User login
Chatbots can improve mental health in vulnerable populations
In this modern age of health care where telemedicine rules, conversational agents (CAs) that use text messaging systems are becoming a major mode of communication.
Many people are familiar with voice-enabled agents, such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now, and Microsoft’s Cortana. However, CAs come in different forms of complexity, ranging from a short message service–based texting platform to an embodied conversational agent (ECA).
ECAs allow participants to interact with a physical or graphical figure that simulates a person in appearance, behavior, and dialect. These are essentially virtual humans, or avatars, who talk with participants. By taking greater advantage of these automated agents, some have projected there may be $11 billion in combined cost savings across a variety of business sectors by 2023.1 The health care field is one sector in which CAs can play an important role. Because of their accessibility, CAs have the potential to improve mental health by combating health care inequities and stigma, encouraging disclosure from participants, and serving as companions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
CAs provide accessible health care for rural, low socioeconomic status (SES), and minority communities in a variety of advantageous ways. For example, one study found that long-term use of a text-based agent that combines motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can support smoking cessation in adolescents of low SES.2
CAs can help vulnerable participants advocate for themselves and proactively maintain their mental health through access to health care resources. In specific cases, these agents equalize health care treatment for different populations. Even though some participants live in secluded areas or are blocked by barriers, these text-based agents can still provide self-help intervention for them at any time on an individual basis, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status. Furthermore, they serve as highly cost-effective mental health promotion tools for large populations, some of which might not otherwise be reached by mental health care.
In combating mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, studies have found that CAs are great treatment tools. For example, participants in an experimental group who received a self-help program based on CBT from a text-based CA named Woebot experienced significantly reduced depression symptoms when compared to the control group of participants, who received only information from a self-help electronic book.3 As a result, CAs might prove successful in treating younger populations who find online tools more feasible and accessible. Often, this population self-identifies depressive and anxiety symptoms without consulting a health care professional. Thus, this tool would prove useful to those who are bothered by the stigma of seeing a mental health professional.
Virtual human–based CAs also encourage participants to disclose more information in a nonjudgmental manner, especially among people with diseases with stigma. CAs use neutral languages, which may be helpful when dealing with stigmatized issues such as HIV, family planning, and abortion care because this heightens confidentiality and privacy. When participants believe that the agent does not “judge” or evaluate their capabilities, this elicits more sensitive information from them. For example, one study found that military service members who believed that they were interacting with a computer rather than a human operator reported lower fear of self-disclosure, displayed more sadness, and were rated by observers as more willing to disclose posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.4 Additional findings show that participants prefer CAs when topics are highly sensitive and more likely to evoke negative self-admissions.
In what we hope will soon be a post–COVID-19 landscape of medicine, CAs are fast being used on the front lines of health care technology. Empathetic CAs can combat adverse effects of social exclusion during these pressing times. Etsuko Ishii, a researcher affiliated with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associates demonstrated that a virtual CA was as effective as a COVID-19 companion because it uses natural language processing (NLP) and nonverbal facial expressions to give users the feeling that they are being treated with empathy.5 While minimizing the number of in-person interactions that could potentially spread COVID-19, these agents promote virtual companionship that mirrors natural conversations and provide emotional support with psychological safety as participants express their pent-up thoughts. Not only do these agents help recover mood quickly, but they also have the power to overcome geographic barriers, be constantly available, and alleviate the high demand for mental health care. As a result, CAs have the potential to facilitate better communication and sustain social interactions within the isolated environment the pandemic has created.
CAs can predict, detect, and determine treatment solutions for mental health conditions based on behavioral insights. These agents’ natural language processing also allows them to be powerful therapeutic agents that can serve different communities, particularly for populations with limited access to medical resources. As the use of CAs becomes more integrated into telemedicine, their utility will continue to grow as their proven versatility in many situations expands the boundaries of health care technology.
Ms. Wong, a medical student at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, conducts research related to mental health care services. She disclosed writing a telemental health software platform called Orchid. Dr. Vo, a board-certified psychiatrist, is the medical director of telehealth for the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She is a faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. Dr. Vo conducts digital health research focused on using automation and artificial intelligence for suicide risk screening and connecting patients to mental health care services. She disclosed serving as cofounder of Orchid.
References
1. Chatbots: Vendor opportunities & market forecasts 2020-2024. Juniper Research, 2020.
2. Simon P et al. On using chatbots to promote smoking cessation among adolescents of low socioeconomic status, Artificial Intelligence and Work: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 2019 Fall Symposium, 2019.
3. Fitzpatrick KK et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2017;4(2):e19.
4. Lucas GM et al. Front Robot AI. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00051.
5. Ishii E et al. ERICA: An empathetic android companion for COVID-19 quarantine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02325.
In this modern age of health care where telemedicine rules, conversational agents (CAs) that use text messaging systems are becoming a major mode of communication.
Many people are familiar with voice-enabled agents, such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now, and Microsoft’s Cortana. However, CAs come in different forms of complexity, ranging from a short message service–based texting platform to an embodied conversational agent (ECA).
ECAs allow participants to interact with a physical or graphical figure that simulates a person in appearance, behavior, and dialect. These are essentially virtual humans, or avatars, who talk with participants. By taking greater advantage of these automated agents, some have projected there may be $11 billion in combined cost savings across a variety of business sectors by 2023.1 The health care field is one sector in which CAs can play an important role. Because of their accessibility, CAs have the potential to improve mental health by combating health care inequities and stigma, encouraging disclosure from participants, and serving as companions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
CAs provide accessible health care for rural, low socioeconomic status (SES), and minority communities in a variety of advantageous ways. For example, one study found that long-term use of a text-based agent that combines motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can support smoking cessation in adolescents of low SES.2
CAs can help vulnerable participants advocate for themselves and proactively maintain their mental health through access to health care resources. In specific cases, these agents equalize health care treatment for different populations. Even though some participants live in secluded areas or are blocked by barriers, these text-based agents can still provide self-help intervention for them at any time on an individual basis, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status. Furthermore, they serve as highly cost-effective mental health promotion tools for large populations, some of which might not otherwise be reached by mental health care.
In combating mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, studies have found that CAs are great treatment tools. For example, participants in an experimental group who received a self-help program based on CBT from a text-based CA named Woebot experienced significantly reduced depression symptoms when compared to the control group of participants, who received only information from a self-help electronic book.3 As a result, CAs might prove successful in treating younger populations who find online tools more feasible and accessible. Often, this population self-identifies depressive and anxiety symptoms without consulting a health care professional. Thus, this tool would prove useful to those who are bothered by the stigma of seeing a mental health professional.
Virtual human–based CAs also encourage participants to disclose more information in a nonjudgmental manner, especially among people with diseases with stigma. CAs use neutral languages, which may be helpful when dealing with stigmatized issues such as HIV, family planning, and abortion care because this heightens confidentiality and privacy. When participants believe that the agent does not “judge” or evaluate their capabilities, this elicits more sensitive information from them. For example, one study found that military service members who believed that they were interacting with a computer rather than a human operator reported lower fear of self-disclosure, displayed more sadness, and were rated by observers as more willing to disclose posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.4 Additional findings show that participants prefer CAs when topics are highly sensitive and more likely to evoke negative self-admissions.
In what we hope will soon be a post–COVID-19 landscape of medicine, CAs are fast being used on the front lines of health care technology. Empathetic CAs can combat adverse effects of social exclusion during these pressing times. Etsuko Ishii, a researcher affiliated with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associates demonstrated that a virtual CA was as effective as a COVID-19 companion because it uses natural language processing (NLP) and nonverbal facial expressions to give users the feeling that they are being treated with empathy.5 While minimizing the number of in-person interactions that could potentially spread COVID-19, these agents promote virtual companionship that mirrors natural conversations and provide emotional support with psychological safety as participants express their pent-up thoughts. Not only do these agents help recover mood quickly, but they also have the power to overcome geographic barriers, be constantly available, and alleviate the high demand for mental health care. As a result, CAs have the potential to facilitate better communication and sustain social interactions within the isolated environment the pandemic has created.
CAs can predict, detect, and determine treatment solutions for mental health conditions based on behavioral insights. These agents’ natural language processing also allows them to be powerful therapeutic agents that can serve different communities, particularly for populations with limited access to medical resources. As the use of CAs becomes more integrated into telemedicine, their utility will continue to grow as their proven versatility in many situations expands the boundaries of health care technology.
Ms. Wong, a medical student at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, conducts research related to mental health care services. She disclosed writing a telemental health software platform called Orchid. Dr. Vo, a board-certified psychiatrist, is the medical director of telehealth for the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She is a faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. Dr. Vo conducts digital health research focused on using automation and artificial intelligence for suicide risk screening and connecting patients to mental health care services. She disclosed serving as cofounder of Orchid.
References
1. Chatbots: Vendor opportunities & market forecasts 2020-2024. Juniper Research, 2020.
2. Simon P et al. On using chatbots to promote smoking cessation among adolescents of low socioeconomic status, Artificial Intelligence and Work: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 2019 Fall Symposium, 2019.
3. Fitzpatrick KK et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2017;4(2):e19.
4. Lucas GM et al. Front Robot AI. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00051.
5. Ishii E et al. ERICA: An empathetic android companion for COVID-19 quarantine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02325.
In this modern age of health care where telemedicine rules, conversational agents (CAs) that use text messaging systems are becoming a major mode of communication.
Many people are familiar with voice-enabled agents, such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now, and Microsoft’s Cortana. However, CAs come in different forms of complexity, ranging from a short message service–based texting platform to an embodied conversational agent (ECA).
ECAs allow participants to interact with a physical or graphical figure that simulates a person in appearance, behavior, and dialect. These are essentially virtual humans, or avatars, who talk with participants. By taking greater advantage of these automated agents, some have projected there may be $11 billion in combined cost savings across a variety of business sectors by 2023.1 The health care field is one sector in which CAs can play an important role. Because of their accessibility, CAs have the potential to improve mental health by combating health care inequities and stigma, encouraging disclosure from participants, and serving as companions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
CAs provide accessible health care for rural, low socioeconomic status (SES), and minority communities in a variety of advantageous ways. For example, one study found that long-term use of a text-based agent that combines motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can support smoking cessation in adolescents of low SES.2
CAs can help vulnerable participants advocate for themselves and proactively maintain their mental health through access to health care resources. In specific cases, these agents equalize health care treatment for different populations. Even though some participants live in secluded areas or are blocked by barriers, these text-based agents can still provide self-help intervention for them at any time on an individual basis, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status. Furthermore, they serve as highly cost-effective mental health promotion tools for large populations, some of which might not otherwise be reached by mental health care.
In combating mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, studies have found that CAs are great treatment tools. For example, participants in an experimental group who received a self-help program based on CBT from a text-based CA named Woebot experienced significantly reduced depression symptoms when compared to the control group of participants, who received only information from a self-help electronic book.3 As a result, CAs might prove successful in treating younger populations who find online tools more feasible and accessible. Often, this population self-identifies depressive and anxiety symptoms without consulting a health care professional. Thus, this tool would prove useful to those who are bothered by the stigma of seeing a mental health professional.
Virtual human–based CAs also encourage participants to disclose more information in a nonjudgmental manner, especially among people with diseases with stigma. CAs use neutral languages, which may be helpful when dealing with stigmatized issues such as HIV, family planning, and abortion care because this heightens confidentiality and privacy. When participants believe that the agent does not “judge” or evaluate their capabilities, this elicits more sensitive information from them. For example, one study found that military service members who believed that they were interacting with a computer rather than a human operator reported lower fear of self-disclosure, displayed more sadness, and were rated by observers as more willing to disclose posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.4 Additional findings show that participants prefer CAs when topics are highly sensitive and more likely to evoke negative self-admissions.
In what we hope will soon be a post–COVID-19 landscape of medicine, CAs are fast being used on the front lines of health care technology. Empathetic CAs can combat adverse effects of social exclusion during these pressing times. Etsuko Ishii, a researcher affiliated with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associates demonstrated that a virtual CA was as effective as a COVID-19 companion because it uses natural language processing (NLP) and nonverbal facial expressions to give users the feeling that they are being treated with empathy.5 While minimizing the number of in-person interactions that could potentially spread COVID-19, these agents promote virtual companionship that mirrors natural conversations and provide emotional support with psychological safety as participants express their pent-up thoughts. Not only do these agents help recover mood quickly, but they also have the power to overcome geographic barriers, be constantly available, and alleviate the high demand for mental health care. As a result, CAs have the potential to facilitate better communication and sustain social interactions within the isolated environment the pandemic has created.
CAs can predict, detect, and determine treatment solutions for mental health conditions based on behavioral insights. These agents’ natural language processing also allows them to be powerful therapeutic agents that can serve different communities, particularly for populations with limited access to medical resources. As the use of CAs becomes more integrated into telemedicine, their utility will continue to grow as their proven versatility in many situations expands the boundaries of health care technology.
Ms. Wong, a medical student at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, conducts research related to mental health care services. She disclosed writing a telemental health software platform called Orchid. Dr. Vo, a board-certified psychiatrist, is the medical director of telehealth for the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She is a faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. Dr. Vo conducts digital health research focused on using automation and artificial intelligence for suicide risk screening and connecting patients to mental health care services. She disclosed serving as cofounder of Orchid.
References
1. Chatbots: Vendor opportunities & market forecasts 2020-2024. Juniper Research, 2020.
2. Simon P et al. On using chatbots to promote smoking cessation among adolescents of low socioeconomic status, Artificial Intelligence and Work: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 2019 Fall Symposium, 2019.
3. Fitzpatrick KK et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2017;4(2):e19.
4. Lucas GM et al. Front Robot AI. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00051.
5. Ishii E et al. ERICA: An empathetic android companion for COVID-19 quarantine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02325.
Cannabis use: Messages remain mixed across diagnoses
Marijuana use is now a legal activity in many parts of the United States, but those managing patients with psychiatric disorders are in the difficult position of determining whether this use is helpful, harmful, or irrelevant to the underlying illness on the basis of limited and largely incomplete data, according to an overview of this issue presented at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.
While there is clear evidence that cannabis use relative to the general population “is more prevalent among patients with psychiatric disorders,” it is less certain how often this use is risky, said Diana M. Martinez, MD, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York.
Independent of euphoric effects, cannabis can be perceived by individuals with psychiatric diagnosis as self-medication for feelings of stress, social anxiety, and insomnia, among other symptoms. These are the same reasons why many individuals without psychiatric conditions use cannabis-containing products.
The perception that cannabis use is generally benign presumably explains the successful efforts at legalization, but there are risks for those with or without psychiatric illnesses, Dr. Martinez pointed out at the meeting, sponsored by Medscape Live. Not least, about 20% of regular users of cannabis develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), a condition defined in the DSM-5 as the continued use of cannabis despite adverse consequences, such as dependence.
Impact of severe CUD ‘incapacitating’
“Of those who meet criteria for CUD, 23% have severe CUD, which is an incapacitating form,” reported Dr. Martinez, citing work led by Deborah Hasin, PhD, professor of clinical epidemiology at Columbia University.
However, relative to otherwise healthy individuals, those with a psychiatric diagnosis might face greater benefits or greater risks from cannabis use, according to Dr. Martinez, who cited a 2017 report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).
This report evaluated the potential risks and benefits on the basis of published studies.
There is limited evidence that regular cannabis increases rather than modifies symptoms of mania and hypomania in patients with bipolar disorder, according to the report. The report also cited limited evidence that cannabis use increases severity of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). There was limited evidence of adverse effects on symptoms of anxiety, although this appeared to depend on daily or nearly daily use.
The report found no data of acceptable quality to draw conclusions about the effect of cannabis use on symptoms of depression.
In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), “a recent study showed that daily but not occasional use of cannabis increased impulsivity but not inattention, working memory, or verbal intelligence,” said Dr. Martinez, citing a study published this year.
Some evidence also suggests that patients with a psychiatric disorder might benefit from cannabis use, but, again, this evidence is limited. For one example, it includes a potential reduction in symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder, Dr. Martinez said.
More support for cannabis in medical disease
Relative to the quality of evidence supporting benefit from cannabis in psychiatric disease, the data appear to be stronger for patients with medical illnesses, such as cancer. For example, Dr. Martinez cited evidence that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a major active ingredient in cannabis, improves sleep in the context of a medical illnesses. There is also evidence for anxiolytic effects in patients with a medical illness, although that is weaker.
In patients with or without a psychiatric disorder, marijuana does pose a risk of substance abuse disorder, and it shares the risks of intoxicants, such as inattention leading to increased risk of accidents, including motor vehicle accidents. This pertains to those with or without a psychiatric or medical condition, Dr. Martinez said.
While intermittent light use of cannabis appears to pose no risk or a very low risk of long-term adverse effects on cognition, at least in patients without psychiatric disorders, Dr. Martinez indicated that the risk-benefit ratio for any individual is use dependent. The risk of CUD, for example, increases with the frequency of exposure and the potency of the cannabis.
Empirical evidence for therapeutic role
In published studies, other researchers have expressed interest in a potential therapeutic role of cannabis for psychiatric disorders, but there appears to be a general consensus that the supportive data remain weak. One expert who has written on this topic, Jerome Sarris, PhD, professor of integrative mental health, NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Westmead, Australia, said that empirical evidence does support a benefit in selected patients.
“Of course, high THC forms are strongly discouraged in people with schizophrenia or high risk of developing psychotic disorder, or in youths,” Dr. Sarris explained. “However, there is a potential role for use in people with sleep and pain issues, and many find it beneficial to also assist with affective disorder symptoms.”
In a systematic review he led that was published last year, the evidence to support cannabis for psychiatric disorders was characterized as “embryonic.” However, small studies and case reports appear to support benefit for such indications as ADHD if precautions are taken.
“I certainly would not discourage use of prescribed standardized medicinal cannabis therapeutics for all people with psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Sarris said. He suggested that attention should be made to the THC potency and terpene composition of the products that patients with psychiatric disorders are taking.
Marijuana use is now a legal activity in many parts of the United States, but those managing patients with psychiatric disorders are in the difficult position of determining whether this use is helpful, harmful, or irrelevant to the underlying illness on the basis of limited and largely incomplete data, according to an overview of this issue presented at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.
While there is clear evidence that cannabis use relative to the general population “is more prevalent among patients with psychiatric disorders,” it is less certain how often this use is risky, said Diana M. Martinez, MD, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York.
Independent of euphoric effects, cannabis can be perceived by individuals with psychiatric diagnosis as self-medication for feelings of stress, social anxiety, and insomnia, among other symptoms. These are the same reasons why many individuals without psychiatric conditions use cannabis-containing products.
The perception that cannabis use is generally benign presumably explains the successful efforts at legalization, but there are risks for those with or without psychiatric illnesses, Dr. Martinez pointed out at the meeting, sponsored by Medscape Live. Not least, about 20% of regular users of cannabis develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), a condition defined in the DSM-5 as the continued use of cannabis despite adverse consequences, such as dependence.
Impact of severe CUD ‘incapacitating’
“Of those who meet criteria for CUD, 23% have severe CUD, which is an incapacitating form,” reported Dr. Martinez, citing work led by Deborah Hasin, PhD, professor of clinical epidemiology at Columbia University.
However, relative to otherwise healthy individuals, those with a psychiatric diagnosis might face greater benefits or greater risks from cannabis use, according to Dr. Martinez, who cited a 2017 report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).
This report evaluated the potential risks and benefits on the basis of published studies.
There is limited evidence that regular cannabis increases rather than modifies symptoms of mania and hypomania in patients with bipolar disorder, according to the report. The report also cited limited evidence that cannabis use increases severity of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). There was limited evidence of adverse effects on symptoms of anxiety, although this appeared to depend on daily or nearly daily use.
The report found no data of acceptable quality to draw conclusions about the effect of cannabis use on symptoms of depression.
In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), “a recent study showed that daily but not occasional use of cannabis increased impulsivity but not inattention, working memory, or verbal intelligence,” said Dr. Martinez, citing a study published this year.
Some evidence also suggests that patients with a psychiatric disorder might benefit from cannabis use, but, again, this evidence is limited. For one example, it includes a potential reduction in symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder, Dr. Martinez said.
More support for cannabis in medical disease
Relative to the quality of evidence supporting benefit from cannabis in psychiatric disease, the data appear to be stronger for patients with medical illnesses, such as cancer. For example, Dr. Martinez cited evidence that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a major active ingredient in cannabis, improves sleep in the context of a medical illnesses. There is also evidence for anxiolytic effects in patients with a medical illness, although that is weaker.
In patients with or without a psychiatric disorder, marijuana does pose a risk of substance abuse disorder, and it shares the risks of intoxicants, such as inattention leading to increased risk of accidents, including motor vehicle accidents. This pertains to those with or without a psychiatric or medical condition, Dr. Martinez said.
While intermittent light use of cannabis appears to pose no risk or a very low risk of long-term adverse effects on cognition, at least in patients without psychiatric disorders, Dr. Martinez indicated that the risk-benefit ratio for any individual is use dependent. The risk of CUD, for example, increases with the frequency of exposure and the potency of the cannabis.
Empirical evidence for therapeutic role
In published studies, other researchers have expressed interest in a potential therapeutic role of cannabis for psychiatric disorders, but there appears to be a general consensus that the supportive data remain weak. One expert who has written on this topic, Jerome Sarris, PhD, professor of integrative mental health, NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Westmead, Australia, said that empirical evidence does support a benefit in selected patients.
“Of course, high THC forms are strongly discouraged in people with schizophrenia or high risk of developing psychotic disorder, or in youths,” Dr. Sarris explained. “However, there is a potential role for use in people with sleep and pain issues, and many find it beneficial to also assist with affective disorder symptoms.”
In a systematic review he led that was published last year, the evidence to support cannabis for psychiatric disorders was characterized as “embryonic.” However, small studies and case reports appear to support benefit for such indications as ADHD if precautions are taken.
“I certainly would not discourage use of prescribed standardized medicinal cannabis therapeutics for all people with psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Sarris said. He suggested that attention should be made to the THC potency and terpene composition of the products that patients with psychiatric disorders are taking.
Marijuana use is now a legal activity in many parts of the United States, but those managing patients with psychiatric disorders are in the difficult position of determining whether this use is helpful, harmful, or irrelevant to the underlying illness on the basis of limited and largely incomplete data, according to an overview of this issue presented at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.
While there is clear evidence that cannabis use relative to the general population “is more prevalent among patients with psychiatric disorders,” it is less certain how often this use is risky, said Diana M. Martinez, MD, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York.
Independent of euphoric effects, cannabis can be perceived by individuals with psychiatric diagnosis as self-medication for feelings of stress, social anxiety, and insomnia, among other symptoms. These are the same reasons why many individuals without psychiatric conditions use cannabis-containing products.
The perception that cannabis use is generally benign presumably explains the successful efforts at legalization, but there are risks for those with or without psychiatric illnesses, Dr. Martinez pointed out at the meeting, sponsored by Medscape Live. Not least, about 20% of regular users of cannabis develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), a condition defined in the DSM-5 as the continued use of cannabis despite adverse consequences, such as dependence.
Impact of severe CUD ‘incapacitating’
“Of those who meet criteria for CUD, 23% have severe CUD, which is an incapacitating form,” reported Dr. Martinez, citing work led by Deborah Hasin, PhD, professor of clinical epidemiology at Columbia University.
However, relative to otherwise healthy individuals, those with a psychiatric diagnosis might face greater benefits or greater risks from cannabis use, according to Dr. Martinez, who cited a 2017 report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).
This report evaluated the potential risks and benefits on the basis of published studies.
There is limited evidence that regular cannabis increases rather than modifies symptoms of mania and hypomania in patients with bipolar disorder, according to the report. The report also cited limited evidence that cannabis use increases severity of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). There was limited evidence of adverse effects on symptoms of anxiety, although this appeared to depend on daily or nearly daily use.
The report found no data of acceptable quality to draw conclusions about the effect of cannabis use on symptoms of depression.
In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), “a recent study showed that daily but not occasional use of cannabis increased impulsivity but not inattention, working memory, or verbal intelligence,” said Dr. Martinez, citing a study published this year.
Some evidence also suggests that patients with a psychiatric disorder might benefit from cannabis use, but, again, this evidence is limited. For one example, it includes a potential reduction in symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder, Dr. Martinez said.
More support for cannabis in medical disease
Relative to the quality of evidence supporting benefit from cannabis in psychiatric disease, the data appear to be stronger for patients with medical illnesses, such as cancer. For example, Dr. Martinez cited evidence that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a major active ingredient in cannabis, improves sleep in the context of a medical illnesses. There is also evidence for anxiolytic effects in patients with a medical illness, although that is weaker.
In patients with or without a psychiatric disorder, marijuana does pose a risk of substance abuse disorder, and it shares the risks of intoxicants, such as inattention leading to increased risk of accidents, including motor vehicle accidents. This pertains to those with or without a psychiatric or medical condition, Dr. Martinez said.
While intermittent light use of cannabis appears to pose no risk or a very low risk of long-term adverse effects on cognition, at least in patients without psychiatric disorders, Dr. Martinez indicated that the risk-benefit ratio for any individual is use dependent. The risk of CUD, for example, increases with the frequency of exposure and the potency of the cannabis.
Empirical evidence for therapeutic role
In published studies, other researchers have expressed interest in a potential therapeutic role of cannabis for psychiatric disorders, but there appears to be a general consensus that the supportive data remain weak. One expert who has written on this topic, Jerome Sarris, PhD, professor of integrative mental health, NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Westmead, Australia, said that empirical evidence does support a benefit in selected patients.
“Of course, high THC forms are strongly discouraged in people with schizophrenia or high risk of developing psychotic disorder, or in youths,” Dr. Sarris explained. “However, there is a potential role for use in people with sleep and pain issues, and many find it beneficial to also assist with affective disorder symptoms.”
In a systematic review he led that was published last year, the evidence to support cannabis for psychiatric disorders was characterized as “embryonic.” However, small studies and case reports appear to support benefit for such indications as ADHD if precautions are taken.
“I certainly would not discourage use of prescribed standardized medicinal cannabis therapeutics for all people with psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Sarris said. He suggested that attention should be made to the THC potency and terpene composition of the products that patients with psychiatric disorders are taking.
FROM PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY UPDATE
Pandemic drives uptick in need for mental health services
In 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, about 1 in 5 (20.3%) U.S. adults received mental health treatment, up slightly from 19.2% in 2019, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.
Compared with 2019, the pandemic year of 2020 also saw an uptick in adults receiving prescription medication for a mental health problem (from 15.8% to 16.5%) or counseling or therapy from a mental health professional (from 9.5% to 10.1%), the CDC says.
The percentage of adults who had received mental health treatment in the prior year decreased with age, from 20.9% among people aged 18-44 to 20.5% among those aged 45-64 to 18.7% among those aged 65 and older.
Women were more likely than men to have received any mental health treatment (25.6% vs 14.6%), according to an analysis of 2020 data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).
This is consistent with their higher prevalence of common mental health conditions, including anxiety and depression, and their greater willingness to seek out mental health care, Emily Terlizzi, MPH, and Tina Norris, PhD, with the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), note in their data brief published online Oct. 20.
Non-Hispanic White adults (24.4%) were more likely than non-Hispanic Black (15.3%), Hispanic (12.65) and non-Hispanic Asian (7.7%) adults to be treated with a mental health issue.
The percentage of adults treated for a mental health problem increased as their place of residence became more rural, from 19.3% for those living in large urban areas to 21.7% among those residing in nonmetropolitan areas.
Social and emotional support
Despite rising mental health care needs, period of July to Dec. 2020, also based on NHIS data.
Social and emotional support is associated with well-being and a reduced risk of early death, NCHS researchers Peter Boersma, MPH, and Anjel Vahratian, PhD, MPH, note in their data brief.
However, social and emotional support varies by age and race/ethnicity.
Groups with lower levels of social and emotional support are Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic Asian adults; adults neither married nor living with a partner; adults without another adult in the home; adults with less than a high school education; and adults with disabilities.
“While most adults always or usually had the emotional support they needed, 1 in 10 adults rarely or never received the social and emotional support they needed,” the authors report.
As reported by this news organization, 2020 data from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) show social isolation in older adults is a major public health concern that contributes to heart disease, depression, and premature death.
The report urged health care systems to take urgent action to address social isolation and loneliness in older adults and proposed a series of recommendations for addressing social isolation.
One recommendation was to improve awareness by including measures of social isolation and loneliness in health surveys, such as the NHIS, which began asking about perceived social and emotional support in July 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, about 1 in 5 (20.3%) U.S. adults received mental health treatment, up slightly from 19.2% in 2019, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.
Compared with 2019, the pandemic year of 2020 also saw an uptick in adults receiving prescription medication for a mental health problem (from 15.8% to 16.5%) or counseling or therapy from a mental health professional (from 9.5% to 10.1%), the CDC says.
The percentage of adults who had received mental health treatment in the prior year decreased with age, from 20.9% among people aged 18-44 to 20.5% among those aged 45-64 to 18.7% among those aged 65 and older.
Women were more likely than men to have received any mental health treatment (25.6% vs 14.6%), according to an analysis of 2020 data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).
This is consistent with their higher prevalence of common mental health conditions, including anxiety and depression, and their greater willingness to seek out mental health care, Emily Terlizzi, MPH, and Tina Norris, PhD, with the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), note in their data brief published online Oct. 20.
Non-Hispanic White adults (24.4%) were more likely than non-Hispanic Black (15.3%), Hispanic (12.65) and non-Hispanic Asian (7.7%) adults to be treated with a mental health issue.
The percentage of adults treated for a mental health problem increased as their place of residence became more rural, from 19.3% for those living in large urban areas to 21.7% among those residing in nonmetropolitan areas.
Social and emotional support
Despite rising mental health care needs, period of July to Dec. 2020, also based on NHIS data.
Social and emotional support is associated with well-being and a reduced risk of early death, NCHS researchers Peter Boersma, MPH, and Anjel Vahratian, PhD, MPH, note in their data brief.
However, social and emotional support varies by age and race/ethnicity.
Groups with lower levels of social and emotional support are Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic Asian adults; adults neither married nor living with a partner; adults without another adult in the home; adults with less than a high school education; and adults with disabilities.
“While most adults always or usually had the emotional support they needed, 1 in 10 adults rarely or never received the social and emotional support they needed,” the authors report.
As reported by this news organization, 2020 data from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) show social isolation in older adults is a major public health concern that contributes to heart disease, depression, and premature death.
The report urged health care systems to take urgent action to address social isolation and loneliness in older adults and proposed a series of recommendations for addressing social isolation.
One recommendation was to improve awareness by including measures of social isolation and loneliness in health surveys, such as the NHIS, which began asking about perceived social and emotional support in July 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, about 1 in 5 (20.3%) U.S. adults received mental health treatment, up slightly from 19.2% in 2019, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.
Compared with 2019, the pandemic year of 2020 also saw an uptick in adults receiving prescription medication for a mental health problem (from 15.8% to 16.5%) or counseling or therapy from a mental health professional (from 9.5% to 10.1%), the CDC says.
The percentage of adults who had received mental health treatment in the prior year decreased with age, from 20.9% among people aged 18-44 to 20.5% among those aged 45-64 to 18.7% among those aged 65 and older.
Women were more likely than men to have received any mental health treatment (25.6% vs 14.6%), according to an analysis of 2020 data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).
This is consistent with their higher prevalence of common mental health conditions, including anxiety and depression, and their greater willingness to seek out mental health care, Emily Terlizzi, MPH, and Tina Norris, PhD, with the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), note in their data brief published online Oct. 20.
Non-Hispanic White adults (24.4%) were more likely than non-Hispanic Black (15.3%), Hispanic (12.65) and non-Hispanic Asian (7.7%) adults to be treated with a mental health issue.
The percentage of adults treated for a mental health problem increased as their place of residence became more rural, from 19.3% for those living in large urban areas to 21.7% among those residing in nonmetropolitan areas.
Social and emotional support
Despite rising mental health care needs, period of July to Dec. 2020, also based on NHIS data.
Social and emotional support is associated with well-being and a reduced risk of early death, NCHS researchers Peter Boersma, MPH, and Anjel Vahratian, PhD, MPH, note in their data brief.
However, social and emotional support varies by age and race/ethnicity.
Groups with lower levels of social and emotional support are Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic Asian adults; adults neither married nor living with a partner; adults without another adult in the home; adults with less than a high school education; and adults with disabilities.
“While most adults always or usually had the emotional support they needed, 1 in 10 adults rarely or never received the social and emotional support they needed,” the authors report.
As reported by this news organization, 2020 data from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) show social isolation in older adults is a major public health concern that contributes to heart disease, depression, and premature death.
The report urged health care systems to take urgent action to address social isolation and loneliness in older adults and proposed a series of recommendations for addressing social isolation.
One recommendation was to improve awareness by including measures of social isolation and loneliness in health surveys, such as the NHIS, which began asking about perceived social and emotional support in July 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
But I am the therapist!
Dr. Smith’s patient, Anna, was struggling. Her mother, with whom she lived, had died, her boyfriend had broken up with her, her teenagers were being difficult, and her anxiety about catching COVID left her isolated and lonely.
She was working in psychotherapy and a number of medications had been tried, but when Anna suggested that her children might be better off without her, Dr. Smith referred her to an inpatient unit at a local hospital for admission. He faxed over the clinical and demographic information that the hospital wanted, and he never heard a word from the inpatient unit until Anna texted him that she had been discharged. She noted that the hospitalization had been helpful.
“I have an appointment next week with a therapist,” Anna texted.
Dr. Smith was puzzled and he conveyed that in his response to her.
“They told me that you are the psychiatrist and I should see you once a month and that I need a therapist to see weekly.”
Dr. Smith remained puzzled. At times he had seen Anna weekly, and he always saw her for 50-minute (or longer) sessions, but he realized that the person in charge of discharge had decided that psychiatrists are not psychotherapists. As a psychiatrist who sees patients for psychotherapy, Dr. Smith was not in Anna’s health insurance plan, and perhaps the hospital discharged people to see in-network clinicians. Or perhaps they thought that if he were a better psychiatrist, his patient would not need an inpatient admission. All he could do was surmise, but clearly ; they had changed Anna’s treatment without the courtesy of a phone call.
“This happens to me all the time,” said Sally Waddington, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Laurel, Md. “Hospitals will tell my patients that psychiatrists are for medications and they need a separate therapist. It really undermines the treatment.”
Ramin Mojtabai, MD, PhD, MPH, is a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He has done research on trends in psychotherapy among psychiatrists and in 2008 published a study which showed that only 10.8% of psychiatrists see all of their patients for psychotherapy. The same data, however, revealed that 59.4% – or a majority – of psychiatrists see at least some of their patients for psychotherapy.
“Unfortunately, our profession has been defined by the insurance industry for decades,” Dr. Mojtabai said in an interview, “so, I am not surprised that the patient was told to see a ‘proper’ psychotherapist.”
George Dawson, MD, spent 22 years as a psychiatrist on an inpatient unit in Minnesota. On his blog, “Real Psychiatry,” Dr. Dawson has a lengthy post dated Oct. 3, 2021, titled “The problem with inpatient units.” Dr. Dawson writes, “There is a lack of collaboration with outpatient staff: Good inpatient care proceeds from the assumption that the main focus of treatment is with the primary psychiatrist or treatment team. ... The only acceptable reasons are that the patient does not have outpatient care, the patient refuses to consent to the communication, or the outpatient physician or their proxy cannot be contacted with a good faith effort. Being on both ends of that call – a good faith effort to me means leaving a cell phone number with the message to ‘call me at any time.’ I have found that effort is required in an era of overproduction and no set times in the outpatient clinic for necessary phone calls.”
In an interview, Dr. Dawson commented on the predicament of Dr. Smith and Anna. “The inpatient staff seem to have a grandiose idea of where the care should be centered and that is with the outpatient doctor making the referral. Any plan not involving the referring doctor is not likely to be successful.”
Dr. Waddington talked about how she handles the situation when an inpatient unit refers her patients to a separate psychotherapist. “Usually, I discuss it with my patient. Sometimes they want a change and so I continue to see them for medications. Most of the time, they keep seeing me for therapy.” She went on to note, “I recently had a patient who was in the hospital and was referred to a trauma specialist for therapy. The referral was probably appropriate in her case; I just wish they had discussed this with me first.”
Dr. Smith calls himself “a dinosaur” – he likes treating patients with a combination of medications and psychotherapy and he does not enjoy seeing patients for brief visits for medication management. He was, however, concerned that Anna had been stretching out the time between sessions because of financial concerns, so he suggested she could meet with the therapist and see if she thought this might be helpful to her. If it was, he recommended she find a psychiatrist in her insurance network to prescribe her medications, with the hope that this would be a reasonable alternative to their current conundrum.
“I believe that many patients are best served by having their care come from a single psychiatrist and not treatment split between clinicians; however, I recognize that this is not always financially the best option. Anna might benefit from not having the financial stress of care from a psychiatrist where she is not reimbursed as well – if at all – by insurance. Still, I am annoyed; it feels like the inpatient team decided to write a new job description for me and to dictate through my patient how it is I should be practicing. And after they implied that I was not the best therapist for her, they hijacked her and sent her to someone who may well have much less experience than I do.”
In the clinical care of any patient, communication between the inpatient team and the outpatient physician is essential, and all too often, this doesn’t happen.
Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.
Dr. Smith’s patient, Anna, was struggling. Her mother, with whom she lived, had died, her boyfriend had broken up with her, her teenagers were being difficult, and her anxiety about catching COVID left her isolated and lonely.
She was working in psychotherapy and a number of medications had been tried, but when Anna suggested that her children might be better off without her, Dr. Smith referred her to an inpatient unit at a local hospital for admission. He faxed over the clinical and demographic information that the hospital wanted, and he never heard a word from the inpatient unit until Anna texted him that she had been discharged. She noted that the hospitalization had been helpful.
“I have an appointment next week with a therapist,” Anna texted.
Dr. Smith was puzzled and he conveyed that in his response to her.
“They told me that you are the psychiatrist and I should see you once a month and that I need a therapist to see weekly.”
Dr. Smith remained puzzled. At times he had seen Anna weekly, and he always saw her for 50-minute (or longer) sessions, but he realized that the person in charge of discharge had decided that psychiatrists are not psychotherapists. As a psychiatrist who sees patients for psychotherapy, Dr. Smith was not in Anna’s health insurance plan, and perhaps the hospital discharged people to see in-network clinicians. Or perhaps they thought that if he were a better psychiatrist, his patient would not need an inpatient admission. All he could do was surmise, but clearly ; they had changed Anna’s treatment without the courtesy of a phone call.
“This happens to me all the time,” said Sally Waddington, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Laurel, Md. “Hospitals will tell my patients that psychiatrists are for medications and they need a separate therapist. It really undermines the treatment.”
Ramin Mojtabai, MD, PhD, MPH, is a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He has done research on trends in psychotherapy among psychiatrists and in 2008 published a study which showed that only 10.8% of psychiatrists see all of their patients for psychotherapy. The same data, however, revealed that 59.4% – or a majority – of psychiatrists see at least some of their patients for psychotherapy.
“Unfortunately, our profession has been defined by the insurance industry for decades,” Dr. Mojtabai said in an interview, “so, I am not surprised that the patient was told to see a ‘proper’ psychotherapist.”
George Dawson, MD, spent 22 years as a psychiatrist on an inpatient unit in Minnesota. On his blog, “Real Psychiatry,” Dr. Dawson has a lengthy post dated Oct. 3, 2021, titled “The problem with inpatient units.” Dr. Dawson writes, “There is a lack of collaboration with outpatient staff: Good inpatient care proceeds from the assumption that the main focus of treatment is with the primary psychiatrist or treatment team. ... The only acceptable reasons are that the patient does not have outpatient care, the patient refuses to consent to the communication, or the outpatient physician or their proxy cannot be contacted with a good faith effort. Being on both ends of that call – a good faith effort to me means leaving a cell phone number with the message to ‘call me at any time.’ I have found that effort is required in an era of overproduction and no set times in the outpatient clinic for necessary phone calls.”
In an interview, Dr. Dawson commented on the predicament of Dr. Smith and Anna. “The inpatient staff seem to have a grandiose idea of where the care should be centered and that is with the outpatient doctor making the referral. Any plan not involving the referring doctor is not likely to be successful.”
Dr. Waddington talked about how she handles the situation when an inpatient unit refers her patients to a separate psychotherapist. “Usually, I discuss it with my patient. Sometimes they want a change and so I continue to see them for medications. Most of the time, they keep seeing me for therapy.” She went on to note, “I recently had a patient who was in the hospital and was referred to a trauma specialist for therapy. The referral was probably appropriate in her case; I just wish they had discussed this with me first.”
Dr. Smith calls himself “a dinosaur” – he likes treating patients with a combination of medications and psychotherapy and he does not enjoy seeing patients for brief visits for medication management. He was, however, concerned that Anna had been stretching out the time between sessions because of financial concerns, so he suggested she could meet with the therapist and see if she thought this might be helpful to her. If it was, he recommended she find a psychiatrist in her insurance network to prescribe her medications, with the hope that this would be a reasonable alternative to their current conundrum.
“I believe that many patients are best served by having their care come from a single psychiatrist and not treatment split between clinicians; however, I recognize that this is not always financially the best option. Anna might benefit from not having the financial stress of care from a psychiatrist where she is not reimbursed as well – if at all – by insurance. Still, I am annoyed; it feels like the inpatient team decided to write a new job description for me and to dictate through my patient how it is I should be practicing. And after they implied that I was not the best therapist for her, they hijacked her and sent her to someone who may well have much less experience than I do.”
In the clinical care of any patient, communication between the inpatient team and the outpatient physician is essential, and all too often, this doesn’t happen.
Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.
Dr. Smith’s patient, Anna, was struggling. Her mother, with whom she lived, had died, her boyfriend had broken up with her, her teenagers were being difficult, and her anxiety about catching COVID left her isolated and lonely.
She was working in psychotherapy and a number of medications had been tried, but when Anna suggested that her children might be better off without her, Dr. Smith referred her to an inpatient unit at a local hospital for admission. He faxed over the clinical and demographic information that the hospital wanted, and he never heard a word from the inpatient unit until Anna texted him that she had been discharged. She noted that the hospitalization had been helpful.
“I have an appointment next week with a therapist,” Anna texted.
Dr. Smith was puzzled and he conveyed that in his response to her.
“They told me that you are the psychiatrist and I should see you once a month and that I need a therapist to see weekly.”
Dr. Smith remained puzzled. At times he had seen Anna weekly, and he always saw her for 50-minute (or longer) sessions, but he realized that the person in charge of discharge had decided that psychiatrists are not psychotherapists. As a psychiatrist who sees patients for psychotherapy, Dr. Smith was not in Anna’s health insurance plan, and perhaps the hospital discharged people to see in-network clinicians. Or perhaps they thought that if he were a better psychiatrist, his patient would not need an inpatient admission. All he could do was surmise, but clearly ; they had changed Anna’s treatment without the courtesy of a phone call.
“This happens to me all the time,” said Sally Waddington, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Laurel, Md. “Hospitals will tell my patients that psychiatrists are for medications and they need a separate therapist. It really undermines the treatment.”
Ramin Mojtabai, MD, PhD, MPH, is a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He has done research on trends in psychotherapy among psychiatrists and in 2008 published a study which showed that only 10.8% of psychiatrists see all of their patients for psychotherapy. The same data, however, revealed that 59.4% – or a majority – of psychiatrists see at least some of their patients for psychotherapy.
“Unfortunately, our profession has been defined by the insurance industry for decades,” Dr. Mojtabai said in an interview, “so, I am not surprised that the patient was told to see a ‘proper’ psychotherapist.”
George Dawson, MD, spent 22 years as a psychiatrist on an inpatient unit in Minnesota. On his blog, “Real Psychiatry,” Dr. Dawson has a lengthy post dated Oct. 3, 2021, titled “The problem with inpatient units.” Dr. Dawson writes, “There is a lack of collaboration with outpatient staff: Good inpatient care proceeds from the assumption that the main focus of treatment is with the primary psychiatrist or treatment team. ... The only acceptable reasons are that the patient does not have outpatient care, the patient refuses to consent to the communication, or the outpatient physician or their proxy cannot be contacted with a good faith effort. Being on both ends of that call – a good faith effort to me means leaving a cell phone number with the message to ‘call me at any time.’ I have found that effort is required in an era of overproduction and no set times in the outpatient clinic for necessary phone calls.”
In an interview, Dr. Dawson commented on the predicament of Dr. Smith and Anna. “The inpatient staff seem to have a grandiose idea of where the care should be centered and that is with the outpatient doctor making the referral. Any plan not involving the referring doctor is not likely to be successful.”
Dr. Waddington talked about how she handles the situation when an inpatient unit refers her patients to a separate psychotherapist. “Usually, I discuss it with my patient. Sometimes they want a change and so I continue to see them for medications. Most of the time, they keep seeing me for therapy.” She went on to note, “I recently had a patient who was in the hospital and was referred to a trauma specialist for therapy. The referral was probably appropriate in her case; I just wish they had discussed this with me first.”
Dr. Smith calls himself “a dinosaur” – he likes treating patients with a combination of medications and psychotherapy and he does not enjoy seeing patients for brief visits for medication management. He was, however, concerned that Anna had been stretching out the time between sessions because of financial concerns, so he suggested she could meet with the therapist and see if she thought this might be helpful to her. If it was, he recommended she find a psychiatrist in her insurance network to prescribe her medications, with the hope that this would be a reasonable alternative to their current conundrum.
“I believe that many patients are best served by having their care come from a single psychiatrist and not treatment split between clinicians; however, I recognize that this is not always financially the best option. Anna might benefit from not having the financial stress of care from a psychiatrist where she is not reimbursed as well – if at all – by insurance. Still, I am annoyed; it feels like the inpatient team decided to write a new job description for me and to dictate through my patient how it is I should be practicing. And after they implied that I was not the best therapist for her, they hijacked her and sent her to someone who may well have much less experience than I do.”
In the clinical care of any patient, communication between the inpatient team and the outpatient physician is essential, and all too often, this doesn’t happen.
Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.
To meme or not to meme: The likability and ‘virability’ of memes
As the famous saying goes, “laughter is the best medicine.”
So it’s no surprise that humor is a great way to connect with different people and across various groups.
Memes are usually conveyed as images and texts that communicate ideas or thoughts. A meme, or “imitated thing” (translation from the Greek mimeme), was reappropriated from Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene;
I am a big fan of memes. In fact, I can confidently say that one-third of my camera roll is dedicated to saved memes from Facebook, Instagram, and friends. Shameless to say, I’m also part of a few online groups dedicated to memes. They are relatable, as well as quick and fun ways to make light of an otherwise dull or upsetting situation.
Memes are contagious. From the moment they are created, they can be shared from one person to another, be edited or changed to adapt to the current situation, and become viral. They can be used to augment a conversation or replace the need for text communication entirely – in a sense, they are an entire language in and of themselves. They are constantly undergoing selection, repacking, and filtration. As a result, the most popular, successful, and, usually, relatable meme comes out on top, whereas the others fall behind and become “extinct.”
Memes generally adopt a form of word- or image-play that resonates well with people. The type of content varies from general lighthearted harmless animal humor to wry political and/or social commentary. They can be nearly universal or target specific groups (for example, students).
The popularity of memes depends on two factors: likability and “viralability.” Likability refers to how stimulating or engaging the content is, whereas “viralability” refers to the ability of the content to create a similar effect of user engagement across multiple people. Both factors are dynamic and can be quantified on the basis of the number of likes, shares, and/or comments.
In a content analysis of 1,000 memes on Facebook, researchers found that affiliative and aggressive humor styles were the most prevalent. Affiliative humor refers to a style of banter or joke that portrays others in a positive light, whereas aggressive humor achieves the opposite (that is, portrays others in a negative light). Interestingly, the type of humor that achieved the average most likes and shares was self-defeating humor (that is, disparaging one’s own situation in a negative perspective).
Self-defeating memes are suggested to have higher meme fitness. Meme fitness refers to the replicability of a meme. In this context, self-defeating memes have a unique ability to resonate with peoples’ thoughts and feelings in a sarcastic way and create laughter in contexts of general hardships (for example, failed relationships, academic hardships, or general life weaknesses). In a way, I’ve found that self-defeating memes offer a branch of support; to know that I am not going through certain problems alone, and that others can understand these difficulties, is comforting.
Memes can target emotional pain, neutralize the threat, and turn discomfort into a discourse of playfulness and warmth. Especially during times of great uncertainty, a bit of banter and wry humor may be just what we need to make light of difficult situations.
Leanna M.W. Lui, HBSc, completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc student.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As the famous saying goes, “laughter is the best medicine.”
So it’s no surprise that humor is a great way to connect with different people and across various groups.
Memes are usually conveyed as images and texts that communicate ideas or thoughts. A meme, or “imitated thing” (translation from the Greek mimeme), was reappropriated from Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene;
I am a big fan of memes. In fact, I can confidently say that one-third of my camera roll is dedicated to saved memes from Facebook, Instagram, and friends. Shameless to say, I’m also part of a few online groups dedicated to memes. They are relatable, as well as quick and fun ways to make light of an otherwise dull or upsetting situation.
Memes are contagious. From the moment they are created, they can be shared from one person to another, be edited or changed to adapt to the current situation, and become viral. They can be used to augment a conversation or replace the need for text communication entirely – in a sense, they are an entire language in and of themselves. They are constantly undergoing selection, repacking, and filtration. As a result, the most popular, successful, and, usually, relatable meme comes out on top, whereas the others fall behind and become “extinct.”
Memes generally adopt a form of word- or image-play that resonates well with people. The type of content varies from general lighthearted harmless animal humor to wry political and/or social commentary. They can be nearly universal or target specific groups (for example, students).
The popularity of memes depends on two factors: likability and “viralability.” Likability refers to how stimulating or engaging the content is, whereas “viralability” refers to the ability of the content to create a similar effect of user engagement across multiple people. Both factors are dynamic and can be quantified on the basis of the number of likes, shares, and/or comments.
In a content analysis of 1,000 memes on Facebook, researchers found that affiliative and aggressive humor styles were the most prevalent. Affiliative humor refers to a style of banter or joke that portrays others in a positive light, whereas aggressive humor achieves the opposite (that is, portrays others in a negative light). Interestingly, the type of humor that achieved the average most likes and shares was self-defeating humor (that is, disparaging one’s own situation in a negative perspective).
Self-defeating memes are suggested to have higher meme fitness. Meme fitness refers to the replicability of a meme. In this context, self-defeating memes have a unique ability to resonate with peoples’ thoughts and feelings in a sarcastic way and create laughter in contexts of general hardships (for example, failed relationships, academic hardships, or general life weaknesses). In a way, I’ve found that self-defeating memes offer a branch of support; to know that I am not going through certain problems alone, and that others can understand these difficulties, is comforting.
Memes can target emotional pain, neutralize the threat, and turn discomfort into a discourse of playfulness and warmth. Especially during times of great uncertainty, a bit of banter and wry humor may be just what we need to make light of difficult situations.
Leanna M.W. Lui, HBSc, completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc student.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As the famous saying goes, “laughter is the best medicine.”
So it’s no surprise that humor is a great way to connect with different people and across various groups.
Memes are usually conveyed as images and texts that communicate ideas or thoughts. A meme, or “imitated thing” (translation from the Greek mimeme), was reappropriated from Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene;
I am a big fan of memes. In fact, I can confidently say that one-third of my camera roll is dedicated to saved memes from Facebook, Instagram, and friends. Shameless to say, I’m also part of a few online groups dedicated to memes. They are relatable, as well as quick and fun ways to make light of an otherwise dull or upsetting situation.
Memes are contagious. From the moment they are created, they can be shared from one person to another, be edited or changed to adapt to the current situation, and become viral. They can be used to augment a conversation or replace the need for text communication entirely – in a sense, they are an entire language in and of themselves. They are constantly undergoing selection, repacking, and filtration. As a result, the most popular, successful, and, usually, relatable meme comes out on top, whereas the others fall behind and become “extinct.”
Memes generally adopt a form of word- or image-play that resonates well with people. The type of content varies from general lighthearted harmless animal humor to wry political and/or social commentary. They can be nearly universal or target specific groups (for example, students).
The popularity of memes depends on two factors: likability and “viralability.” Likability refers to how stimulating or engaging the content is, whereas “viralability” refers to the ability of the content to create a similar effect of user engagement across multiple people. Both factors are dynamic and can be quantified on the basis of the number of likes, shares, and/or comments.
In a content analysis of 1,000 memes on Facebook, researchers found that affiliative and aggressive humor styles were the most prevalent. Affiliative humor refers to a style of banter or joke that portrays others in a positive light, whereas aggressive humor achieves the opposite (that is, portrays others in a negative light). Interestingly, the type of humor that achieved the average most likes and shares was self-defeating humor (that is, disparaging one’s own situation in a negative perspective).
Self-defeating memes are suggested to have higher meme fitness. Meme fitness refers to the replicability of a meme. In this context, self-defeating memes have a unique ability to resonate with peoples’ thoughts and feelings in a sarcastic way and create laughter in contexts of general hardships (for example, failed relationships, academic hardships, or general life weaknesses). In a way, I’ve found that self-defeating memes offer a branch of support; to know that I am not going through certain problems alone, and that others can understand these difficulties, is comforting.
Memes can target emotional pain, neutralize the threat, and turn discomfort into a discourse of playfulness and warmth. Especially during times of great uncertainty, a bit of banter and wry humor may be just what we need to make light of difficult situations.
Leanna M.W. Lui, HBSc, completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc student.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An integrated response to Surfside: Lessons learned
The catastrophic collapse of the Surfside, Fla., Champlain Towers South left ambiguous loss, trauma, grief, and other psychiatric and psychological sequelae in its wake.
Now that a few months have passed since the tragedy, which took the lives of 98 residents, it is helpful to examine the psychiatric and psychological support efforts that emerged.
We can think of those support efforts as operating on two tracks: one was pursued by mental health professionals representing numerous organizations; the other was pursued by local, regional, and international first responders – specifically, by Israeli Defense Force (IDF) members who came to our community at the request of Surfside families.
Those efforts were guided by existing frameworks for crisis response designed to provide containment amid the naturally disorganizing effects of the trauma and ambiguous loss. In retrospect, it was clear that the mechanisms by which those frameworks coalesced and functioned were more implicit and organically synchronous than explicitly coordinated and agreed upon. key themes emerged and revealed intrinsic links between the first-responder/search and rescue and psychological strategies.
In this article, we discuss relevant themes and parallels between the psychological intervention/strategies and the first-responder disaster response and the practical utility of implementing an integrated strategy. Our hope is that a better understanding of these strategies will help future therapists and responders who respond to crises.
Setting the frame
The importance of setting a psychotherapeutic frame is indisputable regardless of theoretical orientation or therapeutic modality. Predictable, consistent conditions under which therapy takes place support a patient’s capacity to tolerate the ambiguous and unpredictable aspects of the process. Those “rules of engagement” provide a structure where subjective experiences can be formulated, organized, understood, and integrated. Twice-daily briefs held in a centralized location (dubbed the Surfside “family center”) paralleled this frame and served that same containing function by offering structure, order, and predictability amid the palpable chaos of ambiguous loss and traumatic grief. Those briefs provided key information on the status of the operation and described the rescue strategy. These were led by the Miami-Dade assistant fire chief and IDF colonel (E.E.), who presented a unified front and consistent presence.
It is essential that briefings such as these be coordinated (and unified) with clear expectations about ground rules, much like what is involved in therapeutic informed consent. In this context, rules included permissions related to documentation of meetings, information sharing, and rules of communication with the media in an effort to protect the vulnerable.
The centralized meeting location served as an important center of gravity and unified place of waiting and information receipt. It provided a dedicated space to meet with humanitarian aid organizations and government officials, and symbolized continuity, consistency, ease of information transmission, and a place where practical needs could be addressed. Meals, toiletries, and other supplies were provided to simplify and maintain daily routines. Those are otherwise unremarkable practices that seemed impossible to manage amid a crisis, yet can be inherently grounding and emotionally organizing when facing deep psychological fragmentation.
Meeting in person allowed the IDF to offer operational visuals to allow those affected to feel less helpless and cultivate a sense of purpose by being part of the strategy/mission. Their strategy included “population intelligence,” which was aimed at both information gathering to practically facilitate the rescue/recovery process (for example, locating victims, property, and recreating a visual of how the building fell), and inspiring people to participate. This engagement helped many transition from a place of denial/repression to acknowledging loss/grief, and from a passive to active part of the effort, in a way that was safe and realistic – as opposed to going to the site and aiding themselves, as some had requested.
Naturally, a central location made it possible to offer immediate psychological assistance and support. Clinicians responding to crisis should be carefully selected in light of the immense suffering, emotional vulnerability, and heightened reactivity of those affected. People were overwhelmed by deep sorrow, fear, anger, and uncertainty, vacillating between hope and despair, and mobilized by a desire to help. Those providing support need to be interpersonally skilled and able to regulate their own emotions. They must be able to formulate – in real time – an understanding of what is needed, and implement a strategic plan. Like first responders, it is also key for providers to be easily accessible and identifiable in uniform so that people in the grip of a survival response can easily identify and elicit support.
The power of strategy
The Israeli delegation and mental health approaches were aligned with respect to cultivating a team identity and keeping the team spirit elevated. The delegation’s approach was to deemphasize rank during the mission in that everyone was responsible for anything that was needed and no task was below anyone’s rank. The same was true for the mental health support response: Early interventions were focused on addressing practical needs – providing blankets, water, chargers, food, and a calming presence to counter the initial chaos. No task was too small, regardless of title or role. As more structure and order ensued, it was possible to offer more traditional crisis-related interventions aimed at grounding those affected.
Both teams worked to ensure 24-hour coverage, which was crucial given the need for consistency and continuity. Our commitment was to support the victims’ families and survivors by fully embracing the chaos and the situational demands, offering attunement and support, and satisfying both basic and higher-level needs. We divided and conquered work, observed signals of need, offered immediate support where necessary, and coordinated longer-term care plans when possible. The importance of ongoing self-care, consultation, and debriefing while doing this work cannot be overstated. Time to address basic needs and the impact of vicarious trauma as a team must be built in.
Importance of flexibility
This tragedy came with unique complexities and sensitivities that needed to be identified expediently and addressed with a concrete, comprehensive plan. This was true for both the rescue and psychological support efforts, and flexibility was key. There was nothing traditional about our work from a therapeutic perspective – we found quiet corners and empty offices, went for walks, met in lobbies, and checked in by phone. The interventions were brief.
Roles shifted often between aiding in addressing practical needs, advocating for victims and connecting them to appropriate resources, supporting the police in making death notifications, providing support and space for processing during and after briefings, and more.
Similarly, the rescue team constantly reevaluated their strategy because of what they discovered as they dismantled the collapsed building, in addition to managing external impacting factors (heat, rain, lightning, and the threat of the remaining structure falling).
Language matters
The iteration of commitment to the families/victims/mission and to work speedily and efficiently was important for both rescuers and therapists. It was key during the briefings for the chief and colonel (E.E.) to share information in a manner that was professional, discreet, honest and explicit. Their willingness and ability to be vulnerable and to share their personal feelings as active rescuers humanized them. Their approach was matter of fact, yet warm, loving, and containing, all of which conveyed dignity and respect.
Word choice mattered, and the IDF’s intentional choice to refer to recovered victims as “souls,” rather than “bodies,” conveyed their sensitivity to the intensity of anguish, depth of loss, and gravity of the situation. From a psychological perspective, the transition between “rescue” efforts signifying the potential saving of lives to “recovery” of bodies or remains was significant and demarcated a dramatic shift. The weeks-long efforts, once painfully slow, then felt too abrupt to process.
One extraordinary moment was the chief’s response to the families’ discomfort at the news of the switch from rescue to recovery. The families were anxious about losing the structure that the briefings provided and were apprehensive about the handoff from fire to the police department. With great compassion and attunement, he assured them that he would stay with them, and they together, as a family, would decide when to conclude the in-person briefings. The colonel (E.E.), too, provided assurance that neither procedure nor the urgency of the recovery would change. It was both heart-warming and containing that information related to the operation was shared in a clear manner, and that the thought process and rationale behind major decisions (e.g., demolishing the remaining building, decision to pause operations, switch from rescue to recovery) was shared. It was useful for the clinicians to be aware of this rationale in helping individuals metabolize the information and process the associated trauma and grief.
Unification is key
Surfside has left an indelible impact on us. We saw and experienced unity in many respects – clinicians from various backgrounds collaborating, families bonding and caring for one another, community support and solidarity, and the cooperation and coordination of the search and rescue teams. The diverse groups providing support came to feel like a family, and the importance of inter- and intrateam integration cannot be overstated. We were transformed both by our professional collaborations and authentic connections with those affected, and will forever cherish the experience, one another, the families, and the souls lost.
Dr. Feldman is a licensed clinical psychologist in private practice in Miami. She is an adjunct professor in the college of psychology at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where she teaches clinical psychology doctoral students. She also serves on the board of directors of The Southeast Florida Association for Psychoanalytic Psychology. Dr. Feldman has no disclosures. Col. Edri is the Israeli Defense Forces District Commander of the Home Front Command Haifa District. He served as the deputy commander for the Israeli Defense Forces Search and Rescue Delegation, which was brought in to provide international aid to the local and domestic forces responding to the Surfside, Fla., building collapse. Col. Edri has no disclosures. Dr. Davidtz is a licensed psychologist and associate professor in the College of Psychology at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where she is director of internship training for the Psychology Services Center and director of psychological services for the emotionally distressed, a specialty clinic that serves people with serious mental illness and personality disorders. She also maintains a part-time private practice specializing in the treatment of complex posttraumatic conditions and personality disorders. Dr. Davidtz has no disclosures.
The catastrophic collapse of the Surfside, Fla., Champlain Towers South left ambiguous loss, trauma, grief, and other psychiatric and psychological sequelae in its wake.
Now that a few months have passed since the tragedy, which took the lives of 98 residents, it is helpful to examine the psychiatric and psychological support efforts that emerged.
We can think of those support efforts as operating on two tracks: one was pursued by mental health professionals representing numerous organizations; the other was pursued by local, regional, and international first responders – specifically, by Israeli Defense Force (IDF) members who came to our community at the request of Surfside families.
Those efforts were guided by existing frameworks for crisis response designed to provide containment amid the naturally disorganizing effects of the trauma and ambiguous loss. In retrospect, it was clear that the mechanisms by which those frameworks coalesced and functioned were more implicit and organically synchronous than explicitly coordinated and agreed upon. key themes emerged and revealed intrinsic links between the first-responder/search and rescue and psychological strategies.
In this article, we discuss relevant themes and parallels between the psychological intervention/strategies and the first-responder disaster response and the practical utility of implementing an integrated strategy. Our hope is that a better understanding of these strategies will help future therapists and responders who respond to crises.
Setting the frame
The importance of setting a psychotherapeutic frame is indisputable regardless of theoretical orientation or therapeutic modality. Predictable, consistent conditions under which therapy takes place support a patient’s capacity to tolerate the ambiguous and unpredictable aspects of the process. Those “rules of engagement” provide a structure where subjective experiences can be formulated, organized, understood, and integrated. Twice-daily briefs held in a centralized location (dubbed the Surfside “family center”) paralleled this frame and served that same containing function by offering structure, order, and predictability amid the palpable chaos of ambiguous loss and traumatic grief. Those briefs provided key information on the status of the operation and described the rescue strategy. These were led by the Miami-Dade assistant fire chief and IDF colonel (E.E.), who presented a unified front and consistent presence.
It is essential that briefings such as these be coordinated (and unified) with clear expectations about ground rules, much like what is involved in therapeutic informed consent. In this context, rules included permissions related to documentation of meetings, information sharing, and rules of communication with the media in an effort to protect the vulnerable.
The centralized meeting location served as an important center of gravity and unified place of waiting and information receipt. It provided a dedicated space to meet with humanitarian aid organizations and government officials, and symbolized continuity, consistency, ease of information transmission, and a place where practical needs could be addressed. Meals, toiletries, and other supplies were provided to simplify and maintain daily routines. Those are otherwise unremarkable practices that seemed impossible to manage amid a crisis, yet can be inherently grounding and emotionally organizing when facing deep psychological fragmentation.
Meeting in person allowed the IDF to offer operational visuals to allow those affected to feel less helpless and cultivate a sense of purpose by being part of the strategy/mission. Their strategy included “population intelligence,” which was aimed at both information gathering to practically facilitate the rescue/recovery process (for example, locating victims, property, and recreating a visual of how the building fell), and inspiring people to participate. This engagement helped many transition from a place of denial/repression to acknowledging loss/grief, and from a passive to active part of the effort, in a way that was safe and realistic – as opposed to going to the site and aiding themselves, as some had requested.
Naturally, a central location made it possible to offer immediate psychological assistance and support. Clinicians responding to crisis should be carefully selected in light of the immense suffering, emotional vulnerability, and heightened reactivity of those affected. People were overwhelmed by deep sorrow, fear, anger, and uncertainty, vacillating between hope and despair, and mobilized by a desire to help. Those providing support need to be interpersonally skilled and able to regulate their own emotions. They must be able to formulate – in real time – an understanding of what is needed, and implement a strategic plan. Like first responders, it is also key for providers to be easily accessible and identifiable in uniform so that people in the grip of a survival response can easily identify and elicit support.
The power of strategy
The Israeli delegation and mental health approaches were aligned with respect to cultivating a team identity and keeping the team spirit elevated. The delegation’s approach was to deemphasize rank during the mission in that everyone was responsible for anything that was needed and no task was below anyone’s rank. The same was true for the mental health support response: Early interventions were focused on addressing practical needs – providing blankets, water, chargers, food, and a calming presence to counter the initial chaos. No task was too small, regardless of title or role. As more structure and order ensued, it was possible to offer more traditional crisis-related interventions aimed at grounding those affected.
Both teams worked to ensure 24-hour coverage, which was crucial given the need for consistency and continuity. Our commitment was to support the victims’ families and survivors by fully embracing the chaos and the situational demands, offering attunement and support, and satisfying both basic and higher-level needs. We divided and conquered work, observed signals of need, offered immediate support where necessary, and coordinated longer-term care plans when possible. The importance of ongoing self-care, consultation, and debriefing while doing this work cannot be overstated. Time to address basic needs and the impact of vicarious trauma as a team must be built in.
Importance of flexibility
This tragedy came with unique complexities and sensitivities that needed to be identified expediently and addressed with a concrete, comprehensive plan. This was true for both the rescue and psychological support efforts, and flexibility was key. There was nothing traditional about our work from a therapeutic perspective – we found quiet corners and empty offices, went for walks, met in lobbies, and checked in by phone. The interventions were brief.
Roles shifted often between aiding in addressing practical needs, advocating for victims and connecting them to appropriate resources, supporting the police in making death notifications, providing support and space for processing during and after briefings, and more.
Similarly, the rescue team constantly reevaluated their strategy because of what they discovered as they dismantled the collapsed building, in addition to managing external impacting factors (heat, rain, lightning, and the threat of the remaining structure falling).
Language matters
The iteration of commitment to the families/victims/mission and to work speedily and efficiently was important for both rescuers and therapists. It was key during the briefings for the chief and colonel (E.E.) to share information in a manner that was professional, discreet, honest and explicit. Their willingness and ability to be vulnerable and to share their personal feelings as active rescuers humanized them. Their approach was matter of fact, yet warm, loving, and containing, all of which conveyed dignity and respect.
Word choice mattered, and the IDF’s intentional choice to refer to recovered victims as “souls,” rather than “bodies,” conveyed their sensitivity to the intensity of anguish, depth of loss, and gravity of the situation. From a psychological perspective, the transition between “rescue” efforts signifying the potential saving of lives to “recovery” of bodies or remains was significant and demarcated a dramatic shift. The weeks-long efforts, once painfully slow, then felt too abrupt to process.
One extraordinary moment was the chief’s response to the families’ discomfort at the news of the switch from rescue to recovery. The families were anxious about losing the structure that the briefings provided and were apprehensive about the handoff from fire to the police department. With great compassion and attunement, he assured them that he would stay with them, and they together, as a family, would decide when to conclude the in-person briefings. The colonel (E.E.), too, provided assurance that neither procedure nor the urgency of the recovery would change. It was both heart-warming and containing that information related to the operation was shared in a clear manner, and that the thought process and rationale behind major decisions (e.g., demolishing the remaining building, decision to pause operations, switch from rescue to recovery) was shared. It was useful for the clinicians to be aware of this rationale in helping individuals metabolize the information and process the associated trauma and grief.
Unification is key
Surfside has left an indelible impact on us. We saw and experienced unity in many respects – clinicians from various backgrounds collaborating, families bonding and caring for one another, community support and solidarity, and the cooperation and coordination of the search and rescue teams. The diverse groups providing support came to feel like a family, and the importance of inter- and intrateam integration cannot be overstated. We were transformed both by our professional collaborations and authentic connections with those affected, and will forever cherish the experience, one another, the families, and the souls lost.
Dr. Feldman is a licensed clinical psychologist in private practice in Miami. She is an adjunct professor in the college of psychology at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where she teaches clinical psychology doctoral students. She also serves on the board of directors of The Southeast Florida Association for Psychoanalytic Psychology. Dr. Feldman has no disclosures. Col. Edri is the Israeli Defense Forces District Commander of the Home Front Command Haifa District. He served as the deputy commander for the Israeli Defense Forces Search and Rescue Delegation, which was brought in to provide international aid to the local and domestic forces responding to the Surfside, Fla., building collapse. Col. Edri has no disclosures. Dr. Davidtz is a licensed psychologist and associate professor in the College of Psychology at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where she is director of internship training for the Psychology Services Center and director of psychological services for the emotionally distressed, a specialty clinic that serves people with serious mental illness and personality disorders. She also maintains a part-time private practice specializing in the treatment of complex posttraumatic conditions and personality disorders. Dr. Davidtz has no disclosures.
The catastrophic collapse of the Surfside, Fla., Champlain Towers South left ambiguous loss, trauma, grief, and other psychiatric and psychological sequelae in its wake.
Now that a few months have passed since the tragedy, which took the lives of 98 residents, it is helpful to examine the psychiatric and psychological support efforts that emerged.
We can think of those support efforts as operating on two tracks: one was pursued by mental health professionals representing numerous organizations; the other was pursued by local, regional, and international first responders – specifically, by Israeli Defense Force (IDF) members who came to our community at the request of Surfside families.
Those efforts were guided by existing frameworks for crisis response designed to provide containment amid the naturally disorganizing effects of the trauma and ambiguous loss. In retrospect, it was clear that the mechanisms by which those frameworks coalesced and functioned were more implicit and organically synchronous than explicitly coordinated and agreed upon. key themes emerged and revealed intrinsic links between the first-responder/search and rescue and psychological strategies.
In this article, we discuss relevant themes and parallels between the psychological intervention/strategies and the first-responder disaster response and the practical utility of implementing an integrated strategy. Our hope is that a better understanding of these strategies will help future therapists and responders who respond to crises.
Setting the frame
The importance of setting a psychotherapeutic frame is indisputable regardless of theoretical orientation or therapeutic modality. Predictable, consistent conditions under which therapy takes place support a patient’s capacity to tolerate the ambiguous and unpredictable aspects of the process. Those “rules of engagement” provide a structure where subjective experiences can be formulated, organized, understood, and integrated. Twice-daily briefs held in a centralized location (dubbed the Surfside “family center”) paralleled this frame and served that same containing function by offering structure, order, and predictability amid the palpable chaos of ambiguous loss and traumatic grief. Those briefs provided key information on the status of the operation and described the rescue strategy. These were led by the Miami-Dade assistant fire chief and IDF colonel (E.E.), who presented a unified front and consistent presence.
It is essential that briefings such as these be coordinated (and unified) with clear expectations about ground rules, much like what is involved in therapeutic informed consent. In this context, rules included permissions related to documentation of meetings, information sharing, and rules of communication with the media in an effort to protect the vulnerable.
The centralized meeting location served as an important center of gravity and unified place of waiting and information receipt. It provided a dedicated space to meet with humanitarian aid organizations and government officials, and symbolized continuity, consistency, ease of information transmission, and a place where practical needs could be addressed. Meals, toiletries, and other supplies were provided to simplify and maintain daily routines. Those are otherwise unremarkable practices that seemed impossible to manage amid a crisis, yet can be inherently grounding and emotionally organizing when facing deep psychological fragmentation.
Meeting in person allowed the IDF to offer operational visuals to allow those affected to feel less helpless and cultivate a sense of purpose by being part of the strategy/mission. Their strategy included “population intelligence,” which was aimed at both information gathering to practically facilitate the rescue/recovery process (for example, locating victims, property, and recreating a visual of how the building fell), and inspiring people to participate. This engagement helped many transition from a place of denial/repression to acknowledging loss/grief, and from a passive to active part of the effort, in a way that was safe and realistic – as opposed to going to the site and aiding themselves, as some had requested.
Naturally, a central location made it possible to offer immediate psychological assistance and support. Clinicians responding to crisis should be carefully selected in light of the immense suffering, emotional vulnerability, and heightened reactivity of those affected. People were overwhelmed by deep sorrow, fear, anger, and uncertainty, vacillating between hope and despair, and mobilized by a desire to help. Those providing support need to be interpersonally skilled and able to regulate their own emotions. They must be able to formulate – in real time – an understanding of what is needed, and implement a strategic plan. Like first responders, it is also key for providers to be easily accessible and identifiable in uniform so that people in the grip of a survival response can easily identify and elicit support.
The power of strategy
The Israeli delegation and mental health approaches were aligned with respect to cultivating a team identity and keeping the team spirit elevated. The delegation’s approach was to deemphasize rank during the mission in that everyone was responsible for anything that was needed and no task was below anyone’s rank. The same was true for the mental health support response: Early interventions were focused on addressing practical needs – providing blankets, water, chargers, food, and a calming presence to counter the initial chaos. No task was too small, regardless of title or role. As more structure and order ensued, it was possible to offer more traditional crisis-related interventions aimed at grounding those affected.
Both teams worked to ensure 24-hour coverage, which was crucial given the need for consistency and continuity. Our commitment was to support the victims’ families and survivors by fully embracing the chaos and the situational demands, offering attunement and support, and satisfying both basic and higher-level needs. We divided and conquered work, observed signals of need, offered immediate support where necessary, and coordinated longer-term care plans when possible. The importance of ongoing self-care, consultation, and debriefing while doing this work cannot be overstated. Time to address basic needs and the impact of vicarious trauma as a team must be built in.
Importance of flexibility
This tragedy came with unique complexities and sensitivities that needed to be identified expediently and addressed with a concrete, comprehensive plan. This was true for both the rescue and psychological support efforts, and flexibility was key. There was nothing traditional about our work from a therapeutic perspective – we found quiet corners and empty offices, went for walks, met in lobbies, and checked in by phone. The interventions were brief.
Roles shifted often between aiding in addressing practical needs, advocating for victims and connecting them to appropriate resources, supporting the police in making death notifications, providing support and space for processing during and after briefings, and more.
Similarly, the rescue team constantly reevaluated their strategy because of what they discovered as they dismantled the collapsed building, in addition to managing external impacting factors (heat, rain, lightning, and the threat of the remaining structure falling).
Language matters
The iteration of commitment to the families/victims/mission and to work speedily and efficiently was important for both rescuers and therapists. It was key during the briefings for the chief and colonel (E.E.) to share information in a manner that was professional, discreet, honest and explicit. Their willingness and ability to be vulnerable and to share their personal feelings as active rescuers humanized them. Their approach was matter of fact, yet warm, loving, and containing, all of which conveyed dignity and respect.
Word choice mattered, and the IDF’s intentional choice to refer to recovered victims as “souls,” rather than “bodies,” conveyed their sensitivity to the intensity of anguish, depth of loss, and gravity of the situation. From a psychological perspective, the transition between “rescue” efforts signifying the potential saving of lives to “recovery” of bodies or remains was significant and demarcated a dramatic shift. The weeks-long efforts, once painfully slow, then felt too abrupt to process.
One extraordinary moment was the chief’s response to the families’ discomfort at the news of the switch from rescue to recovery. The families were anxious about losing the structure that the briefings provided and were apprehensive about the handoff from fire to the police department. With great compassion and attunement, he assured them that he would stay with them, and they together, as a family, would decide when to conclude the in-person briefings. The colonel (E.E.), too, provided assurance that neither procedure nor the urgency of the recovery would change. It was both heart-warming and containing that information related to the operation was shared in a clear manner, and that the thought process and rationale behind major decisions (e.g., demolishing the remaining building, decision to pause operations, switch from rescue to recovery) was shared. It was useful for the clinicians to be aware of this rationale in helping individuals metabolize the information and process the associated trauma and grief.
Unification is key
Surfside has left an indelible impact on us. We saw and experienced unity in many respects – clinicians from various backgrounds collaborating, families bonding and caring for one another, community support and solidarity, and the cooperation and coordination of the search and rescue teams. The diverse groups providing support came to feel like a family, and the importance of inter- and intrateam integration cannot be overstated. We were transformed both by our professional collaborations and authentic connections with those affected, and will forever cherish the experience, one another, the families, and the souls lost.
Dr. Feldman is a licensed clinical psychologist in private practice in Miami. She is an adjunct professor in the college of psychology at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where she teaches clinical psychology doctoral students. She also serves on the board of directors of The Southeast Florida Association for Psychoanalytic Psychology. Dr. Feldman has no disclosures. Col. Edri is the Israeli Defense Forces District Commander of the Home Front Command Haifa District. He served as the deputy commander for the Israeli Defense Forces Search and Rescue Delegation, which was brought in to provide international aid to the local and domestic forces responding to the Surfside, Fla., building collapse. Col. Edri has no disclosures. Dr. Davidtz is a licensed psychologist and associate professor in the College of Psychology at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where she is director of internship training for the Psychology Services Center and director of psychological services for the emotionally distressed, a specialty clinic that serves people with serious mental illness and personality disorders. She also maintains a part-time private practice specializing in the treatment of complex posttraumatic conditions and personality disorders. Dr. Davidtz has no disclosures.
Sleep problems in mental illness highly pervasive
An inpatient psychiatric diagnosis at some point over a lifetime is significantly associated with a range of sleep problems, results from the largest study of its kind show.
A prior diagnosis of major depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, or bipolar disorder was associated with a later bedtime, earlier waking time, and significantly poorer sleep quality that included frequent awakenings during the night and shorter sleep bouts.
“We were struck by the pervasiveness of sleep problems across all the diagnoses of mental illness and sleep parameters we looked at,” study investigator Michael Wainberg, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Krembil Centre for Neuroinformatics at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto, told this news organization. “This suggests there may need to be even more of an emphasis on sleep in these patients than there already is.”
The study, which includes data from nearly 90,000 adults in the United Kingdom, was published online October 12 in PLoS Medicine.
Trove of data
Data for the analysis comes from the UK Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database launched in 2006 that has collected biological and medical data on more than 500,000 individuals who consented to provide blood, urine, and saliva samples and detailed lifestyle information that is matched to their medical records.
Between 2013 and 2015, more than 103,000 of these participants agreed to wear accelerometers on their wrists for 24 hours a day for 7 days, collecting a trove of data for researchers to mine.
“This allows us to get at objectively derived sleep measures and to measure them in greater numbers of people who have experienced mental illness,” said senior author Shreejoy Tripathy, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Toronto and independent scientist for CAMH. “You can study multiple disorders at once and the influence of other variables that might not be possible in the context of other studies.”
The research is the first known large-scale transdiagnostic study of objectively measured sleep and mental health. Insomnia and other sleep disorders are common among people with mental illness, as shown in prior research, including at least one study that used the same dataset the team employed for this project.
The new findings add to that body of work, Dr. Wainberg said, and look beyond just how long a person sleeps to the quality of the sleep they get.
“We found that the metrics of sleep quality seem to be affected more than mere sleep duration,” he said.
Unexpected finding
After excluding participants with faulty accelerometers and those who didn’t wear them for the entire 7-day study period, data from 89,205 participants (aged 43-79, 56% female, 97% self-reported White) was included. Lifetime inpatient psychiatric diagnoses were reported in 2.5% of the entire cohort.
Researchers looked at 10 sleep measures: bedtime, wake-up time, sleep duration, wake after sleep onset, sleep efficiency, number of awakenings, duration of longest sleep bout, number of naps, and variability in bedtime and sleep duration.
Although the effect sizes were small, having any psychiatric diagnosis was associated with significantly lower scores on every sleep measure except sleep duration.
Compared with those with no inpatient psychiatric diagnosis, those with any psychiatric diagnosis were significantly more likely to:
- have a later bedtime (beta = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.09)
- have later wake-up time (beta = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.11)
- wake after sleep onset (beta = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.12)
- have poorer sleep efficiency (beta = –0.12; 95% CI, −0.14 to −0.11)
- have more awakenings (beta = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.11)
- have shorter duration of their longest sleep bout (beta = –0.09; 95% CI, −0.11 to −0.08)
- take more naps (beta = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.09-0.12)
- have greater variability in their bedtime (beta = 0.08; 95% CI, 0.06-0.09)
- have greater variability in their sleep duration (beta = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.12)
The only significant differences in sleep duration were found in those with lifetime major depressive disorder, who slept significantly less (beta = −0.02; P = .003), and in those with lifetime schizophrenia, who slept significantly longer (beta = 0.02; P = .0008).
Researchers found similar results when they examined patient-reported sleep measures collected when participants enrolled in the biobank, long before they agreed to wear an accelerometer.
“Everyone with a lifetime mental illness diagnosis trended toward worse sleep quality, regardless of their diagnosis,” Dr. Tripathy said. “We didn’t expect to see that.”
Limitations of the biobank data prohibited analysis by age and past or current use of psychiatric medications. In addition, investigators were unable to determine whether mental illness was active or controlled at the time of the study. Information on these, and other factors, is needed to truly begin to understand the real-world status of sleep patterns in people with mental illness, the researchers note.
However, the biobank data demonstrates how this type of information can be collected, helping Dr. Tripathy and others to design a new study that will launch next year with patients at CAMH. This effort is part of the BrainHealth Databank, a project that aims to develop a patient data bank similar to the one in the UK that was used for this study.
“We’ve shown that you can use wearable devices to measure correlates of sleep and derive insights about the objective measurements of sleep and associate them with mental illness diagnosis,” Dr. Tripathy said.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Wainberg and Dr. Tripathy report receiving funding from Kavli Foundation, Krembil Foundation, CAMH Discovery Fund, the McLaughlin Foundation, NSERC, and CIHR. Disclosures for other authors are fully listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An inpatient psychiatric diagnosis at some point over a lifetime is significantly associated with a range of sleep problems, results from the largest study of its kind show.
A prior diagnosis of major depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, or bipolar disorder was associated with a later bedtime, earlier waking time, and significantly poorer sleep quality that included frequent awakenings during the night and shorter sleep bouts.
“We were struck by the pervasiveness of sleep problems across all the diagnoses of mental illness and sleep parameters we looked at,” study investigator Michael Wainberg, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Krembil Centre for Neuroinformatics at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto, told this news organization. “This suggests there may need to be even more of an emphasis on sleep in these patients than there already is.”
The study, which includes data from nearly 90,000 adults in the United Kingdom, was published online October 12 in PLoS Medicine.
Trove of data
Data for the analysis comes from the UK Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database launched in 2006 that has collected biological and medical data on more than 500,000 individuals who consented to provide blood, urine, and saliva samples and detailed lifestyle information that is matched to their medical records.
Between 2013 and 2015, more than 103,000 of these participants agreed to wear accelerometers on their wrists for 24 hours a day for 7 days, collecting a trove of data for researchers to mine.
“This allows us to get at objectively derived sleep measures and to measure them in greater numbers of people who have experienced mental illness,” said senior author Shreejoy Tripathy, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Toronto and independent scientist for CAMH. “You can study multiple disorders at once and the influence of other variables that might not be possible in the context of other studies.”
The research is the first known large-scale transdiagnostic study of objectively measured sleep and mental health. Insomnia and other sleep disorders are common among people with mental illness, as shown in prior research, including at least one study that used the same dataset the team employed for this project.
The new findings add to that body of work, Dr. Wainberg said, and look beyond just how long a person sleeps to the quality of the sleep they get.
“We found that the metrics of sleep quality seem to be affected more than mere sleep duration,” he said.
Unexpected finding
After excluding participants with faulty accelerometers and those who didn’t wear them for the entire 7-day study period, data from 89,205 participants (aged 43-79, 56% female, 97% self-reported White) was included. Lifetime inpatient psychiatric diagnoses were reported in 2.5% of the entire cohort.
Researchers looked at 10 sleep measures: bedtime, wake-up time, sleep duration, wake after sleep onset, sleep efficiency, number of awakenings, duration of longest sleep bout, number of naps, and variability in bedtime and sleep duration.
Although the effect sizes were small, having any psychiatric diagnosis was associated with significantly lower scores on every sleep measure except sleep duration.
Compared with those with no inpatient psychiatric diagnosis, those with any psychiatric diagnosis were significantly more likely to:
- have a later bedtime (beta = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.09)
- have later wake-up time (beta = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.11)
- wake after sleep onset (beta = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.12)
- have poorer sleep efficiency (beta = –0.12; 95% CI, −0.14 to −0.11)
- have more awakenings (beta = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.11)
- have shorter duration of their longest sleep bout (beta = –0.09; 95% CI, −0.11 to −0.08)
- take more naps (beta = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.09-0.12)
- have greater variability in their bedtime (beta = 0.08; 95% CI, 0.06-0.09)
- have greater variability in their sleep duration (beta = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.12)
The only significant differences in sleep duration were found in those with lifetime major depressive disorder, who slept significantly less (beta = −0.02; P = .003), and in those with lifetime schizophrenia, who slept significantly longer (beta = 0.02; P = .0008).
Researchers found similar results when they examined patient-reported sleep measures collected when participants enrolled in the biobank, long before they agreed to wear an accelerometer.
“Everyone with a lifetime mental illness diagnosis trended toward worse sleep quality, regardless of their diagnosis,” Dr. Tripathy said. “We didn’t expect to see that.”
Limitations of the biobank data prohibited analysis by age and past or current use of psychiatric medications. In addition, investigators were unable to determine whether mental illness was active or controlled at the time of the study. Information on these, and other factors, is needed to truly begin to understand the real-world status of sleep patterns in people with mental illness, the researchers note.
However, the biobank data demonstrates how this type of information can be collected, helping Dr. Tripathy and others to design a new study that will launch next year with patients at CAMH. This effort is part of the BrainHealth Databank, a project that aims to develop a patient data bank similar to the one in the UK that was used for this study.
“We’ve shown that you can use wearable devices to measure correlates of sleep and derive insights about the objective measurements of sleep and associate them with mental illness diagnosis,” Dr. Tripathy said.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Wainberg and Dr. Tripathy report receiving funding from Kavli Foundation, Krembil Foundation, CAMH Discovery Fund, the McLaughlin Foundation, NSERC, and CIHR. Disclosures for other authors are fully listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An inpatient psychiatric diagnosis at some point over a lifetime is significantly associated with a range of sleep problems, results from the largest study of its kind show.
A prior diagnosis of major depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, or bipolar disorder was associated with a later bedtime, earlier waking time, and significantly poorer sleep quality that included frequent awakenings during the night and shorter sleep bouts.
“We were struck by the pervasiveness of sleep problems across all the diagnoses of mental illness and sleep parameters we looked at,” study investigator Michael Wainberg, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Krembil Centre for Neuroinformatics at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto, told this news organization. “This suggests there may need to be even more of an emphasis on sleep in these patients than there already is.”
The study, which includes data from nearly 90,000 adults in the United Kingdom, was published online October 12 in PLoS Medicine.
Trove of data
Data for the analysis comes from the UK Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database launched in 2006 that has collected biological and medical data on more than 500,000 individuals who consented to provide blood, urine, and saliva samples and detailed lifestyle information that is matched to their medical records.
Between 2013 and 2015, more than 103,000 of these participants agreed to wear accelerometers on their wrists for 24 hours a day for 7 days, collecting a trove of data for researchers to mine.
“This allows us to get at objectively derived sleep measures and to measure them in greater numbers of people who have experienced mental illness,” said senior author Shreejoy Tripathy, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Toronto and independent scientist for CAMH. “You can study multiple disorders at once and the influence of other variables that might not be possible in the context of other studies.”
The research is the first known large-scale transdiagnostic study of objectively measured sleep and mental health. Insomnia and other sleep disorders are common among people with mental illness, as shown in prior research, including at least one study that used the same dataset the team employed for this project.
The new findings add to that body of work, Dr. Wainberg said, and look beyond just how long a person sleeps to the quality of the sleep they get.
“We found that the metrics of sleep quality seem to be affected more than mere sleep duration,” he said.
Unexpected finding
After excluding participants with faulty accelerometers and those who didn’t wear them for the entire 7-day study period, data from 89,205 participants (aged 43-79, 56% female, 97% self-reported White) was included. Lifetime inpatient psychiatric diagnoses were reported in 2.5% of the entire cohort.
Researchers looked at 10 sleep measures: bedtime, wake-up time, sleep duration, wake after sleep onset, sleep efficiency, number of awakenings, duration of longest sleep bout, number of naps, and variability in bedtime and sleep duration.
Although the effect sizes were small, having any psychiatric diagnosis was associated with significantly lower scores on every sleep measure except sleep duration.
Compared with those with no inpatient psychiatric diagnosis, those with any psychiatric diagnosis were significantly more likely to:
- have a later bedtime (beta = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.09)
- have later wake-up time (beta = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.11)
- wake after sleep onset (beta = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.12)
- have poorer sleep efficiency (beta = –0.12; 95% CI, −0.14 to −0.11)
- have more awakenings (beta = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.11)
- have shorter duration of their longest sleep bout (beta = –0.09; 95% CI, −0.11 to −0.08)
- take more naps (beta = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.09-0.12)
- have greater variability in their bedtime (beta = 0.08; 95% CI, 0.06-0.09)
- have greater variability in their sleep duration (beta = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.12)
The only significant differences in sleep duration were found in those with lifetime major depressive disorder, who slept significantly less (beta = −0.02; P = .003), and in those with lifetime schizophrenia, who slept significantly longer (beta = 0.02; P = .0008).
Researchers found similar results when they examined patient-reported sleep measures collected when participants enrolled in the biobank, long before they agreed to wear an accelerometer.
“Everyone with a lifetime mental illness diagnosis trended toward worse sleep quality, regardless of their diagnosis,” Dr. Tripathy said. “We didn’t expect to see that.”
Limitations of the biobank data prohibited analysis by age and past or current use of psychiatric medications. In addition, investigators were unable to determine whether mental illness was active or controlled at the time of the study. Information on these, and other factors, is needed to truly begin to understand the real-world status of sleep patterns in people with mental illness, the researchers note.
However, the biobank data demonstrates how this type of information can be collected, helping Dr. Tripathy and others to design a new study that will launch next year with patients at CAMH. This effort is part of the BrainHealth Databank, a project that aims to develop a patient data bank similar to the one in the UK that was used for this study.
“We’ve shown that you can use wearable devices to measure correlates of sleep and derive insights about the objective measurements of sleep and associate them with mental illness diagnosis,” Dr. Tripathy said.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Wainberg and Dr. Tripathy report receiving funding from Kavli Foundation, Krembil Foundation, CAMH Discovery Fund, the McLaughlin Foundation, NSERC, and CIHR. Disclosures for other authors are fully listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Substance use or substance use disorder: A question of judgment
Substance use disorders can be a thorny topic in residency because of our role as gatekeepers of mental hospitals during our training. Intoxicated patients often get dismissed as a burden and distraction, malingering their way into a comfortable place to regain sobriety. This is extremely prevalent, often constituting the majority of patients seen during an emergency department call.
A typical interview may elicit any or all symptoms in the DSM yet be best explained by substance use intoxication or withdrawal. Alcohol and other CNS depressants commonly cause feelings of sadness and/or suicidality. Methamphetamine and other CNS stimulants commonly cause symptoms of psychosis or mania, followed by feelings of sadness and/or suicidality.
Different EDs have different degrees of patience for individuals in the process of becoming sober. Some departments will pressure clinicians into quickly discarding those patients and often frown upon any attempt at providing solace by raising the concern of reinforcing maladaptive behavior. A mystery-meat sandwich of admirable blandness may be the extent of help offered. Some more fortunate patients also receive a juice box or even a taxi voucher in an especially generous ED. This is always against our better judgment, of course, as we are told those gestures encourage abuse.
Other EDs will permit patients to remain until sober, allowing for another evaluation without the influence of controlled substances. We are reminded of many conversations with patients with substance use disorders, where topics discussed included: 1. Recommendation to seek substance use services, which are often nonexistent or with wait lists spanning months; 2. Education on the role of mental health hospitals and how patients’ despair in the context of intoxication does not meet some scriptural criteria; 3. Pep talks aided by such previously described sandwiches and juice boxes to encourage a sobering patient to leave the facility of their own will.
Methamphetamine, heroin, and alcohol are rarely one-and-done endeavors. We sparingly see our patients for their very first ED visit while intoxicated or crashing. They know how the system runs and which ED will more readily allow them an overnight stay. The number of times they have been recommended for substance use treatment is beyond counting – they may have been on a wait list a handful of times. They are aware of our reluctance to provide inpatient psychiatric treatment for substance use, but it is worth a shot trying, anyway – sometimes they get lucky. Usually it is the pep talk, relief from hunger pangs, and daylight that get them out the doors – until next time.
It is under this context that many trainees become psychiatrists, a process that solidifies the separation between drug use and mental illness. Many graduate from residency practically equating substance use disorder with malingering or futility. This can take on a surreal quality as many localities have recently adopted particular forms or requirements like the dispensation of naloxone syringes to all patients with substance use disorders. While the desire and effort are noble, it may suggest to a patient presenting for help that society’s main interest is to avoid seeing them die rather than help with available resources for maintaining sobriety.
Therein lies the conundrum, a conundrum that spans psychiatry to society. The conundrum is our ambivalence between punishing the choice of drug use or healing the substance use disorder. Should we discharge the intoxicated patient as soon as they are safe to walk out, or should we make every effort possible to find long-term solutions?
The calculation becomes more complex
A defining moment appears to have been society’s reconsideration of its stance on substance use disorders when affluent White teenagers started dying in the suburbs from pain pills overdoses. Suddenly, those children needed and deserved treatment, not punishment. We find ourselves far away from a time when the loudest societal commentary on substance use entailed mothers advocating for harsher sentences against drunk drivers.
More recently, as psychiatry and large contingents of society have decided to take up the mantle of equity and social justice, we have begun to make progress in decriminalizing substance use in an effort to reverse systemic discrimination toward minority groups. This has taken many shapes, including drug legalization, criminal justice reform, and even the provision of clean substance use paraphernalia for safer use of IV drugs. Police reform has led to reluctance to arrest or press charges for nonviolent crimes and reduced police presence in minority neighborhoods. The “rich White teenager” approach is now recommended in all neighborhoods.
Society’s attempt at decriminalizing drug use has run parallel with psychiatry’s recent attempts at reduced pathologizing of behaviors more prevalent in underprivileged groups and cultures. This runs the gamut, from avoiding the use of the term “agitated” because of its racial connotations, to advocating for reduced rates of schizophrenia diagnoses in Black males.1 A diagnosis of substance use disorder carries with it similar troublesome societal implications. Decriminalization, legalization, provision of substances to the population, normalization, and other societal reforms will likely have an impact on the prevalence of substance use disorder diagnoses, which involve many criteria dependent on societal context.
It would be expected that criteria such as hazardous use, social problems, and attempts to quit will decrease as social acceptance increases. How might this affect access to substance use treatment, an already extremely limited resource?
Now, as forensic psychiatrists, we find ourselves adjudicating on the role of drugs at a time when society is wrestling with its attitude on the breadth of responsibility possessed by people who use drugs. In California, as in many other states, insanity laws exclude those who were insane as a result of drug use, as a testament to or possibly a remnant of how society feels about the role of choice and responsibility in the use of drugs. Yet another defendant who admits to drug use may on the contrary receive a much more lenient plea deal if willing to commit to sobriety. But in a never-ending maze of differing judgments and opinions, a less understanding district attorney may argue that the additional risk posed by the use of drugs and resulting impulsivity may actually warrant a heavier sentence.
In a recent attempt at atonement for our past punitive stance on drug users, we have found a desire to protect those who use drugs by punishing those who sell, at times forgetting that these populations are deeply intertwined. A recent law permits the federal charge of distribution of fentanyl resulting in death, which carries the mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison. Yet, if the user whom we are trying to protect by this law is also the one selling, what are we left with?
Fentanyl has been a particularly tragic development in the history of mankind and drug use. Substance use has rarely been so easily linked to accidental death. While many physicians can easily explain the safety of fentanyl when used as prescribed and in controlled settings, this is certainly not the case in the community. Measuring micrograms of fentanyl is outside the knowledge and capabilities of most drug dealers, who are not equipped with pharmacy-grade scales. Yet, as a result, they sell and customers buy quantities of fentanyl that range from homeopathically low to lethally high because of a mixture of negligence and deliberate indifference.
Another effort at atonement has been attempts at decriminalizing drug use and releasing many nonviolent offenders. This can, however, encourage bystanders to report more acts as crime rather than public intoxication, to ensure a police response when confronted by intoxicated people. Whereas previously an inebriated person who is homeless may have been called for and asked to seek shelter, they now get called on, and subsequently charged for, allegedly mumbling a threat by a frustrated bystander.
The release of offenders has its limits. Many placements on probation require sobriety and result in longer sentences for the use of substances that are otherwise decriminalized. The decriminalization and reexamination of substance use by society should widen the scope from simply considering crime to examining the use of drugs throughout the legal system and even beyond.
The DSM and psychiatry are not intended or equipped to adjudicate disputes on where the lines should be drawn between determinism and free will. We are knowledgeable of patients with substance use disorders, the effect of intoxicating substances, and the capacity of patients with substance use disorders to act in law-abiding ways. Our field can inform without simply advocating whether our patients should be punished. While society is currently struggling with how to apportion blame, psychiatry should resist the urge to impose medical solutions to social problems. Our solutions would almost certainly be grossly limited as we are still struggling to repent for lobotomizing “uppity” young women2 and using electroshock therapy to disrupt perverse impulses in homosexual males.3 Social norms and political zeitgeists change over time while the psychological and physiological principles underlying our understanding of mental illness should, in theory, stay relatively constant. Psychiatry’s answers for societal ills do not usually improve with time but rather have a tendency to be humbling.
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.
Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research.
References
1.Medlock MM et al., eds. “Racism and Psychiatry: Contemporary Issues and Interventions” (New York: Springer, 2018).
2. Tone A and Koziol M. CMAJ. 2018:190(20):e624-5.
3. McGuire RJ and Vallance M. BMJ. 1964;1(5376):151-3.
Substance use disorders can be a thorny topic in residency because of our role as gatekeepers of mental hospitals during our training. Intoxicated patients often get dismissed as a burden and distraction, malingering their way into a comfortable place to regain sobriety. This is extremely prevalent, often constituting the majority of patients seen during an emergency department call.
A typical interview may elicit any or all symptoms in the DSM yet be best explained by substance use intoxication or withdrawal. Alcohol and other CNS depressants commonly cause feelings of sadness and/or suicidality. Methamphetamine and other CNS stimulants commonly cause symptoms of psychosis or mania, followed by feelings of sadness and/or suicidality.
Different EDs have different degrees of patience for individuals in the process of becoming sober. Some departments will pressure clinicians into quickly discarding those patients and often frown upon any attempt at providing solace by raising the concern of reinforcing maladaptive behavior. A mystery-meat sandwich of admirable blandness may be the extent of help offered. Some more fortunate patients also receive a juice box or even a taxi voucher in an especially generous ED. This is always against our better judgment, of course, as we are told those gestures encourage abuse.
Other EDs will permit patients to remain until sober, allowing for another evaluation without the influence of controlled substances. We are reminded of many conversations with patients with substance use disorders, where topics discussed included: 1. Recommendation to seek substance use services, which are often nonexistent or with wait lists spanning months; 2. Education on the role of mental health hospitals and how patients’ despair in the context of intoxication does not meet some scriptural criteria; 3. Pep talks aided by such previously described sandwiches and juice boxes to encourage a sobering patient to leave the facility of their own will.
Methamphetamine, heroin, and alcohol are rarely one-and-done endeavors. We sparingly see our patients for their very first ED visit while intoxicated or crashing. They know how the system runs and which ED will more readily allow them an overnight stay. The number of times they have been recommended for substance use treatment is beyond counting – they may have been on a wait list a handful of times. They are aware of our reluctance to provide inpatient psychiatric treatment for substance use, but it is worth a shot trying, anyway – sometimes they get lucky. Usually it is the pep talk, relief from hunger pangs, and daylight that get them out the doors – until next time.
It is under this context that many trainees become psychiatrists, a process that solidifies the separation between drug use and mental illness. Many graduate from residency practically equating substance use disorder with malingering or futility. This can take on a surreal quality as many localities have recently adopted particular forms or requirements like the dispensation of naloxone syringes to all patients with substance use disorders. While the desire and effort are noble, it may suggest to a patient presenting for help that society’s main interest is to avoid seeing them die rather than help with available resources for maintaining sobriety.
Therein lies the conundrum, a conundrum that spans psychiatry to society. The conundrum is our ambivalence between punishing the choice of drug use or healing the substance use disorder. Should we discharge the intoxicated patient as soon as they are safe to walk out, or should we make every effort possible to find long-term solutions?
The calculation becomes more complex
A defining moment appears to have been society’s reconsideration of its stance on substance use disorders when affluent White teenagers started dying in the suburbs from pain pills overdoses. Suddenly, those children needed and deserved treatment, not punishment. We find ourselves far away from a time when the loudest societal commentary on substance use entailed mothers advocating for harsher sentences against drunk drivers.
More recently, as psychiatry and large contingents of society have decided to take up the mantle of equity and social justice, we have begun to make progress in decriminalizing substance use in an effort to reverse systemic discrimination toward minority groups. This has taken many shapes, including drug legalization, criminal justice reform, and even the provision of clean substance use paraphernalia for safer use of IV drugs. Police reform has led to reluctance to arrest or press charges for nonviolent crimes and reduced police presence in minority neighborhoods. The “rich White teenager” approach is now recommended in all neighborhoods.
Society’s attempt at decriminalizing drug use has run parallel with psychiatry’s recent attempts at reduced pathologizing of behaviors more prevalent in underprivileged groups and cultures. This runs the gamut, from avoiding the use of the term “agitated” because of its racial connotations, to advocating for reduced rates of schizophrenia diagnoses in Black males.1 A diagnosis of substance use disorder carries with it similar troublesome societal implications. Decriminalization, legalization, provision of substances to the population, normalization, and other societal reforms will likely have an impact on the prevalence of substance use disorder diagnoses, which involve many criteria dependent on societal context.
It would be expected that criteria such as hazardous use, social problems, and attempts to quit will decrease as social acceptance increases. How might this affect access to substance use treatment, an already extremely limited resource?
Now, as forensic psychiatrists, we find ourselves adjudicating on the role of drugs at a time when society is wrestling with its attitude on the breadth of responsibility possessed by people who use drugs. In California, as in many other states, insanity laws exclude those who were insane as a result of drug use, as a testament to or possibly a remnant of how society feels about the role of choice and responsibility in the use of drugs. Yet another defendant who admits to drug use may on the contrary receive a much more lenient plea deal if willing to commit to sobriety. But in a never-ending maze of differing judgments and opinions, a less understanding district attorney may argue that the additional risk posed by the use of drugs and resulting impulsivity may actually warrant a heavier sentence.
In a recent attempt at atonement for our past punitive stance on drug users, we have found a desire to protect those who use drugs by punishing those who sell, at times forgetting that these populations are deeply intertwined. A recent law permits the federal charge of distribution of fentanyl resulting in death, which carries the mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison. Yet, if the user whom we are trying to protect by this law is also the one selling, what are we left with?
Fentanyl has been a particularly tragic development in the history of mankind and drug use. Substance use has rarely been so easily linked to accidental death. While many physicians can easily explain the safety of fentanyl when used as prescribed and in controlled settings, this is certainly not the case in the community. Measuring micrograms of fentanyl is outside the knowledge and capabilities of most drug dealers, who are not equipped with pharmacy-grade scales. Yet, as a result, they sell and customers buy quantities of fentanyl that range from homeopathically low to lethally high because of a mixture of negligence and deliberate indifference.
Another effort at atonement has been attempts at decriminalizing drug use and releasing many nonviolent offenders. This can, however, encourage bystanders to report more acts as crime rather than public intoxication, to ensure a police response when confronted by intoxicated people. Whereas previously an inebriated person who is homeless may have been called for and asked to seek shelter, they now get called on, and subsequently charged for, allegedly mumbling a threat by a frustrated bystander.
The release of offenders has its limits. Many placements on probation require sobriety and result in longer sentences for the use of substances that are otherwise decriminalized. The decriminalization and reexamination of substance use by society should widen the scope from simply considering crime to examining the use of drugs throughout the legal system and even beyond.
The DSM and psychiatry are not intended or equipped to adjudicate disputes on where the lines should be drawn between determinism and free will. We are knowledgeable of patients with substance use disorders, the effect of intoxicating substances, and the capacity of patients with substance use disorders to act in law-abiding ways. Our field can inform without simply advocating whether our patients should be punished. While society is currently struggling with how to apportion blame, psychiatry should resist the urge to impose medical solutions to social problems. Our solutions would almost certainly be grossly limited as we are still struggling to repent for lobotomizing “uppity” young women2 and using electroshock therapy to disrupt perverse impulses in homosexual males.3 Social norms and political zeitgeists change over time while the psychological and physiological principles underlying our understanding of mental illness should, in theory, stay relatively constant. Psychiatry’s answers for societal ills do not usually improve with time but rather have a tendency to be humbling.
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.
Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research.
References
1.Medlock MM et al., eds. “Racism and Psychiatry: Contemporary Issues and Interventions” (New York: Springer, 2018).
2. Tone A and Koziol M. CMAJ. 2018:190(20):e624-5.
3. McGuire RJ and Vallance M. BMJ. 1964;1(5376):151-3.
Substance use disorders can be a thorny topic in residency because of our role as gatekeepers of mental hospitals during our training. Intoxicated patients often get dismissed as a burden and distraction, malingering their way into a comfortable place to regain sobriety. This is extremely prevalent, often constituting the majority of patients seen during an emergency department call.
A typical interview may elicit any or all symptoms in the DSM yet be best explained by substance use intoxication or withdrawal. Alcohol and other CNS depressants commonly cause feelings of sadness and/or suicidality. Methamphetamine and other CNS stimulants commonly cause symptoms of psychosis or mania, followed by feelings of sadness and/or suicidality.
Different EDs have different degrees of patience for individuals in the process of becoming sober. Some departments will pressure clinicians into quickly discarding those patients and often frown upon any attempt at providing solace by raising the concern of reinforcing maladaptive behavior. A mystery-meat sandwich of admirable blandness may be the extent of help offered. Some more fortunate patients also receive a juice box or even a taxi voucher in an especially generous ED. This is always against our better judgment, of course, as we are told those gestures encourage abuse.
Other EDs will permit patients to remain until sober, allowing for another evaluation without the influence of controlled substances. We are reminded of many conversations with patients with substance use disorders, where topics discussed included: 1. Recommendation to seek substance use services, which are often nonexistent or with wait lists spanning months; 2. Education on the role of mental health hospitals and how patients’ despair in the context of intoxication does not meet some scriptural criteria; 3. Pep talks aided by such previously described sandwiches and juice boxes to encourage a sobering patient to leave the facility of their own will.
Methamphetamine, heroin, and alcohol are rarely one-and-done endeavors. We sparingly see our patients for their very first ED visit while intoxicated or crashing. They know how the system runs and which ED will more readily allow them an overnight stay. The number of times they have been recommended for substance use treatment is beyond counting – they may have been on a wait list a handful of times. They are aware of our reluctance to provide inpatient psychiatric treatment for substance use, but it is worth a shot trying, anyway – sometimes they get lucky. Usually it is the pep talk, relief from hunger pangs, and daylight that get them out the doors – until next time.
It is under this context that many trainees become psychiatrists, a process that solidifies the separation between drug use and mental illness. Many graduate from residency practically equating substance use disorder with malingering or futility. This can take on a surreal quality as many localities have recently adopted particular forms or requirements like the dispensation of naloxone syringes to all patients with substance use disorders. While the desire and effort are noble, it may suggest to a patient presenting for help that society’s main interest is to avoid seeing them die rather than help with available resources for maintaining sobriety.
Therein lies the conundrum, a conundrum that spans psychiatry to society. The conundrum is our ambivalence between punishing the choice of drug use or healing the substance use disorder. Should we discharge the intoxicated patient as soon as they are safe to walk out, or should we make every effort possible to find long-term solutions?
The calculation becomes more complex
A defining moment appears to have been society’s reconsideration of its stance on substance use disorders when affluent White teenagers started dying in the suburbs from pain pills overdoses. Suddenly, those children needed and deserved treatment, not punishment. We find ourselves far away from a time when the loudest societal commentary on substance use entailed mothers advocating for harsher sentences against drunk drivers.
More recently, as psychiatry and large contingents of society have decided to take up the mantle of equity and social justice, we have begun to make progress in decriminalizing substance use in an effort to reverse systemic discrimination toward minority groups. This has taken many shapes, including drug legalization, criminal justice reform, and even the provision of clean substance use paraphernalia for safer use of IV drugs. Police reform has led to reluctance to arrest or press charges for nonviolent crimes and reduced police presence in minority neighborhoods. The “rich White teenager” approach is now recommended in all neighborhoods.
Society’s attempt at decriminalizing drug use has run parallel with psychiatry’s recent attempts at reduced pathologizing of behaviors more prevalent in underprivileged groups and cultures. This runs the gamut, from avoiding the use of the term “agitated” because of its racial connotations, to advocating for reduced rates of schizophrenia diagnoses in Black males.1 A diagnosis of substance use disorder carries with it similar troublesome societal implications. Decriminalization, legalization, provision of substances to the population, normalization, and other societal reforms will likely have an impact on the prevalence of substance use disorder diagnoses, which involve many criteria dependent on societal context.
It would be expected that criteria such as hazardous use, social problems, and attempts to quit will decrease as social acceptance increases. How might this affect access to substance use treatment, an already extremely limited resource?
Now, as forensic psychiatrists, we find ourselves adjudicating on the role of drugs at a time when society is wrestling with its attitude on the breadth of responsibility possessed by people who use drugs. In California, as in many other states, insanity laws exclude those who were insane as a result of drug use, as a testament to or possibly a remnant of how society feels about the role of choice and responsibility in the use of drugs. Yet another defendant who admits to drug use may on the contrary receive a much more lenient plea deal if willing to commit to sobriety. But in a never-ending maze of differing judgments and opinions, a less understanding district attorney may argue that the additional risk posed by the use of drugs and resulting impulsivity may actually warrant a heavier sentence.
In a recent attempt at atonement for our past punitive stance on drug users, we have found a desire to protect those who use drugs by punishing those who sell, at times forgetting that these populations are deeply intertwined. A recent law permits the federal charge of distribution of fentanyl resulting in death, which carries the mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison. Yet, if the user whom we are trying to protect by this law is also the one selling, what are we left with?
Fentanyl has been a particularly tragic development in the history of mankind and drug use. Substance use has rarely been so easily linked to accidental death. While many physicians can easily explain the safety of fentanyl when used as prescribed and in controlled settings, this is certainly not the case in the community. Measuring micrograms of fentanyl is outside the knowledge and capabilities of most drug dealers, who are not equipped with pharmacy-grade scales. Yet, as a result, they sell and customers buy quantities of fentanyl that range from homeopathically low to lethally high because of a mixture of negligence and deliberate indifference.
Another effort at atonement has been attempts at decriminalizing drug use and releasing many nonviolent offenders. This can, however, encourage bystanders to report more acts as crime rather than public intoxication, to ensure a police response when confronted by intoxicated people. Whereas previously an inebriated person who is homeless may have been called for and asked to seek shelter, they now get called on, and subsequently charged for, allegedly mumbling a threat by a frustrated bystander.
The release of offenders has its limits. Many placements on probation require sobriety and result in longer sentences for the use of substances that are otherwise decriminalized. The decriminalization and reexamination of substance use by society should widen the scope from simply considering crime to examining the use of drugs throughout the legal system and even beyond.
The DSM and psychiatry are not intended or equipped to adjudicate disputes on where the lines should be drawn between determinism and free will. We are knowledgeable of patients with substance use disorders, the effect of intoxicating substances, and the capacity of patients with substance use disorders to act in law-abiding ways. Our field can inform without simply advocating whether our patients should be punished. While society is currently struggling with how to apportion blame, psychiatry should resist the urge to impose medical solutions to social problems. Our solutions would almost certainly be grossly limited as we are still struggling to repent for lobotomizing “uppity” young women2 and using electroshock therapy to disrupt perverse impulses in homosexual males.3 Social norms and political zeitgeists change over time while the psychological and physiological principles underlying our understanding of mental illness should, in theory, stay relatively constant. Psychiatry’s answers for societal ills do not usually improve with time but rather have a tendency to be humbling.
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.
Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research.
References
1.Medlock MM et al., eds. “Racism and Psychiatry: Contemporary Issues and Interventions” (New York: Springer, 2018).
2. Tone A and Koziol M. CMAJ. 2018:190(20):e624-5.
3. McGuire RJ and Vallance M. BMJ. 1964;1(5376):151-3.
Avoidant attachment style may drive mood in movement disorders
Patients with functional neurological disorders demonstrate higher levels of depression and alexithymia – in addition to signs of an avoidant attachment style – compared with those with other neurological disorders and healthy controls, investigators report.
The pathological mechanism of functional neurological disorders (FND) remains poorly understood, but current models include both psychological and environmental factors, Sofia Cuoco, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.
Previous studies have suggested a relationship between attachment styles (AS) and psychiatric symptoms in FND patients but most have been limited to the FND population, noted Dr. Cuoco, of the University of Salerno, Italy, and colleagues. In FND, “it is unclear to what extent psychiatric features are explained by AS per se or are part of the FND spectrum,” they said.
To conduct the study, the investigators recruited 46 patients with FND, 34 patients with neurological disorders (ND) and 30 healthy controls. Demographic characteristics, including age, education, and gender, were similar among the groups. Overall, depression and alexithymia were significantly more prevalent in the FND group, compared with the other groups. Anxiety was more common in the FND group, compared with healthy controls, but similar compared with the ND group. Patients in the FND group reported significantly lower quality of life, compared with those in the other groups.
In a multivariate analysis aimed at examining AS and psychiatric features, the researchers found that the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire avoidance, Beck Depression Inventory, Somatic Affective, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale (TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings) were significant predictors of FND and accounted for about half of the variance.
The researchers also compared FND to functional seizures, and found that the TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale–Anxiety, and female gender were significant predictors of functional seizures.
The results were mainly in line with those from previous studies, the researchers said. However, than ND, which might suggest that these psychiatric features would not be merely reactive to physical symptoms,” they noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of systematic interviews for personality disorders or traits, monitoring psychotropic medications, and conducting formal psychiatric assessments, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the heterogenous study population and absence of data on symptom severity, history of trauma, or other factors that might contributed to FND, they said.
However, the results suggest that avoidant AS might play an important role in the occurrence of psychiatric features in FND patients and should be considered in managing these conditions. More research is needed to explore the impact of attachment on pathophysiology with more complex instruments, such as the Adult Attachment Interview, Dr. Cuoco and colleagues said.
The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.
Patients with functional neurological disorders demonstrate higher levels of depression and alexithymia – in addition to signs of an avoidant attachment style – compared with those with other neurological disorders and healthy controls, investigators report.
The pathological mechanism of functional neurological disorders (FND) remains poorly understood, but current models include both psychological and environmental factors, Sofia Cuoco, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.
Previous studies have suggested a relationship between attachment styles (AS) and psychiatric symptoms in FND patients but most have been limited to the FND population, noted Dr. Cuoco, of the University of Salerno, Italy, and colleagues. In FND, “it is unclear to what extent psychiatric features are explained by AS per se or are part of the FND spectrum,” they said.
To conduct the study, the investigators recruited 46 patients with FND, 34 patients with neurological disorders (ND) and 30 healthy controls. Demographic characteristics, including age, education, and gender, were similar among the groups. Overall, depression and alexithymia were significantly more prevalent in the FND group, compared with the other groups. Anxiety was more common in the FND group, compared with healthy controls, but similar compared with the ND group. Patients in the FND group reported significantly lower quality of life, compared with those in the other groups.
In a multivariate analysis aimed at examining AS and psychiatric features, the researchers found that the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire avoidance, Beck Depression Inventory, Somatic Affective, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale (TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings) were significant predictors of FND and accounted for about half of the variance.
The researchers also compared FND to functional seizures, and found that the TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale–Anxiety, and female gender were significant predictors of functional seizures.
The results were mainly in line with those from previous studies, the researchers said. However, than ND, which might suggest that these psychiatric features would not be merely reactive to physical symptoms,” they noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of systematic interviews for personality disorders or traits, monitoring psychotropic medications, and conducting formal psychiatric assessments, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the heterogenous study population and absence of data on symptom severity, history of trauma, or other factors that might contributed to FND, they said.
However, the results suggest that avoidant AS might play an important role in the occurrence of psychiatric features in FND patients and should be considered in managing these conditions. More research is needed to explore the impact of attachment on pathophysiology with more complex instruments, such as the Adult Attachment Interview, Dr. Cuoco and colleagues said.
The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.
Patients with functional neurological disorders demonstrate higher levels of depression and alexithymia – in addition to signs of an avoidant attachment style – compared with those with other neurological disorders and healthy controls, investigators report.
The pathological mechanism of functional neurological disorders (FND) remains poorly understood, but current models include both psychological and environmental factors, Sofia Cuoco, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.
Previous studies have suggested a relationship between attachment styles (AS) and psychiatric symptoms in FND patients but most have been limited to the FND population, noted Dr. Cuoco, of the University of Salerno, Italy, and colleagues. In FND, “it is unclear to what extent psychiatric features are explained by AS per se or are part of the FND spectrum,” they said.
To conduct the study, the investigators recruited 46 patients with FND, 34 patients with neurological disorders (ND) and 30 healthy controls. Demographic characteristics, including age, education, and gender, were similar among the groups. Overall, depression and alexithymia were significantly more prevalent in the FND group, compared with the other groups. Anxiety was more common in the FND group, compared with healthy controls, but similar compared with the ND group. Patients in the FND group reported significantly lower quality of life, compared with those in the other groups.
In a multivariate analysis aimed at examining AS and psychiatric features, the researchers found that the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire avoidance, Beck Depression Inventory, Somatic Affective, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale (TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings) were significant predictors of FND and accounted for about half of the variance.
The researchers also compared FND to functional seizures, and found that the TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale–Anxiety, and female gender were significant predictors of functional seizures.
The results were mainly in line with those from previous studies, the researchers said. However, than ND, which might suggest that these psychiatric features would not be merely reactive to physical symptoms,” they noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of systematic interviews for personality disorders or traits, monitoring psychotropic medications, and conducting formal psychiatric assessments, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the heterogenous study population and absence of data on symptom severity, history of trauma, or other factors that might contributed to FND, they said.
However, the results suggest that avoidant AS might play an important role in the occurrence of psychiatric features in FND patients and should be considered in managing these conditions. More research is needed to explore the impact of attachment on pathophysiology with more complex instruments, such as the Adult Attachment Interview, Dr. Cuoco and colleagues said.
The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH
‘Impressive’ results for novel antidepressant, so why the FDA delay?
A novel antidepressant (AXS-05, Axsome Therapeutics) appears to have a rapid and durable effect in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), results of an open label, phase 3 trial, show. Yet, its new drug application (NDA) remains in limbo with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reasons that are unclear.
In the study, which included 876 patients with MDD, results showed the drug, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, had a clinical response rate of 80% and a remission rate of almost 70%. In addition, functional improvements were “substantial” and AXS-05 was determined to be “generally safe and well-tolerated.”
The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
The study
The COMET trial was a phase 3, multicenter, U.S. trial, in which patients with MDD were treated with AXS-05 twice daily for up to 12 months. Patients had to have a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of at least 25. They could have completed a prior AXS-05 study or be newly enrolled.
Of 876 patients included in the study, 611 were newly enrolled. The mean age was 42.4 years, and 62.4% were women. Just over half (58.1%) were White, with 35.6% Black, and 2.0% Asian. The mean body mass index was 31.4 kg/m2.
The mean MADRS total score at baseline was 32.7 and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score was 20.0.
Presenting efficacy data in 609 newly enrolled patients, the team showed that MADRS total scores fell sharply on starting AXS-05, by 9.1 points at week 1, 14.0 points at week 2, and 21.2 points at week 6.
By 6 months, the reduction over baseline was 23.9 points, which was maintained out to 12 months, at a mean reduction of 23.0 points.
The proportion of patients achieving a clinical response, defined as a greater than or equal to 50% improvement in MADRS scores, was 18.8% at week 1, 39.7% at week 2, and 73.2% at week 6. There was a clinical response in 84.6% of patients at 6 months and in 82.8% at 12 months.
Clinical remission, defined as a MADRS score less than or equal to 10, was achieved in 8.3% of patients at week 1, rising to 21.5% at week 2, and 52.5% at week 6. At 6 months, 68.7% of patients were in clinical remission, reaching 69.0% at 12 months.
These benefits were accompanied by substantial improvements in depressive symptoms on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale, with a marked or moderate improvement seen in 86.7% of patients at 6 months and 93.1% at 12 months.
Moreover, a clinical response in functioning on the SDS was achieved by 80.6% of patients at 6 months and 75.9% at 12 months.
The safety analysis of AXS-05 in the entire cohort suggested it was well-tolerated, with dizziness seen in 12.7% of patients, along with nausea in 11.9%, headache in 8.8%, dry mouth in 7.1%, and decreased appetite in 6.1%.
The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 8.4%, and there were no signs of psychotomimetic effects, cognitive impairment, weight gain, or increased sexual dysfunction.
and increased rates of suicidal ideation resolution, and was also effective for treatment-resistant depression.
Results from an analysis of the ASCEND phase 2 and GEMINI phase 3 trials also suggested that AXS-05 was superior to both bupropion and placebo in achieving rapid and sustained improvements in depression symptoms.
FDA delay
Yet despite these seemingly positive findings, the FDA appears to have issues with the agent’s new drug application.
As reported in August, the agency reviewed the NDA for AXS-05 for the treatment of MDD, but at that time the drug’s manufacturer revealed that the agency had identified “deficiencies that preclude labeling discussions at this time.”
With the latest results presented at ECNP 2021, this news organization asked Axsome about the status of the NDA and whether there had been any further discussions and/or movement with the FDA.
Instead of a direct reply from the drug company, this news organization was directed to a statement released by Axsome in August announcing that the FDA had informed the company that its NDA review “would not be completed by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of August 22, 2021.”
“The FDA did not request additional information from the company, and the review of the application is ongoing,” the statement said. Axsome did not respond to further questions.
‘Impressive’ remission rate
Commenting on the research, Marin Jukic, PhD, department of physiology and pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who was not involved in the research, said AXS-05 “looks promising in relation to the efficacy and tolerability results” with a remission rate that is “truly impressive.”
However, Dr. Jukic cautioned that it was an open-label trial and therefore had no placebo or active comparator arms.
He noted that it would be “interesting to compare the efficacy with placebo and escitalopram, for example, to evaluate the potential for the benefits and efficacy better.”
The research was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, and, except for one, the researchers for the four studies are employees of Axsome Therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A novel antidepressant (AXS-05, Axsome Therapeutics) appears to have a rapid and durable effect in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), results of an open label, phase 3 trial, show. Yet, its new drug application (NDA) remains in limbo with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reasons that are unclear.
In the study, which included 876 patients with MDD, results showed the drug, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, had a clinical response rate of 80% and a remission rate of almost 70%. In addition, functional improvements were “substantial” and AXS-05 was determined to be “generally safe and well-tolerated.”
The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
The study
The COMET trial was a phase 3, multicenter, U.S. trial, in which patients with MDD were treated with AXS-05 twice daily for up to 12 months. Patients had to have a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of at least 25. They could have completed a prior AXS-05 study or be newly enrolled.
Of 876 patients included in the study, 611 were newly enrolled. The mean age was 42.4 years, and 62.4% were women. Just over half (58.1%) were White, with 35.6% Black, and 2.0% Asian. The mean body mass index was 31.4 kg/m2.
The mean MADRS total score at baseline was 32.7 and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score was 20.0.
Presenting efficacy data in 609 newly enrolled patients, the team showed that MADRS total scores fell sharply on starting AXS-05, by 9.1 points at week 1, 14.0 points at week 2, and 21.2 points at week 6.
By 6 months, the reduction over baseline was 23.9 points, which was maintained out to 12 months, at a mean reduction of 23.0 points.
The proportion of patients achieving a clinical response, defined as a greater than or equal to 50% improvement in MADRS scores, was 18.8% at week 1, 39.7% at week 2, and 73.2% at week 6. There was a clinical response in 84.6% of patients at 6 months and in 82.8% at 12 months.
Clinical remission, defined as a MADRS score less than or equal to 10, was achieved in 8.3% of patients at week 1, rising to 21.5% at week 2, and 52.5% at week 6. At 6 months, 68.7% of patients were in clinical remission, reaching 69.0% at 12 months.
These benefits were accompanied by substantial improvements in depressive symptoms on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale, with a marked or moderate improvement seen in 86.7% of patients at 6 months and 93.1% at 12 months.
Moreover, a clinical response in functioning on the SDS was achieved by 80.6% of patients at 6 months and 75.9% at 12 months.
The safety analysis of AXS-05 in the entire cohort suggested it was well-tolerated, with dizziness seen in 12.7% of patients, along with nausea in 11.9%, headache in 8.8%, dry mouth in 7.1%, and decreased appetite in 6.1%.
The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 8.4%, and there were no signs of psychotomimetic effects, cognitive impairment, weight gain, or increased sexual dysfunction.
and increased rates of suicidal ideation resolution, and was also effective for treatment-resistant depression.
Results from an analysis of the ASCEND phase 2 and GEMINI phase 3 trials also suggested that AXS-05 was superior to both bupropion and placebo in achieving rapid and sustained improvements in depression symptoms.
FDA delay
Yet despite these seemingly positive findings, the FDA appears to have issues with the agent’s new drug application.
As reported in August, the agency reviewed the NDA for AXS-05 for the treatment of MDD, but at that time the drug’s manufacturer revealed that the agency had identified “deficiencies that preclude labeling discussions at this time.”
With the latest results presented at ECNP 2021, this news organization asked Axsome about the status of the NDA and whether there had been any further discussions and/or movement with the FDA.
Instead of a direct reply from the drug company, this news organization was directed to a statement released by Axsome in August announcing that the FDA had informed the company that its NDA review “would not be completed by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of August 22, 2021.”
“The FDA did not request additional information from the company, and the review of the application is ongoing,” the statement said. Axsome did not respond to further questions.
‘Impressive’ remission rate
Commenting on the research, Marin Jukic, PhD, department of physiology and pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who was not involved in the research, said AXS-05 “looks promising in relation to the efficacy and tolerability results” with a remission rate that is “truly impressive.”
However, Dr. Jukic cautioned that it was an open-label trial and therefore had no placebo or active comparator arms.
He noted that it would be “interesting to compare the efficacy with placebo and escitalopram, for example, to evaluate the potential for the benefits and efficacy better.”
The research was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, and, except for one, the researchers for the four studies are employees of Axsome Therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A novel antidepressant (AXS-05, Axsome Therapeutics) appears to have a rapid and durable effect in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), results of an open label, phase 3 trial, show. Yet, its new drug application (NDA) remains in limbo with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reasons that are unclear.
In the study, which included 876 patients with MDD, results showed the drug, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, had a clinical response rate of 80% and a remission rate of almost 70%. In addition, functional improvements were “substantial” and AXS-05 was determined to be “generally safe and well-tolerated.”
The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
The study
The COMET trial was a phase 3, multicenter, U.S. trial, in which patients with MDD were treated with AXS-05 twice daily for up to 12 months. Patients had to have a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of at least 25. They could have completed a prior AXS-05 study or be newly enrolled.
Of 876 patients included in the study, 611 were newly enrolled. The mean age was 42.4 years, and 62.4% were women. Just over half (58.1%) were White, with 35.6% Black, and 2.0% Asian. The mean body mass index was 31.4 kg/m2.
The mean MADRS total score at baseline was 32.7 and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score was 20.0.
Presenting efficacy data in 609 newly enrolled patients, the team showed that MADRS total scores fell sharply on starting AXS-05, by 9.1 points at week 1, 14.0 points at week 2, and 21.2 points at week 6.
By 6 months, the reduction over baseline was 23.9 points, which was maintained out to 12 months, at a mean reduction of 23.0 points.
The proportion of patients achieving a clinical response, defined as a greater than or equal to 50% improvement in MADRS scores, was 18.8% at week 1, 39.7% at week 2, and 73.2% at week 6. There was a clinical response in 84.6% of patients at 6 months and in 82.8% at 12 months.
Clinical remission, defined as a MADRS score less than or equal to 10, was achieved in 8.3% of patients at week 1, rising to 21.5% at week 2, and 52.5% at week 6. At 6 months, 68.7% of patients were in clinical remission, reaching 69.0% at 12 months.
These benefits were accompanied by substantial improvements in depressive symptoms on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale, with a marked or moderate improvement seen in 86.7% of patients at 6 months and 93.1% at 12 months.
Moreover, a clinical response in functioning on the SDS was achieved by 80.6% of patients at 6 months and 75.9% at 12 months.
The safety analysis of AXS-05 in the entire cohort suggested it was well-tolerated, with dizziness seen in 12.7% of patients, along with nausea in 11.9%, headache in 8.8%, dry mouth in 7.1%, and decreased appetite in 6.1%.
The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 8.4%, and there were no signs of psychotomimetic effects, cognitive impairment, weight gain, or increased sexual dysfunction.
and increased rates of suicidal ideation resolution, and was also effective for treatment-resistant depression.
Results from an analysis of the ASCEND phase 2 and GEMINI phase 3 trials also suggested that AXS-05 was superior to both bupropion and placebo in achieving rapid and sustained improvements in depression symptoms.
FDA delay
Yet despite these seemingly positive findings, the FDA appears to have issues with the agent’s new drug application.
As reported in August, the agency reviewed the NDA for AXS-05 for the treatment of MDD, but at that time the drug’s manufacturer revealed that the agency had identified “deficiencies that preclude labeling discussions at this time.”
With the latest results presented at ECNP 2021, this news organization asked Axsome about the status of the NDA and whether there had been any further discussions and/or movement with the FDA.
Instead of a direct reply from the drug company, this news organization was directed to a statement released by Axsome in August announcing that the FDA had informed the company that its NDA review “would not be completed by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of August 22, 2021.”
“The FDA did not request additional information from the company, and the review of the application is ongoing,” the statement said. Axsome did not respond to further questions.
‘Impressive’ remission rate
Commenting on the research, Marin Jukic, PhD, department of physiology and pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who was not involved in the research, said AXS-05 “looks promising in relation to the efficacy and tolerability results” with a remission rate that is “truly impressive.”
However, Dr. Jukic cautioned that it was an open-label trial and therefore had no placebo or active comparator arms.
He noted that it would be “interesting to compare the efficacy with placebo and escitalopram, for example, to evaluate the potential for the benefits and efficacy better.”
The research was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, and, except for one, the researchers for the four studies are employees of Axsome Therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ECNP 2021