivation, elevated PM2.5 levels during pregnancy (P = .002) and childhood (P = .04) were associated with a significantly increased risk for psychotic experiences later in life. Pregnancy PM2.5 exposure was also associated with depression (P = .01).
Participants exposed to higher noise pollution in childhood and adolescence had an increased risk for anxiety (P = .03) as teenagers.
Vulnerability of the Developing Brain
The investigators noted that more information is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms behind these associations but noted that early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given “extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero.”
They also noted that air pollution could lead to restricted fetal growth and premature birth, both of which are risk factors for psychopathology.
Martin Clift, PhD, of Swansea University in Swansea, Wales, who was not involved in the study, said that the paper highlights the need for more consideration of health consequences related to these exposures.
“As noted by the authors, this is an area that has received a lot of recent attention, yet there remains a large void of knowledge,” Dr. Clift said in a UK Science Media Centre release. “It highlights that some of the most dominant air pollutants can impact different mental health diagnoses, but that time-of-life is particularly important as to how each individual air pollutant may impact this diagnosis.”
Study limitations included limitations to generalizability of the data — the families in the study were more affluent and less diverse than the UK population overall.
The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and University of Bristol. Disclosures were noted in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Early-life exposure to air and noise pollution is associated with a higher risk for psychosis, depression, and anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood, results from a longitudinal birth cohort study showed.
While air pollution was associated primarily with psychotic experiences and depression, noise pollution was more likely to be associated with anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood.
“Early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given the extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero and during infancy,” the researchers, led by Joanne Newbury, PhD, of Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, England, wrote, adding that “the results of this cohort study provide novel evidence that early-life exposure to particulate matter is prospectively associated with the development of psychotic experiences and depression in youth.”
The findings were published online on May 28 in JAMA Network Open.
Large, Longitudinal Study
To learn more about how air and noise pollution may affect the brain from an early age, the investigators used data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, an ongoing longitudinal birth cohort capturing data on new births in Southwest England from 1991 to 1992.
Investigators captured levels of air pollutants, which included nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 2.5 µm (PM2.5), in the areas where expectant mothers lived and where their children lived until age 12.
They also collected decibel levels of noise pollution in neighborhoods where expectant mothers and their children lived.
Participants were assessed for psychotic experiences, depression, and anxiety when they were 13, 18, and 24 years old.
Among the 9065 participants who had mental health data, 20% reported psychotic experiences, 11% reported depression, and 10% reported anxiety. About 60% of the participants had a family history of mental illness.
When they were age 13, 13.6% of participants reported psychotic experiences; 9.2% reported them at age 18, and 12.6% at age 24.
A lower number of participants reported feeling depressed and anxious at 13 years (5.6% for depression and 3.6% for anxiety) and 18 years (7.9% for depression and 5.7% for anxiety).
After adjusting for individual and family-level variables, including family psychiatric history, maternal social class, and neighborhood deprivation, elevated PM2.5 levels during pregnancy (P = .002) and childhood (P = .04) were associated with a significantly increased risk for psychotic experiences later in life. Pregnancy PM2.5 exposure was also associated with depression (P = .01).
Participants exposed to higher noise pollution in childhood and adolescence had an increased risk for anxiety (P = .03) as teenagers.
Vulnerability of the Developing Brain
The investigators noted that more information is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms behind these associations but noted that early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given “extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero.”
They also noted that air pollution could lead to restricted fetal growth and premature birth, both of which are risk factors for psychopathology.
Martin Clift, PhD, of Swansea University in Swansea, Wales, who was not involved in the study, said that the paper highlights the need for more consideration of health consequences related to these exposures.
“As noted by the authors, this is an area that has received a lot of recent attention, yet there remains a large void of knowledge,” Dr. Clift said in a UK Science Media Centre release. “It highlights that some of the most dominant air pollutants can impact different mental health diagnoses, but that time-of-life is particularly important as to how each individual air pollutant may impact this diagnosis.”
Study limitations included limitations to generalizability of the data — the families in the study were more affluent and less diverse than the UK population overall.
The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and University of Bristol. Disclosures were noted in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Early-life exposure to air and noise pollution is associated with a higher risk for psychosis, depression, and anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood, results from a longitudinal birth cohort study showed.
While air pollution was associated primarily with psychotic experiences and depression, noise pollution was more likely to be associated with anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood.
“Early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given the extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero and during infancy,” the researchers, led by Joanne Newbury, PhD, of Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, England, wrote, adding that “the results of this cohort study provide novel evidence that early-life exposure to particulate matter is prospectively associated with the development of psychotic experiences and depression in youth.”
The findings were published online on May 28 in JAMA Network Open.
Large, Longitudinal Study
To learn more about how air and noise pollution may affect the brain from an early age, the investigators used data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, an ongoing longitudinal birth cohort capturing data on new births in Southwest England from 1991 to 1992.
Investigators captured levels of air pollutants, which included nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 2.5 µm (PM2.5), in the areas where expectant mothers lived and where their children lived until age 12.
They also collected decibel levels of noise pollution in neighborhoods where expectant mothers and their children lived.
Participants were assessed for psychotic experiences, depression, and anxiety when they were 13, 18, and 24 years old.
Among the 9065 participants who had mental health data, 20% reported psychotic experiences, 11% reported depression, and 10% reported anxiety. About 60% of the participants had a family history of mental illness.
When they were age 13, 13.6% of participants reported psychotic experiences; 9.2% reported them at age 18, and 12.6% at age 24.
A lower number of participants reported feeling depressed and anxious at 13 years (5.6% for depression and 3.6% for anxiety) and 18 years (7.9% for depression and 5.7% for anxiety).
After adjusting for individual and family-level variables, including family psychiatric history, maternal social class, and neighborhood deprivation, elevated PM2.5 levels during pregnancy (P = .002) and childhood (P = .04) were associated with a significantly increased risk for psychotic experiences later in life. Pregnancy PM2.5 exposure was also associated with depression (P = .01).
Participants exposed to higher noise pollution in childhood and adolescence had an increased risk for anxiety (P = .03) as teenagers.
Vulnerability of the Developing Brain
The investigators noted that more information is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms behind these associations but noted that early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given “extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero.”
They also noted that air pollution could lead to restricted fetal growth and premature birth, both of which are risk factors for psychopathology.
Martin Clift, PhD, of Swansea University in Swansea, Wales, who was not involved in the study, said that the paper highlights the need for more consideration of health consequences related to these exposures.
“As noted by the authors, this is an area that has received a lot of recent attention, yet there remains a large void of knowledge,” Dr. Clift said in a UK Science Media Centre release. “It highlights that some of the most dominant air pollutants can impact different mental health diagnoses, but that time-of-life is particularly important as to how each individual air pollutant may impact this diagnosis.”
Study limitations included limitations to generalizability of the data — the families in the study were more affluent and less diverse than the UK population overall.
The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and University of Bristol. Disclosures were noted in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Teen Cannabis Use Tied to Dramatic Increased Risk for Psychosis
, new research showed.
Investigators at the University of Toronto, The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), in Canada, linked recent population-based survey data from more than 11,000 youngsters to health service use records, including hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient visits.
“We found a very strong association between cannabis use and risk of psychotic disorder in adolescence [although] surprisingly, we didn’t find evidence of association in young adulthood,” lead author André J. McDonald, PhD, currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research and the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, said in a news release.
“These findings are consistent with the neurodevelopmental theory that teens are especially vulnerable to the effects of cannabis,” said Dr. McDonald, who conducted the research.
The study was published online in Psychological Medicine.
Increased Potency
“Epidemiologic research suggests that cannabis use may be a significant risk factor for psychotic disorders,” the authors wrote. However, methodological limitations of previous studies make it difficult to estimate the strength of association, with the current evidence base relying largely on cannabis use during the twentieth century, when the drug was “significantly less potent.” It’s plausible that the strength of association has increased due to increased cannabis potency.
The researchers believe youth cannabis use and psychotic disorders is “a critical public health issue,” especially as more jurisdictions liberalize cannabis use and the perception of harm declines among youth.
To estimate the association between cannabis use during youth and the risk for a psychotic disorder diagnosis, using recent population-based data, they used data from the 2009-2012 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) linked to administrative health data at ICES to study noninstitutionalized Ontario residents, aged 12-24 years, who had completed the CCHS during that period.
They excluded respondents who used health services for psychotic disorders during the 6 years prior to their CCHS interview date.
Respondents (n = 11,363; 51% men; mean age [SD], 18.3 [15.2-21.3] years) were followed for 6-9 years, with days to first hospitalization, ED visit, or outpatient visit related to a psychotic disorder as the primary outcome.
The researchers estimated age-specific hazard ratios during adolescence (12-19 years) and young adulthood (20-33 years) and conducted sensitivity analyses to explore alternative model conditions, including restricting the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits, to increase specificity.
Compared with no cannabis use, cannabis use was significantly associated with an 11-fold increased risk for psychotic disorders during adolescence, although not during young adulthood (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 11.2; 95% CI, 4.6-27.3 and aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.6-2.6, respectively).
Perception of Harm Declining
When the researchers restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits only, the strength of association “increased markedly” during adolescence, with a 26-fold higher association in cannabis users than in nonusers (aHR, 26.7; 95% CI, 7.7-92.8). However, there was no meaningful change during young adulthood (aHR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4).
“Many have hypothesized that adolescence is a more sensitive risk period than adulthood for the effect of cannabis use on psychotic disorder development, yet prior to this study, little epidemiologic evidence existed to support this view,” the authors wrote.
The data also suggest that cannabis use is “more strongly associated with more severe psychotic outcomes, as the strength of association during adolescence increased markedly when we restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits (the most severe types of health service use),” the investigators noted.
The authors noted several limitations. For instance, it’s unclear to what extent unmeasured confounders including genetic predisposition, family history of psychotic disorders, and trauma might have biased the results. In addition, they could not assess the potential confounding impact of genetic predisposition to psychotic disorders. The possibility of reverse causality also cannot be ruled out. It’s possible, they noted, that individuals with “psychotic dispositions” may self-medicate or show greater disposition to cannabis use.
Moreover, the dataset neither captured important factors regarding the cannabis itself, including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol potency, mode of use, product type, or cannabis dependence, nor captured institutionalized and homeless youth.
Nevertheless, they pointed to the findings as supporting a “precautionary principle” — as more jurisdictions move to liberalize cannabis use and perception of harm declines among youth, the findings suggest that evidence-based cannabis prevention strategies for adolescents are warranted.
This study was supported by CAMH, the University of Toronto, and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research showed.
Investigators at the University of Toronto, The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), in Canada, linked recent population-based survey data from more than 11,000 youngsters to health service use records, including hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient visits.
“We found a very strong association between cannabis use and risk of psychotic disorder in adolescence [although] surprisingly, we didn’t find evidence of association in young adulthood,” lead author André J. McDonald, PhD, currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research and the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, said in a news release.
“These findings are consistent with the neurodevelopmental theory that teens are especially vulnerable to the effects of cannabis,” said Dr. McDonald, who conducted the research.
The study was published online in Psychological Medicine.
Increased Potency
“Epidemiologic research suggests that cannabis use may be a significant risk factor for psychotic disorders,” the authors wrote. However, methodological limitations of previous studies make it difficult to estimate the strength of association, with the current evidence base relying largely on cannabis use during the twentieth century, when the drug was “significantly less potent.” It’s plausible that the strength of association has increased due to increased cannabis potency.
The researchers believe youth cannabis use and psychotic disorders is “a critical public health issue,” especially as more jurisdictions liberalize cannabis use and the perception of harm declines among youth.
To estimate the association between cannabis use during youth and the risk for a psychotic disorder diagnosis, using recent population-based data, they used data from the 2009-2012 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) linked to administrative health data at ICES to study noninstitutionalized Ontario residents, aged 12-24 years, who had completed the CCHS during that period.
They excluded respondents who used health services for psychotic disorders during the 6 years prior to their CCHS interview date.
Respondents (n = 11,363; 51% men; mean age [SD], 18.3 [15.2-21.3] years) were followed for 6-9 years, with days to first hospitalization, ED visit, or outpatient visit related to a psychotic disorder as the primary outcome.
The researchers estimated age-specific hazard ratios during adolescence (12-19 years) and young adulthood (20-33 years) and conducted sensitivity analyses to explore alternative model conditions, including restricting the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits, to increase specificity.
Compared with no cannabis use, cannabis use was significantly associated with an 11-fold increased risk for psychotic disorders during adolescence, although not during young adulthood (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 11.2; 95% CI, 4.6-27.3 and aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.6-2.6, respectively).
Perception of Harm Declining
When the researchers restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits only, the strength of association “increased markedly” during adolescence, with a 26-fold higher association in cannabis users than in nonusers (aHR, 26.7; 95% CI, 7.7-92.8). However, there was no meaningful change during young adulthood (aHR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4).
“Many have hypothesized that adolescence is a more sensitive risk period than adulthood for the effect of cannabis use on psychotic disorder development, yet prior to this study, little epidemiologic evidence existed to support this view,” the authors wrote.
The data also suggest that cannabis use is “more strongly associated with more severe psychotic outcomes, as the strength of association during adolescence increased markedly when we restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits (the most severe types of health service use),” the investigators noted.
The authors noted several limitations. For instance, it’s unclear to what extent unmeasured confounders including genetic predisposition, family history of psychotic disorders, and trauma might have biased the results. In addition, they could not assess the potential confounding impact of genetic predisposition to psychotic disorders. The possibility of reverse causality also cannot be ruled out. It’s possible, they noted, that individuals with “psychotic dispositions” may self-medicate or show greater disposition to cannabis use.
Moreover, the dataset neither captured important factors regarding the cannabis itself, including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol potency, mode of use, product type, or cannabis dependence, nor captured institutionalized and homeless youth.
Nevertheless, they pointed to the findings as supporting a “precautionary principle” — as more jurisdictions move to liberalize cannabis use and perception of harm declines among youth, the findings suggest that evidence-based cannabis prevention strategies for adolescents are warranted.
This study was supported by CAMH, the University of Toronto, and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research showed.
Investigators at the University of Toronto, The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), in Canada, linked recent population-based survey data from more than 11,000 youngsters to health service use records, including hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient visits.
“We found a very strong association between cannabis use and risk of psychotic disorder in adolescence [although] surprisingly, we didn’t find evidence of association in young adulthood,” lead author André J. McDonald, PhD, currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research and the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, said in a news release.
“These findings are consistent with the neurodevelopmental theory that teens are especially vulnerable to the effects of cannabis,” said Dr. McDonald, who conducted the research.
The study was published online in Psychological Medicine.
Increased Potency
“Epidemiologic research suggests that cannabis use may be a significant risk factor for psychotic disorders,” the authors wrote. However, methodological limitations of previous studies make it difficult to estimate the strength of association, with the current evidence base relying largely on cannabis use during the twentieth century, when the drug was “significantly less potent.” It’s plausible that the strength of association has increased due to increased cannabis potency.
The researchers believe youth cannabis use and psychotic disorders is “a critical public health issue,” especially as more jurisdictions liberalize cannabis use and the perception of harm declines among youth.
To estimate the association between cannabis use during youth and the risk for a psychotic disorder diagnosis, using recent population-based data, they used data from the 2009-2012 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) linked to administrative health data at ICES to study noninstitutionalized Ontario residents, aged 12-24 years, who had completed the CCHS during that period.
They excluded respondents who used health services for psychotic disorders during the 6 years prior to their CCHS interview date.
Respondents (n = 11,363; 51% men; mean age [SD], 18.3 [15.2-21.3] years) were followed for 6-9 years, with days to first hospitalization, ED visit, or outpatient visit related to a psychotic disorder as the primary outcome.
The researchers estimated age-specific hazard ratios during adolescence (12-19 years) and young adulthood (20-33 years) and conducted sensitivity analyses to explore alternative model conditions, including restricting the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits, to increase specificity.
Compared with no cannabis use, cannabis use was significantly associated with an 11-fold increased risk for psychotic disorders during adolescence, although not during young adulthood (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 11.2; 95% CI, 4.6-27.3 and aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.6-2.6, respectively).
Perception of Harm Declining
When the researchers restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits only, the strength of association “increased markedly” during adolescence, with a 26-fold higher association in cannabis users than in nonusers (aHR, 26.7; 95% CI, 7.7-92.8). However, there was no meaningful change during young adulthood (aHR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4).
“Many have hypothesized that adolescence is a more sensitive risk period than adulthood for the effect of cannabis use on psychotic disorder development, yet prior to this study, little epidemiologic evidence existed to support this view,” the authors wrote.
The data also suggest that cannabis use is “more strongly associated with more severe psychotic outcomes, as the strength of association during adolescence increased markedly when we restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits (the most severe types of health service use),” the investigators noted.
The authors noted several limitations. For instance, it’s unclear to what extent unmeasured confounders including genetic predisposition, family history of psychotic disorders, and trauma might have biased the results. In addition, they could not assess the potential confounding impact of genetic predisposition to psychotic disorders. The possibility of reverse causality also cannot be ruled out. It’s possible, they noted, that individuals with “psychotic dispositions” may self-medicate or show greater disposition to cannabis use.
Moreover, the dataset neither captured important factors regarding the cannabis itself, including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol potency, mode of use, product type, or cannabis dependence, nor captured institutionalized and homeless youth.
Nevertheless, they pointed to the findings as supporting a “precautionary principle” — as more jurisdictions move to liberalize cannabis use and perception of harm declines among youth, the findings suggest that evidence-based cannabis prevention strategies for adolescents are warranted.
This study was supported by CAMH, the University of Toronto, and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.