Clinical Psychiatry News

A review of the federal Open Payments database found that the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion over nearly a decade.

Almost two thirds of eligible physicians — 826,313 doctors — received a payment from a drug or device maker from 2013 to 2022, according to a study published online in JAMA on March 28. Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

Orthopedists received the largest amount of payments in aggregate, $1.3 billion, followed by neurologists and psychiatrists at $1.2 billion and cardiologists at $1.29 billion.

Geriatric and nuclear medicine specialists and trauma and pediatric surgeons received the least amount of money in aggregate, and the mean amount paid to a pediatric surgeon in the top 0.1% was just $338,183 over the 9-year study period.

Excluding 2013 (the database was established in August that year), the total value of payments was highest in 2019 at $1.6 billion, up from $1.34 billion in 2014. It was lowest in 2020, the peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but dipped to $864 billion that year and rebounded to $1.28 billion in 2022, wrote the authors.

The Open Payments database, administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, requires drug and device makers and group purchasing organizations to report payments made to physicians, including for consulting services, speaking fees, food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

The database was created to shed light on these payments, which have been linked in multiple studies to more prescribing of a particular drug or more use of a particular device.

The JAMA review appeared to show that with the exception of the pandemic year, the relationships have more or less stayed the same since Open Payments began.

“There’s been no sea change, no massive shift in how these interactions are happening,” said Deborah C. Marshall, MD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who has studied industry payments.

“There’s no suggestion that anything is really changing other than that’s there is transparency,” said Robert Steinbrook, MD, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen.

Still, Dr. Steinbrook told this news organization, “it’s better to know this than to not know this.”

The unchanging nature of industry-physician relationships “suggests that to reduce the volume and magnitude of payments, more would need to be done,” he said.

“Really, this should be banned. Doctors should not be allowed to get gifts from pharmaceutical companies,” said Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices.

“The interactions wouldn’t be happening unless there was a purpose for them,” said Dr. Marshall. The relationships are “built with intention,” Dr. Marshall told this news organization.
 

Top Earners Range From $195,000 to $4.8 Million

Payments to the median physician over the study period ranged from $0 to $2339, but the mean payment to top earners — those in the top 0.1% — ranged from $194,933 for hospitalists to $4.8 million for orthopedic specialists.

Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

But small dollar amounts should not be discounted — even if it’s just a $25-catered lunch — said Aaron Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has studied industry-physician relationships. “The influence is not just in the dollar value,” Dr. Mitchell told this news organization. “It’s about the time listening to and the time in personal contact with industry representatives that these dollars are a marker for,” he said.

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” agreed Dr. Marshall. It’s “pretty well established” that lower-value payments do have influence, which is why academic institutions have established policies that limit gifts and meals and other payments from industry, she said.

Dr. Fugh-Berman said, “the size of the gift doesn’t really matter,” adding that research she conducted had shown that “accepting a meal increased not only the expense of the prescriptions that Medicare physicians wrote but also the number of prescriptions.”
 

Payments Mostly for High-Dollar Products

The top 25 drugs and devices that were related to industry payments tended to be high-cost brand-name products.

The top drug was Janssen’s Xarelto, an anticoagulant first approved in 2011 that costs about $600 a month, according to GoodRx. The drug has had annual sales of $4-$6 billion.

Xarelto was followed by Eliquis, another anticoagulant; Humira, used for a variety of autoimmune conditions including plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis; Invokana, Jardiance, and Farxiga, all for type 2 diabetes.

The top medical devices included the da Vinci Surgical System, Mako SmartRobotics, CoreValve Evolut, Natrelle Implants, and Impella, a heart pump that received a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning that it was associated with a heightened risk for death.
 

Industry Influence May Lead to Higher Cost, Poor Quality Care

Multiple studies have shown that payments to physicians tend to lead to increased prescribing and, often, higher costs for Medicare, a health system, or patients.

“I’m sure there are still a lot of physicians out there who think they’re getting away with something, that they can take meals, or they can take consulting fees and not be influenced, but there’s overwhelming data showing that it always influences you,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman.

One study in 2020 that used the Open Payments database found that physicians increase prescribing of the drugs for which they receive payment in the months just after the payment. The authors also showed that physicians who are paid prescribe lower-quality drugs following the payment, “although the magnitude is small and unlikely to be clinically significant.”

Dr. Marshall said that more studies are needed to determine whether quality of care is being affected when a physician prescribes a drug after an industry payment.

For now, there seems to be little appetite among physicians to give up the payments, said Dr. Marshall and others.

Physicians in some specialties see the payments as “an implicit statement about their value,” said Dr. Marshall.

In oncology, having received a lot of payments “gets worn more as a badge of honor,” said Dr. Mitchell.

The clinicians believe that “by collaborating with industry we are providing scientific expertise to help develop the next generation of technology and cures,” Dr. Mitchell said, adding that they see the payments “as a mark of their impact.”

Among the JAMA study authors, Joseph S. Ross, MD, reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of the manuscript or its review. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the FDA, Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Steinbrook, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A review of the federal Open Payments database found that the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion over nearly a decade.

Almost two thirds of eligible physicians — 826,313 doctors — received a payment from a drug or device maker from 2013 to 2022, according to a study published online in JAMA on March 28. Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

Orthopedists received the largest amount of payments in aggregate, $1.3 billion, followed by neurologists and psychiatrists at $1.2 billion and cardiologists at $1.29 billion.

Geriatric and nuclear medicine specialists and trauma and pediatric surgeons received the least amount of money in aggregate, and the mean amount paid to a pediatric surgeon in the top 0.1% was just $338,183 over the 9-year study period.

Excluding 2013 (the database was established in August that year), the total value of payments was highest in 2019 at $1.6 billion, up from $1.34 billion in 2014. It was lowest in 2020, the peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but dipped to $864 billion that year and rebounded to $1.28 billion in 2022, wrote the authors.

The Open Payments database, administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, requires drug and device makers and group purchasing organizations to report payments made to physicians, including for consulting services, speaking fees, food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

The database was created to shed light on these payments, which have been linked in multiple studies to more prescribing of a particular drug or more use of a particular device.

The JAMA review appeared to show that with the exception of the pandemic year, the relationships have more or less stayed the same since Open Payments began.

“There’s been no sea change, no massive shift in how these interactions are happening,” said Deborah C. Marshall, MD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who has studied industry payments.

“There’s no suggestion that anything is really changing other than that’s there is transparency,” said Robert Steinbrook, MD, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen.

Still, Dr. Steinbrook told this news organization, “it’s better to know this than to not know this.”

The unchanging nature of industry-physician relationships “suggests that to reduce the volume and magnitude of payments, more would need to be done,” he said.

“Really, this should be banned. Doctors should not be allowed to get gifts from pharmaceutical companies,” said Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices.

“The interactions wouldn’t be happening unless there was a purpose for them,” said Dr. Marshall. The relationships are “built with intention,” Dr. Marshall told this news organization.
 

Top Earners Range From $195,000 to $4.8 Million

Payments to the median physician over the study period ranged from $0 to $2339, but the mean payment to top earners — those in the top 0.1% — ranged from $194,933 for hospitalists to $4.8 million for orthopedic specialists.

Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

But small dollar amounts should not be discounted — even if it’s just a $25-catered lunch — said Aaron Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has studied industry-physician relationships. “The influence is not just in the dollar value,” Dr. Mitchell told this news organization. “It’s about the time listening to and the time in personal contact with industry representatives that these dollars are a marker for,” he said.

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” agreed Dr. Marshall. It’s “pretty well established” that lower-value payments do have influence, which is why academic institutions have established policies that limit gifts and meals and other payments from industry, she said.

Dr. Fugh-Berman said, “the size of the gift doesn’t really matter,” adding that research she conducted had shown that “accepting a meal increased not only the expense of the prescriptions that Medicare physicians wrote but also the number of prescriptions.”
 

Payments Mostly for High-Dollar Products

The top 25 drugs and devices that were related to industry payments tended to be high-cost brand-name products.

The top drug was Janssen’s Xarelto, an anticoagulant first approved in 2011 that costs about $600 a month, according to GoodRx. The drug has had annual sales of $4-$6 billion.

Xarelto was followed by Eliquis, another anticoagulant; Humira, used for a variety of autoimmune conditions including plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis; Invokana, Jardiance, and Farxiga, all for type 2 diabetes.

The top medical devices included the da Vinci Surgical System, Mako SmartRobotics, CoreValve Evolut, Natrelle Implants, and Impella, a heart pump that received a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning that it was associated with a heightened risk for death.
 

Industry Influence May Lead to Higher Cost, Poor Quality Care

Multiple studies have shown that payments to physicians tend to lead to increased prescribing and, often, higher costs for Medicare, a health system, or patients.

“I’m sure there are still a lot of physicians out there who think they’re getting away with something, that they can take meals, or they can take consulting fees and not be influenced, but there’s overwhelming data showing that it always influences you,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman.

One study in 2020 that used the Open Payments database found that physicians increase prescribing of the drugs for which they receive payment in the months just after the payment. The authors also showed that physicians who are paid prescribe lower-quality drugs following the payment, “although the magnitude is small and unlikely to be clinically significant.”

Dr. Marshall said that more studies are needed to determine whether quality of care is being affected when a physician prescribes a drug after an industry payment.

For now, there seems to be little appetite among physicians to give up the payments, said Dr. Marshall and others.

Physicians in some specialties see the payments as “an implicit statement about their value,” said Dr. Marshall.

In oncology, having received a lot of payments “gets worn more as a badge of honor,” said Dr. Mitchell.

The clinicians believe that “by collaborating with industry we are providing scientific expertise to help develop the next generation of technology and cures,” Dr. Mitchell said, adding that they see the payments “as a mark of their impact.”

Among the JAMA study authors, Joseph S. Ross, MD, reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of the manuscript or its review. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the FDA, Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Steinbrook, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A review of the federal Open Payments database found that the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion over nearly a decade.

Almost two thirds of eligible physicians — 826,313 doctors — received a payment from a drug or device maker from 2013 to 2022, according to a study published online in JAMA on March 28. Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

Orthopedists received the largest amount of payments in aggregate, $1.3 billion, followed by neurologists and psychiatrists at $1.2 billion and cardiologists at $1.29 billion.

Geriatric and nuclear medicine specialists and trauma and pediatric surgeons received the least amount of money in aggregate, and the mean amount paid to a pediatric surgeon in the top 0.1% was just $338,183 over the 9-year study period.

Excluding 2013 (the database was established in August that year), the total value of payments was highest in 2019 at $1.6 billion, up from $1.34 billion in 2014. It was lowest in 2020, the peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but dipped to $864 billion that year and rebounded to $1.28 billion in 2022, wrote the authors.

The Open Payments database, administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, requires drug and device makers and group purchasing organizations to report payments made to physicians, including for consulting services, speaking fees, food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

The database was created to shed light on these payments, which have been linked in multiple studies to more prescribing of a particular drug or more use of a particular device.

The JAMA review appeared to show that with the exception of the pandemic year, the relationships have more or less stayed the same since Open Payments began.

“There’s been no sea change, no massive shift in how these interactions are happening,” said Deborah C. Marshall, MD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who has studied industry payments.

“There’s no suggestion that anything is really changing other than that’s there is transparency,” said Robert Steinbrook, MD, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen.

Still, Dr. Steinbrook told this news organization, “it’s better to know this than to not know this.”

The unchanging nature of industry-physician relationships “suggests that to reduce the volume and magnitude of payments, more would need to be done,” he said.

“Really, this should be banned. Doctors should not be allowed to get gifts from pharmaceutical companies,” said Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices.

“The interactions wouldn’t be happening unless there was a purpose for them,” said Dr. Marshall. The relationships are “built with intention,” Dr. Marshall told this news organization.
 

Top Earners Range From $195,000 to $4.8 Million

Payments to the median physician over the study period ranged from $0 to $2339, but the mean payment to top earners — those in the top 0.1% — ranged from $194,933 for hospitalists to $4.8 million for orthopedic specialists.

Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

But small dollar amounts should not be discounted — even if it’s just a $25-catered lunch — said Aaron Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has studied industry-physician relationships. “The influence is not just in the dollar value,” Dr. Mitchell told this news organization. “It’s about the time listening to and the time in personal contact with industry representatives that these dollars are a marker for,” he said.

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” agreed Dr. Marshall. It’s “pretty well established” that lower-value payments do have influence, which is why academic institutions have established policies that limit gifts and meals and other payments from industry, she said.

Dr. Fugh-Berman said, “the size of the gift doesn’t really matter,” adding that research she conducted had shown that “accepting a meal increased not only the expense of the prescriptions that Medicare physicians wrote but also the number of prescriptions.”
 

Payments Mostly for High-Dollar Products

The top 25 drugs and devices that were related to industry payments tended to be high-cost brand-name products.

The top drug was Janssen’s Xarelto, an anticoagulant first approved in 2011 that costs about $600 a month, according to GoodRx. The drug has had annual sales of $4-$6 billion.

Xarelto was followed by Eliquis, another anticoagulant; Humira, used for a variety of autoimmune conditions including plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis; Invokana, Jardiance, and Farxiga, all for type 2 diabetes.

The top medical devices included the da Vinci Surgical System, Mako SmartRobotics, CoreValve Evolut, Natrelle Implants, and Impella, a heart pump that received a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning that it was associated with a heightened risk for death.
 

Industry Influence May Lead to Higher Cost, Poor Quality Care

Multiple studies have shown that payments to physicians tend to lead to increased prescribing and, often, higher costs for Medicare, a health system, or patients.

“I’m sure there are still a lot of physicians out there who think they’re getting away with something, that they can take meals, or they can take consulting fees and not be influenced, but there’s overwhelming data showing that it always influences you,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman.

One study in 2020 that used the Open Payments database found that physicians increase prescribing of the drugs for which they receive payment in the months just after the payment. The authors also showed that physicians who are paid prescribe lower-quality drugs following the payment, “although the magnitude is small and unlikely to be clinically significant.”

Dr. Marshall said that more studies are needed to determine whether quality of care is being affected when a physician prescribes a drug after an industry payment.

For now, there seems to be little appetite among physicians to give up the payments, said Dr. Marshall and others.

Physicians in some specialties see the payments as “an implicit statement about their value,” said Dr. Marshall.

In oncology, having received a lot of payments “gets worn more as a badge of honor,” said Dr. Mitchell.

The clinicians believe that “by collaborating with industry we are providing scientific expertise to help develop the next generation of technology and cures,” Dr. Mitchell said, adding that they see the payments “as a mark of their impact.”

Among the JAMA study authors, Joseph S. Ross, MD, reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of the manuscript or its review. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the FDA, Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Steinbrook, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

One session of a telehealth intervention combining mindfulness and compassion significantly lowered self-perceived stress and symptoms of depression and anxiety compared with a waitlist control group, results of a new trial showed. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The randomized clinical trial (RCT) included 91 participants aged 18-70 years recruited from the community and the University of Texas at Austin and followed from 2020 to 2021.
• To be included in the trial, participants had to be sheltering at home during the pandemic and endorse loneliness as one of the top issues affecting them.
• Participants were randomized to one of three groups that received single-session online interventions. These included mindfulness-only (MO), mindfulness and compassion (MC), and a waitlist control (WL) group.
• During the compassion component, participants were instructed to focus on a person, place, object, or spiritual figure that evoked feelings of warmth, love, and kindness in them. The primary outcome was self-reported loneliness and secondary outcomes were self-reported stress, depression, and anxiety.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 1-week follow-up, the MC group led to reductions in perceived stress (b = −3.75), anxiety (b = −3.79), and depression (b = −3.01) but not loneliness compared with control individuals.
• Compared with the MO group alone, the MC group had no meaningful differences in perceived depression (b = −1.08) or anxiety (b = −1.50), and the same was true at the 2-week follow-up.
• Researchers speculated that the lack of difference between outcomes in the two mindfulness groups probably meant that the MC group may have only been effective in reducing self-perceived symptoms of stress, anxiety, and depression compared with the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“This brief single session mindfulness intervention offers an approach that can be easily adopted in a range of contexts. It is important for future research to evaluate this approach with larger samples and to examine whether changes in symptoms are maintained over longer periods of time,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Mikael Rubin, PhD, of Palo Alto University in Palo Alto, California, led the study, which was published online in PLOS ONE.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by its small sample size and short follow-up period.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding listed for the study nor were there any reported disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

One session of a telehealth intervention combining mindfulness and compassion significantly lowered self-perceived stress and symptoms of depression and anxiety compared with a waitlist control group, results of a new trial showed. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The randomized clinical trial (RCT) included 91 participants aged 18-70 years recruited from the community and the University of Texas at Austin and followed from 2020 to 2021.
• To be included in the trial, participants had to be sheltering at home during the pandemic and endorse loneliness as one of the top issues affecting them.
• Participants were randomized to one of three groups that received single-session online interventions. These included mindfulness-only (MO), mindfulness and compassion (MC), and a waitlist control (WL) group.
• During the compassion component, participants were instructed to focus on a person, place, object, or spiritual figure that evoked feelings of warmth, love, and kindness in them. The primary outcome was self-reported loneliness and secondary outcomes were self-reported stress, depression, and anxiety.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 1-week follow-up, the MC group led to reductions in perceived stress (b = −3.75), anxiety (b = −3.79), and depression (b = −3.01) but not loneliness compared with control individuals.
• Compared with the MO group alone, the MC group had no meaningful differences in perceived depression (b = −1.08) or anxiety (b = −1.50), and the same was true at the 2-week follow-up.
• Researchers speculated that the lack of difference between outcomes in the two mindfulness groups probably meant that the MC group may have only been effective in reducing self-perceived symptoms of stress, anxiety, and depression compared with the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“This brief single session mindfulness intervention offers an approach that can be easily adopted in a range of contexts. It is important for future research to evaluate this approach with larger samples and to examine whether changes in symptoms are maintained over longer periods of time,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Mikael Rubin, PhD, of Palo Alto University in Palo Alto, California, led the study, which was published online in PLOS ONE.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by its small sample size and short follow-up period.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding listed for the study nor were there any reported disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

One session of a telehealth intervention combining mindfulness and compassion significantly lowered self-perceived stress and symptoms of depression and anxiety compared with a waitlist control group, results of a new trial showed. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The randomized clinical trial (RCT) included 91 participants aged 18-70 years recruited from the community and the University of Texas at Austin and followed from 2020 to 2021.
• To be included in the trial, participants had to be sheltering at home during the pandemic and endorse loneliness as one of the top issues affecting them.
• Participants were randomized to one of three groups that received single-session online interventions. These included mindfulness-only (MO), mindfulness and compassion (MC), and a waitlist control (WL) group.
• During the compassion component, participants were instructed to focus on a person, place, object, or spiritual figure that evoked feelings of warmth, love, and kindness in them. The primary outcome was self-reported loneliness and secondary outcomes were self-reported stress, depression, and anxiety.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 1-week follow-up, the MC group led to reductions in perceived stress (b = −3.75), anxiety (b = −3.79), and depression (b = −3.01) but not loneliness compared with control individuals.
• Compared with the MO group alone, the MC group had no meaningful differences in perceived depression (b = −1.08) or anxiety (b = −1.50), and the same was true at the 2-week follow-up.
• Researchers speculated that the lack of difference between outcomes in the two mindfulness groups probably meant that the MC group may have only been effective in reducing self-perceived symptoms of stress, anxiety, and depression compared with the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“This brief single session mindfulness intervention offers an approach that can be easily adopted in a range of contexts. It is important for future research to evaluate this approach with larger samples and to examine whether changes in symptoms are maintained over longer periods of time,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Mikael Rubin, PhD, of Palo Alto University in Palo Alto, California, led the study, which was published online in PLOS ONE.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by its small sample size and short follow-up period.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding listed for the study nor were there any reported disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared with prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health in Connecticut. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi told this news organization. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touch point and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHRs is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

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

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared with prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health in Connecticut. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi told this news organization. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touch point and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHRs is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

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

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared with prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health in Connecticut. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi told this news organization. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touch point and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHRs is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

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

TOPLINE:

Certain stimulants prescribed for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are associated with a decreased risk for psychiatric and nonpsychiatric hospitalization and suicide, new data from a national cohort study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used various medical and administrative databases in Sweden to identify individuals aged 16-65 years who were diagnosed with ADHD between January 2006 and December 2021.
• Participants were followed for up to 15 years (mean duration, 7 years) from date of diagnosis until death, emigration, or end of data linkage in December 2021.
• Researchers wanted to explore the link between ADHD meds and psychiatric hospitalization, nonpsychiatric hospitalization, and suicidal behavior.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cohort included 221,700 individuals with ADHD (mean age, 25 years; 54% male), and 56% had a psychiatric comorbidity such as an anxiety or stress-related disorder (24%), and depression or bipolar disorder (20%).
• Investigators found significantly lower risk for psychiatric hospitalization for the several medications. These included amphetamine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.74), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.80), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.88), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.93), and polytherapy (aHR, 0.85). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• ADHD medications associated with a significantly lower risk for nonpsychiatric hospitalization included amphetamine (aHR, 0.62), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.64), polytherapy (aHR, 0.67), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.72), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.80), and atomoxetine (aHR, 0.84). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• Use of dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.69; P < .001), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.76; P = .43), polytherapy (aHR, 0.85; P = .02), and methylphenidate (aHR, 0.92; P = .007) were associated with a significantly lower risk for suicidal behavior.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although concerns have been raised about the potential of amphetamines and methylphenidate for increasing the risk of adverse psychiatric outcomes, such as psychosis and mania, our results show that overall, the net effect on psychiatric outcomes is positive,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Heidi Taipale, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Due to the use of nationwide registers, there was a lack of detailed clinical data, including type and severity of symptoms. There was also no data on nonpharmacologic treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the AFA Insurance Agency. Dr. Taipale reported receiving personal fees from Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, and Otsuka and grants from Janssen and Eli Lilly outside of the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Certain stimulants prescribed for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are associated with a decreased risk for psychiatric and nonpsychiatric hospitalization and suicide, new data from a national cohort study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used various medical and administrative databases in Sweden to identify individuals aged 16-65 years who were diagnosed with ADHD between January 2006 and December 2021.
• Participants were followed for up to 15 years (mean duration, 7 years) from date of diagnosis until death, emigration, or end of data linkage in December 2021.
• Researchers wanted to explore the link between ADHD meds and psychiatric hospitalization, nonpsychiatric hospitalization, and suicidal behavior.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cohort included 221,700 individuals with ADHD (mean age, 25 years; 54% male), and 56% had a psychiatric comorbidity such as an anxiety or stress-related disorder (24%), and depression or bipolar disorder (20%).
• Investigators found significantly lower risk for psychiatric hospitalization for the several medications. These included amphetamine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.74), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.80), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.88), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.93), and polytherapy (aHR, 0.85). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• ADHD medications associated with a significantly lower risk for nonpsychiatric hospitalization included amphetamine (aHR, 0.62), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.64), polytherapy (aHR, 0.67), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.72), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.80), and atomoxetine (aHR, 0.84). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• Use of dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.69; P < .001), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.76; P = .43), polytherapy (aHR, 0.85; P = .02), and methylphenidate (aHR, 0.92; P = .007) were associated with a significantly lower risk for suicidal behavior.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although concerns have been raised about the potential of amphetamines and methylphenidate for increasing the risk of adverse psychiatric outcomes, such as psychosis and mania, our results show that overall, the net effect on psychiatric outcomes is positive,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Heidi Taipale, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Due to the use of nationwide registers, there was a lack of detailed clinical data, including type and severity of symptoms. There was also no data on nonpharmacologic treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the AFA Insurance Agency. Dr. Taipale reported receiving personal fees from Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, and Otsuka and grants from Janssen and Eli Lilly outside of the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Certain stimulants prescribed for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are associated with a decreased risk for psychiatric and nonpsychiatric hospitalization and suicide, new data from a national cohort study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used various medical and administrative databases in Sweden to identify individuals aged 16-65 years who were diagnosed with ADHD between January 2006 and December 2021.
• Participants were followed for up to 15 years (mean duration, 7 years) from date of diagnosis until death, emigration, or end of data linkage in December 2021.
• Researchers wanted to explore the link between ADHD meds and psychiatric hospitalization, nonpsychiatric hospitalization, and suicidal behavior.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cohort included 221,700 individuals with ADHD (mean age, 25 years; 54% male), and 56% had a psychiatric comorbidity such as an anxiety or stress-related disorder (24%), and depression or bipolar disorder (20%).
• Investigators found significantly lower risk for psychiatric hospitalization for the several medications. These included amphetamine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.74), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.80), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.88), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.93), and polytherapy (aHR, 0.85). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• ADHD medications associated with a significantly lower risk for nonpsychiatric hospitalization included amphetamine (aHR, 0.62), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.64), polytherapy (aHR, 0.67), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.72), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.80), and atomoxetine (aHR, 0.84). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• Use of dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.69; P < .001), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.76; P = .43), polytherapy (aHR, 0.85; P = .02), and methylphenidate (aHR, 0.92; P = .007) were associated with a significantly lower risk for suicidal behavior.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although concerns have been raised about the potential of amphetamines and methylphenidate for increasing the risk of adverse psychiatric outcomes, such as psychosis and mania, our results show that overall, the net effect on psychiatric outcomes is positive,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Heidi Taipale, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Due to the use of nationwide registers, there was a lack of detailed clinical data, including type and severity of symptoms. There was also no data on nonpharmacologic treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the AFA Insurance Agency. Dr. Taipale reported receiving personal fees from Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, and Otsuka and grants from Janssen and Eli Lilly outside of the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

Primary care physicians play a critical role in identifying patients at risk for serious mental health issues, including suicidality. But the ever-increasing demands on their clinical time can hinder the ability to identify emotional distress in time to intervene. Can artificial intelligence (AI) help?

This news organization spoke with Tom Zaubler, MD, a psychiatrist and chief medical officer of NeuroFlow, about how AI can improve the ability of primary care physicians and other clinicians to screen their patients for suicidal ideation and boost rates of treatment for mental health issues in their patients. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Question: How can AI help in suicide prevention and mental health screening in primary care?

Answer: Recent studies have demonstrated the potential of AI in mental health screening and suicide prevention. One method is natural language processing (NLP), which can analyze patients› journal entries for signs of suicidal thoughts or behaviors. This technology has shown promise in detecting suicidal ideation in patients who may not report such thoughts on traditional screening tools like the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). AI can be part of an integrated approach to identify and provide support to individuals at risk for suicide or those without a psychiatric history but who may still be at risk.

Q: A recent study by [Maria] Oquendo and colleagues found that one fifth of patients who attempt suicide do not meet the criteria for a mental health disorder.

Improved screening is obviously important, but in some ways it’s not the most important part of the problem. The lack of accessibility to specialized mental health care is a critical obstacle to treating patients with acute psychiatric needs.

How can primary care doctors effectively connect patients with mental health support, given the scarcity of mental health professionals?

A: Primary care doctors can leverage technology to extend mental health support. This includes using platforms for safety screening and providing patients with immediate access to local and national resources and digital interventions. Alerts can be sent to professionals within the practice or employed by technology companies to offer immediate support, including suicide safety planning and counseling. Users can hit a button to “Find a Therapist.” Also, if they acknowledge feelings of self-harm, these keywords are detected within the app by NLP. “Urgent alerts” are then sent to clinicians who are overseeing patient care. If someone is flagged, a social worker or member of a response services team intervenes and calls the person at risk to tailor care. These interventions do not always require a psychiatrist or masters-prepared clinician but can be effectively managed by trained paraprofessionals. These staff members can provide suicide safety planning and lethal-means-restriction counseling, and can assess the need for escalation of care.

Q: How is technology likely to manifest in physician practices in the near future to support mental health care?

A: Automated screening platforms for depression and anxiety, alerts for physicians when patients screen positively, and integration with collaborative care models are a few of the ways technology will become part of clinical practice. Additionally, advanced data analytics and predictive modeling using electronic health records and claims data will help identify high-risk patients. Technologies like voice recognition and machine learning can analyze patient journals and possibly, in the future, social media feeds to detect mental health issues. These technologies aim to extend and augment the capabilities of healthcare practices, improving the identification and management of patients at risk for mental health issues.

Q: Are these technologies as effective in pediatric populations, and are there any specific challenges?

A: Technologies for mental health screening and support are effective in pediatric populations, with certain age-specific considerations and legal restrictions on technology use. For adolescents and older children comfortable with technology, digital tools can significantly impact mental health care. For younger children, technology must facilitate information-gathering from various sources, including parents and teachers. Despite challenges, technology is crucial for early identification and intervention in pediatric mental health, potentially shortening the time to diagnosis and improving outcomes.

The statistics are horrifying. One third of adolescent girls have seriously thought about suicide over the past year; 13% attempt suicide. So there’s a need in the adolescent population and in the preadolescent population, too, because there’s an 8- to 10-year lag between onset of symptoms and diagnosis of mental illness. If we can shorten that lag, you see improved performance in schools; you see decreased truancy; you see greater economic achievement and so on. It makes such a profound difference. Not to mention it saves lives. So, yes, technology is critical in a pediatric population. It exists and it’s happening right now. There are challenges, but the goal can be met.

Q: A 2014 study found that 45% of people who completed suicide visited a primary care physician in the preceding month. And only 23% of people who attempt suicide have not seen a primary care physician within the past year. What does that say about the importance of screening at the primary care level?

A: The fact that a significant percentage of individuals who die by suicide have visited a primary care physician within a month or year prior to their death underscores the critical role of primary care in suicide prevention. This highlights the potential for primary care settings to identify and intervene with individuals at risk for suicide, making the case for the importance of integrating effective mental health screenings and support technologies in primary care practices.

Q: In other words, we’re not talking about a marginal benefit.

A: No, the potential benefit is huge. The United States Preventive Services Task Force did not endorse universal screening for suicide in its 2023 recommendations; they felt — and I accept that conclusion — there wasn›t enough evidence [at the time] to really support that recommendation. I think when you talk to a lot of suicide researchers, what you will hear is that providing suicide assessments as far upstream as possible is critical, especially when you start seeing more and more research showing that 20% of the population who die by suicide are not likely to have any psychiatric pathology at all. I believe the evidence base will soon support a recommendation for universal screening for adults. I believe it is especially important to screen for suicidal ideation in kids, given the high rates of suicide in this population.

Dr. Zaubler has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: chief medical officer, NeuroFlow.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care physicians play a critical role in identifying patients at risk for serious mental health issues, including suicidality. But the ever-increasing demands on their clinical time can hinder the ability to identify emotional distress in time to intervene. Can artificial intelligence (AI) help?

This news organization spoke with Tom Zaubler, MD, a psychiatrist and chief medical officer of NeuroFlow, about how AI can improve the ability of primary care physicians and other clinicians to screen their patients for suicidal ideation and boost rates of treatment for mental health issues in their patients. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Question: How can AI help in suicide prevention and mental health screening in primary care?

Answer: Recent studies have demonstrated the potential of AI in mental health screening and suicide prevention. One method is natural language processing (NLP), which can analyze patients› journal entries for signs of suicidal thoughts or behaviors. This technology has shown promise in detecting suicidal ideation in patients who may not report such thoughts on traditional screening tools like the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). AI can be part of an integrated approach to identify and provide support to individuals at risk for suicide or those without a psychiatric history but who may still be at risk.

Q: A recent study by [Maria] Oquendo and colleagues found that one fifth of patients who attempt suicide do not meet the criteria for a mental health disorder.

Improved screening is obviously important, but in some ways it’s not the most important part of the problem. The lack of accessibility to specialized mental health care is a critical obstacle to treating patients with acute psychiatric needs.

How can primary care doctors effectively connect patients with mental health support, given the scarcity of mental health professionals?

A: Primary care doctors can leverage technology to extend mental health support. This includes using platforms for safety screening and providing patients with immediate access to local and national resources and digital interventions. Alerts can be sent to professionals within the practice or employed by technology companies to offer immediate support, including suicide safety planning and counseling. Users can hit a button to “Find a Therapist.” Also, if they acknowledge feelings of self-harm, these keywords are detected within the app by NLP. “Urgent alerts” are then sent to clinicians who are overseeing patient care. If someone is flagged, a social worker or member of a response services team intervenes and calls the person at risk to tailor care. These interventions do not always require a psychiatrist or masters-prepared clinician but can be effectively managed by trained paraprofessionals. These staff members can provide suicide safety planning and lethal-means-restriction counseling, and can assess the need for escalation of care.

Q: How is technology likely to manifest in physician practices in the near future to support mental health care?

A: Automated screening platforms for depression and anxiety, alerts for physicians when patients screen positively, and integration with collaborative care models are a few of the ways technology will become part of clinical practice. Additionally, advanced data analytics and predictive modeling using electronic health records and claims data will help identify high-risk patients. Technologies like voice recognition and machine learning can analyze patient journals and possibly, in the future, social media feeds to detect mental health issues. These technologies aim to extend and augment the capabilities of healthcare practices, improving the identification and management of patients at risk for mental health issues.

Q: Are these technologies as effective in pediatric populations, and are there any specific challenges?

A: Technologies for mental health screening and support are effective in pediatric populations, with certain age-specific considerations and legal restrictions on technology use. For adolescents and older children comfortable with technology, digital tools can significantly impact mental health care. For younger children, technology must facilitate information-gathering from various sources, including parents and teachers. Despite challenges, technology is crucial for early identification and intervention in pediatric mental health, potentially shortening the time to diagnosis and improving outcomes.

The statistics are horrifying. One third of adolescent girls have seriously thought about suicide over the past year; 13% attempt suicide. So there’s a need in the adolescent population and in the preadolescent population, too, because there’s an 8- to 10-year lag between onset of symptoms and diagnosis of mental illness. If we can shorten that lag, you see improved performance in schools; you see decreased truancy; you see greater economic achievement and so on. It makes such a profound difference. Not to mention it saves lives. So, yes, technology is critical in a pediatric population. It exists and it’s happening right now. There are challenges, but the goal can be met.

Q: A 2014 study found that 45% of people who completed suicide visited a primary care physician in the preceding month. And only 23% of people who attempt suicide have not seen a primary care physician within the past year. What does that say about the importance of screening at the primary care level?

A: The fact that a significant percentage of individuals who die by suicide have visited a primary care physician within a month or year prior to their death underscores the critical role of primary care in suicide prevention. This highlights the potential for primary care settings to identify and intervene with individuals at risk for suicide, making the case for the importance of integrating effective mental health screenings and support technologies in primary care practices.

Q: In other words, we’re not talking about a marginal benefit.

A: No, the potential benefit is huge. The United States Preventive Services Task Force did not endorse universal screening for suicide in its 2023 recommendations; they felt — and I accept that conclusion — there wasn›t enough evidence [at the time] to really support that recommendation. I think when you talk to a lot of suicide researchers, what you will hear is that providing suicide assessments as far upstream as possible is critical, especially when you start seeing more and more research showing that 20% of the population who die by suicide are not likely to have any psychiatric pathology at all. I believe the evidence base will soon support a recommendation for universal screening for adults. I believe it is especially important to screen for suicidal ideation in kids, given the high rates of suicide in this population.

Dr. Zaubler has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: chief medical officer, NeuroFlow.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care physicians play a critical role in identifying patients at risk for serious mental health issues, including suicidality. But the ever-increasing demands on their clinical time can hinder the ability to identify emotional distress in time to intervene. Can artificial intelligence (AI) help?

This news organization spoke with Tom Zaubler, MD, a psychiatrist and chief medical officer of NeuroFlow, about how AI can improve the ability of primary care physicians and other clinicians to screen their patients for suicidal ideation and boost rates of treatment for mental health issues in their patients. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Question: How can AI help in suicide prevention and mental health screening in primary care?

Answer: Recent studies have demonstrated the potential of AI in mental health screening and suicide prevention. One method is natural language processing (NLP), which can analyze patients› journal entries for signs of suicidal thoughts or behaviors. This technology has shown promise in detecting suicidal ideation in patients who may not report such thoughts on traditional screening tools like the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). AI can be part of an integrated approach to identify and provide support to individuals at risk for suicide or those without a psychiatric history but who may still be at risk.

Q: A recent study by [Maria] Oquendo and colleagues found that one fifth of patients who attempt suicide do not meet the criteria for a mental health disorder.

Improved screening is obviously important, but in some ways it’s not the most important part of the problem. The lack of accessibility to specialized mental health care is a critical obstacle to treating patients with acute psychiatric needs.

How can primary care doctors effectively connect patients with mental health support, given the scarcity of mental health professionals?

A: Primary care doctors can leverage technology to extend mental health support. This includes using platforms for safety screening and providing patients with immediate access to local and national resources and digital interventions. Alerts can be sent to professionals within the practice or employed by technology companies to offer immediate support, including suicide safety planning and counseling. Users can hit a button to “Find a Therapist.” Also, if they acknowledge feelings of self-harm, these keywords are detected within the app by NLP. “Urgent alerts” are then sent to clinicians who are overseeing patient care. If someone is flagged, a social worker or member of a response services team intervenes and calls the person at risk to tailor care. These interventions do not always require a psychiatrist or masters-prepared clinician but can be effectively managed by trained paraprofessionals. These staff members can provide suicide safety planning and lethal-means-restriction counseling, and can assess the need for escalation of care.

Q: How is technology likely to manifest in physician practices in the near future to support mental health care?

A: Automated screening platforms for depression and anxiety, alerts for physicians when patients screen positively, and integration with collaborative care models are a few of the ways technology will become part of clinical practice. Additionally, advanced data analytics and predictive modeling using electronic health records and claims data will help identify high-risk patients. Technologies like voice recognition and machine learning can analyze patient journals and possibly, in the future, social media feeds to detect mental health issues. These technologies aim to extend and augment the capabilities of healthcare practices, improving the identification and management of patients at risk for mental health issues.

Q: Are these technologies as effective in pediatric populations, and are there any specific challenges?

A: Technologies for mental health screening and support are effective in pediatric populations, with certain age-specific considerations and legal restrictions on technology use. For adolescents and older children comfortable with technology, digital tools can significantly impact mental health care. For younger children, technology must facilitate information-gathering from various sources, including parents and teachers. Despite challenges, technology is crucial for early identification and intervention in pediatric mental health, potentially shortening the time to diagnosis and improving outcomes.

The statistics are horrifying. One third of adolescent girls have seriously thought about suicide over the past year; 13% attempt suicide. So there’s a need in the adolescent population and in the preadolescent population, too, because there’s an 8- to 10-year lag between onset of symptoms and diagnosis of mental illness. If we can shorten that lag, you see improved performance in schools; you see decreased truancy; you see greater economic achievement and so on. It makes such a profound difference. Not to mention it saves lives. So, yes, technology is critical in a pediatric population. It exists and it’s happening right now. There are challenges, but the goal can be met.

Q: A 2014 study found that 45% of people who completed suicide visited a primary care physician in the preceding month. And only 23% of people who attempt suicide have not seen a primary care physician within the past year. What does that say about the importance of screening at the primary care level?

A: The fact that a significant percentage of individuals who die by suicide have visited a primary care physician within a month or year prior to their death underscores the critical role of primary care in suicide prevention. This highlights the potential for primary care settings to identify and intervene with individuals at risk for suicide, making the case for the importance of integrating effective mental health screenings and support technologies in primary care practices.

Q: In other words, we’re not talking about a marginal benefit.

A: No, the potential benefit is huge. The United States Preventive Services Task Force did not endorse universal screening for suicide in its 2023 recommendations; they felt — and I accept that conclusion — there wasn›t enough evidence [at the time] to really support that recommendation. I think when you talk to a lot of suicide researchers, what you will hear is that providing suicide assessments as far upstream as possible is critical, especially when you start seeing more and more research showing that 20% of the population who die by suicide are not likely to have any psychiatric pathology at all. I believe the evidence base will soon support a recommendation for universal screening for adults. I believe it is especially important to screen for suicidal ideation in kids, given the high rates of suicide in this population.

Dr. Zaubler has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: chief medical officer, NeuroFlow.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting an exercise regimen with others can be a powerful fitness motivator, and new research spotlights the strategy’s particular importance for older adults.

In a randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Network Open, older adults who talked with peers about their exercise program were able to increase and sustain physical activity levels much better than those who focused on self-motivation and setting fitness goals.

Such self-focused — or “intrapersonal” — strategies tend to be more common in health and fitness than interactive, or “interpersonal,” ones, the study authors noted. Yet, research on their effectiveness is limited. Historically, intrapersonal strategies have been studied as part of a bundle of behavioral change strategies — a common limitation in research — making it difficult to discern their individual value.

“We’re not saying that intrapersonal strategies should not be used,” said study author Siobhan McMahon, PhD, associate professor and codirector of the Center on Aging Science and Care at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, “but this study shows that interpersonal strategies are really important.”

Low physical activity among older adults is linked with “disability, difficulty managing chronic conditions, and increased falls and related injuries,” the authors wrote. Exercise can be the antidote, yet fewer than 16% of older adults meet the recommended guidelines (150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity and two muscle-strengthening sessions per week).

The study builds on previous research that suggests interpersonal strategies could help change that by encouraging more older adults to move.
 

Intrapersonal vs Interpersonal Behavior Change Strategies

More than 300 participants aged 70 years and older who did not meet physical activity guidelines were given a wearable fitness tracker and an exercise program and randomly split into four groups:

• One using intrapersonal behavior change strategies
• Another using interpersonal strategies
• A group combining both intrapersonal and interpersonal strategies
• A control group that received neither intervention

For 8 weeks, all participants exercised in meet-ups and discussed their progress in their groups. Afterward, they were left to their own devices and monitored for the remainder of the year.

“The intrapersonal strategies group involved personal reflection,” said Dr. McMahon. They set personal goals (increasing daily step count or exercise repetitions) and developed action plans for implementing physical activity into their daily routines.

“The interpersonal group involved more peer-to-peer conversation, collaborative learning, and sharing,” said Dr. McMahon. Participants talked among themselves about how they could sustain doing the prescribed exercises at home. “Through those conversations, they learned and experimented,” Dr. McMahon said. They problem-solved, determining what barriers might stop them from exercising and brainstorming ways around them.

The researchers evaluated the participants after 1 week, 6 months, and 12 months. The interpersonal group exhibited significant increases in physical activity — including light, moderate, and vigorous activity — for the entire year. They increased their average physical activity per day by 21-28 minutes and their daily step count by 776-1058.

The intrapersonal group, meanwhile, exhibited no significant changes in total physical activity. (The third experimental group, the intrapersonal plus interpersonal condition, had results similar to the interpersonal one.)

The results echoed the findings of a similar study Dr. McMahon conducted in 2017. “We followed people over a longer period of time in this [new] study,” she said, “12 months instead of 6 months. This is important in physical activity studies because a lot of evidence shows that after 6 months, people’s activity drops off.”
 

How Socializing Promotes Exercise Compliance

Research on the effectiveness of exercise in social groups dates back as far as the 19th century. It’s called the social facilitation theory: The idea that people will make an increased effort as a result of the real, imagined, or implied presence of others.

“Norman Triplett was a scientist who studied indoor cyclists, and he came up with the social facilitation theory in 1898,” said Robert Linkul, CSCS*D, who sits on the National Strength and Conditioning Association’s board of directors and specializes in exercise for older adults. “He noticed that during relays, the first cyclist would get slower as he fatigued, but as soon as his teammate came out, his last lap would be faster than his previous two laps. People try harder when there’s some other person present. They tend to feel pressure to perform because they don’t want to look bad.”

Dr. McMahon said the exact psychology of why socializing supports exercise isn’t clear yet but noted that talking to other people builds relationships and makes one feel connected to and involved with a community.

“I think connections between peers are really important,” said Dr. McMahon. “It goes beyond just being in the same room and doing the exercises together. It’s taking a little bit of time to talk about it. To acknowledge what they’re doing and their progress. To encourage each other and provide support.”

Some of the study participants even became friends and continued to meet on their own time over the course of the trial.

“They stayed in touch,” said Dr. McMahon. “One thing that people talked about after the study, even if they weren’t friends, was that the conversations within the meetings made them feel kind of a fellowship that helped them learn about themselves or people like them.”
 

Help Patients Find Their Own Fellowship of Active People

• Communicate the importance of exercise. During appointments, ask how the patient is doing with their exercise and listen for any obstacles to compliance, Dr. McMahon said.
• See if they have access to fitness classes. Many community-dwelling older adults do, Mr. Linkul said. If not, consider local or state agencies on aging — “in Minnesota, we have a program, Juniper,” Dr. McMahon said, that maintains a list of physical activity programs — or AARP’s free online group classes, or Silver Sneakers (free for those with eligible Medicare Advantage plans).
• Reach out to local qualified fitness professionals. Trainers with the Training the Older Adult certification (founded by Mr. Linkul) can be found here. Other qualified trainers can be found through the Functional Aging Institute, American Council on Exercise, and National Academy of Sports Medicine, Mr. Linkul said. “Many of these trainers will offer semiprivate sessions,” said Mr. Linkul, “which is usually four to eight people.” Groups of this size often facilitate better participation than larger classes. “You get more personalized attention from the instructor along with an environment that allows social engagement,” said Mr. Linkul. If you have exercise or rehab professionals in your network, you might consider reaching out to them. Some physical therapists lead activity groups, though reimbursement challenges mean they aren’t common, Dr. McMahon said.
• Prescribe short walks with a friend, family member, or neighbor. Have the person start with 30 minutes of walking or rucking (walking with a weighted backpack) most days, Mr. Linkul suggested, a recommendation that is echoed by the American College of Sports Medicine.
• Encourage patients to talk about their exercise. Even for those who prefer to exercise solo, “our studies suggest it might be helpful to have conversations with others about movement, and motivations for movement,” Dr. McMahon said. They can simply mention one idea, question, or observation related to physical activity during casual catchups or chats.
• Recommend resistance training. That goes for patients with preexisting health conditions too, Mr. Linkul said. Physicians “find out a patient has low bone mineral density, and they’ll often tell them not to pick up anything heavy because they’ll hurt themselves — and that’s the exact wrong answer,” Mr. Linkul said. A total of 32% of the participants in the JAMA Network study had cardiovascular disease, nearly 34% had osteoporosis, 70% had arthritis, and more than 20% were living with diabetes.
• Expect pushback. Encouraging older adults to exercise is hard because many are resistant to it, Mr. Linkul acknowledged. Do it anyway. Some will listen and that makes the effort worthwhile. “I try to provide as much information as I can about what happens to aging bodies if they don’t train,” said Mr. Linkul. “These people are more likely to fall, they’ll die earlier, and have a poorer quality of life. But when they start exercising, they feel better immediately.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting an exercise regimen with others can be a powerful fitness motivator, and new research spotlights the strategy’s particular importance for older adults.

In a randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Network Open, older adults who talked with peers about their exercise program were able to increase and sustain physical activity levels much better than those who focused on self-motivation and setting fitness goals.

Such self-focused — or “intrapersonal” — strategies tend to be more common in health and fitness than interactive, or “interpersonal,” ones, the study authors noted. Yet, research on their effectiveness is limited. Historically, intrapersonal strategies have been studied as part of a bundle of behavioral change strategies — a common limitation in research — making it difficult to discern their individual value.

“We’re not saying that intrapersonal strategies should not be used,” said study author Siobhan McMahon, PhD, associate professor and codirector of the Center on Aging Science and Care at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, “but this study shows that interpersonal strategies are really important.”

Low physical activity among older adults is linked with “disability, difficulty managing chronic conditions, and increased falls and related injuries,” the authors wrote. Exercise can be the antidote, yet fewer than 16% of older adults meet the recommended guidelines (150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity and two muscle-strengthening sessions per week).

The study builds on previous research that suggests interpersonal strategies could help change that by encouraging more older adults to move.
 

Intrapersonal vs Interpersonal Behavior Change Strategies

More than 300 participants aged 70 years and older who did not meet physical activity guidelines were given a wearable fitness tracker and an exercise program and randomly split into four groups:

• One using intrapersonal behavior change strategies
• Another using interpersonal strategies
• A group combining both intrapersonal and interpersonal strategies
• A control group that received neither intervention

For 8 weeks, all participants exercised in meet-ups and discussed their progress in their groups. Afterward, they were left to their own devices and monitored for the remainder of the year.

“The intrapersonal strategies group involved personal reflection,” said Dr. McMahon. They set personal goals (increasing daily step count or exercise repetitions) and developed action plans for implementing physical activity into their daily routines.

“The interpersonal group involved more peer-to-peer conversation, collaborative learning, and sharing,” said Dr. McMahon. Participants talked among themselves about how they could sustain doing the prescribed exercises at home. “Through those conversations, they learned and experimented,” Dr. McMahon said. They problem-solved, determining what barriers might stop them from exercising and brainstorming ways around them.

The researchers evaluated the participants after 1 week, 6 months, and 12 months. The interpersonal group exhibited significant increases in physical activity — including light, moderate, and vigorous activity — for the entire year. They increased their average physical activity per day by 21-28 minutes and their daily step count by 776-1058.

The intrapersonal group, meanwhile, exhibited no significant changes in total physical activity. (The third experimental group, the intrapersonal plus interpersonal condition, had results similar to the interpersonal one.)

The results echoed the findings of a similar study Dr. McMahon conducted in 2017. “We followed people over a longer period of time in this [new] study,” she said, “12 months instead of 6 months. This is important in physical activity studies because a lot of evidence shows that after 6 months, people’s activity drops off.”
 

How Socializing Promotes Exercise Compliance

Research on the effectiveness of exercise in social groups dates back as far as the 19th century. It’s called the social facilitation theory: The idea that people will make an increased effort as a result of the real, imagined, or implied presence of others.

“Norman Triplett was a scientist who studied indoor cyclists, and he came up with the social facilitation theory in 1898,” said Robert Linkul, CSCS*D, who sits on the National Strength and Conditioning Association’s board of directors and specializes in exercise for older adults. “He noticed that during relays, the first cyclist would get slower as he fatigued, but as soon as his teammate came out, his last lap would be faster than his previous two laps. People try harder when there’s some other person present. They tend to feel pressure to perform because they don’t want to look bad.”

Dr. McMahon said the exact psychology of why socializing supports exercise isn’t clear yet but noted that talking to other people builds relationships and makes one feel connected to and involved with a community.

“I think connections between peers are really important,” said Dr. McMahon. “It goes beyond just being in the same room and doing the exercises together. It’s taking a little bit of time to talk about it. To acknowledge what they’re doing and their progress. To encourage each other and provide support.”

Some of the study participants even became friends and continued to meet on their own time over the course of the trial.

“They stayed in touch,” said Dr. McMahon. “One thing that people talked about after the study, even if they weren’t friends, was that the conversations within the meetings made them feel kind of a fellowship that helped them learn about themselves or people like them.”
 

Help Patients Find Their Own Fellowship of Active People

• Communicate the importance of exercise. During appointments, ask how the patient is doing with their exercise and listen for any obstacles to compliance, Dr. McMahon said.
• See if they have access to fitness classes. Many community-dwelling older adults do, Mr. Linkul said. If not, consider local or state agencies on aging — “in Minnesota, we have a program, Juniper,” Dr. McMahon said, that maintains a list of physical activity programs — or AARP’s free online group classes, or Silver Sneakers (free for those with eligible Medicare Advantage plans).
• Reach out to local qualified fitness professionals. Trainers with the Training the Older Adult certification (founded by Mr. Linkul) can be found here. Other qualified trainers can be found through the Functional Aging Institute, American Council on Exercise, and National Academy of Sports Medicine, Mr. Linkul said. “Many of these trainers will offer semiprivate sessions,” said Mr. Linkul, “which is usually four to eight people.” Groups of this size often facilitate better participation than larger classes. “You get more personalized attention from the instructor along with an environment that allows social engagement,” said Mr. Linkul. If you have exercise or rehab professionals in your network, you might consider reaching out to them. Some physical therapists lead activity groups, though reimbursement challenges mean they aren’t common, Dr. McMahon said.
• Prescribe short walks with a friend, family member, or neighbor. Have the person start with 30 minutes of walking or rucking (walking with a weighted backpack) most days, Mr. Linkul suggested, a recommendation that is echoed by the American College of Sports Medicine.
• Encourage patients to talk about their exercise. Even for those who prefer to exercise solo, “our studies suggest it might be helpful to have conversations with others about movement, and motivations for movement,” Dr. McMahon said. They can simply mention one idea, question, or observation related to physical activity during casual catchups or chats.
• Recommend resistance training. That goes for patients with preexisting health conditions too, Mr. Linkul said. Physicians “find out a patient has low bone mineral density, and they’ll often tell them not to pick up anything heavy because they’ll hurt themselves — and that’s the exact wrong answer,” Mr. Linkul said. A total of 32% of the participants in the JAMA Network study had cardiovascular disease, nearly 34% had osteoporosis, 70% had arthritis, and more than 20% were living with diabetes.
• Expect pushback. Encouraging older adults to exercise is hard because many are resistant to it, Mr. Linkul acknowledged. Do it anyway. Some will listen and that makes the effort worthwhile. “I try to provide as much information as I can about what happens to aging bodies if they don’t train,” said Mr. Linkul. “These people are more likely to fall, they’ll die earlier, and have a poorer quality of life. But when they start exercising, they feel better immediately.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting an exercise regimen with others can be a powerful fitness motivator, and new research spotlights the strategy’s particular importance for older adults.

In a randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Network Open, older adults who talked with peers about their exercise program were able to increase and sustain physical activity levels much better than those who focused on self-motivation and setting fitness goals.

Such self-focused — or “intrapersonal” — strategies tend to be more common in health and fitness than interactive, or “interpersonal,” ones, the study authors noted. Yet, research on their effectiveness is limited. Historically, intrapersonal strategies have been studied as part of a bundle of behavioral change strategies — a common limitation in research — making it difficult to discern their individual value.

“We’re not saying that intrapersonal strategies should not be used,” said study author Siobhan McMahon, PhD, associate professor and codirector of the Center on Aging Science and Care at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, “but this study shows that interpersonal strategies are really important.”

Low physical activity among older adults is linked with “disability, difficulty managing chronic conditions, and increased falls and related injuries,” the authors wrote. Exercise can be the antidote, yet fewer than 16% of older adults meet the recommended guidelines (150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity and two muscle-strengthening sessions per week).

The study builds on previous research that suggests interpersonal strategies could help change that by encouraging more older adults to move.
 

Intrapersonal vs Interpersonal Behavior Change Strategies

More than 300 participants aged 70 years and older who did not meet physical activity guidelines were given a wearable fitness tracker and an exercise program and randomly split into four groups:

• One using intrapersonal behavior change strategies
• Another using interpersonal strategies
• A group combining both intrapersonal and interpersonal strategies
• A control group that received neither intervention

For 8 weeks, all participants exercised in meet-ups and discussed their progress in their groups. Afterward, they were left to their own devices and monitored for the remainder of the year.

“The intrapersonal strategies group involved personal reflection,” said Dr. McMahon. They set personal goals (increasing daily step count or exercise repetitions) and developed action plans for implementing physical activity into their daily routines.

“The interpersonal group involved more peer-to-peer conversation, collaborative learning, and sharing,” said Dr. McMahon. Participants talked among themselves about how they could sustain doing the prescribed exercises at home. “Through those conversations, they learned and experimented,” Dr. McMahon said. They problem-solved, determining what barriers might stop them from exercising and brainstorming ways around them.

The researchers evaluated the participants after 1 week, 6 months, and 12 months. The interpersonal group exhibited significant increases in physical activity — including light, moderate, and vigorous activity — for the entire year. They increased their average physical activity per day by 21-28 minutes and their daily step count by 776-1058.

The intrapersonal group, meanwhile, exhibited no significant changes in total physical activity. (The third experimental group, the intrapersonal plus interpersonal condition, had results similar to the interpersonal one.)

The results echoed the findings of a similar study Dr. McMahon conducted in 2017. “We followed people over a longer period of time in this [new] study,” she said, “12 months instead of 6 months. This is important in physical activity studies because a lot of evidence shows that after 6 months, people’s activity drops off.”
 

How Socializing Promotes Exercise Compliance

Research on the effectiveness of exercise in social groups dates back as far as the 19th century. It’s called the social facilitation theory: The idea that people will make an increased effort as a result of the real, imagined, or implied presence of others.

“Norman Triplett was a scientist who studied indoor cyclists, and he came up with the social facilitation theory in 1898,” said Robert Linkul, CSCS*D, who sits on the National Strength and Conditioning Association’s board of directors and specializes in exercise for older adults. “He noticed that during relays, the first cyclist would get slower as he fatigued, but as soon as his teammate came out, his last lap would be faster than his previous two laps. People try harder when there’s some other person present. They tend to feel pressure to perform because they don’t want to look bad.”

Dr. McMahon said the exact psychology of why socializing supports exercise isn’t clear yet but noted that talking to other people builds relationships and makes one feel connected to and involved with a community.

“I think connections between peers are really important,” said Dr. McMahon. “It goes beyond just being in the same room and doing the exercises together. It’s taking a little bit of time to talk about it. To acknowledge what they’re doing and their progress. To encourage each other and provide support.”

Some of the study participants even became friends and continued to meet on their own time over the course of the trial.

“They stayed in touch,” said Dr. McMahon. “One thing that people talked about after the study, even if they weren’t friends, was that the conversations within the meetings made them feel kind of a fellowship that helped them learn about themselves or people like them.”
 

Help Patients Find Their Own Fellowship of Active People

• Communicate the importance of exercise. During appointments, ask how the patient is doing with their exercise and listen for any obstacles to compliance, Dr. McMahon said.
• See if they have access to fitness classes. Many community-dwelling older adults do, Mr. Linkul said. If not, consider local or state agencies on aging — “in Minnesota, we have a program, Juniper,” Dr. McMahon said, that maintains a list of physical activity programs — or AARP’s free online group classes, or Silver Sneakers (free for those with eligible Medicare Advantage plans).
• Reach out to local qualified fitness professionals. Trainers with the Training the Older Adult certification (founded by Mr. Linkul) can be found here. Other qualified trainers can be found through the Functional Aging Institute, American Council on Exercise, and National Academy of Sports Medicine, Mr. Linkul said. “Many of these trainers will offer semiprivate sessions,” said Mr. Linkul, “which is usually four to eight people.” Groups of this size often facilitate better participation than larger classes. “You get more personalized attention from the instructor along with an environment that allows social engagement,” said Mr. Linkul. If you have exercise or rehab professionals in your network, you might consider reaching out to them. Some physical therapists lead activity groups, though reimbursement challenges mean they aren’t common, Dr. McMahon said.
• Prescribe short walks with a friend, family member, or neighbor. Have the person start with 30 minutes of walking or rucking (walking with a weighted backpack) most days, Mr. Linkul suggested, a recommendation that is echoed by the American College of Sports Medicine.
• Encourage patients to talk about their exercise. Even for those who prefer to exercise solo, “our studies suggest it might be helpful to have conversations with others about movement, and motivations for movement,” Dr. McMahon said. They can simply mention one idea, question, or observation related to physical activity during casual catchups or chats.
• Recommend resistance training. That goes for patients with preexisting health conditions too, Mr. Linkul said. Physicians “find out a patient has low bone mineral density, and they’ll often tell them not to pick up anything heavy because they’ll hurt themselves — and that’s the exact wrong answer,” Mr. Linkul said. A total of 32% of the participants in the JAMA Network study had cardiovascular disease, nearly 34% had osteoporosis, 70% had arthritis, and more than 20% were living with diabetes.
• Expect pushback. Encouraging older adults to exercise is hard because many are resistant to it, Mr. Linkul acknowledged. Do it anyway. Some will listen and that makes the effort worthwhile. “I try to provide as much information as I can about what happens to aging bodies if they don’t train,” said Mr. Linkul. “These people are more likely to fall, they’ll die earlier, and have a poorer quality of life. But when they start exercising, they feel better immediately.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two classes of chemicals present in common household products may impair the development of oligodendrocytes, the myelinating cells of the central nervous system (CNS), which are critical to brain development and function. However, the researchers as well as outside experts agree more research is needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn. 

Quaternary ammonium compounds, ubiquitous in disinfecting agents and personal care products, and organophosphate flame retardants, which are commonly found in household items such as furniture and electronics had “surprising effects specifically on the non-nerve cells in the brain,” said lead researcher Paul Tesar, PhD, professor and director of the Institute for Glial Sciences, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland. 

“Other studies have shown that our exposures to the chemicals in disinfecting agents nearly doubled during the pandemic,” Dr. Tesar noted. The finding that quaternary ammonium chemicals in disinfecting agents are harmful to specific brain cells suggests “we need to think about our increased utilization and exposure,” he added.

The results were published online on March 25 in Nature Neuroscience. 
 

Motor Dysfunction

Exposure to various chemicals in the environment has been shown to impair brain development. However, most of this research has focused on neurons. Less is known about effects on oligodendrocytes, which form the electrical insulation around the axons of CNS cells. Oligodendrocyte development continues from before birth into adulthood, thus these cells may be particularly vulnerable to damage from toxic chemicals.

The researchers analyzed the effects of 1823 chemicals on mouse oligodendrocyte development in cell cultures. They identified 292 chemicals that cause oligodendrocytes to die and 47 that inhibit oligodendrocyte generation. These chemicals belonged to two different classes.

They found that quaternary compounds were potently and selectively cytotoxic to developing oligodendrocytes and that organophosphate flame retardants prematurely arrested oligodendrocyte maturation. These effects were confirmed in mice and cultured human oligodendrocytes.

In addition, an analysis of epidemiologic data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013-2018) showed that one flame retardant metabolite, bis(1,3-dichloro-2-propy) phosphate (BDCIPP), was present in nearly all urine samples of children aged 3-11 years who were examined (1753 out of 1763 children).

After adjustment for multiple confounding factors, results showed that compared with children with urinary BDCIPP concentration in the lowest quartile, those with concentrations in the highest quartile were twice as likely to require special education (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-3.8) and were six times as likely to have gross motor dysfunction (aOR, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.7-21.9).

Children with urinary BDCIPP concentration within the third quartile also had significantly increased odds of motor dysfunction (aOR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.1-16.2). 

“These results suggest that the identified chemicals are potentially hazardous to human health. However, we want to be clear that more studies are needed to make definitive connections between chemical exposure and human disease,” said Dr. Tesar.

“Future studies will need to deepen our understanding of the duration and timing of exposure required to initiate or exacerbate disease. This information is needed before specific recommendations, such as behavioral interventions, can be made to reduce exposure. Some of these chemicals have useful roles in our homes, but we need to consider how they’re being used and what level of exposure might be considered safe,” Dr. Tesar said. 

In his view, the results “provide a starting point to understand what exposure levels to these chemicals might be putting ourselves or kids at risk for toxicity.”
 

Too Soon to Tell

Commenting for this news organization, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, who was not involved in the study, echoed the need for more research. 

“The biological mechanisms uncovered provide plausible pathways by which these chemicals could potentially impact human brain development related to oligodendrocytes and myelination. Oligodendrocytes play a critical role in plastic neurological processes throughout life, not just early neurodevelopment. So, disrupting their maturation and function theoretically could contribute to neurodevelopmental disorders as well as adult conditions like multiple sclerosis,” Dr. Lakhan said. 

“This study alone shouldn’t sound neurotoxicant alarms yet. We’ve seen many past chemical scares like saccharin and phthalates fizzle despite alarming lab results when real-world human brain impacts failed to materialize,” Dr. Lakhan cautioned. 

“Far more rigorous research directly linking household chemical exposures to cognitive deficits in people is still needed before drawing firm conclusions or prompting overreactions from the general public. Policymakers will eventually need to weigh potential risks vs benefits, but no definitive human health threat has currently been established,” Dr. Lakhan said. 

Sarah Evans, PhD, MPH, assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, also emphasized the need for further study.

“Given that most of the experiments in this study were conducted in isolated cells and a mouse model, further research is needed to determine whether exposure to these chemicals at levels experienced by the general population during critical windows of development impairs myelination and leads to adverse health outcomes like learning and behavior problems in humans,” said Dr. Evans, who was involved in the study.

“The authors’ finding of an association between higher urinary levels of the organophosphate flame-retardant metabolite BDCIPP and gross motor problems or need for special education in children aged 3-11 years in the CDC National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey strengthens their laboratory findings and warrants further investigation,” Dr. Evans added. 

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Howard Hughes Medical Institute and New York Stem Cell Foundation, and philanthropic support by sTF5 Care and the Long, Walter, Peterson, Goodman, and Geller families. Dr. Tesar, Dr. Lakhan, and Dr. Evans report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two classes of chemicals present in common household products may impair the development of oligodendrocytes, the myelinating cells of the central nervous system (CNS), which are critical to brain development and function. However, the researchers as well as outside experts agree more research is needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn. 

Quaternary ammonium compounds, ubiquitous in disinfecting agents and personal care products, and organophosphate flame retardants, which are commonly found in household items such as furniture and electronics had “surprising effects specifically on the non-nerve cells in the brain,” said lead researcher Paul Tesar, PhD, professor and director of the Institute for Glial Sciences, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland. 

“Other studies have shown that our exposures to the chemicals in disinfecting agents nearly doubled during the pandemic,” Dr. Tesar noted. The finding that quaternary ammonium chemicals in disinfecting agents are harmful to specific brain cells suggests “we need to think about our increased utilization and exposure,” he added.

The results were published online on March 25 in Nature Neuroscience. 
 

Motor Dysfunction

Exposure to various chemicals in the environment has been shown to impair brain development. However, most of this research has focused on neurons. Less is known about effects on oligodendrocytes, which form the electrical insulation around the axons of CNS cells. Oligodendrocyte development continues from before birth into adulthood, thus these cells may be particularly vulnerable to damage from toxic chemicals.

The researchers analyzed the effects of 1823 chemicals on mouse oligodendrocyte development in cell cultures. They identified 292 chemicals that cause oligodendrocytes to die and 47 that inhibit oligodendrocyte generation. These chemicals belonged to two different classes.

They found that quaternary compounds were potently and selectively cytotoxic to developing oligodendrocytes and that organophosphate flame retardants prematurely arrested oligodendrocyte maturation. These effects were confirmed in mice and cultured human oligodendrocytes.

In addition, an analysis of epidemiologic data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013-2018) showed that one flame retardant metabolite, bis(1,3-dichloro-2-propy) phosphate (BDCIPP), was present in nearly all urine samples of children aged 3-11 years who were examined (1753 out of 1763 children).

After adjustment for multiple confounding factors, results showed that compared with children with urinary BDCIPP concentration in the lowest quartile, those with concentrations in the highest quartile were twice as likely to require special education (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-3.8) and were six times as likely to have gross motor dysfunction (aOR, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.7-21.9).

Children with urinary BDCIPP concentration within the third quartile also had significantly increased odds of motor dysfunction (aOR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.1-16.2). 

“These results suggest that the identified chemicals are potentially hazardous to human health. However, we want to be clear that more studies are needed to make definitive connections between chemical exposure and human disease,” said Dr. Tesar.

“Future studies will need to deepen our understanding of the duration and timing of exposure required to initiate or exacerbate disease. This information is needed before specific recommendations, such as behavioral interventions, can be made to reduce exposure. Some of these chemicals have useful roles in our homes, but we need to consider how they’re being used and what level of exposure might be considered safe,” Dr. Tesar said. 

In his view, the results “provide a starting point to understand what exposure levels to these chemicals might be putting ourselves or kids at risk for toxicity.”
 

Too Soon to Tell

Commenting for this news organization, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, who was not involved in the study, echoed the need for more research. 

“The biological mechanisms uncovered provide plausible pathways by which these chemicals could potentially impact human brain development related to oligodendrocytes and myelination. Oligodendrocytes play a critical role in plastic neurological processes throughout life, not just early neurodevelopment. So, disrupting their maturation and function theoretically could contribute to neurodevelopmental disorders as well as adult conditions like multiple sclerosis,” Dr. Lakhan said. 

“This study alone shouldn’t sound neurotoxicant alarms yet. We’ve seen many past chemical scares like saccharin and phthalates fizzle despite alarming lab results when real-world human brain impacts failed to materialize,” Dr. Lakhan cautioned. 

“Far more rigorous research directly linking household chemical exposures to cognitive deficits in people is still needed before drawing firm conclusions or prompting overreactions from the general public. Policymakers will eventually need to weigh potential risks vs benefits, but no definitive human health threat has currently been established,” Dr. Lakhan said. 

Sarah Evans, PhD, MPH, assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, also emphasized the need for further study.

“Given that most of the experiments in this study were conducted in isolated cells and a mouse model, further research is needed to determine whether exposure to these chemicals at levels experienced by the general population during critical windows of development impairs myelination and leads to adverse health outcomes like learning and behavior problems in humans,” said Dr. Evans, who was involved in the study.

“The authors’ finding of an association between higher urinary levels of the organophosphate flame-retardant metabolite BDCIPP and gross motor problems or need for special education in children aged 3-11 years in the CDC National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey strengthens their laboratory findings and warrants further investigation,” Dr. Evans added. 

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Howard Hughes Medical Institute and New York Stem Cell Foundation, and philanthropic support by sTF5 Care and the Long, Walter, Peterson, Goodman, and Geller families. Dr. Tesar, Dr. Lakhan, and Dr. Evans report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two classes of chemicals present in common household products may impair the development of oligodendrocytes, the myelinating cells of the central nervous system (CNS), which are critical to brain development and function. However, the researchers as well as outside experts agree more research is needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn. 

Quaternary ammonium compounds, ubiquitous in disinfecting agents and personal care products, and organophosphate flame retardants, which are commonly found in household items such as furniture and electronics had “surprising effects specifically on the non-nerve cells in the brain,” said lead researcher Paul Tesar, PhD, professor and director of the Institute for Glial Sciences, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland. 

“Other studies have shown that our exposures to the chemicals in disinfecting agents nearly doubled during the pandemic,” Dr. Tesar noted. The finding that quaternary ammonium chemicals in disinfecting agents are harmful to specific brain cells suggests “we need to think about our increased utilization and exposure,” he added.

The results were published online on March 25 in Nature Neuroscience. 
 

Motor Dysfunction

Exposure to various chemicals in the environment has been shown to impair brain development. However, most of this research has focused on neurons. Less is known about effects on oligodendrocytes, which form the electrical insulation around the axons of CNS cells. Oligodendrocyte development continues from before birth into adulthood, thus these cells may be particularly vulnerable to damage from toxic chemicals.

The researchers analyzed the effects of 1823 chemicals on mouse oligodendrocyte development in cell cultures. They identified 292 chemicals that cause oligodendrocytes to die and 47 that inhibit oligodendrocyte generation. These chemicals belonged to two different classes.

They found that quaternary compounds were potently and selectively cytotoxic to developing oligodendrocytes and that organophosphate flame retardants prematurely arrested oligodendrocyte maturation. These effects were confirmed in mice and cultured human oligodendrocytes.

In addition, an analysis of epidemiologic data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013-2018) showed that one flame retardant metabolite, bis(1,3-dichloro-2-propy) phosphate (BDCIPP), was present in nearly all urine samples of children aged 3-11 years who were examined (1753 out of 1763 children).

After adjustment for multiple confounding factors, results showed that compared with children with urinary BDCIPP concentration in the lowest quartile, those with concentrations in the highest quartile were twice as likely to require special education (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-3.8) and were six times as likely to have gross motor dysfunction (aOR, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.7-21.9).

Children with urinary BDCIPP concentration within the third quartile also had significantly increased odds of motor dysfunction (aOR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.1-16.2). 

“These results suggest that the identified chemicals are potentially hazardous to human health. However, we want to be clear that more studies are needed to make definitive connections between chemical exposure and human disease,” said Dr. Tesar.

“Future studies will need to deepen our understanding of the duration and timing of exposure required to initiate or exacerbate disease. This information is needed before specific recommendations, such as behavioral interventions, can be made to reduce exposure. Some of these chemicals have useful roles in our homes, but we need to consider how they’re being used and what level of exposure might be considered safe,” Dr. Tesar said. 

In his view, the results “provide a starting point to understand what exposure levels to these chemicals might be putting ourselves or kids at risk for toxicity.”
 

Too Soon to Tell

Commenting for this news organization, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, who was not involved in the study, echoed the need for more research. 

“The biological mechanisms uncovered provide plausible pathways by which these chemicals could potentially impact human brain development related to oligodendrocytes and myelination. Oligodendrocytes play a critical role in plastic neurological processes throughout life, not just early neurodevelopment. So, disrupting their maturation and function theoretically could contribute to neurodevelopmental disorders as well as adult conditions like multiple sclerosis,” Dr. Lakhan said. 

“This study alone shouldn’t sound neurotoxicant alarms yet. We’ve seen many past chemical scares like saccharin and phthalates fizzle despite alarming lab results when real-world human brain impacts failed to materialize,” Dr. Lakhan cautioned. 

“Far more rigorous research directly linking household chemical exposures to cognitive deficits in people is still needed before drawing firm conclusions or prompting overreactions from the general public. Policymakers will eventually need to weigh potential risks vs benefits, but no definitive human health threat has currently been established,” Dr. Lakhan said. 

Sarah Evans, PhD, MPH, assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, also emphasized the need for further study.

“Given that most of the experiments in this study were conducted in isolated cells and a mouse model, further research is needed to determine whether exposure to these chemicals at levels experienced by the general population during critical windows of development impairs myelination and leads to adverse health outcomes like learning and behavior problems in humans,” said Dr. Evans, who was involved in the study.

“The authors’ finding of an association between higher urinary levels of the organophosphate flame-retardant metabolite BDCIPP and gross motor problems or need for special education in children aged 3-11 years in the CDC National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey strengthens their laboratory findings and warrants further investigation,” Dr. Evans added. 

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Howard Hughes Medical Institute and New York Stem Cell Foundation, and philanthropic support by sTF5 Care and the Long, Walter, Peterson, Goodman, and Geller families. Dr. Tesar, Dr. Lakhan, and Dr. Evans report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The size of the human brain has increased over time, a new finding that may help explain a previously reported decline in incident dementia.

A secular trends analysis using brain imaging data from the long-running Framingham Heart Study revealed an increase in intracranial volume (ICV), cortical gray matter, white matter, and hippocampal volumes, as well as cortical surface area in people born in the 1970s versus those born in the 1930s.

“We hypothesize that the increased size of the brain will lead to increased ‘reserve’ against the diseases of aging, consequently reducing overall risk of dementia,” said Charles DeCarli, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center and Imaging of Dementia and Aging Laboratory, Department of Neurology and Center for Neuroscience, University of California at Davis.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Dementia Protection?

An earlier report from the Framingham Heart Study suggested that dementia incidence is declining.

“This difference occurred among persons with at least a high school education and was not affected by differences in vascular risk. Our work was stimulated by this finding and the possibility that differences in brain size might be occurring over the three generations of the Framingham Heart Study which might explain an increased resilience to dementia,” said Dr. DeCarli.

The cross-sectional study used data from 3226 Framingham participants (53% women) born in the decades 1930–1970. None had dementia or a history of stroke. At a mean age of 57.7 years, they underwent brain MRI.

Compared with the 1930s birth decade, the 1970s birth decade had a 6.6% greater ICV (1321 mL vs 1234 mL), 7.7% greater white matter volume (476.3 mL vs 441.9 mL), 5.7% greater hippocampal volume (6.69 mL vs 6.51 mL), and 14.9% greater cortical surface area (2222 cm² vs 1933 cm²).

Cortical thickness was thinner by 21% over the same period, coinciding with larger intracranial volume, cerebral white matter volume, and cortical surface area. 

“We were surprised to find that the brain is getting larger, but the cortex is thinning very slightly. The apparent thinning of the cortex is related to the increased need for expansion of the cortical ribbon. This is based on hypotheses related to the effects of evolution and cortical development designed to make neuronal integration most efficient,” said Dr. DeCarli.

Repeat analysis applied to a subgroup of 1145 individuals of similar age range born in the 1940s (mean age, 60 years) and 1950s (mean age, 59 years) resulted in similar findings.

“These findings likely reflect both secular improvements in early life environmental influences through health, social-cultural, and educational factors, as well as secular improvements in modifiable dementia risk factors leading to better brain health and reserve,” the authors wrote.

While the effects observed are “likely to be small at the level of the individual, they are likely to be substantial at the population level, adding to growing literature that suggests optimized brain development and ideal health through modification of risk factors could substantially modify the effect of common neurodegenerative diseases such as stroke and Alzheiemer’s disease on dementia incidence,” they added.

Limitations included the predominately non-Hispanic White, healthy, and well-educated population that is the Framingham cohort, which is not representative of the broader US population. The cross-sectional nature of the study also limited causal inference. 
 

Exciting Work 

“If these results are confirmed by others and the observed differences by decade are as large as those reported, it has important implications for aging and dementia studies,” Prashanthi Lemuria, PhD, with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, wrote in an accompanying editorial. 

“First, studies that use brain charts for the human life span to understand the mechanisms of aging, by stitching together data from individuals across the decades, are significantly overestimating the degree of brain health decline using volumes across the life span because the baseline brain health in individuals who are in their older decades is likely lower to begin with,” Dr. Lemuria noted.

“Second, cortical thickness measurements, often used in dementia studies as a cross-sectional marker for neurodegeneration, showed greatest decline due to secular trends and are not scaled for ICV. Therefore, these should be traded in favor of gray matter volumes after consideration of ICV to estimate the true degree of neurodegeneration,” Dr. Vemuri added.

The data also suggest that longitudinal imaging study designs should be preferred when testing hypotheses on brain health, Dr. Vemuri wrote.

Although this work is “exciting and will bring attention to secular trends in brain health, much work is yet to be done to validate and replicate these findings and, more importantly, understand the mechanistic basis of these trends,” she added. 

“Do these secular trends in improvement of brain health underlie the decrease in dementia risk? The jury may be still out, but the authors are commended for investigating new avenues,” Dr. Vemuri concluded.

Support for this research was provided by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. DeCarli reported serving as a consultant to Novartis on a safety study of heart failure during the conduct of the study and receiving consultant fees from Eisai and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Lemuria had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The size of the human brain has increased over time, a new finding that may help explain a previously reported decline in incident dementia.

A secular trends analysis using brain imaging data from the long-running Framingham Heart Study revealed an increase in intracranial volume (ICV), cortical gray matter, white matter, and hippocampal volumes, as well as cortical surface area in people born in the 1970s versus those born in the 1930s.

“We hypothesize that the increased size of the brain will lead to increased ‘reserve’ against the diseases of aging, consequently reducing overall risk of dementia,” said Charles DeCarli, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center and Imaging of Dementia and Aging Laboratory, Department of Neurology and Center for Neuroscience, University of California at Davis.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Dementia Protection?

An earlier report from the Framingham Heart Study suggested that dementia incidence is declining.

“This difference occurred among persons with at least a high school education and was not affected by differences in vascular risk. Our work was stimulated by this finding and the possibility that differences in brain size might be occurring over the three generations of the Framingham Heart Study which might explain an increased resilience to dementia,” said Dr. DeCarli.

The cross-sectional study used data from 3226 Framingham participants (53% women) born in the decades 1930–1970. None had dementia or a history of stroke. At a mean age of 57.7 years, they underwent brain MRI.

Compared with the 1930s birth decade, the 1970s birth decade had a 6.6% greater ICV (1321 mL vs 1234 mL), 7.7% greater white matter volume (476.3 mL vs 441.9 mL), 5.7% greater hippocampal volume (6.69 mL vs 6.51 mL), and 14.9% greater cortical surface area (2222 cm² vs 1933 cm²).

Cortical thickness was thinner by 21% over the same period, coinciding with larger intracranial volume, cerebral white matter volume, and cortical surface area. 

“We were surprised to find that the brain is getting larger, but the cortex is thinning very slightly. The apparent thinning of the cortex is related to the increased need for expansion of the cortical ribbon. This is based on hypotheses related to the effects of evolution and cortical development designed to make neuronal integration most efficient,” said Dr. DeCarli.

Repeat analysis applied to a subgroup of 1145 individuals of similar age range born in the 1940s (mean age, 60 years) and 1950s (mean age, 59 years) resulted in similar findings.

“These findings likely reflect both secular improvements in early life environmental influences through health, social-cultural, and educational factors, as well as secular improvements in modifiable dementia risk factors leading to better brain health and reserve,” the authors wrote.

While the effects observed are “likely to be small at the level of the individual, they are likely to be substantial at the population level, adding to growing literature that suggests optimized brain development and ideal health through modification of risk factors could substantially modify the effect of common neurodegenerative diseases such as stroke and Alzheiemer’s disease on dementia incidence,” they added.

Limitations included the predominately non-Hispanic White, healthy, and well-educated population that is the Framingham cohort, which is not representative of the broader US population. The cross-sectional nature of the study also limited causal inference. 
 

Exciting Work 

“If these results are confirmed by others and the observed differences by decade are as large as those reported, it has important implications for aging and dementia studies,” Prashanthi Lemuria, PhD, with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, wrote in an accompanying editorial. 

“First, studies that use brain charts for the human life span to understand the mechanisms of aging, by stitching together data from individuals across the decades, are significantly overestimating the degree of brain health decline using volumes across the life span because the baseline brain health in individuals who are in their older decades is likely lower to begin with,” Dr. Lemuria noted.

“Second, cortical thickness measurements, often used in dementia studies as a cross-sectional marker for neurodegeneration, showed greatest decline due to secular trends and are not scaled for ICV. Therefore, these should be traded in favor of gray matter volumes after consideration of ICV to estimate the true degree of neurodegeneration,” Dr. Vemuri added.

The data also suggest that longitudinal imaging study designs should be preferred when testing hypotheses on brain health, Dr. Vemuri wrote.

Although this work is “exciting and will bring attention to secular trends in brain health, much work is yet to be done to validate and replicate these findings and, more importantly, understand the mechanistic basis of these trends,” she added. 

“Do these secular trends in improvement of brain health underlie the decrease in dementia risk? The jury may be still out, but the authors are commended for investigating new avenues,” Dr. Vemuri concluded.

Support for this research was provided by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. DeCarli reported serving as a consultant to Novartis on a safety study of heart failure during the conduct of the study and receiving consultant fees from Eisai and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Lemuria had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The size of the human brain has increased over time, a new finding that may help explain a previously reported decline in incident dementia.

A secular trends analysis using brain imaging data from the long-running Framingham Heart Study revealed an increase in intracranial volume (ICV), cortical gray matter, white matter, and hippocampal volumes, as well as cortical surface area in people born in the 1970s versus those born in the 1930s.

“We hypothesize that the increased size of the brain will lead to increased ‘reserve’ against the diseases of aging, consequently reducing overall risk of dementia,” said Charles DeCarli, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center and Imaging of Dementia and Aging Laboratory, Department of Neurology and Center for Neuroscience, University of California at Davis.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Dementia Protection?

An earlier report from the Framingham Heart Study suggested that dementia incidence is declining.

“This difference occurred among persons with at least a high school education and was not affected by differences in vascular risk. Our work was stimulated by this finding and the possibility that differences in brain size might be occurring over the three generations of the Framingham Heart Study which might explain an increased resilience to dementia,” said Dr. DeCarli.

The cross-sectional study used data from 3226 Framingham participants (53% women) born in the decades 1930–1970. None had dementia or a history of stroke. At a mean age of 57.7 years, they underwent brain MRI.

Compared with the 1930s birth decade, the 1970s birth decade had a 6.6% greater ICV (1321 mL vs 1234 mL), 7.7% greater white matter volume (476.3 mL vs 441.9 mL), 5.7% greater hippocampal volume (6.69 mL vs 6.51 mL), and 14.9% greater cortical surface area (2222 cm² vs 1933 cm²).

Cortical thickness was thinner by 21% over the same period, coinciding with larger intracranial volume, cerebral white matter volume, and cortical surface area. 

“We were surprised to find that the brain is getting larger, but the cortex is thinning very slightly. The apparent thinning of the cortex is related to the increased need for expansion of the cortical ribbon. This is based on hypotheses related to the effects of evolution and cortical development designed to make neuronal integration most efficient,” said Dr. DeCarli.

Repeat analysis applied to a subgroup of 1145 individuals of similar age range born in the 1940s (mean age, 60 years) and 1950s (mean age, 59 years) resulted in similar findings.

“These findings likely reflect both secular improvements in early life environmental influences through health, social-cultural, and educational factors, as well as secular improvements in modifiable dementia risk factors leading to better brain health and reserve,” the authors wrote.

While the effects observed are “likely to be small at the level of the individual, they are likely to be substantial at the population level, adding to growing literature that suggests optimized brain development and ideal health through modification of risk factors could substantially modify the effect of common neurodegenerative diseases such as stroke and Alzheiemer’s disease on dementia incidence,” they added.

Limitations included the predominately non-Hispanic White, healthy, and well-educated population that is the Framingham cohort, which is not representative of the broader US population. The cross-sectional nature of the study also limited causal inference. 
 

Exciting Work 

“If these results are confirmed by others and the observed differences by decade are as large as those reported, it has important implications for aging and dementia studies,” Prashanthi Lemuria, PhD, with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, wrote in an accompanying editorial. 

“First, studies that use brain charts for the human life span to understand the mechanisms of aging, by stitching together data from individuals across the decades, are significantly overestimating the degree of brain health decline using volumes across the life span because the baseline brain health in individuals who are in their older decades is likely lower to begin with,” Dr. Lemuria noted.

“Second, cortical thickness measurements, often used in dementia studies as a cross-sectional marker for neurodegeneration, showed greatest decline due to secular trends and are not scaled for ICV. Therefore, these should be traded in favor of gray matter volumes after consideration of ICV to estimate the true degree of neurodegeneration,” Dr. Vemuri added.

The data also suggest that longitudinal imaging study designs should be preferred when testing hypotheses on brain health, Dr. Vemuri wrote.

Although this work is “exciting and will bring attention to secular trends in brain health, much work is yet to be done to validate and replicate these findings and, more importantly, understand the mechanistic basis of these trends,” she added. 

“Do these secular trends in improvement of brain health underlie the decrease in dementia risk? The jury may be still out, but the authors are commended for investigating new avenues,” Dr. Vemuri concluded.

Support for this research was provided by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. DeCarli reported serving as a consultant to Novartis on a safety study of heart failure during the conduct of the study and receiving consultant fees from Eisai and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Lemuria had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.