Mental Health

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) exceeded its 2024 goal to house 41,000 veterans, housing 47,935 veterans—an increase of 16.9% and the highest number housed in a single year since 2019. What’s more, it passed that housing goal a month early.

Ending veteran homelessness has been a priority for VA and the Biden-Harris administration. Since 2022, the VA has permanently housed nearly 134,000 homeless veterans. The number of veterans experiencing homelessness in the US has decreased by over 4% since 2020 and by more than 52% since 2010.

The marked decline in homelessness is largely due to the VA’s change in approach. Transitional housing often has followed a linear stepwise model, designed to foster housing readiness by encouraging sobriety and treatment compliance before moving the veteran to the next stage, from emergency shelter to transitional, and finally, permanent housing. While this method worked for some, it posed challenges for those with serious mental illness, substance addiction, or chronic medical conditions.

The VA began shifting its approach in 2012, adopting what it calls its north star—the evidence-based housing first approach. This strategy prioritizes getting veterans into housing as quickly as possible, skipping the intermediate transitional interventions, and then providing wraparound services such as job training and legal and education assistance. “Permanent housing is a critical tool, rather than a reward, for recovery,” says Shawn Liu, director of communications for the VA Homeless Programs Office, in a 2023 article.

A systematic review of studies from 1992 to 2017, shows that the housing first model leads to quicker exits from homelessness and greater long-term housing stability compared with traditional methods. The VA has also found that doing away with enrollment preconditions helps shorten stays among transitional housing providers, improves rates of permanent housing, and increases access to supportive services when needed.

Evidence suggests that the housing first model may reduce the use of emergency department services, hospitalizations, and hospitalized time compared with traditional treatment methods (although the meta-analysis found “considerable variability” between its examined studies). However, evidence that the Housing First model improves health outcomes associated with mental health, substance abuse, or physical health, remains inconclusive. 

In 2010, a demonstration project in the VA setting compared the housing first model with a treatment‐first program for 177 homeless veterans. The study found that the housing first model reduced time to housing placement from 223 to 35 days, significantly increased housing retention rates (98% vs 86%), and significantly reduced emergency room visits.

Over the past decade, the VA has focused on building on the strengths of the program and identifying areas for improvement, such as increasing the prevalence of recovery-oriented philosophies among service providers. “Nearly 48,000 formerly homeless veterans now have a safe, stable place to call home—and there’s nothing more important than that,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough. “No veteran should experience homelessness in this nation they swore to defend. We are making real progress in this fight, and we will not rest until veteran homelessness is a thing of the past.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) exceeded its 2024 goal to house 41,000 veterans, housing 47,935 veterans—an increase of 16.9% and the highest number housed in a single year since 2019. What’s more, it passed that housing goal a month early.

Ending veteran homelessness has been a priority for VA and the Biden-Harris administration. Since 2022, the VA has permanently housed nearly 134,000 homeless veterans. The number of veterans experiencing homelessness in the US has decreased by over 4% since 2020 and by more than 52% since 2010.

The marked decline in homelessness is largely due to the VA’s change in approach. Transitional housing often has followed a linear stepwise model, designed to foster housing readiness by encouraging sobriety and treatment compliance before moving the veteran to the next stage, from emergency shelter to transitional, and finally, permanent housing. While this method worked for some, it posed challenges for those with serious mental illness, substance addiction, or chronic medical conditions.

The VA began shifting its approach in 2012, adopting what it calls its north star—the evidence-based housing first approach. This strategy prioritizes getting veterans into housing as quickly as possible, skipping the intermediate transitional interventions, and then providing wraparound services such as job training and legal and education assistance. “Permanent housing is a critical tool, rather than a reward, for recovery,” says Shawn Liu, director of communications for the VA Homeless Programs Office, in a 2023 article.

A systematic review of studies from 1992 to 2017, shows that the housing first model leads to quicker exits from homelessness and greater long-term housing stability compared with traditional methods. The VA has also found that doing away with enrollment preconditions helps shorten stays among transitional housing providers, improves rates of permanent housing, and increases access to supportive services when needed.

Evidence suggests that the housing first model may reduce the use of emergency department services, hospitalizations, and hospitalized time compared with traditional treatment methods (although the meta-analysis found “considerable variability” between its examined studies). However, evidence that the Housing First model improves health outcomes associated with mental health, substance abuse, or physical health, remains inconclusive. 

In 2010, a demonstration project in the VA setting compared the housing first model with a treatment‐first program for 177 homeless veterans. The study found that the housing first model reduced time to housing placement from 223 to 35 days, significantly increased housing retention rates (98% vs 86%), and significantly reduced emergency room visits.

Over the past decade, the VA has focused on building on the strengths of the program and identifying areas for improvement, such as increasing the prevalence of recovery-oriented philosophies among service providers. “Nearly 48,000 formerly homeless veterans now have a safe, stable place to call home—and there’s nothing more important than that,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough. “No veteran should experience homelessness in this nation they swore to defend. We are making real progress in this fight, and we will not rest until veteran homelessness is a thing of the past.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) exceeded its 2024 goal to house 41,000 veterans, housing 47,935 veterans—an increase of 16.9% and the highest number housed in a single year since 2019. What’s more, it passed that housing goal a month early.

Ending veteran homelessness has been a priority for VA and the Biden-Harris administration. Since 2022, the VA has permanently housed nearly 134,000 homeless veterans. The number of veterans experiencing homelessness in the US has decreased by over 4% since 2020 and by more than 52% since 2010.

The marked decline in homelessness is largely due to the VA’s change in approach. Transitional housing often has followed a linear stepwise model, designed to foster housing readiness by encouraging sobriety and treatment compliance before moving the veteran to the next stage, from emergency shelter to transitional, and finally, permanent housing. While this method worked for some, it posed challenges for those with serious mental illness, substance addiction, or chronic medical conditions.

The VA began shifting its approach in 2012, adopting what it calls its north star—the evidence-based housing first approach. This strategy prioritizes getting veterans into housing as quickly as possible, skipping the intermediate transitional interventions, and then providing wraparound services such as job training and legal and education assistance. “Permanent housing is a critical tool, rather than a reward, for recovery,” says Shawn Liu, director of communications for the VA Homeless Programs Office, in a 2023 article.

A systematic review of studies from 1992 to 2017, shows that the housing first model leads to quicker exits from homelessness and greater long-term housing stability compared with traditional methods. The VA has also found that doing away with enrollment preconditions helps shorten stays among transitional housing providers, improves rates of permanent housing, and increases access to supportive services when needed.

Evidence suggests that the housing first model may reduce the use of emergency department services, hospitalizations, and hospitalized time compared with traditional treatment methods (although the meta-analysis found “considerable variability” between its examined studies). However, evidence that the Housing First model improves health outcomes associated with mental health, substance abuse, or physical health, remains inconclusive. 

In 2010, a demonstration project in the VA setting compared the housing first model with a treatment‐first program for 177 homeless veterans. The study found that the housing first model reduced time to housing placement from 223 to 35 days, significantly increased housing retention rates (98% vs 86%), and significantly reduced emergency room visits.

Over the past decade, the VA has focused on building on the strengths of the program and identifying areas for improvement, such as increasing the prevalence of recovery-oriented philosophies among service providers. “Nearly 48,000 formerly homeless veterans now have a safe, stable place to call home—and there’s nothing more important than that,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough. “No veteran should experience homelessness in this nation they swore to defend. We are making real progress in this fight, and we will not rest until veteran homelessness is a thing of the past.”

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — While polypharmacy is inevitable for patients with multiple chronic diseases, not all medications improve patient-oriented outcomes, members of the Patients, Experience, Evidence, Research (PEER) team, a group of Canadian primary care professionals who develop evidence-based guidelines, told attendees at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.

In a thought-provoking presentation called “Axe the Rx: Deprescribing Chronic Medications with PEER,” the panelists gave examples of medications that may be safely stopped or tapered, particularly for older adults “whose pill bag is heavier than their lunch bag.”

 

Curbing Cardiovascular Drugs

The 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidemia for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults call for reaching an LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L in secondary cardiovascular prevention by potentially adding on medical therapies such as proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors or ezetimibe or both if that target is not reached with the maximal dosage of a statin.

But family physicians do not need to follow this guidance for their patients who have had a myocardial infarction, said Ontario family physician Jennifer Young, MD, a physician advisor in the Canadian College of Family Physicians’ Knowledge Experts and Tools Program.

Treating to below 1.8 mmol/L “means lab testing for the patients,” Young told this news organization. “It means increasing doses [of a statin] to try and get to that level.” If the patient is already on the highest dose of a statin, it means adding other medications that lower cholesterol.

“If that was translating into better outcomes like [preventing] death and another heart attack, then all of that extra effort would be worth it,” said Young. “But we don’t have evidence that it actually does have a benefit for outcomes like death and repeated heart attacks,” compared with putting them on a high dose of a potent statin.

 

Tapering Opioids

Before placing patients on an opioid taper, clinicians should first assess them for opioid use disorder (OUD), said Jessica Kirkwood, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. She suggested using the Prescription Opioid Misuse Index questionnaire to do so.

Clinicians should be much more careful in initiating a taper with patients with OUD, said Kirkwood. They must ensure that these patients are motivated to discontinue their opioids. “We’re losing 21 Canadians a day to the opioid crisis. We all know that cutting someone off their opioids and potentially having them seek opioids elsewhere through illicit means can be fatal.”

In addition, clinicians should spend more time counseling patients with OUD than those without, Kirkwood continued. They must explain to these patients how they are being tapered (eg, the intervals and doses) and highlight the benefits of a taper, such as reduced constipation. Opioid agonist therapy (such as methadone or buprenorphine) can be considered in these patients.

Some research has pointed to the importance of patient motivation as a factor in the success of opioid tapers, noted Kirkwood.

 

Deprescribing Benzodiazepines 

Benzodiazepine receptor agonists, too, often can be deprescribed. These drugs should not be prescribed to promote sleep on a long-term basis. Yet clinicians commonly encounter patients who have been taking them for more than a year, said pharmacist Betsy Thomas, assistant adjunct professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta.

The medications “are usually fairly effective for the first couple of weeks to about a month, and then the benefits start to decrease, and we start to see more harms,” she said.

Some of the harms that have been associated with continued use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists include delayed reaction time and impaired cognition, which can affect the ability to drive, the risk for falls, and the risk for hip fractures, she noted. Some research suggests that these drugs are not an option for treating insomnia in patients aged 65 years or older.

Clinicians should encourage tapering the use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists to minimize dependence and transition patients to nonpharmacologic approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy to manage insomnia, she said. A recent study demonstrated the efficacy of the intervention, and Thomas suggested that family physicians visit the mysleepwell.ca website for more information.

Young, Kirkwood, and Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — While polypharmacy is inevitable for patients with multiple chronic diseases, not all medications improve patient-oriented outcomes, members of the Patients, Experience, Evidence, Research (PEER) team, a group of Canadian primary care professionals who develop evidence-based guidelines, told attendees at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.

In a thought-provoking presentation called “Axe the Rx: Deprescribing Chronic Medications with PEER,” the panelists gave examples of medications that may be safely stopped or tapered, particularly for older adults “whose pill bag is heavier than their lunch bag.”

 

Curbing Cardiovascular Drugs

The 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidemia for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults call for reaching an LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L in secondary cardiovascular prevention by potentially adding on medical therapies such as proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors or ezetimibe or both if that target is not reached with the maximal dosage of a statin.

But family physicians do not need to follow this guidance for their patients who have had a myocardial infarction, said Ontario family physician Jennifer Young, MD, a physician advisor in the Canadian College of Family Physicians’ Knowledge Experts and Tools Program.

Treating to below 1.8 mmol/L “means lab testing for the patients,” Young told this news organization. “It means increasing doses [of a statin] to try and get to that level.” If the patient is already on the highest dose of a statin, it means adding other medications that lower cholesterol.

“If that was translating into better outcomes like [preventing] death and another heart attack, then all of that extra effort would be worth it,” said Young. “But we don’t have evidence that it actually does have a benefit for outcomes like death and repeated heart attacks,” compared with putting them on a high dose of a potent statin.

 

Tapering Opioids

Before placing patients on an opioid taper, clinicians should first assess them for opioid use disorder (OUD), said Jessica Kirkwood, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. She suggested using the Prescription Opioid Misuse Index questionnaire to do so.

Clinicians should be much more careful in initiating a taper with patients with OUD, said Kirkwood. They must ensure that these patients are motivated to discontinue their opioids. “We’re losing 21 Canadians a day to the opioid crisis. We all know that cutting someone off their opioids and potentially having them seek opioids elsewhere through illicit means can be fatal.”

In addition, clinicians should spend more time counseling patients with OUD than those without, Kirkwood continued. They must explain to these patients how they are being tapered (eg, the intervals and doses) and highlight the benefits of a taper, such as reduced constipation. Opioid agonist therapy (such as methadone or buprenorphine) can be considered in these patients.

Some research has pointed to the importance of patient motivation as a factor in the success of opioid tapers, noted Kirkwood.

 

Deprescribing Benzodiazepines 

Benzodiazepine receptor agonists, too, often can be deprescribed. These drugs should not be prescribed to promote sleep on a long-term basis. Yet clinicians commonly encounter patients who have been taking them for more than a year, said pharmacist Betsy Thomas, assistant adjunct professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta.

The medications “are usually fairly effective for the first couple of weeks to about a month, and then the benefits start to decrease, and we start to see more harms,” she said.

Some of the harms that have been associated with continued use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists include delayed reaction time and impaired cognition, which can affect the ability to drive, the risk for falls, and the risk for hip fractures, she noted. Some research suggests that these drugs are not an option for treating insomnia in patients aged 65 years or older.

Clinicians should encourage tapering the use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists to minimize dependence and transition patients to nonpharmacologic approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy to manage insomnia, she said. A recent study demonstrated the efficacy of the intervention, and Thomas suggested that family physicians visit the mysleepwell.ca website for more information.

Young, Kirkwood, and Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — While polypharmacy is inevitable for patients with multiple chronic diseases, not all medications improve patient-oriented outcomes, members of the Patients, Experience, Evidence, Research (PEER) team, a group of Canadian primary care professionals who develop evidence-based guidelines, told attendees at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.

In a thought-provoking presentation called “Axe the Rx: Deprescribing Chronic Medications with PEER,” the panelists gave examples of medications that may be safely stopped or tapered, particularly for older adults “whose pill bag is heavier than their lunch bag.”

 

Curbing Cardiovascular Drugs

The 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidemia for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults call for reaching an LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L in secondary cardiovascular prevention by potentially adding on medical therapies such as proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors or ezetimibe or both if that target is not reached with the maximal dosage of a statin.

But family physicians do not need to follow this guidance for their patients who have had a myocardial infarction, said Ontario family physician Jennifer Young, MD, a physician advisor in the Canadian College of Family Physicians’ Knowledge Experts and Tools Program.

Treating to below 1.8 mmol/L “means lab testing for the patients,” Young told this news organization. “It means increasing doses [of a statin] to try and get to that level.” If the patient is already on the highest dose of a statin, it means adding other medications that lower cholesterol.

“If that was translating into better outcomes like [preventing] death and another heart attack, then all of that extra effort would be worth it,” said Young. “But we don’t have evidence that it actually does have a benefit for outcomes like death and repeated heart attacks,” compared with putting them on a high dose of a potent statin.

 

Tapering Opioids

Before placing patients on an opioid taper, clinicians should first assess them for opioid use disorder (OUD), said Jessica Kirkwood, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. She suggested using the Prescription Opioid Misuse Index questionnaire to do so.

Clinicians should be much more careful in initiating a taper with patients with OUD, said Kirkwood. They must ensure that these patients are motivated to discontinue their opioids. “We’re losing 21 Canadians a day to the opioid crisis. We all know that cutting someone off their opioids and potentially having them seek opioids elsewhere through illicit means can be fatal.”

In addition, clinicians should spend more time counseling patients with OUD than those without, Kirkwood continued. They must explain to these patients how they are being tapered (eg, the intervals and doses) and highlight the benefits of a taper, such as reduced constipation. Opioid agonist therapy (such as methadone or buprenorphine) can be considered in these patients.

Some research has pointed to the importance of patient motivation as a factor in the success of opioid tapers, noted Kirkwood.

 

Deprescribing Benzodiazepines 

Benzodiazepine receptor agonists, too, often can be deprescribed. These drugs should not be prescribed to promote sleep on a long-term basis. Yet clinicians commonly encounter patients who have been taking them for more than a year, said pharmacist Betsy Thomas, assistant adjunct professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta.

The medications “are usually fairly effective for the first couple of weeks to about a month, and then the benefits start to decrease, and we start to see more harms,” she said.

Some of the harms that have been associated with continued use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists include delayed reaction time and impaired cognition, which can affect the ability to drive, the risk for falls, and the risk for hip fractures, she noted. Some research suggests that these drugs are not an option for treating insomnia in patients aged 65 years or older.

Clinicians should encourage tapering the use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists to minimize dependence and transition patients to nonpharmacologic approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy to manage insomnia, she said. A recent study demonstrated the efficacy of the intervention, and Thomas suggested that family physicians visit the mysleepwell.ca website for more information.

Young, Kirkwood, and Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Could assessing the well-being of older patients create better treatment plans?

Researchers with the US Department of Veterans Affairs posit that doing so just might improve patient quality of life.

In an article in Medical Care, Dawne Vogt, PhD, and her colleagues described two surveys of well-being developed for use in clinical settings.

“Well-Being Signs” (WBS), a 1-minute screening, asks patients about how satisfied they are with the most important parts of their daily life, which could include time with family. It also asks how regularly involved they are in the activities and their level of functioning.

“Well-Being Brief” (WBB) is self-administered and asks more in-depth questions about finances, health, social relationships, and vocation. Clinicians can use the tool to make referrals to appropriate services like counseling or resources like senior centers.

“They’re not things that we’ve historically paid a lot of attention to, at least in the healthcare setting,” said Vogt, a research psychologist in the Women’s Health Sciences Division of the VA Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts. “A growing body of research shows that they have really big implications for health.”

The two approaches stem from an increased awareness of the relationship between social determinants of health and outcomes. Both screenings can be implemented more effectively in a clinical setting than other measures because of their brevity and ease of use, she said.

Vogt shared that anecdotally, she finds patients are pleasantly surprised by the questionnaires “because they’re being seen in a way that they don’t always feel like they’re seen.”

Vogt said that the two well-being measurements are more nuanced than standard screenings for depression.

“A measure of depression tells you something much more narrow than a measure of well-being tells you,” she said, adding that identifying problem areas early can help prevent developing mental health disorders. For example, Vogt said that veterans with higher well-being are less likely to develop posttraumatic stress disorder when exposed to trauma.

The WBS has been validated, while the WBB questionnaire awaits final testing.

James Michail, MD, a family and geriatric physician with Providence Health & Services in Los Angeles, California, said he views the well-being screeners as launching points into discussing whether a treatment is enhancing or inhibiting a patient’s life.

“We have screenings for everything else but not for wellness, and the goal of care isn’t necessarily always treatment,” Michail said. “It’s taking the whole person into consideration. There’s a person behind the disease.”

Kendra Segura, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Los Angeles, said she is open to using a well-being screener. Usually, building repertoire with a patient takes time, and sometimes only then can it allow for a more candid assessment of well-being.

“Over the course of several visits, that is when patients open up,” she said. “It’s when that starts to happen where they start to tell you about their well-being. It’s not an easy thing to establish.”

The authors of the article reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Could assessing the well-being of older patients create better treatment plans?

Researchers with the US Department of Veterans Affairs posit that doing so just might improve patient quality of life.

In an article in Medical Care, Dawne Vogt, PhD, and her colleagues described two surveys of well-being developed for use in clinical settings.

“Well-Being Signs” (WBS), a 1-minute screening, asks patients about how satisfied they are with the most important parts of their daily life, which could include time with family. It also asks how regularly involved they are in the activities and their level of functioning.

“Well-Being Brief” (WBB) is self-administered and asks more in-depth questions about finances, health, social relationships, and vocation. Clinicians can use the tool to make referrals to appropriate services like counseling or resources like senior centers.

“They’re not things that we’ve historically paid a lot of attention to, at least in the healthcare setting,” said Vogt, a research psychologist in the Women’s Health Sciences Division of the VA Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts. “A growing body of research shows that they have really big implications for health.”

The two approaches stem from an increased awareness of the relationship between social determinants of health and outcomes. Both screenings can be implemented more effectively in a clinical setting than other measures because of their brevity and ease of use, she said.

Vogt shared that anecdotally, she finds patients are pleasantly surprised by the questionnaires “because they’re being seen in a way that they don’t always feel like they’re seen.”

Vogt said that the two well-being measurements are more nuanced than standard screenings for depression.

“A measure of depression tells you something much more narrow than a measure of well-being tells you,” she said, adding that identifying problem areas early can help prevent developing mental health disorders. For example, Vogt said that veterans with higher well-being are less likely to develop posttraumatic stress disorder when exposed to trauma.

The WBS has been validated, while the WBB questionnaire awaits final testing.

James Michail, MD, a family and geriatric physician with Providence Health & Services in Los Angeles, California, said he views the well-being screeners as launching points into discussing whether a treatment is enhancing or inhibiting a patient’s life.

“We have screenings for everything else but not for wellness, and the goal of care isn’t necessarily always treatment,” Michail said. “It’s taking the whole person into consideration. There’s a person behind the disease.”

Kendra Segura, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Los Angeles, said she is open to using a well-being screener. Usually, building repertoire with a patient takes time, and sometimes only then can it allow for a more candid assessment of well-being.

“Over the course of several visits, that is when patients open up,” she said. “It’s when that starts to happen where they start to tell you about their well-being. It’s not an easy thing to establish.”

The authors of the article reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Could assessing the well-being of older patients create better treatment plans?

Researchers with the US Department of Veterans Affairs posit that doing so just might improve patient quality of life.

In an article in Medical Care, Dawne Vogt, PhD, and her colleagues described two surveys of well-being developed for use in clinical settings.

“Well-Being Signs” (WBS), a 1-minute screening, asks patients about how satisfied they are with the most important parts of their daily life, which could include time with family. It also asks how regularly involved they are in the activities and their level of functioning.

“Well-Being Brief” (WBB) is self-administered and asks more in-depth questions about finances, health, social relationships, and vocation. Clinicians can use the tool to make referrals to appropriate services like counseling or resources like senior centers.

“They’re not things that we’ve historically paid a lot of attention to, at least in the healthcare setting,” said Vogt, a research psychologist in the Women’s Health Sciences Division of the VA Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts. “A growing body of research shows that they have really big implications for health.”

The two approaches stem from an increased awareness of the relationship between social determinants of health and outcomes. Both screenings can be implemented more effectively in a clinical setting than other measures because of their brevity and ease of use, she said.

Vogt shared that anecdotally, she finds patients are pleasantly surprised by the questionnaires “because they’re being seen in a way that they don’t always feel like they’re seen.”

Vogt said that the two well-being measurements are more nuanced than standard screenings for depression.

“A measure of depression tells you something much more narrow than a measure of well-being tells you,” she said, adding that identifying problem areas early can help prevent developing mental health disorders. For example, Vogt said that veterans with higher well-being are less likely to develop posttraumatic stress disorder when exposed to trauma.

The WBS has been validated, while the WBB questionnaire awaits final testing.

James Michail, MD, a family and geriatric physician with Providence Health & Services in Los Angeles, California, said he views the well-being screeners as launching points into discussing whether a treatment is enhancing or inhibiting a patient’s life.

“We have screenings for everything else but not for wellness, and the goal of care isn’t necessarily always treatment,” Michail said. “It’s taking the whole person into consideration. There’s a person behind the disease.”

Kendra Segura, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Los Angeles, said she is open to using a well-being screener. Usually, building repertoire with a patient takes time, and sometimes only then can it allow for a more candid assessment of well-being.

“Over the course of several visits, that is when patients open up,” she said. “It’s when that starts to happen where they start to tell you about their well-being. It’s not an easy thing to establish.”

The authors of the article reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was associated with a greater reduction in symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) than either treatment alone, a new study showed.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a double-blind, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial from 2021 to 2023 at three hospitals in China with 240 participants with MDD (mean age, 32.5 years; 58% women).
• Participants received active tDCS + active rTMS, sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, or sham tDCS + sham rTMS with treatments administered five times per week for 2 weeks.
• tDCS was administered in 20-minute sessions using a 2-mA direct current stimulator, whereas rTMS involved 1600 pulses of 10-Hz stimulation targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Sham treatments used a pseudostimulation coil and only emitted sound.
• The primary outcome was change in the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-24) total score from baseline to week 2.
• Secondary outcomes included HDRS-24 total score change at week 4, remission rate (HDRS-24 total score ≤ 9), response rate (≥ 50% reduction in HDRS-24 total score), and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• The active tDCS + active rTMS group demonstrated the greatest reduction in mean HDRS-24 score (18.33 ± 5.39) at week 2 compared with sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, and sham tDCS + sham rTMS (P < .001).
• Response rates at week 2 were notably higher in the active tDCS + active rTMS group (85%) than in the active tDCS + sham rTMS (30%) and sham tDCS + sham rTMS groups (32%).
• The remission rate at week 4 reached 83% in the active tDCS + active rTMS group, which was significantly higher than the remission rates with the other interventions (P < .001).
• The treatments were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events, seizures, or manic symptoms reported across all intervention groups.

IN PRACTICE:

This trial “was the first to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of combining tDCS and rTMS in treating depression. Future studies should focus on investigating the mechanism of this synergistic effect and improving the stimulation parameters to optimize the therapeutic effect,” the investigators wrote.

 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Dongsheng Zhou, MD, Ningbo Kangning Hospital, Ningbo, China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The brief treatment duration involving 10 sessions may have been insufficient for tDCS and rTMS to demonstrate their full antidepressant potential. The inability to regulate participants’ antidepressant medications throughout the study period presented another limitation. Additionally, the lack of stratified randomization and adjustment for center effects may have introduced variability in the results.

 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support from multiple grants, including from the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, Basic Public Welfare Research Project of Zhejiang Province, Ningbo Medical and Health Brand Discipline, Ningbo Clinical Medical Research Centre for Mental Health, Ningbo Top Medical and Health Research Program, and the Zhejiang Medical and Health Science and Technology Plan Project. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was associated with a greater reduction in symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) than either treatment alone, a new study showed.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a double-blind, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial from 2021 to 2023 at three hospitals in China with 240 participants with MDD (mean age, 32.5 years; 58% women).
• Participants received active tDCS + active rTMS, sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, or sham tDCS + sham rTMS with treatments administered five times per week for 2 weeks.
• tDCS was administered in 20-minute sessions using a 2-mA direct current stimulator, whereas rTMS involved 1600 pulses of 10-Hz stimulation targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Sham treatments used a pseudostimulation coil and only emitted sound.
• The primary outcome was change in the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-24) total score from baseline to week 2.
• Secondary outcomes included HDRS-24 total score change at week 4, remission rate (HDRS-24 total score ≤ 9), response rate (≥ 50% reduction in HDRS-24 total score), and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• The active tDCS + active rTMS group demonstrated the greatest reduction in mean HDRS-24 score (18.33 ± 5.39) at week 2 compared with sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, and sham tDCS + sham rTMS (P < .001).
• Response rates at week 2 were notably higher in the active tDCS + active rTMS group (85%) than in the active tDCS + sham rTMS (30%) and sham tDCS + sham rTMS groups (32%).
• The remission rate at week 4 reached 83% in the active tDCS + active rTMS group, which was significantly higher than the remission rates with the other interventions (P < .001).
• The treatments were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events, seizures, or manic symptoms reported across all intervention groups.

IN PRACTICE:

This trial “was the first to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of combining tDCS and rTMS in treating depression. Future studies should focus on investigating the mechanism of this synergistic effect and improving the stimulation parameters to optimize the therapeutic effect,” the investigators wrote.

 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Dongsheng Zhou, MD, Ningbo Kangning Hospital, Ningbo, China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The brief treatment duration involving 10 sessions may have been insufficient for tDCS and rTMS to demonstrate their full antidepressant potential. The inability to regulate participants’ antidepressant medications throughout the study period presented another limitation. Additionally, the lack of stratified randomization and adjustment for center effects may have introduced variability in the results.

 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support from multiple grants, including from the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, Basic Public Welfare Research Project of Zhejiang Province, Ningbo Medical and Health Brand Discipline, Ningbo Clinical Medical Research Centre for Mental Health, Ningbo Top Medical and Health Research Program, and the Zhejiang Medical and Health Science and Technology Plan Project. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was associated with a greater reduction in symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) than either treatment alone, a new study showed.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a double-blind, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial from 2021 to 2023 at three hospitals in China with 240 participants with MDD (mean age, 32.5 years; 58% women).
• Participants received active tDCS + active rTMS, sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, or sham tDCS + sham rTMS with treatments administered five times per week for 2 weeks.
• tDCS was administered in 20-minute sessions using a 2-mA direct current stimulator, whereas rTMS involved 1600 pulses of 10-Hz stimulation targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Sham treatments used a pseudostimulation coil and only emitted sound.
• The primary outcome was change in the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-24) total score from baseline to week 2.
• Secondary outcomes included HDRS-24 total score change at week 4, remission rate (HDRS-24 total score ≤ 9), response rate (≥ 50% reduction in HDRS-24 total score), and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• The active tDCS + active rTMS group demonstrated the greatest reduction in mean HDRS-24 score (18.33 ± 5.39) at week 2 compared with sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, and sham tDCS + sham rTMS (P < .001).
• Response rates at week 2 were notably higher in the active tDCS + active rTMS group (85%) than in the active tDCS + sham rTMS (30%) and sham tDCS + sham rTMS groups (32%).
• The remission rate at week 4 reached 83% in the active tDCS + active rTMS group, which was significantly higher than the remission rates with the other interventions (P < .001).
• The treatments were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events, seizures, or manic symptoms reported across all intervention groups.

IN PRACTICE:

This trial “was the first to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of combining tDCS and rTMS in treating depression. Future studies should focus on investigating the mechanism of this synergistic effect and improving the stimulation parameters to optimize the therapeutic effect,” the investigators wrote.

 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Dongsheng Zhou, MD, Ningbo Kangning Hospital, Ningbo, China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The brief treatment duration involving 10 sessions may have been insufficient for tDCS and rTMS to demonstrate their full antidepressant potential. The inability to regulate participants’ antidepressant medications throughout the study period presented another limitation. Additionally, the lack of stratified randomization and adjustment for center effects may have introduced variability in the results.

 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support from multiple grants, including from the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, Basic Public Welfare Research Project of Zhejiang Province, Ningbo Medical and Health Brand Discipline, Ningbo Clinical Medical Research Centre for Mental Health, Ningbo Top Medical and Health Research Program, and the Zhejiang Medical and Health Science and Technology Plan Project. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

In one my recent Letters, I concluded with the concern that infant-led weaning, which makes some sense, can be confused with child-led family meals, which make none. I referred to an increasingly popular style of parenting overemphasizing child autonomy that seems to be a major contributor to the mealtime chaos that occurs when pleasing every palate at the table becomes the goal.

In the intervening weeks, I have learned that this parenting style is called “gentle parenting.” Despite its growing popularity, possibly fueled by the pandemic, it has not been well-defined nor its effectiveness investigated. In a recent paper published in PLOS ONE, two professors of developmental psychology have attempted correct this deficit in our understanding of this parenting style, which doesn’t appear to make sense to many of us with experience in child behavior and development. 

 

Gentle Parents

By surveying a group of 100 parents of young children, the investigators were able to sort out a group of parents (n = 49) who self-identified as employing gentle parenting. Their responses emphasized a high level of parental affection and emotional regulation by both their children and themselves.

Investigators found that 40% of the self-defined gentle parents “had negative difference scores indicating misbehavior response descriptions that included more child directed responses. I interpret this to mean that almost half of the time the parents failed to evenly include themselves in a solution to a conflict, which indicates incomplete or unsuccessful emotional regulation on their part. The investigators also observed that, like many other parenting styles, gentle parenting includes an emphasis on boundaries “yet, enactment of those boundaries is not uniform.”

More telling was the authors’ observation that “statements of parenting uncertainty and burnout were present in over one third of the gentle of the gentle parenting sample.” While some parents were pleased with their experience, the downside seems unacceptable to me. When asked to explain this finding, Annie Pezalla, PhD, one of the coauthors, has said “gentle parenting practices work best when a parent is emotionally regulated and unconstrained for time — commodities that parents struggle with the most.”

 

Abundance Advice on Parenting Styles

I find this to be a very sad story. Parenting can be difficult. Creating and then gently and effectively policing those boundaries is often the hardest part. There is no shortage of “experts” willing to tell the throngs of anxious parents how to do it. It is not surprising to me that of the four books I have written for parents, the one titled How to Say No to Your Toddler is the only one popular enough to be published in four languages.

Of course I am troubled, as I suspect you may be, with the label “gentle parenting.” It implies that the rest of us are doing something terrible, “harsh” maybe, “cruel” maybe. We can dispense with the “affectionate” descriptor immediately because gentle parenting can’t claim sole ownership to it. Every, behavior management scheme I am aware of touts being caring and loving at its core.

I completely agree that emotional regulation for both parent and child are worthy goals, but I’m not hearing much on how that is to be achieved other than by trying to avoid the inevitable conflict by failing to even say “No” when poorly crafted boundaries are breached. 

There are scores of parenting styles out there. And there should be, because we are all different. Parents have strengths and weaknesses and they have begotten children with different personalities and vulnerabilities. And, families come from different cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds. 

Across all of these differences there are two primary roles for every parent. The first is to lead by example. If a parent wants his/her child to be kind and caring and polite, then the parent has no choice but to behave that way. If the parent can’t always be present, the environment where the child spends most of his/her day should model the desired behavior. I’m not talking about teaching because you can’t preach good behavior. It must be modeled.

The second role for the parent is to keep his/her child safe from dangers that exist in every environment. This can mean accepting vaccines and seeking available medical care. But, it also means creating some limits — the current buzzword is “guardrails” — to keep the child from veering into the ditch.

 

Setting Limits

Limits will, of necessity, vary with the environment. The risks of a child growing on a farm differ from those of child living in the city. And they must be tailored to the personality and developmental stage of the child. A parent may need advice from someone experienced in child behavior to create individualized limits. You may be able to allow your 3-year-old to roam freely in an environment in which I would have to monitor my risk-taking 3-year-old every second. A parent must learn and accept his/her child’s personality and the environment they can provide.

Limits should be inanimate objects whenever possible. Fences, gates, doors with latches, and locked cabinets to keep temptations out of view, etc. Creative environmental manipulations should be employed to keep the annoying verbal warnings, unenforceable threats, and direct child-to-parent confrontations to a minimum.

 

Consequences

Challenges to even the most carefully crafted limits are inevitable, and this is where we get to the third-rail topic of consequences. Yes, when prevention has failed for whatever reason, I believe that an intelligently and affectionately applied time-out is the most efficient and most effective consequence. This is not the place for me to explore or defend the details, but before you write me off as an octogenarian hard-ass (or hard-liner if you prefer) I urge you to read a few chapters in How to Say No to Your Toddler.

Far more important than which consequence a parent chooses are the steps the family has taken to keep both parent and child in a state of balanced emotional regulation. Is everyone well rested and getting enough sleep? Sleep deprivation is one of the most potent triggers of a tantrum; it also leaves parents vulnerable to saying things and making threats they will regret later. Does the child’s schedule leave him or her enough time to decompress? Does the parent’s schedule sync with a developmentally appropriate schedule for the child? Is he/she getting the right kind of attention when it makes the most sense to him/her?

 

Intelligent Parenting

If a family has created an environment in which limits are appropriate for the child’s personality and developmental stage, used physical barriers whenever possible, and kept everyone as well rested as possible, both challenges to the limits and consequences can be kept to a minimum.

But achieving this state requires time as free of constraints as possible. For the few families that have the luxury of meeting these conditions, gentle parenting might be the answer. For the rest of us, intelligent parenting that acknowledges the realities and limits of our own abilities and our children’s vulnerabilities is the better answer.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected]. 

In one my recent Letters, I concluded with the concern that infant-led weaning, which makes some sense, can be confused with child-led family meals, which make none. I referred to an increasingly popular style of parenting overemphasizing child autonomy that seems to be a major contributor to the mealtime chaos that occurs when pleasing every palate at the table becomes the goal.

In the intervening weeks, I have learned that this parenting style is called “gentle parenting.” Despite its growing popularity, possibly fueled by the pandemic, it has not been well-defined nor its effectiveness investigated. In a recent paper published in PLOS ONE, two professors of developmental psychology have attempted correct this deficit in our understanding of this parenting style, which doesn’t appear to make sense to many of us with experience in child behavior and development. 

 

Gentle Parents

By surveying a group of 100 parents of young children, the investigators were able to sort out a group of parents (n = 49) who self-identified as employing gentle parenting. Their responses emphasized a high level of parental affection and emotional regulation by both their children and themselves.

Investigators found that 40% of the self-defined gentle parents “had negative difference scores indicating misbehavior response descriptions that included more child directed responses. I interpret this to mean that almost half of the time the parents failed to evenly include themselves in a solution to a conflict, which indicates incomplete or unsuccessful emotional regulation on their part. The investigators also observed that, like many other parenting styles, gentle parenting includes an emphasis on boundaries “yet, enactment of those boundaries is not uniform.”

More telling was the authors’ observation that “statements of parenting uncertainty and burnout were present in over one third of the gentle of the gentle parenting sample.” While some parents were pleased with their experience, the downside seems unacceptable to me. When asked to explain this finding, Annie Pezalla, PhD, one of the coauthors, has said “gentle parenting practices work best when a parent is emotionally regulated and unconstrained for time — commodities that parents struggle with the most.”

 

Abundance Advice on Parenting Styles

I find this to be a very sad story. Parenting can be difficult. Creating and then gently and effectively policing those boundaries is often the hardest part. There is no shortage of “experts” willing to tell the throngs of anxious parents how to do it. It is not surprising to me that of the four books I have written for parents, the one titled How to Say No to Your Toddler is the only one popular enough to be published in four languages.

Of course I am troubled, as I suspect you may be, with the label “gentle parenting.” It implies that the rest of us are doing something terrible, “harsh” maybe, “cruel” maybe. We can dispense with the “affectionate” descriptor immediately because gentle parenting can’t claim sole ownership to it. Every, behavior management scheme I am aware of touts being caring and loving at its core.

I completely agree that emotional regulation for both parent and child are worthy goals, but I’m not hearing much on how that is to be achieved other than by trying to avoid the inevitable conflict by failing to even say “No” when poorly crafted boundaries are breached. 

There are scores of parenting styles out there. And there should be, because we are all different. Parents have strengths and weaknesses and they have begotten children with different personalities and vulnerabilities. And, families come from different cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds. 

Across all of these differences there are two primary roles for every parent. The first is to lead by example. If a parent wants his/her child to be kind and caring and polite, then the parent has no choice but to behave that way. If the parent can’t always be present, the environment where the child spends most of his/her day should model the desired behavior. I’m not talking about teaching because you can’t preach good behavior. It must be modeled.

The second role for the parent is to keep his/her child safe from dangers that exist in every environment. This can mean accepting vaccines and seeking available medical care. But, it also means creating some limits — the current buzzword is “guardrails” — to keep the child from veering into the ditch.

 

Setting Limits

Limits will, of necessity, vary with the environment. The risks of a child growing on a farm differ from those of child living in the city. And they must be tailored to the personality and developmental stage of the child. A parent may need advice from someone experienced in child behavior to create individualized limits. You may be able to allow your 3-year-old to roam freely in an environment in which I would have to monitor my risk-taking 3-year-old every second. A parent must learn and accept his/her child’s personality and the environment they can provide.

Limits should be inanimate objects whenever possible. Fences, gates, doors with latches, and locked cabinets to keep temptations out of view, etc. Creative environmental manipulations should be employed to keep the annoying verbal warnings, unenforceable threats, and direct child-to-parent confrontations to a minimum.

 

Consequences

Challenges to even the most carefully crafted limits are inevitable, and this is where we get to the third-rail topic of consequences. Yes, when prevention has failed for whatever reason, I believe that an intelligently and affectionately applied time-out is the most efficient and most effective consequence. This is not the place for me to explore or defend the details, but before you write me off as an octogenarian hard-ass (or hard-liner if you prefer) I urge you to read a few chapters in How to Say No to Your Toddler.

Far more important than which consequence a parent chooses are the steps the family has taken to keep both parent and child in a state of balanced emotional regulation. Is everyone well rested and getting enough sleep? Sleep deprivation is one of the most potent triggers of a tantrum; it also leaves parents vulnerable to saying things and making threats they will regret later. Does the child’s schedule leave him or her enough time to decompress? Does the parent’s schedule sync with a developmentally appropriate schedule for the child? Is he/she getting the right kind of attention when it makes the most sense to him/her?

 

Intelligent Parenting

If a family has created an environment in which limits are appropriate for the child’s personality and developmental stage, used physical barriers whenever possible, and kept everyone as well rested as possible, both challenges to the limits and consequences can be kept to a minimum.

But achieving this state requires time as free of constraints as possible. For the few families that have the luxury of meeting these conditions, gentle parenting might be the answer. For the rest of us, intelligent parenting that acknowledges the realities and limits of our own abilities and our children’s vulnerabilities is the better answer.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected]. 

In one my recent Letters, I concluded with the concern that infant-led weaning, which makes some sense, can be confused with child-led family meals, which make none. I referred to an increasingly popular style of parenting overemphasizing child autonomy that seems to be a major contributor to the mealtime chaos that occurs when pleasing every palate at the table becomes the goal.

In the intervening weeks, I have learned that this parenting style is called “gentle parenting.” Despite its growing popularity, possibly fueled by the pandemic, it has not been well-defined nor its effectiveness investigated. In a recent paper published in PLOS ONE, two professors of developmental psychology have attempted correct this deficit in our understanding of this parenting style, which doesn’t appear to make sense to many of us with experience in child behavior and development. 

 

Gentle Parents

By surveying a group of 100 parents of young children, the investigators were able to sort out a group of parents (n = 49) who self-identified as employing gentle parenting. Their responses emphasized a high level of parental affection and emotional regulation by both their children and themselves.

Investigators found that 40% of the self-defined gentle parents “had negative difference scores indicating misbehavior response descriptions that included more child directed responses. I interpret this to mean that almost half of the time the parents failed to evenly include themselves in a solution to a conflict, which indicates incomplete or unsuccessful emotional regulation on their part. The investigators also observed that, like many other parenting styles, gentle parenting includes an emphasis on boundaries “yet, enactment of those boundaries is not uniform.”

More telling was the authors’ observation that “statements of parenting uncertainty and burnout were present in over one third of the gentle of the gentle parenting sample.” While some parents were pleased with their experience, the downside seems unacceptable to me. When asked to explain this finding, Annie Pezalla, PhD, one of the coauthors, has said “gentle parenting practices work best when a parent is emotionally regulated and unconstrained for time — commodities that parents struggle with the most.”

 

Abundance Advice on Parenting Styles

I find this to be a very sad story. Parenting can be difficult. Creating and then gently and effectively policing those boundaries is often the hardest part. There is no shortage of “experts” willing to tell the throngs of anxious parents how to do it. It is not surprising to me that of the four books I have written for parents, the one titled How to Say No to Your Toddler is the only one popular enough to be published in four languages.

Of course I am troubled, as I suspect you may be, with the label “gentle parenting.” It implies that the rest of us are doing something terrible, “harsh” maybe, “cruel” maybe. We can dispense with the “affectionate” descriptor immediately because gentle parenting can’t claim sole ownership to it. Every, behavior management scheme I am aware of touts being caring and loving at its core.

I completely agree that emotional regulation for both parent and child are worthy goals, but I’m not hearing much on how that is to be achieved other than by trying to avoid the inevitable conflict by failing to even say “No” when poorly crafted boundaries are breached. 

There are scores of parenting styles out there. And there should be, because we are all different. Parents have strengths and weaknesses and they have begotten children with different personalities and vulnerabilities. And, families come from different cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds. 

Across all of these differences there are two primary roles for every parent. The first is to lead by example. If a parent wants his/her child to be kind and caring and polite, then the parent has no choice but to behave that way. If the parent can’t always be present, the environment where the child spends most of his/her day should model the desired behavior. I’m not talking about teaching because you can’t preach good behavior. It must be modeled.

The second role for the parent is to keep his/her child safe from dangers that exist in every environment. This can mean accepting vaccines and seeking available medical care. But, it also means creating some limits — the current buzzword is “guardrails” — to keep the child from veering into the ditch.

 

Setting Limits

Limits will, of necessity, vary with the environment. The risks of a child growing on a farm differ from those of child living in the city. And they must be tailored to the personality and developmental stage of the child. A parent may need advice from someone experienced in child behavior to create individualized limits. You may be able to allow your 3-year-old to roam freely in an environment in which I would have to monitor my risk-taking 3-year-old every second. A parent must learn and accept his/her child’s personality and the environment they can provide.

Limits should be inanimate objects whenever possible. Fences, gates, doors with latches, and locked cabinets to keep temptations out of view, etc. Creative environmental manipulations should be employed to keep the annoying verbal warnings, unenforceable threats, and direct child-to-parent confrontations to a minimum.

 

Consequences

Challenges to even the most carefully crafted limits are inevitable, and this is where we get to the third-rail topic of consequences. Yes, when prevention has failed for whatever reason, I believe that an intelligently and affectionately applied time-out is the most efficient and most effective consequence. This is not the place for me to explore or defend the details, but before you write me off as an octogenarian hard-ass (or hard-liner if you prefer) I urge you to read a few chapters in How to Say No to Your Toddler.

Far more important than which consequence a parent chooses are the steps the family has taken to keep both parent and child in a state of balanced emotional regulation. Is everyone well rested and getting enough sleep? Sleep deprivation is one of the most potent triggers of a tantrum; it also leaves parents vulnerable to saying things and making threats they will regret later. Does the child’s schedule leave him or her enough time to decompress? Does the parent’s schedule sync with a developmentally appropriate schedule for the child? Is he/she getting the right kind of attention when it makes the most sense to him/her?

 

Intelligent Parenting

If a family has created an environment in which limits are appropriate for the child’s personality and developmental stage, used physical barriers whenever possible, and kept everyone as well rested as possible, both challenges to the limits and consequences can be kept to a minimum.

But achieving this state requires time as free of constraints as possible. For the few families that have the luxury of meeting these conditions, gentle parenting might be the answer. For the rest of us, intelligent parenting that acknowledges the realities and limits of our own abilities and our children’s vulnerabilities is the better answer.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected]. 

For decades I have suspected that there is a strong association between sleep deprivation and pediatric attention disorders. More recently I have wondered whether screen time, particularly at bedtime might be a significant contributor to sleep quantity and quality in both children and adults. There is a growing body of research that combines my two observations and suggests that bedtime screen time through its effect on sleep may be linked to pediatric attention problems. However, most of this work is preliminary and needs to be confirmed.

Stumbling across a paper from England titled “Toddler Screen Use Before Bed and Its Effect on Sleep and Attention” renewed my hope that we finally have evidence to close that knowledge gap. My bubble burst quickly however when I jumped ahead and read the conclusion portion of the abstract and learned that authors observed “no clear difference in parent reported attention” in the group of children in which screen time before bedtime had been eliminated. The authors wonder if their small study sample may be to blame.

 

Disappointed, I persisted and read the paper in its entirety and found that despite their failure to link bedtime screen time with attention disorders, the investigators have made a significant contribution to our understanding of how we can better encourage good pediatric sleep hygiene. 

 

The Study

One hundred and five families with a toddler who was being exposed to a video screen in the hour before bedtime were divided into three groups. One group received guidance and advice from a pediatric team about the potential benefit of eliminating bedtime screen time. They were also given a box of activities that contained “activity cards and age appropriate toys” to replace the screen use. The family also received periodic support and follow-up contacts. A second group received only the “bedtime box.” And the third received no intervention.

It is important to note that the investigators modeled their intervention on one developed in a previous study using older children that was “co-created with caregivers and early years practitioners”(my italics). 

The intervention resulted in reductions in parent-reported screen time, sleep efficiency, night awakenings, and daytime sleep. The decrease in nap time was a surprise to the investigators. 

These reductions were small. However, the investigators were most impressed (and I share in their sentiment) with the finding that 99% (104/105) of the families stayed with the study until completion, demonstrating that future studies using this format were highly feasible. The authors of the study were pleased also and possibly surprised that 94% (33/35) of the families who received the intervention adhered to the recommendations. 

 

One Suggestion: ‘Just Shut the TV Off’

If you are a cynic, you might be tempted to explain the investigators’ (and my) excitement over the feasibility and adherence numbers as an attempt to pump up the importance of a set of otherwise lackluster numbers regarding sleep and the failure to find any association between the intervention and attention. However, having spent a large part of my career trying to encourage parents to improve their child’s sleep hygiene, often with little success, I am encouraged by this study’s success in getting families to accept and then adhere to the intervention.

I must admit that when presented with a child who appeared to be having some attention difficulties and was watching television as part of his or her bedtime ritual, there’s a good chance I would have simply told the parents, “Just shut the TV off.” This certainly worked with some families, particularly those who had already bought into my preaching about the importance of sleep. However, my acceptance and adherence rates were no where near the 99% and 94% these investigators where achieving. 

I did try to make follow-up phone calls, as these investigators did, but generally only to the most seriously effected families or in situations in which felt I was going to have the greatest chance of success. I am sorry to say that I didn’t involve the parents in crafting my overly simplistic intervention. Had I been more open to parental input, I suspect my results would have improved.

 

An Alternative

I think another reason for these investigators’ success was the clever ploy of offering a replacement (in this case the bedtime box of alternative activities) when they asked the parents to remove the screen time. Getting anyone to break an unhealthy habit, be they parents or patients, it often helps to offer them an alternative. The activity may not be as appealing as their current behavior but it can fill the gap until a new even healthier behavior develops.

Building an efficient and effective bedtime ritual begins in the first months of life. The initial challenge could be separating nursing or a bottle from the settling in process. Later on it could mean helping a parent who is out of the home all day understand that they may have to suppress their natural urge to engage in vigorous play with his/her child at a time that is best devoted to winding down into a healthy bedtime ritual. Although screen time may not be physically stimulating, there is increasing evidence that it shouldn’t be part of a pre-bedtime ritual. The question of if and how it contributes to attention problems will have to wait until another day. 

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

For decades I have suspected that there is a strong association between sleep deprivation and pediatric attention disorders. More recently I have wondered whether screen time, particularly at bedtime might be a significant contributor to sleep quantity and quality in both children and adults. There is a growing body of research that combines my two observations and suggests that bedtime screen time through its effect on sleep may be linked to pediatric attention problems. However, most of this work is preliminary and needs to be confirmed.

Stumbling across a paper from England titled “Toddler Screen Use Before Bed and Its Effect on Sleep and Attention” renewed my hope that we finally have evidence to close that knowledge gap. My bubble burst quickly however when I jumped ahead and read the conclusion portion of the abstract and learned that authors observed “no clear difference in parent reported attention” in the group of children in which screen time before bedtime had been eliminated. The authors wonder if their small study sample may be to blame.

 

Disappointed, I persisted and read the paper in its entirety and found that despite their failure to link bedtime screen time with attention disorders, the investigators have made a significant contribution to our understanding of how we can better encourage good pediatric sleep hygiene. 

 

The Study

One hundred and five families with a toddler who was being exposed to a video screen in the hour before bedtime were divided into three groups. One group received guidance and advice from a pediatric team about the potential benefit of eliminating bedtime screen time. They were also given a box of activities that contained “activity cards and age appropriate toys” to replace the screen use. The family also received periodic support and follow-up contacts. A second group received only the “bedtime box.” And the third received no intervention.

It is important to note that the investigators modeled their intervention on one developed in a previous study using older children that was “co-created with caregivers and early years practitioners”(my italics). 

The intervention resulted in reductions in parent-reported screen time, sleep efficiency, night awakenings, and daytime sleep. The decrease in nap time was a surprise to the investigators. 

These reductions were small. However, the investigators were most impressed (and I share in their sentiment) with the finding that 99% (104/105) of the families stayed with the study until completion, demonstrating that future studies using this format were highly feasible. The authors of the study were pleased also and possibly surprised that 94% (33/35) of the families who received the intervention adhered to the recommendations. 

 

One Suggestion: ‘Just Shut the TV Off’

If you are a cynic, you might be tempted to explain the investigators’ (and my) excitement over the feasibility and adherence numbers as an attempt to pump up the importance of a set of otherwise lackluster numbers regarding sleep and the failure to find any association between the intervention and attention. However, having spent a large part of my career trying to encourage parents to improve their child’s sleep hygiene, often with little success, I am encouraged by this study’s success in getting families to accept and then adhere to the intervention.

I must admit that when presented with a child who appeared to be having some attention difficulties and was watching television as part of his or her bedtime ritual, there’s a good chance I would have simply told the parents, “Just shut the TV off.” This certainly worked with some families, particularly those who had already bought into my preaching about the importance of sleep. However, my acceptance and adherence rates were no where near the 99% and 94% these investigators where achieving. 

I did try to make follow-up phone calls, as these investigators did, but generally only to the most seriously effected families or in situations in which felt I was going to have the greatest chance of success. I am sorry to say that I didn’t involve the parents in crafting my overly simplistic intervention. Had I been more open to parental input, I suspect my results would have improved.

 

An Alternative

I think another reason for these investigators’ success was the clever ploy of offering a replacement (in this case the bedtime box of alternative activities) when they asked the parents to remove the screen time. Getting anyone to break an unhealthy habit, be they parents or patients, it often helps to offer them an alternative. The activity may not be as appealing as their current behavior but it can fill the gap until a new even healthier behavior develops.

Building an efficient and effective bedtime ritual begins in the first months of life. The initial challenge could be separating nursing or a bottle from the settling in process. Later on it could mean helping a parent who is out of the home all day understand that they may have to suppress their natural urge to engage in vigorous play with his/her child at a time that is best devoted to winding down into a healthy bedtime ritual. Although screen time may not be physically stimulating, there is increasing evidence that it shouldn’t be part of a pre-bedtime ritual. The question of if and how it contributes to attention problems will have to wait until another day. 

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

For decades I have suspected that there is a strong association between sleep deprivation and pediatric attention disorders. More recently I have wondered whether screen time, particularly at bedtime might be a significant contributor to sleep quantity and quality in both children and adults. There is a growing body of research that combines my two observations and suggests that bedtime screen time through its effect on sleep may be linked to pediatric attention problems. However, most of this work is preliminary and needs to be confirmed.

Stumbling across a paper from England titled “Toddler Screen Use Before Bed and Its Effect on Sleep and Attention” renewed my hope that we finally have evidence to close that knowledge gap. My bubble burst quickly however when I jumped ahead and read the conclusion portion of the abstract and learned that authors observed “no clear difference in parent reported attention” in the group of children in which screen time before bedtime had been eliminated. The authors wonder if their small study sample may be to blame.

 

Disappointed, I persisted and read the paper in its entirety and found that despite their failure to link bedtime screen time with attention disorders, the investigators have made a significant contribution to our understanding of how we can better encourage good pediatric sleep hygiene. 

 

The Study

One hundred and five families with a toddler who was being exposed to a video screen in the hour before bedtime were divided into three groups. One group received guidance and advice from a pediatric team about the potential benefit of eliminating bedtime screen time. They were also given a box of activities that contained “activity cards and age appropriate toys” to replace the screen use. The family also received periodic support and follow-up contacts. A second group received only the “bedtime box.” And the third received no intervention.

It is important to note that the investigators modeled their intervention on one developed in a previous study using older children that was “co-created with caregivers and early years practitioners”(my italics). 

The intervention resulted in reductions in parent-reported screen time, sleep efficiency, night awakenings, and daytime sleep. The decrease in nap time was a surprise to the investigators. 

These reductions were small. However, the investigators were most impressed (and I share in their sentiment) with the finding that 99% (104/105) of the families stayed with the study until completion, demonstrating that future studies using this format were highly feasible. The authors of the study were pleased also and possibly surprised that 94% (33/35) of the families who received the intervention adhered to the recommendations. 

 

One Suggestion: ‘Just Shut the TV Off’

If you are a cynic, you might be tempted to explain the investigators’ (and my) excitement over the feasibility and adherence numbers as an attempt to pump up the importance of a set of otherwise lackluster numbers regarding sleep and the failure to find any association between the intervention and attention. However, having spent a large part of my career trying to encourage parents to improve their child’s sleep hygiene, often with little success, I am encouraged by this study’s success in getting families to accept and then adhere to the intervention.

I must admit that when presented with a child who appeared to be having some attention difficulties and was watching television as part of his or her bedtime ritual, there’s a good chance I would have simply told the parents, “Just shut the TV off.” This certainly worked with some families, particularly those who had already bought into my preaching about the importance of sleep. However, my acceptance and adherence rates were no where near the 99% and 94% these investigators where achieving. 

I did try to make follow-up phone calls, as these investigators did, but generally only to the most seriously effected families or in situations in which felt I was going to have the greatest chance of success. I am sorry to say that I didn’t involve the parents in crafting my overly simplistic intervention. Had I been more open to parental input, I suspect my results would have improved.

 

An Alternative

I think another reason for these investigators’ success was the clever ploy of offering a replacement (in this case the bedtime box of alternative activities) when they asked the parents to remove the screen time. Getting anyone to break an unhealthy habit, be they parents or patients, it often helps to offer them an alternative. The activity may not be as appealing as their current behavior but it can fill the gap until a new even healthier behavior develops.

Building an efficient and effective bedtime ritual begins in the first months of life. The initial challenge could be separating nursing or a bottle from the settling in process. Later on it could mean helping a parent who is out of the home all day understand that they may have to suppress their natural urge to engage in vigorous play with his/her child at a time that is best devoted to winding down into a healthy bedtime ritual. Although screen time may not be physically stimulating, there is increasing evidence that it shouldn’t be part of a pre-bedtime ritual. The question of if and how it contributes to attention problems will have to wait until another day. 

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].