User login
Lifestyle medicine eases anxiety symptoms
Despite the availability of effective treatment strategies, including pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, and combination therapy, the prevalence of anxiety continues to increase, especially in low-income and conflict-ridden countries, Vincent Wing-Hei Wong, a PhD student at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, and colleagues wrote.
Previous studies have shown that lifestyle factors including diet, sleep, and sedentary behavior are involved in the development of anxiety symptoms, but the impact of lifestyle medicine (LM) as a treatment for anxiety has not been well studied, they wrote.
In a meta-analysis published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers identified 53 randomized, controlled trials with a total of 18,894 participants. Anxiety symptoms were measured using self-report questionnaires including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale, and the General Anxiety Disorder–7. Random-effects models were used to assess the effect of the intervention at immediate post treatment, short-term follow-up (1-3 months post treatment), medium follow-up (4-6 months), and long-term follow-up (7 months or more).
The studies included various combinations of LM intervention involving exercise, stress management, and sleep management. The interventions ranged from 1 month to 4 years, with an average duration of 6.3 months.
Overall, patients randomized to multicomponent LM interventions showed significantly improved symptoms compared to controls immediately after treatment and at short-term follow-up (P < .001 for both).
However, no significant differences were noted between the multicomponent LM intervention and control groups at medium-term follow-up, the researchers said. Only one study included data on long-term effects, so these effects were not evaluated in a meta-analysis, and more research is needed.
In a subgroup analysis, the effect was greatest for individuals with moderate anxiety symptoms at baseline (P < .05). “Our results could perhaps be explained by the occurrence of floor effect; those with higher baseline anxiety symptoms have greater room for improvement relative to those with fewer symptoms,” the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the risk of overall bias and publication bias for the selected studies, as well as the limited degree of improvement because most patients had minimal anxiety symptoms at baseline, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the small number of studies for subgroup comparisons and the use of self-reports.
However, the results were strengthened by the use of broad search terms to capture multiple lifestyle determinants, and the diverse study populations and backgrounds from individuals in 19 countries.
The results support findings from previous studies, and support the value of multicomponent LM interventions for patients with anxiety in the short-term and immediately after treatment, the researchers emphasized.
“The LM approach, which leverages a range of universal lifestyle measures to manage anxiety and other common mental disorders such as depression, may be a viable solution to address the huge mental health burden through empowering individuals to practice self-management,” they concluded.
However, the researchers acknowledged the need for more randomized, controlled trials targeting patients with higher baseline anxiety levels or anxiety disorders, and using technology to improve treatment adherence.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Despite the availability of effective treatment strategies, including pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, and combination therapy, the prevalence of anxiety continues to increase, especially in low-income and conflict-ridden countries, Vincent Wing-Hei Wong, a PhD student at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, and colleagues wrote.
Previous studies have shown that lifestyle factors including diet, sleep, and sedentary behavior are involved in the development of anxiety symptoms, but the impact of lifestyle medicine (LM) as a treatment for anxiety has not been well studied, they wrote.
In a meta-analysis published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers identified 53 randomized, controlled trials with a total of 18,894 participants. Anxiety symptoms were measured using self-report questionnaires including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale, and the General Anxiety Disorder–7. Random-effects models were used to assess the effect of the intervention at immediate post treatment, short-term follow-up (1-3 months post treatment), medium follow-up (4-6 months), and long-term follow-up (7 months or more).
The studies included various combinations of LM intervention involving exercise, stress management, and sleep management. The interventions ranged from 1 month to 4 years, with an average duration of 6.3 months.
Overall, patients randomized to multicomponent LM interventions showed significantly improved symptoms compared to controls immediately after treatment and at short-term follow-up (P < .001 for both).
However, no significant differences were noted between the multicomponent LM intervention and control groups at medium-term follow-up, the researchers said. Only one study included data on long-term effects, so these effects were not evaluated in a meta-analysis, and more research is needed.
In a subgroup analysis, the effect was greatest for individuals with moderate anxiety symptoms at baseline (P < .05). “Our results could perhaps be explained by the occurrence of floor effect; those with higher baseline anxiety symptoms have greater room for improvement relative to those with fewer symptoms,” the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the risk of overall bias and publication bias for the selected studies, as well as the limited degree of improvement because most patients had minimal anxiety symptoms at baseline, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the small number of studies for subgroup comparisons and the use of self-reports.
However, the results were strengthened by the use of broad search terms to capture multiple lifestyle determinants, and the diverse study populations and backgrounds from individuals in 19 countries.
The results support findings from previous studies, and support the value of multicomponent LM interventions for patients with anxiety in the short-term and immediately after treatment, the researchers emphasized.
“The LM approach, which leverages a range of universal lifestyle measures to manage anxiety and other common mental disorders such as depression, may be a viable solution to address the huge mental health burden through empowering individuals to practice self-management,” they concluded.
However, the researchers acknowledged the need for more randomized, controlled trials targeting patients with higher baseline anxiety levels or anxiety disorders, and using technology to improve treatment adherence.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Despite the availability of effective treatment strategies, including pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, and combination therapy, the prevalence of anxiety continues to increase, especially in low-income and conflict-ridden countries, Vincent Wing-Hei Wong, a PhD student at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, and colleagues wrote.
Previous studies have shown that lifestyle factors including diet, sleep, and sedentary behavior are involved in the development of anxiety symptoms, but the impact of lifestyle medicine (LM) as a treatment for anxiety has not been well studied, they wrote.
In a meta-analysis published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers identified 53 randomized, controlled trials with a total of 18,894 participants. Anxiety symptoms were measured using self-report questionnaires including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale, and the General Anxiety Disorder–7. Random-effects models were used to assess the effect of the intervention at immediate post treatment, short-term follow-up (1-3 months post treatment), medium follow-up (4-6 months), and long-term follow-up (7 months or more).
The studies included various combinations of LM intervention involving exercise, stress management, and sleep management. The interventions ranged from 1 month to 4 years, with an average duration of 6.3 months.
Overall, patients randomized to multicomponent LM interventions showed significantly improved symptoms compared to controls immediately after treatment and at short-term follow-up (P < .001 for both).
However, no significant differences were noted between the multicomponent LM intervention and control groups at medium-term follow-up, the researchers said. Only one study included data on long-term effects, so these effects were not evaluated in a meta-analysis, and more research is needed.
In a subgroup analysis, the effect was greatest for individuals with moderate anxiety symptoms at baseline (P < .05). “Our results could perhaps be explained by the occurrence of floor effect; those with higher baseline anxiety symptoms have greater room for improvement relative to those with fewer symptoms,” the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the risk of overall bias and publication bias for the selected studies, as well as the limited degree of improvement because most patients had minimal anxiety symptoms at baseline, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the small number of studies for subgroup comparisons and the use of self-reports.
However, the results were strengthened by the use of broad search terms to capture multiple lifestyle determinants, and the diverse study populations and backgrounds from individuals in 19 countries.
The results support findings from previous studies, and support the value of multicomponent LM interventions for patients with anxiety in the short-term and immediately after treatment, the researchers emphasized.
“The LM approach, which leverages a range of universal lifestyle measures to manage anxiety and other common mental disorders such as depression, may be a viable solution to address the huge mental health burden through empowering individuals to practice self-management,” they concluded.
However, the researchers acknowledged the need for more randomized, controlled trials targeting patients with higher baseline anxiety levels or anxiety disorders, and using technology to improve treatment adherence.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
Longer circadian rhythms linked to severe depression in teens
, according to results from a European study.
A range of psychiatric symptoms and conditions has been linked to sleep pathologies, wrote Liisa Kuula, PhD, of the University of Helsinki, Finland, and colleagues. Some research suggests that late circadian rhythms and irregular sleep patterns increase the risk for psychiatric conditions, but the association has not been well studied, especially in adolescents, although the onset of psychiatric problems often occurs at this age, they said.
In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research (2022 Apr 4. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.03.056.), the investigators reviewed data from 342 adolescents who were part of SleepHelsinki! a large cohort study of delayed sleep phase disorder (DSPD) in adolescents. The mean age of the participants was 17.4 years, and 70% were female.
The participants completed the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) and wore temperature loggers for 3 days to assess circadian rhythms. The primary outcome was the impact of circadian dynamics on different psychiatric problems. Delayed Sleep Phase (DSP) behavior was defined as going to sleep later than 1 a.m. at least three times a week.
Circadian length was determined through the temperature loggers worn for 3 days. Most participants also completed 1-week GeneActiv Original actigraphy measurements (wearing the actigraph for 1 week) and responded to the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire, which divided participants into three circadian preference groups: morning, intermediate, and evening. Sleep duration was calculated as total sleep time, sleep quality was estimated by sleep efficiency, and sleep timing was assessed by the midpoint of the sleep period.
Overall, the MINI interview results suggested that approximately one-third (36%) of the teens had at least one psychiatric problem, and 21% had comorbid conditions.
Severe depression was significantly associated with a longer circadian period (P = .002), while suicidality was significantly associated with a later midpoint and more irregular sleep (P = .007 for both).
Participants with agoraphobia slept longer than did those without, the researchers noted (P = .013). However, sleep duration was not significantly associated with other psychiatric conditions.
Manic episodes and psychotic disorders were associated with irregular sleep timing (P < .018 and P < .017, respectively).
When the researchers examined DSP and circadian preferences, they found that 21.5% of individuals with suicidality had characteristics of DSP, as did 21.5% of those with panic disorder.
Individuals with a preference for eveningness were significantly more likely to meet criteria for severe depression, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder than were those without a preference for eveningness, the researchers noted.
“Our findings are the first to encompass diverse circadian measures alongside an array of psychiatric symptoms in such a focused age range,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The data reflect results from other studies and extend the likely role of circadian patterns in mental wellbeing, they said.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of actual diagnoses from medical records and use of self-reported symptoms, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of polysomnography data and small size of subgroups of the study sample.
However, the results were strengthened by the heterogenous study population and use of multiple measures to examine sleep and circadian rhythms, as well as consideration of personal circadian preferences, the researchers said.
“The importance of overall synchronization with environment is perhaps best highlighted by response to treatment: most psychopathologic symptoms benefit from sleep-targeted therapeutic approaches,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
, according to results from a European study.
A range of psychiatric symptoms and conditions has been linked to sleep pathologies, wrote Liisa Kuula, PhD, of the University of Helsinki, Finland, and colleagues. Some research suggests that late circadian rhythms and irregular sleep patterns increase the risk for psychiatric conditions, but the association has not been well studied, especially in adolescents, although the onset of psychiatric problems often occurs at this age, they said.
In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research (2022 Apr 4. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.03.056.), the investigators reviewed data from 342 adolescents who were part of SleepHelsinki! a large cohort study of delayed sleep phase disorder (DSPD) in adolescents. The mean age of the participants was 17.4 years, and 70% were female.
The participants completed the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) and wore temperature loggers for 3 days to assess circadian rhythms. The primary outcome was the impact of circadian dynamics on different psychiatric problems. Delayed Sleep Phase (DSP) behavior was defined as going to sleep later than 1 a.m. at least three times a week.
Circadian length was determined through the temperature loggers worn for 3 days. Most participants also completed 1-week GeneActiv Original actigraphy measurements (wearing the actigraph for 1 week) and responded to the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire, which divided participants into three circadian preference groups: morning, intermediate, and evening. Sleep duration was calculated as total sleep time, sleep quality was estimated by sleep efficiency, and sleep timing was assessed by the midpoint of the sleep period.
Overall, the MINI interview results suggested that approximately one-third (36%) of the teens had at least one psychiatric problem, and 21% had comorbid conditions.
Severe depression was significantly associated with a longer circadian period (P = .002), while suicidality was significantly associated with a later midpoint and more irregular sleep (P = .007 for both).
Participants with agoraphobia slept longer than did those without, the researchers noted (P = .013). However, sleep duration was not significantly associated with other psychiatric conditions.
Manic episodes and psychotic disorders were associated with irregular sleep timing (P < .018 and P < .017, respectively).
When the researchers examined DSP and circadian preferences, they found that 21.5% of individuals with suicidality had characteristics of DSP, as did 21.5% of those with panic disorder.
Individuals with a preference for eveningness were significantly more likely to meet criteria for severe depression, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder than were those without a preference for eveningness, the researchers noted.
“Our findings are the first to encompass diverse circadian measures alongside an array of psychiatric symptoms in such a focused age range,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The data reflect results from other studies and extend the likely role of circadian patterns in mental wellbeing, they said.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of actual diagnoses from medical records and use of self-reported symptoms, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of polysomnography data and small size of subgroups of the study sample.
However, the results were strengthened by the heterogenous study population and use of multiple measures to examine sleep and circadian rhythms, as well as consideration of personal circadian preferences, the researchers said.
“The importance of overall synchronization with environment is perhaps best highlighted by response to treatment: most psychopathologic symptoms benefit from sleep-targeted therapeutic approaches,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
, according to results from a European study.
A range of psychiatric symptoms and conditions has been linked to sleep pathologies, wrote Liisa Kuula, PhD, of the University of Helsinki, Finland, and colleagues. Some research suggests that late circadian rhythms and irregular sleep patterns increase the risk for psychiatric conditions, but the association has not been well studied, especially in adolescents, although the onset of psychiatric problems often occurs at this age, they said.
In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research (2022 Apr 4. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.03.056.), the investigators reviewed data from 342 adolescents who were part of SleepHelsinki! a large cohort study of delayed sleep phase disorder (DSPD) in adolescents. The mean age of the participants was 17.4 years, and 70% were female.
The participants completed the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) and wore temperature loggers for 3 days to assess circadian rhythms. The primary outcome was the impact of circadian dynamics on different psychiatric problems. Delayed Sleep Phase (DSP) behavior was defined as going to sleep later than 1 a.m. at least three times a week.
Circadian length was determined through the temperature loggers worn for 3 days. Most participants also completed 1-week GeneActiv Original actigraphy measurements (wearing the actigraph for 1 week) and responded to the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire, which divided participants into three circadian preference groups: morning, intermediate, and evening. Sleep duration was calculated as total sleep time, sleep quality was estimated by sleep efficiency, and sleep timing was assessed by the midpoint of the sleep period.
Overall, the MINI interview results suggested that approximately one-third (36%) of the teens had at least one psychiatric problem, and 21% had comorbid conditions.
Severe depression was significantly associated with a longer circadian period (P = .002), while suicidality was significantly associated with a later midpoint and more irregular sleep (P = .007 for both).
Participants with agoraphobia slept longer than did those without, the researchers noted (P = .013). However, sleep duration was not significantly associated with other psychiatric conditions.
Manic episodes and psychotic disorders were associated with irregular sleep timing (P < .018 and P < .017, respectively).
When the researchers examined DSP and circadian preferences, they found that 21.5% of individuals with suicidality had characteristics of DSP, as did 21.5% of those with panic disorder.
Individuals with a preference for eveningness were significantly more likely to meet criteria for severe depression, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder than were those without a preference for eveningness, the researchers noted.
“Our findings are the first to encompass diverse circadian measures alongside an array of psychiatric symptoms in such a focused age range,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The data reflect results from other studies and extend the likely role of circadian patterns in mental wellbeing, they said.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of actual diagnoses from medical records and use of self-reported symptoms, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of polysomnography data and small size of subgroups of the study sample.
However, the results were strengthened by the heterogenous study population and use of multiple measures to examine sleep and circadian rhythms, as well as consideration of personal circadian preferences, the researchers said.
“The importance of overall synchronization with environment is perhaps best highlighted by response to treatment: most psychopathologic symptoms benefit from sleep-targeted therapeutic approaches,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH
A unique care model for comorbid depression, PTSD
“We know there are strains on the mental health care system, and sometimes something as simple as getting to see a psychiatrist can be incredibly challenging,” coinvestigator Zachary Zuschlag, MD, staff psychiatrist at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital and assistant professor at the University of South Florida, both in Tampa, said in an interview.
“So, a model that encourages primary care doctors, together with consultation from us [psychiatrists] to effectively treat these patients in a more proactive way, is very beneficial,” Dr. Zuschlag said.
The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology annual meeting.
Common bedfellows
Dr. Zuschlag noted that comorbid PTSD and depression is common, but it is often considered too complex to be managed in a primary care setting.
Although treating these patients can be challenging, Dr. Zuschlag, who also heads his Veterans Administration facility’s antidepressant monitoring program (ADM), said that when he started the program for this patient population, he used “a much more inclusive model and welcomed these patients even if they had co-occurring issues.”
“Anecdotally, we had seen that our patients with [depression and] co-occurring PTSD appeared to be doing as well as their peers without PTSD, and we just wanted to look at it more systematically,” he added.
The ADM program is specifically designed for psychopharmacologic management of depression and anxiety in the primary care setting. It involves an interdisciplinary team of RN care managers, consulting psychiatrists, psychologists, and primary care physicians. Patients in primary care clinics deemed likely to benefit from psychiatric medications can be enrolled and followed in the program.
The program consists of structured, protocol-based telephone contacts from the RN care managers at scheduled intervals, usually every 3-4 weeks, said Dr. Zuschlag.
During calls, information is collected via evidence-based mental health symptomatic assessment scales. The consulting psychiatrists use this and other information to help guide treatment and coordinate with patients’ primary care physicians to adjust the treatment plan, including medication changes and additional psychotherapy.
To determine the program’s efficacy the investigators retrospectively reviewed all patients enrolled in the ADM program during its first 10 months. Of the 433 program participants, 112 (26%) were identified with active PTSD symptoms at baseline. Another 43 patients had a prior diagnosis of PTSD.
Program completion rates for the cohort with PTSD did not differ from that of the cohort without PTSD.
Overall, mean improvements in depression and anxiety symptoms were evidenced by changes in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 (GAD-7) scores of 44% and 43%, respectively.
No differences in mean reduction in symptoms of depression were observed when comparing those with no history of PTSD with those with any history of PTSD (–6.16 vs. –5.42; P = .3244) or with those with active PTSD symptoms (–6.16 vs. –5.54; P = .4543).
Similarly, for anxiety, a mean reduction of –5.61 on the GAD-7 score was observed for the cohort without PTSD, compared with –4.99 in the cohort with any history of PTSD and –5.35 in the cohort with active PTSD symptoms. Again, these differences were nonsignificant.
Dr. Zuschlag noted that the VA setting is unique, with a lot of resources available to conduct such a program as ADM.
“Care management programs that are multidisciplinary are very effective and, in our experience, those who have completed the program do exceptionally well. The patients love it because there is a lot of contact between them and their various care providers,” he said.
A model for other settings?
Commenting on the study, Nagy A. Youssef, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of clinical research at Ohio State University, Columbus, called the results “interesting.”
“Treating patients with comorbid mild to moderate depression and current or past PTSD within the primary care setting using a care management program could be a model for other VA hospitals as well as in non-VA settings,” said Dr. Youssef, who was not part of the study.
Dr. Youssef noted that not only was there no difference in symptomatic improvement between the depression-plus-PTSD and depression-only groups, but program completion rates did not differ.
This further emphasizes “the potential utility of this approach in initial patient treatment, especially with limited mental health resources and the need to help more patients,” he said.
Dr. Zuschlag and Dr. Youssef report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“We know there are strains on the mental health care system, and sometimes something as simple as getting to see a psychiatrist can be incredibly challenging,” coinvestigator Zachary Zuschlag, MD, staff psychiatrist at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital and assistant professor at the University of South Florida, both in Tampa, said in an interview.
“So, a model that encourages primary care doctors, together with consultation from us [psychiatrists] to effectively treat these patients in a more proactive way, is very beneficial,” Dr. Zuschlag said.
The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology annual meeting.
Common bedfellows
Dr. Zuschlag noted that comorbid PTSD and depression is common, but it is often considered too complex to be managed in a primary care setting.
Although treating these patients can be challenging, Dr. Zuschlag, who also heads his Veterans Administration facility’s antidepressant monitoring program (ADM), said that when he started the program for this patient population, he used “a much more inclusive model and welcomed these patients even if they had co-occurring issues.”
“Anecdotally, we had seen that our patients with [depression and] co-occurring PTSD appeared to be doing as well as their peers without PTSD, and we just wanted to look at it more systematically,” he added.
The ADM program is specifically designed for psychopharmacologic management of depression and anxiety in the primary care setting. It involves an interdisciplinary team of RN care managers, consulting psychiatrists, psychologists, and primary care physicians. Patients in primary care clinics deemed likely to benefit from psychiatric medications can be enrolled and followed in the program.
The program consists of structured, protocol-based telephone contacts from the RN care managers at scheduled intervals, usually every 3-4 weeks, said Dr. Zuschlag.
During calls, information is collected via evidence-based mental health symptomatic assessment scales. The consulting psychiatrists use this and other information to help guide treatment and coordinate with patients’ primary care physicians to adjust the treatment plan, including medication changes and additional psychotherapy.
To determine the program’s efficacy the investigators retrospectively reviewed all patients enrolled in the ADM program during its first 10 months. Of the 433 program participants, 112 (26%) were identified with active PTSD symptoms at baseline. Another 43 patients had a prior diagnosis of PTSD.
Program completion rates for the cohort with PTSD did not differ from that of the cohort without PTSD.
Overall, mean improvements in depression and anxiety symptoms were evidenced by changes in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 (GAD-7) scores of 44% and 43%, respectively.
No differences in mean reduction in symptoms of depression were observed when comparing those with no history of PTSD with those with any history of PTSD (–6.16 vs. –5.42; P = .3244) or with those with active PTSD symptoms (–6.16 vs. –5.54; P = .4543).
Similarly, for anxiety, a mean reduction of –5.61 on the GAD-7 score was observed for the cohort without PTSD, compared with –4.99 in the cohort with any history of PTSD and –5.35 in the cohort with active PTSD symptoms. Again, these differences were nonsignificant.
Dr. Zuschlag noted that the VA setting is unique, with a lot of resources available to conduct such a program as ADM.
“Care management programs that are multidisciplinary are very effective and, in our experience, those who have completed the program do exceptionally well. The patients love it because there is a lot of contact between them and their various care providers,” he said.
A model for other settings?
Commenting on the study, Nagy A. Youssef, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of clinical research at Ohio State University, Columbus, called the results “interesting.”
“Treating patients with comorbid mild to moderate depression and current or past PTSD within the primary care setting using a care management program could be a model for other VA hospitals as well as in non-VA settings,” said Dr. Youssef, who was not part of the study.
Dr. Youssef noted that not only was there no difference in symptomatic improvement between the depression-plus-PTSD and depression-only groups, but program completion rates did not differ.
This further emphasizes “the potential utility of this approach in initial patient treatment, especially with limited mental health resources and the need to help more patients,” he said.
Dr. Zuschlag and Dr. Youssef report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“We know there are strains on the mental health care system, and sometimes something as simple as getting to see a psychiatrist can be incredibly challenging,” coinvestigator Zachary Zuschlag, MD, staff psychiatrist at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital and assistant professor at the University of South Florida, both in Tampa, said in an interview.
“So, a model that encourages primary care doctors, together with consultation from us [psychiatrists] to effectively treat these patients in a more proactive way, is very beneficial,” Dr. Zuschlag said.
The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology annual meeting.
Common bedfellows
Dr. Zuschlag noted that comorbid PTSD and depression is common, but it is often considered too complex to be managed in a primary care setting.
Although treating these patients can be challenging, Dr. Zuschlag, who also heads his Veterans Administration facility’s antidepressant monitoring program (ADM), said that when he started the program for this patient population, he used “a much more inclusive model and welcomed these patients even if they had co-occurring issues.”
“Anecdotally, we had seen that our patients with [depression and] co-occurring PTSD appeared to be doing as well as their peers without PTSD, and we just wanted to look at it more systematically,” he added.
The ADM program is specifically designed for psychopharmacologic management of depression and anxiety in the primary care setting. It involves an interdisciplinary team of RN care managers, consulting psychiatrists, psychologists, and primary care physicians. Patients in primary care clinics deemed likely to benefit from psychiatric medications can be enrolled and followed in the program.
The program consists of structured, protocol-based telephone contacts from the RN care managers at scheduled intervals, usually every 3-4 weeks, said Dr. Zuschlag.
During calls, information is collected via evidence-based mental health symptomatic assessment scales. The consulting psychiatrists use this and other information to help guide treatment and coordinate with patients’ primary care physicians to adjust the treatment plan, including medication changes and additional psychotherapy.
To determine the program’s efficacy the investigators retrospectively reviewed all patients enrolled in the ADM program during its first 10 months. Of the 433 program participants, 112 (26%) were identified with active PTSD symptoms at baseline. Another 43 patients had a prior diagnosis of PTSD.
Program completion rates for the cohort with PTSD did not differ from that of the cohort without PTSD.
Overall, mean improvements in depression and anxiety symptoms were evidenced by changes in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 (GAD-7) scores of 44% and 43%, respectively.
No differences in mean reduction in symptoms of depression were observed when comparing those with no history of PTSD with those with any history of PTSD (–6.16 vs. –5.42; P = .3244) or with those with active PTSD symptoms (–6.16 vs. –5.54; P = .4543).
Similarly, for anxiety, a mean reduction of –5.61 on the GAD-7 score was observed for the cohort without PTSD, compared with –4.99 in the cohort with any history of PTSD and –5.35 in the cohort with active PTSD symptoms. Again, these differences were nonsignificant.
Dr. Zuschlag noted that the VA setting is unique, with a lot of resources available to conduct such a program as ADM.
“Care management programs that are multidisciplinary are very effective and, in our experience, those who have completed the program do exceptionally well. The patients love it because there is a lot of contact between them and their various care providers,” he said.
A model for other settings?
Commenting on the study, Nagy A. Youssef, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of clinical research at Ohio State University, Columbus, called the results “interesting.”
“Treating patients with comorbid mild to moderate depression and current or past PTSD within the primary care setting using a care management program could be a model for other VA hospitals as well as in non-VA settings,” said Dr. Youssef, who was not part of the study.
Dr. Youssef noted that not only was there no difference in symptomatic improvement between the depression-plus-PTSD and depression-only groups, but program completion rates did not differ.
This further emphasizes “the potential utility of this approach in initial patient treatment, especially with limited mental health resources and the need to help more patients,” he said.
Dr. Zuschlag and Dr. Youssef report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCP 2022
When suffering defies diagnosis
I still remember the woman who came to my office that day, years ago. She was struggling and uncomfortable, and she wanted “something” for stress. She described her life, and to me, it sounded stressful. She lived in a blended family and she described the chaos that one might expect to find in a household with four teens, their friends, their activities, and all it took to keep the household going. I spent 2 hours evaluating the patient, and I could not find a diagnosis that fit this problem nor – I believed – a pill that would fix it. She didn’t “meet criteria” for a psychiatric disorder, but she insisted she was uncomfortable and she wanted to try medication. I admit, I relented and I gave her a prescription for fluoxetine.
When she returned a few weeks later, my patient said she felt better, and what I remember decades later was her statement: “Now I can see dishes in the sink and be okay with it.” Perhaps she had downplayed her anxiety during our first meeting, but what I took from this was that some people are uncomfortable in ways that our lexicon does not capture, and sometimes medication helps with this discomfort.
The APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders attempts to capture the problems of emotional and behavioral distress and classify them into discrete syndromes that can be validated and reliably diagnosed by different evaluators. Our disorders are syndromic; they are defined by clusters of symptoms that occur together, and not by a single symptom, lab value, or radiologic finding. The DSM is rewritten periodically so that what is or is not a disorder can bend with new discoveries and with a changing culture. And for better or for worse, when there is an available medication that can alleviate a problem, this may influence what once was a variant of normal into becoming a disorder.
Our illnesses often lie along a spectrum, so there is no precise point where someone who is easily distracted is a person with attention deficit disorder as opposed to being a mentally healthy person who is easily distracted, or a shy person is someone with social anxiety disorder. whether they want to address this with medications, and whether their distress warrants taking a chance that they might have side effects or an adverse reaction to a medication.
When we look at our criteria, sometimes we fall short. One needs to have at least five symptoms out of nine options, to be present for 2 weeks to be diagnosed with major depression, yet I don’t know a single psychiatrist who would not offer medication to a patient who ascribed to feeling profoundly sad with thoughts of suicide in the absence of other symptoms of depression. These issues have come to the forefront with the recent inclusion of prolonged grief in the DSM, as a disorder that is distinct from both normal grieving and from major depression.
In recent weeks, mass murder has been on everyone’s mind as we mourn those lost in Uvalde, Buffalo, and unfortunately, in so many other places. Absolutely no one thinks that someone who shoots strangers is “normal” or emotionally well. Yet psychiatry is often tasked with figuring out if someone is mad (mentally ill), bad (evil), or both. We don’t have a clear path for how to treat and manage people who commit horrendous acts of violence unless they meet criteria for another illness. Yet no one would argue that a person who informs others that he is thinking of killing strangers is in need of some type of intervention, regardless of his motive. We struggle too, with how to manage people who have more regular angry outbursts or emotional dysregulation. Perhaps we diagnose intermittent explosive disorder, or irritability caused by a mood disorder, but we don’t always know how to help people to control their tempers and modulate their emotions. And our semantics to describe psychic pain and anguish are surprisingly limited – sometimes we can only assume that someone who lashes out must be in turmoil.
Psychiatry continues to struggle with our relationship with human suffering. Suffering is part of life, not necessarily a sign of illness, and in his iconic memoir, “Man’s Search for Meaning,” psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, MD, wrote of the atrocities he endured in a Nazi concentration camp. It was through his suffering that Dr. Frankl found meaning and he used these harrowing experiences to fuel positive emotions later in life. Dr. Frankl wrote: “If there is a meaning in life at all, then there must be a meaning in suffering. Suffering is an ineradicable part of life, even as fate and death. Without suffering and death, human life cannot be complete.”
Suffering may be the kindling for acts of violence, or for profound creativity. Would we have music, art, cinema, poetry, or fiction if no one ever suffered? Yet suffering and emotional torment are often what leads people to seek treatment, and what leads us, as healers, to offer any range of therapies. For years, suicide rates have been rising, as have overdose death. And now, in addition to these “deaths of despair,” we are hearing about skyrocketing rates of depression and anxiety in our world that is so full of reasons to be sad and anxious. Access to treatment is limited by so many things, and it is not always clear when one needs psychiatric interventions or when problems will heal on their own, leaving scars or not.
I wrote this article in response to the hundreds of comments that were placed on an article I wrote after the horrors at Uvalde and Buffalo: “Don’t Equate Mass Shootings with Mental Illness.” Many of the commenters suggested I believe the shooter was perfectly sane, and that I am naive (or worse). Many wrote in with their own thoughts about what causes people to become mass murderers. One commenter wrote: “To suggest that random killers do not have mental health issues and their behavior is normal is ridiculous.” I don’t believe that I ever suggested that such behavior was normal, but – for many of these crimes – we as a society have decided to treat the behavior as criminal and not as the product of our current concept of mental disorders. Obviously, people who are well, who are emotionally at peace and comfortable in their own skin, don’t kill strangers.
Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.
I still remember the woman who came to my office that day, years ago. She was struggling and uncomfortable, and she wanted “something” for stress. She described her life, and to me, it sounded stressful. She lived in a blended family and she described the chaos that one might expect to find in a household with four teens, their friends, their activities, and all it took to keep the household going. I spent 2 hours evaluating the patient, and I could not find a diagnosis that fit this problem nor – I believed – a pill that would fix it. She didn’t “meet criteria” for a psychiatric disorder, but she insisted she was uncomfortable and she wanted to try medication. I admit, I relented and I gave her a prescription for fluoxetine.
When she returned a few weeks later, my patient said she felt better, and what I remember decades later was her statement: “Now I can see dishes in the sink and be okay with it.” Perhaps she had downplayed her anxiety during our first meeting, but what I took from this was that some people are uncomfortable in ways that our lexicon does not capture, and sometimes medication helps with this discomfort.
The APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders attempts to capture the problems of emotional and behavioral distress and classify them into discrete syndromes that can be validated and reliably diagnosed by different evaluators. Our disorders are syndromic; they are defined by clusters of symptoms that occur together, and not by a single symptom, lab value, or radiologic finding. The DSM is rewritten periodically so that what is or is not a disorder can bend with new discoveries and with a changing culture. And for better or for worse, when there is an available medication that can alleviate a problem, this may influence what once was a variant of normal into becoming a disorder.
Our illnesses often lie along a spectrum, so there is no precise point where someone who is easily distracted is a person with attention deficit disorder as opposed to being a mentally healthy person who is easily distracted, or a shy person is someone with social anxiety disorder. whether they want to address this with medications, and whether their distress warrants taking a chance that they might have side effects or an adverse reaction to a medication.
When we look at our criteria, sometimes we fall short. One needs to have at least five symptoms out of nine options, to be present for 2 weeks to be diagnosed with major depression, yet I don’t know a single psychiatrist who would not offer medication to a patient who ascribed to feeling profoundly sad with thoughts of suicide in the absence of other symptoms of depression. These issues have come to the forefront with the recent inclusion of prolonged grief in the DSM, as a disorder that is distinct from both normal grieving and from major depression.
In recent weeks, mass murder has been on everyone’s mind as we mourn those lost in Uvalde, Buffalo, and unfortunately, in so many other places. Absolutely no one thinks that someone who shoots strangers is “normal” or emotionally well. Yet psychiatry is often tasked with figuring out if someone is mad (mentally ill), bad (evil), or both. We don’t have a clear path for how to treat and manage people who commit horrendous acts of violence unless they meet criteria for another illness. Yet no one would argue that a person who informs others that he is thinking of killing strangers is in need of some type of intervention, regardless of his motive. We struggle too, with how to manage people who have more regular angry outbursts or emotional dysregulation. Perhaps we diagnose intermittent explosive disorder, or irritability caused by a mood disorder, but we don’t always know how to help people to control their tempers and modulate their emotions. And our semantics to describe psychic pain and anguish are surprisingly limited – sometimes we can only assume that someone who lashes out must be in turmoil.
Psychiatry continues to struggle with our relationship with human suffering. Suffering is part of life, not necessarily a sign of illness, and in his iconic memoir, “Man’s Search for Meaning,” psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, MD, wrote of the atrocities he endured in a Nazi concentration camp. It was through his suffering that Dr. Frankl found meaning and he used these harrowing experiences to fuel positive emotions later in life. Dr. Frankl wrote: “If there is a meaning in life at all, then there must be a meaning in suffering. Suffering is an ineradicable part of life, even as fate and death. Without suffering and death, human life cannot be complete.”
Suffering may be the kindling for acts of violence, or for profound creativity. Would we have music, art, cinema, poetry, or fiction if no one ever suffered? Yet suffering and emotional torment are often what leads people to seek treatment, and what leads us, as healers, to offer any range of therapies. For years, suicide rates have been rising, as have overdose death. And now, in addition to these “deaths of despair,” we are hearing about skyrocketing rates of depression and anxiety in our world that is so full of reasons to be sad and anxious. Access to treatment is limited by so many things, and it is not always clear when one needs psychiatric interventions or when problems will heal on their own, leaving scars or not.
I wrote this article in response to the hundreds of comments that were placed on an article I wrote after the horrors at Uvalde and Buffalo: “Don’t Equate Mass Shootings with Mental Illness.” Many of the commenters suggested I believe the shooter was perfectly sane, and that I am naive (or worse). Many wrote in with their own thoughts about what causes people to become mass murderers. One commenter wrote: “To suggest that random killers do not have mental health issues and their behavior is normal is ridiculous.” I don’t believe that I ever suggested that such behavior was normal, but – for many of these crimes – we as a society have decided to treat the behavior as criminal and not as the product of our current concept of mental disorders. Obviously, people who are well, who are emotionally at peace and comfortable in their own skin, don’t kill strangers.
Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.
I still remember the woman who came to my office that day, years ago. She was struggling and uncomfortable, and she wanted “something” for stress. She described her life, and to me, it sounded stressful. She lived in a blended family and she described the chaos that one might expect to find in a household with four teens, their friends, their activities, and all it took to keep the household going. I spent 2 hours evaluating the patient, and I could not find a diagnosis that fit this problem nor – I believed – a pill that would fix it. She didn’t “meet criteria” for a psychiatric disorder, but she insisted she was uncomfortable and she wanted to try medication. I admit, I relented and I gave her a prescription for fluoxetine.
When she returned a few weeks later, my patient said she felt better, and what I remember decades later was her statement: “Now I can see dishes in the sink and be okay with it.” Perhaps she had downplayed her anxiety during our first meeting, but what I took from this was that some people are uncomfortable in ways that our lexicon does not capture, and sometimes medication helps with this discomfort.
The APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders attempts to capture the problems of emotional and behavioral distress and classify them into discrete syndromes that can be validated and reliably diagnosed by different evaluators. Our disorders are syndromic; they are defined by clusters of symptoms that occur together, and not by a single symptom, lab value, or radiologic finding. The DSM is rewritten periodically so that what is or is not a disorder can bend with new discoveries and with a changing culture. And for better or for worse, when there is an available medication that can alleviate a problem, this may influence what once was a variant of normal into becoming a disorder.
Our illnesses often lie along a spectrum, so there is no precise point where someone who is easily distracted is a person with attention deficit disorder as opposed to being a mentally healthy person who is easily distracted, or a shy person is someone with social anxiety disorder. whether they want to address this with medications, and whether their distress warrants taking a chance that they might have side effects or an adverse reaction to a medication.
When we look at our criteria, sometimes we fall short. One needs to have at least five symptoms out of nine options, to be present for 2 weeks to be diagnosed with major depression, yet I don’t know a single psychiatrist who would not offer medication to a patient who ascribed to feeling profoundly sad with thoughts of suicide in the absence of other symptoms of depression. These issues have come to the forefront with the recent inclusion of prolonged grief in the DSM, as a disorder that is distinct from both normal grieving and from major depression.
In recent weeks, mass murder has been on everyone’s mind as we mourn those lost in Uvalde, Buffalo, and unfortunately, in so many other places. Absolutely no one thinks that someone who shoots strangers is “normal” or emotionally well. Yet psychiatry is often tasked with figuring out if someone is mad (mentally ill), bad (evil), or both. We don’t have a clear path for how to treat and manage people who commit horrendous acts of violence unless they meet criteria for another illness. Yet no one would argue that a person who informs others that he is thinking of killing strangers is in need of some type of intervention, regardless of his motive. We struggle too, with how to manage people who have more regular angry outbursts or emotional dysregulation. Perhaps we diagnose intermittent explosive disorder, or irritability caused by a mood disorder, but we don’t always know how to help people to control their tempers and modulate their emotions. And our semantics to describe psychic pain and anguish are surprisingly limited – sometimes we can only assume that someone who lashes out must be in turmoil.
Psychiatry continues to struggle with our relationship with human suffering. Suffering is part of life, not necessarily a sign of illness, and in his iconic memoir, “Man’s Search for Meaning,” psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, MD, wrote of the atrocities he endured in a Nazi concentration camp. It was through his suffering that Dr. Frankl found meaning and he used these harrowing experiences to fuel positive emotions later in life. Dr. Frankl wrote: “If there is a meaning in life at all, then there must be a meaning in suffering. Suffering is an ineradicable part of life, even as fate and death. Without suffering and death, human life cannot be complete.”
Suffering may be the kindling for acts of violence, or for profound creativity. Would we have music, art, cinema, poetry, or fiction if no one ever suffered? Yet suffering and emotional torment are often what leads people to seek treatment, and what leads us, as healers, to offer any range of therapies. For years, suicide rates have been rising, as have overdose death. And now, in addition to these “deaths of despair,” we are hearing about skyrocketing rates of depression and anxiety in our world that is so full of reasons to be sad and anxious. Access to treatment is limited by so many things, and it is not always clear when one needs psychiatric interventions or when problems will heal on their own, leaving scars or not.
I wrote this article in response to the hundreds of comments that were placed on an article I wrote after the horrors at Uvalde and Buffalo: “Don’t Equate Mass Shootings with Mental Illness.” Many of the commenters suggested I believe the shooter was perfectly sane, and that I am naive (or worse). Many wrote in with their own thoughts about what causes people to become mass murderers. One commenter wrote: “To suggest that random killers do not have mental health issues and their behavior is normal is ridiculous.” I don’t believe that I ever suggested that such behavior was normal, but – for many of these crimes – we as a society have decided to treat the behavior as criminal and not as the product of our current concept of mental disorders. Obviously, people who are well, who are emotionally at peace and comfortable in their own skin, don’t kill strangers.
Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.
A prescription for de-diagnosing
In 2016, Gupta and Cahill challenged the field of psychiatry to reexamine prescribing patterns.1 They warned against the use of polypharmacy when not attached to improved patient functioning. They were concerned with the limited evidence for polypharmacy as well as DSM diagnostic criteria. In their inspiring article, they described a process of deprescribing.
In an effort to study and practice their recommendations, we have noticed a lack of literature examining the elimination of diagnostic labels. While there have been some studies looking at comorbidity, especially with substance use disorders,2 there is a paucity of scientific evidence on patients with numerous diagnoses. Yet our practices are filled with patients who have been labeled with multiple conflicting or redundant diagnoses throughout their lives depending on the setting or the orientation of the practitioner.
The DSM-5 warns against diagnosing disorders when “the occurrence … is not better explained by” another disorder.3 A mix of diagnoses creates confusion for patients as well as clinicians trying to sort through their reported psychiatric histories.
A routine example would include a patient presenting for an initial evaluation and stating “I’ve been diagnosed as manic-depressive, high anxiety, split personality, posttraumatic stress, insomnia, ADD, and depression.” A review of the medical record will reveal a list of diagnoses, including bipolar II, generalized anxiety disorder, borderline personality disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, unspecified insomnia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and major depressive disorder. The medication list includes lamotrigine, valproic acid, citalopram, bupropion, buspirone, prazosin, methylphenidate, clonazepam, hydroxyzine, and low-dose quetiapine at night as needed.
This is an example of polypharmacy treating multiple, and at times conflicting, diagnoses. While an extreme case, in our experience, cases like this are not uncommon. It was actually in our efforts to examine deprescribing that we noticed this quandary. When inquiring about patients on many psychotropic medications, we often receive this retort: the patient is only prescribed one medication per disorder. Some providers have the belief that multiple disorders justify multiple medications, and that this tautological thinking legitimizes polypharmacy.
A patient who has varying moods, some fears, a fluctuating temperament, past traumas, occasional difficulty sleeping, intermittent inattention, and some sadness may be given all the diagnoses listed above and the resulting medication list. The multiplication of diagnoses, “polydiagnosing,” is a convenient justification for future polypharmacy. A lack of careful assessment and thinking in the application of new diagnoses permits the use of increasing numbers of pharmacological agents. A constellation of symptoms of anxiety, concentration deficits, affective dysregulation, and psychosis may justify the combination of benzodiazepines, stimulants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics, while a patient with “just” schizophrenia who is sometimes sad, scared, or distracted is more likely to be kept on just one medication, likely an antipsychotic.
Contrary to most medical disorders (for example, tuberculosis) but similar to others (for example, chronic pain), psychiatric disorders are based on the opinion of a “modest number of ‘expert’ classifications.”4 While the broad categories of disorders are justifiable, individual diagnoses are burdened with high rates of comorbidity; lack of treatment specificity; and evidence that distinct syndromes share a genetic basis. Those concerns were exemplified in the study examining the inter-rater reliability of DSM-5 diagnoses, where many disorders were found to have questionable validity.5
A psychiatric diagnosis should be based on biological, psychological, and social factors, which align with our understanding of the natural course of an illness. A patient presenting with transient symptoms of sadness in the context of significant social factors like homelessness and/or significant biological factors associated with schizophrenia should not reflexively receive an additional diagnosis of a depressive disorder. A patient reporting poor concentration in the context of a manic episode should not receive an additional diagnosis of attention-deficit disorder. An older patient with depression on multiple antipsychotics for adjunctive treatment should not necessarily receive a diagnosis of cognitive disorder at the first sign of memory problems.
The cavalier and inconsistent use of diagnoses renders the patients with no clear narrative of who they are. They end up integrating the varying providers’ opinions as a cacophony of labels of unclear significance. Many patients have contradictory diagnoses like major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Those inaccurate diagnoses could not only lead to treatment mistakes, but also psychological harm.6
A clearer diagnostic picture is not only more scientifically sound but also more coherent to the patient. This in turn can lead to an improved treatment alliance and buy-in from the patient.
How should a provider practice de-diagnosing? Based on the work of Reeve, et al.,7 on the principles crucial to deprescribing, and subsequent research by Gupta and Cahill,8 we compiled a list of considerations for practitioners wishing to engage in this type of work with their patients.
Choose the right time. While insurance companies require diagnostic findings from the first visit, abrupt de-diagnosing for the sake of simplifying the record from that first visit could be detrimental. Patients can become attached to and find meaning in their diagnostic labels. This was exemplified with the removal of Asperger’s syndrome from the DSM-5.9 Acute symptomatology may be an opportune time to revisit the core pathology of a patient, or a poor time for a patient to have this discussion.
Compile a list of all the patient’s diagnoses. Our initial visits are often illuminated when patients enumerate the vast number of diagnoses they have been given by different providers. Patients will often list half a dozen diagnoses. The patterns often follow life courses with ADHD, conduct disorder, and learning disability in childhood; with anxiety, depression, and/or bipolar disorder in early adulthood; to complicated grief, depression with pseudodementia, and neurocognitive disorders in older adults. Yet patients rarely appreciate the temporary or episodic nature of mental disorders and instead accumulate diagnoses at each change of provider.
Initiate discussion with the patient. It is meaningful to see if patients resonate with the question, “Do you ever feel like every psychiatrist you have seen has given you a different diagnosis?” In our experience, patients’ reactions to this question usually exemplify the problematic nature of the vast array of diagnoses our patients are given. The majority of them are unable to confidently explain the meaning of those diagnoses, the context in which they were given, or their significance. This simple exercise has a powerful effect on raising awareness to patients of the problematic nature of polydiagnosing.
Introduce de-diagnosing. The engagement of patients in the diagnostic process has a significant effect. Reviewing not only diagnostic criteria but also nosology and debates in our understanding of diagnoses can provide patients with further engagement in their care. A simple review of the debate of the bereavement exclusion may permit a patient to not only understand the complexity, but also the changing nature of diagnoses. Suddenly, they are no longer bystanders, but informed participants in their care.
Identify diagnoses most appropriate for removal. Contradictory diagnoses are common in the clinical settings we work in. We routinely see patients carrying multiple mood diagnoses, despite our diagnostic systems not permitting one to have both unipolar and bipolar depression. Superfluous diagnoses are also frequent, with patients receiving depressive, or anxious labels when in an acute state of psychosis or mania. This is exemplified by patients suffering from thought blocking and receiving cognitive or attention-related diagnoses. Concurrent yet different diagnoses are also common in patients with a different list of diagnoses by their primary care provider, their therapist, and their psychiatrist. This is particularly problematic as it forces the patient to alternate their thinking or choose between their providers.
Create a new narrative for the patient. Once diagnoses are explained, clarified, and understood, patients with the help of their providers can reexamine their life story under a new and simplified construct. This process often leads to a less confusing sense of self, an increased dedication to the treatment process, whether behavioral, social, psychological, or pharmacologic.
Consider deprescribing. With a more straightforward and more grounded list of diagnoses (or simply one diagnosis), we find the process of deprescribing to be simpler and more engaging for patients. For example, patients can clearly understand the lack of necessity of an antipsychotic prescription for a resolved substance-induced psychosis. Patients are more engaged in their care, leading to improved medication compliance and less attachment to discontinued medications.
Monitor and adapt. One should of course reevaluate diagnoses as the course of illness provides us with additional information. However, we suggest waiting for a manic episode to emerge prior to diagnosing bipolar rather than suggesting the diagnosis because a patient was wearing red shoes, spoke multiple languages, had multiple degrees and was creative.10 The contextual basis and progression of the symptoms should lead to continual reassessment of diagnoses.
Physicians are aware of the balance between Occam’s razor, which promotes the simplest single explanation for a problem, versus Hickam’s dictum that reminds us that patients can have as many diseases as they please. However, similarly to polypharmacy, “polydiagnosing” has negative effects. While the field of psychiatry’s advancing knowledge may encourage providers to diagnose their patients with the growing number of diagnoses, patients still need and benefit from a coherent and clear medical narrative. Psychiatry would be wise to recognize this concerning trend, in its attempt at rectifying polypharmacy.
Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lehman is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Gupta S & Cahill JD. A prescription for “deprescribing” in psychiatry. Psychiatr Serv. 2016 Aug 1;67(8):904-7. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201500359.
2. Schuckit MA. Comorbidity between substance use disorders and psychiatric conditions. Addiction. 2006 Sep;101 Suppl 1:76-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01592.x.
3. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Association, 2022. https://psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm.
4. Kendler KS. An historical framework for psychiatric nosology. Psychol Med. 2009 Dec;39(12):1935-41. doi: 10.1017/S0033291709005753.
5. Regier DA et al. DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada. Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;170(1):59-70. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12070999.
6. Bhattacharya R et al. When good news is bad news: psychological impact of false-positive diagnosis of HIV. AIDS Care. 2008 May;20(5):560-4. doi: 10.1080/09540120701867206.
7. Reeve E et al. Review of deprescribing processes and development of an evidence‐based, patient‐centred deprescribing process. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Oct;78(4):738-47. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12386.
8. Gupta S and Cahill JD. A prescription for “deprescribing” in psychiatry.
9. Solomon M. “On the appearance and disappearance of Asperger’s syndrome” in Kendler and Parnas (eds.) Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry IV: Classification of Psychiatric Illness. Oxford University Press, 2017. doi: 10.1093/med/9780198796022.003.0023.
10. Akiskal HS. Searching for behavioral indicators of bipolar II in patients presenting with major depressive episodes: The “red sign,” the “rule of three,” and other biographic signs of temperamental extravagance, activation, and hypomania. J Affect Disord. 2005 Feb;84(2-3):279-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2004.06.002.
In 2016, Gupta and Cahill challenged the field of psychiatry to reexamine prescribing patterns.1 They warned against the use of polypharmacy when not attached to improved patient functioning. They were concerned with the limited evidence for polypharmacy as well as DSM diagnostic criteria. In their inspiring article, they described a process of deprescribing.
In an effort to study and practice their recommendations, we have noticed a lack of literature examining the elimination of diagnostic labels. While there have been some studies looking at comorbidity, especially with substance use disorders,2 there is a paucity of scientific evidence on patients with numerous diagnoses. Yet our practices are filled with patients who have been labeled with multiple conflicting or redundant diagnoses throughout their lives depending on the setting or the orientation of the practitioner.
The DSM-5 warns against diagnosing disorders when “the occurrence … is not better explained by” another disorder.3 A mix of diagnoses creates confusion for patients as well as clinicians trying to sort through their reported psychiatric histories.
A routine example would include a patient presenting for an initial evaluation and stating “I’ve been diagnosed as manic-depressive, high anxiety, split personality, posttraumatic stress, insomnia, ADD, and depression.” A review of the medical record will reveal a list of diagnoses, including bipolar II, generalized anxiety disorder, borderline personality disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, unspecified insomnia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and major depressive disorder. The medication list includes lamotrigine, valproic acid, citalopram, bupropion, buspirone, prazosin, methylphenidate, clonazepam, hydroxyzine, and low-dose quetiapine at night as needed.
This is an example of polypharmacy treating multiple, and at times conflicting, diagnoses. While an extreme case, in our experience, cases like this are not uncommon. It was actually in our efforts to examine deprescribing that we noticed this quandary. When inquiring about patients on many psychotropic medications, we often receive this retort: the patient is only prescribed one medication per disorder. Some providers have the belief that multiple disorders justify multiple medications, and that this tautological thinking legitimizes polypharmacy.
A patient who has varying moods, some fears, a fluctuating temperament, past traumas, occasional difficulty sleeping, intermittent inattention, and some sadness may be given all the diagnoses listed above and the resulting medication list. The multiplication of diagnoses, “polydiagnosing,” is a convenient justification for future polypharmacy. A lack of careful assessment and thinking in the application of new diagnoses permits the use of increasing numbers of pharmacological agents. A constellation of symptoms of anxiety, concentration deficits, affective dysregulation, and psychosis may justify the combination of benzodiazepines, stimulants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics, while a patient with “just” schizophrenia who is sometimes sad, scared, or distracted is more likely to be kept on just one medication, likely an antipsychotic.
Contrary to most medical disorders (for example, tuberculosis) but similar to others (for example, chronic pain), psychiatric disorders are based on the opinion of a “modest number of ‘expert’ classifications.”4 While the broad categories of disorders are justifiable, individual diagnoses are burdened with high rates of comorbidity; lack of treatment specificity; and evidence that distinct syndromes share a genetic basis. Those concerns were exemplified in the study examining the inter-rater reliability of DSM-5 diagnoses, where many disorders were found to have questionable validity.5
A psychiatric diagnosis should be based on biological, psychological, and social factors, which align with our understanding of the natural course of an illness. A patient presenting with transient symptoms of sadness in the context of significant social factors like homelessness and/or significant biological factors associated with schizophrenia should not reflexively receive an additional diagnosis of a depressive disorder. A patient reporting poor concentration in the context of a manic episode should not receive an additional diagnosis of attention-deficit disorder. An older patient with depression on multiple antipsychotics for adjunctive treatment should not necessarily receive a diagnosis of cognitive disorder at the first sign of memory problems.
The cavalier and inconsistent use of diagnoses renders the patients with no clear narrative of who they are. They end up integrating the varying providers’ opinions as a cacophony of labels of unclear significance. Many patients have contradictory diagnoses like major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Those inaccurate diagnoses could not only lead to treatment mistakes, but also psychological harm.6
A clearer diagnostic picture is not only more scientifically sound but also more coherent to the patient. This in turn can lead to an improved treatment alliance and buy-in from the patient.
How should a provider practice de-diagnosing? Based on the work of Reeve, et al.,7 on the principles crucial to deprescribing, and subsequent research by Gupta and Cahill,8 we compiled a list of considerations for practitioners wishing to engage in this type of work with their patients.
Choose the right time. While insurance companies require diagnostic findings from the first visit, abrupt de-diagnosing for the sake of simplifying the record from that first visit could be detrimental. Patients can become attached to and find meaning in their diagnostic labels. This was exemplified with the removal of Asperger’s syndrome from the DSM-5.9 Acute symptomatology may be an opportune time to revisit the core pathology of a patient, or a poor time for a patient to have this discussion.
Compile a list of all the patient’s diagnoses. Our initial visits are often illuminated when patients enumerate the vast number of diagnoses they have been given by different providers. Patients will often list half a dozen diagnoses. The patterns often follow life courses with ADHD, conduct disorder, and learning disability in childhood; with anxiety, depression, and/or bipolar disorder in early adulthood; to complicated grief, depression with pseudodementia, and neurocognitive disorders in older adults. Yet patients rarely appreciate the temporary or episodic nature of mental disorders and instead accumulate diagnoses at each change of provider.
Initiate discussion with the patient. It is meaningful to see if patients resonate with the question, “Do you ever feel like every psychiatrist you have seen has given you a different diagnosis?” In our experience, patients’ reactions to this question usually exemplify the problematic nature of the vast array of diagnoses our patients are given. The majority of them are unable to confidently explain the meaning of those diagnoses, the context in which they were given, or their significance. This simple exercise has a powerful effect on raising awareness to patients of the problematic nature of polydiagnosing.
Introduce de-diagnosing. The engagement of patients in the diagnostic process has a significant effect. Reviewing not only diagnostic criteria but also nosology and debates in our understanding of diagnoses can provide patients with further engagement in their care. A simple review of the debate of the bereavement exclusion may permit a patient to not only understand the complexity, but also the changing nature of diagnoses. Suddenly, they are no longer bystanders, but informed participants in their care.
Identify diagnoses most appropriate for removal. Contradictory diagnoses are common in the clinical settings we work in. We routinely see patients carrying multiple mood diagnoses, despite our diagnostic systems not permitting one to have both unipolar and bipolar depression. Superfluous diagnoses are also frequent, with patients receiving depressive, or anxious labels when in an acute state of psychosis or mania. This is exemplified by patients suffering from thought blocking and receiving cognitive or attention-related diagnoses. Concurrent yet different diagnoses are also common in patients with a different list of diagnoses by their primary care provider, their therapist, and their psychiatrist. This is particularly problematic as it forces the patient to alternate their thinking or choose between their providers.
Create a new narrative for the patient. Once diagnoses are explained, clarified, and understood, patients with the help of their providers can reexamine their life story under a new and simplified construct. This process often leads to a less confusing sense of self, an increased dedication to the treatment process, whether behavioral, social, psychological, or pharmacologic.
Consider deprescribing. With a more straightforward and more grounded list of diagnoses (or simply one diagnosis), we find the process of deprescribing to be simpler and more engaging for patients. For example, patients can clearly understand the lack of necessity of an antipsychotic prescription for a resolved substance-induced psychosis. Patients are more engaged in their care, leading to improved medication compliance and less attachment to discontinued medications.
Monitor and adapt. One should of course reevaluate diagnoses as the course of illness provides us with additional information. However, we suggest waiting for a manic episode to emerge prior to diagnosing bipolar rather than suggesting the diagnosis because a patient was wearing red shoes, spoke multiple languages, had multiple degrees and was creative.10 The contextual basis and progression of the symptoms should lead to continual reassessment of diagnoses.
Physicians are aware of the balance between Occam’s razor, which promotes the simplest single explanation for a problem, versus Hickam’s dictum that reminds us that patients can have as many diseases as they please. However, similarly to polypharmacy, “polydiagnosing” has negative effects. While the field of psychiatry’s advancing knowledge may encourage providers to diagnose their patients with the growing number of diagnoses, patients still need and benefit from a coherent and clear medical narrative. Psychiatry would be wise to recognize this concerning trend, in its attempt at rectifying polypharmacy.
Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lehman is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Gupta S & Cahill JD. A prescription for “deprescribing” in psychiatry. Psychiatr Serv. 2016 Aug 1;67(8):904-7. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201500359.
2. Schuckit MA. Comorbidity between substance use disorders and psychiatric conditions. Addiction. 2006 Sep;101 Suppl 1:76-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01592.x.
3. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Association, 2022. https://psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm.
4. Kendler KS. An historical framework for psychiatric nosology. Psychol Med. 2009 Dec;39(12):1935-41. doi: 10.1017/S0033291709005753.
5. Regier DA et al. DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada. Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;170(1):59-70. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12070999.
6. Bhattacharya R et al. When good news is bad news: psychological impact of false-positive diagnosis of HIV. AIDS Care. 2008 May;20(5):560-4. doi: 10.1080/09540120701867206.
7. Reeve E et al. Review of deprescribing processes and development of an evidence‐based, patient‐centred deprescribing process. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Oct;78(4):738-47. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12386.
8. Gupta S and Cahill JD. A prescription for “deprescribing” in psychiatry.
9. Solomon M. “On the appearance and disappearance of Asperger’s syndrome” in Kendler and Parnas (eds.) Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry IV: Classification of Psychiatric Illness. Oxford University Press, 2017. doi: 10.1093/med/9780198796022.003.0023.
10. Akiskal HS. Searching for behavioral indicators of bipolar II in patients presenting with major depressive episodes: The “red sign,” the “rule of three,” and other biographic signs of temperamental extravagance, activation, and hypomania. J Affect Disord. 2005 Feb;84(2-3):279-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2004.06.002.
In 2016, Gupta and Cahill challenged the field of psychiatry to reexamine prescribing patterns.1 They warned against the use of polypharmacy when not attached to improved patient functioning. They were concerned with the limited evidence for polypharmacy as well as DSM diagnostic criteria. In their inspiring article, they described a process of deprescribing.
In an effort to study and practice their recommendations, we have noticed a lack of literature examining the elimination of diagnostic labels. While there have been some studies looking at comorbidity, especially with substance use disorders,2 there is a paucity of scientific evidence on patients with numerous diagnoses. Yet our practices are filled with patients who have been labeled with multiple conflicting or redundant diagnoses throughout their lives depending on the setting or the orientation of the practitioner.
The DSM-5 warns against diagnosing disorders when “the occurrence … is not better explained by” another disorder.3 A mix of diagnoses creates confusion for patients as well as clinicians trying to sort through their reported psychiatric histories.
A routine example would include a patient presenting for an initial evaluation and stating “I’ve been diagnosed as manic-depressive, high anxiety, split personality, posttraumatic stress, insomnia, ADD, and depression.” A review of the medical record will reveal a list of diagnoses, including bipolar II, generalized anxiety disorder, borderline personality disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, unspecified insomnia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and major depressive disorder. The medication list includes lamotrigine, valproic acid, citalopram, bupropion, buspirone, prazosin, methylphenidate, clonazepam, hydroxyzine, and low-dose quetiapine at night as needed.
This is an example of polypharmacy treating multiple, and at times conflicting, diagnoses. While an extreme case, in our experience, cases like this are not uncommon. It was actually in our efforts to examine deprescribing that we noticed this quandary. When inquiring about patients on many psychotropic medications, we often receive this retort: the patient is only prescribed one medication per disorder. Some providers have the belief that multiple disorders justify multiple medications, and that this tautological thinking legitimizes polypharmacy.
A patient who has varying moods, some fears, a fluctuating temperament, past traumas, occasional difficulty sleeping, intermittent inattention, and some sadness may be given all the diagnoses listed above and the resulting medication list. The multiplication of diagnoses, “polydiagnosing,” is a convenient justification for future polypharmacy. A lack of careful assessment and thinking in the application of new diagnoses permits the use of increasing numbers of pharmacological agents. A constellation of symptoms of anxiety, concentration deficits, affective dysregulation, and psychosis may justify the combination of benzodiazepines, stimulants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics, while a patient with “just” schizophrenia who is sometimes sad, scared, or distracted is more likely to be kept on just one medication, likely an antipsychotic.
Contrary to most medical disorders (for example, tuberculosis) but similar to others (for example, chronic pain), psychiatric disorders are based on the opinion of a “modest number of ‘expert’ classifications.”4 While the broad categories of disorders are justifiable, individual diagnoses are burdened with high rates of comorbidity; lack of treatment specificity; and evidence that distinct syndromes share a genetic basis. Those concerns were exemplified in the study examining the inter-rater reliability of DSM-5 diagnoses, where many disorders were found to have questionable validity.5
A psychiatric diagnosis should be based on biological, psychological, and social factors, which align with our understanding of the natural course of an illness. A patient presenting with transient symptoms of sadness in the context of significant social factors like homelessness and/or significant biological factors associated with schizophrenia should not reflexively receive an additional diagnosis of a depressive disorder. A patient reporting poor concentration in the context of a manic episode should not receive an additional diagnosis of attention-deficit disorder. An older patient with depression on multiple antipsychotics for adjunctive treatment should not necessarily receive a diagnosis of cognitive disorder at the first sign of memory problems.
The cavalier and inconsistent use of diagnoses renders the patients with no clear narrative of who they are. They end up integrating the varying providers’ opinions as a cacophony of labels of unclear significance. Many patients have contradictory diagnoses like major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Those inaccurate diagnoses could not only lead to treatment mistakes, but also psychological harm.6
A clearer diagnostic picture is not only more scientifically sound but also more coherent to the patient. This in turn can lead to an improved treatment alliance and buy-in from the patient.
How should a provider practice de-diagnosing? Based on the work of Reeve, et al.,7 on the principles crucial to deprescribing, and subsequent research by Gupta and Cahill,8 we compiled a list of considerations for practitioners wishing to engage in this type of work with their patients.
Choose the right time. While insurance companies require diagnostic findings from the first visit, abrupt de-diagnosing for the sake of simplifying the record from that first visit could be detrimental. Patients can become attached to and find meaning in their diagnostic labels. This was exemplified with the removal of Asperger’s syndrome from the DSM-5.9 Acute symptomatology may be an opportune time to revisit the core pathology of a patient, or a poor time for a patient to have this discussion.
Compile a list of all the patient’s diagnoses. Our initial visits are often illuminated when patients enumerate the vast number of diagnoses they have been given by different providers. Patients will often list half a dozen diagnoses. The patterns often follow life courses with ADHD, conduct disorder, and learning disability in childhood; with anxiety, depression, and/or bipolar disorder in early adulthood; to complicated grief, depression with pseudodementia, and neurocognitive disorders in older adults. Yet patients rarely appreciate the temporary or episodic nature of mental disorders and instead accumulate diagnoses at each change of provider.
Initiate discussion with the patient. It is meaningful to see if patients resonate with the question, “Do you ever feel like every psychiatrist you have seen has given you a different diagnosis?” In our experience, patients’ reactions to this question usually exemplify the problematic nature of the vast array of diagnoses our patients are given. The majority of them are unable to confidently explain the meaning of those diagnoses, the context in which they were given, or their significance. This simple exercise has a powerful effect on raising awareness to patients of the problematic nature of polydiagnosing.
Introduce de-diagnosing. The engagement of patients in the diagnostic process has a significant effect. Reviewing not only diagnostic criteria but also nosology and debates in our understanding of diagnoses can provide patients with further engagement in their care. A simple review of the debate of the bereavement exclusion may permit a patient to not only understand the complexity, but also the changing nature of diagnoses. Suddenly, they are no longer bystanders, but informed participants in their care.
Identify diagnoses most appropriate for removal. Contradictory diagnoses are common in the clinical settings we work in. We routinely see patients carrying multiple mood diagnoses, despite our diagnostic systems not permitting one to have both unipolar and bipolar depression. Superfluous diagnoses are also frequent, with patients receiving depressive, or anxious labels when in an acute state of psychosis or mania. This is exemplified by patients suffering from thought blocking and receiving cognitive or attention-related diagnoses. Concurrent yet different diagnoses are also common in patients with a different list of diagnoses by their primary care provider, their therapist, and their psychiatrist. This is particularly problematic as it forces the patient to alternate their thinking or choose between their providers.
Create a new narrative for the patient. Once diagnoses are explained, clarified, and understood, patients with the help of their providers can reexamine their life story under a new and simplified construct. This process often leads to a less confusing sense of self, an increased dedication to the treatment process, whether behavioral, social, psychological, or pharmacologic.
Consider deprescribing. With a more straightforward and more grounded list of diagnoses (or simply one diagnosis), we find the process of deprescribing to be simpler and more engaging for patients. For example, patients can clearly understand the lack of necessity of an antipsychotic prescription for a resolved substance-induced psychosis. Patients are more engaged in their care, leading to improved medication compliance and less attachment to discontinued medications.
Monitor and adapt. One should of course reevaluate diagnoses as the course of illness provides us with additional information. However, we suggest waiting for a manic episode to emerge prior to diagnosing bipolar rather than suggesting the diagnosis because a patient was wearing red shoes, spoke multiple languages, had multiple degrees and was creative.10 The contextual basis and progression of the symptoms should lead to continual reassessment of diagnoses.
Physicians are aware of the balance between Occam’s razor, which promotes the simplest single explanation for a problem, versus Hickam’s dictum that reminds us that patients can have as many diseases as they please. However, similarly to polypharmacy, “polydiagnosing” has negative effects. While the field of psychiatry’s advancing knowledge may encourage providers to diagnose their patients with the growing number of diagnoses, patients still need and benefit from a coherent and clear medical narrative. Psychiatry would be wise to recognize this concerning trend, in its attempt at rectifying polypharmacy.
Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lehman is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Gupta S & Cahill JD. A prescription for “deprescribing” in psychiatry. Psychiatr Serv. 2016 Aug 1;67(8):904-7. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201500359.
2. Schuckit MA. Comorbidity between substance use disorders and psychiatric conditions. Addiction. 2006 Sep;101 Suppl 1:76-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01592.x.
3. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Association, 2022. https://psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm.
4. Kendler KS. An historical framework for psychiatric nosology. Psychol Med. 2009 Dec;39(12):1935-41. doi: 10.1017/S0033291709005753.
5. Regier DA et al. DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada. Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;170(1):59-70. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12070999.
6. Bhattacharya R et al. When good news is bad news: psychological impact of false-positive diagnosis of HIV. AIDS Care. 2008 May;20(5):560-4. doi: 10.1080/09540120701867206.
7. Reeve E et al. Review of deprescribing processes and development of an evidence‐based, patient‐centred deprescribing process. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Oct;78(4):738-47. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12386.
8. Gupta S and Cahill JD. A prescription for “deprescribing” in psychiatry.
9. Solomon M. “On the appearance and disappearance of Asperger’s syndrome” in Kendler and Parnas (eds.) Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry IV: Classification of Psychiatric Illness. Oxford University Press, 2017. doi: 10.1093/med/9780198796022.003.0023.
10. Akiskal HS. Searching for behavioral indicators of bipolar II in patients presenting with major depressive episodes: The “red sign,” the “rule of three,” and other biographic signs of temperamental extravagance, activation, and hypomania. J Affect Disord. 2005 Feb;84(2-3):279-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2004.06.002.
Asian American teens have highest rate of suicidal ideation
NEW ORLEANS – In an unexpected finding, researchers discovered that According to a weighted analysis, 24% of Asian Americans reported thinking about or planning suicide vs. 22% of Whites and Blacks and 20% of Hispanics (P < .01).
“We were shocked,” said study lead author Esha Hansoti, MD, who conducted the research at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and is now a psychiatry resident at Zucker Hillside Hospital Northwell/Hofstra in Glen Oaks, NY. The findings were released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
Dr. Hansoti and colleagues launched the analysis in light of sparse research into Asian American mental health, she said. Even within this population, she said, mental illness “tends to be overlooked” and discussion of the topic may be considered taboo.
For the new study, researchers analyzed the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, conducted biennially by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which had more than 13,000 participants in grades 9-12.
A weighted bivariate analysis of 618 Asian American adolescents – adjusted for age, sex, and depressive symptoms – found no statistically significant impact on suicidal ideation by gender, age, substance use, sexual/physical dating violence, or fluency in English.
However, several groups had a statistically significant higher risk, including victims of forced sexual intercourse and those who were threatened or bullied at school.
Those who didn’t get mostly A grades were also at high risk: Adolescents with mostly Ds and Fs were more likely to have acknowledged suicidal ideation than those with mostly As (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.2).
Gays and lesbians (AOR = 7.9 vs. heterosexuals), and bisexuals (AOR = 5.2 vs. heterosexuals) also showed sharply higher rates of suicidal ideation.
It’s not clear why Asian American adolescents may be at higher risk of suicidal ideation. The survey was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which spawned bigotry against people of Asian descent and an ongoing outbreak of high-profile violence against Asian Americans across the country.
Dr. Hansoti noted that Asian Americans face the pressures to live up to the standards of being a “model minority.” In addition, “very few Asian American adolescents are taken to a therapist, and few mental health providers are Asian Americans.”
She urged fellow psychiatrists “to remember that our perceptions of Asian Americans might hinder some of the diagnoses we could be making. Be thoughtful about how their ethnicity and race affects their presentation and their own perception of their illness.”
She added that Asian Americans may experience mental illness and anxiety “more somatically and physically than emotionally.”
In an interview, Anne Saw, PhD, associate professor of clinical-community psychology at DePaul University, Chicago, said the findings are “helpful for corroborating other studies identifying risk factors of suicidal ideation among Asian American adolescents. Since this research utilizes the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, these findings can be compared with risk factors of suicidal ideation among adolescents from other racial/ethnic backgrounds to pinpoint general as well as specific risk factors, thus informing how we can tailor interventions for specific groups.”
According to Dr. Saw, while it’s clear that suicide is a leading cause of death among Asian American adolescents, it’s still unknown which specific subgroups other than girls and LGBTIA+ individuals are especially vulnerable and which culturally tailored interventions are most effective for decreasing suicide risk.
“Psychiatrists should understand that risk and protective factors for suicidal behavior in Asian American adolescents are multifaceted and require careful attention and intervention across different environments,” she said.
No funding and no disclosures were reported.
NEW ORLEANS – In an unexpected finding, researchers discovered that According to a weighted analysis, 24% of Asian Americans reported thinking about or planning suicide vs. 22% of Whites and Blacks and 20% of Hispanics (P < .01).
“We were shocked,” said study lead author Esha Hansoti, MD, who conducted the research at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and is now a psychiatry resident at Zucker Hillside Hospital Northwell/Hofstra in Glen Oaks, NY. The findings were released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
Dr. Hansoti and colleagues launched the analysis in light of sparse research into Asian American mental health, she said. Even within this population, she said, mental illness “tends to be overlooked” and discussion of the topic may be considered taboo.
For the new study, researchers analyzed the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, conducted biennially by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which had more than 13,000 participants in grades 9-12.
A weighted bivariate analysis of 618 Asian American adolescents – adjusted for age, sex, and depressive symptoms – found no statistically significant impact on suicidal ideation by gender, age, substance use, sexual/physical dating violence, or fluency in English.
However, several groups had a statistically significant higher risk, including victims of forced sexual intercourse and those who were threatened or bullied at school.
Those who didn’t get mostly A grades were also at high risk: Adolescents with mostly Ds and Fs were more likely to have acknowledged suicidal ideation than those with mostly As (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.2).
Gays and lesbians (AOR = 7.9 vs. heterosexuals), and bisexuals (AOR = 5.2 vs. heterosexuals) also showed sharply higher rates of suicidal ideation.
It’s not clear why Asian American adolescents may be at higher risk of suicidal ideation. The survey was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which spawned bigotry against people of Asian descent and an ongoing outbreak of high-profile violence against Asian Americans across the country.
Dr. Hansoti noted that Asian Americans face the pressures to live up to the standards of being a “model minority.” In addition, “very few Asian American adolescents are taken to a therapist, and few mental health providers are Asian Americans.”
She urged fellow psychiatrists “to remember that our perceptions of Asian Americans might hinder some of the diagnoses we could be making. Be thoughtful about how their ethnicity and race affects their presentation and their own perception of their illness.”
She added that Asian Americans may experience mental illness and anxiety “more somatically and physically than emotionally.”
In an interview, Anne Saw, PhD, associate professor of clinical-community psychology at DePaul University, Chicago, said the findings are “helpful for corroborating other studies identifying risk factors of suicidal ideation among Asian American adolescents. Since this research utilizes the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, these findings can be compared with risk factors of suicidal ideation among adolescents from other racial/ethnic backgrounds to pinpoint general as well as specific risk factors, thus informing how we can tailor interventions for specific groups.”
According to Dr. Saw, while it’s clear that suicide is a leading cause of death among Asian American adolescents, it’s still unknown which specific subgroups other than girls and LGBTIA+ individuals are especially vulnerable and which culturally tailored interventions are most effective for decreasing suicide risk.
“Psychiatrists should understand that risk and protective factors for suicidal behavior in Asian American adolescents are multifaceted and require careful attention and intervention across different environments,” she said.
No funding and no disclosures were reported.
NEW ORLEANS – In an unexpected finding, researchers discovered that According to a weighted analysis, 24% of Asian Americans reported thinking about or planning suicide vs. 22% of Whites and Blacks and 20% of Hispanics (P < .01).
“We were shocked,” said study lead author Esha Hansoti, MD, who conducted the research at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and is now a psychiatry resident at Zucker Hillside Hospital Northwell/Hofstra in Glen Oaks, NY. The findings were released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
Dr. Hansoti and colleagues launched the analysis in light of sparse research into Asian American mental health, she said. Even within this population, she said, mental illness “tends to be overlooked” and discussion of the topic may be considered taboo.
For the new study, researchers analyzed the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, conducted biennially by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which had more than 13,000 participants in grades 9-12.
A weighted bivariate analysis of 618 Asian American adolescents – adjusted for age, sex, and depressive symptoms – found no statistically significant impact on suicidal ideation by gender, age, substance use, sexual/physical dating violence, or fluency in English.
However, several groups had a statistically significant higher risk, including victims of forced sexual intercourse and those who were threatened or bullied at school.
Those who didn’t get mostly A grades were also at high risk: Adolescents with mostly Ds and Fs were more likely to have acknowledged suicidal ideation than those with mostly As (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.2).
Gays and lesbians (AOR = 7.9 vs. heterosexuals), and bisexuals (AOR = 5.2 vs. heterosexuals) also showed sharply higher rates of suicidal ideation.
It’s not clear why Asian American adolescents may be at higher risk of suicidal ideation. The survey was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which spawned bigotry against people of Asian descent and an ongoing outbreak of high-profile violence against Asian Americans across the country.
Dr. Hansoti noted that Asian Americans face the pressures to live up to the standards of being a “model minority.” In addition, “very few Asian American adolescents are taken to a therapist, and few mental health providers are Asian Americans.”
She urged fellow psychiatrists “to remember that our perceptions of Asian Americans might hinder some of the diagnoses we could be making. Be thoughtful about how their ethnicity and race affects their presentation and their own perception of their illness.”
She added that Asian Americans may experience mental illness and anxiety “more somatically and physically than emotionally.”
In an interview, Anne Saw, PhD, associate professor of clinical-community psychology at DePaul University, Chicago, said the findings are “helpful for corroborating other studies identifying risk factors of suicidal ideation among Asian American adolescents. Since this research utilizes the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, these findings can be compared with risk factors of suicidal ideation among adolescents from other racial/ethnic backgrounds to pinpoint general as well as specific risk factors, thus informing how we can tailor interventions for specific groups.”
According to Dr. Saw, while it’s clear that suicide is a leading cause of death among Asian American adolescents, it’s still unknown which specific subgroups other than girls and LGBTIA+ individuals are especially vulnerable and which culturally tailored interventions are most effective for decreasing suicide risk.
“Psychiatrists should understand that risk and protective factors for suicidal behavior in Asian American adolescents are multifaceted and require careful attention and intervention across different environments,” she said.
No funding and no disclosures were reported.
AT APA 2022
High rates of med student burnout during COVID
NEW ORLEANS –
Researchers surveyed 613 medical students representing all years of a medical program during the last week of the Spring semester of 2021.
Based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Student Survey (MBI-SS), more than half (54%) of the students had symptoms of burnout.
Eighty percent of students scored high on emotional exhaustion, 57% scored high on cynicism, and 36% scored low on academic effectiveness.
Compared with male medical students, female medical students were more apt to exhibit signs of burnout (60% vs. 44%), emotional exhaustion (80% vs. 73%), and cynicism (62% vs. 49%).
After adjusting for associated factors, female medical students were significantly more likely to suffer from burnout than male students (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.70; P < .001).
Smoking was also linked to higher likelihood of burnout among medical students (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.18-3.81; P < .05). The death of a family member from COVID-19 also put medical students at heightened risk for burnout (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.08-2.36; P < .05).
The survey results were presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Annual Meeting.
The findings point to the need to study burnout prevalence in universities and develop strategies to promote the mental health of future physicians, presenter Sofia Jezzini-Martínez, fourth-year medical student, Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico, wrote in her conference abstract.
In related research presented at the APA meeting, researchers surveyed second-, third-, and fourth-year medical students from California during the pandemic.
Roughly 80% exhibited symptoms of anxiety and 68% exhibited depressive symptoms, of whom about 18% also reported having thoughts of suicide.
Yet only about half of the medical students exhibiting anxiety or depressive symptoms sought help from a mental health professional, and 20% reported using substances to cope with stress.
“Given that the pandemic is ongoing, we hope to draw attention to mental health needs of medical students and influence medical schools to direct appropriate and timely resources to this group,” presenter Sarthak Angal, MD, psychiatry resident, Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center, California, wrote in his conference abstract.
Managing expectations
Weighing in on medical student burnout, Ihuoma Njoku, MD, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, noted that, “particularly for women in multiple fields, including medicine, there’s a lot of burden placed on them.”
“Women are pulled in a lot of different directions and have increased demands, which may help explain their higher rate of burnout,” Dr. Njoku commented.
She noted that these surveys were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “a period when students’ education experience was a lot different than what they expected and maybe what they wanted.”
Dr. Njoku noted that the challenges of the pandemic are particularly hard on fourth-year medical students.
“A big part of fourth year is applying to residency, and many were doing virtual interviews for residency. That makes it hard to really get an appreciation of the place you will spend the next three to eight years of your life,” she told this news organization.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS –
Researchers surveyed 613 medical students representing all years of a medical program during the last week of the Spring semester of 2021.
Based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Student Survey (MBI-SS), more than half (54%) of the students had symptoms of burnout.
Eighty percent of students scored high on emotional exhaustion, 57% scored high on cynicism, and 36% scored low on academic effectiveness.
Compared with male medical students, female medical students were more apt to exhibit signs of burnout (60% vs. 44%), emotional exhaustion (80% vs. 73%), and cynicism (62% vs. 49%).
After adjusting for associated factors, female medical students were significantly more likely to suffer from burnout than male students (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.70; P < .001).
Smoking was also linked to higher likelihood of burnout among medical students (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.18-3.81; P < .05). The death of a family member from COVID-19 also put medical students at heightened risk for burnout (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.08-2.36; P < .05).
The survey results were presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Annual Meeting.
The findings point to the need to study burnout prevalence in universities and develop strategies to promote the mental health of future physicians, presenter Sofia Jezzini-Martínez, fourth-year medical student, Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico, wrote in her conference abstract.
In related research presented at the APA meeting, researchers surveyed second-, third-, and fourth-year medical students from California during the pandemic.
Roughly 80% exhibited symptoms of anxiety and 68% exhibited depressive symptoms, of whom about 18% also reported having thoughts of suicide.
Yet only about half of the medical students exhibiting anxiety or depressive symptoms sought help from a mental health professional, and 20% reported using substances to cope with stress.
“Given that the pandemic is ongoing, we hope to draw attention to mental health needs of medical students and influence medical schools to direct appropriate and timely resources to this group,” presenter Sarthak Angal, MD, psychiatry resident, Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center, California, wrote in his conference abstract.
Managing expectations
Weighing in on medical student burnout, Ihuoma Njoku, MD, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, noted that, “particularly for women in multiple fields, including medicine, there’s a lot of burden placed on them.”
“Women are pulled in a lot of different directions and have increased demands, which may help explain their higher rate of burnout,” Dr. Njoku commented.
She noted that these surveys were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “a period when students’ education experience was a lot different than what they expected and maybe what they wanted.”
Dr. Njoku noted that the challenges of the pandemic are particularly hard on fourth-year medical students.
“A big part of fourth year is applying to residency, and many were doing virtual interviews for residency. That makes it hard to really get an appreciation of the place you will spend the next three to eight years of your life,” she told this news organization.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS –
Researchers surveyed 613 medical students representing all years of a medical program during the last week of the Spring semester of 2021.
Based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Student Survey (MBI-SS), more than half (54%) of the students had symptoms of burnout.
Eighty percent of students scored high on emotional exhaustion, 57% scored high on cynicism, and 36% scored low on academic effectiveness.
Compared with male medical students, female medical students were more apt to exhibit signs of burnout (60% vs. 44%), emotional exhaustion (80% vs. 73%), and cynicism (62% vs. 49%).
After adjusting for associated factors, female medical students were significantly more likely to suffer from burnout than male students (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.70; P < .001).
Smoking was also linked to higher likelihood of burnout among medical students (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.18-3.81; P < .05). The death of a family member from COVID-19 also put medical students at heightened risk for burnout (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.08-2.36; P < .05).
The survey results were presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Annual Meeting.
The findings point to the need to study burnout prevalence in universities and develop strategies to promote the mental health of future physicians, presenter Sofia Jezzini-Martínez, fourth-year medical student, Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico, wrote in her conference abstract.
In related research presented at the APA meeting, researchers surveyed second-, third-, and fourth-year medical students from California during the pandemic.
Roughly 80% exhibited symptoms of anxiety and 68% exhibited depressive symptoms, of whom about 18% also reported having thoughts of suicide.
Yet only about half of the medical students exhibiting anxiety or depressive symptoms sought help from a mental health professional, and 20% reported using substances to cope with stress.
“Given that the pandemic is ongoing, we hope to draw attention to mental health needs of medical students and influence medical schools to direct appropriate and timely resources to this group,” presenter Sarthak Angal, MD, psychiatry resident, Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center, California, wrote in his conference abstract.
Managing expectations
Weighing in on medical student burnout, Ihuoma Njoku, MD, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, noted that, “particularly for women in multiple fields, including medicine, there’s a lot of burden placed on them.”
“Women are pulled in a lot of different directions and have increased demands, which may help explain their higher rate of burnout,” Dr. Njoku commented.
She noted that these surveys were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “a period when students’ education experience was a lot different than what they expected and maybe what they wanted.”
Dr. Njoku noted that the challenges of the pandemic are particularly hard on fourth-year medical students.
“A big part of fourth year is applying to residency, and many were doing virtual interviews for residency. That makes it hard to really get an appreciation of the place you will spend the next three to eight years of your life,” she told this news organization.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM APA 2022
Refugees have a high burden of chronic pain associated with mental illness
The study covered in this summary was published in researchsquare.com and has not yet been peer reviewed.
Key takeaways
- Anxiety, , and PTSD are associated with higher levels of chronic pain in the refugee population studied.
- Being a male refugee is associated more strongly with anxiety and depression leading to functional impairment than being a woman. Being a woman is associated with higher odds of chronic pain. Gender acted as an effect modifier between mental illness and functional impairment.
- Future research aimed toward harmonizing and standardizing pain measurement to measure its effect on health burden is needed. Pain should be understood under an ethnocultural construct to enhance transcultural validity.
Why this matters
- The present cross-sectional survey of adult refugees from Syria resettled in Norway is only one of a few studies investigating the burden of chronic pain and how it relates to mental ill health in a general refugee population. Elevated rates of PTSD, depression, and anxiety have been repeatedly found in refugee populations, and high levels of pain have also been documented.
- Attention to the association between chronic pain and mental health should be made by personnel working with refugees. Because of the gender-specific associations between mental illness and functional impairment, initiatives addressing mental health, chronic pain, or functional impairment in refugee populations should consider gender when tailoring their content and outreach.
Study design
- The study involved a cross-sectional, postal survey questionnaire of participants randomly drawn from full population registries in Norway. There was an initial low response. Invitations were sent out in November 2018 and did not close until September 2019. Several efforts were made to boost participation, including one postal or telephone reminder to all nonresponders.
- Participants were refugee adults from Syria aged 18 and older who arrived in Norway between 2015 and 2017. Gender was tested as an effect modifier.
- Chronic pain was measured with 10 items on the questionnaire and was defined as pain for 3 or more consecutive months in the last year. It included both musculoskeletal pain and pain in five other body regions (stomach, head, genital area, chest, other).
- Anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms were measured with the 25-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist, the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire, and the Refugee Trauma History Checklist.
- Questionnaires on perceived general health regarding refugee perceptions of their own health, and functional impairment affecting daily activities because of illness, disability, and mental health were adapted from the European Social Survey 2010.
Key results
- A total of 902 participants who responded to the questionnaire were included in the study from roughly 10,000 invitations, giving a participation rate of about 10%, with no differences in gender distribution.
- The overall prevalence of severe chronic pain was 43.1%, and overall perception of poor general health was 39.9%.
- There was a strong association of chronic pain with all mental illness measured, poor perceived general health, and functional impairment (P < .001). All mental health variables were associated with increased odds of chronic pain (anxiety odds ratio), 2.42; depression, OR, 2.28; PTSD, OR, 1.97; all OR fully adjusted).
- Chronic pain was associated with poor perceived general health and functional impairment with no difference across gender. Mental health showed weaker association with poor perceived general health than chronic pain.
- Syrian men with mental health had three times higher odds of functional impairment. For women, there was no evidence of association between any of the mental ill health variables and functional impairment. Being a woman was associated with chronic pain and poor perceived general health but not functional impairment.
- Being a woman was associated with 50% higher odds of chronic pain in both unadjusted and adjusted models.
Limitations
- With a 10% response rate, selection bias in this cross-sectional study may have been present.
- The cross-sectional design of the study limits causality.
- The validity of the survey is questionable because of transcultural construct regarding pain and mental illness.
- Regression models were built with data at hand. Without preregistered plans for data handling, the findings should be viewed as exploratory with a risk for false-positive findings.
Disclosures
- No external funding was received. The study was funded by the Norwegian Center for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies.
- None of the authors disclosed relevant financial relationships.
This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Chronic pain, mental health and functional impairment in adult refugees from Syria resettled in Norway: a cross-sectional study,” written by researchers at the Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies in Oslo, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo, and the Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City on Research Square. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on researchsquare.com. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The study covered in this summary was published in researchsquare.com and has not yet been peer reviewed.
Key takeaways
- Anxiety, , and PTSD are associated with higher levels of chronic pain in the refugee population studied.
- Being a male refugee is associated more strongly with anxiety and depression leading to functional impairment than being a woman. Being a woman is associated with higher odds of chronic pain. Gender acted as an effect modifier between mental illness and functional impairment.
- Future research aimed toward harmonizing and standardizing pain measurement to measure its effect on health burden is needed. Pain should be understood under an ethnocultural construct to enhance transcultural validity.
Why this matters
- The present cross-sectional survey of adult refugees from Syria resettled in Norway is only one of a few studies investigating the burden of chronic pain and how it relates to mental ill health in a general refugee population. Elevated rates of PTSD, depression, and anxiety have been repeatedly found in refugee populations, and high levels of pain have also been documented.
- Attention to the association between chronic pain and mental health should be made by personnel working with refugees. Because of the gender-specific associations between mental illness and functional impairment, initiatives addressing mental health, chronic pain, or functional impairment in refugee populations should consider gender when tailoring their content and outreach.
Study design
- The study involved a cross-sectional, postal survey questionnaire of participants randomly drawn from full population registries in Norway. There was an initial low response. Invitations were sent out in November 2018 and did not close until September 2019. Several efforts were made to boost participation, including one postal or telephone reminder to all nonresponders.
- Participants were refugee adults from Syria aged 18 and older who arrived in Norway between 2015 and 2017. Gender was tested as an effect modifier.
- Chronic pain was measured with 10 items on the questionnaire and was defined as pain for 3 or more consecutive months in the last year. It included both musculoskeletal pain and pain in five other body regions (stomach, head, genital area, chest, other).
- Anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms were measured with the 25-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist, the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire, and the Refugee Trauma History Checklist.
- Questionnaires on perceived general health regarding refugee perceptions of their own health, and functional impairment affecting daily activities because of illness, disability, and mental health were adapted from the European Social Survey 2010.
Key results
- A total of 902 participants who responded to the questionnaire were included in the study from roughly 10,000 invitations, giving a participation rate of about 10%, with no differences in gender distribution.
- The overall prevalence of severe chronic pain was 43.1%, and overall perception of poor general health was 39.9%.
- There was a strong association of chronic pain with all mental illness measured, poor perceived general health, and functional impairment (P < .001). All mental health variables were associated with increased odds of chronic pain (anxiety odds ratio), 2.42; depression, OR, 2.28; PTSD, OR, 1.97; all OR fully adjusted).
- Chronic pain was associated with poor perceived general health and functional impairment with no difference across gender. Mental health showed weaker association with poor perceived general health than chronic pain.
- Syrian men with mental health had three times higher odds of functional impairment. For women, there was no evidence of association between any of the mental ill health variables and functional impairment. Being a woman was associated with chronic pain and poor perceived general health but not functional impairment.
- Being a woman was associated with 50% higher odds of chronic pain in both unadjusted and adjusted models.
Limitations
- With a 10% response rate, selection bias in this cross-sectional study may have been present.
- The cross-sectional design of the study limits causality.
- The validity of the survey is questionable because of transcultural construct regarding pain and mental illness.
- Regression models were built with data at hand. Without preregistered plans for data handling, the findings should be viewed as exploratory with a risk for false-positive findings.
Disclosures
- No external funding was received. The study was funded by the Norwegian Center for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies.
- None of the authors disclosed relevant financial relationships.
This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Chronic pain, mental health and functional impairment in adult refugees from Syria resettled in Norway: a cross-sectional study,” written by researchers at the Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies in Oslo, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo, and the Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City on Research Square. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on researchsquare.com. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The study covered in this summary was published in researchsquare.com and has not yet been peer reviewed.
Key takeaways
- Anxiety, , and PTSD are associated with higher levels of chronic pain in the refugee population studied.
- Being a male refugee is associated more strongly with anxiety and depression leading to functional impairment than being a woman. Being a woman is associated with higher odds of chronic pain. Gender acted as an effect modifier between mental illness and functional impairment.
- Future research aimed toward harmonizing and standardizing pain measurement to measure its effect on health burden is needed. Pain should be understood under an ethnocultural construct to enhance transcultural validity.
Why this matters
- The present cross-sectional survey of adult refugees from Syria resettled in Norway is only one of a few studies investigating the burden of chronic pain and how it relates to mental ill health in a general refugee population. Elevated rates of PTSD, depression, and anxiety have been repeatedly found in refugee populations, and high levels of pain have also been documented.
- Attention to the association between chronic pain and mental health should be made by personnel working with refugees. Because of the gender-specific associations between mental illness and functional impairment, initiatives addressing mental health, chronic pain, or functional impairment in refugee populations should consider gender when tailoring their content and outreach.
Study design
- The study involved a cross-sectional, postal survey questionnaire of participants randomly drawn from full population registries in Norway. There was an initial low response. Invitations were sent out in November 2018 and did not close until September 2019. Several efforts were made to boost participation, including one postal or telephone reminder to all nonresponders.
- Participants were refugee adults from Syria aged 18 and older who arrived in Norway between 2015 and 2017. Gender was tested as an effect modifier.
- Chronic pain was measured with 10 items on the questionnaire and was defined as pain for 3 or more consecutive months in the last year. It included both musculoskeletal pain and pain in five other body regions (stomach, head, genital area, chest, other).
- Anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms were measured with the 25-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist, the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire, and the Refugee Trauma History Checklist.
- Questionnaires on perceived general health regarding refugee perceptions of their own health, and functional impairment affecting daily activities because of illness, disability, and mental health were adapted from the European Social Survey 2010.
Key results
- A total of 902 participants who responded to the questionnaire were included in the study from roughly 10,000 invitations, giving a participation rate of about 10%, with no differences in gender distribution.
- The overall prevalence of severe chronic pain was 43.1%, and overall perception of poor general health was 39.9%.
- There was a strong association of chronic pain with all mental illness measured, poor perceived general health, and functional impairment (P < .001). All mental health variables were associated with increased odds of chronic pain (anxiety odds ratio), 2.42; depression, OR, 2.28; PTSD, OR, 1.97; all OR fully adjusted).
- Chronic pain was associated with poor perceived general health and functional impairment with no difference across gender. Mental health showed weaker association with poor perceived general health than chronic pain.
- Syrian men with mental health had three times higher odds of functional impairment. For women, there was no evidence of association between any of the mental ill health variables and functional impairment. Being a woman was associated with chronic pain and poor perceived general health but not functional impairment.
- Being a woman was associated with 50% higher odds of chronic pain in both unadjusted and adjusted models.
Limitations
- With a 10% response rate, selection bias in this cross-sectional study may have been present.
- The cross-sectional design of the study limits causality.
- The validity of the survey is questionable because of transcultural construct regarding pain and mental illness.
- Regression models were built with data at hand. Without preregistered plans for data handling, the findings should be viewed as exploratory with a risk for false-positive findings.
Disclosures
- No external funding was received. The study was funded by the Norwegian Center for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies.
- None of the authors disclosed relevant financial relationships.
This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Chronic pain, mental health and functional impairment in adult refugees from Syria resettled in Norway: a cross-sectional study,” written by researchers at the Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies in Oslo, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo, and the Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City on Research Square. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on researchsquare.com. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long COVID neuropsychiatric deficits greater than expected
NEW ORLEANS – , adding to mounting evidence of the significant toll the chronic condition can have on mental health.
“Many clinicians have observed the symptoms we describe in this study, however this report is among the first which identify the specific deficits using neuropsychological testing to better characterize the syndrome,” Sean T. Lynch, MD, first author of a study on the issue presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, said in an interview.
Dr. Lynch, of the department of psychiatry, Westchester Medical Center Health System, Valhalla, N.Y., and his colleagues enrolled 60 participants who had experienced acute COVID-19 disease 6-8 months earlier and had undergone neuropsychological, psychiatric, medical, functional, and quality-of-life assessments. Results from the study were published online in the Journal of the Academy of Consultation–Liaison Psychiatry (2022 Jan 25. doi: 10.1016/j.jaclp.2022.01.003).
Among the study participants, 32 were seeking treatment for brain fog in a clinical program for survivors of COVID-19, while the remaining 28 were part of an ongoing longitudinal investigation of neuropsychological, medical, and psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, but were not seeking care for the persistent symptoms.
Assessments for neurocognitive impairment included a battery of tests used in infectious and other diseases, including the Test of Premorbid Function, the Patient Assessment of Own Function, the Trail Making Test parts A and B, the Stroop Color and Word Test, and others.
Overall, the battery of assessments showed that 37 (62%) of participants had neuropsychological test impairment, with results below the 16th percentile in two tests, while 16 (27%) showed scores indicative of severe impairment (below the second percentile in at least one test and below the 16th percentile in one test).
Those reporting brain fog had scores that were even lower than expected on tests of attention, processing speed, memory, and executive function. And among those reporting brain fog, significantly more had scores reflecting severe impairment compared with the controls (38% vs. 14%; P < .04).
“Based on what we’ve observed in our patients and what others have previously reported, we did expect to find some impairment in this study sample,” Dr. Lynch noted.
“However, we were surprised to find that 27% of the study sample had extremely low neuropsychological test scores, meaning that they scored at least two standard deviations below the expected score on at least one neuropsychological test based on their age and level of education.”
The brain fog group also reported significantly higher levels of depression, fatigue, PTSD, and functional difficulties, and lower quality of life.
Severe impairment on the neuropsychological tests correlated with the extent of acute COVID-19 symptoms, as well as depression scores, number of medical comorbidities, and subjective cognitive complaints.
An analysis of serum levels of the inflammatory markers among 50 of the 60 participants showed that 45% of the patients had an elevated IL-6, 20% had elevated TNF-alpha, and 41% had elevated CRP, compared with reference ranges.
IL-6 levels were found to correlate with acute COVID-19 symptoms, the number of medical comorbidities, fatigue, and measures of executive function, while C-reactive protein (CRP) correlated with current COVID-19 symptoms and depression scores.
In terms of clinical factors that might predict low neuropsychological test scores, Dr. Lynch noted that the “markers that we found to be significant included severity of acute COVID-19 illness, current post-COVID-19 symptoms, measures of depression and anxiety, level of fatigue, and number of medical comorbidities.”
Dr. Lynch noted that the ongoing study will include up to 18-month follow-ups that are currently underway. “The [follow-ups] will examine if symptoms improve over time and evaluate if any intervention that took place was successful,” he said.
Survey supports findings
The detrimental effects of mental health symptoms in long COVID were further supported in another study at the APA meeting, an online survey of 787 survivors of acute COVID-19.
In the community survey, presented by Michael Van Ameringen, MD, a professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University, in Hamilton, Ont., all respondents (100%) reported having persistent symptoms of the virus, and as many as 68% indicated that they had not returned to normal functioning, despite only 15% of the respondents having been hospitalized with COVID-19.
A large proportion showed significant depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the most commonly reported persistent symptoms were fatigue in 75.9% of respondents, brain fog in 67.9%, concentration difficulties in 61.1%, and weakness in 51.2%.
As many as 88.2% of patients said they experienced persistent neurocognitive symptoms, with poor memory and concentration; 56% reported problems with word finding; and 54.1% had slowed thinking.
The respondents showed high rates of anxiety (41.7%) as well as depression (61.4%) as determined by scores above 9 on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQ-9).
As many as 40.5% of respondents showed probable PTSD, with scores above 30 on the PTSD checklist (PCL-5). Their mean resilience score on the Brief Resilient Coping Scale was 13.5, suggesting low resilience.
Among the respondents, 43.3% said they had received past treatment for mental health, while 33.5% were currently receiving mental health treatment.
Dr. Van Ameringen noted the important limitation of the study being an online survey with no control group, but said the responses nevertheless raise the question of the role of prior psychiatric disorders in long COVID.
“In our sample, 40% of respondents had a past psychiatric history, so you wonder if that also makes you vulnerable to long COVID,” he said in an interview.
“About a third were getting psychiatric help, but I think the more impaired you are, the more likely you are to seek help.”
Those who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were at a higher risk of PTSD compared with those not hospitalized (P < .001), as were those under the age of 30 (P < .05) or between 31 and 50 vs. over 50 (P < .01).
Dr. Van Ameringen noted that the survey’s high rate of subjects who had not returned to normal functioning was especially striking.
“This is not a minor issue – these are people who are no longer functioning in society,” he said.
In pandemics, the brain tends to be ‘overlooked’
Further addressing the neurological effects of COVID-19 at the APA meeting, Avindra Nath, MD, clinical director of the National Institutes of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Md., noted that the persisting cognitive and psychiatric symptoms after illness, such as brain fog and depression and anxiety, are not necessarily unique to COVID-19.
“We have seen this before,” he said. “There have been at least seven or eight human coronaviruses, and the interesting thing is each one affects the brain and causes neurological complications.”
The effects are classified differently and have slightly different receptors, “but the consequences are the same.”
Of note, however, research published in The Lancet Psychiatry (2021 May. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[21]00084-5) revealed that symptoms such as dementia, mood, and anxiety are significantly higher after COVID-19 compared with other respiratory infections, with the differences increasing at 180 days since the index event.
Dr. Nath noted that, over the decades, he has observed that in pandemics “the brain tends to get overlooked.” He explained that “what can be most important in the end is what happened in the brain, because those are the things that really cause the long-term consequences.”
“These patients are depressed; they have dementia, they have brain fog, and even now that we recognize these issues, we haven’t done a very good job of studying them,” he said. “There’s so much we still don’t know, and a lot of patients are left with these symptoms and nowhere to go.”
Dr. Lynch, Dr. Van Ameringen, and Dr. Nath had no disclosures to report.
NEW ORLEANS – , adding to mounting evidence of the significant toll the chronic condition can have on mental health.
“Many clinicians have observed the symptoms we describe in this study, however this report is among the first which identify the specific deficits using neuropsychological testing to better characterize the syndrome,” Sean T. Lynch, MD, first author of a study on the issue presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, said in an interview.
Dr. Lynch, of the department of psychiatry, Westchester Medical Center Health System, Valhalla, N.Y., and his colleagues enrolled 60 participants who had experienced acute COVID-19 disease 6-8 months earlier and had undergone neuropsychological, psychiatric, medical, functional, and quality-of-life assessments. Results from the study were published online in the Journal of the Academy of Consultation–Liaison Psychiatry (2022 Jan 25. doi: 10.1016/j.jaclp.2022.01.003).
Among the study participants, 32 were seeking treatment for brain fog in a clinical program for survivors of COVID-19, while the remaining 28 were part of an ongoing longitudinal investigation of neuropsychological, medical, and psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, but were not seeking care for the persistent symptoms.
Assessments for neurocognitive impairment included a battery of tests used in infectious and other diseases, including the Test of Premorbid Function, the Patient Assessment of Own Function, the Trail Making Test parts A and B, the Stroop Color and Word Test, and others.
Overall, the battery of assessments showed that 37 (62%) of participants had neuropsychological test impairment, with results below the 16th percentile in two tests, while 16 (27%) showed scores indicative of severe impairment (below the second percentile in at least one test and below the 16th percentile in one test).
Those reporting brain fog had scores that were even lower than expected on tests of attention, processing speed, memory, and executive function. And among those reporting brain fog, significantly more had scores reflecting severe impairment compared with the controls (38% vs. 14%; P < .04).
“Based on what we’ve observed in our patients and what others have previously reported, we did expect to find some impairment in this study sample,” Dr. Lynch noted.
“However, we were surprised to find that 27% of the study sample had extremely low neuropsychological test scores, meaning that they scored at least two standard deviations below the expected score on at least one neuropsychological test based on their age and level of education.”
The brain fog group also reported significantly higher levels of depression, fatigue, PTSD, and functional difficulties, and lower quality of life.
Severe impairment on the neuropsychological tests correlated with the extent of acute COVID-19 symptoms, as well as depression scores, number of medical comorbidities, and subjective cognitive complaints.
An analysis of serum levels of the inflammatory markers among 50 of the 60 participants showed that 45% of the patients had an elevated IL-6, 20% had elevated TNF-alpha, and 41% had elevated CRP, compared with reference ranges.
IL-6 levels were found to correlate with acute COVID-19 symptoms, the number of medical comorbidities, fatigue, and measures of executive function, while C-reactive protein (CRP) correlated with current COVID-19 symptoms and depression scores.
In terms of clinical factors that might predict low neuropsychological test scores, Dr. Lynch noted that the “markers that we found to be significant included severity of acute COVID-19 illness, current post-COVID-19 symptoms, measures of depression and anxiety, level of fatigue, and number of medical comorbidities.”
Dr. Lynch noted that the ongoing study will include up to 18-month follow-ups that are currently underway. “The [follow-ups] will examine if symptoms improve over time and evaluate if any intervention that took place was successful,” he said.
Survey supports findings
The detrimental effects of mental health symptoms in long COVID were further supported in another study at the APA meeting, an online survey of 787 survivors of acute COVID-19.
In the community survey, presented by Michael Van Ameringen, MD, a professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University, in Hamilton, Ont., all respondents (100%) reported having persistent symptoms of the virus, and as many as 68% indicated that they had not returned to normal functioning, despite only 15% of the respondents having been hospitalized with COVID-19.
A large proportion showed significant depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the most commonly reported persistent symptoms were fatigue in 75.9% of respondents, brain fog in 67.9%, concentration difficulties in 61.1%, and weakness in 51.2%.
As many as 88.2% of patients said they experienced persistent neurocognitive symptoms, with poor memory and concentration; 56% reported problems with word finding; and 54.1% had slowed thinking.
The respondents showed high rates of anxiety (41.7%) as well as depression (61.4%) as determined by scores above 9 on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQ-9).
As many as 40.5% of respondents showed probable PTSD, with scores above 30 on the PTSD checklist (PCL-5). Their mean resilience score on the Brief Resilient Coping Scale was 13.5, suggesting low resilience.
Among the respondents, 43.3% said they had received past treatment for mental health, while 33.5% were currently receiving mental health treatment.
Dr. Van Ameringen noted the important limitation of the study being an online survey with no control group, but said the responses nevertheless raise the question of the role of prior psychiatric disorders in long COVID.
“In our sample, 40% of respondents had a past psychiatric history, so you wonder if that also makes you vulnerable to long COVID,” he said in an interview.
“About a third were getting psychiatric help, but I think the more impaired you are, the more likely you are to seek help.”
Those who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were at a higher risk of PTSD compared with those not hospitalized (P < .001), as were those under the age of 30 (P < .05) or between 31 and 50 vs. over 50 (P < .01).
Dr. Van Ameringen noted that the survey’s high rate of subjects who had not returned to normal functioning was especially striking.
“This is not a minor issue – these are people who are no longer functioning in society,” he said.
In pandemics, the brain tends to be ‘overlooked’
Further addressing the neurological effects of COVID-19 at the APA meeting, Avindra Nath, MD, clinical director of the National Institutes of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Md., noted that the persisting cognitive and psychiatric symptoms after illness, such as brain fog and depression and anxiety, are not necessarily unique to COVID-19.
“We have seen this before,” he said. “There have been at least seven or eight human coronaviruses, and the interesting thing is each one affects the brain and causes neurological complications.”
The effects are classified differently and have slightly different receptors, “but the consequences are the same.”
Of note, however, research published in The Lancet Psychiatry (2021 May. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[21]00084-5) revealed that symptoms such as dementia, mood, and anxiety are significantly higher after COVID-19 compared with other respiratory infections, with the differences increasing at 180 days since the index event.
Dr. Nath noted that, over the decades, he has observed that in pandemics “the brain tends to get overlooked.” He explained that “what can be most important in the end is what happened in the brain, because those are the things that really cause the long-term consequences.”
“These patients are depressed; they have dementia, they have brain fog, and even now that we recognize these issues, we haven’t done a very good job of studying them,” he said. “There’s so much we still don’t know, and a lot of patients are left with these symptoms and nowhere to go.”
Dr. Lynch, Dr. Van Ameringen, and Dr. Nath had no disclosures to report.
NEW ORLEANS – , adding to mounting evidence of the significant toll the chronic condition can have on mental health.
“Many clinicians have observed the symptoms we describe in this study, however this report is among the first which identify the specific deficits using neuropsychological testing to better characterize the syndrome,” Sean T. Lynch, MD, first author of a study on the issue presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, said in an interview.
Dr. Lynch, of the department of psychiatry, Westchester Medical Center Health System, Valhalla, N.Y., and his colleagues enrolled 60 participants who had experienced acute COVID-19 disease 6-8 months earlier and had undergone neuropsychological, psychiatric, medical, functional, and quality-of-life assessments. Results from the study were published online in the Journal of the Academy of Consultation–Liaison Psychiatry (2022 Jan 25. doi: 10.1016/j.jaclp.2022.01.003).
Among the study participants, 32 were seeking treatment for brain fog in a clinical program for survivors of COVID-19, while the remaining 28 were part of an ongoing longitudinal investigation of neuropsychological, medical, and psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, but were not seeking care for the persistent symptoms.
Assessments for neurocognitive impairment included a battery of tests used in infectious and other diseases, including the Test of Premorbid Function, the Patient Assessment of Own Function, the Trail Making Test parts A and B, the Stroop Color and Word Test, and others.
Overall, the battery of assessments showed that 37 (62%) of participants had neuropsychological test impairment, with results below the 16th percentile in two tests, while 16 (27%) showed scores indicative of severe impairment (below the second percentile in at least one test and below the 16th percentile in one test).
Those reporting brain fog had scores that were even lower than expected on tests of attention, processing speed, memory, and executive function. And among those reporting brain fog, significantly more had scores reflecting severe impairment compared with the controls (38% vs. 14%; P < .04).
“Based on what we’ve observed in our patients and what others have previously reported, we did expect to find some impairment in this study sample,” Dr. Lynch noted.
“However, we were surprised to find that 27% of the study sample had extremely low neuropsychological test scores, meaning that they scored at least two standard deviations below the expected score on at least one neuropsychological test based on their age and level of education.”
The brain fog group also reported significantly higher levels of depression, fatigue, PTSD, and functional difficulties, and lower quality of life.
Severe impairment on the neuropsychological tests correlated with the extent of acute COVID-19 symptoms, as well as depression scores, number of medical comorbidities, and subjective cognitive complaints.
An analysis of serum levels of the inflammatory markers among 50 of the 60 participants showed that 45% of the patients had an elevated IL-6, 20% had elevated TNF-alpha, and 41% had elevated CRP, compared with reference ranges.
IL-6 levels were found to correlate with acute COVID-19 symptoms, the number of medical comorbidities, fatigue, and measures of executive function, while C-reactive protein (CRP) correlated with current COVID-19 symptoms and depression scores.
In terms of clinical factors that might predict low neuropsychological test scores, Dr. Lynch noted that the “markers that we found to be significant included severity of acute COVID-19 illness, current post-COVID-19 symptoms, measures of depression and anxiety, level of fatigue, and number of medical comorbidities.”
Dr. Lynch noted that the ongoing study will include up to 18-month follow-ups that are currently underway. “The [follow-ups] will examine if symptoms improve over time and evaluate if any intervention that took place was successful,” he said.
Survey supports findings
The detrimental effects of mental health symptoms in long COVID were further supported in another study at the APA meeting, an online survey of 787 survivors of acute COVID-19.
In the community survey, presented by Michael Van Ameringen, MD, a professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University, in Hamilton, Ont., all respondents (100%) reported having persistent symptoms of the virus, and as many as 68% indicated that they had not returned to normal functioning, despite only 15% of the respondents having been hospitalized with COVID-19.
A large proportion showed significant depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the most commonly reported persistent symptoms were fatigue in 75.9% of respondents, brain fog in 67.9%, concentration difficulties in 61.1%, and weakness in 51.2%.
As many as 88.2% of patients said they experienced persistent neurocognitive symptoms, with poor memory and concentration; 56% reported problems with word finding; and 54.1% had slowed thinking.
The respondents showed high rates of anxiety (41.7%) as well as depression (61.4%) as determined by scores above 9 on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQ-9).
As many as 40.5% of respondents showed probable PTSD, with scores above 30 on the PTSD checklist (PCL-5). Their mean resilience score on the Brief Resilient Coping Scale was 13.5, suggesting low resilience.
Among the respondents, 43.3% said they had received past treatment for mental health, while 33.5% were currently receiving mental health treatment.
Dr. Van Ameringen noted the important limitation of the study being an online survey with no control group, but said the responses nevertheless raise the question of the role of prior psychiatric disorders in long COVID.
“In our sample, 40% of respondents had a past psychiatric history, so you wonder if that also makes you vulnerable to long COVID,” he said in an interview.
“About a third were getting psychiatric help, but I think the more impaired you are, the more likely you are to seek help.”
Those who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were at a higher risk of PTSD compared with those not hospitalized (P < .001), as were those under the age of 30 (P < .05) or between 31 and 50 vs. over 50 (P < .01).
Dr. Van Ameringen noted that the survey’s high rate of subjects who had not returned to normal functioning was especially striking.
“This is not a minor issue – these are people who are no longer functioning in society,” he said.
In pandemics, the brain tends to be ‘overlooked’
Further addressing the neurological effects of COVID-19 at the APA meeting, Avindra Nath, MD, clinical director of the National Institutes of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Md., noted that the persisting cognitive and psychiatric symptoms after illness, such as brain fog and depression and anxiety, are not necessarily unique to COVID-19.
“We have seen this before,” he said. “There have been at least seven or eight human coronaviruses, and the interesting thing is each one affects the brain and causes neurological complications.”
The effects are classified differently and have slightly different receptors, “but the consequences are the same.”
Of note, however, research published in The Lancet Psychiatry (2021 May. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[21]00084-5) revealed that symptoms such as dementia, mood, and anxiety are significantly higher after COVID-19 compared with other respiratory infections, with the differences increasing at 180 days since the index event.
Dr. Nath noted that, over the decades, he has observed that in pandemics “the brain tends to get overlooked.” He explained that “what can be most important in the end is what happened in the brain, because those are the things that really cause the long-term consequences.”
“These patients are depressed; they have dementia, they have brain fog, and even now that we recognize these issues, we haven’t done a very good job of studying them,” he said. “There’s so much we still don’t know, and a lot of patients are left with these symptoms and nowhere to go.”
Dr. Lynch, Dr. Van Ameringen, and Dr. Nath had no disclosures to report.
AT APA 2022
Childhood survivors of gun violence: What’s the long-term outlook?
As the parents of the 19 children shot dead Tuesday in Uvalde, Tex., by a teen gunman grapple with unspeakable grief and funeral preparations, the survivors and their families are dealing with their own angst and likely much more.
While the parents understandably feel lucky that their children made it out, what about the long-term effect on their children of witnessing that carnage, of seeing classmates, friends, and teachers die violently as they stood by helpless and fearful?
The outcome over the next few days, months, and years depends on many factors, but how parents address the trauma both immediately and long-term can make a huge difference, experts say.
Posttraumatic growth
Best long-term case scenario? Survivors can experience what experts call posttraumatic growth – reaching out to give back to society, to make the world a better place, and changing who they are and their view of the world.
A prime example of posttraumatic growth: A month after a teen gunman killed 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Valentine’s Day 2018, an army of survivors from that day’s bloodbath headed to Washington, D.C., for the now-famous March for Our Lives. The student-led demonstration, with hundreds of thousands of supporters marching, called for gun control legislation and an end to gun violence. It remains a vibrant, nonprofit organization still advocating for universal background checks and increased support of mental health services.
No sign of future violence
While most children and teens who witness school violence won’t become high-profile activists, as survivors of Parkland and the numerous other school shootings have, neither will they become the next active shooter, mental health experts say. They can’t point to a study that follows the gun violence victims that shows who does OK and who doesn’t, but they know immediate support and therapy can go a long way to recovery.
“I can’t tell you how any particular child will do,” says Robin Gurwitch, PhD, psychologist and professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. “I can tell you the majority of kids will be OK.”
However, that doesn’t mean a surviving child won’t have behavior and other issues, she says. Research does suggest the next few days, weeks, or months will be rough.
What parents and other caretakers do in the days after the violence will help predict the long-term outcome. Dr. Gurwitch and other experts say it’s important to first focus on what they call “psychological first aid,” then phase in therapy such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, if and when it’s needed.
First, ‘psychological first aid’
“Psychological first aid is designed to minimize the impact down the road,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Validate that they are feeling scared or worried.”
Some may be angry, another understandable emotion. In the first few days of witnessing violence – or even just hearing about it – parents should expect clinginess, sleep problems, behavior meltdowns, and irritability, she says.
“Those kinds of changes are likely to last a few weeks,” she says.
If day-to-day functioning is very difficult, “don’t wait for those to pass,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Reach out for help. Resources will be available. Check with your pediatrician or family physician.”
At home, parents can address specific problems related to the experience, Dr. Gurwitch says. If it’s sleep, she says, parents and kids can work together to figure out how to ease sleep, such as listening to their favorite music before bedtime.
While parents may be inclined to baby the kids after the violence, Dr. Gurwitch says it’s important to maintain routines. So it’s not cruel to insist they do their chores.
Expect change
Things won’t be the same.
“Anytime we go through a particular traumatic event, we are changed,” Dr. Gurwitch says. ‘’The question is, what do we do about it? How do we incorporate that change into who we are and have become?”
Also important is figuring out how to make meaning out of what happened.
“I am so impressed by the families at Sandy Hook (the Connecticut elementary school where a gunman killed 26 in 2012),” she says.
They set up foundations and did other advocacy work.
“These types of events are life-changing events,” agrees David Schonfeld, MD, a pediatrician and director of the National Center for Schools Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, California. “They will change who children are as people, but it doesn’t mean they are damaged for life. They will remember it as long as they live, and it will also change who they are as a person.”
While people tend to stress the potential negative effects – and there certainly are some – ‘’some individuals actually emerge from these events with a renewed sense of purpose.’’
He tells parents: “Yes, your child has changed, and you can’t go back. But it doesn’t mean they are destined to never be able to cope [with trauma].”
Research
The effects of gun violence on children can be serious and dramatic, research shows.
- Exposure to neighborhood gun violence is linked with an increase in children’s mental health issues, have found. Children living within two or three blocks of gun violence had nearly twice the risk of going to the emergency department with a mental health complaint in the 14 days following the shooting.
- Exposure to gun violence should be classified, along with maltreatment, household dysfunction, and other issues known to impact children negatively, as an adverse childhood experience, other experts
- Direct gun violence exposure, witnessing it, and hearing gunshots are all associated with children being victimized in other ways, another found. And that poly-victimization, as it is called, was strongly associated with having posttraumatic symptoms.
Adverse Childhood Events, as these sorts of experiences are known, can have long-lasting effects on physical and mental health, as well as on even the economic future of a person, says Hansa Bhargava, MD, a pediatrician and chief medical officer of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals.
“Kids who have suffered through violent events can have brain development affected, as well as their immune systems,” she says. “They are more likely to have chronic disease, substance use disorder, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and lifelong depression. A high risk of [posttraumatic stress disorder] is likely for them and their families.”
The impact of family support
The gun violence and deaths are likely to remind children of other losses they have experienced, Dr. Schonfeld says, and that can make coping more difficult.
If the trauma from the Tuesday shootings is ‘’layered” on top of trauma from COVID-19 deaths or other trauma such as domestic violence, those children may have a more difficult time, says Allan Chrisman, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Health System. However, protective factors such as the family response and the community response can build resilience in survivors, he says.
“The way in which parents handle it for themselves will have a huge impact on the kids,” Dr. Chrisman says. “The worst outcomes are linked with [parents saying], ‘We don’t want to talk about it.’ ”
The parents are understandably upset, Dr. Gurwitch says. It’s OK to show sadness, anger, and other emotions, but she tells parents: “It’s not OK to completely decompose.” It’s important for the children to see that parents can pull themselves together.
Longer-term effects
As time goes on, ‘’a very large percentage will have posttraumatic reactions,” Dr. Schonfeld says. “Those reactions tend to improve over time.”
While people talk about PTSD directly after an incident such as a school shooting, it isn’t officially diagnosed as PTSD until the symptoms describing PTSD have persisted for a month, Dr. Schonfeld says. However, ‘’that doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem” that needs attention from a mental health professional.
“As a country we are already struggling with a mental health crisis,” Dr. Bhargava says. “Events such as this serve to exacerbate even more crisis in a group of innocent children whose only crime was to attend school. We must address the ‘epidemic’ of gun violence and school shootings head on. For the sake of our children and their health. For all of us.”
Therapy that works
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches are effective in reducing the trauma, Dr. Gurwitch says.
She often recommends one type of CBT, called trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. This approach involves children and parents and focuses on safety, coping skills, and gradual exposure. It’s a structured and short-term treatment of about eight to 25 sessions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As the parents of the 19 children shot dead Tuesday in Uvalde, Tex., by a teen gunman grapple with unspeakable grief and funeral preparations, the survivors and their families are dealing with their own angst and likely much more.
While the parents understandably feel lucky that their children made it out, what about the long-term effect on their children of witnessing that carnage, of seeing classmates, friends, and teachers die violently as they stood by helpless and fearful?
The outcome over the next few days, months, and years depends on many factors, but how parents address the trauma both immediately and long-term can make a huge difference, experts say.
Posttraumatic growth
Best long-term case scenario? Survivors can experience what experts call posttraumatic growth – reaching out to give back to society, to make the world a better place, and changing who they are and their view of the world.
A prime example of posttraumatic growth: A month after a teen gunman killed 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Valentine’s Day 2018, an army of survivors from that day’s bloodbath headed to Washington, D.C., for the now-famous March for Our Lives. The student-led demonstration, with hundreds of thousands of supporters marching, called for gun control legislation and an end to gun violence. It remains a vibrant, nonprofit organization still advocating for universal background checks and increased support of mental health services.
No sign of future violence
While most children and teens who witness school violence won’t become high-profile activists, as survivors of Parkland and the numerous other school shootings have, neither will they become the next active shooter, mental health experts say. They can’t point to a study that follows the gun violence victims that shows who does OK and who doesn’t, but they know immediate support and therapy can go a long way to recovery.
“I can’t tell you how any particular child will do,” says Robin Gurwitch, PhD, psychologist and professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. “I can tell you the majority of kids will be OK.”
However, that doesn’t mean a surviving child won’t have behavior and other issues, she says. Research does suggest the next few days, weeks, or months will be rough.
What parents and other caretakers do in the days after the violence will help predict the long-term outcome. Dr. Gurwitch and other experts say it’s important to first focus on what they call “psychological first aid,” then phase in therapy such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, if and when it’s needed.
First, ‘psychological first aid’
“Psychological first aid is designed to minimize the impact down the road,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Validate that they are feeling scared or worried.”
Some may be angry, another understandable emotion. In the first few days of witnessing violence – or even just hearing about it – parents should expect clinginess, sleep problems, behavior meltdowns, and irritability, she says.
“Those kinds of changes are likely to last a few weeks,” she says.
If day-to-day functioning is very difficult, “don’t wait for those to pass,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Reach out for help. Resources will be available. Check with your pediatrician or family physician.”
At home, parents can address specific problems related to the experience, Dr. Gurwitch says. If it’s sleep, she says, parents and kids can work together to figure out how to ease sleep, such as listening to their favorite music before bedtime.
While parents may be inclined to baby the kids after the violence, Dr. Gurwitch says it’s important to maintain routines. So it’s not cruel to insist they do their chores.
Expect change
Things won’t be the same.
“Anytime we go through a particular traumatic event, we are changed,” Dr. Gurwitch says. ‘’The question is, what do we do about it? How do we incorporate that change into who we are and have become?”
Also important is figuring out how to make meaning out of what happened.
“I am so impressed by the families at Sandy Hook (the Connecticut elementary school where a gunman killed 26 in 2012),” she says.
They set up foundations and did other advocacy work.
“These types of events are life-changing events,” agrees David Schonfeld, MD, a pediatrician and director of the National Center for Schools Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, California. “They will change who children are as people, but it doesn’t mean they are damaged for life. They will remember it as long as they live, and it will also change who they are as a person.”
While people tend to stress the potential negative effects – and there certainly are some – ‘’some individuals actually emerge from these events with a renewed sense of purpose.’’
He tells parents: “Yes, your child has changed, and you can’t go back. But it doesn’t mean they are destined to never be able to cope [with trauma].”
Research
The effects of gun violence on children can be serious and dramatic, research shows.
- Exposure to neighborhood gun violence is linked with an increase in children’s mental health issues, have found. Children living within two or three blocks of gun violence had nearly twice the risk of going to the emergency department with a mental health complaint in the 14 days following the shooting.
- Exposure to gun violence should be classified, along with maltreatment, household dysfunction, and other issues known to impact children negatively, as an adverse childhood experience, other experts
- Direct gun violence exposure, witnessing it, and hearing gunshots are all associated with children being victimized in other ways, another found. And that poly-victimization, as it is called, was strongly associated with having posttraumatic symptoms.
Adverse Childhood Events, as these sorts of experiences are known, can have long-lasting effects on physical and mental health, as well as on even the economic future of a person, says Hansa Bhargava, MD, a pediatrician and chief medical officer of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals.
“Kids who have suffered through violent events can have brain development affected, as well as their immune systems,” she says. “They are more likely to have chronic disease, substance use disorder, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and lifelong depression. A high risk of [posttraumatic stress disorder] is likely for them and their families.”
The impact of family support
The gun violence and deaths are likely to remind children of other losses they have experienced, Dr. Schonfeld says, and that can make coping more difficult.
If the trauma from the Tuesday shootings is ‘’layered” on top of trauma from COVID-19 deaths or other trauma such as domestic violence, those children may have a more difficult time, says Allan Chrisman, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Health System. However, protective factors such as the family response and the community response can build resilience in survivors, he says.
“The way in which parents handle it for themselves will have a huge impact on the kids,” Dr. Chrisman says. “The worst outcomes are linked with [parents saying], ‘We don’t want to talk about it.’ ”
The parents are understandably upset, Dr. Gurwitch says. It’s OK to show sadness, anger, and other emotions, but she tells parents: “It’s not OK to completely decompose.” It’s important for the children to see that parents can pull themselves together.
Longer-term effects
As time goes on, ‘’a very large percentage will have posttraumatic reactions,” Dr. Schonfeld says. “Those reactions tend to improve over time.”
While people talk about PTSD directly after an incident such as a school shooting, it isn’t officially diagnosed as PTSD until the symptoms describing PTSD have persisted for a month, Dr. Schonfeld says. However, ‘’that doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem” that needs attention from a mental health professional.
“As a country we are already struggling with a mental health crisis,” Dr. Bhargava says. “Events such as this serve to exacerbate even more crisis in a group of innocent children whose only crime was to attend school. We must address the ‘epidemic’ of gun violence and school shootings head on. For the sake of our children and their health. For all of us.”
Therapy that works
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches are effective in reducing the trauma, Dr. Gurwitch says.
She often recommends one type of CBT, called trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. This approach involves children and parents and focuses on safety, coping skills, and gradual exposure. It’s a structured and short-term treatment of about eight to 25 sessions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As the parents of the 19 children shot dead Tuesday in Uvalde, Tex., by a teen gunman grapple with unspeakable grief and funeral preparations, the survivors and their families are dealing with their own angst and likely much more.
While the parents understandably feel lucky that their children made it out, what about the long-term effect on their children of witnessing that carnage, of seeing classmates, friends, and teachers die violently as they stood by helpless and fearful?
The outcome over the next few days, months, and years depends on many factors, but how parents address the trauma both immediately and long-term can make a huge difference, experts say.
Posttraumatic growth
Best long-term case scenario? Survivors can experience what experts call posttraumatic growth – reaching out to give back to society, to make the world a better place, and changing who they are and their view of the world.
A prime example of posttraumatic growth: A month after a teen gunman killed 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Valentine’s Day 2018, an army of survivors from that day’s bloodbath headed to Washington, D.C., for the now-famous March for Our Lives. The student-led demonstration, with hundreds of thousands of supporters marching, called for gun control legislation and an end to gun violence. It remains a vibrant, nonprofit organization still advocating for universal background checks and increased support of mental health services.
No sign of future violence
While most children and teens who witness school violence won’t become high-profile activists, as survivors of Parkland and the numerous other school shootings have, neither will they become the next active shooter, mental health experts say. They can’t point to a study that follows the gun violence victims that shows who does OK and who doesn’t, but they know immediate support and therapy can go a long way to recovery.
“I can’t tell you how any particular child will do,” says Robin Gurwitch, PhD, psychologist and professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. “I can tell you the majority of kids will be OK.”
However, that doesn’t mean a surviving child won’t have behavior and other issues, she says. Research does suggest the next few days, weeks, or months will be rough.
What parents and other caretakers do in the days after the violence will help predict the long-term outcome. Dr. Gurwitch and other experts say it’s important to first focus on what they call “psychological first aid,” then phase in therapy such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, if and when it’s needed.
First, ‘psychological first aid’
“Psychological first aid is designed to minimize the impact down the road,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Validate that they are feeling scared or worried.”
Some may be angry, another understandable emotion. In the first few days of witnessing violence – or even just hearing about it – parents should expect clinginess, sleep problems, behavior meltdowns, and irritability, she says.
“Those kinds of changes are likely to last a few weeks,” she says.
If day-to-day functioning is very difficult, “don’t wait for those to pass,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Reach out for help. Resources will be available. Check with your pediatrician or family physician.”
At home, parents can address specific problems related to the experience, Dr. Gurwitch says. If it’s sleep, she says, parents and kids can work together to figure out how to ease sleep, such as listening to their favorite music before bedtime.
While parents may be inclined to baby the kids after the violence, Dr. Gurwitch says it’s important to maintain routines. So it’s not cruel to insist they do their chores.
Expect change
Things won’t be the same.
“Anytime we go through a particular traumatic event, we are changed,” Dr. Gurwitch says. ‘’The question is, what do we do about it? How do we incorporate that change into who we are and have become?”
Also important is figuring out how to make meaning out of what happened.
“I am so impressed by the families at Sandy Hook (the Connecticut elementary school where a gunman killed 26 in 2012),” she says.
They set up foundations and did other advocacy work.
“These types of events are life-changing events,” agrees David Schonfeld, MD, a pediatrician and director of the National Center for Schools Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, California. “They will change who children are as people, but it doesn’t mean they are damaged for life. They will remember it as long as they live, and it will also change who they are as a person.”
While people tend to stress the potential negative effects – and there certainly are some – ‘’some individuals actually emerge from these events with a renewed sense of purpose.’’
He tells parents: “Yes, your child has changed, and you can’t go back. But it doesn’t mean they are destined to never be able to cope [with trauma].”
Research
The effects of gun violence on children can be serious and dramatic, research shows.
- Exposure to neighborhood gun violence is linked with an increase in children’s mental health issues, have found. Children living within two or three blocks of gun violence had nearly twice the risk of going to the emergency department with a mental health complaint in the 14 days following the shooting.
- Exposure to gun violence should be classified, along with maltreatment, household dysfunction, and other issues known to impact children negatively, as an adverse childhood experience, other experts
- Direct gun violence exposure, witnessing it, and hearing gunshots are all associated with children being victimized in other ways, another found. And that poly-victimization, as it is called, was strongly associated with having posttraumatic symptoms.
Adverse Childhood Events, as these sorts of experiences are known, can have long-lasting effects on physical and mental health, as well as on even the economic future of a person, says Hansa Bhargava, MD, a pediatrician and chief medical officer of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals.
“Kids who have suffered through violent events can have brain development affected, as well as their immune systems,” she says. “They are more likely to have chronic disease, substance use disorder, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and lifelong depression. A high risk of [posttraumatic stress disorder] is likely for them and their families.”
The impact of family support
The gun violence and deaths are likely to remind children of other losses they have experienced, Dr. Schonfeld says, and that can make coping more difficult.
If the trauma from the Tuesday shootings is ‘’layered” on top of trauma from COVID-19 deaths or other trauma such as domestic violence, those children may have a more difficult time, says Allan Chrisman, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Health System. However, protective factors such as the family response and the community response can build resilience in survivors, he says.
“The way in which parents handle it for themselves will have a huge impact on the kids,” Dr. Chrisman says. “The worst outcomes are linked with [parents saying], ‘We don’t want to talk about it.’ ”
The parents are understandably upset, Dr. Gurwitch says. It’s OK to show sadness, anger, and other emotions, but she tells parents: “It’s not OK to completely decompose.” It’s important for the children to see that parents can pull themselves together.
Longer-term effects
As time goes on, ‘’a very large percentage will have posttraumatic reactions,” Dr. Schonfeld says. “Those reactions tend to improve over time.”
While people talk about PTSD directly after an incident such as a school shooting, it isn’t officially diagnosed as PTSD until the symptoms describing PTSD have persisted for a month, Dr. Schonfeld says. However, ‘’that doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem” that needs attention from a mental health professional.
“As a country we are already struggling with a mental health crisis,” Dr. Bhargava says. “Events such as this serve to exacerbate even more crisis in a group of innocent children whose only crime was to attend school. We must address the ‘epidemic’ of gun violence and school shootings head on. For the sake of our children and their health. For all of us.”
Therapy that works
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches are effective in reducing the trauma, Dr. Gurwitch says.
She often recommends one type of CBT, called trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. This approach involves children and parents and focuses on safety, coping skills, and gradual exposure. It’s a structured and short-term treatment of about eight to 25 sessions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.