William G. Wilkoff, MD

How much did you get per tooth from the Tooth Fairy? How much do your children or grandchildren receive each time they lose a baby tooth? In my family the Tooth Fairy seems to be more than keeping with inflation. Has she ever been caught in the act of swapping cash for enamel in your home? Has she every slipped up one night but managed to resurrect her credibility the following night by doubling the reward? And, by the way, what does the Tooth Fairy do with all those teeth, and who’s funding her nocturnal switcheroos?

A recent study from the Center for Genomic Medicine at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston may provide an answer to at least one of those questions. It turns out some researchers have been collecting baby teeth in hopes of assessing prenatal and perinatal stress in infants.

Not surprisingly, teeth are like trees, preserving a history of the environment in their growth rings. The Boston researchers hypothesized that the thickness of one particular growth line referred to as the neonatal line (NNL) might reflect prenatal and immediate postnatal environmental stress. Using data and naturally shed teeth collected in an English longitudinal study, the authors discovered that the teeth of children whose mothers had a long history of severe depression or other psychiatric problems and children of mothers who at 32 weeks’ gestation experienced anxiety and/or depression were more likely to have thicker NNLs. On the other hand, the teeth of children whose mothers had received “significant social support” in the immediate postnatal period exhibited thinner NNLs.

Based on anecdotal observations, I think most of us already suspected that the children whose mothers had significant psychiatric illness began life with a challenge, but it is nice to know that we may now have a tool to document one small bit of evidence of the structural damage that occurred during this period of stress. Of course, the prior owners of these baby teeth won’t benefit from the findings in this study; however, the evidence that social support during the critical perinatal period can ameliorate the damage might stimulate more robust prenatal programs for mother and infants at risk in the future.

It will be interesting to see if this investigative tool becomes more widely used to determine the degree to which a variety of potential perinatal stressors are manifesting themselves in structural change in newborns. For example, collecting baby teeth from neonatal ICU graduates may answer some questions about how certain environmental conditions such as sound, vibration, bright light, and temperature may result in long-term damage to the infants. Most of us suspect that skin-to-skin contact with mother and kangaroo care are beneficial. A study that includes a survey of NNLs might go a long way toward supporting our suspicions.

I can even imagine that a deep retrospective study of NNLs in baby teeth collected over the last 100 years might demonstrate the effect of phenomena such as wars, natural disasters, forced migration, and pandemics, to name a few.

It may be time to put out a nationwide call to all Tooth Fairies both active and retired to dig deep in their top bureau drawers. Those little bits of long-forgotten enamel may hold the answers to a plethora of unanswered questions about those critical months surrounding the birth of a child.

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

How much did you get per tooth from the Tooth Fairy? How much do your children or grandchildren receive each time they lose a baby tooth? In my family the Tooth Fairy seems to be more than keeping with inflation. Has she ever been caught in the act of swapping cash for enamel in your home? Has she every slipped up one night but managed to resurrect her credibility the following night by doubling the reward? And, by the way, what does the Tooth Fairy do with all those teeth, and who’s funding her nocturnal switcheroos?

A recent study from the Center for Genomic Medicine at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston may provide an answer to at least one of those questions. It turns out some researchers have been collecting baby teeth in hopes of assessing prenatal and perinatal stress in infants.

Not surprisingly, teeth are like trees, preserving a history of the environment in their growth rings. The Boston researchers hypothesized that the thickness of one particular growth line referred to as the neonatal line (NNL) might reflect prenatal and immediate postnatal environmental stress. Using data and naturally shed teeth collected in an English longitudinal study, the authors discovered that the teeth of children whose mothers had a long history of severe depression or other psychiatric problems and children of mothers who at 32 weeks’ gestation experienced anxiety and/or depression were more likely to have thicker NNLs. On the other hand, the teeth of children whose mothers had received “significant social support” in the immediate postnatal period exhibited thinner NNLs.

Based on anecdotal observations, I think most of us already suspected that the children whose mothers had significant psychiatric illness began life with a challenge, but it is nice to know that we may now have a tool to document one small bit of evidence of the structural damage that occurred during this period of stress. Of course, the prior owners of these baby teeth won’t benefit from the findings in this study; however, the evidence that social support during the critical perinatal period can ameliorate the damage might stimulate more robust prenatal programs for mother and infants at risk in the future.

It will be interesting to see if this investigative tool becomes more widely used to determine the degree to which a variety of potential perinatal stressors are manifesting themselves in structural change in newborns. For example, collecting baby teeth from neonatal ICU graduates may answer some questions about how certain environmental conditions such as sound, vibration, bright light, and temperature may result in long-term damage to the infants. Most of us suspect that skin-to-skin contact with mother and kangaroo care are beneficial. A study that includes a survey of NNLs might go a long way toward supporting our suspicions.

I can even imagine that a deep retrospective study of NNLs in baby teeth collected over the last 100 years might demonstrate the effect of phenomena such as wars, natural disasters, forced migration, and pandemics, to name a few.

It may be time to put out a nationwide call to all Tooth Fairies both active and retired to dig deep in their top bureau drawers. Those little bits of long-forgotten enamel may hold the answers to a plethora of unanswered questions about those critical months surrounding the birth of a child.

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

How much did you get per tooth from the Tooth Fairy? How much do your children or grandchildren receive each time they lose a baby tooth? In my family the Tooth Fairy seems to be more than keeping with inflation. Has she ever been caught in the act of swapping cash for enamel in your home? Has she every slipped up one night but managed to resurrect her credibility the following night by doubling the reward? And, by the way, what does the Tooth Fairy do with all those teeth, and who’s funding her nocturnal switcheroos?

A recent study from the Center for Genomic Medicine at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston may provide an answer to at least one of those questions. It turns out some researchers have been collecting baby teeth in hopes of assessing prenatal and perinatal stress in infants.

Not surprisingly, teeth are like trees, preserving a history of the environment in their growth rings. The Boston researchers hypothesized that the thickness of one particular growth line referred to as the neonatal line (NNL) might reflect prenatal and immediate postnatal environmental stress. Using data and naturally shed teeth collected in an English longitudinal study, the authors discovered that the teeth of children whose mothers had a long history of severe depression or other psychiatric problems and children of mothers who at 32 weeks’ gestation experienced anxiety and/or depression were more likely to have thicker NNLs. On the other hand, the teeth of children whose mothers had received “significant social support” in the immediate postnatal period exhibited thinner NNLs.

Based on anecdotal observations, I think most of us already suspected that the children whose mothers had significant psychiatric illness began life with a challenge, but it is nice to know that we may now have a tool to document one small bit of evidence of the structural damage that occurred during this period of stress. Of course, the prior owners of these baby teeth won’t benefit from the findings in this study; however, the evidence that social support during the critical perinatal period can ameliorate the damage might stimulate more robust prenatal programs for mother and infants at risk in the future.

It will be interesting to see if this investigative tool becomes more widely used to determine the degree to which a variety of potential perinatal stressors are manifesting themselves in structural change in newborns. For example, collecting baby teeth from neonatal ICU graduates may answer some questions about how certain environmental conditions such as sound, vibration, bright light, and temperature may result in long-term damage to the infants. Most of us suspect that skin-to-skin contact with mother and kangaroo care are beneficial. A study that includes a survey of NNLs might go a long way toward supporting our suspicions.

I can even imagine that a deep retrospective study of NNLs in baby teeth collected over the last 100 years might demonstrate the effect of phenomena such as wars, natural disasters, forced migration, and pandemics, to name a few.

It may be time to put out a nationwide call to all Tooth Fairies both active and retired to dig deep in their top bureau drawers. Those little bits of long-forgotten enamel may hold the answers to a plethora of unanswered questions about those critical months surrounding the birth of a child.

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

My 50th medical school reunion has come and gone. This milestone offered me another opportunity to look back over the last 5 decades of pediatrics that I have watched pass under the bridge. Triggered by the discovery of two recently published studies, this particular view back over my shoulder induced a wave of sadness, anger, and frustration that I have had trouble shaking.

The first study demonstrated a strong positive effect of exercise on academic achievement, the other found that children who were more physically active have weathered the pandemic with fewer mental health problems.

These studies are just two pieces of a growing body of evidence that our sedentary lifestyles are shortening our lives and launching our children into adulthood burdened with a raft of health risks they could possibly have avoided by being more physically active. Encountering these two papers just as the alumni office was inviting me to engage in an orgy of retrospection and introspection made me consider how little I and others in my profession have done to substantially address this scourge on our young people.

Yes, I have tried to encourage my patients to be less sedentary and more active. Yes, I have tried to set a very visible example by bicycling and walking around town. Yes, I have coached youth sports teams. All of my children and grandchildren are leading active lives and appear to be reaping the benefits. But in the grander scheme of things I feel that neither I nor the American Academy of Pediatrics has made a difference.

In March of 2020 the AAP published a clinical report that lists the numerous positive associations between activity and health that includes a comprehensive collection of suggestions for providers on how we might assess the problem of inactivity and then play a role in addressing it with our patients and our communities. Unfortunately, the message’s importance was lost in the glut of pandemic news.

While the AAP’s report should have been published many decades ago, I doubt the delay lessened its impact significantly because the report is primarily a compendium of recommendations that in the long run will be seen as just another example of us believers preaching to the choir.

Making lifestyle changes on the order of magnitude necessary to convert an increasingly sedentary population into one that unconsciously becomes physically active requires more than recommendations. It is only natural that folks have trouble saying “No.”

No to the entertainment of electronic devices. No to the comforts of all-weather enclosed transportation. No to hours on the couch. Overcoming the inertia built into our society is going to require more than encouragement, recommendations, and professional sports–sponsored presidential initiatives.

Mandate has become a politically charged dirty word. But our current experience with the COVID-19 vaccines should help us realize that there is a significant segment of the population that doesn’t like being told what to do even if the outcome is in their best interest. Education and rewards have fallen short, but the evidence is mounting that mandates can work.

There was a time when physical activity was built into every child’s school day. For a variety of bad reasons, vigorous physical education classes and once- or twice-daily outdoor recesses have disappeared from the educational landscape. It is time to return to them in a robust form. Unfortunately, because activity isn’t happening at home it will take a government mandate.

There will be pushback. Even from some educators whose observations should have shown them the critical role of physical activity in health and academic success. We must move the distraction of the phenomenon once known simply as hyperactivity to the back burner and tackle the real epidemic of hypoactivity that is destroying our children.
 

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

My 50th medical school reunion has come and gone. This milestone offered me another opportunity to look back over the last 5 decades of pediatrics that I have watched pass under the bridge. Triggered by the discovery of two recently published studies, this particular view back over my shoulder induced a wave of sadness, anger, and frustration that I have had trouble shaking.

The first study demonstrated a strong positive effect of exercise on academic achievement, the other found that children who were more physically active have weathered the pandemic with fewer mental health problems.

These studies are just two pieces of a growing body of evidence that our sedentary lifestyles are shortening our lives and launching our children into adulthood burdened with a raft of health risks they could possibly have avoided by being more physically active. Encountering these two papers just as the alumni office was inviting me to engage in an orgy of retrospection and introspection made me consider how little I and others in my profession have done to substantially address this scourge on our young people.

Yes, I have tried to encourage my patients to be less sedentary and more active. Yes, I have tried to set a very visible example by bicycling and walking around town. Yes, I have coached youth sports teams. All of my children and grandchildren are leading active lives and appear to be reaping the benefits. But in the grander scheme of things I feel that neither I nor the American Academy of Pediatrics has made a difference.

In March of 2020 the AAP published a clinical report that lists the numerous positive associations between activity and health that includes a comprehensive collection of suggestions for providers on how we might assess the problem of inactivity and then play a role in addressing it with our patients and our communities. Unfortunately, the message’s importance was lost in the glut of pandemic news.

While the AAP’s report should have been published many decades ago, I doubt the delay lessened its impact significantly because the report is primarily a compendium of recommendations that in the long run will be seen as just another example of us believers preaching to the choir.

Making lifestyle changes on the order of magnitude necessary to convert an increasingly sedentary population into one that unconsciously becomes physically active requires more than recommendations. It is only natural that folks have trouble saying “No.”

No to the entertainment of electronic devices. No to the comforts of all-weather enclosed transportation. No to hours on the couch. Overcoming the inertia built into our society is going to require more than encouragement, recommendations, and professional sports–sponsored presidential initiatives.

Mandate has become a politically charged dirty word. But our current experience with the COVID-19 vaccines should help us realize that there is a significant segment of the population that doesn’t like being told what to do even if the outcome is in their best interest. Education and rewards have fallen short, but the evidence is mounting that mandates can work.

There was a time when physical activity was built into every child’s school day. For a variety of bad reasons, vigorous physical education classes and once- or twice-daily outdoor recesses have disappeared from the educational landscape. It is time to return to them in a robust form. Unfortunately, because activity isn’t happening at home it will take a government mandate.

There will be pushback. Even from some educators whose observations should have shown them the critical role of physical activity in health and academic success. We must move the distraction of the phenomenon once known simply as hyperactivity to the back burner and tackle the real epidemic of hypoactivity that is destroying our children.
 

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

My 50th medical school reunion has come and gone. This milestone offered me another opportunity to look back over the last 5 decades of pediatrics that I have watched pass under the bridge. Triggered by the discovery of two recently published studies, this particular view back over my shoulder induced a wave of sadness, anger, and frustration that I have had trouble shaking.

The first study demonstrated a strong positive effect of exercise on academic achievement, the other found that children who were more physically active have weathered the pandemic with fewer mental health problems.

These studies are just two pieces of a growing body of evidence that our sedentary lifestyles are shortening our lives and launching our children into adulthood burdened with a raft of health risks they could possibly have avoided by being more physically active. Encountering these two papers just as the alumni office was inviting me to engage in an orgy of retrospection and introspection made me consider how little I and others in my profession have done to substantially address this scourge on our young people.

Yes, I have tried to encourage my patients to be less sedentary and more active. Yes, I have tried to set a very visible example by bicycling and walking around town. Yes, I have coached youth sports teams. All of my children and grandchildren are leading active lives and appear to be reaping the benefits. But in the grander scheme of things I feel that neither I nor the American Academy of Pediatrics has made a difference.

In March of 2020 the AAP published a clinical report that lists the numerous positive associations between activity and health that includes a comprehensive collection of suggestions for providers on how we might assess the problem of inactivity and then play a role in addressing it with our patients and our communities. Unfortunately, the message’s importance was lost in the glut of pandemic news.

While the AAP’s report should have been published many decades ago, I doubt the delay lessened its impact significantly because the report is primarily a compendium of recommendations that in the long run will be seen as just another example of us believers preaching to the choir.

Making lifestyle changes on the order of magnitude necessary to convert an increasingly sedentary population into one that unconsciously becomes physically active requires more than recommendations. It is only natural that folks have trouble saying “No.”

No to the entertainment of electronic devices. No to the comforts of all-weather enclosed transportation. No to hours on the couch. Overcoming the inertia built into our society is going to require more than encouragement, recommendations, and professional sports–sponsored presidential initiatives.

Mandate has become a politically charged dirty word. But our current experience with the COVID-19 vaccines should help us realize that there is a significant segment of the population that doesn’t like being told what to do even if the outcome is in their best interest. Education and rewards have fallen short, but the evidence is mounting that mandates can work.

There was a time when physical activity was built into every child’s school day. For a variety of bad reasons, vigorous physical education classes and once- or twice-daily outdoor recesses have disappeared from the educational landscape. It is time to return to them in a robust form. Unfortunately, because activity isn’t happening at home it will take a government mandate.

There will be pushback. Even from some educators whose observations should have shown them the critical role of physical activity in health and academic success. We must move the distraction of the phenomenon once known simply as hyperactivity to the back burner and tackle the real epidemic of hypoactivity that is destroying our children.
 

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

The first patient of the afternoon is a 4-month-old in for his health maintenance visit. You’ve known his 20-year-old mother since she was a toddler. This infant has a 2-year-old sister. Also in the exam room is a young man you don’t recognize whom the mother introduces as Jason, her new boyfriend. He never makes eye contact and despite your best efforts you can’t get him to engage.

At the child’s next visit you are relieved to see the 6-month-old is alive and well and learn that your former patient and her two children have moved back in with her parents and Jason is no longer in the picture.

You don’t have to have been doing pediatrics very long to have learned that a “family” that includes an infant and a young adult male who is probably not the father is an environment in which the infant’s health and well-being is at significant risk. It is a situation in which child abuse even to the point of infanticide should be waving a red flag in your face.

Infanticide occurs in many animal species including our own. As abhorrent we may find the act, it occurs often enough to be, if not normal, at least not unexpected in certain circumstances. Theories abound as to what advantage the act of infanticide might convey to the success of a species. However, little if anything is known about any possible mechanisms that would allow it to occur.

Recently, a professor of molecular and cellular biology at Harvard University discovered a specific set of neurons in the mouse brain that controls aggressive behavior toward infants (Biological triggers for infant abuse, by Juan Siliezar, The Harvard Gazette, Sept 27, 2021). This same set of neurons also appears to trigger avoidance and neglect behaviors as well.

Research in other animal species has found that these antiparental behaviors occur in both virgins and sexually mature males who are strangers to the group. Interestingly, the behaviors switch off once individuals have their own offspring or have had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with infants. Not surprisingly, other studies have found that in some species environmental stress such as food shortage or threats of predation have triggered females to attack or ignore their offspring.

I think it is safe to assume a similar collection of neurons controlling aggressive behavior also exists in humans. One can imagine some well-read defense attorney dredging up this study and claiming that because his client had not yet fathered a child of his own that it was his nervous system’s normal response that made him toss his girlfriend’s baby against the wall.

The lead author of the study intends to study this collection of neurons in more depth to discover more about the process. It is conceivable that with more information her initial findings may help in the development of treatment and specific prevention strategies. Until that happens, we must rely on our intuition and keep our antennae tuned and alert for high-risk scenarios like the one I described at the opening of this letter.

We are left with leaning heavily on our community social work networks to keep close tabs on these high-risk families, offering both financial and emotional support. Parenting classes may be helpful, but some of this research leads me to suspect that immersing these young parents-to-be in hands-on child care situations might provide the best protection we can offer.
 

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

The first patient of the afternoon is a 4-month-old in for his health maintenance visit. You’ve known his 20-year-old mother since she was a toddler. This infant has a 2-year-old sister. Also in the exam room is a young man you don’t recognize whom the mother introduces as Jason, her new boyfriend. He never makes eye contact and despite your best efforts you can’t get him to engage.

At the child’s next visit you are relieved to see the 6-month-old is alive and well and learn that your former patient and her two children have moved back in with her parents and Jason is no longer in the picture.

You don’t have to have been doing pediatrics very long to have learned that a “family” that includes an infant and a young adult male who is probably not the father is an environment in which the infant’s health and well-being is at significant risk. It is a situation in which child abuse even to the point of infanticide should be waving a red flag in your face.

Infanticide occurs in many animal species including our own. As abhorrent we may find the act, it occurs often enough to be, if not normal, at least not unexpected in certain circumstances. Theories abound as to what advantage the act of infanticide might convey to the success of a species. However, little if anything is known about any possible mechanisms that would allow it to occur.

Recently, a professor of molecular and cellular biology at Harvard University discovered a specific set of neurons in the mouse brain that controls aggressive behavior toward infants (Biological triggers for infant abuse, by Juan Siliezar, The Harvard Gazette, Sept 27, 2021). This same set of neurons also appears to trigger avoidance and neglect behaviors as well.

Research in other animal species has found that these antiparental behaviors occur in both virgins and sexually mature males who are strangers to the group. Interestingly, the behaviors switch off once individuals have their own offspring or have had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with infants. Not surprisingly, other studies have found that in some species environmental stress such as food shortage or threats of predation have triggered females to attack or ignore their offspring.

I think it is safe to assume a similar collection of neurons controlling aggressive behavior also exists in humans. One can imagine some well-read defense attorney dredging up this study and claiming that because his client had not yet fathered a child of his own that it was his nervous system’s normal response that made him toss his girlfriend’s baby against the wall.

The lead author of the study intends to study this collection of neurons in more depth to discover more about the process. It is conceivable that with more information her initial findings may help in the development of treatment and specific prevention strategies. Until that happens, we must rely on our intuition and keep our antennae tuned and alert for high-risk scenarios like the one I described at the opening of this letter.

We are left with leaning heavily on our community social work networks to keep close tabs on these high-risk families, offering both financial and emotional support. Parenting classes may be helpful, but some of this research leads me to suspect that immersing these young parents-to-be in hands-on child care situations might provide the best protection we can offer.
 

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

The first patient of the afternoon is a 4-month-old in for his health maintenance visit. You’ve known his 20-year-old mother since she was a toddler. This infant has a 2-year-old sister. Also in the exam room is a young man you don’t recognize whom the mother introduces as Jason, her new boyfriend. He never makes eye contact and despite your best efforts you can’t get him to engage.

At the child’s next visit you are relieved to see the 6-month-old is alive and well and learn that your former patient and her two children have moved back in with her parents and Jason is no longer in the picture.

You don’t have to have been doing pediatrics very long to have learned that a “family” that includes an infant and a young adult male who is probably not the father is an environment in which the infant’s health and well-being is at significant risk. It is a situation in which child abuse even to the point of infanticide should be waving a red flag in your face.

Infanticide occurs in many animal species including our own. As abhorrent we may find the act, it occurs often enough to be, if not normal, at least not unexpected in certain circumstances. Theories abound as to what advantage the act of infanticide might convey to the success of a species. However, little if anything is known about any possible mechanisms that would allow it to occur.

Recently, a professor of molecular and cellular biology at Harvard University discovered a specific set of neurons in the mouse brain that controls aggressive behavior toward infants (Biological triggers for infant abuse, by Juan Siliezar, The Harvard Gazette, Sept 27, 2021). This same set of neurons also appears to trigger avoidance and neglect behaviors as well.

Research in other animal species has found that these antiparental behaviors occur in both virgins and sexually mature males who are strangers to the group. Interestingly, the behaviors switch off once individuals have their own offspring or have had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with infants. Not surprisingly, other studies have found that in some species environmental stress such as food shortage or threats of predation have triggered females to attack or ignore their offspring.

I think it is safe to assume a similar collection of neurons controlling aggressive behavior also exists in humans. One can imagine some well-read defense attorney dredging up this study and claiming that because his client had not yet fathered a child of his own that it was his nervous system’s normal response that made him toss his girlfriend’s baby against the wall.

The lead author of the study intends to study this collection of neurons in more depth to discover more about the process. It is conceivable that with more information her initial findings may help in the development of treatment and specific prevention strategies. Until that happens, we must rely on our intuition and keep our antennae tuned and alert for high-risk scenarios like the one I described at the opening of this letter.

We are left with leaning heavily on our community social work networks to keep close tabs on these high-risk families, offering both financial and emotional support. Parenting classes may be helpful, but some of this research leads me to suspect that immersing these young parents-to-be in hands-on child care situations might provide the best protection we can offer.
 

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

In August I shared with you my observations on two opposing op-ed pieces from two major newspapers, one was in favor of masking mandates for public schools, the other against. (Masking in school: A battle of the op-eds. MDedge Pediatrics. Letters from Maine, 2021 Aug 12). Neither group of authors could offer us evidence from controlled studies to support their views. However, both agreed that returning children to school deserves a high priority. But neither the authors nor I treaded into the uncharted waters of exactly how masking fits into our national goals for managing the pandemic because ... no one in this country has articulated what these goals should be. A third op-ed appearing 3 weeks later suggests why we are floundering in this goal-deficient limbo.

Writing in the New York Times, two epidemiologists in Boston ask the simple question: “What are we actually trying to achieve in the United States?” when it comes to the pandemic. (Allen AG and Jenkins H. The Hard Covid-19 Questions We’re Not Asking. 2021 Aug 30). Is our goal zero infections? Is it hammering on the virus until we can treat it like the seasonal flu? We do seem to agree that not having kids in school has been a disaster economically, educationally, and psychologically. But, where does the goal of getting them back in school fit into a larger and as yet undefined national goal? Without that target we have little idea of what compromises and risks we should be willing to accept.

How much serious pediatric disease is acceptable? It appears that the number of fatal complications in the pediatric population is very small in comparison with other demographic groups. Although few in number, there have been and there will continue to be pediatric deaths because of COVID. Is our goal zero pediatric deaths? If it is then this dictates a level of response that ripples back upstream to every child in every classroom and could threaten our overarching goal of returning children to school. Because none of us likes the thought of a child dying, some of us may be hesitant to even consider a strategy that doesn’t include zero pediatric deaths as a goal.

Are we looking to have zero serious pediatric infections? Achieving this goal is unlikely. Even if we develop a pediatric vaccine in the near future it probably won’t be in the arms of enough children by the end of this school year to make a significant dent in the number of serious pediatric infections. Waiting until an optimal number of children are immunized doesn’t feel like it will achieve a primary goal of getting kids back in school if we continue to focus on driving the level of serious pediatric infections to zero. We have already endured a year in which many communities made decisions that seemed to have prioritized an unstated goal of no school exposure–related educator deaths. Again, a goal based on little if any evidence.

The problem we face in this country is that our response to the pandemic has been nonuniform. Here in Brunswick, Maine, 99% of the eligible adults have been vaccinated. Even with the recent surge, we may be ready for a strategy that avoids wholesale quarantining. A targeted and robust antibody testing system might work for us and make an unproven and unpopular masking mandate unnecessary. Britain seems to be moving in a similar direction to meet its goal of keeping children in school.

However, there are large population groups in regions of this country that have stumbled at taking the initial steps to get the pandemic under control. Articulating a national goal that covers both communities where the response to the pandemic has been less thoughtful and robust along with states that have been more successful is going to be difficult. But it must be done.

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

In August I shared with you my observations on two opposing op-ed pieces from two major newspapers, one was in favor of masking mandates for public schools, the other against. (Masking in school: A battle of the op-eds. MDedge Pediatrics. Letters from Maine, 2021 Aug 12). Neither group of authors could offer us evidence from controlled studies to support their views. However, both agreed that returning children to school deserves a high priority. But neither the authors nor I treaded into the uncharted waters of exactly how masking fits into our national goals for managing the pandemic because ... no one in this country has articulated what these goals should be. A third op-ed appearing 3 weeks later suggests why we are floundering in this goal-deficient limbo.

Writing in the New York Times, two epidemiologists in Boston ask the simple question: “What are we actually trying to achieve in the United States?” when it comes to the pandemic. (Allen AG and Jenkins H. The Hard Covid-19 Questions We’re Not Asking. 2021 Aug 30). Is our goal zero infections? Is it hammering on the virus until we can treat it like the seasonal flu? We do seem to agree that not having kids in school has been a disaster economically, educationally, and psychologically. But, where does the goal of getting them back in school fit into a larger and as yet undefined national goal? Without that target we have little idea of what compromises and risks we should be willing to accept.

How much serious pediatric disease is acceptable? It appears that the number of fatal complications in the pediatric population is very small in comparison with other demographic groups. Although few in number, there have been and there will continue to be pediatric deaths because of COVID. Is our goal zero pediatric deaths? If it is then this dictates a level of response that ripples back upstream to every child in every classroom and could threaten our overarching goal of returning children to school. Because none of us likes the thought of a child dying, some of us may be hesitant to even consider a strategy that doesn’t include zero pediatric deaths as a goal.

Are we looking to have zero serious pediatric infections? Achieving this goal is unlikely. Even if we develop a pediatric vaccine in the near future it probably won’t be in the arms of enough children by the end of this school year to make a significant dent in the number of serious pediatric infections. Waiting until an optimal number of children are immunized doesn’t feel like it will achieve a primary goal of getting kids back in school if we continue to focus on driving the level of serious pediatric infections to zero. We have already endured a year in which many communities made decisions that seemed to have prioritized an unstated goal of no school exposure–related educator deaths. Again, a goal based on little if any evidence.

The problem we face in this country is that our response to the pandemic has been nonuniform. Here in Brunswick, Maine, 99% of the eligible adults have been vaccinated. Even with the recent surge, we may be ready for a strategy that avoids wholesale quarantining. A targeted and robust antibody testing system might work for us and make an unproven and unpopular masking mandate unnecessary. Britain seems to be moving in a similar direction to meet its goal of keeping children in school.

However, there are large population groups in regions of this country that have stumbled at taking the initial steps to get the pandemic under control. Articulating a national goal that covers both communities where the response to the pandemic has been less thoughtful and robust along with states that have been more successful is going to be difficult. But it must be done.

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

In August I shared with you my observations on two opposing op-ed pieces from two major newspapers, one was in favor of masking mandates for public schools, the other against. (Masking in school: A battle of the op-eds. MDedge Pediatrics. Letters from Maine, 2021 Aug 12). Neither group of authors could offer us evidence from controlled studies to support their views. However, both agreed that returning children to school deserves a high priority. But neither the authors nor I treaded into the uncharted waters of exactly how masking fits into our national goals for managing the pandemic because ... no one in this country has articulated what these goals should be. A third op-ed appearing 3 weeks later suggests why we are floundering in this goal-deficient limbo.

Writing in the New York Times, two epidemiologists in Boston ask the simple question: “What are we actually trying to achieve in the United States?” when it comes to the pandemic. (Allen AG and Jenkins H. The Hard Covid-19 Questions We’re Not Asking. 2021 Aug 30). Is our goal zero infections? Is it hammering on the virus until we can treat it like the seasonal flu? We do seem to agree that not having kids in school has been a disaster economically, educationally, and psychologically. But, where does the goal of getting them back in school fit into a larger and as yet undefined national goal? Without that target we have little idea of what compromises and risks we should be willing to accept.

How much serious pediatric disease is acceptable? It appears that the number of fatal complications in the pediatric population is very small in comparison with other demographic groups. Although few in number, there have been and there will continue to be pediatric deaths because of COVID. Is our goal zero pediatric deaths? If it is then this dictates a level of response that ripples back upstream to every child in every classroom and could threaten our overarching goal of returning children to school. Because none of us likes the thought of a child dying, some of us may be hesitant to even consider a strategy that doesn’t include zero pediatric deaths as a goal.

Are we looking to have zero serious pediatric infections? Achieving this goal is unlikely. Even if we develop a pediatric vaccine in the near future it probably won’t be in the arms of enough children by the end of this school year to make a significant dent in the number of serious pediatric infections. Waiting until an optimal number of children are immunized doesn’t feel like it will achieve a primary goal of getting kids back in school if we continue to focus on driving the level of serious pediatric infections to zero. We have already endured a year in which many communities made decisions that seemed to have prioritized an unstated goal of no school exposure–related educator deaths. Again, a goal based on little if any evidence.

The problem we face in this country is that our response to the pandemic has been nonuniform. Here in Brunswick, Maine, 99% of the eligible adults have been vaccinated. Even with the recent surge, we may be ready for a strategy that avoids wholesale quarantining. A targeted and robust antibody testing system might work for us and make an unproven and unpopular masking mandate unnecessary. Britain seems to be moving in a similar direction to meet its goal of keeping children in school.

However, there are large population groups in regions of this country that have stumbled at taking the initial steps to get the pandemic under control. Articulating a national goal that covers both communities where the response to the pandemic has been less thoughtful and robust along with states that have been more successful is going to be difficult. But it must be done.

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

The high school football team here in Brunswick has had winning years and losing years but the school has always fielded a competitive team. It has been state champion on several occasions and has weathered the challenge when soccer became the new and more popular sport shortly after it arrived in town several decades ago. But this year, on the heels of a strong winning season last year, the numbers are down significantly. The school is in jeopardy of not having enough players to field a junior varsity team.

This dearth of student athletes is a problem not just here in Brunswick. Schools across the state of Maine are being forced to shift to an eight man football format. Nor is it unique to football here in vacationland. A recent article in a Hudson Valley, N.Y., newspaper chronicles a broad-based decline in participation in high school sports including field hockey, tennis, and cross country (‘Covid,’ The Journal News, Nancy Haggerty, Sept. 5, 2021). In many situations the school may have enough players to field a varsity team but too few to play a junior varsity schedule. Without a supply of young talent coming up from the junior varsity, the future of any varsity program is on a shaky legs. Some of the coaches are referring to the decline in participation as a “COVID hangover” triggered in part by season disruptions, cancellations, and fluctuating remote learning formats.

I and some other coaches argue that the participation drought predates the pandemic and is the result of a wide range of unfortunate trends. First, is the general malaise and don’t-give-a-damn-about-anything attitude that has settled on the young people of this country, the causes of which are difficult to define. It may be that after years of sitting in front of a video screen, too many children have settled into the role of being spectators and find the energy it takes to participate just isn’t worth the effort.

Another contributor to the decline in participation is the heavy of emphasis on early specialization. Driven in many cases by unrealistic parental dreams, children are shepherded into elite travel teams with seasons that often stretch to lengths that make it difficult if not impossible for a child to participate in other sports. The child who may simply be a late bloomer or whose family can’t afford the time or money to buy into the travel team ethic quickly finds himself losing ground. Without the additional opportunities for skill development, many of the children noon travel teams eventually wonder if it is worth trying to catch up. Ironically, the trend toward early specialization is short-sighted because many college and professional coaches report that their best athletes shunned becoming one-trick ponies and played a variety of sports growing up.

Parental concerns about injury, particularly concussion, probably play a role in the trend of falling participation in sports, even those with minimal risk of head injury. Certainly our new awareness of the long-term effects of multiple concussions is long overdue. However, we as pediatricians must take some of the blame for often emphasizing the injury risk inherent in sports in general while neglecting to highlight the positive benefits of competitive sports such as fitness and team building. Are there situations where our emphasis on preparticipation physicals is acting as a deterrent?

There are exceptions to the general trend of falling participation, lacrosse being the most obvious example. However, as lacrosse becomes more popular across the country there are signs that it is already drifting into the larger and counterproductive elite travel team model. There have always been communities in which an individual coach or parent has created a team culture that is both inclusive and competitive. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Sadly, these exceptional programs are few and far between. I’m not sure where we can start to turn things around so that more children choose to be players rather than observers. But, we pediatricians certainly can play a more positive role in emphasizing the benefits of team play.
 

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

The high school football team here in Brunswick has had winning years and losing years but the school has always fielded a competitive team. It has been state champion on several occasions and has weathered the challenge when soccer became the new and more popular sport shortly after it arrived in town several decades ago. But this year, on the heels of a strong winning season last year, the numbers are down significantly. The school is in jeopardy of not having enough players to field a junior varsity team.

This dearth of student athletes is a problem not just here in Brunswick. Schools across the state of Maine are being forced to shift to an eight man football format. Nor is it unique to football here in vacationland. A recent article in a Hudson Valley, N.Y., newspaper chronicles a broad-based decline in participation in high school sports including field hockey, tennis, and cross country (‘Covid,’ The Journal News, Nancy Haggerty, Sept. 5, 2021). In many situations the school may have enough players to field a varsity team but too few to play a junior varsity schedule. Without a supply of young talent coming up from the junior varsity, the future of any varsity program is on a shaky legs. Some of the coaches are referring to the decline in participation as a “COVID hangover” triggered in part by season disruptions, cancellations, and fluctuating remote learning formats.

I and some other coaches argue that the participation drought predates the pandemic and is the result of a wide range of unfortunate trends. First, is the general malaise and don’t-give-a-damn-about-anything attitude that has settled on the young people of this country, the causes of which are difficult to define. It may be that after years of sitting in front of a video screen, too many children have settled into the role of being spectators and find the energy it takes to participate just isn’t worth the effort.

Another contributor to the decline in participation is the heavy of emphasis on early specialization. Driven in many cases by unrealistic parental dreams, children are shepherded into elite travel teams with seasons that often stretch to lengths that make it difficult if not impossible for a child to participate in other sports. The child who may simply be a late bloomer or whose family can’t afford the time or money to buy into the travel team ethic quickly finds himself losing ground. Without the additional opportunities for skill development, many of the children noon travel teams eventually wonder if it is worth trying to catch up. Ironically, the trend toward early specialization is short-sighted because many college and professional coaches report that their best athletes shunned becoming one-trick ponies and played a variety of sports growing up.

Parental concerns about injury, particularly concussion, probably play a role in the trend of falling participation in sports, even those with minimal risk of head injury. Certainly our new awareness of the long-term effects of multiple concussions is long overdue. However, we as pediatricians must take some of the blame for often emphasizing the injury risk inherent in sports in general while neglecting to highlight the positive benefits of competitive sports such as fitness and team building. Are there situations where our emphasis on preparticipation physicals is acting as a deterrent?

There are exceptions to the general trend of falling participation, lacrosse being the most obvious example. However, as lacrosse becomes more popular across the country there are signs that it is already drifting into the larger and counterproductive elite travel team model. There have always been communities in which an individual coach or parent has created a team culture that is both inclusive and competitive. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Sadly, these exceptional programs are few and far between. I’m not sure where we can start to turn things around so that more children choose to be players rather than observers. But, we pediatricians certainly can play a more positive role in emphasizing the benefits of team play.
 

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

The high school football team here in Brunswick has had winning years and losing years but the school has always fielded a competitive team. It has been state champion on several occasions and has weathered the challenge when soccer became the new and more popular sport shortly after it arrived in town several decades ago. But this year, on the heels of a strong winning season last year, the numbers are down significantly. The school is in jeopardy of not having enough players to field a junior varsity team.

This dearth of student athletes is a problem not just here in Brunswick. Schools across the state of Maine are being forced to shift to an eight man football format. Nor is it unique to football here in vacationland. A recent article in a Hudson Valley, N.Y., newspaper chronicles a broad-based decline in participation in high school sports including field hockey, tennis, and cross country (‘Covid,’ The Journal News, Nancy Haggerty, Sept. 5, 2021). In many situations the school may have enough players to field a varsity team but too few to play a junior varsity schedule. Without a supply of young talent coming up from the junior varsity, the future of any varsity program is on a shaky legs. Some of the coaches are referring to the decline in participation as a “COVID hangover” triggered in part by season disruptions, cancellations, and fluctuating remote learning formats.

I and some other coaches argue that the participation drought predates the pandemic and is the result of a wide range of unfortunate trends. First, is the general malaise and don’t-give-a-damn-about-anything attitude that has settled on the young people of this country, the causes of which are difficult to define. It may be that after years of sitting in front of a video screen, too many children have settled into the role of being spectators and find the energy it takes to participate just isn’t worth the effort.

Another contributor to the decline in participation is the heavy of emphasis on early specialization. Driven in many cases by unrealistic parental dreams, children are shepherded into elite travel teams with seasons that often stretch to lengths that make it difficult if not impossible for a child to participate in other sports. The child who may simply be a late bloomer or whose family can’t afford the time or money to buy into the travel team ethic quickly finds himself losing ground. Without the additional opportunities for skill development, many of the children noon travel teams eventually wonder if it is worth trying to catch up. Ironically, the trend toward early specialization is short-sighted because many college and professional coaches report that their best athletes shunned becoming one-trick ponies and played a variety of sports growing up.

Parental concerns about injury, particularly concussion, probably play a role in the trend of falling participation in sports, even those with minimal risk of head injury. Certainly our new awareness of the long-term effects of multiple concussions is long overdue. However, we as pediatricians must take some of the blame for often emphasizing the injury risk inherent in sports in general while neglecting to highlight the positive benefits of competitive sports such as fitness and team building. Are there situations where our emphasis on preparticipation physicals is acting as a deterrent?

There are exceptions to the general trend of falling participation, lacrosse being the most obvious example. However, as lacrosse becomes more popular across the country there are signs that it is already drifting into the larger and counterproductive elite travel team model. There have always been communities in which an individual coach or parent has created a team culture that is both inclusive and competitive. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Sadly, these exceptional programs are few and far between. I’m not sure where we can start to turn things around so that more children choose to be players rather than observers. But, we pediatricians certainly can play a more positive role in emphasizing the benefits of team play.
 

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

With the number of pediatric infections with SARS-CoV-2 rising it is not surprising that children with persistent symptoms are beginning to accumulate. Who are these pediatric “long haulers” and do they differ from their adult counterparts? The answer is far from clear because the terms “long COVID” and “long hauler” are not well defined. But, I suspect we will find that they will be similar in most respects.

In a recent Guest Essay in the New York Times, two medical school professors attempt to inject some common sense into the long hauler phenomenon. (“The Truth About Long Covid is Complicated. Better Treatment Isn’t,” Adam Gaffney and Zackary Berger, The New York Times, Aug. 18, 2021).

The authors divide the patients with long COVID into three categories. The first includes those who are complaining of persistent cough and fatigue for up to 3 months, a not unexpected course for patients recovering from a significant respiratory illness like pneumonia.

The second group comprises patients who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome during the course of their SARS-CoV-2 infection. These unfortunate individuals likely incurred lung damage that may have triggered renal damage and delirium and may never regain full function.

The third group of patients reports a wide variety of less specific symptoms including, but not limited to, severe fatigue, brain fog, shortness of breath, gastrointestinal symptoms, chronic pain, and palpitations.

The authors of the essay refer to several studies in which there was little if any correlation between these patients’ complaints and their antibody levels. In fact, one study of adolescents found that in a group with similar symptoms many of the individuals had no serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Unfortunately, the lay public, the media, and some physicians make no distinction between these three groups and lump them all under the same long COVID umbrella. The resulting confusion seeds unwarranted anxiety among the first and third groups and may prevent some individuals from receiving the appropriate attention they deserve.

I suspect that like me, many of you see some similarities between this third group of long COVID patients and adolescents whose persistent symptoms don’t quite fit with their primary illness. Patients labeled as having post-concussion syndrome or “chronic Lyme disease” come immediately to mind. In both conditions, many of the patients had little if any evidence of severe insult from the initial event but continue to complain about a variety of symptoms including severe fatigue and brain fog.

We have done a very poor job of properly managing these patients. And there are a lot of them. A large part of the problem is labeling. In the old days one might have said these patients were having “psychosomatic” symptoms. But, while it may be an accurate description, like the term “retardation” it has been permanently tarnished. Fortunately, most of us are smart enough to avoid telling these patients that it is all in their heads.

However, convincing an individual that many of his symptoms may be the result of the psychological insult from the original disease compounded by other stresses and lifestyle factors can be a difficult sell. The task is made particularly difficult when there continue to be physicians who will miss or ignore the obvious and embark on therapeutic endeavors that are not only ineffective but can serve as a distraction from the real work of listening to and engaging these patients whose suffering may be just as real as that of those long haulers with structural damage.
 

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

With the number of pediatric infections with SARS-CoV-2 rising it is not surprising that children with persistent symptoms are beginning to accumulate. Who are these pediatric “long haulers” and do they differ from their adult counterparts? The answer is far from clear because the terms “long COVID” and “long hauler” are not well defined. But, I suspect we will find that they will be similar in most respects.

In a recent Guest Essay in the New York Times, two medical school professors attempt to inject some common sense into the long hauler phenomenon. (“The Truth About Long Covid is Complicated. Better Treatment Isn’t,” Adam Gaffney and Zackary Berger, The New York Times, Aug. 18, 2021).

The authors divide the patients with long COVID into three categories. The first includes those who are complaining of persistent cough and fatigue for up to 3 months, a not unexpected course for patients recovering from a significant respiratory illness like pneumonia.

The second group comprises patients who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome during the course of their SARS-CoV-2 infection. These unfortunate individuals likely incurred lung damage that may have triggered renal damage and delirium and may never regain full function.

The third group of patients reports a wide variety of less specific symptoms including, but not limited to, severe fatigue, brain fog, shortness of breath, gastrointestinal symptoms, chronic pain, and palpitations.

The authors of the essay refer to several studies in which there was little if any correlation between these patients’ complaints and their antibody levels. In fact, one study of adolescents found that in a group with similar symptoms many of the individuals had no serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Unfortunately, the lay public, the media, and some physicians make no distinction between these three groups and lump them all under the same long COVID umbrella. The resulting confusion seeds unwarranted anxiety among the first and third groups and may prevent some individuals from receiving the appropriate attention they deserve.

I suspect that like me, many of you see some similarities between this third group of long COVID patients and adolescents whose persistent symptoms don’t quite fit with their primary illness. Patients labeled as having post-concussion syndrome or “chronic Lyme disease” come immediately to mind. In both conditions, many of the patients had little if any evidence of severe insult from the initial event but continue to complain about a variety of symptoms including severe fatigue and brain fog.

We have done a very poor job of properly managing these patients. And there are a lot of them. A large part of the problem is labeling. In the old days one might have said these patients were having “psychosomatic” symptoms. But, while it may be an accurate description, like the term “retardation” it has been permanently tarnished. Fortunately, most of us are smart enough to avoid telling these patients that it is all in their heads.

However, convincing an individual that many of his symptoms may be the result of the psychological insult from the original disease compounded by other stresses and lifestyle factors can be a difficult sell. The task is made particularly difficult when there continue to be physicians who will miss or ignore the obvious and embark on therapeutic endeavors that are not only ineffective but can serve as a distraction from the real work of listening to and engaging these patients whose suffering may be just as real as that of those long haulers with structural damage.
 

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

With the number of pediatric infections with SARS-CoV-2 rising it is not surprising that children with persistent symptoms are beginning to accumulate. Who are these pediatric “long haulers” and do they differ from their adult counterparts? The answer is far from clear because the terms “long COVID” and “long hauler” are not well defined. But, I suspect we will find that they will be similar in most respects.

In a recent Guest Essay in the New York Times, two medical school professors attempt to inject some common sense into the long hauler phenomenon. (“The Truth About Long Covid is Complicated. Better Treatment Isn’t,” Adam Gaffney and Zackary Berger, The New York Times, Aug. 18, 2021).

The authors divide the patients with long COVID into three categories. The first includes those who are complaining of persistent cough and fatigue for up to 3 months, a not unexpected course for patients recovering from a significant respiratory illness like pneumonia.

The second group comprises patients who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome during the course of their SARS-CoV-2 infection. These unfortunate individuals likely incurred lung damage that may have triggered renal damage and delirium and may never regain full function.

The third group of patients reports a wide variety of less specific symptoms including, but not limited to, severe fatigue, brain fog, shortness of breath, gastrointestinal symptoms, chronic pain, and palpitations.

The authors of the essay refer to several studies in which there was little if any correlation between these patients’ complaints and their antibody levels. In fact, one study of adolescents found that in a group with similar symptoms many of the individuals had no serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Unfortunately, the lay public, the media, and some physicians make no distinction between these three groups and lump them all under the same long COVID umbrella. The resulting confusion seeds unwarranted anxiety among the first and third groups and may prevent some individuals from receiving the appropriate attention they deserve.

I suspect that like me, many of you see some similarities between this third group of long COVID patients and adolescents whose persistent symptoms don’t quite fit with their primary illness. Patients labeled as having post-concussion syndrome or “chronic Lyme disease” come immediately to mind. In both conditions, many of the patients had little if any evidence of severe insult from the initial event but continue to complain about a variety of symptoms including severe fatigue and brain fog.

We have done a very poor job of properly managing these patients. And there are a lot of them. A large part of the problem is labeling. In the old days one might have said these patients were having “psychosomatic” symptoms. But, while it may be an accurate description, like the term “retardation” it has been permanently tarnished. Fortunately, most of us are smart enough to avoid telling these patients that it is all in their heads.

However, convincing an individual that many of his symptoms may be the result of the psychological insult from the original disease compounded by other stresses and lifestyle factors can be a difficult sell. The task is made particularly difficult when there continue to be physicians who will miss or ignore the obvious and embark on therapeutic endeavors that are not only ineffective but can serve as a distraction from the real work of listening to and engaging these patients whose suffering may be just as real as that of those long haulers with structural damage.
 

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

As long as I can remember, children have been notoriously wasteful when dining in school cafeterias. Even those children who bring their own food often return home in the afternoon with their lunches half eaten. Not surprisingly, the food tossed out is often the healthier portion of the meal. Schools have tried a variety of strategies to curb this wastage, including using volunteer student monitors to police and encourage ecologically based recycling.

The authors of a recent study published on JAMA Network Open observed that when elementary and middle-school students were allowed a 20-minute seated lunch period they consumed more food and there was significantly less waste of fruits and vegetable compared with when the students’ lunch period was limited to 10 minutes. Interestingly, there was no difference in the beverage and entrée consumption when the lunch period was doubled.

The authors postulate that younger children may not have acquired the dexterity to feed themselves optimally in the shorter lunch period. I’m not sure I buy that argument. It may be simply that the children ate and drank their favorites first and needed a bit more time to allow their little guts to move things along. But, regardless of the explanation, the investigators’ observations deserve further study.

When I was in high school our lunch period was a full hour, which allowed me to make the half mile walk to home and back to eat a home-prepared meal. The noon hour was when school clubs and committees met and there was a full schedule of diversions to fill out the hour. I don’t recall the seated portion of the lunch period having any time restriction.

By the time my own children were in middle school, lunch periods lasted no longer than 20 minutes. I was not surprised to learn from this recent study that in some schools the seated lunch period has been shortened to 10 minutes. In some cases the truncated lunch periods are a response to space and time limitations. I fear that occasionally, educators and administrators have found it so difficult to keep young children who are accustomed to watching television while they eat engaged that the periods have been shortened to minimize the chaos.

Here in Maine, the governor has just announced plans to offer free breakfast and lunch to every student in response to a federal initiative. If we intend to make nutrition a cornerstone of the educational process this study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign suggests that we must do more than simply provide the food at no cost. We must somehow carve out more time in the day for the children to eat a healthy diet.

But, where is this time going to come from? Many school systems have already cannibalized physical education to the point that most children are not getting a healthy amount of exercise. It is unfortunate that we have come to expect public school systems to solve all of our societal ills and compensate for less-than-healthy home environments. But that is the reality. If we think nutrition and physical activity are important components of our children’s educations then we must make the time necessary to provide them.

Will this mean longer school days? And will those longer days cost money? You bet they will, but that may be the price we have to pay for healthier, better educated children.
 

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

As long as I can remember, children have been notoriously wasteful when dining in school cafeterias. Even those children who bring their own food often return home in the afternoon with their lunches half eaten. Not surprisingly, the food tossed out is often the healthier portion of the meal. Schools have tried a variety of strategies to curb this wastage, including using volunteer student monitors to police and encourage ecologically based recycling.

The authors of a recent study published on JAMA Network Open observed that when elementary and middle-school students were allowed a 20-minute seated lunch period they consumed more food and there was significantly less waste of fruits and vegetable compared with when the students’ lunch period was limited to 10 minutes. Interestingly, there was no difference in the beverage and entrée consumption when the lunch period was doubled.

The authors postulate that younger children may not have acquired the dexterity to feed themselves optimally in the shorter lunch period. I’m not sure I buy that argument. It may be simply that the children ate and drank their favorites first and needed a bit more time to allow their little guts to move things along. But, regardless of the explanation, the investigators’ observations deserve further study.

When I was in high school our lunch period was a full hour, which allowed me to make the half mile walk to home and back to eat a home-prepared meal. The noon hour was when school clubs and committees met and there was a full schedule of diversions to fill out the hour. I don’t recall the seated portion of the lunch period having any time restriction.

By the time my own children were in middle school, lunch periods lasted no longer than 20 minutes. I was not surprised to learn from this recent study that in some schools the seated lunch period has been shortened to 10 minutes. In some cases the truncated lunch periods are a response to space and time limitations. I fear that occasionally, educators and administrators have found it so difficult to keep young children who are accustomed to watching television while they eat engaged that the periods have been shortened to minimize the chaos.

Here in Maine, the governor has just announced plans to offer free breakfast and lunch to every student in response to a federal initiative. If we intend to make nutrition a cornerstone of the educational process this study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign suggests that we must do more than simply provide the food at no cost. We must somehow carve out more time in the day for the children to eat a healthy diet.

But, where is this time going to come from? Many school systems have already cannibalized physical education to the point that most children are not getting a healthy amount of exercise. It is unfortunate that we have come to expect public school systems to solve all of our societal ills and compensate for less-than-healthy home environments. But that is the reality. If we think nutrition and physical activity are important components of our children’s educations then we must make the time necessary to provide them.

Will this mean longer school days? And will those longer days cost money? You bet they will, but that may be the price we have to pay for healthier, better educated children.
 

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

As long as I can remember, children have been notoriously wasteful when dining in school cafeterias. Even those children who bring their own food often return home in the afternoon with their lunches half eaten. Not surprisingly, the food tossed out is often the healthier portion of the meal. Schools have tried a variety of strategies to curb this wastage, including using volunteer student monitors to police and encourage ecologically based recycling.

The authors of a recent study published on JAMA Network Open observed that when elementary and middle-school students were allowed a 20-minute seated lunch period they consumed more food and there was significantly less waste of fruits and vegetable compared with when the students’ lunch period was limited to 10 minutes. Interestingly, there was no difference in the beverage and entrée consumption when the lunch period was doubled.

The authors postulate that younger children may not have acquired the dexterity to feed themselves optimally in the shorter lunch period. I’m not sure I buy that argument. It may be simply that the children ate and drank their favorites first and needed a bit more time to allow their little guts to move things along. But, regardless of the explanation, the investigators’ observations deserve further study.

When I was in high school our lunch period was a full hour, which allowed me to make the half mile walk to home and back to eat a home-prepared meal. The noon hour was when school clubs and committees met and there was a full schedule of diversions to fill out the hour. I don’t recall the seated portion of the lunch period having any time restriction.

By the time my own children were in middle school, lunch periods lasted no longer than 20 minutes. I was not surprised to learn from this recent study that in some schools the seated lunch period has been shortened to 10 minutes. In some cases the truncated lunch periods are a response to space and time limitations. I fear that occasionally, educators and administrators have found it so difficult to keep young children who are accustomed to watching television while they eat engaged that the periods have been shortened to minimize the chaos.

Here in Maine, the governor has just announced plans to offer free breakfast and lunch to every student in response to a federal initiative. If we intend to make nutrition a cornerstone of the educational process this study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign suggests that we must do more than simply provide the food at no cost. We must somehow carve out more time in the day for the children to eat a healthy diet.

But, where is this time going to come from? Many school systems have already cannibalized physical education to the point that most children are not getting a healthy amount of exercise. It is unfortunate that we have come to expect public school systems to solve all of our societal ills and compensate for less-than-healthy home environments. But that is the reality. If we think nutrition and physical activity are important components of our children’s educations then we must make the time necessary to provide them.

Will this mean longer school days? And will those longer days cost money? You bet they will, but that may be the price we have to pay for healthier, better educated children.
 

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

Traditionally, as the ides of August descend upon us we expect to be bombarded with advertisements encouraging parents and students to finish up their back-to-school shopping. But, this year the question on every parent and school administrator’s mind is not which color back pack will be the most popular this year but whether a mask should be a required part of the back-to-school ensemble.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that “All students older than 2 years and all school staff should wear a mask at school” (“American Academy of Pediatrics Updates Recommendations for Opening Schools in Fall 2021.” 2021 Jul 19). The academy’s statement includes a generous list of common sense caveats but it does not include a statement that masks have been shown to be protective for children in school environments. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “recommends” universal indoor masking along with keeping a 3-foot separation but again fails to include any references to support the effectiveness of masks (“Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools.” 2021 Aug 5).

Not surprisingly, into this void have stepped two pairs of experts – one group purporting to have evidence that masking is effective in school environments and the other warning that masks may not only be ineffective but that they also carry some significant downsides. And, where can you find these opposing positions? Not in The Lancet. Not in the New England Journal of Medicine. We don’t have time for any of that peer-reviewed monkey business. No, this is pandemic-era science where we have an abundance of opinions and paucity of facts. You will find these opposing articles on the op-ed pages of two of this country’s major newspapers.

In the Aug. 10, 2021, edition of the New York Times you will find an article (“We Studied One Million Students. This Is What We Learned About Masking”) by two pediatricians, Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, and Danny Benjamin Jr., MD, who have “studied” a million students in North Carolina school systems and tell us universal masking is “one of the most effective and efficient strategies for preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. These investigators write that they “believe” the low rate of in school transmission they observed in North Carolina was “because of the mask-on-mask school environment.”

However, in the next paragraph the authors admit, “Because North Carolina had a mask mandate for all K-12 schools, we could not compare masked schools with unmasked schools.” They lean instead on studies from three other states with mask mandates that also had low transmission rates and a single report of an outbreak in Israel that employed neither masking nor safe distancing.

On the other side of the divide is an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “The Case Against Masks for Children” by Marty Makary, MD, and H. Cody Meissner, MD, (2021 Aug 9). The authors, one a pediatric infectious disease specialist, argue that there is “no science behind mask mandates for children.” And, observe that, of the $46 billion spent on research grants by the National Institutes of Health, “not a single grant was dedicated to studying masking in children.”

Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner present a variety of concerns about the effects of masking including those on the development and communication skills of young children. None of their theoretical concerns of course are supported by controlled studies. They also observe that in previous studies children seem to be less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults. Although we all know the landscape is changing with the emergence of the delta strain. In their strongest statement the authors claim, “It is abusive to force kids who struggle with them [masks] to sacrifice for the sake of unvaccinated adults.”

So there you have it. It is a situation we have come to expect over the last 2 years – plenty of opinions and too few facts supported by controlled studies. Both pairs of authors, however, agree on two things: Vaccination should continue to be considered our primary tool in prevention and control of COVID-19. and children need to be in school. Based on nothing more than a hunch and 7 decades of hunching, I tend to side with Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner. Depending on the situation, I suggest masking but wouldn’t mandate it for children in school.
 

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

Traditionally, as the ides of August descend upon us we expect to be bombarded with advertisements encouraging parents and students to finish up their back-to-school shopping. But, this year the question on every parent and school administrator’s mind is not which color back pack will be the most popular this year but whether a mask should be a required part of the back-to-school ensemble.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that “All students older than 2 years and all school staff should wear a mask at school” (“American Academy of Pediatrics Updates Recommendations for Opening Schools in Fall 2021.” 2021 Jul 19). The academy’s statement includes a generous list of common sense caveats but it does not include a statement that masks have been shown to be protective for children in school environments. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “recommends” universal indoor masking along with keeping a 3-foot separation but again fails to include any references to support the effectiveness of masks (“Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools.” 2021 Aug 5).

Not surprisingly, into this void have stepped two pairs of experts – one group purporting to have evidence that masking is effective in school environments and the other warning that masks may not only be ineffective but that they also carry some significant downsides. And, where can you find these opposing positions? Not in The Lancet. Not in the New England Journal of Medicine. We don’t have time for any of that peer-reviewed monkey business. No, this is pandemic-era science where we have an abundance of opinions and paucity of facts. You will find these opposing articles on the op-ed pages of two of this country’s major newspapers.

In the Aug. 10, 2021, edition of the New York Times you will find an article (“We Studied One Million Students. This Is What We Learned About Masking”) by two pediatricians, Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, and Danny Benjamin Jr., MD, who have “studied” a million students in North Carolina school systems and tell us universal masking is “one of the most effective and efficient strategies for preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. These investigators write that they “believe” the low rate of in school transmission they observed in North Carolina was “because of the mask-on-mask school environment.”

However, in the next paragraph the authors admit, “Because North Carolina had a mask mandate for all K-12 schools, we could not compare masked schools with unmasked schools.” They lean instead on studies from three other states with mask mandates that also had low transmission rates and a single report of an outbreak in Israel that employed neither masking nor safe distancing.

On the other side of the divide is an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “The Case Against Masks for Children” by Marty Makary, MD, and H. Cody Meissner, MD, (2021 Aug 9). The authors, one a pediatric infectious disease specialist, argue that there is “no science behind mask mandates for children.” And, observe that, of the $46 billion spent on research grants by the National Institutes of Health, “not a single grant was dedicated to studying masking in children.”

Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner present a variety of concerns about the effects of masking including those on the development and communication skills of young children. None of their theoretical concerns of course are supported by controlled studies. They also observe that in previous studies children seem to be less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults. Although we all know the landscape is changing with the emergence of the delta strain. In their strongest statement the authors claim, “It is abusive to force kids who struggle with them [masks] to sacrifice for the sake of unvaccinated adults.”

So there you have it. It is a situation we have come to expect over the last 2 years – plenty of opinions and too few facts supported by controlled studies. Both pairs of authors, however, agree on two things: Vaccination should continue to be considered our primary tool in prevention and control of COVID-19. and children need to be in school. Based on nothing more than a hunch and 7 decades of hunching, I tend to side with Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner. Depending on the situation, I suggest masking but wouldn’t mandate it for children in school.
 

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

Traditionally, as the ides of August descend upon us we expect to be bombarded with advertisements encouraging parents and students to finish up their back-to-school shopping. But, this year the question on every parent and school administrator’s mind is not which color back pack will be the most popular this year but whether a mask should be a required part of the back-to-school ensemble.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that “All students older than 2 years and all school staff should wear a mask at school” (“American Academy of Pediatrics Updates Recommendations for Opening Schools in Fall 2021.” 2021 Jul 19). The academy’s statement includes a generous list of common sense caveats but it does not include a statement that masks have been shown to be protective for children in school environments. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “recommends” universal indoor masking along with keeping a 3-foot separation but again fails to include any references to support the effectiveness of masks (“Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools.” 2021 Aug 5).

Not surprisingly, into this void have stepped two pairs of experts – one group purporting to have evidence that masking is effective in school environments and the other warning that masks may not only be ineffective but that they also carry some significant downsides. And, where can you find these opposing positions? Not in The Lancet. Not in the New England Journal of Medicine. We don’t have time for any of that peer-reviewed monkey business. No, this is pandemic-era science where we have an abundance of opinions and paucity of facts. You will find these opposing articles on the op-ed pages of two of this country’s major newspapers.

In the Aug. 10, 2021, edition of the New York Times you will find an article (“We Studied One Million Students. This Is What We Learned About Masking”) by two pediatricians, Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, and Danny Benjamin Jr., MD, who have “studied” a million students in North Carolina school systems and tell us universal masking is “one of the most effective and efficient strategies for preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. These investigators write that they “believe” the low rate of in school transmission they observed in North Carolina was “because of the mask-on-mask school environment.”

However, in the next paragraph the authors admit, “Because North Carolina had a mask mandate for all K-12 schools, we could not compare masked schools with unmasked schools.” They lean instead on studies from three other states with mask mandates that also had low transmission rates and a single report of an outbreak in Israel that employed neither masking nor safe distancing.

On the other side of the divide is an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “The Case Against Masks for Children” by Marty Makary, MD, and H. Cody Meissner, MD, (2021 Aug 9). The authors, one a pediatric infectious disease specialist, argue that there is “no science behind mask mandates for children.” And, observe that, of the $46 billion spent on research grants by the National Institutes of Health, “not a single grant was dedicated to studying masking in children.”

Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner present a variety of concerns about the effects of masking including those on the development and communication skills of young children. None of their theoretical concerns of course are supported by controlled studies. They also observe that in previous studies children seem to be less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults. Although we all know the landscape is changing with the emergence of the delta strain. In their strongest statement the authors claim, “It is abusive to force kids who struggle with them [masks] to sacrifice for the sake of unvaccinated adults.”

So there you have it. It is a situation we have come to expect over the last 2 years – plenty of opinions and too few facts supported by controlled studies. Both pairs of authors, however, agree on two things: Vaccination should continue to be considered our primary tool in prevention and control of COVID-19. and children need to be in school. Based on nothing more than a hunch and 7 decades of hunching, I tend to side with Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner. Depending on the situation, I suggest masking but wouldn’t mandate it for children in school.
 

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

Our emotional health and that of our patients has taken a terrible beating at the hands of the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicides, substance abuse, levels of depression, and anxiety have risen dramatically. It is tempting to believe that it is the unfortunate events alone we hear about and experience that are causing us to feel the way we do. However, James Gross, PhD, professor of psychology and director of the Stanford (Calif.) University psychophysiology laboratory said: “It is actually the thoughts that we have about the situation that are leading us to feel negative emotions or fail to feel positive emotions.” (YouTube video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay4_L1RfkIs).

With this premise as a jumping off point, a large group of psychophysiologists at a variety of centers around the world began a study of more than 20,000 subjects in more than 87 countries and regions. Half of the subjects were exposed to a brief (about 5 min) emotional regulation strategy called “reappraisal.” All the subjects were then shown images of the COVID-19 crisis culled from news sources and were then surveyed about their emotions. The researchers discovered that those subjects exposed to the reappraisal intervention demonstrated significantly increased positive responses and significantly decreased negative responses compared to the two control groups.

Reappraisal is an intervention that encourages individuals to think differently about their current situation in hopes of improving their emotional responses. The researchers tested two different types of reappraisal: “Reconstruing,” which aims to change the way the situation is represented mentally – for example, viewing it as controllable – and “repurposing,” in which the subject is encouraged to focus on the potentially positive outcomes of the situation. In other words, reappraisal basically tries to instill a glass-half-full, silver-lining mindset. The investigators report that both reappraisal strategies were equally effective at influencing the subjects’ responses.

The authors claimed that their findings suggest that reappraisal interventions might be of value for health care and other essential workers who have demonstrated a vulnerability to emotion upheaval during the pandemic. The authors also envisioned opportunities for political and business leaders to implement national and global reappraisal–based initiatives to generate resilience on a national and even global scale.

I will admit that, although I am usually skeptical of studies aimed at quantifying emotions, I found this study interesting. After watching a half hour of television news or reading the online edition of the New York Times I think we could all use a pep talk from someone who might be able to help us look on the bright side of things. However, I doubt that a single 5-minute reappraisal intervention is going to have much lasting benefit in the face of the shear magnitude of bad news we are fed every day. Catastrophic news sells newspapers and it is unlikely that dynamic is ever going to change.

I guess we could try mandating that every half hour of network news be followed by a 5-minute session of reconstruing or repurposing. That is, if we could find someone who could consistently put a positive spin on the news of the day. Even if we could locate that one-in-a-million individual with an absolutely unshakably sunny disposition and a knack for finding silver linings, I suspect after a few weeks he or she would be labeled the arch Pollyanna and be drummed off the air.

That is not to say that we should write off the findings of this international study as a statistical quirk. It may be, but clearly these last 2 years have taken a toll on our emotions and even those of us who are congenital optimists need a pep talk from time to time. Although my forte is denial, I think I already know how to reconstrue and repurpose, but I’m ready to listen to anyone who can help me learn to do it better.

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

Our emotional health and that of our patients has taken a terrible beating at the hands of the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicides, substance abuse, levels of depression, and anxiety have risen dramatically. It is tempting to believe that it is the unfortunate events alone we hear about and experience that are causing us to feel the way we do. However, James Gross, PhD, professor of psychology and director of the Stanford (Calif.) University psychophysiology laboratory said: “It is actually the thoughts that we have about the situation that are leading us to feel negative emotions or fail to feel positive emotions.” (YouTube video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay4_L1RfkIs).

With this premise as a jumping off point, a large group of psychophysiologists at a variety of centers around the world began a study of more than 20,000 subjects in more than 87 countries and regions. Half of the subjects were exposed to a brief (about 5 min) emotional regulation strategy called “reappraisal.” All the subjects were then shown images of the COVID-19 crisis culled from news sources and were then surveyed about their emotions. The researchers discovered that those subjects exposed to the reappraisal intervention demonstrated significantly increased positive responses and significantly decreased negative responses compared to the two control groups.

Reappraisal is an intervention that encourages individuals to think differently about their current situation in hopes of improving their emotional responses. The researchers tested two different types of reappraisal: “Reconstruing,” which aims to change the way the situation is represented mentally – for example, viewing it as controllable – and “repurposing,” in which the subject is encouraged to focus on the potentially positive outcomes of the situation. In other words, reappraisal basically tries to instill a glass-half-full, silver-lining mindset. The investigators report that both reappraisal strategies were equally effective at influencing the subjects’ responses.

The authors claimed that their findings suggest that reappraisal interventions might be of value for health care and other essential workers who have demonstrated a vulnerability to emotion upheaval during the pandemic. The authors also envisioned opportunities for political and business leaders to implement national and global reappraisal–based initiatives to generate resilience on a national and even global scale.

I will admit that, although I am usually skeptical of studies aimed at quantifying emotions, I found this study interesting. After watching a half hour of television news or reading the online edition of the New York Times I think we could all use a pep talk from someone who might be able to help us look on the bright side of things. However, I doubt that a single 5-minute reappraisal intervention is going to have much lasting benefit in the face of the shear magnitude of bad news we are fed every day. Catastrophic news sells newspapers and it is unlikely that dynamic is ever going to change.

I guess we could try mandating that every half hour of network news be followed by a 5-minute session of reconstruing or repurposing. That is, if we could find someone who could consistently put a positive spin on the news of the day. Even if we could locate that one-in-a-million individual with an absolutely unshakably sunny disposition and a knack for finding silver linings, I suspect after a few weeks he or she would be labeled the arch Pollyanna and be drummed off the air.

That is not to say that we should write off the findings of this international study as a statistical quirk. It may be, but clearly these last 2 years have taken a toll on our emotions and even those of us who are congenital optimists need a pep talk from time to time. Although my forte is denial, I think I already know how to reconstrue and repurpose, but I’m ready to listen to anyone who can help me learn to do it better.

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

Our emotional health and that of our patients has taken a terrible beating at the hands of the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicides, substance abuse, levels of depression, and anxiety have risen dramatically. It is tempting to believe that it is the unfortunate events alone we hear about and experience that are causing us to feel the way we do. However, James Gross, PhD, professor of psychology and director of the Stanford (Calif.) University psychophysiology laboratory said: “It is actually the thoughts that we have about the situation that are leading us to feel negative emotions or fail to feel positive emotions.” (YouTube video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay4_L1RfkIs).

With this premise as a jumping off point, a large group of psychophysiologists at a variety of centers around the world began a study of more than 20,000 subjects in more than 87 countries and regions. Half of the subjects were exposed to a brief (about 5 min) emotional regulation strategy called “reappraisal.” All the subjects were then shown images of the COVID-19 crisis culled from news sources and were then surveyed about their emotions. The researchers discovered that those subjects exposed to the reappraisal intervention demonstrated significantly increased positive responses and significantly decreased negative responses compared to the two control groups.

Reappraisal is an intervention that encourages individuals to think differently about their current situation in hopes of improving their emotional responses. The researchers tested two different types of reappraisal: “Reconstruing,” which aims to change the way the situation is represented mentally – for example, viewing it as controllable – and “repurposing,” in which the subject is encouraged to focus on the potentially positive outcomes of the situation. In other words, reappraisal basically tries to instill a glass-half-full, silver-lining mindset. The investigators report that both reappraisal strategies were equally effective at influencing the subjects’ responses.

The authors claimed that their findings suggest that reappraisal interventions might be of value for health care and other essential workers who have demonstrated a vulnerability to emotion upheaval during the pandemic. The authors also envisioned opportunities for political and business leaders to implement national and global reappraisal–based initiatives to generate resilience on a national and even global scale.

I will admit that, although I am usually skeptical of studies aimed at quantifying emotions, I found this study interesting. After watching a half hour of television news or reading the online edition of the New York Times I think we could all use a pep talk from someone who might be able to help us look on the bright side of things. However, I doubt that a single 5-minute reappraisal intervention is going to have much lasting benefit in the face of the shear magnitude of bad news we are fed every day. Catastrophic news sells newspapers and it is unlikely that dynamic is ever going to change.

I guess we could try mandating that every half hour of network news be followed by a 5-minute session of reconstruing or repurposing. That is, if we could find someone who could consistently put a positive spin on the news of the day. Even if we could locate that one-in-a-million individual with an absolutely unshakably sunny disposition and a knack for finding silver linings, I suspect after a few weeks he or she would be labeled the arch Pollyanna and be drummed off the air.

That is not to say that we should write off the findings of this international study as a statistical quirk. It may be, but clearly these last 2 years have taken a toll on our emotions and even those of us who are congenital optimists need a pep talk from time to time. Although my forte is denial, I think I already know how to reconstrue and repurpose, but I’m ready to listen to anyone who can help me learn to do it better.

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

Not surprisingly, the pandemic has torn at the already fraying fabric of many families. Cooped up away from friends and the emotional relief valve of school, even children who had been relatively easy to manage in the past have posed disciplinary challenges beyond their parents’ abilities to cope.

In a recent study from the Parenting in Context Lab of the University of Michigan (“Child Discipline During the Covid-19 Pandemic,” Family Snapshots: Life During the Pandemic, American Academy of Pediatrics, June 8 2021) researchers found that one in six parents surveyed (n = 3,000 adults) admitted to spanking. Nearly half of the parents said that they had yelled at or threatened their children.

Five out of six parents reported using what the investigators described as less harsh “positive discipline measures.” Three-quarters of these parents used “explaining” as a strategy and nearly the same number used either time-outs or sent the children to their rooms.

Again, not surprisingly, parents who had experienced at least one adverse childhood experience (ACE) were more than twice as likely to spank. And parents who reported an episode of intimate partner violence (IPV) were more likely to resort to a harsh discipline strategy (yelling, threatening, or spanking).

Over my professional career I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about discipline and I have attempted to summarize my thoughts in a book titled, “How to Say No to Your Toddler” (Simon and Schuster, 2003), that has been published in four languages. Based on my observations, trying to explain to a misbehaving child the error of his ways is generally parental time not well spent. A well-structured time-out, preferably in a separate room with a door closed, is the most effective and safest discipline strategy.

However, as in all of my books, this advice on discipline was colored by the families in my practice and the audience for which I was writing, primarily middle class and upper middle class, reasonably affluent parents who buy books. These are usually folks who have homes in which children often have their own rooms, or where at least there are multiple rooms with doors – spaces to escape when tensions rise. Few of these parents have endured ACEs. Few have they experienced – nor have their children witnessed – IPV.

My advice that parents make only threats that can be safely carried, out such as time-out, and to always follow up on threats and promises, is valid regardless of a family’s socioeconomic situation. However, when it comes to choosing a consequence, my standard recommendation of a time-out can be difficult to follow for a family of six living in a three-room apartment, particularly during pandemic-dictated restrictions and lockdowns.

Of course there are alternatives to time-outs in a separate space, including an extended hug in a parental lap, but these responses require that the parents have been able to compose themselves well enough, and that they have the time. One of the important benefits of time-outs is that they can provide parents the time and space to reassess the situation and consider their role in the conflict. The bottom line is that a time-out is the safest and most effective form of discipline, but it requires space and a parent relatively unburdened of financial or emotional stress. Families without these luxuries are left with few alternatives other than physical or verbal abuse.

The AAP’s Family Snapshot concludes with the observation that “pediatricians and pediatric health care providers can continue to play an important role in supporting positive discipline strategies.” That is a difficult assignment even in prepandemic times, but for those of you working with families who lack the space and time to defuse disciplinary tensions, it is a heroic task.
 

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

Not surprisingly, the pandemic has torn at the already fraying fabric of many families. Cooped up away from friends and the emotional relief valve of school, even children who had been relatively easy to manage in the past have posed disciplinary challenges beyond their parents’ abilities to cope.

In a recent study from the Parenting in Context Lab of the University of Michigan (“Child Discipline During the Covid-19 Pandemic,” Family Snapshots: Life During the Pandemic, American Academy of Pediatrics, June 8 2021) researchers found that one in six parents surveyed (n = 3,000 adults) admitted to spanking. Nearly half of the parents said that they had yelled at or threatened their children.

Five out of six parents reported using what the investigators described as less harsh “positive discipline measures.” Three-quarters of these parents used “explaining” as a strategy and nearly the same number used either time-outs or sent the children to their rooms.

Again, not surprisingly, parents who had experienced at least one adverse childhood experience (ACE) were more than twice as likely to spank. And parents who reported an episode of intimate partner violence (IPV) were more likely to resort to a harsh discipline strategy (yelling, threatening, or spanking).

Over my professional career I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about discipline and I have attempted to summarize my thoughts in a book titled, “How to Say No to Your Toddler” (Simon and Schuster, 2003), that has been published in four languages. Based on my observations, trying to explain to a misbehaving child the error of his ways is generally parental time not well spent. A well-structured time-out, preferably in a separate room with a door closed, is the most effective and safest discipline strategy.

However, as in all of my books, this advice on discipline was colored by the families in my practice and the audience for which I was writing, primarily middle class and upper middle class, reasonably affluent parents who buy books. These are usually folks who have homes in which children often have their own rooms, or where at least there are multiple rooms with doors – spaces to escape when tensions rise. Few of these parents have endured ACEs. Few have they experienced – nor have their children witnessed – IPV.

My advice that parents make only threats that can be safely carried, out such as time-out, and to always follow up on threats and promises, is valid regardless of a family’s socioeconomic situation. However, when it comes to choosing a consequence, my standard recommendation of a time-out can be difficult to follow for a family of six living in a three-room apartment, particularly during pandemic-dictated restrictions and lockdowns.

Of course there are alternatives to time-outs in a separate space, including an extended hug in a parental lap, but these responses require that the parents have been able to compose themselves well enough, and that they have the time. One of the important benefits of time-outs is that they can provide parents the time and space to reassess the situation and consider their role in the conflict. The bottom line is that a time-out is the safest and most effective form of discipline, but it requires space and a parent relatively unburdened of financial or emotional stress. Families without these luxuries are left with few alternatives other than physical or verbal abuse.

The AAP’s Family Snapshot concludes with the observation that “pediatricians and pediatric health care providers can continue to play an important role in supporting positive discipline strategies.” That is a difficult assignment even in prepandemic times, but for those of you working with families who lack the space and time to defuse disciplinary tensions, it is a heroic task.
 

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

Not surprisingly, the pandemic has torn at the already fraying fabric of many families. Cooped up away from friends and the emotional relief valve of school, even children who had been relatively easy to manage in the past have posed disciplinary challenges beyond their parents’ abilities to cope.

In a recent study from the Parenting in Context Lab of the University of Michigan (“Child Discipline During the Covid-19 Pandemic,” Family Snapshots: Life During the Pandemic, American Academy of Pediatrics, June 8 2021) researchers found that one in six parents surveyed (n = 3,000 adults) admitted to spanking. Nearly half of the parents said that they had yelled at or threatened their children.

Five out of six parents reported using what the investigators described as less harsh “positive discipline measures.” Three-quarters of these parents used “explaining” as a strategy and nearly the same number used either time-outs or sent the children to their rooms.

Again, not surprisingly, parents who had experienced at least one adverse childhood experience (ACE) were more than twice as likely to spank. And parents who reported an episode of intimate partner violence (IPV) were more likely to resort to a harsh discipline strategy (yelling, threatening, or spanking).

Over my professional career I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about discipline and I have attempted to summarize my thoughts in a book titled, “How to Say No to Your Toddler” (Simon and Schuster, 2003), that has been published in four languages. Based on my observations, trying to explain to a misbehaving child the error of his ways is generally parental time not well spent. A well-structured time-out, preferably in a separate room with a door closed, is the most effective and safest discipline strategy.

However, as in all of my books, this advice on discipline was colored by the families in my practice and the audience for which I was writing, primarily middle class and upper middle class, reasonably affluent parents who buy books. These are usually folks who have homes in which children often have their own rooms, or where at least there are multiple rooms with doors – spaces to escape when tensions rise. Few of these parents have endured ACEs. Few have they experienced – nor have their children witnessed – IPV.

My advice that parents make only threats that can be safely carried, out such as time-out, and to always follow up on threats and promises, is valid regardless of a family’s socioeconomic situation. However, when it comes to choosing a consequence, my standard recommendation of a time-out can be difficult to follow for a family of six living in a three-room apartment, particularly during pandemic-dictated restrictions and lockdowns.

Of course there are alternatives to time-outs in a separate space, including an extended hug in a parental lap, but these responses require that the parents have been able to compose themselves well enough, and that they have the time. One of the important benefits of time-outs is that they can provide parents the time and space to reassess the situation and consider their role in the conflict. The bottom line is that a time-out is the safest and most effective form of discipline, but it requires space and a parent relatively unburdened of financial or emotional stress. Families without these luxuries are left with few alternatives other than physical or verbal abuse.

The AAP’s Family Snapshot concludes with the observation that “pediatricians and pediatric health care providers can continue to play an important role in supporting positive discipline strategies.” That is a difficult assignment even in prepandemic times, but for those of you working with families who lack the space and time to defuse disciplinary tensions, it is a heroic task.
 

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