Opinion

As they rolled me down the hallway to the OR, ceiling lights rhythmically passing above, I zoned out into a 1,000-mile stare. How did I get here? I started humming “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot,” praying for a miracle to happen. I thought back to my birth plan, meticulously crafted, a one-pager so that the no-nonsense labor and delivery nurses wouldn›t think me completely off my rocker. No C-section unless medically necessary. Those words laughed back at me – cackling, even. I’d planned out the whole birthing process and here we were, my team almost jogging me to the OR. I lay still, utterly gobsmacked and partially anesthetized.

If I squint my eyes and hallucinate just a bit, that is sort of what motherhood has been like.

It’s about knowing all the things that could go wrong and meeting the unplanned head-on. Motherhood has indeed been a whirlwind – so many physical, psychological, and emotional transformations. And to top it off, the added effort of giving birth in a pandemic. As an over-40 physician, you’d think I would have been better prepared.

I was, but in a sense, I was not. The knowledge, the wisdom, the experience of my medical training surrounded me, but even I panicked at times in the beginning: Am I feeding her correctly? Am I making enough food for her? Am I doing the best that I can for her? What more could I be doing for her?

Over time, I’ve learned to lighten up. Some. In those teachable moments with my daughter Gia, I’ve learned to not sugarcoat reality but encourage the hopeful. If Gia falls on the ground? “You’re okay, sweetie. Now get back up.” If Gia has a tantrum and starts hitting herself? “Honey, our hands are for hugs, not hurting ourselves. Let’s go play.” Eighty percent of motherhood right now is redirection and the other 20% is patience.

I remember this one time I was rushing out the door for work. After getting in the car with my keys, I realized I forgot my coffee back in the house. I left the car, went back in the house to grab the blessed joe, went back to the car, and couldn’t get in because it was locked. I panicked at that moment, went back inside the house, and found Gia playing with my extra key fob. My own daughter locked me out of my car. Of course, it wasn’t her fault. Deep breath and I offered her another kiss while simultaneously taking the key fob from her.

Before Gia could walk, she could climb the stairs in our home. Her father and I sometimes refer to her as “Lil Bamm-Bamm” because she is so strong. One day, Daddy was supposed to be watching her while Mommy was folding laundry upstairs. She was not allowed on the stairs, but what should I hear? Literally, the pitter-patter of little feet, running down the upstairs hallway. Her father had drifted off watching yet another episode of something Star Wars–related. My strong little girl made it up the stairs all by herself and Dad received a strong word. The Force was with me that day.

I would say that I feel like having a child ages you, but what does that really mean when you’re already old? I’ve become acutely aware of my lack of endurance, stamina, and bodily strength. My knees will creak when taking her upstairs to bed, an osseous dirge of a lullaby. Date nights become unintentionally less and less frequent. Friday night dress-up becomes Friday night dress-down. I’ve replaced stiletto heels with comfy sweats.

Once we put Gia down for the night, we are usually exhausted from the day, and the couch and TV are welcome respites. We exhale. As over-40 parents, we knew that having children late in life would bring its challenges. But I’d like to think that we are meeting them the best way that we can. Often I encourage my body to meet Gia at her eye level, see what she sees, play with her on her own terms, and match her energy. She absolutely loves it when I do this. I’m out of breath and my knees are sore by the end of our play session, but I wouldn’t have it any other way.

We are learning from each other. She has a bright and assertive personality, and I am protective of that innocence. Her innocence is without fear. I often wonder what she is thinking when I see her facial expressions. A side-eye, a fleeting giggle. Is she secretly contemplating the chronicity of the cosmos, or is it just gas? I look at her in stolen moments and still can’t believe that I grew a human inside me, and said human was extracted from me and is now walking around my house commanding her bidding. So surreal. The unromanticized, scientific ingredients that are at play from conception to delivery are nothing short of miraculous. And the miracles of parenting over 40 are present every day.

Dr. Tolliver is a family medicine physician at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As they rolled me down the hallway to the OR, ceiling lights rhythmically passing above, I zoned out into a 1,000-mile stare. How did I get here? I started humming “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot,” praying for a miracle to happen. I thought back to my birth plan, meticulously crafted, a one-pager so that the no-nonsense labor and delivery nurses wouldn›t think me completely off my rocker. No C-section unless medically necessary. Those words laughed back at me – cackling, even. I’d planned out the whole birthing process and here we were, my team almost jogging me to the OR. I lay still, utterly gobsmacked and partially anesthetized.

If I squint my eyes and hallucinate just a bit, that is sort of what motherhood has been like.

It’s about knowing all the things that could go wrong and meeting the unplanned head-on. Motherhood has indeed been a whirlwind – so many physical, psychological, and emotional transformations. And to top it off, the added effort of giving birth in a pandemic. As an over-40 physician, you’d think I would have been better prepared.

I was, but in a sense, I was not. The knowledge, the wisdom, the experience of my medical training surrounded me, but even I panicked at times in the beginning: Am I feeding her correctly? Am I making enough food for her? Am I doing the best that I can for her? What more could I be doing for her?

Over time, I’ve learned to lighten up. Some. In those teachable moments with my daughter Gia, I’ve learned to not sugarcoat reality but encourage the hopeful. If Gia falls on the ground? “You’re okay, sweetie. Now get back up.” If Gia has a tantrum and starts hitting herself? “Honey, our hands are for hugs, not hurting ourselves. Let’s go play.” Eighty percent of motherhood right now is redirection and the other 20% is patience.

I remember this one time I was rushing out the door for work. After getting in the car with my keys, I realized I forgot my coffee back in the house. I left the car, went back in the house to grab the blessed joe, went back to the car, and couldn’t get in because it was locked. I panicked at that moment, went back inside the house, and found Gia playing with my extra key fob. My own daughter locked me out of my car. Of course, it wasn’t her fault. Deep breath and I offered her another kiss while simultaneously taking the key fob from her.

Before Gia could walk, she could climb the stairs in our home. Her father and I sometimes refer to her as “Lil Bamm-Bamm” because she is so strong. One day, Daddy was supposed to be watching her while Mommy was folding laundry upstairs. She was not allowed on the stairs, but what should I hear? Literally, the pitter-patter of little feet, running down the upstairs hallway. Her father had drifted off watching yet another episode of something Star Wars–related. My strong little girl made it up the stairs all by herself and Dad received a strong word. The Force was with me that day.

I would say that I feel like having a child ages you, but what does that really mean when you’re already old? I’ve become acutely aware of my lack of endurance, stamina, and bodily strength. My knees will creak when taking her upstairs to bed, an osseous dirge of a lullaby. Date nights become unintentionally less and less frequent. Friday night dress-up becomes Friday night dress-down. I’ve replaced stiletto heels with comfy sweats.

Once we put Gia down for the night, we are usually exhausted from the day, and the couch and TV are welcome respites. We exhale. As over-40 parents, we knew that having children late in life would bring its challenges. But I’d like to think that we are meeting them the best way that we can. Often I encourage my body to meet Gia at her eye level, see what she sees, play with her on her own terms, and match her energy. She absolutely loves it when I do this. I’m out of breath and my knees are sore by the end of our play session, but I wouldn’t have it any other way.

We are learning from each other. She has a bright and assertive personality, and I am protective of that innocence. Her innocence is without fear. I often wonder what she is thinking when I see her facial expressions. A side-eye, a fleeting giggle. Is she secretly contemplating the chronicity of the cosmos, or is it just gas? I look at her in stolen moments and still can’t believe that I grew a human inside me, and said human was extracted from me and is now walking around my house commanding her bidding. So surreal. The unromanticized, scientific ingredients that are at play from conception to delivery are nothing short of miraculous. And the miracles of parenting over 40 are present every day.

Dr. Tolliver is a family medicine physician at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As they rolled me down the hallway to the OR, ceiling lights rhythmically passing above, I zoned out into a 1,000-mile stare. How did I get here? I started humming “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot,” praying for a miracle to happen. I thought back to my birth plan, meticulously crafted, a one-pager so that the no-nonsense labor and delivery nurses wouldn›t think me completely off my rocker. No C-section unless medically necessary. Those words laughed back at me – cackling, even. I’d planned out the whole birthing process and here we were, my team almost jogging me to the OR. I lay still, utterly gobsmacked and partially anesthetized.

If I squint my eyes and hallucinate just a bit, that is sort of what motherhood has been like.

It’s about knowing all the things that could go wrong and meeting the unplanned head-on. Motherhood has indeed been a whirlwind – so many physical, psychological, and emotional transformations. And to top it off, the added effort of giving birth in a pandemic. As an over-40 physician, you’d think I would have been better prepared.

I was, but in a sense, I was not. The knowledge, the wisdom, the experience of my medical training surrounded me, but even I panicked at times in the beginning: Am I feeding her correctly? Am I making enough food for her? Am I doing the best that I can for her? What more could I be doing for her?

Over time, I’ve learned to lighten up. Some. In those teachable moments with my daughter Gia, I’ve learned to not sugarcoat reality but encourage the hopeful. If Gia falls on the ground? “You’re okay, sweetie. Now get back up.” If Gia has a tantrum and starts hitting herself? “Honey, our hands are for hugs, not hurting ourselves. Let’s go play.” Eighty percent of motherhood right now is redirection and the other 20% is patience.

I remember this one time I was rushing out the door for work. After getting in the car with my keys, I realized I forgot my coffee back in the house. I left the car, went back in the house to grab the blessed joe, went back to the car, and couldn’t get in because it was locked. I panicked at that moment, went back inside the house, and found Gia playing with my extra key fob. My own daughter locked me out of my car. Of course, it wasn’t her fault. Deep breath and I offered her another kiss while simultaneously taking the key fob from her.

Before Gia could walk, she could climb the stairs in our home. Her father and I sometimes refer to her as “Lil Bamm-Bamm” because she is so strong. One day, Daddy was supposed to be watching her while Mommy was folding laundry upstairs. She was not allowed on the stairs, but what should I hear? Literally, the pitter-patter of little feet, running down the upstairs hallway. Her father had drifted off watching yet another episode of something Star Wars–related. My strong little girl made it up the stairs all by herself and Dad received a strong word. The Force was with me that day.

I would say that I feel like having a child ages you, but what does that really mean when you’re already old? I’ve become acutely aware of my lack of endurance, stamina, and bodily strength. My knees will creak when taking her upstairs to bed, an osseous dirge of a lullaby. Date nights become unintentionally less and less frequent. Friday night dress-up becomes Friday night dress-down. I’ve replaced stiletto heels with comfy sweats.

Once we put Gia down for the night, we are usually exhausted from the day, and the couch and TV are welcome respites. We exhale. As over-40 parents, we knew that having children late in life would bring its challenges. But I’d like to think that we are meeting them the best way that we can. Often I encourage my body to meet Gia at her eye level, see what she sees, play with her on her own terms, and match her energy. She absolutely loves it when I do this. I’m out of breath and my knees are sore by the end of our play session, but I wouldn’t have it any other way.

We are learning from each other. She has a bright and assertive personality, and I am protective of that innocence. Her innocence is without fear. I often wonder what she is thinking when I see her facial expressions. A side-eye, a fleeting giggle. Is she secretly contemplating the chronicity of the cosmos, or is it just gas? I look at her in stolen moments and still can’t believe that I grew a human inside me, and said human was extracted from me and is now walking around my house commanding her bidding. So surreal. The unromanticized, scientific ingredients that are at play from conception to delivery are nothing short of miraculous. And the miracles of parenting over 40 are present every day.

Dr. Tolliver is a family medicine physician at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Since it appeared in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics in 1973, the “Goldwater rule” – often referred to in terms of where in the APA’s guideline it can be found, Section 7.3 – has placed a stringent prohibition on psychiatrists offering professional opinions about public figures “unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”¹

Some psychiatrists experienced the restrictive nature of Section 7.3 more acutely perhaps than ever during the Trump presidency. This spurred numerous articles criticizing the guideline as an outdated “gag rule”² that harms the public image of psychiatry.³ Some psychiatrists violated the rule to warn the public of the dangers of a president with “incipient dementia”⁴ occupying the most powerful position on earth.

Following President Trump’s exit from the White House, the alarm bells surrounding his presidency have quieted. Criticisms of the Goldwater rule, on the other hand, have persisted. Many of these criticisms now call for the rule to be refined, allowing for psychiatrists to give their professional opinions about public figures, but with certain guidelines on how to do so.⁵ Few have yet to make a sober case for the outright abolition of Section 7.3.⁶

Self-regulating and internal policing are important factors in the continued independence of the medical profession, and we should continue to hold each other to high professional standards. That being said, do psychiatrists need training wheels to prevent us from devolving into unprofessional social commentators? Other medical specialties do not see the need to implement a rule preventing their colleagues from expressing expertise in fear of embarrassment. Do we not have faith in our ability to conduct ourselves professionally? Is the Goldwater rule an admission of a juvenile lack of self-control within our field?

Not only do other medical specialties not forcibly handhold their members in public settings, but other “providers” in the realm of mental health likewise do not implement such strict self-restraints. Psychiatry staying silent on the matter of public figures leaves a void filled by other, arguably less qualified, individuals. Subsequently, the public discord risks being flooded with pseudoscientific pontification and distorted views of psychiatric illness. The cycle of speculating on the mental fitness of the president has outlived President Trump, with concerns about Joe Biden’s incoherence and waning cognition.⁷ Therein is an important argument to be made for the public duty of psychiatrists, with their greater expertise and clinical acumen, to weigh in on matters of societal importance in an attempt to dispel dangerous misconceptions.

Practical limitations are often raised and serve as the cornerstone for the Goldwater rule. Specifically, the limitation being that a psychiatrist cannot provide a professional opinion about an individual without a proper in-person evaluation. The psychiatric interview could be considered the most in-depth and comprehensive evaluation in all of medicine. Even so, is a trained psychiatrist presented with grandiosity, flight-of-ideas, and pressured speech unable to comment on the possibility of mania without a lengthy and comprehensive evaluation? How much disorganization of behavior and dialogue does one need to observe to recognize psychosis? For the experienced psychiatrist, many of these behavioral hallmarks are akin to an ST elevation on an EKG representing a heart attack.

When considering less extreme examples of mental affliction, such as depression and anxiety, many signs – including demeanor, motor activity, manner of speaking, and other aspects of behavior – are apparent to the perceptive psychiatrist without needing an extensive interview that dives into the depths of a person’s social history and childhood. After all, our own criteria for depression and mania do not require the presence of social stressors or childhood trauma. Even personality disorders can be reasonably postulated when a person behaves in a particular fashion. The recognition of transitional objects, items used to provide psychological comfort, including the “teddy bear sign” are common and scientifically studied methods to recognize personality disorder.⁸

The necessity for an in-person evaluation has become less compelling over the years. In our modern age, important social moments are memorialized in countless videos that are arguably more relevant, more accurate, and less subjective than a psychiatric interview. Furthermore, forensic psychiatrists routinely comment on individuals they have not examined for a variety of reasons, from postmortem analysis to the refusal of the client to be interviewed. Moreover, and with significant contradiction, many leaders in the field of psychiatry view integrated care, the practice of psychiatrists advising primary care doctors, often without even seeing patients, to be the future of psychiatry.⁹

Some reading this may scoff at the above examples. Perhaps Section 7.3 speaks to an underlying insecurity in our field regarding our ability to accurately diagnose. That insecurity is not unfounded. In terms of the DSM-5, the bar for reliability has been lowered to a kappa of 0.2-0.4, from a previous standard of 0.6, in an attempt to avoid critiques of unreliability.¹⁰ Yet herein lies a powerful recognition of the necessity of the Goldwater rule. If psychiatrists cannot reliably agree on the presence of diagnoses in the controlled setting of scientific study, how can we expect to speak with coherence and consistency on highly mediatized and provoking topics?

The defense – that the difficulty psychiatrists have at providing an accurate diagnosis stems from the immense complexity of the system being evaluated, the human mind – is a valid one. Attempts to force such complex pathology, with all its many variables, into the check-box approach implemented in the DSM inevitably leads to problems with diagnostic reliability. Still, as psychiatrists we retain a level of expertise in assessing and treating complex disorders of the mind that no other field can claim.

The duty physicians have not only to work toward the health of their individual patients, but also to act in service of the public health and well-being of communities in which our patients live, is well established. How ethical is it then for psychiatry to absolve itself from duty when it comes to public figures at the center of shaping public opinion? There are numerous recent, high-profile instances where our expertise may have helped shine light in an otherwise murky public discussion filled with disinformation. The death of George Floyd and the year of turmoil that followed is a salient example. The conservatorship of Britney Spears and the resulting societal outcry is another. Even setting the matter of diagnosis aside, we can help illuminate the societal implications of conservatorship laws,¹¹ in addition to providing input on how to safely and responsibly approach an individual who is in crisis, under the influence of multiple illicit substances, and possibly suffering from excited delirium.

Whether psychiatry has progressed enough as a medical specialty to trust ourselves with the option of providing professional opinions on public figures is an ongoing debate. The persistence of the Goldwater rule is a strong testament to the internal lack of confidence among psychiatrists regarding our ability to provide accurate diagnoses, act with integrity in the public space, and foster a positive public image. That lack of confidence may be well deserved. However, it is possible that our field will never go through the necessary pains of maturing as long as Section 7.3 remains in place.
 

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. Dr. Compton has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. American Psychiatric Association. The principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry. Section 7. American Psychiatric Association; 2013 edition.

2. Glass LL. The Goldwater rule is broken. Here’s how to fix it. STAT News. 2018 June 18.

3. Plymyer D. The Goldwater rule paradox. 2020 Aug 7.

4. Lieberman JA. Trump’s brain and the 25th Amendment. Vice. 2017 Sep 8.

5. Blotcky AD et al. The Goldwater rule is fine, if refined. Here’s how to do it. Psychiatric Times. 2022 Jan 6;39(1).

6. Blotcky AD and Norrholm SD. After Trump, end the Goldwater rule once and for all. New York Daily News. 2020 Dec 22.

7. Stephens B. Biden should not run again – And he should say he won’t. New York Times. 2021 Dec 14.

8. Schmaling KB et al. The positive teddy bear sign: Transitional objects in the medical setting. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1994 Dec;182(12):725.

9. Badre N et al. Psychopharmacologic management in integrated care: Challenges for residency education. Acad Psychiatry. 2015; 39(4):466-9.

10. Kraemer HC et al. DSM-5: How reliable is reliable enough? Am J Psychiatry. 2012 Jan;169(1):13-5.

11. Badre N and Compton C. Britney Spears – Reflections on conservatorship. Clinical Psychiatry News. 2021 Nov 16.

Since it appeared in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics in 1973, the “Goldwater rule” – often referred to in terms of where in the APA’s guideline it can be found, Section 7.3 – has placed a stringent prohibition on psychiatrists offering professional opinions about public figures “unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”¹

Some psychiatrists experienced the restrictive nature of Section 7.3 more acutely perhaps than ever during the Trump presidency. This spurred numerous articles criticizing the guideline as an outdated “gag rule”² that harms the public image of psychiatry.³ Some psychiatrists violated the rule to warn the public of the dangers of a president with “incipient dementia”⁴ occupying the most powerful position on earth.

Following President Trump’s exit from the White House, the alarm bells surrounding his presidency have quieted. Criticisms of the Goldwater rule, on the other hand, have persisted. Many of these criticisms now call for the rule to be refined, allowing for psychiatrists to give their professional opinions about public figures, but with certain guidelines on how to do so.⁵ Few have yet to make a sober case for the outright abolition of Section 7.3.⁶

Self-regulating and internal policing are important factors in the continued independence of the medical profession, and we should continue to hold each other to high professional standards. That being said, do psychiatrists need training wheels to prevent us from devolving into unprofessional social commentators? Other medical specialties do not see the need to implement a rule preventing their colleagues from expressing expertise in fear of embarrassment. Do we not have faith in our ability to conduct ourselves professionally? Is the Goldwater rule an admission of a juvenile lack of self-control within our field?

Not only do other medical specialties not forcibly handhold their members in public settings, but other “providers” in the realm of mental health likewise do not implement such strict self-restraints. Psychiatry staying silent on the matter of public figures leaves a void filled by other, arguably less qualified, individuals. Subsequently, the public discord risks being flooded with pseudoscientific pontification and distorted views of psychiatric illness. The cycle of speculating on the mental fitness of the president has outlived President Trump, with concerns about Joe Biden’s incoherence and waning cognition.⁷ Therein is an important argument to be made for the public duty of psychiatrists, with their greater expertise and clinical acumen, to weigh in on matters of societal importance in an attempt to dispel dangerous misconceptions.

Practical limitations are often raised and serve as the cornerstone for the Goldwater rule. Specifically, the limitation being that a psychiatrist cannot provide a professional opinion about an individual without a proper in-person evaluation. The psychiatric interview could be considered the most in-depth and comprehensive evaluation in all of medicine. Even so, is a trained psychiatrist presented with grandiosity, flight-of-ideas, and pressured speech unable to comment on the possibility of mania without a lengthy and comprehensive evaluation? How much disorganization of behavior and dialogue does one need to observe to recognize psychosis? For the experienced psychiatrist, many of these behavioral hallmarks are akin to an ST elevation on an EKG representing a heart attack.

When considering less extreme examples of mental affliction, such as depression and anxiety, many signs – including demeanor, motor activity, manner of speaking, and other aspects of behavior – are apparent to the perceptive psychiatrist without needing an extensive interview that dives into the depths of a person’s social history and childhood. After all, our own criteria for depression and mania do not require the presence of social stressors or childhood trauma. Even personality disorders can be reasonably postulated when a person behaves in a particular fashion. The recognition of transitional objects, items used to provide psychological comfort, including the “teddy bear sign” are common and scientifically studied methods to recognize personality disorder.⁸

The necessity for an in-person evaluation has become less compelling over the years. In our modern age, important social moments are memorialized in countless videos that are arguably more relevant, more accurate, and less subjective than a psychiatric interview. Furthermore, forensic psychiatrists routinely comment on individuals they have not examined for a variety of reasons, from postmortem analysis to the refusal of the client to be interviewed. Moreover, and with significant contradiction, many leaders in the field of psychiatry view integrated care, the practice of psychiatrists advising primary care doctors, often without even seeing patients, to be the future of psychiatry.⁹

Some reading this may scoff at the above examples. Perhaps Section 7.3 speaks to an underlying insecurity in our field regarding our ability to accurately diagnose. That insecurity is not unfounded. In terms of the DSM-5, the bar for reliability has been lowered to a kappa of 0.2-0.4, from a previous standard of 0.6, in an attempt to avoid critiques of unreliability.¹⁰ Yet herein lies a powerful recognition of the necessity of the Goldwater rule. If psychiatrists cannot reliably agree on the presence of diagnoses in the controlled setting of scientific study, how can we expect to speak with coherence and consistency on highly mediatized and provoking topics?

The defense – that the difficulty psychiatrists have at providing an accurate diagnosis stems from the immense complexity of the system being evaluated, the human mind – is a valid one. Attempts to force such complex pathology, with all its many variables, into the check-box approach implemented in the DSM inevitably leads to problems with diagnostic reliability. Still, as psychiatrists we retain a level of expertise in assessing and treating complex disorders of the mind that no other field can claim.

The duty physicians have not only to work toward the health of their individual patients, but also to act in service of the public health and well-being of communities in which our patients live, is well established. How ethical is it then for psychiatry to absolve itself from duty when it comes to public figures at the center of shaping public opinion? There are numerous recent, high-profile instances where our expertise may have helped shine light in an otherwise murky public discussion filled with disinformation. The death of George Floyd and the year of turmoil that followed is a salient example. The conservatorship of Britney Spears and the resulting societal outcry is another. Even setting the matter of diagnosis aside, we can help illuminate the societal implications of conservatorship laws,¹¹ in addition to providing input on how to safely and responsibly approach an individual who is in crisis, under the influence of multiple illicit substances, and possibly suffering from excited delirium.

Whether psychiatry has progressed enough as a medical specialty to trust ourselves with the option of providing professional opinions on public figures is an ongoing debate. The persistence of the Goldwater rule is a strong testament to the internal lack of confidence among psychiatrists regarding our ability to provide accurate diagnoses, act with integrity in the public space, and foster a positive public image. That lack of confidence may be well deserved. However, it is possible that our field will never go through the necessary pains of maturing as long as Section 7.3 remains in place.
 

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. Dr. Compton has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. American Psychiatric Association. The principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry. Section 7. American Psychiatric Association; 2013 edition.

2. Glass LL. The Goldwater rule is broken. Here’s how to fix it. STAT News. 2018 June 18.

3. Plymyer D. The Goldwater rule paradox. 2020 Aug 7.

4. Lieberman JA. Trump’s brain and the 25th Amendment. Vice. 2017 Sep 8.

5. Blotcky AD et al. The Goldwater rule is fine, if refined. Here’s how to do it. Psychiatric Times. 2022 Jan 6;39(1).

6. Blotcky AD and Norrholm SD. After Trump, end the Goldwater rule once and for all. New York Daily News. 2020 Dec 22.

7. Stephens B. Biden should not run again – And he should say he won’t. New York Times. 2021 Dec 14.

8. Schmaling KB et al. The positive teddy bear sign: Transitional objects in the medical setting. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1994 Dec;182(12):725.

9. Badre N et al. Psychopharmacologic management in integrated care: Challenges for residency education. Acad Psychiatry. 2015; 39(4):466-9.

10. Kraemer HC et al. DSM-5: How reliable is reliable enough? Am J Psychiatry. 2012 Jan;169(1):13-5.

11. Badre N and Compton C. Britney Spears – Reflections on conservatorship. Clinical Psychiatry News. 2021 Nov 16.

Since it appeared in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics in 1973, the “Goldwater rule” – often referred to in terms of where in the APA’s guideline it can be found, Section 7.3 – has placed a stringent prohibition on psychiatrists offering professional opinions about public figures “unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”¹

Some psychiatrists experienced the restrictive nature of Section 7.3 more acutely perhaps than ever during the Trump presidency. This spurred numerous articles criticizing the guideline as an outdated “gag rule”² that harms the public image of psychiatry.³ Some psychiatrists violated the rule to warn the public of the dangers of a president with “incipient dementia”⁴ occupying the most powerful position on earth.

Following President Trump’s exit from the White House, the alarm bells surrounding his presidency have quieted. Criticisms of the Goldwater rule, on the other hand, have persisted. Many of these criticisms now call for the rule to be refined, allowing for psychiatrists to give their professional opinions about public figures, but with certain guidelines on how to do so.⁵ Few have yet to make a sober case for the outright abolition of Section 7.3.⁶

Self-regulating and internal policing are important factors in the continued independence of the medical profession, and we should continue to hold each other to high professional standards. That being said, do psychiatrists need training wheels to prevent us from devolving into unprofessional social commentators? Other medical specialties do not see the need to implement a rule preventing their colleagues from expressing expertise in fear of embarrassment. Do we not have faith in our ability to conduct ourselves professionally? Is the Goldwater rule an admission of a juvenile lack of self-control within our field?

Not only do other medical specialties not forcibly handhold their members in public settings, but other “providers” in the realm of mental health likewise do not implement such strict self-restraints. Psychiatry staying silent on the matter of public figures leaves a void filled by other, arguably less qualified, individuals. Subsequently, the public discord risks being flooded with pseudoscientific pontification and distorted views of psychiatric illness. The cycle of speculating on the mental fitness of the president has outlived President Trump, with concerns about Joe Biden’s incoherence and waning cognition.⁷ Therein is an important argument to be made for the public duty of psychiatrists, with their greater expertise and clinical acumen, to weigh in on matters of societal importance in an attempt to dispel dangerous misconceptions.

Practical limitations are often raised and serve as the cornerstone for the Goldwater rule. Specifically, the limitation being that a psychiatrist cannot provide a professional opinion about an individual without a proper in-person evaluation. The psychiatric interview could be considered the most in-depth and comprehensive evaluation in all of medicine. Even so, is a trained psychiatrist presented with grandiosity, flight-of-ideas, and pressured speech unable to comment on the possibility of mania without a lengthy and comprehensive evaluation? How much disorganization of behavior and dialogue does one need to observe to recognize psychosis? For the experienced psychiatrist, many of these behavioral hallmarks are akin to an ST elevation on an EKG representing a heart attack.

When considering less extreme examples of mental affliction, such as depression and anxiety, many signs – including demeanor, motor activity, manner of speaking, and other aspects of behavior – are apparent to the perceptive psychiatrist without needing an extensive interview that dives into the depths of a person’s social history and childhood. After all, our own criteria for depression and mania do not require the presence of social stressors or childhood trauma. Even personality disorders can be reasonably postulated when a person behaves in a particular fashion. The recognition of transitional objects, items used to provide psychological comfort, including the “teddy bear sign” are common and scientifically studied methods to recognize personality disorder.⁸

The necessity for an in-person evaluation has become less compelling over the years. In our modern age, important social moments are memorialized in countless videos that are arguably more relevant, more accurate, and less subjective than a psychiatric interview. Furthermore, forensic psychiatrists routinely comment on individuals they have not examined for a variety of reasons, from postmortem analysis to the refusal of the client to be interviewed. Moreover, and with significant contradiction, many leaders in the field of psychiatry view integrated care, the practice of psychiatrists advising primary care doctors, often without even seeing patients, to be the future of psychiatry.⁹

Some reading this may scoff at the above examples. Perhaps Section 7.3 speaks to an underlying insecurity in our field regarding our ability to accurately diagnose. That insecurity is not unfounded. In terms of the DSM-5, the bar for reliability has been lowered to a kappa of 0.2-0.4, from a previous standard of 0.6, in an attempt to avoid critiques of unreliability.¹⁰ Yet herein lies a powerful recognition of the necessity of the Goldwater rule. If psychiatrists cannot reliably agree on the presence of diagnoses in the controlled setting of scientific study, how can we expect to speak with coherence and consistency on highly mediatized and provoking topics?

The defense – that the difficulty psychiatrists have at providing an accurate diagnosis stems from the immense complexity of the system being evaluated, the human mind – is a valid one. Attempts to force such complex pathology, with all its many variables, into the check-box approach implemented in the DSM inevitably leads to problems with diagnostic reliability. Still, as psychiatrists we retain a level of expertise in assessing and treating complex disorders of the mind that no other field can claim.

The duty physicians have not only to work toward the health of their individual patients, but also to act in service of the public health and well-being of communities in which our patients live, is well established. How ethical is it then for psychiatry to absolve itself from duty when it comes to public figures at the center of shaping public opinion? There are numerous recent, high-profile instances where our expertise may have helped shine light in an otherwise murky public discussion filled with disinformation. The death of George Floyd and the year of turmoil that followed is a salient example. The conservatorship of Britney Spears and the resulting societal outcry is another. Even setting the matter of diagnosis aside, we can help illuminate the societal implications of conservatorship laws,¹¹ in addition to providing input on how to safely and responsibly approach an individual who is in crisis, under the influence of multiple illicit substances, and possibly suffering from excited delirium.

Whether psychiatry has progressed enough as a medical specialty to trust ourselves with the option of providing professional opinions on public figures is an ongoing debate. The persistence of the Goldwater rule is a strong testament to the internal lack of confidence among psychiatrists regarding our ability to provide accurate diagnoses, act with integrity in the public space, and foster a positive public image. That lack of confidence may be well deserved. However, it is possible that our field will never go through the necessary pains of maturing as long as Section 7.3 remains in place.
 

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. Dr. Compton has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. American Psychiatric Association. The principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry. Section 7. American Psychiatric Association; 2013 edition.

2. Glass LL. The Goldwater rule is broken. Here’s how to fix it. STAT News. 2018 June 18.

3. Plymyer D. The Goldwater rule paradox. 2020 Aug 7.

4. Lieberman JA. Trump’s brain and the 25th Amendment. Vice. 2017 Sep 8.

5. Blotcky AD et al. The Goldwater rule is fine, if refined. Here’s how to do it. Psychiatric Times. 2022 Jan 6;39(1).

6. Blotcky AD and Norrholm SD. After Trump, end the Goldwater rule once and for all. New York Daily News. 2020 Dec 22.

7. Stephens B. Biden should not run again – And he should say he won’t. New York Times. 2021 Dec 14.

8. Schmaling KB et al. The positive teddy bear sign: Transitional objects in the medical setting. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1994 Dec;182(12):725.

9. Badre N et al. Psychopharmacologic management in integrated care: Challenges for residency education. Acad Psychiatry. 2015; 39(4):466-9.

10. Kraemer HC et al. DSM-5: How reliable is reliable enough? Am J Psychiatry. 2012 Jan;169(1):13-5.

11. Badre N and Compton C. Britney Spears – Reflections on conservatorship. Clinical Psychiatry News. 2021 Nov 16.

The pandemic not only disrupted sleep but may have also triggered an uptick in the use of wearable tech. Sleep tracking was featured at the Cardiovascular Health Tech virtual conference 2022, sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society technical committee on Cardiopulmonary Systems and Physiology-Based Engineering.

This news organization interviewed presenter Kelly Glazer Baron, PhD, MPH, DBSM, an associate professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and a clinical psychologist specializing in behavioral sleep medicine.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: Are consumer sleep trackers mainly divided into “nearables” – things that you put at the side of the bed or under the pillow – vs. wearables?

Dr. Baron: There are so many different devices these days. There are things that you put under your mattress or pillow; there are bedside recording devices; then there are headbands, rings, wrist-worn, all kinds of things.

Q: At the conference, Philip de Chazal, PhD, (University of Sydney) described the evidence on sleep tracking smartphone apps as woeful. Would you agree with that?

A: Yes. I would agree if you’re looking at how accurate they are at recording sleep, particularly compared with what we would define as the gold standard, which is a sleep study wherein you have electrodes on the scalp and you’re measuring the electrical activity directly.

Devices that go under the pillow are extremely poor at deciphering sleep from wake time, which is really the main goal. They are best at detecting when you get into the bed and when you get out. But even then, there isn’t good evidence that they do that accurately when there are two people in the bed.

Overall, they may give you a general gist of what’s happening in terms of time in and out of bed, but we’re doubtful on their recording ability to tell sleep from wake time.
 

Q: Are the wrist-worn devices better for sleep tracking?

A: They’re getting better. We’ve used wrist activity monitors in research for years. They use an accelerometer to measure movement, and then an algorithm determines whether an interval of time is called sleep or wake.

Recently, they’ve incorporated more sensors, such as heart rate, and they can more accurately decipher rapid eye movement (REM) sleep from non-REM. They’re still not as good as doing a full sleep study. But they’re getting closer.
 

Q: If asked how you slept, most of us think we can answer without needing to look at a smartphone, but maybe not. Can you explain “paradoxical insomnia”?

A: You can’t really know if you’re sleeping because if you know you’re asleep, then you can’t be asleep because it’s a state of unconsciousness. How people decide whether they had a good night’s sleep probably depends on a lot of things about how they feel when they wake up in the morning or if they remember being up in the night.

Quality of sleep is not really something that people can directly ascertain. There is a selection of people who feel awake all night but they actually are sleeping. They feel that their sleep quality is poor: They’re suffering; they have insomnia, but from the objective data, they are sleeping fine.
 

Q: Is this related to non-REM stage 1 sleep, when you may not be aware that you’re asleep?

A: No. I’m talking about people who come into the sleep lab for an overnight study and get hooked up. And in the morning, they’ll tell the tech I was awake all night, but the tech will see that their sleep was just fine.

There is a disconnect between how people perceive their sleep and how they actually sleep. For most people it’s impossible to be completely accurate to know how much you’re sleeping. Then there are some people who perceive it very differently.

Sleep trackers don’t have the level of detail of sleep studies that use scalp electrodes. When we get into the details of sleep measurement, we’re measuring 30-second epochs (sampling periods), where we look at broad measures of electrical activity. There is even more detail there that can be pulled out using other techniques, such as analyzing the spectrum of the EEG. For example, some studies have found a beta frequency in the EEG of people with insomnia, so even though they are sleeping, they often feel awake.

Basically, the subjective experience of sleep somewhat overlaps with the objective recording of what’s happening on a sleep study, but not completely.
 

Q: You said that first thing in the morning might not be the best time to assess your sleep – if you wake up groggy and are already thinking, “The day is shot.”

A: In general, people really feel worst in the morning. Their circadian drive is low, especially if they’re a little sleep deprived. You shouldn’t judge the day on the first hour after waking – most people are pretty cognitively impaired. I tell people they need some boot-up time.

You feel differently as the day goes on and even at different points of the day. There’s a lull in the early afternoon because of your circadian dip and then we get a second wind in the evening. How you feel isn’t one flat line; it’s really a rhythm throughout the day
 

Q: Would you say that consumer sleep trackers are okay for individuals to use to see a pattern but are maybe not accurate enough to use more globally in research?

A: I think there is a huge opportunity to understand sleep at a population level. For example, if there’s been a hurricane or an earthquake or Superbowl Sunday, companies have an opportunity to look at the impact – say, daylight saving time and how it affects sleep across different countries, or men vs. women, or different age groups.

There was a paper about sleep among hospital workers in Wuhan during the outbreak of the pandemic. That was a creative use of wearable devices to look at sleep in a large population.

Now, of course, the devices are not given out randomly; the people who buy them are probably a little bit healthier, maybe a little bit younger – that sort of thing. It is a biased sample.
 

Q: As you note, mobile health trackers tend to be used by the “worried well.” Can you tell us about your paper that introduced the term “orthosomnia,” or “a perfectionistic quest for the ideal sleep in order to optimize daytime function”?

A: As these devices came out, more people were coming into the clinic and shoving their data in front of us saying, “I don’t feel well, and I don’t sleep 7 hours.” They were focused on this specific number. Back when we wrote this paper, the devices were primarily movement based (now the devices are a bit more accurate). Some would say, “My sleep is light, and it’s not deep.” We’d do a sleep study that showed that they have deep sleep, but they would still believe their device even though the device really wasn’t able to classify sleep accurately.

We even found people making their sleep worse because of the device. For example, trying to get the number higher by spending more time lying in bed trying to sleep which is the opposite of what you want someone with insomnia to do. These people held the data so tight and really felt that it characterized their experience, even though we sleep medicine practitioners didn’t find it very accurate and felt that it was somewhat unhelpful to their treatment.
 

Q: What advice would you give the harried primary care physician presented with a patient’s hypnogram or sleep pattern?

A: As someone once pointed out to me, it’s a conversation opener about their sleep. Did they buy the device because they’re worried about their sleep? It’s unlikely that you can glean anything clinically useful from the data.

I briefly look at it to see the duration of their sleep, the regularity in their sleep pattern – the pattern of awakenings during the night might suggest that they have some insomnia. But it doesn’t take the place of clinical assessment for conditions like sleep apnea: Are they snoring? Are they unrefreshed?

I had a patient in the orthosomnia study who was given a sleep tracker by a family member. He brought the data to his doctor who ordered a sleep study that found he had sleep apnea. He would say, “The device diagnosed my sleep apnea.” But that wasn’t actually the case; it just opened the conversation and the clinician said, “Well, let’s order a sleep study.”
 

Q: The device told him he wasn’t getting much sleep and then the sleep study told him it was apnea.

A: Right. It’s impossible to pick up sleep apnea. Some of the latest devices have some oximetry reading but it is not a clinically validated oximetry that could diagnose sleep apnea.

When these first came out I thought I’d get more referrals. So far, I haven’t had a single person come in and ask if they have sleep apnea. If you have a patient saying, “Hey, I’m worried about my oxygen level and here’s my data,” then the clinician should consider whether they need a sleep study for sleep apnea.
 

Q: You did a survey that suggests that clinicians are less keen on these devices than consumers. Conor Heneghan of Fitbit/Google also mentioned a study using the Fitbit Charge and a SleepLife portal. The patients were very engaged but only one physician (out of 49) logged into the portal to look at the data.

A: Our survey of sleep professionals (which we need to publish) showed that they were wary of the data. They found it frustrating in some ways because it took time out of the clinical encounter.

Some of them said that parents are putting trackers on their children and then catastrophizing their children’s sleep.
 

Q: Is there such a thing as an ideal hypnogram or does it vary by individual?

A: I would say that it depends on a lot of things. If you think about a hypnogram from a sleep study, the patient is not sleeping in their home environment, and it’s only one night. There’s a range of what would be considered normal, and it’s related to your sex and your age.

One night is not going to be sufficient to characterize your percentage in this or that sleep stage. Our patients come in saying, “I’m not getting enough REM.” But there isn’t a sleep disorder called lack of REM; there’s no treatment for that. It’s probably pretty normal for them or maybe they’re taking medications that suppress their REM, such as antidepressants.

The tech world is very interested to sense REM properly and to display it. But on the treatment side of things, there’s not much that we do with that data. We’re more interested in the consolidation of their sleep, the duration of their sleep, breathing-related sleep disorders, those sorts of things.
 

Q: Is there any reason to be concerned about the amount of REM sleep in terms of outcomes? We know that poor sleep can lead to bad cardiovascular outcomes, but has any of that correlated to sleep stage?

A: There are studies where they’ve experimentally deprived people of certain stages of sleep, but they’re not very useful in the real world. We’re looking at sleep holistically: Do you have a good sleep pattern? Any breathing-related sleep disorders? Insomnia? We don’t treat sleep by the stage.

Q: Any concern that people who are focused on a device may be ignoring the basic tenets of good sleep hygiene?

A: If people are doing things that are obviously bad for their sleep, like working too late, not exercising enough, sleeping in on weekends to compensate for being up late during the week, or probably the biggest thing contributing to insomnia – stress. A device itself won’t fix those things but it could show you the evidence.

If somebody really has a sleep disorder, then sleep hygiene alone is probably not going to be enough. They’re going to need to engage in a more extensive program to improve their sleep, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia.
 

Q: Is there anything else you want to mention?

A: I don’t want to leave with a reputation of being against sleep trackers. I think they are a great opportunity for people to get excited about and learn about their sleep and try to improve it. We have a lot to learn about what people want from their data and how we can use that data to improve people’s sleep.

As providers, we can engage with our patients – sleep is an automatic process, but improving sleep takes some effort. Buying a device is not going to automatically make you sleep better. It takes work to establish a better sleep pattern; it may require some cognitive-behavioral therapy or treating a sleep disorder. That takes some work.

Dr. Baron reported no conflicts of interest.A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The pandemic not only disrupted sleep but may have also triggered an uptick in the use of wearable tech. Sleep tracking was featured at the Cardiovascular Health Tech virtual conference 2022, sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society technical committee on Cardiopulmonary Systems and Physiology-Based Engineering.

This news organization interviewed presenter Kelly Glazer Baron, PhD, MPH, DBSM, an associate professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and a clinical psychologist specializing in behavioral sleep medicine.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: Are consumer sleep trackers mainly divided into “nearables” – things that you put at the side of the bed or under the pillow – vs. wearables?

Dr. Baron: There are so many different devices these days. There are things that you put under your mattress or pillow; there are bedside recording devices; then there are headbands, rings, wrist-worn, all kinds of things.

Q: At the conference, Philip de Chazal, PhD, (University of Sydney) described the evidence on sleep tracking smartphone apps as woeful. Would you agree with that?

A: Yes. I would agree if you’re looking at how accurate they are at recording sleep, particularly compared with what we would define as the gold standard, which is a sleep study wherein you have electrodes on the scalp and you’re measuring the electrical activity directly.

Devices that go under the pillow are extremely poor at deciphering sleep from wake time, which is really the main goal. They are best at detecting when you get into the bed and when you get out. But even then, there isn’t good evidence that they do that accurately when there are two people in the bed.

Overall, they may give you a general gist of what’s happening in terms of time in and out of bed, but we’re doubtful on their recording ability to tell sleep from wake time.
 

Q: Are the wrist-worn devices better for sleep tracking?

A: They’re getting better. We’ve used wrist activity monitors in research for years. They use an accelerometer to measure movement, and then an algorithm determines whether an interval of time is called sleep or wake.

Recently, they’ve incorporated more sensors, such as heart rate, and they can more accurately decipher rapid eye movement (REM) sleep from non-REM. They’re still not as good as doing a full sleep study. But they’re getting closer.
 

Q: If asked how you slept, most of us think we can answer without needing to look at a smartphone, but maybe not. Can you explain “paradoxical insomnia”?

A: You can’t really know if you’re sleeping because if you know you’re asleep, then you can’t be asleep because it’s a state of unconsciousness. How people decide whether they had a good night’s sleep probably depends on a lot of things about how they feel when they wake up in the morning or if they remember being up in the night.

Quality of sleep is not really something that people can directly ascertain. There is a selection of people who feel awake all night but they actually are sleeping. They feel that their sleep quality is poor: They’re suffering; they have insomnia, but from the objective data, they are sleeping fine.
 

Q: Is this related to non-REM stage 1 sleep, when you may not be aware that you’re asleep?

A: No. I’m talking about people who come into the sleep lab for an overnight study and get hooked up. And in the morning, they’ll tell the tech I was awake all night, but the tech will see that their sleep was just fine.

There is a disconnect between how people perceive their sleep and how they actually sleep. For most people it’s impossible to be completely accurate to know how much you’re sleeping. Then there are some people who perceive it very differently.

Sleep trackers don’t have the level of detail of sleep studies that use scalp electrodes. When we get into the details of sleep measurement, we’re measuring 30-second epochs (sampling periods), where we look at broad measures of electrical activity. There is even more detail there that can be pulled out using other techniques, such as analyzing the spectrum of the EEG. For example, some studies have found a beta frequency in the EEG of people with insomnia, so even though they are sleeping, they often feel awake.

Basically, the subjective experience of sleep somewhat overlaps with the objective recording of what’s happening on a sleep study, but not completely.
 

Q: You said that first thing in the morning might not be the best time to assess your sleep – if you wake up groggy and are already thinking, “The day is shot.”

A: In general, people really feel worst in the morning. Their circadian drive is low, especially if they’re a little sleep deprived. You shouldn’t judge the day on the first hour after waking – most people are pretty cognitively impaired. I tell people they need some boot-up time.

You feel differently as the day goes on and even at different points of the day. There’s a lull in the early afternoon because of your circadian dip and then we get a second wind in the evening. How you feel isn’t one flat line; it’s really a rhythm throughout the day
 

Q: Would you say that consumer sleep trackers are okay for individuals to use to see a pattern but are maybe not accurate enough to use more globally in research?

A: I think there is a huge opportunity to understand sleep at a population level. For example, if there’s been a hurricane or an earthquake or Superbowl Sunday, companies have an opportunity to look at the impact – say, daylight saving time and how it affects sleep across different countries, or men vs. women, or different age groups.

There was a paper about sleep among hospital workers in Wuhan during the outbreak of the pandemic. That was a creative use of wearable devices to look at sleep in a large population.

Now, of course, the devices are not given out randomly; the people who buy them are probably a little bit healthier, maybe a little bit younger – that sort of thing. It is a biased sample.
 

Q: As you note, mobile health trackers tend to be used by the “worried well.” Can you tell us about your paper that introduced the term “orthosomnia,” or “a perfectionistic quest for the ideal sleep in order to optimize daytime function”?

A: As these devices came out, more people were coming into the clinic and shoving their data in front of us saying, “I don’t feel well, and I don’t sleep 7 hours.” They were focused on this specific number. Back when we wrote this paper, the devices were primarily movement based (now the devices are a bit more accurate). Some would say, “My sleep is light, and it’s not deep.” We’d do a sleep study that showed that they have deep sleep, but they would still believe their device even though the device really wasn’t able to classify sleep accurately.

We even found people making their sleep worse because of the device. For example, trying to get the number higher by spending more time lying in bed trying to sleep which is the opposite of what you want someone with insomnia to do. These people held the data so tight and really felt that it characterized their experience, even though we sleep medicine practitioners didn’t find it very accurate and felt that it was somewhat unhelpful to their treatment.
 

Q: What advice would you give the harried primary care physician presented with a patient’s hypnogram or sleep pattern?

A: As someone once pointed out to me, it’s a conversation opener about their sleep. Did they buy the device because they’re worried about their sleep? It’s unlikely that you can glean anything clinically useful from the data.

I briefly look at it to see the duration of their sleep, the regularity in their sleep pattern – the pattern of awakenings during the night might suggest that they have some insomnia. But it doesn’t take the place of clinical assessment for conditions like sleep apnea: Are they snoring? Are they unrefreshed?

I had a patient in the orthosomnia study who was given a sleep tracker by a family member. He brought the data to his doctor who ordered a sleep study that found he had sleep apnea. He would say, “The device diagnosed my sleep apnea.” But that wasn’t actually the case; it just opened the conversation and the clinician said, “Well, let’s order a sleep study.”
 

Q: The device told him he wasn’t getting much sleep and then the sleep study told him it was apnea.

A: Right. It’s impossible to pick up sleep apnea. Some of the latest devices have some oximetry reading but it is not a clinically validated oximetry that could diagnose sleep apnea.

When these first came out I thought I’d get more referrals. So far, I haven’t had a single person come in and ask if they have sleep apnea. If you have a patient saying, “Hey, I’m worried about my oxygen level and here’s my data,” then the clinician should consider whether they need a sleep study for sleep apnea.
 

Q: You did a survey that suggests that clinicians are less keen on these devices than consumers. Conor Heneghan of Fitbit/Google also mentioned a study using the Fitbit Charge and a SleepLife portal. The patients were very engaged but only one physician (out of 49) logged into the portal to look at the data.

A: Our survey of sleep professionals (which we need to publish) showed that they were wary of the data. They found it frustrating in some ways because it took time out of the clinical encounter.

Some of them said that parents are putting trackers on their children and then catastrophizing their children’s sleep.
 

Q: Is there such a thing as an ideal hypnogram or does it vary by individual?

A: I would say that it depends on a lot of things. If you think about a hypnogram from a sleep study, the patient is not sleeping in their home environment, and it’s only one night. There’s a range of what would be considered normal, and it’s related to your sex and your age.

One night is not going to be sufficient to characterize your percentage in this or that sleep stage. Our patients come in saying, “I’m not getting enough REM.” But there isn’t a sleep disorder called lack of REM; there’s no treatment for that. It’s probably pretty normal for them or maybe they’re taking medications that suppress their REM, such as antidepressants.

The tech world is very interested to sense REM properly and to display it. But on the treatment side of things, there’s not much that we do with that data. We’re more interested in the consolidation of their sleep, the duration of their sleep, breathing-related sleep disorders, those sorts of things.
 

Q: Is there any reason to be concerned about the amount of REM sleep in terms of outcomes? We know that poor sleep can lead to bad cardiovascular outcomes, but has any of that correlated to sleep stage?

A: There are studies where they’ve experimentally deprived people of certain stages of sleep, but they’re not very useful in the real world. We’re looking at sleep holistically: Do you have a good sleep pattern? Any breathing-related sleep disorders? Insomnia? We don’t treat sleep by the stage.

Q: Any concern that people who are focused on a device may be ignoring the basic tenets of good sleep hygiene?

A: If people are doing things that are obviously bad for their sleep, like working too late, not exercising enough, sleeping in on weekends to compensate for being up late during the week, or probably the biggest thing contributing to insomnia – stress. A device itself won’t fix those things but it could show you the evidence.

If somebody really has a sleep disorder, then sleep hygiene alone is probably not going to be enough. They’re going to need to engage in a more extensive program to improve their sleep, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia.
 

Q: Is there anything else you want to mention?

A: I don’t want to leave with a reputation of being against sleep trackers. I think they are a great opportunity for people to get excited about and learn about their sleep and try to improve it. We have a lot to learn about what people want from their data and how we can use that data to improve people’s sleep.

As providers, we can engage with our patients – sleep is an automatic process, but improving sleep takes some effort. Buying a device is not going to automatically make you sleep better. It takes work to establish a better sleep pattern; it may require some cognitive-behavioral therapy or treating a sleep disorder. That takes some work.

Dr. Baron reported no conflicts of interest.A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The pandemic not only disrupted sleep but may have also triggered an uptick in the use of wearable tech. Sleep tracking was featured at the Cardiovascular Health Tech virtual conference 2022, sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society technical committee on Cardiopulmonary Systems and Physiology-Based Engineering.

This news organization interviewed presenter Kelly Glazer Baron, PhD, MPH, DBSM, an associate professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and a clinical psychologist specializing in behavioral sleep medicine.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: Are consumer sleep trackers mainly divided into “nearables” – things that you put at the side of the bed or under the pillow – vs. wearables?

Dr. Baron: There are so many different devices these days. There are things that you put under your mattress or pillow; there are bedside recording devices; then there are headbands, rings, wrist-worn, all kinds of things.

Q: At the conference, Philip de Chazal, PhD, (University of Sydney) described the evidence on sleep tracking smartphone apps as woeful. Would you agree with that?

A: Yes. I would agree if you’re looking at how accurate they are at recording sleep, particularly compared with what we would define as the gold standard, which is a sleep study wherein you have electrodes on the scalp and you’re measuring the electrical activity directly.

Devices that go under the pillow are extremely poor at deciphering sleep from wake time, which is really the main goal. They are best at detecting when you get into the bed and when you get out. But even then, there isn’t good evidence that they do that accurately when there are two people in the bed.

Overall, they may give you a general gist of what’s happening in terms of time in and out of bed, but we’re doubtful on their recording ability to tell sleep from wake time.
 

Q: Are the wrist-worn devices better for sleep tracking?

A: They’re getting better. We’ve used wrist activity monitors in research for years. They use an accelerometer to measure movement, and then an algorithm determines whether an interval of time is called sleep or wake.

Recently, they’ve incorporated more sensors, such as heart rate, and they can more accurately decipher rapid eye movement (REM) sleep from non-REM. They’re still not as good as doing a full sleep study. But they’re getting closer.
 

Q: If asked how you slept, most of us think we can answer without needing to look at a smartphone, but maybe not. Can you explain “paradoxical insomnia”?

A: You can’t really know if you’re sleeping because if you know you’re asleep, then you can’t be asleep because it’s a state of unconsciousness. How people decide whether they had a good night’s sleep probably depends on a lot of things about how they feel when they wake up in the morning or if they remember being up in the night.

Quality of sleep is not really something that people can directly ascertain. There is a selection of people who feel awake all night but they actually are sleeping. They feel that their sleep quality is poor: They’re suffering; they have insomnia, but from the objective data, they are sleeping fine.
 

Q: Is this related to non-REM stage 1 sleep, when you may not be aware that you’re asleep?

A: No. I’m talking about people who come into the sleep lab for an overnight study and get hooked up. And in the morning, they’ll tell the tech I was awake all night, but the tech will see that their sleep was just fine.

There is a disconnect between how people perceive their sleep and how they actually sleep. For most people it’s impossible to be completely accurate to know how much you’re sleeping. Then there are some people who perceive it very differently.

Sleep trackers don’t have the level of detail of sleep studies that use scalp electrodes. When we get into the details of sleep measurement, we’re measuring 30-second epochs (sampling periods), where we look at broad measures of electrical activity. There is even more detail there that can be pulled out using other techniques, such as analyzing the spectrum of the EEG. For example, some studies have found a beta frequency in the EEG of people with insomnia, so even though they are sleeping, they often feel awake.

Basically, the subjective experience of sleep somewhat overlaps with the objective recording of what’s happening on a sleep study, but not completely.
 

Q: You said that first thing in the morning might not be the best time to assess your sleep – if you wake up groggy and are already thinking, “The day is shot.”

A: In general, people really feel worst in the morning. Their circadian drive is low, especially if they’re a little sleep deprived. You shouldn’t judge the day on the first hour after waking – most people are pretty cognitively impaired. I tell people they need some boot-up time.

You feel differently as the day goes on and even at different points of the day. There’s a lull in the early afternoon because of your circadian dip and then we get a second wind in the evening. How you feel isn’t one flat line; it’s really a rhythm throughout the day
 

Q: Would you say that consumer sleep trackers are okay for individuals to use to see a pattern but are maybe not accurate enough to use more globally in research?

A: I think there is a huge opportunity to understand sleep at a population level. For example, if there’s been a hurricane or an earthquake or Superbowl Sunday, companies have an opportunity to look at the impact – say, daylight saving time and how it affects sleep across different countries, or men vs. women, or different age groups.

There was a paper about sleep among hospital workers in Wuhan during the outbreak of the pandemic. That was a creative use of wearable devices to look at sleep in a large population.

Now, of course, the devices are not given out randomly; the people who buy them are probably a little bit healthier, maybe a little bit younger – that sort of thing. It is a biased sample.
 

Q: As you note, mobile health trackers tend to be used by the “worried well.” Can you tell us about your paper that introduced the term “orthosomnia,” or “a perfectionistic quest for the ideal sleep in order to optimize daytime function”?

A: As these devices came out, more people were coming into the clinic and shoving their data in front of us saying, “I don’t feel well, and I don’t sleep 7 hours.” They were focused on this specific number. Back when we wrote this paper, the devices were primarily movement based (now the devices are a bit more accurate). Some would say, “My sleep is light, and it’s not deep.” We’d do a sleep study that showed that they have deep sleep, but they would still believe their device even though the device really wasn’t able to classify sleep accurately.

We even found people making their sleep worse because of the device. For example, trying to get the number higher by spending more time lying in bed trying to sleep which is the opposite of what you want someone with insomnia to do. These people held the data so tight and really felt that it characterized their experience, even though we sleep medicine practitioners didn’t find it very accurate and felt that it was somewhat unhelpful to their treatment.
 

Q: What advice would you give the harried primary care physician presented with a patient’s hypnogram or sleep pattern?

A: As someone once pointed out to me, it’s a conversation opener about their sleep. Did they buy the device because they’re worried about their sleep? It’s unlikely that you can glean anything clinically useful from the data.

I briefly look at it to see the duration of their sleep, the regularity in their sleep pattern – the pattern of awakenings during the night might suggest that they have some insomnia. But it doesn’t take the place of clinical assessment for conditions like sleep apnea: Are they snoring? Are they unrefreshed?

I had a patient in the orthosomnia study who was given a sleep tracker by a family member. He brought the data to his doctor who ordered a sleep study that found he had sleep apnea. He would say, “The device diagnosed my sleep apnea.” But that wasn’t actually the case; it just opened the conversation and the clinician said, “Well, let’s order a sleep study.”
 

Q: The device told him he wasn’t getting much sleep and then the sleep study told him it was apnea.

A: Right. It’s impossible to pick up sleep apnea. Some of the latest devices have some oximetry reading but it is not a clinically validated oximetry that could diagnose sleep apnea.

When these first came out I thought I’d get more referrals. So far, I haven’t had a single person come in and ask if they have sleep apnea. If you have a patient saying, “Hey, I’m worried about my oxygen level and here’s my data,” then the clinician should consider whether they need a sleep study for sleep apnea.
 

Q: You did a survey that suggests that clinicians are less keen on these devices than consumers. Conor Heneghan of Fitbit/Google also mentioned a study using the Fitbit Charge and a SleepLife portal. The patients were very engaged but only one physician (out of 49) logged into the portal to look at the data.

A: Our survey of sleep professionals (which we need to publish) showed that they were wary of the data. They found it frustrating in some ways because it took time out of the clinical encounter.

Some of them said that parents are putting trackers on their children and then catastrophizing their children’s sleep.
 

Q: Is there such a thing as an ideal hypnogram or does it vary by individual?

A: I would say that it depends on a lot of things. If you think about a hypnogram from a sleep study, the patient is not sleeping in their home environment, and it’s only one night. There’s a range of what would be considered normal, and it’s related to your sex and your age.

One night is not going to be sufficient to characterize your percentage in this or that sleep stage. Our patients come in saying, “I’m not getting enough REM.” But there isn’t a sleep disorder called lack of REM; there’s no treatment for that. It’s probably pretty normal for them or maybe they’re taking medications that suppress their REM, such as antidepressants.

The tech world is very interested to sense REM properly and to display it. But on the treatment side of things, there’s not much that we do with that data. We’re more interested in the consolidation of their sleep, the duration of their sleep, breathing-related sleep disorders, those sorts of things.
 

Q: Is there any reason to be concerned about the amount of REM sleep in terms of outcomes? We know that poor sleep can lead to bad cardiovascular outcomes, but has any of that correlated to sleep stage?

A: There are studies where they’ve experimentally deprived people of certain stages of sleep, but they’re not very useful in the real world. We’re looking at sleep holistically: Do you have a good sleep pattern? Any breathing-related sleep disorders? Insomnia? We don’t treat sleep by the stage.

Q: Any concern that people who are focused on a device may be ignoring the basic tenets of good sleep hygiene?

A: If people are doing things that are obviously bad for their sleep, like working too late, not exercising enough, sleeping in on weekends to compensate for being up late during the week, or probably the biggest thing contributing to insomnia – stress. A device itself won’t fix those things but it could show you the evidence.

If somebody really has a sleep disorder, then sleep hygiene alone is probably not going to be enough. They’re going to need to engage in a more extensive program to improve their sleep, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia.
 

Q: Is there anything else you want to mention?

A: I don’t want to leave with a reputation of being against sleep trackers. I think they are a great opportunity for people to get excited about and learn about their sleep and try to improve it. We have a lot to learn about what people want from their data and how we can use that data to improve people’s sleep.

As providers, we can engage with our patients – sleep is an automatic process, but improving sleep takes some effort. Buying a device is not going to automatically make you sleep better. It takes work to establish a better sleep pattern; it may require some cognitive-behavioral therapy or treating a sleep disorder. That takes some work.

Dr. Baron reported no conflicts of interest.A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Earlier this month one of our dogs needed surgery. Early one morning I dropped her off at the veterinarian’s office.

About 10 minutes after leaving, they called and asked me to come back and get her. The vet had called in sick, so all her surgeries for the day had to be rescheduled.

It’s a pain in the rear, but what can you do? It happens to the best of us. My staff has had their share of times where they had to frantically call and reschedule patients when I was too sick to work.

So I drove back and waited in line. Most people were understanding, but some less so. The lady in front of me was demanding her dog’s surgery (which hadn’t happened yet) be free due to her being inconvenienced. A staff member at another desk was dealing with an angry man who was demanding the veterinarian’s home phone number.

When I got up to the front I picked up my dog and rescheduled the surgery for 2 weeks later. The young lady at the desk handed me a reminder card and said “Thank you for not yelling at me.”

How sad is that? Is this what our society has come to, where people feel obliged to thank you for not being an ass?

Common courtesy should be the rule rather than the exception, right? What’s wrong with politeness?

Yeah, going back to have to get my dog and reschedule her surgery is an inconvenience, but that’s about it. Certainly not something to get worked up over, or to scream at another person who’s just doing their job. Getting sick is part of life. It’s happened to me, it’s happened to you, and on this day it happened to our veterinarian.

Our supposedly polite society seems to have gone in reverse during the pandemic, though the change had probably started before then. Although we all went through it together, for some it’s removed the thin veneer of civilization, leaving them angry, bitter, and hostile over things that are beyond the control of mortals.

Whatever happened to the Golden Rule? It takes less effort to be nice than nasty, and it’s definitely better for your blood pressure.

I really don’t understand this. What’s to be gained by going through the world angry at things you can’t control? Especially when they’re so minor, like having to reschedule a veterinarian’s appointment.

It just ain’t worth it to be like that. For you, or the innocent person you’re abusing.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Earlier this month one of our dogs needed surgery. Early one morning I dropped her off at the veterinarian’s office.

About 10 minutes after leaving, they called and asked me to come back and get her. The vet had called in sick, so all her surgeries for the day had to be rescheduled.

It’s a pain in the rear, but what can you do? It happens to the best of us. My staff has had their share of times where they had to frantically call and reschedule patients when I was too sick to work.

So I drove back and waited in line. Most people were understanding, but some less so. The lady in front of me was demanding her dog’s surgery (which hadn’t happened yet) be free due to her being inconvenienced. A staff member at another desk was dealing with an angry man who was demanding the veterinarian’s home phone number.

When I got up to the front I picked up my dog and rescheduled the surgery for 2 weeks later. The young lady at the desk handed me a reminder card and said “Thank you for not yelling at me.”

How sad is that? Is this what our society has come to, where people feel obliged to thank you for not being an ass?

Common courtesy should be the rule rather than the exception, right? What’s wrong with politeness?

Yeah, going back to have to get my dog and reschedule her surgery is an inconvenience, but that’s about it. Certainly not something to get worked up over, or to scream at another person who’s just doing their job. Getting sick is part of life. It’s happened to me, it’s happened to you, and on this day it happened to our veterinarian.

Our supposedly polite society seems to have gone in reverse during the pandemic, though the change had probably started before then. Although we all went through it together, for some it’s removed the thin veneer of civilization, leaving them angry, bitter, and hostile over things that are beyond the control of mortals.

Whatever happened to the Golden Rule? It takes less effort to be nice than nasty, and it’s definitely better for your blood pressure.

I really don’t understand this. What’s to be gained by going through the world angry at things you can’t control? Especially when they’re so minor, like having to reschedule a veterinarian’s appointment.

It just ain’t worth it to be like that. For you, or the innocent person you’re abusing.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Earlier this month one of our dogs needed surgery. Early one morning I dropped her off at the veterinarian’s office.

About 10 minutes after leaving, they called and asked me to come back and get her. The vet had called in sick, so all her surgeries for the day had to be rescheduled.

It’s a pain in the rear, but what can you do? It happens to the best of us. My staff has had their share of times where they had to frantically call and reschedule patients when I was too sick to work.

So I drove back and waited in line. Most people were understanding, but some less so. The lady in front of me was demanding her dog’s surgery (which hadn’t happened yet) be free due to her being inconvenienced. A staff member at another desk was dealing with an angry man who was demanding the veterinarian’s home phone number.

When I got up to the front I picked up my dog and rescheduled the surgery for 2 weeks later. The young lady at the desk handed me a reminder card and said “Thank you for not yelling at me.”

How sad is that? Is this what our society has come to, where people feel obliged to thank you for not being an ass?

Common courtesy should be the rule rather than the exception, right? What’s wrong with politeness?

Yeah, going back to have to get my dog and reschedule her surgery is an inconvenience, but that’s about it. Certainly not something to get worked up over, or to scream at another person who’s just doing their job. Getting sick is part of life. It’s happened to me, it’s happened to you, and on this day it happened to our veterinarian.

Our supposedly polite society seems to have gone in reverse during the pandemic, though the change had probably started before then. Although we all went through it together, for some it’s removed the thin veneer of civilization, leaving them angry, bitter, and hostile over things that are beyond the control of mortals.

Whatever happened to the Golden Rule? It takes less effort to be nice than nasty, and it’s definitely better for your blood pressure.

I really don’t understand this. What’s to be gained by going through the world angry at things you can’t control? Especially when they’re so minor, like having to reschedule a veterinarian’s appointment.

It just ain’t worth it to be like that. For you, or the innocent person you’re abusing.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Despite the original intent of permanent contraception, tubal sterilization regret is experienced by 2%-26% of women as demonstrated by the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization “CREST” 14-year study (Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jun;93[6]:889-95). Regret appears to be higher in the United States than Europe and in resource-limited countries and is more common in women who are less than age 30, African-American, and unmarried. Nevertheless, requests for tubal reversal are estimated to be between 1% and 4% (Contraception. 1981 Jun;23[6]:579-89). The alternative option for fertility is in vitro fertilization (IVF) and this month’s column considers the pros and cons of both methods.

The procedure of tubal reanastomosis involves removing abnormal tissue and reapproximating the healthy tubal segments with attention to minimize adhesion formation through continued gentle irrigation. The surgery involves microsuturing using 6-0 to 10-0 sutures. Tubal patency can be confirmed during the procedure and with a subsequent hysterosalpingogram. While time from sterilization and the type of sterilization technique are factors that may influence the success rate of tubal reanastomosis, the age of the woman is the most predictive for pregnancy outcome.

In the original CREST study, the risk of ectopic pregnancy following tubal reanastomosis was contingent on the method of sterilization: Bipolar electrosurgery resulted in the highest probability of ectopic pregnancy (17.1 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception), while postpartum partial salpingectomy resulted in the lowest (1.5 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception) (N Engl J Med. 1997;336[11]:762). Comparatively, the ectopic pregnancy rate during an IVF cycle was 1.9% for pregnancies from transfers of fresh cleavage embryo, followed by transfers of frozen cleavage embryo (1.7%), transfers of fresh blastocyst (1.3%), and transfers of frozen blastocyst (0.8%) (Hum Reprod. 2015;30[9]:2048-54).

Reports vary regarding pregnancy rates from tubal reanastomosis. Prior use of rings and clips for sterilization appear to yield the highest outcomes as opposed to the use of electrocautery. In one large Canadian cohort study of over 300,000 women, those aged 15-30 years, 30-33 years, and 34-49 years had a conception rate of 73%, 64%, and 46%, respectively (Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101[4]:677-84). Most pregnancies were within 2 years after reversal and 48% of women achieved a delivery. Of interest, 23% of patients subsequently underwent another sterilization.

An Australian study of nearly 2,000 women found an overall cumulative live-delivery rate of 20% within the first year after reversal, 40% at 2 years, 51% at 5 years, and 52% at 10 years. As expected, the 5-year cumulative live-delivery rate was significantly lower in women who were aged 40-44 years (26%), compared with younger women. For all women below age 40 years, the live-delivery rate was approximately 50% within 5 years after tubal reanastomosis, while the rate halves after the age of 40 (Fertil Steril. 2015 Oct;104[4]:921-6).

To compare tubal reanastomosis with IVF, a retrospective cohort study of 163 patients demonstrated the cumulative delivery rate over 72 months was comparable for IVF vs. sterilization reversal (52% vs. 60%). The only significant difference was in a subset of patients aged <37 years (52% after IVF and 72% after reversal) and the lower cost of surgery. The authors advocated laparoscopic sterilization reversal in women younger than 37 years who have ≥4 cm of residual tube with IVF as the better alternative for all other women (Hum Reprod. 2007;22[10]:2660).

Indeed, tubal length is another important factor in successful reversal. The pregnancy rate after tubal anastomosis is 75% in women with tubal length of 4 cm or more, but only 19% in those with shorter tubes (Fertil Steril. 1987;48[1]:13-7). The literature does suggest equivalent pregnancy rates after laparoscopic tubal anastomosis and conventional microsurgical anastomosis. Although the laparoscopic approach may be more economical, it is more demanding technically than an open microsurgical procedure.

Tubal reanastomosis can also be performed using robot-assisted laparoscopy. In preliminary studies, robotic surgery appears to have a similar success rate and a shorter recovery time, but longer operative times and higher costs (Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109[6]:1375; Fertil Steril. 2008;90[4]:1175).

To educate women on the success of IVF based on individual characteristics, a valuable tool to approximate the cumulative outcome for a live birth following one cycle of IVF is offered by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. To clarify, a cycle of IVF consists of one egg retrieval and the ultimate transfer of all embryos produced, i.e., fresh and frozen. The website also includes estimations of success following a second and third IVF cycle.

The woman’s age is a significant predictor of IVF success. Ovarian aging is currently best measured by combining chronologic age, antral follicle count (AFC) by transvaginal pelvic ultrasound, and serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). Natural fecundity begins to decline, on average, above age 32-33 years. An AFC less than 11 reflects diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) and less than 6 is severe. AMH levels below 1.6 ng/mL have been shown to reduce the number of eggs retrieved with IVF, while levels below 0.4 ng/mL are very low. Very low AMH levels negatively affect the outcome of IVF cycles as demonstrated in the SART data study from a population of women with a mean age of 39.4 years: Cycle cancellation was 54%; of all retrieval attempts, no oocytes were obtained in 5.4%, and no embryo transfer occurred in 25.1% of cycles; the live birth rate per embryo transfer was 20.5% (9.5% per cycle start and 16.3% per retrieval) from a mean age of 36.8 years (Fertil Steril. 2016 Feb;105[2]:385-93.e3). The predictive ability of AMH on the live birth rate from IVF cycles was also shown in a study of over 85,000 women (Fertil Steril. 2018;109:258-65).

While low AMH has been shown to lessen a successful outcome from IVF, there appears to be no difference in natural pregnancy rates in women aged 30-44 years irrespective of AMH levels (JAMA. 2017;318[14]:1367-76). Of importance, the use of AMH in a population at low risk for DOR will yield a larger number of false-positive results (i.e., characterizing a woman as DOR when in fact she has normal ovarian reserve). Further, users of hormonal contraceptives have a 25.2% lower mean AMH level than nonusers.

When a patient is considering tubal reanastomosis vs. IVF, a useful acronym to remember is to check “AGE” – the A is for AMH because severely diminished ovarian reserve will reduce success with IVF as shown by the SART calculator; the G represents guy, i.e., ensuring a reasonably normal sperm analysis; and E stands for eggs representing ovulation function. In a woman who is anovulatory and who will require fertility medication, it would be reasonable to consider IVF given the need for ovarian stimulation. As in females, advanced paternal age has demonstrated a decline in fertility and sperm analysis parameters. Men above age 45 take approximately five times as long to achieve a pregnancy, compared with men less than 25 years of age. Further, there is evidence for advanced paternal age increasing risk of miscarriage, preterm birth, and birth defects. Men older than 40-45 years have twice the risk of an autistic child and five times the risk of having a child with schizophrenia (Transl Psychiatry 2017;7: e1019; Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159:1528-33).

To conclude, the data support consideration for sterilization reversal in women less than age 37 years with more than 4 cm of residual functional fallopian tube and the prior use of rings or clip sterilization. In other women, IVF may be the better option, particularly when ovulation dysfunction and/or male factor is present. IVF also offers the advantage of maintaining contraception and gender determination. However, given that AMH does not appear to reduce natural fertility, unlike during its effect during an IVF cycle, the option of tubal reversal may be more favorable in women with severe DOR.

Dr. Trolice is director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Despite the original intent of permanent contraception, tubal sterilization regret is experienced by 2%-26% of women as demonstrated by the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization “CREST” 14-year study (Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jun;93[6]:889-95). Regret appears to be higher in the United States than Europe and in resource-limited countries and is more common in women who are less than age 30, African-American, and unmarried. Nevertheless, requests for tubal reversal are estimated to be between 1% and 4% (Contraception. 1981 Jun;23[6]:579-89). The alternative option for fertility is in vitro fertilization (IVF) and this month’s column considers the pros and cons of both methods.

The procedure of tubal reanastomosis involves removing abnormal tissue and reapproximating the healthy tubal segments with attention to minimize adhesion formation through continued gentle irrigation. The surgery involves microsuturing using 6-0 to 10-0 sutures. Tubal patency can be confirmed during the procedure and with a subsequent hysterosalpingogram. While time from sterilization and the type of sterilization technique are factors that may influence the success rate of tubal reanastomosis, the age of the woman is the most predictive for pregnancy outcome.

In the original CREST study, the risk of ectopic pregnancy following tubal reanastomosis was contingent on the method of sterilization: Bipolar electrosurgery resulted in the highest probability of ectopic pregnancy (17.1 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception), while postpartum partial salpingectomy resulted in the lowest (1.5 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception) (N Engl J Med. 1997;336[11]:762). Comparatively, the ectopic pregnancy rate during an IVF cycle was 1.9% for pregnancies from transfers of fresh cleavage embryo, followed by transfers of frozen cleavage embryo (1.7%), transfers of fresh blastocyst (1.3%), and transfers of frozen blastocyst (0.8%) (Hum Reprod. 2015;30[9]:2048-54).

Reports vary regarding pregnancy rates from tubal reanastomosis. Prior use of rings and clips for sterilization appear to yield the highest outcomes as opposed to the use of electrocautery. In one large Canadian cohort study of over 300,000 women, those aged 15-30 years, 30-33 years, and 34-49 years had a conception rate of 73%, 64%, and 46%, respectively (Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101[4]:677-84). Most pregnancies were within 2 years after reversal and 48% of women achieved a delivery. Of interest, 23% of patients subsequently underwent another sterilization.

An Australian study of nearly 2,000 women found an overall cumulative live-delivery rate of 20% within the first year after reversal, 40% at 2 years, 51% at 5 years, and 52% at 10 years. As expected, the 5-year cumulative live-delivery rate was significantly lower in women who were aged 40-44 years (26%), compared with younger women. For all women below age 40 years, the live-delivery rate was approximately 50% within 5 years after tubal reanastomosis, while the rate halves after the age of 40 (Fertil Steril. 2015 Oct;104[4]:921-6).

To compare tubal reanastomosis with IVF, a retrospective cohort study of 163 patients demonstrated the cumulative delivery rate over 72 months was comparable for IVF vs. sterilization reversal (52% vs. 60%). The only significant difference was in a subset of patients aged <37 years (52% after IVF and 72% after reversal) and the lower cost of surgery. The authors advocated laparoscopic sterilization reversal in women younger than 37 years who have ≥4 cm of residual tube with IVF as the better alternative for all other women (Hum Reprod. 2007;22[10]:2660).

Indeed, tubal length is another important factor in successful reversal. The pregnancy rate after tubal anastomosis is 75% in women with tubal length of 4 cm or more, but only 19% in those with shorter tubes (Fertil Steril. 1987;48[1]:13-7). The literature does suggest equivalent pregnancy rates after laparoscopic tubal anastomosis and conventional microsurgical anastomosis. Although the laparoscopic approach may be more economical, it is more demanding technically than an open microsurgical procedure.

Tubal reanastomosis can also be performed using robot-assisted laparoscopy. In preliminary studies, robotic surgery appears to have a similar success rate and a shorter recovery time, but longer operative times and higher costs (Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109[6]:1375; Fertil Steril. 2008;90[4]:1175).

To educate women on the success of IVF based on individual characteristics, a valuable tool to approximate the cumulative outcome for a live birth following one cycle of IVF is offered by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. To clarify, a cycle of IVF consists of one egg retrieval and the ultimate transfer of all embryos produced, i.e., fresh and frozen. The website also includes estimations of success following a second and third IVF cycle.

The woman’s age is a significant predictor of IVF success. Ovarian aging is currently best measured by combining chronologic age, antral follicle count (AFC) by transvaginal pelvic ultrasound, and serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). Natural fecundity begins to decline, on average, above age 32-33 years. An AFC less than 11 reflects diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) and less than 6 is severe. AMH levels below 1.6 ng/mL have been shown to reduce the number of eggs retrieved with IVF, while levels below 0.4 ng/mL are very low. Very low AMH levels negatively affect the outcome of IVF cycles as demonstrated in the SART data study from a population of women with a mean age of 39.4 years: Cycle cancellation was 54%; of all retrieval attempts, no oocytes were obtained in 5.4%, and no embryo transfer occurred in 25.1% of cycles; the live birth rate per embryo transfer was 20.5% (9.5% per cycle start and 16.3% per retrieval) from a mean age of 36.8 years (Fertil Steril. 2016 Feb;105[2]:385-93.e3). The predictive ability of AMH on the live birth rate from IVF cycles was also shown in a study of over 85,000 women (Fertil Steril. 2018;109:258-65).

While low AMH has been shown to lessen a successful outcome from IVF, there appears to be no difference in natural pregnancy rates in women aged 30-44 years irrespective of AMH levels (JAMA. 2017;318[14]:1367-76). Of importance, the use of AMH in a population at low risk for DOR will yield a larger number of false-positive results (i.e., characterizing a woman as DOR when in fact she has normal ovarian reserve). Further, users of hormonal contraceptives have a 25.2% lower mean AMH level than nonusers.

When a patient is considering tubal reanastomosis vs. IVF, a useful acronym to remember is to check “AGE” – the A is for AMH because severely diminished ovarian reserve will reduce success with IVF as shown by the SART calculator; the G represents guy, i.e., ensuring a reasonably normal sperm analysis; and E stands for eggs representing ovulation function. In a woman who is anovulatory and who will require fertility medication, it would be reasonable to consider IVF given the need for ovarian stimulation. As in females, advanced paternal age has demonstrated a decline in fertility and sperm analysis parameters. Men above age 45 take approximately five times as long to achieve a pregnancy, compared with men less than 25 years of age. Further, there is evidence for advanced paternal age increasing risk of miscarriage, preterm birth, and birth defects. Men older than 40-45 years have twice the risk of an autistic child and five times the risk of having a child with schizophrenia (Transl Psychiatry 2017;7: e1019; Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159:1528-33).

To conclude, the data support consideration for sterilization reversal in women less than age 37 years with more than 4 cm of residual functional fallopian tube and the prior use of rings or clip sterilization. In other women, IVF may be the better option, particularly when ovulation dysfunction and/or male factor is present. IVF also offers the advantage of maintaining contraception and gender determination. However, given that AMH does not appear to reduce natural fertility, unlike during its effect during an IVF cycle, the option of tubal reversal may be more favorable in women with severe DOR.

Dr. Trolice is director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Despite the original intent of permanent contraception, tubal sterilization regret is experienced by 2%-26% of women as demonstrated by the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization “CREST” 14-year study (Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jun;93[6]:889-95). Regret appears to be higher in the United States than Europe and in resource-limited countries and is more common in women who are less than age 30, African-American, and unmarried. Nevertheless, requests for tubal reversal are estimated to be between 1% and 4% (Contraception. 1981 Jun;23[6]:579-89). The alternative option for fertility is in vitro fertilization (IVF) and this month’s column considers the pros and cons of both methods.

The procedure of tubal reanastomosis involves removing abnormal tissue and reapproximating the healthy tubal segments with attention to minimize adhesion formation through continued gentle irrigation. The surgery involves microsuturing using 6-0 to 10-0 sutures. Tubal patency can be confirmed during the procedure and with a subsequent hysterosalpingogram. While time from sterilization and the type of sterilization technique are factors that may influence the success rate of tubal reanastomosis, the age of the woman is the most predictive for pregnancy outcome.

In the original CREST study, the risk of ectopic pregnancy following tubal reanastomosis was contingent on the method of sterilization: Bipolar electrosurgery resulted in the highest probability of ectopic pregnancy (17.1 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception), while postpartum partial salpingectomy resulted in the lowest (1.5 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception) (N Engl J Med. 1997;336[11]:762). Comparatively, the ectopic pregnancy rate during an IVF cycle was 1.9% for pregnancies from transfers of fresh cleavage embryo, followed by transfers of frozen cleavage embryo (1.7%), transfers of fresh blastocyst (1.3%), and transfers of frozen blastocyst (0.8%) (Hum Reprod. 2015;30[9]:2048-54).

Reports vary regarding pregnancy rates from tubal reanastomosis. Prior use of rings and clips for sterilization appear to yield the highest outcomes as opposed to the use of electrocautery. In one large Canadian cohort study of over 300,000 women, those aged 15-30 years, 30-33 years, and 34-49 years had a conception rate of 73%, 64%, and 46%, respectively (Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101[4]:677-84). Most pregnancies were within 2 years after reversal and 48% of women achieved a delivery. Of interest, 23% of patients subsequently underwent another sterilization.

An Australian study of nearly 2,000 women found an overall cumulative live-delivery rate of 20% within the first year after reversal, 40% at 2 years, 51% at 5 years, and 52% at 10 years. As expected, the 5-year cumulative live-delivery rate was significantly lower in women who were aged 40-44 years (26%), compared with younger women. For all women below age 40 years, the live-delivery rate was approximately 50% within 5 years after tubal reanastomosis, while the rate halves after the age of 40 (Fertil Steril. 2015 Oct;104[4]:921-6).

To compare tubal reanastomosis with IVF, a retrospective cohort study of 163 patients demonstrated the cumulative delivery rate over 72 months was comparable for IVF vs. sterilization reversal (52% vs. 60%). The only significant difference was in a subset of patients aged <37 years (52% after IVF and 72% after reversal) and the lower cost of surgery. The authors advocated laparoscopic sterilization reversal in women younger than 37 years who have ≥4 cm of residual tube with IVF as the better alternative for all other women (Hum Reprod. 2007;22[10]:2660).

Indeed, tubal length is another important factor in successful reversal. The pregnancy rate after tubal anastomosis is 75% in women with tubal length of 4 cm or more, but only 19% in those with shorter tubes (Fertil Steril. 1987;48[1]:13-7). The literature does suggest equivalent pregnancy rates after laparoscopic tubal anastomosis and conventional microsurgical anastomosis. Although the laparoscopic approach may be more economical, it is more demanding technically than an open microsurgical procedure.

Tubal reanastomosis can also be performed using robot-assisted laparoscopy. In preliminary studies, robotic surgery appears to have a similar success rate and a shorter recovery time, but longer operative times and higher costs (Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109[6]:1375; Fertil Steril. 2008;90[4]:1175).

To educate women on the success of IVF based on individual characteristics, a valuable tool to approximate the cumulative outcome for a live birth following one cycle of IVF is offered by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. To clarify, a cycle of IVF consists of one egg retrieval and the ultimate transfer of all embryos produced, i.e., fresh and frozen. The website also includes estimations of success following a second and third IVF cycle.

The woman’s age is a significant predictor of IVF success. Ovarian aging is currently best measured by combining chronologic age, antral follicle count (AFC) by transvaginal pelvic ultrasound, and serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). Natural fecundity begins to decline, on average, above age 32-33 years. An AFC less than 11 reflects diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) and less than 6 is severe. AMH levels below 1.6 ng/mL have been shown to reduce the number of eggs retrieved with IVF, while levels below 0.4 ng/mL are very low. Very low AMH levels negatively affect the outcome of IVF cycles as demonstrated in the SART data study from a population of women with a mean age of 39.4 years: Cycle cancellation was 54%; of all retrieval attempts, no oocytes were obtained in 5.4%, and no embryo transfer occurred in 25.1% of cycles; the live birth rate per embryo transfer was 20.5% (9.5% per cycle start and 16.3% per retrieval) from a mean age of 36.8 years (Fertil Steril. 2016 Feb;105[2]:385-93.e3). The predictive ability of AMH on the live birth rate from IVF cycles was also shown in a study of over 85,000 women (Fertil Steril. 2018;109:258-65).

While low AMH has been shown to lessen a successful outcome from IVF, there appears to be no difference in natural pregnancy rates in women aged 30-44 years irrespective of AMH levels (JAMA. 2017;318[14]:1367-76). Of importance, the use of AMH in a population at low risk for DOR will yield a larger number of false-positive results (i.e., characterizing a woman as DOR when in fact she has normal ovarian reserve). Further, users of hormonal contraceptives have a 25.2% lower mean AMH level than nonusers.

When a patient is considering tubal reanastomosis vs. IVF, a useful acronym to remember is to check “AGE” – the A is for AMH because severely diminished ovarian reserve will reduce success with IVF as shown by the SART calculator; the G represents guy, i.e., ensuring a reasonably normal sperm analysis; and E stands for eggs representing ovulation function. In a woman who is anovulatory and who will require fertility medication, it would be reasonable to consider IVF given the need for ovarian stimulation. As in females, advanced paternal age has demonstrated a decline in fertility and sperm analysis parameters. Men above age 45 take approximately five times as long to achieve a pregnancy, compared with men less than 25 years of age. Further, there is evidence for advanced paternal age increasing risk of miscarriage, preterm birth, and birth defects. Men older than 40-45 years have twice the risk of an autistic child and five times the risk of having a child with schizophrenia (Transl Psychiatry 2017;7: e1019; Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159:1528-33).

To conclude, the data support consideration for sterilization reversal in women less than age 37 years with more than 4 cm of residual functional fallopian tube and the prior use of rings or clip sterilization. In other women, IVF may be the better option, particularly when ovulation dysfunction and/or male factor is present. IVF also offers the advantage of maintaining contraception and gender determination. However, given that AMH does not appear to reduce natural fertility, unlike during its effect during an IVF cycle, the option of tubal reversal may be more favorable in women with severe DOR.

Dr. Trolice is director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation. 

The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future. 

Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true. 

During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school. 

However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes. 

The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want. I still believe in the value of hard work but I also believe in the value of meaningful and efficient work while also taking the time to reflect. 

The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part. 

I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
 

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation. 

The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future. 

Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true. 

During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school. 

However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes. 

The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want. I still believe in the value of hard work but I also believe in the value of meaningful and efficient work while also taking the time to reflect. 

The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part. 

I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
 

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation. 

The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future. 

Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true. 

During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school. 

However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes. 

The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want. I still believe in the value of hard work but I also believe in the value of meaningful and efficient work while also taking the time to reflect. 

The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part. 

I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
 

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The past several weeks have been rather tumultuous for LGBTQ Americans, particularly transgender youth. The Texas attorney general penned a legal opinion stating that hormone therapy and puberty blockers for transgender youth constitute “child abuse” under Texas law. Following the statement, Texas governor Greg Abbott swiftly issued a directive to protective services to launch investigations into families providing such services to their children. Almost simultaneously, the Florida Senate approved the Parental Rights in Education bill (dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by opponents), which limits how sexual orientation and gender identity are taught in the classroom.

Despite the benefits of gender-affirming care for gender-diverse youth, 22 states have introduced legislation that bans the provision of gender-affirming medical care under the age of 18, even with the consent of parents or legal guardians.¹ Unfortunately, gender-diverse youth are more likely than are their cisgender peers to experience poverty, homelessness, depression, suicide, and violence.¹ As a result of ongoing stigma, many gender-diverse patients are hesitant to seek out professional medical care, which includes mental health care, routine health care, and gender-affirming therapies. The positive effects of gender-affirming care for transgender youth are clear, and life saving for many. Gender-affirming medical interventions improve social and mental health outcomes, such as decreased suicidal ideation, depression, and improved peer relations that last until adulthood.¹

As with all aspects in medicine, providers and families of gender-diverse youth need to balance the four ethical principles that guide decision-making and informed consent. For practitioners working with the pediatric/adolescent populations, the age at which pediatric or adolescent patients can truly provide consent or assent is still not determined.² This presents a unique set of challenges in the realm of gender-affirming care particularly when children/adolescents and their parents have differing perspectives on proposed treatment plans. For example, when discussing fertility preservation, a 16-year-old patient is much more likely to understand implications of future fertility than a 9-year-old patient. Furthermore, providers must find the delicate balance between maximizing treatment benefits (beneficence) while minimizing harm (nonmaleficence), while also discussing the uncertainty about the long-term risks of gender-affirming treatments.² The final obligation for health care providers is ensuring all patients have equitable access to care (justice) – which is why we must all oppose legislation that criminalizes treatment for gender-diverse youth, regardless of our individual opinions on gender-affirming care for patients.

Opponents of gender-affirming care for transgender youth often cite concern about permanent effects or psychological distress if a child begins gender-affirming therapy and then chooses to discontinue. While the medical community should be, and is alarmed about patients who detransition, the solution to limiting the number of patients who experience regret or detransition is most certainly not criminalizing or universally banning gender-affirming care for all patients.³ Experts in transgender medicine and surgery (some of whom are transgender themselves) have expressed apprehension regarding the evaluation of gender-diverse children and youth. The concern is not whether gender-diverse youth should receive gender-affirming treatments, but rather they questioned the assessments made by providers who may be less fully qualified to deliver treatment and who deviate from well-established standards of care.⁴ The logical solution would be to further improve upon the current standards of care, ensure providers have appropriate training, and to expand multidisciplinary models of gender-affirming centers for youth.

If politicians were truly worried about the welfare of gender-diverse children, there would be a shift in the allocation of funds or resources to improve research endeavors and establish effective multidisciplinary clinics to meet the needs of this marginalized patient population. While the medical community should carefully examine gender-affirming care in transgender youth, criminalizing care is unconscionable. Our community needs more evidence-based research, providers, and centers, not politics.

The LGBTQ community and providers are rightfully fearful of the repercussions of such legislation. And the politicians and supporters of such bills should be equally apprehensive of the negative consequences this legislation will have on the mental health of transgender youth.

While the model for gender-affirming medicine and surgery needs continual assessment to ensure all patients, regardless of age and goals of transition, are receiving evidence-based, quality care, these discussions and subsequent decision-making should occur among medical professionals, not among politicians and the lay press.⁴

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Hughes LD et al. ‘These laws will be devastating’: Provider perspectives on legislation banning gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents. J Adol Health;2021;69:976-82.

2. Kimberly LL et al. Ethical issues in gender-affirming care for youth. Pediatrics. Pediatrics;018;142(6)e20181537.

3. Ashley F. Psychol Sexual Orient Gender Divers. APA PsycNet. 2021.

4. Ault A. Transgender docs warn about gender-affirmative care for youth. WebMD. 2021 Nov. Accessed March 14, 2022.

The past several weeks have been rather tumultuous for LGBTQ Americans, particularly transgender youth. The Texas attorney general penned a legal opinion stating that hormone therapy and puberty blockers for transgender youth constitute “child abuse” under Texas law. Following the statement, Texas governor Greg Abbott swiftly issued a directive to protective services to launch investigations into families providing such services to their children. Almost simultaneously, the Florida Senate approved the Parental Rights in Education bill (dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by opponents), which limits how sexual orientation and gender identity are taught in the classroom.

Despite the benefits of gender-affirming care for gender-diverse youth, 22 states have introduced legislation that bans the provision of gender-affirming medical care under the age of 18, even with the consent of parents or legal guardians.¹ Unfortunately, gender-diverse youth are more likely than are their cisgender peers to experience poverty, homelessness, depression, suicide, and violence.¹ As a result of ongoing stigma, many gender-diverse patients are hesitant to seek out professional medical care, which includes mental health care, routine health care, and gender-affirming therapies. The positive effects of gender-affirming care for transgender youth are clear, and life saving for many. Gender-affirming medical interventions improve social and mental health outcomes, such as decreased suicidal ideation, depression, and improved peer relations that last until adulthood.¹

As with all aspects in medicine, providers and families of gender-diverse youth need to balance the four ethical principles that guide decision-making and informed consent. For practitioners working with the pediatric/adolescent populations, the age at which pediatric or adolescent patients can truly provide consent or assent is still not determined.² This presents a unique set of challenges in the realm of gender-affirming care particularly when children/adolescents and their parents have differing perspectives on proposed treatment plans. For example, when discussing fertility preservation, a 16-year-old patient is much more likely to understand implications of future fertility than a 9-year-old patient. Furthermore, providers must find the delicate balance between maximizing treatment benefits (beneficence) while minimizing harm (nonmaleficence), while also discussing the uncertainty about the long-term risks of gender-affirming treatments.² The final obligation for health care providers is ensuring all patients have equitable access to care (justice) – which is why we must all oppose legislation that criminalizes treatment for gender-diverse youth, regardless of our individual opinions on gender-affirming care for patients.

Opponents of gender-affirming care for transgender youth often cite concern about permanent effects or psychological distress if a child begins gender-affirming therapy and then chooses to discontinue. While the medical community should be, and is alarmed about patients who detransition, the solution to limiting the number of patients who experience regret or detransition is most certainly not criminalizing or universally banning gender-affirming care for all patients.³ Experts in transgender medicine and surgery (some of whom are transgender themselves) have expressed apprehension regarding the evaluation of gender-diverse children and youth. The concern is not whether gender-diverse youth should receive gender-affirming treatments, but rather they questioned the assessments made by providers who may be less fully qualified to deliver treatment and who deviate from well-established standards of care.⁴ The logical solution would be to further improve upon the current standards of care, ensure providers have appropriate training, and to expand multidisciplinary models of gender-affirming centers for youth.

If politicians were truly worried about the welfare of gender-diverse children, there would be a shift in the allocation of funds or resources to improve research endeavors and establish effective multidisciplinary clinics to meet the needs of this marginalized patient population. While the medical community should carefully examine gender-affirming care in transgender youth, criminalizing care is unconscionable. Our community needs more evidence-based research, providers, and centers, not politics.

The LGBTQ community and providers are rightfully fearful of the repercussions of such legislation. And the politicians and supporters of such bills should be equally apprehensive of the negative consequences this legislation will have on the mental health of transgender youth.

While the model for gender-affirming medicine and surgery needs continual assessment to ensure all patients, regardless of age and goals of transition, are receiving evidence-based, quality care, these discussions and subsequent decision-making should occur among medical professionals, not among politicians and the lay press.⁴

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Hughes LD et al. ‘These laws will be devastating’: Provider perspectives on legislation banning gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents. J Adol Health;2021;69:976-82.

2. Kimberly LL et al. Ethical issues in gender-affirming care for youth. Pediatrics. Pediatrics;018;142(6)e20181537.

3. Ashley F. Psychol Sexual Orient Gender Divers. APA PsycNet. 2021.

4. Ault A. Transgender docs warn about gender-affirmative care for youth. WebMD. 2021 Nov. Accessed March 14, 2022.

The past several weeks have been rather tumultuous for LGBTQ Americans, particularly transgender youth. The Texas attorney general penned a legal opinion stating that hormone therapy and puberty blockers for transgender youth constitute “child abuse” under Texas law. Following the statement, Texas governor Greg Abbott swiftly issued a directive to protective services to launch investigations into families providing such services to their children. Almost simultaneously, the Florida Senate approved the Parental Rights in Education bill (dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by opponents), which limits how sexual orientation and gender identity are taught in the classroom.

Despite the benefits of gender-affirming care for gender-diverse youth, 22 states have introduced legislation that bans the provision of gender-affirming medical care under the age of 18, even with the consent of parents or legal guardians.¹ Unfortunately, gender-diverse youth are more likely than are their cisgender peers to experience poverty, homelessness, depression, suicide, and violence.¹ As a result of ongoing stigma, many gender-diverse patients are hesitant to seek out professional medical care, which includes mental health care, routine health care, and gender-affirming therapies. The positive effects of gender-affirming care for transgender youth are clear, and life saving for many. Gender-affirming medical interventions improve social and mental health outcomes, such as decreased suicidal ideation, depression, and improved peer relations that last until adulthood.¹

As with all aspects in medicine, providers and families of gender-diverse youth need to balance the four ethical principles that guide decision-making and informed consent. For practitioners working with the pediatric/adolescent populations, the age at which pediatric or adolescent patients can truly provide consent or assent is still not determined.² This presents a unique set of challenges in the realm of gender-affirming care particularly when children/adolescents and their parents have differing perspectives on proposed treatment plans. For example, when discussing fertility preservation, a 16-year-old patient is much more likely to understand implications of future fertility than a 9-year-old patient. Furthermore, providers must find the delicate balance between maximizing treatment benefits (beneficence) while minimizing harm (nonmaleficence), while also discussing the uncertainty about the long-term risks of gender-affirming treatments.² The final obligation for health care providers is ensuring all patients have equitable access to care (justice) – which is why we must all oppose legislation that criminalizes treatment for gender-diverse youth, regardless of our individual opinions on gender-affirming care for patients.

Opponents of gender-affirming care for transgender youth often cite concern about permanent effects or psychological distress if a child begins gender-affirming therapy and then chooses to discontinue. While the medical community should be, and is alarmed about patients who detransition, the solution to limiting the number of patients who experience regret or detransition is most certainly not criminalizing or universally banning gender-affirming care for all patients.³ Experts in transgender medicine and surgery (some of whom are transgender themselves) have expressed apprehension regarding the evaluation of gender-diverse children and youth. The concern is not whether gender-diverse youth should receive gender-affirming treatments, but rather they questioned the assessments made by providers who may be less fully qualified to deliver treatment and who deviate from well-established standards of care.⁴ The logical solution would be to further improve upon the current standards of care, ensure providers have appropriate training, and to expand multidisciplinary models of gender-affirming centers for youth.

If politicians were truly worried about the welfare of gender-diverse children, there would be a shift in the allocation of funds or resources to improve research endeavors and establish effective multidisciplinary clinics to meet the needs of this marginalized patient population. While the medical community should carefully examine gender-affirming care in transgender youth, criminalizing care is unconscionable. Our community needs more evidence-based research, providers, and centers, not politics.

The LGBTQ community and providers are rightfully fearful of the repercussions of such legislation. And the politicians and supporters of such bills should be equally apprehensive of the negative consequences this legislation will have on the mental health of transgender youth.

While the model for gender-affirming medicine and surgery needs continual assessment to ensure all patients, regardless of age and goals of transition, are receiving evidence-based, quality care, these discussions and subsequent decision-making should occur among medical professionals, not among politicians and the lay press.⁴

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Hughes LD et al. ‘These laws will be devastating’: Provider perspectives on legislation banning gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents. J Adol Health;2021;69:976-82.

2. Kimberly LL et al. Ethical issues in gender-affirming care for youth. Pediatrics. Pediatrics;018;142(6)e20181537.

3. Ashley F. Psychol Sexual Orient Gender Divers. APA PsycNet. 2021.

4. Ault A. Transgender docs warn about gender-affirmative care for youth. WebMD. 2021 Nov. Accessed March 14, 2022.

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at [email protected].

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at [email protected].

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at [email protected].

The last 15-20 years have brought enormous attention to the relevant clinical issues regarding prescribing antidepressants during pregnancy. Concern about the effects of fetal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is appropriate given the consistent data that approximately 7% of women use antidepressants during pregnancy, and that risk for relapse of depression during pregnancy in women who have stopped antidepressants during pregnancy is very high.

We have learned so much from studies of relevant questions regarding SSRI exposure. Concerns about increased risk for organ malformation have been set aside. An extraordinary number of studies across a broad range of patients around the globe looked at the issue of risk for organ malformation following in utero SSRI exposure – even looking specifically at risk for cardiac malformations, which had been an earlier concern in the literature – with the evidence supporting absence of increased risk. Also clarified has been, first, the absence of risk of complications such as persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) and, second, a delineation of the prevalence and clinical implications of transient neonatal symptoms such as jitteriness and tachypnea in offspring of women who used antidepressants during pregnancy – so-called “poor neonatal adaptation syndrome.”

However, for so many clinicians and for patients, the missing piece in the risk-benefit equation has been the issue of long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in children whose mothers used antidepressants during pregnancy. While the accumulated data have shown sparse evidence linking SSRI exposure with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the evidence has been mixed regarding neurobehavioral sequelae associated with fetal exposure using developmental outcomes such as language ability, cognition, academic performance, language, math, and other cognitive outcomes. As far back as the 1990s, colleagues in Canada failed to show a difference in neurobehavioral outcomes in 5- to 7-year-old children whose mothers used SSRIs or older tricyclic antidepressants during pregnancy compared to nonexposed women (N Engl J Med. 1997 Jan 23;336[4]:258-62). Even early on, it was noted that one of the strongest predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome was untreated maternal psychiatric illness.

Since those early studies and over the last decade, there have been numerous small studies with conflicting data regarding a whole host of neurodevelopmental outcomes with inconsistent methodologies, different assessments, and failure to control for the presence or absence of maternal psychiatric illness during pregnancy – one of the most critical predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome and one we are beginning to appreciate plays a very significant role.

Most recently, the authors of a very large population-based retrospective cohort study in Denmark linked population-based registries with obstetrical data and examined language and math performance among 575,369 public schoolchildren whose mothers used or didn’t use antidepressants during pregnancy (JAMA. 2021 Nov 2;326[17]:1725-35). These investigators found a decrease in mean test scores for language (53.4 vs. 56.6) and math (52.1 vs. 57.4) in children whose mothers received antidepressant prescriptions during pregnancy compared with children who did not have that exposure. However, when they adjusted for maternal psychiatric illness and other relevant confounders, the finding went to null for language (adjusted difference, –0.1; 95% confidence interval, –0.6 to 0.3), but did not for math (adjusted difference, −2.2; 95% CI, −2.7 to −1.6). The results ultimately showed a modest finding for exposure and a small decrement in mathematical performance. The takeaway is that antidepressant use may be a proxy for neurodevelopmental deficit but is unlikely to be the etiology or direct cause of that deficit.

With that said, patients and their doctors can be reassured with respect to how much we have learned about SSRIs during pregnancy across the last decade. Yet there are appropriate concerns about long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in this patient population. I think that what we can say in 2022 is that there is a growing appreciation for the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on long-term outcomes in children and the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on risk for postpartum depression, which we know influences long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in children. Perhaps more than in years past, there is now also an appreciation of the effect of a dysregulated stress axis on the intrauterine fetal neuronal programming, which is perhaps the newest frontier, and which may hold the answers with respect to how to weigh the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on decisions about psychotropic use during pregnancy. But for today, there is an appreciation that exposure to maternal psychopathology is not a benign exposure.

Although some of the data remain incomplete, in 2022, patients will continue to make individual decisions based on the available data, factoring in the effect of maternal adversity in a more deliberate way and with a refined lens through with which to see their options with respect to using or not using SSRIs during pregnancy.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The last 15-20 years have brought enormous attention to the relevant clinical issues regarding prescribing antidepressants during pregnancy. Concern about the effects of fetal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is appropriate given the consistent data that approximately 7% of women use antidepressants during pregnancy, and that risk for relapse of depression during pregnancy in women who have stopped antidepressants during pregnancy is very high.

We have learned so much from studies of relevant questions regarding SSRI exposure. Concerns about increased risk for organ malformation have been set aside. An extraordinary number of studies across a broad range of patients around the globe looked at the issue of risk for organ malformation following in utero SSRI exposure – even looking specifically at risk for cardiac malformations, which had been an earlier concern in the literature – with the evidence supporting absence of increased risk. Also clarified has been, first, the absence of risk of complications such as persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) and, second, a delineation of the prevalence and clinical implications of transient neonatal symptoms such as jitteriness and tachypnea in offspring of women who used antidepressants during pregnancy – so-called “poor neonatal adaptation syndrome.”

However, for so many clinicians and for patients, the missing piece in the risk-benefit equation has been the issue of long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in children whose mothers used antidepressants during pregnancy. While the accumulated data have shown sparse evidence linking SSRI exposure with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the evidence has been mixed regarding neurobehavioral sequelae associated with fetal exposure using developmental outcomes such as language ability, cognition, academic performance, language, math, and other cognitive outcomes. As far back as the 1990s, colleagues in Canada failed to show a difference in neurobehavioral outcomes in 5- to 7-year-old children whose mothers used SSRIs or older tricyclic antidepressants during pregnancy compared to nonexposed women (N Engl J Med. 1997 Jan 23;336[4]:258-62). Even early on, it was noted that one of the strongest predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome was untreated maternal psychiatric illness.

Since those early studies and over the last decade, there have been numerous small studies with conflicting data regarding a whole host of neurodevelopmental outcomes with inconsistent methodologies, different assessments, and failure to control for the presence or absence of maternal psychiatric illness during pregnancy – one of the most critical predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome and one we are beginning to appreciate plays a very significant role.

Most recently, the authors of a very large population-based retrospective cohort study in Denmark linked population-based registries with obstetrical data and examined language and math performance among 575,369 public schoolchildren whose mothers used or didn’t use antidepressants during pregnancy (JAMA. 2021 Nov 2;326[17]:1725-35). These investigators found a decrease in mean test scores for language (53.4 vs. 56.6) and math (52.1 vs. 57.4) in children whose mothers received antidepressant prescriptions during pregnancy compared with children who did not have that exposure. However, when they adjusted for maternal psychiatric illness and other relevant confounders, the finding went to null for language (adjusted difference, –0.1; 95% confidence interval, –0.6 to 0.3), but did not for math (adjusted difference, −2.2; 95% CI, −2.7 to −1.6). The results ultimately showed a modest finding for exposure and a small decrement in mathematical performance. The takeaway is that antidepressant use may be a proxy for neurodevelopmental deficit but is unlikely to be the etiology or direct cause of that deficit.

With that said, patients and their doctors can be reassured with respect to how much we have learned about SSRIs during pregnancy across the last decade. Yet there are appropriate concerns about long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in this patient population. I think that what we can say in 2022 is that there is a growing appreciation for the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on long-term outcomes in children and the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on risk for postpartum depression, which we know influences long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in children. Perhaps more than in years past, there is now also an appreciation of the effect of a dysregulated stress axis on the intrauterine fetal neuronal programming, which is perhaps the newest frontier, and which may hold the answers with respect to how to weigh the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on decisions about psychotropic use during pregnancy. But for today, there is an appreciation that exposure to maternal psychopathology is not a benign exposure.

Although some of the data remain incomplete, in 2022, patients will continue to make individual decisions based on the available data, factoring in the effect of maternal adversity in a more deliberate way and with a refined lens through with which to see their options with respect to using or not using SSRIs during pregnancy.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The last 15-20 years have brought enormous attention to the relevant clinical issues regarding prescribing antidepressants during pregnancy. Concern about the effects of fetal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is appropriate given the consistent data that approximately 7% of women use antidepressants during pregnancy, and that risk for relapse of depression during pregnancy in women who have stopped antidepressants during pregnancy is very high.

We have learned so much from studies of relevant questions regarding SSRI exposure. Concerns about increased risk for organ malformation have been set aside. An extraordinary number of studies across a broad range of patients around the globe looked at the issue of risk for organ malformation following in utero SSRI exposure – even looking specifically at risk for cardiac malformations, which had been an earlier concern in the literature – with the evidence supporting absence of increased risk. Also clarified has been, first, the absence of risk of complications such as persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) and, second, a delineation of the prevalence and clinical implications of transient neonatal symptoms such as jitteriness and tachypnea in offspring of women who used antidepressants during pregnancy – so-called “poor neonatal adaptation syndrome.”

However, for so many clinicians and for patients, the missing piece in the risk-benefit equation has been the issue of long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in children whose mothers used antidepressants during pregnancy. While the accumulated data have shown sparse evidence linking SSRI exposure with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the evidence has been mixed regarding neurobehavioral sequelae associated with fetal exposure using developmental outcomes such as language ability, cognition, academic performance, language, math, and other cognitive outcomes. As far back as the 1990s, colleagues in Canada failed to show a difference in neurobehavioral outcomes in 5- to 7-year-old children whose mothers used SSRIs or older tricyclic antidepressants during pregnancy compared to nonexposed women (N Engl J Med. 1997 Jan 23;336[4]:258-62). Even early on, it was noted that one of the strongest predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome was untreated maternal psychiatric illness.

Since those early studies and over the last decade, there have been numerous small studies with conflicting data regarding a whole host of neurodevelopmental outcomes with inconsistent methodologies, different assessments, and failure to control for the presence or absence of maternal psychiatric illness during pregnancy – one of the most critical predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome and one we are beginning to appreciate plays a very significant role.

Most recently, the authors of a very large population-based retrospective cohort study in Denmark linked population-based registries with obstetrical data and examined language and math performance among 575,369 public schoolchildren whose mothers used or didn’t use antidepressants during pregnancy (JAMA. 2021 Nov 2;326[17]:1725-35). These investigators found a decrease in mean test scores for language (53.4 vs. 56.6) and math (52.1 vs. 57.4) in children whose mothers received antidepressant prescriptions during pregnancy compared with children who did not have that exposure. However, when they adjusted for maternal psychiatric illness and other relevant confounders, the finding went to null for language (adjusted difference, –0.1; 95% confidence interval, –0.6 to 0.3), but did not for math (adjusted difference, −2.2; 95% CI, −2.7 to −1.6). The results ultimately showed a modest finding for exposure and a small decrement in mathematical performance. The takeaway is that antidepressant use may be a proxy for neurodevelopmental deficit but is unlikely to be the etiology or direct cause of that deficit.

With that said, patients and their doctors can be reassured with respect to how much we have learned about SSRIs during pregnancy across the last decade. Yet there are appropriate concerns about long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in this patient population. I think that what we can say in 2022 is that there is a growing appreciation for the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on long-term outcomes in children and the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on risk for postpartum depression, which we know influences long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in children. Perhaps more than in years past, there is now also an appreciation of the effect of a dysregulated stress axis on the intrauterine fetal neuronal programming, which is perhaps the newest frontier, and which may hold the answers with respect to how to weigh the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on decisions about psychotropic use during pregnancy. But for today, there is an appreciation that exposure to maternal psychopathology is not a benign exposure.

Although some of the data remain incomplete, in 2022, patients will continue to make individual decisions based on the available data, factoring in the effect of maternal adversity in a more deliberate way and with a refined lens through with which to see their options with respect to using or not using SSRIs during pregnancy.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

I don’t have a patient portal. Probably never will.

This isn’t an attempt at “information blocking,” or intentional noncompliance, or a rebellious streak against the CURES act.

It’s practical: I can’t afford it.

I’m a small one-doc practice. My overhead is high, my profit margin is razor thin. In the sudden spike of COVID-19– and war-related inflation, my gas and office supply costs have gone up, but I’m in a field where I can’t raise my own prices to compensate. The restaurants and grocery stores near me can, but I can’t because of the way insurance works.

With that background, I don’t have the money to set up a patient portal for people to be able to get their notes, test results, anything.

This isn’t to say that I withhold things from patients. If they want a copy of my note, or their MRI report, or whatever, they’re welcome to it. I’m happy to fax it to them, or put it in the mail, or have them come by and pick it up.

I have no desire to keep information from patients. I actually try to stay on top of it, calling them with test results within 24 hours of receiving them and arranging follow-ups quickly when needed.

That’s one of the pluses of my dinky practice – I generally know my patients and can make decisions quickly on the next step once results come in. They don’t get tossed in a box to be reviewed in a few days. I take pride in staying on top of things – isn’t that how we all want to be treated when we’re on the other side of the desk?

Politicians like to say how much America depends on small businesses and how important we are to the economy. They love to do photo ops at a newly opened ice cream place or small barbecue joint. But if you’re a doctor in a small practice, you often get treated the same way the Mega-Med Group (“287 doctors! 19 specialties! 37 offices! No waiting!”) is treated. They can afford to have a digital portal, so why can’t you?

Just because I don’t have a patient portal, though, doesn’t mean I’m hiding things from patients.

Or not doing my best to care for them.

Like Avis, I may not be No. 1, but I sure try harder.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I don’t have a patient portal. Probably never will.

This isn’t an attempt at “information blocking,” or intentional noncompliance, or a rebellious streak against the CURES act.

It’s practical: I can’t afford it.

I’m a small one-doc practice. My overhead is high, my profit margin is razor thin. In the sudden spike of COVID-19– and war-related inflation, my gas and office supply costs have gone up, but I’m in a field where I can’t raise my own prices to compensate. The restaurants and grocery stores near me can, but I can’t because of the way insurance works.

With that background, I don’t have the money to set up a patient portal for people to be able to get their notes, test results, anything.

This isn’t to say that I withhold things from patients. If they want a copy of my note, or their MRI report, or whatever, they’re welcome to it. I’m happy to fax it to them, or put it in the mail, or have them come by and pick it up.

I have no desire to keep information from patients. I actually try to stay on top of it, calling them with test results within 24 hours of receiving them and arranging follow-ups quickly when needed.

That’s one of the pluses of my dinky practice – I generally know my patients and can make decisions quickly on the next step once results come in. They don’t get tossed in a box to be reviewed in a few days. I take pride in staying on top of things – isn’t that how we all want to be treated when we’re on the other side of the desk?

Politicians like to say how much America depends on small businesses and how important we are to the economy. They love to do photo ops at a newly opened ice cream place or small barbecue joint. But if you’re a doctor in a small practice, you often get treated the same way the Mega-Med Group (“287 doctors! 19 specialties! 37 offices! No waiting!”) is treated. They can afford to have a digital portal, so why can’t you?

Just because I don’t have a patient portal, though, doesn’t mean I’m hiding things from patients.

Or not doing my best to care for them.

Like Avis, I may not be No. 1, but I sure try harder.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I don’t have a patient portal. Probably never will.

This isn’t an attempt at “information blocking,” or intentional noncompliance, or a rebellious streak against the CURES act.

It’s practical: I can’t afford it.

I’m a small one-doc practice. My overhead is high, my profit margin is razor thin. In the sudden spike of COVID-19– and war-related inflation, my gas and office supply costs have gone up, but I’m in a field where I can’t raise my own prices to compensate. The restaurants and grocery stores near me can, but I can’t because of the way insurance works.

With that background, I don’t have the money to set up a patient portal for people to be able to get their notes, test results, anything.

This isn’t to say that I withhold things from patients. If they want a copy of my note, or their MRI report, or whatever, they’re welcome to it. I’m happy to fax it to them, or put it in the mail, or have them come by and pick it up.

I have no desire to keep information from patients. I actually try to stay on top of it, calling them with test results within 24 hours of receiving them and arranging follow-ups quickly when needed.

That’s one of the pluses of my dinky practice – I generally know my patients and can make decisions quickly on the next step once results come in. They don’t get tossed in a box to be reviewed in a few days. I take pride in staying on top of things – isn’t that how we all want to be treated when we’re on the other side of the desk?

Politicians like to say how much America depends on small businesses and how important we are to the economy. They love to do photo ops at a newly opened ice cream place or small barbecue joint. But if you’re a doctor in a small practice, you often get treated the same way the Mega-Med Group (“287 doctors! 19 specialties! 37 offices! No waiting!”) is treated. They can afford to have a digital portal, so why can’t you?

Just because I don’t have a patient portal, though, doesn’t mean I’m hiding things from patients.

Or not doing my best to care for them.

Like Avis, I may not be No. 1, but I sure try harder.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.