Clinical Psychiatry News

Oral contraceptive (OC) use has been linked to increased depression risk, especially within the first 2 years following initiation, new research shows.

In addition, OC use in adolescence has been tied to an increased risk for depression later in life. However, some experts believe the study’s methodology may be flawed.

The investigators tracked more than 250,000 women from birth to menopause, gathering information about their use of combined contraceptive pills (progesterone and estrogen), the timing of the initial depression diagnosis, and the onset of depressive symptoms that were not formally diagnosed.

areeya_ann/Thinkstock

Women who began using these OCs before or at the age of 20 experienced a 130% higher incidence of depressive symptoms, whereas adult users saw a 92% increase. But the higher occurrence of depression tended to decline after the first 2 years of use, except in teenagers, who maintained an increased incidence of depression even after discontinuation.

This effect remained, even after analysis of potential familial confounding.

“Our findings suggest that the use of OCs, particularly during the first 2 years, increases the risk of depression. Additionally, OC use during adolescence might increase the risk of depression later in life,” Therese Johansson, of the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences.
 

Inconsistent findings

Previous studies suggest an association between adolescent use of hormonal contraceptives (HCs) and increased depression risk, but it’s “less clear” whether these effects are similar in adults, the authors wrote. Randomized clinical trials have “shown little or no effect” of HCs on mood. However, most of these studies didn’t consider previous use of HC.

The researchers wanted to estimate the incidence rate of depression associated with first initiation of OC use as well as the lifetime risk associated with use.

They studied 264,557 female participants in the UK Biobank (aged 37-71 years), collecting data from questionnaires, interviews, physical health measures, biological samples, imaging, and linked health records.

Most participants taking OCs had initiated use during the 1970s/early 1980s when second-generation OCs were predominantly used, consisting of levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol.

The researchers conducted a secondary outcome analysis on women who completed the UK Biobank Mental Health Questionnaire (MHQ) to evaluate depressive symptoms.

They estimated the associated risk for depression within 2 years after starting OCs in all women, as well as in groups stratified by age at initiation: before age 20 (adolescents) and age 20 and older (adults). In addition, the investigators estimated the lifetime risk for depression.

Time-dependent analysis compared the effect of OC use at initiation to the effect during the remaining years of use in recent and previous users.

They analyzed a subcohort of female siblings, utilizing “inference about causation from examination of familial confounding,” defined by the authors as a “regression-based approach for determining causality through the use of paired observational data collected from related individuals.”
 

Adolescents at highest risk

Of the participants, 80.6% had used OCs at some point.

The first 2 years of use were associated with a higher rate of depression among users, compared with never-users (hazard ration, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-1.96). Although the risk became less pronounced after that, ever-use was still associated with increased lifetime risk for depression (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).

Adolescents and adult OC users both experienced higher rates of depression during the first 2 years, with a more marked effect in adolescents than in adults (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.64-2.32; and HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.95, respectively).

Previous users of OCs had a higher lifetime risk for depression, compared with never-users (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).

Of the subcohort of women who completed the MHQ (n = 82,232), about half reported experiencing at least one of the core depressive symptoms.

OC initiation was associated with an increased risk for depressive symptoms during the first 2 years in ever- versus never-users (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.91-2.10).

Those who began using OCs during adolescence had a dramatically higher rate of depressive symptoms, compared with never-users (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51), as did adult initiators (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51).

In the analysis of 7,354 first-degree sister pairs, 81% had initiated OCs. A sibling’s OC use was positively associated with a depression diagnosis, and the cosibling’s OC use was also associated with the sibling’s depression diagnosis. “These results support the hypothesis of a causal relationship between OC use and depression, such that OC use increases the risk of depression,” the authors wrote.

The main limitation is the potential for recall bias in the self-reported data, and that the UK Biobank sample consists of a healthier population than the overall U.K. population, which “hampers the generalizability” of the findings, the authors stated.
 

Flawed study

In a comment, Natalie Rasgon, MD, founder and director of the Stanford (Calif.) Center for Neuroscience in Women’s Health, said the study was “well researched” and “well written” but had “methodological issues.”

She questioned the sibling component, “which the researchers regard as confirming causality.” The effect may be “important but not causative.” Causality in people who are recalling retrospectively “is highly questionable by any adept researcher because it’s subject to memory. Different siblings may have different recall.”

The authors also didn’t study the indication for OC use. Several medical conditions are treated with OCs, including premenstrual dysphoric disorder, the “number one mood disorder among women of reproductive age.” Including this “could have made a huge difference in outcome data,” said Dr. Rasgon, who was not involved with the study.

Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, noted participants were asked to recall depressive symptoms and OC use as far back as 20-30 years ago, which lends itself to inaccurate recall.

And the researchers didn’t ascertain whether the contraceptives had been used continuously or had been started, stopped, and restarted. Nor did they look at different formulations and doses. And the observational nature of the study “limits the ability to infer causation,” continued Dr. Oelschlager, chair of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinical Consensus Gynecology Committee. She was not involved with the study.

“This study is too flawed to use meaningfully in clinical practice,” Dr. Oelschlager concluded.

The study was primarily funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and the Uppsala University Center for Women ‘s Mental Health during the Reproductive Lifespan. The authors, Dr. Rasgon, and Dr. Oelschlager declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral contraceptive (OC) use has been linked to increased depression risk, especially within the first 2 years following initiation, new research shows.

In addition, OC use in adolescence has been tied to an increased risk for depression later in life. However, some experts believe the study’s methodology may be flawed.

The investigators tracked more than 250,000 women from birth to menopause, gathering information about their use of combined contraceptive pills (progesterone and estrogen), the timing of the initial depression diagnosis, and the onset of depressive symptoms that were not formally diagnosed.

areeya_ann/Thinkstock

Women who began using these OCs before or at the age of 20 experienced a 130% higher incidence of depressive symptoms, whereas adult users saw a 92% increase. But the higher occurrence of depression tended to decline after the first 2 years of use, except in teenagers, who maintained an increased incidence of depression even after discontinuation.

This effect remained, even after analysis of potential familial confounding.

“Our findings suggest that the use of OCs, particularly during the first 2 years, increases the risk of depression. Additionally, OC use during adolescence might increase the risk of depression later in life,” Therese Johansson, of the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences.
 

Inconsistent findings

Previous studies suggest an association between adolescent use of hormonal contraceptives (HCs) and increased depression risk, but it’s “less clear” whether these effects are similar in adults, the authors wrote. Randomized clinical trials have “shown little or no effect” of HCs on mood. However, most of these studies didn’t consider previous use of HC.

The researchers wanted to estimate the incidence rate of depression associated with first initiation of OC use as well as the lifetime risk associated with use.

They studied 264,557 female participants in the UK Biobank (aged 37-71 years), collecting data from questionnaires, interviews, physical health measures, biological samples, imaging, and linked health records.

Most participants taking OCs had initiated use during the 1970s/early 1980s when second-generation OCs were predominantly used, consisting of levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol.

The researchers conducted a secondary outcome analysis on women who completed the UK Biobank Mental Health Questionnaire (MHQ) to evaluate depressive symptoms.

They estimated the associated risk for depression within 2 years after starting OCs in all women, as well as in groups stratified by age at initiation: before age 20 (adolescents) and age 20 and older (adults). In addition, the investigators estimated the lifetime risk for depression.

Time-dependent analysis compared the effect of OC use at initiation to the effect during the remaining years of use in recent and previous users.

They analyzed a subcohort of female siblings, utilizing “inference about causation from examination of familial confounding,” defined by the authors as a “regression-based approach for determining causality through the use of paired observational data collected from related individuals.”
 

Adolescents at highest risk

Of the participants, 80.6% had used OCs at some point.

The first 2 years of use were associated with a higher rate of depression among users, compared with never-users (hazard ration, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-1.96). Although the risk became less pronounced after that, ever-use was still associated with increased lifetime risk for depression (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).

Adolescents and adult OC users both experienced higher rates of depression during the first 2 years, with a more marked effect in adolescents than in adults (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.64-2.32; and HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.95, respectively).

Previous users of OCs had a higher lifetime risk for depression, compared with never-users (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).

Of the subcohort of women who completed the MHQ (n = 82,232), about half reported experiencing at least one of the core depressive symptoms.

OC initiation was associated with an increased risk for depressive symptoms during the first 2 years in ever- versus never-users (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.91-2.10).

Those who began using OCs during adolescence had a dramatically higher rate of depressive symptoms, compared with never-users (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51), as did adult initiators (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51).

In the analysis of 7,354 first-degree sister pairs, 81% had initiated OCs. A sibling’s OC use was positively associated with a depression diagnosis, and the cosibling’s OC use was also associated with the sibling’s depression diagnosis. “These results support the hypothesis of a causal relationship between OC use and depression, such that OC use increases the risk of depression,” the authors wrote.

The main limitation is the potential for recall bias in the self-reported data, and that the UK Biobank sample consists of a healthier population than the overall U.K. population, which “hampers the generalizability” of the findings, the authors stated.
 

Flawed study

In a comment, Natalie Rasgon, MD, founder and director of the Stanford (Calif.) Center for Neuroscience in Women’s Health, said the study was “well researched” and “well written” but had “methodological issues.”

She questioned the sibling component, “which the researchers regard as confirming causality.” The effect may be “important but not causative.” Causality in people who are recalling retrospectively “is highly questionable by any adept researcher because it’s subject to memory. Different siblings may have different recall.”

The authors also didn’t study the indication for OC use. Several medical conditions are treated with OCs, including premenstrual dysphoric disorder, the “number one mood disorder among women of reproductive age.” Including this “could have made a huge difference in outcome data,” said Dr. Rasgon, who was not involved with the study.

Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, noted participants were asked to recall depressive symptoms and OC use as far back as 20-30 years ago, which lends itself to inaccurate recall.

And the researchers didn’t ascertain whether the contraceptives had been used continuously or had been started, stopped, and restarted. Nor did they look at different formulations and doses. And the observational nature of the study “limits the ability to infer causation,” continued Dr. Oelschlager, chair of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinical Consensus Gynecology Committee. She was not involved with the study.

“This study is too flawed to use meaningfully in clinical practice,” Dr. Oelschlager concluded.

The study was primarily funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and the Uppsala University Center for Women ‘s Mental Health during the Reproductive Lifespan. The authors, Dr. Rasgon, and Dr. Oelschlager declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral contraceptive (OC) use has been linked to increased depression risk, especially within the first 2 years following initiation, new research shows.

In addition, OC use in adolescence has been tied to an increased risk for depression later in life. However, some experts believe the study’s methodology may be flawed.

The investigators tracked more than 250,000 women from birth to menopause, gathering information about their use of combined contraceptive pills (progesterone and estrogen), the timing of the initial depression diagnosis, and the onset of depressive symptoms that were not formally diagnosed.

areeya_ann/Thinkstock

Women who began using these OCs before or at the age of 20 experienced a 130% higher incidence of depressive symptoms, whereas adult users saw a 92% increase. But the higher occurrence of depression tended to decline after the first 2 years of use, except in teenagers, who maintained an increased incidence of depression even after discontinuation.

This effect remained, even after analysis of potential familial confounding.

“Our findings suggest that the use of OCs, particularly during the first 2 years, increases the risk of depression. Additionally, OC use during adolescence might increase the risk of depression later in life,” Therese Johansson, of the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences.
 

Inconsistent findings

Previous studies suggest an association between adolescent use of hormonal contraceptives (HCs) and increased depression risk, but it’s “less clear” whether these effects are similar in adults, the authors wrote. Randomized clinical trials have “shown little or no effect” of HCs on mood. However, most of these studies didn’t consider previous use of HC.

The researchers wanted to estimate the incidence rate of depression associated with first initiation of OC use as well as the lifetime risk associated with use.

They studied 264,557 female participants in the UK Biobank (aged 37-71 years), collecting data from questionnaires, interviews, physical health measures, biological samples, imaging, and linked health records.

Most participants taking OCs had initiated use during the 1970s/early 1980s when second-generation OCs were predominantly used, consisting of levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol.

The researchers conducted a secondary outcome analysis on women who completed the UK Biobank Mental Health Questionnaire (MHQ) to evaluate depressive symptoms.

They estimated the associated risk for depression within 2 years after starting OCs in all women, as well as in groups stratified by age at initiation: before age 20 (adolescents) and age 20 and older (adults). In addition, the investigators estimated the lifetime risk for depression.

Time-dependent analysis compared the effect of OC use at initiation to the effect during the remaining years of use in recent and previous users.

They analyzed a subcohort of female siblings, utilizing “inference about causation from examination of familial confounding,” defined by the authors as a “regression-based approach for determining causality through the use of paired observational data collected from related individuals.”
 

Adolescents at highest risk

Of the participants, 80.6% had used OCs at some point.

The first 2 years of use were associated with a higher rate of depression among users, compared with never-users (hazard ration, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-1.96). Although the risk became less pronounced after that, ever-use was still associated with increased lifetime risk for depression (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).

Adolescents and adult OC users both experienced higher rates of depression during the first 2 years, with a more marked effect in adolescents than in adults (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.64-2.32; and HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.95, respectively).

Previous users of OCs had a higher lifetime risk for depression, compared with never-users (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).

Of the subcohort of women who completed the MHQ (n = 82,232), about half reported experiencing at least one of the core depressive symptoms.

OC initiation was associated with an increased risk for depressive symptoms during the first 2 years in ever- versus never-users (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.91-2.10).

Those who began using OCs during adolescence had a dramatically higher rate of depressive symptoms, compared with never-users (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51), as did adult initiators (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51).

In the analysis of 7,354 first-degree sister pairs, 81% had initiated OCs. A sibling’s OC use was positively associated with a depression diagnosis, and the cosibling’s OC use was also associated with the sibling’s depression diagnosis. “These results support the hypothesis of a causal relationship between OC use and depression, such that OC use increases the risk of depression,” the authors wrote.

The main limitation is the potential for recall bias in the self-reported data, and that the UK Biobank sample consists of a healthier population than the overall U.K. population, which “hampers the generalizability” of the findings, the authors stated.
 

Flawed study

In a comment, Natalie Rasgon, MD, founder and director of the Stanford (Calif.) Center for Neuroscience in Women’s Health, said the study was “well researched” and “well written” but had “methodological issues.”

She questioned the sibling component, “which the researchers regard as confirming causality.” The effect may be “important but not causative.” Causality in people who are recalling retrospectively “is highly questionable by any adept researcher because it’s subject to memory. Different siblings may have different recall.”

The authors also didn’t study the indication for OC use. Several medical conditions are treated with OCs, including premenstrual dysphoric disorder, the “number one mood disorder among women of reproductive age.” Including this “could have made a huge difference in outcome data,” said Dr. Rasgon, who was not involved with the study.

Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, noted participants were asked to recall depressive symptoms and OC use as far back as 20-30 years ago, which lends itself to inaccurate recall.

And the researchers didn’t ascertain whether the contraceptives had been used continuously or had been started, stopped, and restarted. Nor did they look at different formulations and doses. And the observational nature of the study “limits the ability to infer causation,” continued Dr. Oelschlager, chair of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinical Consensus Gynecology Committee. She was not involved with the study.

“This study is too flawed to use meaningfully in clinical practice,” Dr. Oelschlager concluded.

The study was primarily funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and the Uppsala University Center for Women ‘s Mental Health during the Reproductive Lifespan. The authors, Dr. Rasgon, and Dr. Oelschlager declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 29 that using race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional, rolling back more than 40 years of affirmative action standards and changing how medical schools evaluate applicants to attract students from diverse backgrounds.  

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, said in a prepared statement that the Supreme Court ruling will result in a less diverse physician workforce, which is “bad for health care, bad for medicine, and undermines the health of our nation.” He cited the AMA’s recent adoption of a policy advising medical schools to increase enrollment of people from racial and ethnic groups traditionally underrepresented in medicine – even if that means considering race as a factor in admissions criteria.

“Supporting racial and ethnic diversity in the health professions – spanning classrooms, labs, and clinical settings – enriches the educational experiences of all medical and health professions students and the teaching experiences of faculty, and it is essential to improving the overall health of our nation,” the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) said in a prepared statement. The AAMC said it was “deeply disappointed” in the court’s decision and will continue to pursue efforts to improve diversity among medical students and physicians.

The American Medical Student Association also denounced the Supreme Court decision. “As future physicians committed to justice and equality, we are profoundly outraged ... We strongly support increased representation of minority students in all levels of education, including colleges and medical schools. By fostering diversity and inclusion, institutions have the power to create more empathetic and inclusive learning environments,” the organization said in a press release.

“Diversity in the health care workforce not only benefits underserved patients but improves care for all patients” by increasing understanding and empathy for people of various cultures, Omar T. Atiq, MD, president of the American College of Physicians, said in a press release.

The Supreme Court ruling stems from a lawsuit by the Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that considering race in the college admission process constitutes discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the court’s decision, stated that an applicant’s personal experiences should carry the most weight in admission decisions and that historically, universities have “wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Still, Justice Roberts said the opinion does not prohibit universities from considering how race has affected an applicant’s life, “be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

Diversity in medical schools increased last year, with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling. But continued diversity efforts were expected to prove challenging with affirmative action off the table, according to an amicus brief filed last year by the AMA, the AAMC, and dozens of other professional health care organizations.

The brief supported continued use of race in college admissions, stating that eliminating that factor could slow efforts to achieve greater health equity because fewer doctors would be training and working with colleagues from diverse backgrounds.

Several universities with medical programs, such as Yale and Johns Hopkins universities, filed a separate brief citing similar concerns. After the June 29 decision, Harvard and the University of North Carolina released statements stating they would comply with the ruling.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 29 that using race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional, rolling back more than 40 years of affirmative action standards and changing how medical schools evaluate applicants to attract students from diverse backgrounds.  

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, said in a prepared statement that the Supreme Court ruling will result in a less diverse physician workforce, which is “bad for health care, bad for medicine, and undermines the health of our nation.” He cited the AMA’s recent adoption of a policy advising medical schools to increase enrollment of people from racial and ethnic groups traditionally underrepresented in medicine – even if that means considering race as a factor in admissions criteria.

“Supporting racial and ethnic diversity in the health professions – spanning classrooms, labs, and clinical settings – enriches the educational experiences of all medical and health professions students and the teaching experiences of faculty, and it is essential to improving the overall health of our nation,” the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) said in a prepared statement. The AAMC said it was “deeply disappointed” in the court’s decision and will continue to pursue efforts to improve diversity among medical students and physicians.

The American Medical Student Association also denounced the Supreme Court decision. “As future physicians committed to justice and equality, we are profoundly outraged ... We strongly support increased representation of minority students in all levels of education, including colleges and medical schools. By fostering diversity and inclusion, institutions have the power to create more empathetic and inclusive learning environments,” the organization said in a press release.

“Diversity in the health care workforce not only benefits underserved patients but improves care for all patients” by increasing understanding and empathy for people of various cultures, Omar T. Atiq, MD, president of the American College of Physicians, said in a press release.

The Supreme Court ruling stems from a lawsuit by the Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that considering race in the college admission process constitutes discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the court’s decision, stated that an applicant’s personal experiences should carry the most weight in admission decisions and that historically, universities have “wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Still, Justice Roberts said the opinion does not prohibit universities from considering how race has affected an applicant’s life, “be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

Diversity in medical schools increased last year, with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling. But continued diversity efforts were expected to prove challenging with affirmative action off the table, according to an amicus brief filed last year by the AMA, the AAMC, and dozens of other professional health care organizations.

The brief supported continued use of race in college admissions, stating that eliminating that factor could slow efforts to achieve greater health equity because fewer doctors would be training and working with colleagues from diverse backgrounds.

Several universities with medical programs, such as Yale and Johns Hopkins universities, filed a separate brief citing similar concerns. After the June 29 decision, Harvard and the University of North Carolina released statements stating they would comply with the ruling.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 29 that using race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional, rolling back more than 40 years of affirmative action standards and changing how medical schools evaluate applicants to attract students from diverse backgrounds.  

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, said in a prepared statement that the Supreme Court ruling will result in a less diverse physician workforce, which is “bad for health care, bad for medicine, and undermines the health of our nation.” He cited the AMA’s recent adoption of a policy advising medical schools to increase enrollment of people from racial and ethnic groups traditionally underrepresented in medicine – even if that means considering race as a factor in admissions criteria.

“Supporting racial and ethnic diversity in the health professions – spanning classrooms, labs, and clinical settings – enriches the educational experiences of all medical and health professions students and the teaching experiences of faculty, and it is essential to improving the overall health of our nation,” the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) said in a prepared statement. The AAMC said it was “deeply disappointed” in the court’s decision and will continue to pursue efforts to improve diversity among medical students and physicians.

The American Medical Student Association also denounced the Supreme Court decision. “As future physicians committed to justice and equality, we are profoundly outraged ... We strongly support increased representation of minority students in all levels of education, including colleges and medical schools. By fostering diversity and inclusion, institutions have the power to create more empathetic and inclusive learning environments,” the organization said in a press release.

“Diversity in the health care workforce not only benefits underserved patients but improves care for all patients” by increasing understanding and empathy for people of various cultures, Omar T. Atiq, MD, president of the American College of Physicians, said in a press release.

The Supreme Court ruling stems from a lawsuit by the Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that considering race in the college admission process constitutes discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the court’s decision, stated that an applicant’s personal experiences should carry the most weight in admission decisions and that historically, universities have “wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Still, Justice Roberts said the opinion does not prohibit universities from considering how race has affected an applicant’s life, “be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

Diversity in medical schools increased last year, with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling. But continued diversity efforts were expected to prove challenging with affirmative action off the table, according to an amicus brief filed last year by the AMA, the AAMC, and dozens of other professional health care organizations.

The brief supported continued use of race in college admissions, stating that eliminating that factor could slow efforts to achieve greater health equity because fewer doctors would be training and working with colleagues from diverse backgrounds.

Several universities with medical programs, such as Yale and Johns Hopkins universities, filed a separate brief citing similar concerns. After the June 29 decision, Harvard and the University of North Carolina released statements stating they would comply with the ruling.

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

The American Medical Association is considering whether to study alternatives to the current residency matching program in an effort to improve residents’ compensation and other job-related issues. A recent call-to-action resolution by the AMA’s House of Delegates is the latest in a long string of debates about whether to change the annual process that matches future doctors with compatible residency programs.

AMA’s Resident and Fellow Section introduced the resolution in March, and the delegates approved it earlier in June at AMA’s annual meeting. The resolution states that the match process of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) “poses significant anticompetition concerns.” Those include preventing residents from negotiating for higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions, according to the approved resolution.

The full AMA board still has to consider the resolution and hasn’t set a date for that review, though it’s expected to be in the next few months, according to Jennifer Sellers, AMA’s public information officer. She said in an interview that the organization declined to comment, wanting to hold off until the board decides how to proceed.

The NRMP, which oversees the matching process, told this news organization that the AMA doesn’t play a role in the Match.

The organization doesn’t believe studying alternative placement methods benefits applicants and residents, and returning to a pre-Match environment, would harm applicants and programs, according to Donna Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, president and CEO.

“The NRMP has no role in determining, publishing, or setting resident salaries nor does the NRMP have a role in the contracting or employment of residents, and it never has.”

Dr. Lamb said changing the Match would “subject applicants to undue pressure and coercion to accept an offer of training. This will exacerbate disparities in candidate selection already evident in medical education and potentially result in salary reductions in more competitive specialties and in more desirable geographic locations.”

The latest push to reform the match process dates back two decades to a 2002 class action antitrust lawsuit by residents and doctors against the NRMP and other organizations involved in the Match.

The residents argued at that time that by restraining competition among teaching hospitals, the matching system allowed hospitals to keep residents’ wages artificially low. The defendants, which included large teaching hospitals, successfully lobbied Congress for an exemption to the antitrust laws, and the case was subsequently dismissed.

The AMA was one of the defendants, so if it moves forward to review the match process, it likely would pit the organization against the NRMP.

Sherman Marek, the attorney who represented the residents, said in an interview that he was not surprised by the latest AMA resolution. “Maybe the AMA leadership has come around to the idea that it’s better for young physicians to not have the match in place,” he says. “I would applaud that sort of evolution.”

Tyler Ramsey, DO, an internal medicine resident and AMA member, said he believes the group’s current president, Jesse Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, empathizes with doctors in training. “I think he understands [our] views and is more progressive.”

The NRMP also has considered ways to improve the match process to make it easier and more equitable for applicants. In its latest effort, the organization is studying whether programs should certify their rank order list in advance of applicants. This change would give applicants more flexibility to visit residency locations before the programs consider changing their rankings, Dr. Lamb explained. The NRMP also is mulling the possibilities of a two-phase match after deciding in 2022 not to move forward with a previous version of the proposal.

The recent House of Delegates resolution states that “residents are using other means to obtain fair wages, safe working conditions, and other benefits that are unable to be negotiated within the current system.”

Dr. Ramsey, who trains in North Carolina, said the “other means” may include negotiating through a union. “The AMA realizes that there is a problem and that people are unionizing,” he said. “Obviously, as an organization, we’re not doing something correctly, to the point where people are feeling the need to get their rights a different way.”

The Committee of Interns and Residents, which represents 30,000 members, reported a rise in medical trainee unions across the country in 2022.

Not everyone believes that ditching the Match would benefit applicants and residents. Sam Payabvash, MD, assistant professor of radiology at Yale, New Haven, Conn., School of Medicine, tweeted about the resolution as part of a larger Twitter discussion that alternatives are likely to be “more onerous and expensive for applicants.”

An advantage of the match program, Dr. Lamb argued, is that it “improves the reach of applicants into medically underserved communities through widespread program participation.”

Dr. Ramsey agreed that the match program has benefits and drawbacks, but he believes it favors programs over residents. “It comes as no surprise that numerous residents suffer from depression and our suicide rates are the highest amongst all professions due to the lack of control or negotiation of fair salary and working conditions. Overall, the way things are now, residents just do not have a lot of rights.”

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

The American Medical Association is considering whether to study alternatives to the current residency matching program in an effort to improve residents’ compensation and other job-related issues. A recent call-to-action resolution by the AMA’s House of Delegates is the latest in a long string of debates about whether to change the annual process that matches future doctors with compatible residency programs.

AMA’s Resident and Fellow Section introduced the resolution in March, and the delegates approved it earlier in June at AMA’s annual meeting. The resolution states that the match process of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) “poses significant anticompetition concerns.” Those include preventing residents from negotiating for higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions, according to the approved resolution.

The full AMA board still has to consider the resolution and hasn’t set a date for that review, though it’s expected to be in the next few months, according to Jennifer Sellers, AMA’s public information officer. She said in an interview that the organization declined to comment, wanting to hold off until the board decides how to proceed.

The NRMP, which oversees the matching process, told this news organization that the AMA doesn’t play a role in the Match.

The organization doesn’t believe studying alternative placement methods benefits applicants and residents, and returning to a pre-Match environment, would harm applicants and programs, according to Donna Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, president and CEO.

“The NRMP has no role in determining, publishing, or setting resident salaries nor does the NRMP have a role in the contracting or employment of residents, and it never has.”

Dr. Lamb said changing the Match would “subject applicants to undue pressure and coercion to accept an offer of training. This will exacerbate disparities in candidate selection already evident in medical education and potentially result in salary reductions in more competitive specialties and in more desirable geographic locations.”

The latest push to reform the match process dates back two decades to a 2002 class action antitrust lawsuit by residents and doctors against the NRMP and other organizations involved in the Match.

The residents argued at that time that by restraining competition among teaching hospitals, the matching system allowed hospitals to keep residents’ wages artificially low. The defendants, which included large teaching hospitals, successfully lobbied Congress for an exemption to the antitrust laws, and the case was subsequently dismissed.

The AMA was one of the defendants, so if it moves forward to review the match process, it likely would pit the organization against the NRMP.

Sherman Marek, the attorney who represented the residents, said in an interview that he was not surprised by the latest AMA resolution. “Maybe the AMA leadership has come around to the idea that it’s better for young physicians to not have the match in place,” he says. “I would applaud that sort of evolution.”

Tyler Ramsey, DO, an internal medicine resident and AMA member, said he believes the group’s current president, Jesse Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, empathizes with doctors in training. “I think he understands [our] views and is more progressive.”

The NRMP also has considered ways to improve the match process to make it easier and more equitable for applicants. In its latest effort, the organization is studying whether programs should certify their rank order list in advance of applicants. This change would give applicants more flexibility to visit residency locations before the programs consider changing their rankings, Dr. Lamb explained. The NRMP also is mulling the possibilities of a two-phase match after deciding in 2022 not to move forward with a previous version of the proposal.

The recent House of Delegates resolution states that “residents are using other means to obtain fair wages, safe working conditions, and other benefits that are unable to be negotiated within the current system.”

Dr. Ramsey, who trains in North Carolina, said the “other means” may include negotiating through a union. “The AMA realizes that there is a problem and that people are unionizing,” he said. “Obviously, as an organization, we’re not doing something correctly, to the point where people are feeling the need to get their rights a different way.”

The Committee of Interns and Residents, which represents 30,000 members, reported a rise in medical trainee unions across the country in 2022.

Not everyone believes that ditching the Match would benefit applicants and residents. Sam Payabvash, MD, assistant professor of radiology at Yale, New Haven, Conn., School of Medicine, tweeted about the resolution as part of a larger Twitter discussion that alternatives are likely to be “more onerous and expensive for applicants.”

An advantage of the match program, Dr. Lamb argued, is that it “improves the reach of applicants into medically underserved communities through widespread program participation.”

Dr. Ramsey agreed that the match program has benefits and drawbacks, but he believes it favors programs over residents. “It comes as no surprise that numerous residents suffer from depression and our suicide rates are the highest amongst all professions due to the lack of control or negotiation of fair salary and working conditions. Overall, the way things are now, residents just do not have a lot of rights.”

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

The American Medical Association is considering whether to study alternatives to the current residency matching program in an effort to improve residents’ compensation and other job-related issues. A recent call-to-action resolution by the AMA’s House of Delegates is the latest in a long string of debates about whether to change the annual process that matches future doctors with compatible residency programs.

AMA’s Resident and Fellow Section introduced the resolution in March, and the delegates approved it earlier in June at AMA’s annual meeting. The resolution states that the match process of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) “poses significant anticompetition concerns.” Those include preventing residents from negotiating for higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions, according to the approved resolution.

The full AMA board still has to consider the resolution and hasn’t set a date for that review, though it’s expected to be in the next few months, according to Jennifer Sellers, AMA’s public information officer. She said in an interview that the organization declined to comment, wanting to hold off until the board decides how to proceed.

The NRMP, which oversees the matching process, told this news organization that the AMA doesn’t play a role in the Match.

The organization doesn’t believe studying alternative placement methods benefits applicants and residents, and returning to a pre-Match environment, would harm applicants and programs, according to Donna Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, president and CEO.

“The NRMP has no role in determining, publishing, or setting resident salaries nor does the NRMP have a role in the contracting or employment of residents, and it never has.”

Dr. Lamb said changing the Match would “subject applicants to undue pressure and coercion to accept an offer of training. This will exacerbate disparities in candidate selection already evident in medical education and potentially result in salary reductions in more competitive specialties and in more desirable geographic locations.”

The latest push to reform the match process dates back two decades to a 2002 class action antitrust lawsuit by residents and doctors against the NRMP and other organizations involved in the Match.

The residents argued at that time that by restraining competition among teaching hospitals, the matching system allowed hospitals to keep residents’ wages artificially low. The defendants, which included large teaching hospitals, successfully lobbied Congress for an exemption to the antitrust laws, and the case was subsequently dismissed.

The AMA was one of the defendants, so if it moves forward to review the match process, it likely would pit the organization against the NRMP.

Sherman Marek, the attorney who represented the residents, said in an interview that he was not surprised by the latest AMA resolution. “Maybe the AMA leadership has come around to the idea that it’s better for young physicians to not have the match in place,” he says. “I would applaud that sort of evolution.”

Tyler Ramsey, DO, an internal medicine resident and AMA member, said he believes the group’s current president, Jesse Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, empathizes with doctors in training. “I think he understands [our] views and is more progressive.”

The NRMP also has considered ways to improve the match process to make it easier and more equitable for applicants. In its latest effort, the organization is studying whether programs should certify their rank order list in advance of applicants. This change would give applicants more flexibility to visit residency locations before the programs consider changing their rankings, Dr. Lamb explained. The NRMP also is mulling the possibilities of a two-phase match after deciding in 2022 not to move forward with a previous version of the proposal.

The recent House of Delegates resolution states that “residents are using other means to obtain fair wages, safe working conditions, and other benefits that are unable to be negotiated within the current system.”

Dr. Ramsey, who trains in North Carolina, said the “other means” may include negotiating through a union. “The AMA realizes that there is a problem and that people are unionizing,” he said. “Obviously, as an organization, we’re not doing something correctly, to the point where people are feeling the need to get their rights a different way.”

The Committee of Interns and Residents, which represents 30,000 members, reported a rise in medical trainee unions across the country in 2022.

Not everyone believes that ditching the Match would benefit applicants and residents. Sam Payabvash, MD, assistant professor of radiology at Yale, New Haven, Conn., School of Medicine, tweeted about the resolution as part of a larger Twitter discussion that alternatives are likely to be “more onerous and expensive for applicants.”

An advantage of the match program, Dr. Lamb argued, is that it “improves the reach of applicants into medically underserved communities through widespread program participation.”

Dr. Ramsey agreed that the match program has benefits and drawbacks, but he believes it favors programs over residents. “It comes as no surprise that numerous residents suffer from depression and our suicide rates are the highest amongst all professions due to the lack of control or negotiation of fair salary and working conditions. Overall, the way things are now, residents just do not have a lot of rights.”

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

An automated artificial intelligence (AI) model trained to read electroencephalograms (EEGs) in patients with suspected epilepsy is just as accurate as trained neurologists, new data suggest.

Known as SCORE-AI, the technology distinguishes between abnormal and normal EEG recordings and classifies irregular recordings into specific categories crucial for patient decision-making.

“SCORE-AI can be used in place of experts in underprivileged areas, where expertise is missing, or to help physicians to preselect or prescore recordings in areas where the workload is high – we can all benefit from AI,” study investigator Sándor Beniczky, MD, PhD, said in a JAMA Neurology podcast.

Dr. Beniczky is professor of clinical neurophysiology at Aarhus University in Denmark.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Gaining a foothold

Increasingly, AI is gaining a foothold in medicine by credibly addressing patient queries and aiding radiologists.

To bring AI to EEG interpretation, the researchers developed and validated an AI model that was able to assess routine, clinical EEGs in patients with suspected epilepsy.

Beyond using AI to distinguish abnormal from normal EEG recordings, the researchers wanted to train the new system to classify abnormal recordings into the major categories that are most relevant for clinical decision-making in patients who may have epilepsy. The categories included epileptiform-focal, epileptiform-generalized, nonepileptiform-focal, and nonepileptiform-diffuse abnormalities.

The researchers trained the learning model using Standardized Computer-based Organized Reporting of EEG (SCORE) software.

In the development phase, the model was trained using more than 30,490 anonymized and highly annotated EEG recordings from 14,100 men (median age, 25 years) from a single center. The recordings had an average duration of 31 minutes and were interpreted by 17 neurologists using standardized criteria. If an EEG recording was abnormal, the physicians had to specify which abnormal features were present.

SCORE-AI then performed an analysis of the recordings based on input from the experts.

To validate the findings, investigators used two independent test datasets. The first dataset consisted of 100 representative routine EEGs from 61 men (median age, 26 years), evaluated by 11 neurologists from different centers.

The consensus of these evaluations served as the reference standard. The second dataset comprised nearly 10,000 EEGs from a single center (5,170 men; median age, 35 years), independently assessed by 14 neurologists.
 

Near-perfect accuracy

When compared with the experts, SCORE-AI had near-perfect accuracy with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for differentiating normal from abnormal EEG recordings of 0.95.

SCORE-AI also performed well at identifying generalized epileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.96), focal epileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.91), focal nonepileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.89), and diffuse nonepileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.93).

In addition, SCORE-AI had excellent agreement with clinicians – and sometimes agreed with individual experts more than the experts agreed with one another.

When Dr. Beniczky and team tested SCORE-AI against three previously published AI models, SCORE-AI demonstrated greater specificity than those models (90% vs. 3%-63%) but was not as sensitive (86.7%) as two of the models (96.7% and 100%).

One of the study’s limitations was the fact that SCORE-AI was developed and validated on routine EEGs that excluded neonates and critically ill patients.

In the future, Dr. Beniczky said on the podcast, the team would like to train SCORE-AI to read EEGs with more granularity, and eventually use only one single channel to record EEGs. At present, SCORE-AI is being integrated with Natus Neuro, a widely used EEG equipment system, the investigators note.

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan Kleen, MD, PhD, and Elan Guterman, MD, said, “The overall approach taken ... in developing and validating SCORE-AI sets a standard for this work going forward.”

Dr. Kleen and Dr. Guterman note that the technological gains brought about by SCORE-AI technology “could offer an exciting prospect to improve EEG availability and clinical care for the 50 million people with epilepsy worldwide.”
 

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

An automated artificial intelligence (AI) model trained to read electroencephalograms (EEGs) in patients with suspected epilepsy is just as accurate as trained neurologists, new data suggest.

Known as SCORE-AI, the technology distinguishes between abnormal and normal EEG recordings and classifies irregular recordings into specific categories crucial for patient decision-making.

“SCORE-AI can be used in place of experts in underprivileged areas, where expertise is missing, or to help physicians to preselect or prescore recordings in areas where the workload is high – we can all benefit from AI,” study investigator Sándor Beniczky, MD, PhD, said in a JAMA Neurology podcast.

Dr. Beniczky is professor of clinical neurophysiology at Aarhus University in Denmark.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Gaining a foothold

Increasingly, AI is gaining a foothold in medicine by credibly addressing patient queries and aiding radiologists.

To bring AI to EEG interpretation, the researchers developed and validated an AI model that was able to assess routine, clinical EEGs in patients with suspected epilepsy.

Beyond using AI to distinguish abnormal from normal EEG recordings, the researchers wanted to train the new system to classify abnormal recordings into the major categories that are most relevant for clinical decision-making in patients who may have epilepsy. The categories included epileptiform-focal, epileptiform-generalized, nonepileptiform-focal, and nonepileptiform-diffuse abnormalities.

The researchers trained the learning model using Standardized Computer-based Organized Reporting of EEG (SCORE) software.

In the development phase, the model was trained using more than 30,490 anonymized and highly annotated EEG recordings from 14,100 men (median age, 25 years) from a single center. The recordings had an average duration of 31 minutes and were interpreted by 17 neurologists using standardized criteria. If an EEG recording was abnormal, the physicians had to specify which abnormal features were present.

SCORE-AI then performed an analysis of the recordings based on input from the experts.

To validate the findings, investigators used two independent test datasets. The first dataset consisted of 100 representative routine EEGs from 61 men (median age, 26 years), evaluated by 11 neurologists from different centers.

The consensus of these evaluations served as the reference standard. The second dataset comprised nearly 10,000 EEGs from a single center (5,170 men; median age, 35 years), independently assessed by 14 neurologists.
 

Near-perfect accuracy

When compared with the experts, SCORE-AI had near-perfect accuracy with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for differentiating normal from abnormal EEG recordings of 0.95.

SCORE-AI also performed well at identifying generalized epileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.96), focal epileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.91), focal nonepileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.89), and diffuse nonepileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.93).

In addition, SCORE-AI had excellent agreement with clinicians – and sometimes agreed with individual experts more than the experts agreed with one another.

When Dr. Beniczky and team tested SCORE-AI against three previously published AI models, SCORE-AI demonstrated greater specificity than those models (90% vs. 3%-63%) but was not as sensitive (86.7%) as two of the models (96.7% and 100%).

One of the study’s limitations was the fact that SCORE-AI was developed and validated on routine EEGs that excluded neonates and critically ill patients.

In the future, Dr. Beniczky said on the podcast, the team would like to train SCORE-AI to read EEGs with more granularity, and eventually use only one single channel to record EEGs. At present, SCORE-AI is being integrated with Natus Neuro, a widely used EEG equipment system, the investigators note.

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan Kleen, MD, PhD, and Elan Guterman, MD, said, “The overall approach taken ... in developing and validating SCORE-AI sets a standard for this work going forward.”

Dr. Kleen and Dr. Guterman note that the technological gains brought about by SCORE-AI technology “could offer an exciting prospect to improve EEG availability and clinical care for the 50 million people with epilepsy worldwide.”
 

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

An automated artificial intelligence (AI) model trained to read electroencephalograms (EEGs) in patients with suspected epilepsy is just as accurate as trained neurologists, new data suggest.

Known as SCORE-AI, the technology distinguishes between abnormal and normal EEG recordings and classifies irregular recordings into specific categories crucial for patient decision-making.

“SCORE-AI can be used in place of experts in underprivileged areas, where expertise is missing, or to help physicians to preselect or prescore recordings in areas where the workload is high – we can all benefit from AI,” study investigator Sándor Beniczky, MD, PhD, said in a JAMA Neurology podcast.

Dr. Beniczky is professor of clinical neurophysiology at Aarhus University in Denmark.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Gaining a foothold

Increasingly, AI is gaining a foothold in medicine by credibly addressing patient queries and aiding radiologists.

To bring AI to EEG interpretation, the researchers developed and validated an AI model that was able to assess routine, clinical EEGs in patients with suspected epilepsy.

Beyond using AI to distinguish abnormal from normal EEG recordings, the researchers wanted to train the new system to classify abnormal recordings into the major categories that are most relevant for clinical decision-making in patients who may have epilepsy. The categories included epileptiform-focal, epileptiform-generalized, nonepileptiform-focal, and nonepileptiform-diffuse abnormalities.

The researchers trained the learning model using Standardized Computer-based Organized Reporting of EEG (SCORE) software.

In the development phase, the model was trained using more than 30,490 anonymized and highly annotated EEG recordings from 14,100 men (median age, 25 years) from a single center. The recordings had an average duration of 31 minutes and were interpreted by 17 neurologists using standardized criteria. If an EEG recording was abnormal, the physicians had to specify which abnormal features were present.

SCORE-AI then performed an analysis of the recordings based on input from the experts.

To validate the findings, investigators used two independent test datasets. The first dataset consisted of 100 representative routine EEGs from 61 men (median age, 26 years), evaluated by 11 neurologists from different centers.

The consensus of these evaluations served as the reference standard. The second dataset comprised nearly 10,000 EEGs from a single center (5,170 men; median age, 35 years), independently assessed by 14 neurologists.
 

Near-perfect accuracy

When compared with the experts, SCORE-AI had near-perfect accuracy with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for differentiating normal from abnormal EEG recordings of 0.95.

SCORE-AI also performed well at identifying generalized epileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.96), focal epileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.91), focal nonepileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.89), and diffuse nonepileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.93).

In addition, SCORE-AI had excellent agreement with clinicians – and sometimes agreed with individual experts more than the experts agreed with one another.

When Dr. Beniczky and team tested SCORE-AI against three previously published AI models, SCORE-AI demonstrated greater specificity than those models (90% vs. 3%-63%) but was not as sensitive (86.7%) as two of the models (96.7% and 100%).

One of the study’s limitations was the fact that SCORE-AI was developed and validated on routine EEGs that excluded neonates and critically ill patients.

In the future, Dr. Beniczky said on the podcast, the team would like to train SCORE-AI to read EEGs with more granularity, and eventually use only one single channel to record EEGs. At present, SCORE-AI is being integrated with Natus Neuro, a widely used EEG equipment system, the investigators note.

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan Kleen, MD, PhD, and Elan Guterman, MD, said, “The overall approach taken ... in developing and validating SCORE-AI sets a standard for this work going forward.”

Dr. Kleen and Dr. Guterman note that the technological gains brought about by SCORE-AI technology “could offer an exciting prospect to improve EEG availability and clinical care for the 50 million people with epilepsy worldwide.”
 

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

The best part of waking up is placebo in your cup

Coffee makes the world go round. It’s impossible to picture any workplace without a cast of forlorn characters huddled around the office coffee maker on a Monday morning, imbibing their beverage du jour until they’ve been lifted out of their semi-zombified stupor.

PxHere

Millions upon millions of people swear by their morning coffee. And if they don’t get that sweet, sweet caffeine boost, they’ll make Garfield and the Boomtown Rats’ opinions of Mondays look tame. And it only makes sense that they’d believe that. After all, caffeine is a stimulant. It helps your brain focus and kicks it into overdrive. Of course drinking a beverage full of caffeine wakes you up. Right?

Not so fast, a group of Portuguese researchers say. That morning cup of coffee? It may actually be a placebo. Cue the dramatic sound effect.

Here’s the scoop: After recruiting a group of coffee drinkers (at least one cup a day), the researchers kept their test subjects off of coffee for at least 3 hours, then performed a brief functional MRI scan on all test subjects. Half an hour later, study participants received either a standard cup of coffee or pure caffeine. Half an hour after consuming their respective study product, the subjects underwent a second MRI.

As expected, both people who consumed coffee and those who consumed pure caffeine showed decreased connectivity in the default mode network after consumption, indicating preparation in the brain to move from resting to working on tasks. However, those who had pure caffeine did not show increased connectivity in the visual and executive control networks, while those who had coffee did. Simply put, caffeine may wake you up, but it doesn’t make you any sharper. Only coffee gets you in shape for that oh-so-important Monday meeting.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. How can the drug part of coffee not be responsible for every effect the drink gives you? That’s where the placebo comes in, according to the scientists. It’s possible the effect they saw was caused by withdrawal – after just 3 hours? Yikes, hope not – but it’s more likely it comes down to psychology. We expect coffee to wake us up and make us ready for the day, so that’s exactly what it does. Hey, if that’s all it takes, time to convince ourselves that eating an entire pizza is actually an incredibly effective weight loss tool. Don’t let us down now, placebo effect.
 

Bread, milk, toilet paper, AFib diagnosis

Now consider the shopping cart. It does its job of carrying stuff around the store well enough, but can it lift you out of a semi-zombified stupor in the morning? No. Can it identify undiagnosed atrial fibrillation? Again, no.

Gustavo Fring

Not so fast, say the investigators conducting the SHOPS-AF (Supermarket/Hypermarket Opportunistic Screening for Atrial Fibrillation) study. They built a better shopping cart. Except they call it a trolley, not a cart, since the study was conducted in England, where they sometimes have funny names for things.

Their improved shopping trolley – we’re just going to call it a cart from here on – has an electrocardiogram sensor embedded into the handlebar, so it can effectively detect AFib in shoppers who held it for at least 60 seconds. The sensor lights up red if it detects an irregular heartbeat and green if it does not. Let’s see a cup of coffee do that.

They put 10 of these modified carts in four supermarkets in Liverpool to see what would happen. Would shoppers be able to tell that we secretly replaced the fine coffee they usually serve with Folger’s crystals? Oops. Sorry about that. Coffee on the brain, apparently. Back to the carts.

A total of 2,155 adult shoppers used one of the carts over 2 months, and electrocardiogram data were available for 220 participants who either had a red light on the sensor and/or an irregular pulse that suggested atrial fibrillation. After further review by the SHOPS-AF cardiologist, AFib was diagnosed in 59 shoppers, of whom 39 were previously undiagnosed.

They’re already working to cut the scan time to 30 seconds for SHOPS-AF II, but we’re wondering about a possible flaw in the whole health-care-delivery-through-shopping-cart scenario. When we go to the local super/hyper/megamart, it seems like half of the people trundling up and down the aisles are store employees filling orders for customers who won’t even set foot inside. Is the shopping cart on its way out? Maybe. Who wants to tell the SHOPS-AF II team? Not us.
 

Put pneumonia where your mouth is

Getting dentures does not mean the end of dental care. If anything, new research reveals a huge reason for staying on top of one’s denture care: pneumonia.

Pxfuel

It all started with swabs. Scientists in the United Kingdom took mouth, tongue, and denture specimens from frail elderly hospital patients who had pneumonia and wore dentures and from similar patients in care homes who wore dentures and did not have pneumonia. When they compared the microbial populations of the two groups, the investigators found about 20 times the number of respiratory pathogens on the dentures of those with pneumonia.

The research team suggested that dentures may play a role in causing pneumonia, but lead author Josh Twigg, BDS, PhD, also noted that “you certainly couldn’t say that people got pneumonia because they were wearing dentures. It’s just showing that there is an association there.” Improper cleaning, though, could lead to microbial colonization of the dentures, and patients could be inhaling those microbes into their lungs, thereby turning a dental issue into a respiratory issue.

More research needs to be done on the association between dentures and pneumonia, but Dr. Twigg hoped that the results of this study could be presented to the public. The message? “It is important to clean dentures thoroughly” and visit the dentist regularly, he said, but the best way to prevent denture-related infections is to avoid needing to wear dentures entirely.

The best part of waking up is placebo in your cup

Coffee makes the world go round. It’s impossible to picture any workplace without a cast of forlorn characters huddled around the office coffee maker on a Monday morning, imbibing their beverage du jour until they’ve been lifted out of their semi-zombified stupor.

PxHere

Millions upon millions of people swear by their morning coffee. And if they don’t get that sweet, sweet caffeine boost, they’ll make Garfield and the Boomtown Rats’ opinions of Mondays look tame. And it only makes sense that they’d believe that. After all, caffeine is a stimulant. It helps your brain focus and kicks it into overdrive. Of course drinking a beverage full of caffeine wakes you up. Right?

Not so fast, a group of Portuguese researchers say. That morning cup of coffee? It may actually be a placebo. Cue the dramatic sound effect.

Here’s the scoop: After recruiting a group of coffee drinkers (at least one cup a day), the researchers kept their test subjects off of coffee for at least 3 hours, then performed a brief functional MRI scan on all test subjects. Half an hour later, study participants received either a standard cup of coffee or pure caffeine. Half an hour after consuming their respective study product, the subjects underwent a second MRI.

As expected, both people who consumed coffee and those who consumed pure caffeine showed decreased connectivity in the default mode network after consumption, indicating preparation in the brain to move from resting to working on tasks. However, those who had pure caffeine did not show increased connectivity in the visual and executive control networks, while those who had coffee did. Simply put, caffeine may wake you up, but it doesn’t make you any sharper. Only coffee gets you in shape for that oh-so-important Monday meeting.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. How can the drug part of coffee not be responsible for every effect the drink gives you? That’s where the placebo comes in, according to the scientists. It’s possible the effect they saw was caused by withdrawal – after just 3 hours? Yikes, hope not – but it’s more likely it comes down to psychology. We expect coffee to wake us up and make us ready for the day, so that’s exactly what it does. Hey, if that’s all it takes, time to convince ourselves that eating an entire pizza is actually an incredibly effective weight loss tool. Don’t let us down now, placebo effect.
 

Bread, milk, toilet paper, AFib diagnosis

Now consider the shopping cart. It does its job of carrying stuff around the store well enough, but can it lift you out of a semi-zombified stupor in the morning? No. Can it identify undiagnosed atrial fibrillation? Again, no.

Gustavo Fring

Not so fast, say the investigators conducting the SHOPS-AF (Supermarket/Hypermarket Opportunistic Screening for Atrial Fibrillation) study. They built a better shopping cart. Except they call it a trolley, not a cart, since the study was conducted in England, where they sometimes have funny names for things.

Their improved shopping trolley – we’re just going to call it a cart from here on – has an electrocardiogram sensor embedded into the handlebar, so it can effectively detect AFib in shoppers who held it for at least 60 seconds. The sensor lights up red if it detects an irregular heartbeat and green if it does not. Let’s see a cup of coffee do that.

They put 10 of these modified carts in four supermarkets in Liverpool to see what would happen. Would shoppers be able to tell that we secretly replaced the fine coffee they usually serve with Folger’s crystals? Oops. Sorry about that. Coffee on the brain, apparently. Back to the carts.

A total of 2,155 adult shoppers used one of the carts over 2 months, and electrocardiogram data were available for 220 participants who either had a red light on the sensor and/or an irregular pulse that suggested atrial fibrillation. After further review by the SHOPS-AF cardiologist, AFib was diagnosed in 59 shoppers, of whom 39 were previously undiagnosed.

They’re already working to cut the scan time to 30 seconds for SHOPS-AF II, but we’re wondering about a possible flaw in the whole health-care-delivery-through-shopping-cart scenario. When we go to the local super/hyper/megamart, it seems like half of the people trundling up and down the aisles are store employees filling orders for customers who won’t even set foot inside. Is the shopping cart on its way out? Maybe. Who wants to tell the SHOPS-AF II team? Not us.
 

Put pneumonia where your mouth is

Getting dentures does not mean the end of dental care. If anything, new research reveals a huge reason for staying on top of one’s denture care: pneumonia.

Pxfuel

It all started with swabs. Scientists in the United Kingdom took mouth, tongue, and denture specimens from frail elderly hospital patients who had pneumonia and wore dentures and from similar patients in care homes who wore dentures and did not have pneumonia. When they compared the microbial populations of the two groups, the investigators found about 20 times the number of respiratory pathogens on the dentures of those with pneumonia.

The research team suggested that dentures may play a role in causing pneumonia, but lead author Josh Twigg, BDS, PhD, also noted that “you certainly couldn’t say that people got pneumonia because they were wearing dentures. It’s just showing that there is an association there.” Improper cleaning, though, could lead to microbial colonization of the dentures, and patients could be inhaling those microbes into their lungs, thereby turning a dental issue into a respiratory issue.

More research needs to be done on the association between dentures and pneumonia, but Dr. Twigg hoped that the results of this study could be presented to the public. The message? “It is important to clean dentures thoroughly” and visit the dentist regularly, he said, but the best way to prevent denture-related infections is to avoid needing to wear dentures entirely.

The best part of waking up is placebo in your cup

Coffee makes the world go round. It’s impossible to picture any workplace without a cast of forlorn characters huddled around the office coffee maker on a Monday morning, imbibing their beverage du jour until they’ve been lifted out of their semi-zombified stupor.

PxHere

Millions upon millions of people swear by their morning coffee. And if they don’t get that sweet, sweet caffeine boost, they’ll make Garfield and the Boomtown Rats’ opinions of Mondays look tame. And it only makes sense that they’d believe that. After all, caffeine is a stimulant. It helps your brain focus and kicks it into overdrive. Of course drinking a beverage full of caffeine wakes you up. Right?

Not so fast, a group of Portuguese researchers say. That morning cup of coffee? It may actually be a placebo. Cue the dramatic sound effect.

Here’s the scoop: After recruiting a group of coffee drinkers (at least one cup a day), the researchers kept their test subjects off of coffee for at least 3 hours, then performed a brief functional MRI scan on all test subjects. Half an hour later, study participants received either a standard cup of coffee or pure caffeine. Half an hour after consuming their respective study product, the subjects underwent a second MRI.

As expected, both people who consumed coffee and those who consumed pure caffeine showed decreased connectivity in the default mode network after consumption, indicating preparation in the brain to move from resting to working on tasks. However, those who had pure caffeine did not show increased connectivity in the visual and executive control networks, while those who had coffee did. Simply put, caffeine may wake you up, but it doesn’t make you any sharper. Only coffee gets you in shape for that oh-so-important Monday meeting.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. How can the drug part of coffee not be responsible for every effect the drink gives you? That’s where the placebo comes in, according to the scientists. It’s possible the effect they saw was caused by withdrawal – after just 3 hours? Yikes, hope not – but it’s more likely it comes down to psychology. We expect coffee to wake us up and make us ready for the day, so that’s exactly what it does. Hey, if that’s all it takes, time to convince ourselves that eating an entire pizza is actually an incredibly effective weight loss tool. Don’t let us down now, placebo effect.
 

Bread, milk, toilet paper, AFib diagnosis

Now consider the shopping cart. It does its job of carrying stuff around the store well enough, but can it lift you out of a semi-zombified stupor in the morning? No. Can it identify undiagnosed atrial fibrillation? Again, no.

Gustavo Fring

Not so fast, say the investigators conducting the SHOPS-AF (Supermarket/Hypermarket Opportunistic Screening for Atrial Fibrillation) study. They built a better shopping cart. Except they call it a trolley, not a cart, since the study was conducted in England, where they sometimes have funny names for things.

Their improved shopping trolley – we’re just going to call it a cart from here on – has an electrocardiogram sensor embedded into the handlebar, so it can effectively detect AFib in shoppers who held it for at least 60 seconds. The sensor lights up red if it detects an irregular heartbeat and green if it does not. Let’s see a cup of coffee do that.

They put 10 of these modified carts in four supermarkets in Liverpool to see what would happen. Would shoppers be able to tell that we secretly replaced the fine coffee they usually serve with Folger’s crystals? Oops. Sorry about that. Coffee on the brain, apparently. Back to the carts.

A total of 2,155 adult shoppers used one of the carts over 2 months, and electrocardiogram data were available for 220 participants who either had a red light on the sensor and/or an irregular pulse that suggested atrial fibrillation. After further review by the SHOPS-AF cardiologist, AFib was diagnosed in 59 shoppers, of whom 39 were previously undiagnosed.

They’re already working to cut the scan time to 30 seconds for SHOPS-AF II, but we’re wondering about a possible flaw in the whole health-care-delivery-through-shopping-cart scenario. When we go to the local super/hyper/megamart, it seems like half of the people trundling up and down the aisles are store employees filling orders for customers who won’t even set foot inside. Is the shopping cart on its way out? Maybe. Who wants to tell the SHOPS-AF II team? Not us.
 

Put pneumonia where your mouth is

Getting dentures does not mean the end of dental care. If anything, new research reveals a huge reason for staying on top of one’s denture care: pneumonia.

Pxfuel

It all started with swabs. Scientists in the United Kingdom took mouth, tongue, and denture specimens from frail elderly hospital patients who had pneumonia and wore dentures and from similar patients in care homes who wore dentures and did not have pneumonia. When they compared the microbial populations of the two groups, the investigators found about 20 times the number of respiratory pathogens on the dentures of those with pneumonia.

The research team suggested that dentures may play a role in causing pneumonia, but lead author Josh Twigg, BDS, PhD, also noted that “you certainly couldn’t say that people got pneumonia because they were wearing dentures. It’s just showing that there is an association there.” Improper cleaning, though, could lead to microbial colonization of the dentures, and patients could be inhaling those microbes into their lungs, thereby turning a dental issue into a respiratory issue.

More research needs to be done on the association between dentures and pneumonia, but Dr. Twigg hoped that the results of this study could be presented to the public. The message? “It is important to clean dentures thoroughly” and visit the dentist regularly, he said, but the best way to prevent denture-related infections is to avoid needing to wear dentures entirely.

Physician suicide continues to be a challenging problem in the United States. Each year, 1 in 10 doctors think about or attempt suicide, and 400 die by suicide each year. More than half of the doctors reading this know a colleague who has attempted or died by suicide.

This news organization recently sat down with three psychiatric experts to talk about the newest risk-reduction initiatives. These are part of a public health suicide prevention strategy, the preferred method for prevention, in hospitals and institutions around the country. A public health model for preventing suicide is a multifaceted approach that includes universal education, health promotion, selective and targeted prevention, and treatment and recovery. 

These physicians hope to continue creating and implementing these and other risk-reduction measures across all health care organizations.
 

Our physician experts for this discussion

Mary Moffit, PhD, is an associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. She directs the resident and faculty wellness program and is director of the OHSU peer support program. She helped design and developed a comprehensive wellness program that is now a national model for academic medical centers.

Christine Yu Moutier, MD, is the chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She is the author of “Suicide Prevention,” a Cambridge University Press clinical handbook. She has been a practicing psychiatrist, professor of psychiatry, dean in the medical school at the University of California, San Diego, and medical director of the inpatient psychiatric unit at the VA Medical Center in La Jolla, Calif.

Michael F. Myers, MD, is a professor of clinical psychiatry in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the State University of New York, Brooklyn. He is recent past vice-chair of education and director of training in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the university. He is the author of several books, including “Why Physicians Die By Suicide,” “The Physician as Patient,” and “Touched by Suicide.”

The participants discussed these risk-reduction initiatives as having much potential for helping physicians at risk for suicide and suicidal ideations.
 

The importance of peer support programs

Peer support program models may differ across institutions but typically describe colleagues providing some degree of emotional first aid to peers who may be at risk.

Dr. Moffit: The Pew support program that we have in place at OHSU, similar to what’s available in many hospitals and systems nationwide, trains individual physicians across multiple specialties in a peer support model. It’s not specifically emotional first aid, although that’s integral to it. It’s also for adverse events: Having a tragic patient death, having learned that you will be named in a lawsuit, and exposure to trauma in the medical role.

Peer to peer is not where we anticipate physicians seeking someone to talk to about their marital relationship not going well. However, the peer supporter will know about resources throughout the university and the community for what is needed. We’ve got 20-30 peer supporters. We try to match them – for example, a surgeon with a surgeon, a primary care doc with a primary care doc. Physicians who use peer support aren’t tracked, and no notes are taken or documented. It takes place informally but has changed the culture and lowered a barrier. We have a waiting list of people who want to be peer supporters. 

Dr. Moutier: Peer-to-peer support is usually part of a multi-pronged program and is usually not the only effort going on. Depending on how they’re set up, the goals may be slightly different for each program. Peer-to-peer can be one of the most powerful ways to augment awareness raising and education, which is almost always a basic first step.

Dr. Myers: It doesn’t feel as threatening when people start in a peer-to-peer support group. Users may have been afraid of getting a mental health diagnosis, but with peers, many of whom are often not psychiatrists, that eases distress. Peer support can break down that sense of isolation and loneliness so that someone can take the next step.

Dr. Moutier: To be connected to family, to any community resource, frankly, is a protective factor that mitigates suicide risk. So that’s the logic model from a suicide prevention standpoint. It may be the only opportunity for someone to start disclosing what they’re experiencing, receive validation and support, and not a judgmental response. It can open up the avenue toward help-seeking.

Opt-in/opt-out support for medical residents

This initiative matches residents with a counselor as part of their orientation.

Dr. Moffit: Each resident has a meet and greet with a counselor when they arrive or in their first 6 months at their university. The resident can opt out and cancel the meeting, but they’re scheduled for it as part of their “curriculum.” Institutions like Michigan, Columbia, Montefiore, Mount Sinai, and the University of California, San Diego, have this in place. It starts something like: ‘Hello. Good afternoon. How’s it going? I’m Dr. Moffitt, and here are the services available in this program.’

Dr. Myers: It’s another excellent example of normalizing the stress in the rigors of training and making it part of the wellness initiative.

Dr. Moutier:  It’s just a normal part of orientation. Again, as a universal strategy, one thing that I was doing at UCSD with a particular group of medical students, who were at higher risk, was a postbaccalaureate program that found students from underrepresented, under-resourced backgrounds and brought them into this post-bacc year. I was directing it and mentoring these students.

So, I could afford a lot more intensive time and attention to them because it was a small group, but every one of them had regular meetings with me every 2 weeks. My approach was to help them uncover their unique strengths and vulnerabilities as they started this program. They all made it into med school.

It was a very intensive and more concierge-personalized approach. It’s like personalized medicine. What specific self-care, mentoring, and mental health care plan would each student codesign with me to stay on track?

And it would involve very holistic things, like if part of their vulnerability was that leaving their Chicano family was creating stress because their father had said: ‘You’re leaving our culture and our family by going into the profession of medicine,’ then we had specific plans around how to care for that aspect of their struggle. It was a much more informed, customized mentoring approach called the UCSD CAP (Conditional Acceptance Post-Baccalaureate Program). It could be a feature in a more specialized opt-in/opt-out program.
 

One-question survey: How full is your gas tank?

This initiative is a one-question survey emailed/texted to residents to check in on their wellness. We ask, how full is your gas tank? Select 1 to 5 (Empty to Full). If they flag low, they receive a follow-up.

Dr. Moffit: It’s certainly a metaphor that we use. It’s the idea of being depleted in combination with being extremely sleep deprived and the inability to access the usual sources of support or outlets, and how that can create a perfect storm of a level of distress that can put physicians at risk.

Dr. Moutier: It is a way to help people realize that there are things they can do proactively to keep that tank at least somewhat full enough.

Dr. Myers: Using colloquial or figurative language can get better buy-in than “Here’s a PHQ-9.” It also has a caring or intimate tone to it. Somebody could feel they’re a 1 in this rotation but a 4-5 the next. We know from a lot of the literature that when residents get a good, welcoming orientation, their satisfaction with that rotation is uniformly better than if they’re thrown to the wolves. And we know trial by fire can put trainees at risk.

A buddy to check in with

This initiative is when you’re assigned a buddy in or out of residency that you regularly check in with about how you’re doing.

Dr. Myers: Not to be cynical, but there has been some mentor/mentee research that if you’re assigned a mentor, the results are not nearly as good. And if it’s left to the individual to find a mentor, results could be marginal as well. You need a guide to say, ‘Here are some potential mentors for you, but you decide.’ We do a lot of that at (SUNY) Downstate instead of assigning a person. So, it may require some oversight. Picking a check-in buddy from a list provided rather than having one assigned may be more beneficial.

A lot of what we’re talking about are universal strategies that allow for increased interpersonal connection, which is a protective factor that normalizes help-seeking.
 

A platform or social media forum to share experiences

An online forum or platform where medical students, residents, and physicians can discuss mental health and suicide prevention. Physicians with personal experience could provide testimonials.

Dr. Myers: I’ve recently signed a book contract, and the working title is “Physicians With Lived Experience: How Their Stories Give Clinical Guidance.” When I talk with doctors who have published their personal stories in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or sometimes The Washington Post or The New York Times, many of them have said they had no idea at the beginning of their journey that they would do something like this: be transparent about their story. It’s a measure of their health, growth, and grace.

Dr. Moutier: The current president of the Academic Association of Surgeons, Carrie Cunningham, MD, MPH, used her platform at the annual AAS conference in 2022 to focus on suicide prevention. She told her own recent story of having gotten into recovery after having been near suicide and struggling with addiction. It was a groundbreaking moment for the field of surgery and produced a ripple effect. She risked everything to tell her story, which was highly emotional since it was still raw. It got everyone engaged, a real turning point for that field. Storytelling and a place for trainees to discuss suicide prevention, and physicians to recall their lived experiences can be highly beneficial.

Interactive Screening Program

The Interactive Screening Program (ISP) is used in higher education to allow physicians to take a safe, confidential screening test and receive a personalized response that can connect them to mental health services before a crisis emerges.

Dr. Moutier: ISP is a tool within a public health model that can afford anonymity to the user so they can safely have their needs addressed. It’s a way for high-risk individuals to sync up with treatment and support. It’s sometimes used in the universal approach because it can be offered to everyone within the health system community of physicians and staff.

It can produce a ripple effect of normalizing that we all have mental health to take care of. Its intended value is in identifying those with a higher risk for suicide, but it doesn’t stop at identifying those at risk. It helps physicians move past a stage of suffering in silence.

Our data show that 86% of a very high-risk group (currently having suicidal ideation, a recent attempt, or other high-risk factors for suicide) aren’t in any form of treatment and have not disclosed their situation to anyone. A fairly high percentage of those going through ISP request a referral to treatment. It’s a unique, very niche tool, and because users remain anonymous, that affords safety around confidentiality.

It’s usually part of a multipronged approach with education, stigma reduction, storytelling, peer support, and other modalities. In my experience with the UCSD HEAR (Healer Assessment Education and Recovery) program, which is still going strong in about its 15th year, the program went from seeing 13 physicians die by suicide in the years leading up to its launch and in the 15 years since it’s been going, one suicide. We all believe that the ISP is the heart of prevention.

Even though all of the universal strategies are important, they probably wouldn’t be sufficient by themselves because the risk [for suicide] is dynamic, and you have to catch people when they are suffering and ready to seek treatment. Suicide prevention is challenging and must be strategic, multifaceted, and sustained over time.
 

The importance of confidentiality for physicians

In the past, physicians may have been hesitant to seek treatment when struggling with mental health, substance use disorder and suicidal ideations because they heard stories from doctors who said they had to disclose mental health treatment to medical and state licensing boards.

Dr. Myers: There is so much dated stuff out there, and it gets propagated by people who have had a bad experience. I’m not challenging the authenticity of that, but I feel like those are in the minority. The vast majority of people are seeking help. The Federation of State Physician Health Programs is working with state boards to update and get rid of antiquated questions, and they’re working with credentialing groups.

When I was in practice and my patient was petrified of having to come into the hospital [because of confidentiality] I would just be their physician and say: “Look, I know that this is a worry for you [licensing and credentialing issues] but trust me, I’m going to help you get well; that’s my job. And I’m going to help you sort all that out afterward.” It was part of my work as their physician that if they were going to have to jump through hurdles to get their license reinstated, etc., I could help. 

The Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation is also doing so much good work in this area, especially with their toolkits to audit, change, remove, and communicate the changes about intrusive language in licensing applications and credentialing. (Dr. Breen was a New York City ED physician who died by suicide in April 2020 during the early days and height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Her father was quoted as saying: “She was in the trenches. She was a hero.”)

Dr. Moutier: We’re seeing hundreds of physicians get therapy and psychiatric treatment annually. And the advocacy effort is incredibly important, and I think we are witnessing a swifter pace to eliminate those inappropriate and illegal questions about mental health and mental health treatment for physicians and nurses.

Dr. Moffit: We have lowered barriers, not only in individual institutions but also with programming. We have also worked with the Federation of State Medical Boards and The Lorna Breen Foundation to change the legislation. The Foundation has audited and changed 20 state medical boards to remove intrusive language from licensing applications.

Support for colleagues working to help each other

Dr. Myers: One final note for those physicians who need to take time out for medical leave: In my clinical experience, I find that they felt lonely as they were getting well. I can’t tell you how much it made a difference for those who received a phone call, a card, or an email from their colleagues at work. It doesn’t take long for a vibrant, active physician to feel out of the loop when ill.

We know from suicide literature that when somebody’s discharged from the hospital or the emergency department, caring communications, brief expressions of care and concern by email, letter, card, text message, etc., can make all the difference to their recovery. Reaching out to those struggling and those in recovery can help your fellow physician.

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

Physician suicide continues to be a challenging problem in the United States. Each year, 1 in 10 doctors think about or attempt suicide, and 400 die by suicide each year. More than half of the doctors reading this know a colleague who has attempted or died by suicide.

This news organization recently sat down with three psychiatric experts to talk about the newest risk-reduction initiatives. These are part of a public health suicide prevention strategy, the preferred method for prevention, in hospitals and institutions around the country. A public health model for preventing suicide is a multifaceted approach that includes universal education, health promotion, selective and targeted prevention, and treatment and recovery. 

These physicians hope to continue creating and implementing these and other risk-reduction measures across all health care organizations.
 

Our physician experts for this discussion

Mary Moffit, PhD, is an associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. She directs the resident and faculty wellness program and is director of the OHSU peer support program. She helped design and developed a comprehensive wellness program that is now a national model for academic medical centers.

Christine Yu Moutier, MD, is the chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She is the author of “Suicide Prevention,” a Cambridge University Press clinical handbook. She has been a practicing psychiatrist, professor of psychiatry, dean in the medical school at the University of California, San Diego, and medical director of the inpatient psychiatric unit at the VA Medical Center in La Jolla, Calif.

Michael F. Myers, MD, is a professor of clinical psychiatry in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the State University of New York, Brooklyn. He is recent past vice-chair of education and director of training in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the university. He is the author of several books, including “Why Physicians Die By Suicide,” “The Physician as Patient,” and “Touched by Suicide.”

The participants discussed these risk-reduction initiatives as having much potential for helping physicians at risk for suicide and suicidal ideations.
 

The importance of peer support programs

Peer support program models may differ across institutions but typically describe colleagues providing some degree of emotional first aid to peers who may be at risk.

Dr. Moffit: The Pew support program that we have in place at OHSU, similar to what’s available in many hospitals and systems nationwide, trains individual physicians across multiple specialties in a peer support model. It’s not specifically emotional first aid, although that’s integral to it. It’s also for adverse events: Having a tragic patient death, having learned that you will be named in a lawsuit, and exposure to trauma in the medical role.

Peer to peer is not where we anticipate physicians seeking someone to talk to about their marital relationship not going well. However, the peer supporter will know about resources throughout the university and the community for what is needed. We’ve got 20-30 peer supporters. We try to match them – for example, a surgeon with a surgeon, a primary care doc with a primary care doc. Physicians who use peer support aren’t tracked, and no notes are taken or documented. It takes place informally but has changed the culture and lowered a barrier. We have a waiting list of people who want to be peer supporters. 

Dr. Moutier: Peer-to-peer support is usually part of a multi-pronged program and is usually not the only effort going on. Depending on how they’re set up, the goals may be slightly different for each program. Peer-to-peer can be one of the most powerful ways to augment awareness raising and education, which is almost always a basic first step.

Dr. Myers: It doesn’t feel as threatening when people start in a peer-to-peer support group. Users may have been afraid of getting a mental health diagnosis, but with peers, many of whom are often not psychiatrists, that eases distress. Peer support can break down that sense of isolation and loneliness so that someone can take the next step.

Dr. Moutier: To be connected to family, to any community resource, frankly, is a protective factor that mitigates suicide risk. So that’s the logic model from a suicide prevention standpoint. It may be the only opportunity for someone to start disclosing what they’re experiencing, receive validation and support, and not a judgmental response. It can open up the avenue toward help-seeking.

Opt-in/opt-out support for medical residents

This initiative matches residents with a counselor as part of their orientation.

Dr. Moffit: Each resident has a meet and greet with a counselor when they arrive or in their first 6 months at their university. The resident can opt out and cancel the meeting, but they’re scheduled for it as part of their “curriculum.” Institutions like Michigan, Columbia, Montefiore, Mount Sinai, and the University of California, San Diego, have this in place. It starts something like: ‘Hello. Good afternoon. How’s it going? I’m Dr. Moffitt, and here are the services available in this program.’

Dr. Myers: It’s another excellent example of normalizing the stress in the rigors of training and making it part of the wellness initiative.

Dr. Moutier:  It’s just a normal part of orientation. Again, as a universal strategy, one thing that I was doing at UCSD with a particular group of medical students, who were at higher risk, was a postbaccalaureate program that found students from underrepresented, under-resourced backgrounds and brought them into this post-bacc year. I was directing it and mentoring these students.

So, I could afford a lot more intensive time and attention to them because it was a small group, but every one of them had regular meetings with me every 2 weeks. My approach was to help them uncover their unique strengths and vulnerabilities as they started this program. They all made it into med school.

It was a very intensive and more concierge-personalized approach. It’s like personalized medicine. What specific self-care, mentoring, and mental health care plan would each student codesign with me to stay on track?

And it would involve very holistic things, like if part of their vulnerability was that leaving their Chicano family was creating stress because their father had said: ‘You’re leaving our culture and our family by going into the profession of medicine,’ then we had specific plans around how to care for that aspect of their struggle. It was a much more informed, customized mentoring approach called the UCSD CAP (Conditional Acceptance Post-Baccalaureate Program). It could be a feature in a more specialized opt-in/opt-out program.
 

One-question survey: How full is your gas tank?

This initiative is a one-question survey emailed/texted to residents to check in on their wellness. We ask, how full is your gas tank? Select 1 to 5 (Empty to Full). If they flag low, they receive a follow-up.

Dr. Moffit: It’s certainly a metaphor that we use. It’s the idea of being depleted in combination with being extremely sleep deprived and the inability to access the usual sources of support or outlets, and how that can create a perfect storm of a level of distress that can put physicians at risk.

Dr. Moutier: It is a way to help people realize that there are things they can do proactively to keep that tank at least somewhat full enough.

Dr. Myers: Using colloquial or figurative language can get better buy-in than “Here’s a PHQ-9.” It also has a caring or intimate tone to it. Somebody could feel they’re a 1 in this rotation but a 4-5 the next. We know from a lot of the literature that when residents get a good, welcoming orientation, their satisfaction with that rotation is uniformly better than if they’re thrown to the wolves. And we know trial by fire can put trainees at risk.

A buddy to check in with

This initiative is when you’re assigned a buddy in or out of residency that you regularly check in with about how you’re doing.

Dr. Myers: Not to be cynical, but there has been some mentor/mentee research that if you’re assigned a mentor, the results are not nearly as good. And if it’s left to the individual to find a mentor, results could be marginal as well. You need a guide to say, ‘Here are some potential mentors for you, but you decide.’ We do a lot of that at (SUNY) Downstate instead of assigning a person. So, it may require some oversight. Picking a check-in buddy from a list provided rather than having one assigned may be more beneficial.

A lot of what we’re talking about are universal strategies that allow for increased interpersonal connection, which is a protective factor that normalizes help-seeking.
 

A platform or social media forum to share experiences

An online forum or platform where medical students, residents, and physicians can discuss mental health and suicide prevention. Physicians with personal experience could provide testimonials.

Dr. Myers: I’ve recently signed a book contract, and the working title is “Physicians With Lived Experience: How Their Stories Give Clinical Guidance.” When I talk with doctors who have published their personal stories in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or sometimes The Washington Post or The New York Times, many of them have said they had no idea at the beginning of their journey that they would do something like this: be transparent about their story. It’s a measure of their health, growth, and grace.

Dr. Moutier: The current president of the Academic Association of Surgeons, Carrie Cunningham, MD, MPH, used her platform at the annual AAS conference in 2022 to focus on suicide prevention. She told her own recent story of having gotten into recovery after having been near suicide and struggling with addiction. It was a groundbreaking moment for the field of surgery and produced a ripple effect. She risked everything to tell her story, which was highly emotional since it was still raw. It got everyone engaged, a real turning point for that field. Storytelling and a place for trainees to discuss suicide prevention, and physicians to recall their lived experiences can be highly beneficial.

Interactive Screening Program

The Interactive Screening Program (ISP) is used in higher education to allow physicians to take a safe, confidential screening test and receive a personalized response that can connect them to mental health services before a crisis emerges.

Dr. Moutier: ISP is a tool within a public health model that can afford anonymity to the user so they can safely have their needs addressed. It’s a way for high-risk individuals to sync up with treatment and support. It’s sometimes used in the universal approach because it can be offered to everyone within the health system community of physicians and staff.

It can produce a ripple effect of normalizing that we all have mental health to take care of. Its intended value is in identifying those with a higher risk for suicide, but it doesn’t stop at identifying those at risk. It helps physicians move past a stage of suffering in silence.

Our data show that 86% of a very high-risk group (currently having suicidal ideation, a recent attempt, or other high-risk factors for suicide) aren’t in any form of treatment and have not disclosed their situation to anyone. A fairly high percentage of those going through ISP request a referral to treatment. It’s a unique, very niche tool, and because users remain anonymous, that affords safety around confidentiality.

It’s usually part of a multipronged approach with education, stigma reduction, storytelling, peer support, and other modalities. In my experience with the UCSD HEAR (Healer Assessment Education and Recovery) program, which is still going strong in about its 15th year, the program went from seeing 13 physicians die by suicide in the years leading up to its launch and in the 15 years since it’s been going, one suicide. We all believe that the ISP is the heart of prevention.

Even though all of the universal strategies are important, they probably wouldn’t be sufficient by themselves because the risk [for suicide] is dynamic, and you have to catch people when they are suffering and ready to seek treatment. Suicide prevention is challenging and must be strategic, multifaceted, and sustained over time.
 

The importance of confidentiality for physicians

In the past, physicians may have been hesitant to seek treatment when struggling with mental health, substance use disorder and suicidal ideations because they heard stories from doctors who said they had to disclose mental health treatment to medical and state licensing boards.

Dr. Myers: There is so much dated stuff out there, and it gets propagated by people who have had a bad experience. I’m not challenging the authenticity of that, but I feel like those are in the minority. The vast majority of people are seeking help. The Federation of State Physician Health Programs is working with state boards to update and get rid of antiquated questions, and they’re working with credentialing groups.

When I was in practice and my patient was petrified of having to come into the hospital [because of confidentiality] I would just be their physician and say: “Look, I know that this is a worry for you [licensing and credentialing issues] but trust me, I’m going to help you get well; that’s my job. And I’m going to help you sort all that out afterward.” It was part of my work as their physician that if they were going to have to jump through hurdles to get their license reinstated, etc., I could help. 

The Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation is also doing so much good work in this area, especially with their toolkits to audit, change, remove, and communicate the changes about intrusive language in licensing applications and credentialing. (Dr. Breen was a New York City ED physician who died by suicide in April 2020 during the early days and height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Her father was quoted as saying: “She was in the trenches. She was a hero.”)

Dr. Moutier: We’re seeing hundreds of physicians get therapy and psychiatric treatment annually. And the advocacy effort is incredibly important, and I think we are witnessing a swifter pace to eliminate those inappropriate and illegal questions about mental health and mental health treatment for physicians and nurses.

Dr. Moffit: We have lowered barriers, not only in individual institutions but also with programming. We have also worked with the Federation of State Medical Boards and The Lorna Breen Foundation to change the legislation. The Foundation has audited and changed 20 state medical boards to remove intrusive language from licensing applications.

Support for colleagues working to help each other

Dr. Myers: One final note for those physicians who need to take time out for medical leave: In my clinical experience, I find that they felt lonely as they were getting well. I can’t tell you how much it made a difference for those who received a phone call, a card, or an email from their colleagues at work. It doesn’t take long for a vibrant, active physician to feel out of the loop when ill.

We know from suicide literature that when somebody’s discharged from the hospital or the emergency department, caring communications, brief expressions of care and concern by email, letter, card, text message, etc., can make all the difference to their recovery. Reaching out to those struggling and those in recovery can help your fellow physician.

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

Physician suicide continues to be a challenging problem in the United States. Each year, 1 in 10 doctors think about or attempt suicide, and 400 die by suicide each year. More than half of the doctors reading this know a colleague who has attempted or died by suicide.

This news organization recently sat down with three psychiatric experts to talk about the newest risk-reduction initiatives. These are part of a public health suicide prevention strategy, the preferred method for prevention, in hospitals and institutions around the country. A public health model for preventing suicide is a multifaceted approach that includes universal education, health promotion, selective and targeted prevention, and treatment and recovery. 

These physicians hope to continue creating and implementing these and other risk-reduction measures across all health care organizations.
 

Our physician experts for this discussion

Mary Moffit, PhD, is an associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. She directs the resident and faculty wellness program and is director of the OHSU peer support program. She helped design and developed a comprehensive wellness program that is now a national model for academic medical centers.

Christine Yu Moutier, MD, is the chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She is the author of “Suicide Prevention,” a Cambridge University Press clinical handbook. She has been a practicing psychiatrist, professor of psychiatry, dean in the medical school at the University of California, San Diego, and medical director of the inpatient psychiatric unit at the VA Medical Center in La Jolla, Calif.

Michael F. Myers, MD, is a professor of clinical psychiatry in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the State University of New York, Brooklyn. He is recent past vice-chair of education and director of training in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the university. He is the author of several books, including “Why Physicians Die By Suicide,” “The Physician as Patient,” and “Touched by Suicide.”

The participants discussed these risk-reduction initiatives as having much potential for helping physicians at risk for suicide and suicidal ideations.
 

The importance of peer support programs

Peer support program models may differ across institutions but typically describe colleagues providing some degree of emotional first aid to peers who may be at risk.

Dr. Moffit: The Pew support program that we have in place at OHSU, similar to what’s available in many hospitals and systems nationwide, trains individual physicians across multiple specialties in a peer support model. It’s not specifically emotional first aid, although that’s integral to it. It’s also for adverse events: Having a tragic patient death, having learned that you will be named in a lawsuit, and exposure to trauma in the medical role.

Peer to peer is not where we anticipate physicians seeking someone to talk to about their marital relationship not going well. However, the peer supporter will know about resources throughout the university and the community for what is needed. We’ve got 20-30 peer supporters. We try to match them – for example, a surgeon with a surgeon, a primary care doc with a primary care doc. Physicians who use peer support aren’t tracked, and no notes are taken or documented. It takes place informally but has changed the culture and lowered a barrier. We have a waiting list of people who want to be peer supporters. 

Dr. Moutier: Peer-to-peer support is usually part of a multi-pronged program and is usually not the only effort going on. Depending on how they’re set up, the goals may be slightly different for each program. Peer-to-peer can be one of the most powerful ways to augment awareness raising and education, which is almost always a basic first step.

Dr. Myers: It doesn’t feel as threatening when people start in a peer-to-peer support group. Users may have been afraid of getting a mental health diagnosis, but with peers, many of whom are often not psychiatrists, that eases distress. Peer support can break down that sense of isolation and loneliness so that someone can take the next step.

Dr. Moutier: To be connected to family, to any community resource, frankly, is a protective factor that mitigates suicide risk. So that’s the logic model from a suicide prevention standpoint. It may be the only opportunity for someone to start disclosing what they’re experiencing, receive validation and support, and not a judgmental response. It can open up the avenue toward help-seeking.

Opt-in/opt-out support for medical residents

This initiative matches residents with a counselor as part of their orientation.

Dr. Moffit: Each resident has a meet and greet with a counselor when they arrive or in their first 6 months at their university. The resident can opt out and cancel the meeting, but they’re scheduled for it as part of their “curriculum.” Institutions like Michigan, Columbia, Montefiore, Mount Sinai, and the University of California, San Diego, have this in place. It starts something like: ‘Hello. Good afternoon. How’s it going? I’m Dr. Moffitt, and here are the services available in this program.’

Dr. Myers: It’s another excellent example of normalizing the stress in the rigors of training and making it part of the wellness initiative.

Dr. Moutier:  It’s just a normal part of orientation. Again, as a universal strategy, one thing that I was doing at UCSD with a particular group of medical students, who were at higher risk, was a postbaccalaureate program that found students from underrepresented, under-resourced backgrounds and brought them into this post-bacc year. I was directing it and mentoring these students.

So, I could afford a lot more intensive time and attention to them because it was a small group, but every one of them had regular meetings with me every 2 weeks. My approach was to help them uncover their unique strengths and vulnerabilities as they started this program. They all made it into med school.

It was a very intensive and more concierge-personalized approach. It’s like personalized medicine. What specific self-care, mentoring, and mental health care plan would each student codesign with me to stay on track?

And it would involve very holistic things, like if part of their vulnerability was that leaving their Chicano family was creating stress because their father had said: ‘You’re leaving our culture and our family by going into the profession of medicine,’ then we had specific plans around how to care for that aspect of their struggle. It was a much more informed, customized mentoring approach called the UCSD CAP (Conditional Acceptance Post-Baccalaureate Program). It could be a feature in a more specialized opt-in/opt-out program.
 

One-question survey: How full is your gas tank?

This initiative is a one-question survey emailed/texted to residents to check in on their wellness. We ask, how full is your gas tank? Select 1 to 5 (Empty to Full). If they flag low, they receive a follow-up.

Dr. Moffit: It’s certainly a metaphor that we use. It’s the idea of being depleted in combination with being extremely sleep deprived and the inability to access the usual sources of support or outlets, and how that can create a perfect storm of a level of distress that can put physicians at risk.

Dr. Moutier: It is a way to help people realize that there are things they can do proactively to keep that tank at least somewhat full enough.

Dr. Myers: Using colloquial or figurative language can get better buy-in than “Here’s a PHQ-9.” It also has a caring or intimate tone to it. Somebody could feel they’re a 1 in this rotation but a 4-5 the next. We know from a lot of the literature that when residents get a good, welcoming orientation, their satisfaction with that rotation is uniformly better than if they’re thrown to the wolves. And we know trial by fire can put trainees at risk.

A buddy to check in with

This initiative is when you’re assigned a buddy in or out of residency that you regularly check in with about how you’re doing.

Dr. Myers: Not to be cynical, but there has been some mentor/mentee research that if you’re assigned a mentor, the results are not nearly as good. And if it’s left to the individual to find a mentor, results could be marginal as well. You need a guide to say, ‘Here are some potential mentors for you, but you decide.’ We do a lot of that at (SUNY) Downstate instead of assigning a person. So, it may require some oversight. Picking a check-in buddy from a list provided rather than having one assigned may be more beneficial.

A lot of what we’re talking about are universal strategies that allow for increased interpersonal connection, which is a protective factor that normalizes help-seeking.
 

A platform or social media forum to share experiences

An online forum or platform where medical students, residents, and physicians can discuss mental health and suicide prevention. Physicians with personal experience could provide testimonials.

Dr. Myers: I’ve recently signed a book contract, and the working title is “Physicians With Lived Experience: How Their Stories Give Clinical Guidance.” When I talk with doctors who have published their personal stories in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or sometimes The Washington Post or The New York Times, many of them have said they had no idea at the beginning of their journey that they would do something like this: be transparent about their story. It’s a measure of their health, growth, and grace.

Dr. Moutier: The current president of the Academic Association of Surgeons, Carrie Cunningham, MD, MPH, used her platform at the annual AAS conference in 2022 to focus on suicide prevention. She told her own recent story of having gotten into recovery after having been near suicide and struggling with addiction. It was a groundbreaking moment for the field of surgery and produced a ripple effect. She risked everything to tell her story, which was highly emotional since it was still raw. It got everyone engaged, a real turning point for that field. Storytelling and a place for trainees to discuss suicide prevention, and physicians to recall their lived experiences can be highly beneficial.

Interactive Screening Program

The Interactive Screening Program (ISP) is used in higher education to allow physicians to take a safe, confidential screening test and receive a personalized response that can connect them to mental health services before a crisis emerges.

Dr. Moutier: ISP is a tool within a public health model that can afford anonymity to the user so they can safely have their needs addressed. It’s a way for high-risk individuals to sync up with treatment and support. It’s sometimes used in the universal approach because it can be offered to everyone within the health system community of physicians and staff.

It can produce a ripple effect of normalizing that we all have mental health to take care of. Its intended value is in identifying those with a higher risk for suicide, but it doesn’t stop at identifying those at risk. It helps physicians move past a stage of suffering in silence.

Our data show that 86% of a very high-risk group (currently having suicidal ideation, a recent attempt, or other high-risk factors for suicide) aren’t in any form of treatment and have not disclosed their situation to anyone. A fairly high percentage of those going through ISP request a referral to treatment. It’s a unique, very niche tool, and because users remain anonymous, that affords safety around confidentiality.

It’s usually part of a multipronged approach with education, stigma reduction, storytelling, peer support, and other modalities. In my experience with the UCSD HEAR (Healer Assessment Education and Recovery) program, which is still going strong in about its 15th year, the program went from seeing 13 physicians die by suicide in the years leading up to its launch and in the 15 years since it’s been going, one suicide. We all believe that the ISP is the heart of prevention.

Even though all of the universal strategies are important, they probably wouldn’t be sufficient by themselves because the risk [for suicide] is dynamic, and you have to catch people when they are suffering and ready to seek treatment. Suicide prevention is challenging and must be strategic, multifaceted, and sustained over time.
 

The importance of confidentiality for physicians

In the past, physicians may have been hesitant to seek treatment when struggling with mental health, substance use disorder and suicidal ideations because they heard stories from doctors who said they had to disclose mental health treatment to medical and state licensing boards.

Dr. Myers: There is so much dated stuff out there, and it gets propagated by people who have had a bad experience. I’m not challenging the authenticity of that, but I feel like those are in the minority. The vast majority of people are seeking help. The Federation of State Physician Health Programs is working with state boards to update and get rid of antiquated questions, and they’re working with credentialing groups.

When I was in practice and my patient was petrified of having to come into the hospital [because of confidentiality] I would just be their physician and say: “Look, I know that this is a worry for you [licensing and credentialing issues] but trust me, I’m going to help you get well; that’s my job. And I’m going to help you sort all that out afterward.” It was part of my work as their physician that if they were going to have to jump through hurdles to get their license reinstated, etc., I could help. 

The Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation is also doing so much good work in this area, especially with their toolkits to audit, change, remove, and communicate the changes about intrusive language in licensing applications and credentialing. (Dr. Breen was a New York City ED physician who died by suicide in April 2020 during the early days and height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Her father was quoted as saying: “She was in the trenches. She was a hero.”)

Dr. Moutier: We’re seeing hundreds of physicians get therapy and psychiatric treatment annually. And the advocacy effort is incredibly important, and I think we are witnessing a swifter pace to eliminate those inappropriate and illegal questions about mental health and mental health treatment for physicians and nurses.

Dr. Moffit: We have lowered barriers, not only in individual institutions but also with programming. We have also worked with the Federation of State Medical Boards and The Lorna Breen Foundation to change the legislation. The Foundation has audited and changed 20 state medical boards to remove intrusive language from licensing applications.

Support for colleagues working to help each other

Dr. Myers: One final note for those physicians who need to take time out for medical leave: In my clinical experience, I find that they felt lonely as they were getting well. I can’t tell you how much it made a difference for those who received a phone call, a card, or an email from their colleagues at work. It doesn’t take long for a vibrant, active physician to feel out of the loop when ill.

We know from suicide literature that when somebody’s discharged from the hospital or the emergency department, caring communications, brief expressions of care and concern by email, letter, card, text message, etc., can make all the difference to their recovery. Reaching out to those struggling and those in recovery can help your fellow physician.

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

New longitudinal data from the TRACK TBI investigators show that recovery from traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a dynamic process that continues to evolve well beyond the initial 12 months after injury.

The data show that patients with TBI may continue to improve or decline during a period of up to 7 years after injury, making it more of a chronic condition, the investigators report.

“Our results dispute the notion that TBI is a discrete, isolated medical event with a finite, static functional outcome following a relatively short period of upward recovery (typically up to 1 year),” Benjamin Brett, PhD, assistant professor, departments of neurosurgery and neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, told this news organization.

“Rather, individuals continue to exhibit improvement and decline across a range of domains, including psychiatric, cognitive, and functional outcomes, even 2-7 years after their injury,” Dr. Brett said.

“Ultimately, our findings support conceptualizing TBI as a chronic condition for many patients, which requires routine follow-up, medical monitoring, responsive care, and support, adapting to their evolving needs many years following injury,” he said.

Results of the TRACK TBI LONG (Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI Longitudinal study) were published online in Neurology.
 

Chronic and evolving

The results are based on 1,264 adults (mean age at injury, 41 years) from the initial TRACK TBI study, including 917 with mild TBI (mTBI) and 193 with moderate/severe TBI (msTBI), who were matched to 154 control patients who had experienced orthopedic trauma without evidence of head injury (OTC).

The participants were followed annually for up to 7 years after injury using the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended (GOSE), Brief Symptom Inventory–18 (BSI), and the Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone (BTACT), as well as a self-reported perception of function. The researchers calculated rates of change (classified as stable, improved, or declined) for individual outcomes at each long-term follow-up.

In general, “stable” was the most frequent change outcome for the individual measures from postinjury baseline assessment to 7 years post injury.

However, a substantial proportion of patients with TBI (regardless of severity) experienced changes in psychiatric status, cognition, and functional outcomes over the years.

When the GOSE, BSI, and BTACT were considered collectively, rates of decline were 21% for mTBI, 26% for msTBI, and 15% for OTC.

The highest rates of decline were in functional outcomes (GOSE scores). On average, over the course of 2-7 years post injury, 29% of patients with mTBI and 23% of those with msTBI experienced a decline in the ability to function with daily activities.

A pattern of improvement on the GOSE was noted in 36% of patients with msTBI and 22% patients with mTBI.

Notably, said Dr. Brett, patients who experienced greater difficulties near the time of injury showed improvement for a period of 2-7 years post injury. Patient factors, such as older age at the time of the injury, were associated with greater risk of long-term decline.

“Our findings highlight the need to embrace conceptualization of TBI as a chronic condition in order to establish systems of care that provide continued follow-up with treatment and supports that adapt to evolving patient needs, regardless of the directions of change,” Dr. Brett told this news organization.
 

Important and novel work

In a linked editorial, Robynne Braun, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, notes that there have been “few prospective studies examining postinjury outcomes on this longer timescale, especially in mild TBI, making this an important and novel body of work.”

The study “effectively demonstrates that changes in function across multiple domains continue to occur well beyond the conventionally tracked 6- to 12-month period of injury recovery,” Dr. Braun writes.

The observation that over the 7-year follow-up, a substantial proportion of patients with mTBI and msTBI exhibited a pattern of decline on the GOSE suggests that they “may have needed more ongoing medical monitoring, rehabilitation, or supportive services to prevent worsening,” Dr. Braun adds.

At the same time, the improvement pattern on the GOSE suggests “opportunities for recovery that further rehabilitative or medical services might have enhanced.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institute on Aging, the National Football League Scientific Advisory Board, and the U.S. Department of Defense. Dr. Brett and Dr. Braun have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New longitudinal data from the TRACK TBI investigators show that recovery from traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a dynamic process that continues to evolve well beyond the initial 12 months after injury.

The data show that patients with TBI may continue to improve or decline during a period of up to 7 years after injury, making it more of a chronic condition, the investigators report.

“Our results dispute the notion that TBI is a discrete, isolated medical event with a finite, static functional outcome following a relatively short period of upward recovery (typically up to 1 year),” Benjamin Brett, PhD, assistant professor, departments of neurosurgery and neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, told this news organization.

“Rather, individuals continue to exhibit improvement and decline across a range of domains, including psychiatric, cognitive, and functional outcomes, even 2-7 years after their injury,” Dr. Brett said.

“Ultimately, our findings support conceptualizing TBI as a chronic condition for many patients, which requires routine follow-up, medical monitoring, responsive care, and support, adapting to their evolving needs many years following injury,” he said.

Results of the TRACK TBI LONG (Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI Longitudinal study) were published online in Neurology.
 

Chronic and evolving

The results are based on 1,264 adults (mean age at injury, 41 years) from the initial TRACK TBI study, including 917 with mild TBI (mTBI) and 193 with moderate/severe TBI (msTBI), who were matched to 154 control patients who had experienced orthopedic trauma without evidence of head injury (OTC).

The participants were followed annually for up to 7 years after injury using the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended (GOSE), Brief Symptom Inventory–18 (BSI), and the Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone (BTACT), as well as a self-reported perception of function. The researchers calculated rates of change (classified as stable, improved, or declined) for individual outcomes at each long-term follow-up.

In general, “stable” was the most frequent change outcome for the individual measures from postinjury baseline assessment to 7 years post injury.

However, a substantial proportion of patients with TBI (regardless of severity) experienced changes in psychiatric status, cognition, and functional outcomes over the years.

When the GOSE, BSI, and BTACT were considered collectively, rates of decline were 21% for mTBI, 26% for msTBI, and 15% for OTC.

The highest rates of decline were in functional outcomes (GOSE scores). On average, over the course of 2-7 years post injury, 29% of patients with mTBI and 23% of those with msTBI experienced a decline in the ability to function with daily activities.

A pattern of improvement on the GOSE was noted in 36% of patients with msTBI and 22% patients with mTBI.

Notably, said Dr. Brett, patients who experienced greater difficulties near the time of injury showed improvement for a period of 2-7 years post injury. Patient factors, such as older age at the time of the injury, were associated with greater risk of long-term decline.

“Our findings highlight the need to embrace conceptualization of TBI as a chronic condition in order to establish systems of care that provide continued follow-up with treatment and supports that adapt to evolving patient needs, regardless of the directions of change,” Dr. Brett told this news organization.
 

Important and novel work

In a linked editorial, Robynne Braun, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, notes that there have been “few prospective studies examining postinjury outcomes on this longer timescale, especially in mild TBI, making this an important and novel body of work.”

The study “effectively demonstrates that changes in function across multiple domains continue to occur well beyond the conventionally tracked 6- to 12-month period of injury recovery,” Dr. Braun writes.

The observation that over the 7-year follow-up, a substantial proportion of patients with mTBI and msTBI exhibited a pattern of decline on the GOSE suggests that they “may have needed more ongoing medical monitoring, rehabilitation, or supportive services to prevent worsening,” Dr. Braun adds.

At the same time, the improvement pattern on the GOSE suggests “opportunities for recovery that further rehabilitative or medical services might have enhanced.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institute on Aging, the National Football League Scientific Advisory Board, and the U.S. Department of Defense. Dr. Brett and Dr. Braun have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New longitudinal data from the TRACK TBI investigators show that recovery from traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a dynamic process that continues to evolve well beyond the initial 12 months after injury.

The data show that patients with TBI may continue to improve or decline during a period of up to 7 years after injury, making it more of a chronic condition, the investigators report.

“Our results dispute the notion that TBI is a discrete, isolated medical event with a finite, static functional outcome following a relatively short period of upward recovery (typically up to 1 year),” Benjamin Brett, PhD, assistant professor, departments of neurosurgery and neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, told this news organization.

“Rather, individuals continue to exhibit improvement and decline across a range of domains, including psychiatric, cognitive, and functional outcomes, even 2-7 years after their injury,” Dr. Brett said.

“Ultimately, our findings support conceptualizing TBI as a chronic condition for many patients, which requires routine follow-up, medical monitoring, responsive care, and support, adapting to their evolving needs many years following injury,” he said.

Results of the TRACK TBI LONG (Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI Longitudinal study) were published online in Neurology.
 

Chronic and evolving

The results are based on 1,264 adults (mean age at injury, 41 years) from the initial TRACK TBI study, including 917 with mild TBI (mTBI) and 193 with moderate/severe TBI (msTBI), who were matched to 154 control patients who had experienced orthopedic trauma without evidence of head injury (OTC).

The participants were followed annually for up to 7 years after injury using the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended (GOSE), Brief Symptom Inventory–18 (BSI), and the Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone (BTACT), as well as a self-reported perception of function. The researchers calculated rates of change (classified as stable, improved, or declined) for individual outcomes at each long-term follow-up.

In general, “stable” was the most frequent change outcome for the individual measures from postinjury baseline assessment to 7 years post injury.

However, a substantial proportion of patients with TBI (regardless of severity) experienced changes in psychiatric status, cognition, and functional outcomes over the years.

When the GOSE, BSI, and BTACT were considered collectively, rates of decline were 21% for mTBI, 26% for msTBI, and 15% for OTC.

The highest rates of decline were in functional outcomes (GOSE scores). On average, over the course of 2-7 years post injury, 29% of patients with mTBI and 23% of those with msTBI experienced a decline in the ability to function with daily activities.

A pattern of improvement on the GOSE was noted in 36% of patients with msTBI and 22% patients with mTBI.

Notably, said Dr. Brett, patients who experienced greater difficulties near the time of injury showed improvement for a period of 2-7 years post injury. Patient factors, such as older age at the time of the injury, were associated with greater risk of long-term decline.

“Our findings highlight the need to embrace conceptualization of TBI as a chronic condition in order to establish systems of care that provide continued follow-up with treatment and supports that adapt to evolving patient needs, regardless of the directions of change,” Dr. Brett told this news organization.
 

Important and novel work

In a linked editorial, Robynne Braun, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, notes that there have been “few prospective studies examining postinjury outcomes on this longer timescale, especially in mild TBI, making this an important and novel body of work.”

The study “effectively demonstrates that changes in function across multiple domains continue to occur well beyond the conventionally tracked 6- to 12-month period of injury recovery,” Dr. Braun writes.

The observation that over the 7-year follow-up, a substantial proportion of patients with mTBI and msTBI exhibited a pattern of decline on the GOSE suggests that they “may have needed more ongoing medical monitoring, rehabilitation, or supportive services to prevent worsening,” Dr. Braun adds.

At the same time, the improvement pattern on the GOSE suggests “opportunities for recovery that further rehabilitative or medical services might have enhanced.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institute on Aging, the National Football League Scientific Advisory Board, and the U.S. Department of Defense. Dr. Brett and Dr. Braun have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A group of more than 30 academics and researchers in psychiatry and psychopharmacology is challenging the conclusions of an umbrella review published last year that concluded there is no convincing evidence that serotonin deficiency is the primary cause of depression. The authors of the article, however, stand by their conclusion.

“The methodology doesn’t conform to a conventional umbrella review,” said the commentary’s lead author, Sameer Jauhar, MD, PhD, first author of the commentary criticizing the review, which was published online in Molecular Psychiatry.

In addition, preeminent psychiatrist David J. Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, is calling for the review to be retracted. In an interview with The Daily Mail, he said the article is “full of flaws and it should never have been published in the first place. Yet it has been frequently cited and people believe it is true. It’s essentially misinformation. That’s why I’m calling on the journal to retract it.” Dr. Nutt is one of the authors of the published commentary.
 

‘No convincing evidence’

Led by Joanna Moncrieff, MD, professor of clinical and social psychiatry, University College London, the authors analyzed systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine whether low serotonin levels are, in fact, associated with depression.

Of 361 potential studies, 17 were selected for the review, including meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and a genetic association study.

The review included examinations of 5-HT and its metabolite 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) in “body fluids,” 5HT_1A receptor and serotonin transporter protein (SERT) availability in imaging and postmortem studies, investigations of SERT gene polymorphisms, interactions between SERT and stress in depression, and effects of tryptophan depletion on mood.

The tryptophan hypothesis suggests depression occurs through tryptophan depletion, which lowers available serotonin. According to the review, two crossover studies of patients with depression who were currently receiving or had recently received antidepressant treatment did not show substantial effects of depletion, and data from studies involving volunteers largely showed no effect.

Ultimately, Dr. Moncrieff and colleagues concluded that “there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with, or caused by, lower serotonin concentrations or activity.”
 

‘Unconventional, odd’ methodology

However, Dr. Jauhar and the commentary’s coauthors disagree with the study’s conclusion. The researchers claim that “we don’t see depression symptoms in healthy volunteers when given tryptophan depletion; everyone knows that and agrees with that; it’s only in people vulnerable to depression who will have it.”

Furthermore, he said, the study’s conclusion does not consider that experimental medicine studies of tryptophan depletion are difficult to conduct. “You’re not going to have huge sample sizes as you would in a genetic study or big epidemiological studies.

Dr. Jauhar said he found it “unconventional” and “odd” that the review included individual tryptophan depletion studies that were not in the prespecified protocol.

For studies involving molecular imaging, Dr. Jauhar said the review’s inferences were “simplistic” and the review authors are “basically shaping the argument” to fit their desired narrative.

He also noted factual errors in the review. “They make a mistake when they talk about serotonin transporter imaging; they say there are no consistent findings across studies when, in fact, there are.”

With both tryptophan depletion and molecular imaging studies, the review “glosses over findings” from the original studies, said Dr. Jauhar.

For tryptophan depletion, “a more accurate, constructive conclusion would be that acute tryptophan depletion and decreased plasma tryptophan in depression indicate a role for 5-HT in those vulnerable to or suffering from depression, and that molecular imaging suggests the system is perturbed,” the commentators wrote.

“The proven efficacy of SSRIs in a proportion of people with depression lends credibility to this position,” they added.

Dr. Jauhar also took issue with criteria for certainty of finding of these and other studies used in the review. “If you’re setting the criteria yourself, it’s arbitrary.”
 

No new data

An umbrella review is supposed to be of the highest quality and should entail “taking out the studies and analysing them yourself,” but here, “all they have done is put a synthesis forward of other people’s reviews, so essentially there’s no new data there,” said Dr. Jauhar.

And sometimes the review’s findings differ from the original research. “When you have people who haven’t conducted original research themselves quoting someone else’s work and ignoring what those people say, we’re all in trouble,” said Dr. Jauhar.

In an additional commentary also published in Molecular Psychiatry, Jacob Pade Ramsøe Jacobsen, Evecxia Therapeutics, Durham, N.C., also criticized the review by Dr. Moncrieff and colleagues.

Its authors appear unfamiliar with serotonin biology and pharmacology, Dr. Jacobsen wrote.

“The review contains factual errors, makes conclusions serotonin neurobiology may not support, and quotes the cited literature in a selective manner,” he added.

“Most troubling, they misinterpret some data reviewed and intimate that serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants, e.g., SSRIs, may decrease, rather than increase, serotonin function.”

If accepted by general practitioners and the public, the review’s conclusions “could lead to reduced use of antidepressants among patients in need and increased morbidity related to depression.”
 

Dr. Moncrieff pushes back

Responding to the torrent of criticism of her study, Dr. Moncrieff told this news organization via email that they stand by the review, adding that Dr. Jauhar and others “don’t want to let the cat out of the bag” that there’s no good evidence to support the hypothesis that low serotonin causes depression because it challenges antidepressant use.

“The idea that antidepressants work by correcting an underlying chemical imbalance or serotonin abnormality has led research up a blind alley and meant scientists have not taken the harmful effects of these drugs seriously enough.”

These critics, she added, “want business as usual – which means people will continue to be misinformed and exposed to harmful effects of drugs that have minimal and uncertain benefits.”

In a letter to the editor of Molecular Psychiatry, Dr. Moncrieff and her fellow authors maintain that they used approved and well-accepted methods for the umbrella review, including preregistering the protocol and using recommended search methods and quality assessments, and that they did not miss certain studies, as has been claimed.

In her blog, Dr. Moncrieff wrote that the “marginal differences between antidepressants and placebo that are apparent in clinical trials are likely to be produced by alternative, more plausible mechanisms like the emotional blunting effects of the drugs or by amplified placebo effects, rather than by targeting underlying biological mechanisms (since these have not been demonstrated).”

It also highlights “how we don’t know what antidepressants do to the brain exactly, which is a cause for concern,” she adds.

Dr. Jauhar has received honoraria for nonpromotional educational talks on antipsychotics from Janssen, Sunovion, and Lundbeck and on causes of schizophrenia for Boehringer-Ingelheim. He has also received honoraria for consulting on antipsychotics for LB Pharmaceuticals. He sits on Council for the British Association for Psychopharmacology and was a recent panel member for the Wellcome Trust.

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

A group of more than 30 academics and researchers in psychiatry and psychopharmacology is challenging the conclusions of an umbrella review published last year that concluded there is no convincing evidence that serotonin deficiency is the primary cause of depression. The authors of the article, however, stand by their conclusion.

“The methodology doesn’t conform to a conventional umbrella review,” said the commentary’s lead author, Sameer Jauhar, MD, PhD, first author of the commentary criticizing the review, which was published online in Molecular Psychiatry.

In addition, preeminent psychiatrist David J. Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, is calling for the review to be retracted. In an interview with The Daily Mail, he said the article is “full of flaws and it should never have been published in the first place. Yet it has been frequently cited and people believe it is true. It’s essentially misinformation. That’s why I’m calling on the journal to retract it.” Dr. Nutt is one of the authors of the published commentary.
 

‘No convincing evidence’

Led by Joanna Moncrieff, MD, professor of clinical and social psychiatry, University College London, the authors analyzed systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine whether low serotonin levels are, in fact, associated with depression.

Of 361 potential studies, 17 were selected for the review, including meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and a genetic association study.

The review included examinations of 5-HT and its metabolite 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) in “body fluids,” 5HT_1A receptor and serotonin transporter protein (SERT) availability in imaging and postmortem studies, investigations of SERT gene polymorphisms, interactions between SERT and stress in depression, and effects of tryptophan depletion on mood.

The tryptophan hypothesis suggests depression occurs through tryptophan depletion, which lowers available serotonin. According to the review, two crossover studies of patients with depression who were currently receiving or had recently received antidepressant treatment did not show substantial effects of depletion, and data from studies involving volunteers largely showed no effect.

Ultimately, Dr. Moncrieff and colleagues concluded that “there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with, or caused by, lower serotonin concentrations or activity.”
 

‘Unconventional, odd’ methodology

However, Dr. Jauhar and the commentary’s coauthors disagree with the study’s conclusion. The researchers claim that “we don’t see depression symptoms in healthy volunteers when given tryptophan depletion; everyone knows that and agrees with that; it’s only in people vulnerable to depression who will have it.”

Furthermore, he said, the study’s conclusion does not consider that experimental medicine studies of tryptophan depletion are difficult to conduct. “You’re not going to have huge sample sizes as you would in a genetic study or big epidemiological studies.

Dr. Jauhar said he found it “unconventional” and “odd” that the review included individual tryptophan depletion studies that were not in the prespecified protocol.

For studies involving molecular imaging, Dr. Jauhar said the review’s inferences were “simplistic” and the review authors are “basically shaping the argument” to fit their desired narrative.

He also noted factual errors in the review. “They make a mistake when they talk about serotonin transporter imaging; they say there are no consistent findings across studies when, in fact, there are.”

With both tryptophan depletion and molecular imaging studies, the review “glosses over findings” from the original studies, said Dr. Jauhar.

For tryptophan depletion, “a more accurate, constructive conclusion would be that acute tryptophan depletion and decreased plasma tryptophan in depression indicate a role for 5-HT in those vulnerable to or suffering from depression, and that molecular imaging suggests the system is perturbed,” the commentators wrote.

“The proven efficacy of SSRIs in a proportion of people with depression lends credibility to this position,” they added.

Dr. Jauhar also took issue with criteria for certainty of finding of these and other studies used in the review. “If you’re setting the criteria yourself, it’s arbitrary.”
 

No new data

An umbrella review is supposed to be of the highest quality and should entail “taking out the studies and analysing them yourself,” but here, “all they have done is put a synthesis forward of other people’s reviews, so essentially there’s no new data there,” said Dr. Jauhar.

And sometimes the review’s findings differ from the original research. “When you have people who haven’t conducted original research themselves quoting someone else’s work and ignoring what those people say, we’re all in trouble,” said Dr. Jauhar.

In an additional commentary also published in Molecular Psychiatry, Jacob Pade Ramsøe Jacobsen, Evecxia Therapeutics, Durham, N.C., also criticized the review by Dr. Moncrieff and colleagues.

Its authors appear unfamiliar with serotonin biology and pharmacology, Dr. Jacobsen wrote.

“The review contains factual errors, makes conclusions serotonin neurobiology may not support, and quotes the cited literature in a selective manner,” he added.

“Most troubling, they misinterpret some data reviewed and intimate that serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants, e.g., SSRIs, may decrease, rather than increase, serotonin function.”

If accepted by general practitioners and the public, the review’s conclusions “could lead to reduced use of antidepressants among patients in need and increased morbidity related to depression.”
 

Dr. Moncrieff pushes back

Responding to the torrent of criticism of her study, Dr. Moncrieff told this news organization via email that they stand by the review, adding that Dr. Jauhar and others “don’t want to let the cat out of the bag” that there’s no good evidence to support the hypothesis that low serotonin causes depression because it challenges antidepressant use.

“The idea that antidepressants work by correcting an underlying chemical imbalance or serotonin abnormality has led research up a blind alley and meant scientists have not taken the harmful effects of these drugs seriously enough.”

These critics, she added, “want business as usual – which means people will continue to be misinformed and exposed to harmful effects of drugs that have minimal and uncertain benefits.”

In a letter to the editor of Molecular Psychiatry, Dr. Moncrieff and her fellow authors maintain that they used approved and well-accepted methods for the umbrella review, including preregistering the protocol and using recommended search methods and quality assessments, and that they did not miss certain studies, as has been claimed.

In her blog, Dr. Moncrieff wrote that the “marginal differences between antidepressants and placebo that are apparent in clinical trials are likely to be produced by alternative, more plausible mechanisms like the emotional blunting effects of the drugs or by amplified placebo effects, rather than by targeting underlying biological mechanisms (since these have not been demonstrated).”

It also highlights “how we don’t know what antidepressants do to the brain exactly, which is a cause for concern,” she adds.

Dr. Jauhar has received honoraria for nonpromotional educational talks on antipsychotics from Janssen, Sunovion, and Lundbeck and on causes of schizophrenia for Boehringer-Ingelheim. He has also received honoraria for consulting on antipsychotics for LB Pharmaceuticals. He sits on Council for the British Association for Psychopharmacology and was a recent panel member for the Wellcome Trust.

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

A group of more than 30 academics and researchers in psychiatry and psychopharmacology is challenging the conclusions of an umbrella review published last year that concluded there is no convincing evidence that serotonin deficiency is the primary cause of depression. The authors of the article, however, stand by their conclusion.

“The methodology doesn’t conform to a conventional umbrella review,” said the commentary’s lead author, Sameer Jauhar, MD, PhD, first author of the commentary criticizing the review, which was published online in Molecular Psychiatry.

In addition, preeminent psychiatrist David J. Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, is calling for the review to be retracted. In an interview with The Daily Mail, he said the article is “full of flaws and it should never have been published in the first place. Yet it has been frequently cited and people believe it is true. It’s essentially misinformation. That’s why I’m calling on the journal to retract it.” Dr. Nutt is one of the authors of the published commentary.
 

‘No convincing evidence’

Led by Joanna Moncrieff, MD, professor of clinical and social psychiatry, University College London, the authors analyzed systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine whether low serotonin levels are, in fact, associated with depression.

Of 361 potential studies, 17 were selected for the review, including meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and a genetic association study.

The review included examinations of 5-HT and its metabolite 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) in “body fluids,” 5HT_1A receptor and serotonin transporter protein (SERT) availability in imaging and postmortem studies, investigations of SERT gene polymorphisms, interactions between SERT and stress in depression, and effects of tryptophan depletion on mood.

The tryptophan hypothesis suggests depression occurs through tryptophan depletion, which lowers available serotonin. According to the review, two crossover studies of patients with depression who were currently receiving or had recently received antidepressant treatment did not show substantial effects of depletion, and data from studies involving volunteers largely showed no effect.

Ultimately, Dr. Moncrieff and colleagues concluded that “there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with, or caused by, lower serotonin concentrations or activity.”
 

‘Unconventional, odd’ methodology

However, Dr. Jauhar and the commentary’s coauthors disagree with the study’s conclusion. The researchers claim that “we don’t see depression symptoms in healthy volunteers when given tryptophan depletion; everyone knows that and agrees with that; it’s only in people vulnerable to depression who will have it.”

Furthermore, he said, the study’s conclusion does not consider that experimental medicine studies of tryptophan depletion are difficult to conduct. “You’re not going to have huge sample sizes as you would in a genetic study or big epidemiological studies.

Dr. Jauhar said he found it “unconventional” and “odd” that the review included individual tryptophan depletion studies that were not in the prespecified protocol.

For studies involving molecular imaging, Dr. Jauhar said the review’s inferences were “simplistic” and the review authors are “basically shaping the argument” to fit their desired narrative.

He also noted factual errors in the review. “They make a mistake when they talk about serotonin transporter imaging; they say there are no consistent findings across studies when, in fact, there are.”

With both tryptophan depletion and molecular imaging studies, the review “glosses over findings” from the original studies, said Dr. Jauhar.

For tryptophan depletion, “a more accurate, constructive conclusion would be that acute tryptophan depletion and decreased plasma tryptophan in depression indicate a role for 5-HT in those vulnerable to or suffering from depression, and that molecular imaging suggests the system is perturbed,” the commentators wrote.

“The proven efficacy of SSRIs in a proportion of people with depression lends credibility to this position,” they added.

Dr. Jauhar also took issue with criteria for certainty of finding of these and other studies used in the review. “If you’re setting the criteria yourself, it’s arbitrary.”
 

No new data

An umbrella review is supposed to be of the highest quality and should entail “taking out the studies and analysing them yourself,” but here, “all they have done is put a synthesis forward of other people’s reviews, so essentially there’s no new data there,” said Dr. Jauhar.

And sometimes the review’s findings differ from the original research. “When you have people who haven’t conducted original research themselves quoting someone else’s work and ignoring what those people say, we’re all in trouble,” said Dr. Jauhar.

In an additional commentary also published in Molecular Psychiatry, Jacob Pade Ramsøe Jacobsen, Evecxia Therapeutics, Durham, N.C., also criticized the review by Dr. Moncrieff and colleagues.

Its authors appear unfamiliar with serotonin biology and pharmacology, Dr. Jacobsen wrote.

“The review contains factual errors, makes conclusions serotonin neurobiology may not support, and quotes the cited literature in a selective manner,” he added.

“Most troubling, they misinterpret some data reviewed and intimate that serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants, e.g., SSRIs, may decrease, rather than increase, serotonin function.”

If accepted by general practitioners and the public, the review’s conclusions “could lead to reduced use of antidepressants among patients in need and increased morbidity related to depression.”
 

Dr. Moncrieff pushes back

Responding to the torrent of criticism of her study, Dr. Moncrieff told this news organization via email that they stand by the review, adding that Dr. Jauhar and others “don’t want to let the cat out of the bag” that there’s no good evidence to support the hypothesis that low serotonin causes depression because it challenges antidepressant use.

“The idea that antidepressants work by correcting an underlying chemical imbalance or serotonin abnormality has led research up a blind alley and meant scientists have not taken the harmful effects of these drugs seriously enough.”

These critics, she added, “want business as usual – which means people will continue to be misinformed and exposed to harmful effects of drugs that have minimal and uncertain benefits.”

In a letter to the editor of Molecular Psychiatry, Dr. Moncrieff and her fellow authors maintain that they used approved and well-accepted methods for the umbrella review, including preregistering the protocol and using recommended search methods and quality assessments, and that they did not miss certain studies, as has been claimed.

In her blog, Dr. Moncrieff wrote that the “marginal differences between antidepressants and placebo that are apparent in clinical trials are likely to be produced by alternative, more plausible mechanisms like the emotional blunting effects of the drugs or by amplified placebo effects, rather than by targeting underlying biological mechanisms (since these have not been demonstrated).”

It also highlights “how we don’t know what antidepressants do to the brain exactly, which is a cause for concern,” she adds.

Dr. Jauhar has received honoraria for nonpromotional educational talks on antipsychotics from Janssen, Sunovion, and Lundbeck and on causes of schizophrenia for Boehringer-Ingelheim. He has also received honoraria for consulting on antipsychotics for LB Pharmaceuticals. He sits on Council for the British Association for Psychopharmacology and was a recent panel member for the Wellcome Trust.

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

Amelia Kennedy, 19, of Royersford, Pa., a point guard on the Catholic University of America, Washington, basketball team who will begin her sophomore year in the fall, uses TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, and YouTube regularly.

How regularly? She estimates 7 hours a day and about 9 on weekends. She’s aware of the time-wasting potential. “If my mom says, ‘Do dishes,’ and I say, ‘5 more minutes,’ it can be longer,’’ she said.

Now imagine the challenge of cutting that 7 or 9 hours a day of social media use down to 30 minutes.

A very tall order, considering a 2022 Pew Research Center survey of more than 1,300 teens found 35% are “nearly constantly” on at least one of the top five social media platforms: YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, and Facebook.

Researchers from Iowa State University, Ames, recently took on that daunting challenge, limiting a group of students to only 30 minutes of social media a day to see what happens. Two weeks into the study, the students reported improvement in psychological well-being and other important measures, including sleep quality, compared with a control group assigned to continue using social media as usual.

And the dreaded FOMO, or fear of missing out, didn’t happen, the researchers said. At the end, the students were rethinking their social media use and feeling positive about it.

As social media becomes more common and youth mental health more endangered, experts are sounding the alarm. In late May, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory on social media and youth mental health, calling for tech companies to do better, policymakers to strengthen safety, and researchers to get more information, among other actions.

After that, the Biden administration took actions including the launch of a task force on kids’ online health and safety. The American Psychological Association has issued recommendations on social media use in youths. And the Social Media Victims Law Center in Seattle has sued numerous social media companies for online activity resulting in death and other tragedies.

While experts acknowledge that much more research is needed to sort out how to balance social media’s risks and benefits to preserve youth mental health and prevent such disasters, the new Iowa State study, as well as other recent research, suggests that youths are aware of the dangers of social media and, given some guidance and information, can monitor themselves and limit their screen time to preserve mental health.
 

Goal: 30 minutes a day

In the Iowa State study, 230 undergraduate students were assigned to one of two groups, with 99 in the 30-minute-a-day social media use group and 131 in the “usual” or control group, which made no changes. For those in the intervention group, “we sent a daily reminder email,” said Ella Faulhaber, a PhD candidate at Iowa State and the study’s lead author. It simply reminded them to limit social medial use to the 30-minute maximum.

At the study start and end, all participants provided a screenshot of their weekly social media usage time. The researchers gave both groups a battery of tests to assess anxiety, depression, loneliness, fear of missing out, and negative and positive feelings.

“By limiting their social media time, that resulted in less anxiety, less depression, less FOMO, fewer negative emotions, and greater positive emotions,” said Douglas Gentile, PhD, a distinguished professor of psychology at Iowa State and a study coauthor. “We know that it is the limiting [of] the social media that is causing that.”

Ms. Faulhaber recalled one participant who mentioned having trouble at first adjusting to the 30-minute time frame, but once sleep improved, it was easier to stick to that guidance. Another who gave up phone use at bedtime found: “Instead of looking at my phone, it was much easier to go straight to bed.”

Sleep improvements, of course, affect many parts of physical and mental health, Dr. Gentile said. And the study also showed that even with reduced screen time, “we can still get the benefit of being connected.” Those who didn’t make the 30-minute mark, but cut back, got benefits, too, the researchers said.
 

‘Youth are aware’

Self-monitoring works, agreed Jane Harness, DO, an adjunct clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, because “having that insight is often the first step.”

In a study she conducted, Dr. Harness aimed to gather youths’ insights about how their social media use affected them. With her colleagues, she asked more than 1,100 youths, aged 14-24, what advice they would give to those new to social media, if they ever felt they needed to change social media habits, and if they have deleted or considered deleting social media accounts.

From the 871 responses, Harness found that youths were especially concerned about safety online, that most had thought about deleting a social media app and some had, and that youths were more likely to say they wanted to change the amount of time spent on social media, compared with the content they view.

“Users responded with great advice for each other,” she said. “Safety was brought up,” with users reminding others to keep accounts private and to be aware of location tracking links and content that seems to promote eating disorders, suicide, and other harms.

In the study report, Dr. Harness concluded: “Youth are aware of ways in which social media could be negatively impacting them and they have employed methods to modulate their use because of this awareness.”
 

Less FOMO, less anxiety

In an earlier study, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, researchers had 143 college students self-monitor social media for a week, then randomly assigned them either to a group told to limit Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat use to 10 minutes per platform, per day, or to a group told to use social media as usual for 3 weeks.

At the end of the study, the researchers evaluated both groups and found “significant reductions in loneliness and depression over 3 weeks’’ in the limited-use group, compared with the usual-use group, according to study researcher Melissa G. Hunt, PhD, associate director of clinical training at the University of Pennsylvania.

And both groups showed declines in anxiety and fear of missing out, suggesting a benefit tied to self-monitoring itself, she said.

While Dr. Hunt’s study focused on 30 minutes a day, she said “about an hour a day seems to be the sweet spot for maximizing the positive effects of connecting, but limiting the negative effects of social media use.”

She also suggested that smartphones have no place in middle or high school classrooms. Instead, they should be on lockdown during classes.

“Parents need to set real limits of cellphone use during meals and in bedrooms,” Dr. Hunt said. At mealtime, for instance, all phones should be absent from the table. And after 10 p.m., “all family phones remain in the kitchen.”
 

Be ‘more mindful’

These recent study findings about self-monitoring and limiting social media time may not work the same for everyone, especially among those who aren’t as motivated, said psychiatrist Elizabeth Ortiz-Schwartz, MD, team lead for the adolescent inpatient unit at Silver Hill Hospital in New Canaan, Conn.

But “the bigger take-home piece is that being intentional and attempting to decrease the use in these individuals, even if they were not always successful, was clearly beneficial,” she said.

As we await clearer guidelines about what is the “right” amount of use in terms of social media content and time, Dr. Ortiz-Schwartz said, “becoming more mindful and aware of the risks and benefits can hopefully help individuals become more mindful and deliberate about its use.”
 

Real-world strategies

Max Schwandt, 23, is an outlier, but a happy one. He works as a sales clerk at a Los Angeles–area recreational gear shop, and he uses no social media. Why not? “It takes up too much time,” he explained. As simple as that.

But for many other teens and young adults, the struggle to stay off social media is real.

Amelia Kennedy, the Catholic University of America student, is trying to reduce her screen time. One way is to track it on her phone. These days, her summer job at a restaurant serving breakfast gets her up early. “If I have to work, I still go on my phone, but not that long.” And once at work, she only has time for quick checks between work responsibilities. “I definitely am more productive,” she said about days when she has work.

Last December, Lauren Young, 25, whose father was a researcher on the Iowa State study, was finishing law school at Georgetown University, Washington, and decided to take a break from social media for the entire month. “I can’t say I was always successful in avoiding it,” she said. But cutting down greatly “made me a lot more present in my day-to-day life, and it was easier to concentrate.”

She could even get through a meal, out with friends, without her phone, keeping it in her purse. That was a definite change from the norm. “I noticed I would go out to dinner and the standard for people my age is having the phone on the table. If you are being polite, you turn it over.”

During her social media “blackout,” Ms. Young had deleted TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook apps. Then, when she graduated, she had to reinstall to post a picture. But now, she is back to minimal social media use.

“I’m studying for the bar, so it’s kind of necessary, but it always makes me happier.” She figures she can always text family and friends if necessary, instead of posting. “I felt for a while I was missing out on things, but not now,” she said.

Others, including Sarah Goldstein, 22, of Chatsworth, Calif., a supermarket courtesy clerk who is thinking of returning to college, said she has developed a healthier attitude toward social media as she has gotten older.

“In middle and early high school, I would see parties, things I wasn’t invited to, on Snapchat and Instagram.” While she realized there could be legitimate reasons for not being included, she said it was easy to internalize those feelings of being left out.

These days, she said she doesn’t let it affect her mental health that way. She enjoys social media – especially TikTok and Instagram – for its benefits. “It kills time, gives you something to watch, can make you laugh and feel like you have a connection with other people.”

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

Amelia Kennedy, 19, of Royersford, Pa., a point guard on the Catholic University of America, Washington, basketball team who will begin her sophomore year in the fall, uses TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, and YouTube regularly.

How regularly? She estimates 7 hours a day and about 9 on weekends. She’s aware of the time-wasting potential. “If my mom says, ‘Do dishes,’ and I say, ‘5 more minutes,’ it can be longer,’’ she said.

Now imagine the challenge of cutting that 7 or 9 hours a day of social media use down to 30 minutes.

A very tall order, considering a 2022 Pew Research Center survey of more than 1,300 teens found 35% are “nearly constantly” on at least one of the top five social media platforms: YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, and Facebook.

Researchers from Iowa State University, Ames, recently took on that daunting challenge, limiting a group of students to only 30 minutes of social media a day to see what happens. Two weeks into the study, the students reported improvement in psychological well-being and other important measures, including sleep quality, compared with a control group assigned to continue using social media as usual.

And the dreaded FOMO, or fear of missing out, didn’t happen, the researchers said. At the end, the students were rethinking their social media use and feeling positive about it.

As social media becomes more common and youth mental health more endangered, experts are sounding the alarm. In late May, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory on social media and youth mental health, calling for tech companies to do better, policymakers to strengthen safety, and researchers to get more information, among other actions.

After that, the Biden administration took actions including the launch of a task force on kids’ online health and safety. The American Psychological Association has issued recommendations on social media use in youths. And the Social Media Victims Law Center in Seattle has sued numerous social media companies for online activity resulting in death and other tragedies.

While experts acknowledge that much more research is needed to sort out how to balance social media’s risks and benefits to preserve youth mental health and prevent such disasters, the new Iowa State study, as well as other recent research, suggests that youths are aware of the dangers of social media and, given some guidance and information, can monitor themselves and limit their screen time to preserve mental health.
 

Goal: 30 minutes a day

In the Iowa State study, 230 undergraduate students were assigned to one of two groups, with 99 in the 30-minute-a-day social media use group and 131 in the “usual” or control group, which made no changes. For those in the intervention group, “we sent a daily reminder email,” said Ella Faulhaber, a PhD candidate at Iowa State and the study’s lead author. It simply reminded them to limit social medial use to the 30-minute maximum.

At the study start and end, all participants provided a screenshot of their weekly social media usage time. The researchers gave both groups a battery of tests to assess anxiety, depression, loneliness, fear of missing out, and negative and positive feelings.

“By limiting their social media time, that resulted in less anxiety, less depression, less FOMO, fewer negative emotions, and greater positive emotions,” said Douglas Gentile, PhD, a distinguished professor of psychology at Iowa State and a study coauthor. “We know that it is the limiting [of] the social media that is causing that.”

Ms. Faulhaber recalled one participant who mentioned having trouble at first adjusting to the 30-minute time frame, but once sleep improved, it was easier to stick to that guidance. Another who gave up phone use at bedtime found: “Instead of looking at my phone, it was much easier to go straight to bed.”

Sleep improvements, of course, affect many parts of physical and mental health, Dr. Gentile said. And the study also showed that even with reduced screen time, “we can still get the benefit of being connected.” Those who didn’t make the 30-minute mark, but cut back, got benefits, too, the researchers said.
 

‘Youth are aware’

Self-monitoring works, agreed Jane Harness, DO, an adjunct clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, because “having that insight is often the first step.”

In a study she conducted, Dr. Harness aimed to gather youths’ insights about how their social media use affected them. With her colleagues, she asked more than 1,100 youths, aged 14-24, what advice they would give to those new to social media, if they ever felt they needed to change social media habits, and if they have deleted or considered deleting social media accounts.

From the 871 responses, Harness found that youths were especially concerned about safety online, that most had thought about deleting a social media app and some had, and that youths were more likely to say they wanted to change the amount of time spent on social media, compared with the content they view.

“Users responded with great advice for each other,” she said. “Safety was brought up,” with users reminding others to keep accounts private and to be aware of location tracking links and content that seems to promote eating disorders, suicide, and other harms.

In the study report, Dr. Harness concluded: “Youth are aware of ways in which social media could be negatively impacting them and they have employed methods to modulate their use because of this awareness.”
 

Less FOMO, less anxiety

In an earlier study, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, researchers had 143 college students self-monitor social media for a week, then randomly assigned them either to a group told to limit Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat use to 10 minutes per platform, per day, or to a group told to use social media as usual for 3 weeks.

At the end of the study, the researchers evaluated both groups and found “significant reductions in loneliness and depression over 3 weeks’’ in the limited-use group, compared with the usual-use group, according to study researcher Melissa G. Hunt, PhD, associate director of clinical training at the University of Pennsylvania.

And both groups showed declines in anxiety and fear of missing out, suggesting a benefit tied to self-monitoring itself, she said.

While Dr. Hunt’s study focused on 30 minutes a day, she said “about an hour a day seems to be the sweet spot for maximizing the positive effects of connecting, but limiting the negative effects of social media use.”

She also suggested that smartphones have no place in middle or high school classrooms. Instead, they should be on lockdown during classes.

“Parents need to set real limits of cellphone use during meals and in bedrooms,” Dr. Hunt said. At mealtime, for instance, all phones should be absent from the table. And after 10 p.m., “all family phones remain in the kitchen.”
 

Be ‘more mindful’

These recent study findings about self-monitoring and limiting social media time may not work the same for everyone, especially among those who aren’t as motivated, said psychiatrist Elizabeth Ortiz-Schwartz, MD, team lead for the adolescent inpatient unit at Silver Hill Hospital in New Canaan, Conn.

But “the bigger take-home piece is that being intentional and attempting to decrease the use in these individuals, even if they were not always successful, was clearly beneficial,” she said.

As we await clearer guidelines about what is the “right” amount of use in terms of social media content and time, Dr. Ortiz-Schwartz said, “becoming more mindful and aware of the risks and benefits can hopefully help individuals become more mindful and deliberate about its use.”
 

Real-world strategies

Max Schwandt, 23, is an outlier, but a happy one. He works as a sales clerk at a Los Angeles–area recreational gear shop, and he uses no social media. Why not? “It takes up too much time,” he explained. As simple as that.

But for many other teens and young adults, the struggle to stay off social media is real.

Amelia Kennedy, the Catholic University of America student, is trying to reduce her screen time. One way is to track it on her phone. These days, her summer job at a restaurant serving breakfast gets her up early. “If I have to work, I still go on my phone, but not that long.” And once at work, she only has time for quick checks between work responsibilities. “I definitely am more productive,” she said about days when she has work.

Last December, Lauren Young, 25, whose father was a researcher on the Iowa State study, was finishing law school at Georgetown University, Washington, and decided to take a break from social media for the entire month. “I can’t say I was always successful in avoiding it,” she said. But cutting down greatly “made me a lot more present in my day-to-day life, and it was easier to concentrate.”

She could even get through a meal, out with friends, without her phone, keeping it in her purse. That was a definite change from the norm. “I noticed I would go out to dinner and the standard for people my age is having the phone on the table. If you are being polite, you turn it over.”

During her social media “blackout,” Ms. Young had deleted TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook apps. Then, when she graduated, she had to reinstall to post a picture. But now, she is back to minimal social media use.

“I’m studying for the bar, so it’s kind of necessary, but it always makes me happier.” She figures she can always text family and friends if necessary, instead of posting. “I felt for a while I was missing out on things, but not now,” she said.

Others, including Sarah Goldstein, 22, of Chatsworth, Calif., a supermarket courtesy clerk who is thinking of returning to college, said she has developed a healthier attitude toward social media as she has gotten older.

“In middle and early high school, I would see parties, things I wasn’t invited to, on Snapchat and Instagram.” While she realized there could be legitimate reasons for not being included, she said it was easy to internalize those feelings of being left out.

These days, she said she doesn’t let it affect her mental health that way. She enjoys social media – especially TikTok and Instagram – for its benefits. “It kills time, gives you something to watch, can make you laugh and feel like you have a connection with other people.”

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

Amelia Kennedy, 19, of Royersford, Pa., a point guard on the Catholic University of America, Washington, basketball team who will begin her sophomore year in the fall, uses TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, and YouTube regularly.

How regularly? She estimates 7 hours a day and about 9 on weekends. She’s aware of the time-wasting potential. “If my mom says, ‘Do dishes,’ and I say, ‘5 more minutes,’ it can be longer,’’ she said.

Now imagine the challenge of cutting that 7 or 9 hours a day of social media use down to 30 minutes.

A very tall order, considering a 2022 Pew Research Center survey of more than 1,300 teens found 35% are “nearly constantly” on at least one of the top five social media platforms: YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, and Facebook.

Researchers from Iowa State University, Ames, recently took on that daunting challenge, limiting a group of students to only 30 minutes of social media a day to see what happens. Two weeks into the study, the students reported improvement in psychological well-being and other important measures, including sleep quality, compared with a control group assigned to continue using social media as usual.

And the dreaded FOMO, or fear of missing out, didn’t happen, the researchers said. At the end, the students were rethinking their social media use and feeling positive about it.

As social media becomes more common and youth mental health more endangered, experts are sounding the alarm. In late May, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory on social media and youth mental health, calling for tech companies to do better, policymakers to strengthen safety, and researchers to get more information, among other actions.

After that, the Biden administration took actions including the launch of a task force on kids’ online health and safety. The American Psychological Association has issued recommendations on social media use in youths. And the Social Media Victims Law Center in Seattle has sued numerous social media companies for online activity resulting in death and other tragedies.

While experts acknowledge that much more research is needed to sort out how to balance social media’s risks and benefits to preserve youth mental health and prevent such disasters, the new Iowa State study, as well as other recent research, suggests that youths are aware of the dangers of social media and, given some guidance and information, can monitor themselves and limit their screen time to preserve mental health.
 

Goal: 30 minutes a day

In the Iowa State study, 230 undergraduate students were assigned to one of two groups, with 99 in the 30-minute-a-day social media use group and 131 in the “usual” or control group, which made no changes. For those in the intervention group, “we sent a daily reminder email,” said Ella Faulhaber, a PhD candidate at Iowa State and the study’s lead author. It simply reminded them to limit social medial use to the 30-minute maximum.

At the study start and end, all participants provided a screenshot of their weekly social media usage time. The researchers gave both groups a battery of tests to assess anxiety, depression, loneliness, fear of missing out, and negative and positive feelings.

“By limiting their social media time, that resulted in less anxiety, less depression, less FOMO, fewer negative emotions, and greater positive emotions,” said Douglas Gentile, PhD, a distinguished professor of psychology at Iowa State and a study coauthor. “We know that it is the limiting [of] the social media that is causing that.”

Ms. Faulhaber recalled one participant who mentioned having trouble at first adjusting to the 30-minute time frame, but once sleep improved, it was easier to stick to that guidance. Another who gave up phone use at bedtime found: “Instead of looking at my phone, it was much easier to go straight to bed.”

Sleep improvements, of course, affect many parts of physical and mental health, Dr. Gentile said. And the study also showed that even with reduced screen time, “we can still get the benefit of being connected.” Those who didn’t make the 30-minute mark, but cut back, got benefits, too, the researchers said.
 

‘Youth are aware’

Self-monitoring works, agreed Jane Harness, DO, an adjunct clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, because “having that insight is often the first step.”

In a study she conducted, Dr. Harness aimed to gather youths’ insights about how their social media use affected them. With her colleagues, she asked more than 1,100 youths, aged 14-24, what advice they would give to those new to social media, if they ever felt they needed to change social media habits, and if they have deleted or considered deleting social media accounts.

From the 871 responses, Harness found that youths were especially concerned about safety online, that most had thought about deleting a social media app and some had, and that youths were more likely to say they wanted to change the amount of time spent on social media, compared with the content they view.

“Users responded with great advice for each other,” she said. “Safety was brought up,” with users reminding others to keep accounts private and to be aware of location tracking links and content that seems to promote eating disorders, suicide, and other harms.

In the study report, Dr. Harness concluded: “Youth are aware of ways in which social media could be negatively impacting them and they have employed methods to modulate their use because of this awareness.”
 

Less FOMO, less anxiety

In an earlier study, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, researchers had 143 college students self-monitor social media for a week, then randomly assigned them either to a group told to limit Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat use to 10 minutes per platform, per day, or to a group told to use social media as usual for 3 weeks.

At the end of the study, the researchers evaluated both groups and found “significant reductions in loneliness and depression over 3 weeks’’ in the limited-use group, compared with the usual-use group, according to study researcher Melissa G. Hunt, PhD, associate director of clinical training at the University of Pennsylvania.

And both groups showed declines in anxiety and fear of missing out, suggesting a benefit tied to self-monitoring itself, she said.

While Dr. Hunt’s study focused on 30 minutes a day, she said “about an hour a day seems to be the sweet spot for maximizing the positive effects of connecting, but limiting the negative effects of social media use.”

She also suggested that smartphones have no place in middle or high school classrooms. Instead, they should be on lockdown during classes.

“Parents need to set real limits of cellphone use during meals and in bedrooms,” Dr. Hunt said. At mealtime, for instance, all phones should be absent from the table. And after 10 p.m., “all family phones remain in the kitchen.”
 

Be ‘more mindful’

These recent study findings about self-monitoring and limiting social media time may not work the same for everyone, especially among those who aren’t as motivated, said psychiatrist Elizabeth Ortiz-Schwartz, MD, team lead for the adolescent inpatient unit at Silver Hill Hospital in New Canaan, Conn.

But “the bigger take-home piece is that being intentional and attempting to decrease the use in these individuals, even if they were not always successful, was clearly beneficial,” she said.

As we await clearer guidelines about what is the “right” amount of use in terms of social media content and time, Dr. Ortiz-Schwartz said, “becoming more mindful and aware of the risks and benefits can hopefully help individuals become more mindful and deliberate about its use.”
 

Real-world strategies

Max Schwandt, 23, is an outlier, but a happy one. He works as a sales clerk at a Los Angeles–area recreational gear shop, and he uses no social media. Why not? “It takes up too much time,” he explained. As simple as that.

But for many other teens and young adults, the struggle to stay off social media is real.

Amelia Kennedy, the Catholic University of America student, is trying to reduce her screen time. One way is to track it on her phone. These days, her summer job at a restaurant serving breakfast gets her up early. “If I have to work, I still go on my phone, but not that long.” And once at work, she only has time for quick checks between work responsibilities. “I definitely am more productive,” she said about days when she has work.

Last December, Lauren Young, 25, whose father was a researcher on the Iowa State study, was finishing law school at Georgetown University, Washington, and decided to take a break from social media for the entire month. “I can’t say I was always successful in avoiding it,” she said. But cutting down greatly “made me a lot more present in my day-to-day life, and it was easier to concentrate.”

She could even get through a meal, out with friends, without her phone, keeping it in her purse. That was a definite change from the norm. “I noticed I would go out to dinner and the standard for people my age is having the phone on the table. If you are being polite, you turn it over.”

During her social media “blackout,” Ms. Young had deleted TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook apps. Then, when she graduated, she had to reinstall to post a picture. But now, she is back to minimal social media use.

“I’m studying for the bar, so it’s kind of necessary, but it always makes me happier.” She figures she can always text family and friends if necessary, instead of posting. “I felt for a while I was missing out on things, but not now,” she said.

Others, including Sarah Goldstein, 22, of Chatsworth, Calif., a supermarket courtesy clerk who is thinking of returning to college, said she has developed a healthier attitude toward social media as she has gotten older.

“In middle and early high school, I would see parties, things I wasn’t invited to, on Snapchat and Instagram.” While she realized there could be legitimate reasons for not being included, she said it was easy to internalize those feelings of being left out.

These days, she said she doesn’t let it affect her mental health that way. She enjoys social media – especially TikTok and Instagram – for its benefits. “It kills time, gives you something to watch, can make you laugh and feel like you have a connection with other people.”

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

The Department of Health & Human Services has issued an advisory to help medical professionals better recognize the mental health symptoms that may come with long COVID.

The nine mental health symptoms highlighted in the advisory are fatigue; cognitive impairment, including brain fog; anxiety; depression; obsessive-compulsive disorder; sleep disorders; PTSD; psychotic disorder; and start of a substance use disorder.

The advisory noted that social factors can contribute to the mental health problems for racial and ethnic minorities; people with limited access to health care; people who already have behavioral health conditions and physical disabilities; and people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex.

“Long COVID has a range of burdensome physical symptoms and can take a toll on a person’s mental health. It can be very challenging for a person, whether they are impacted themselves, or they are a caregiver for someone who is affected,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “This advisory helps to raise awareness, especially among primary care practitioners and clinicians who are often the ones treating patients with long COVID.”

The department says about 10% of people infected with COVID have at least one long COVID symptom. Physical symptoms include dizziness, stomach upset, heart palpitations, issues with sexual desire or capacity, loss of smell or taste, thirst, chronic coughing, chest pain, and abnormal movements. 

“We know that people living with long COVID need help today, and providers need help understanding what long COVID is and how to treat it,” Admiral Rachel Levine, MD, assistant secretary for health, said in the statement. “This advisory helps bridge that gap for the behavioral health impacts of long COVID.”

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

The Department of Health & Human Services has issued an advisory to help medical professionals better recognize the mental health symptoms that may come with long COVID.

The nine mental health symptoms highlighted in the advisory are fatigue; cognitive impairment, including brain fog; anxiety; depression; obsessive-compulsive disorder; sleep disorders; PTSD; psychotic disorder; and start of a substance use disorder.

The advisory noted that social factors can contribute to the mental health problems for racial and ethnic minorities; people with limited access to health care; people who already have behavioral health conditions and physical disabilities; and people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex.

“Long COVID has a range of burdensome physical symptoms and can take a toll on a person’s mental health. It can be very challenging for a person, whether they are impacted themselves, or they are a caregiver for someone who is affected,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “This advisory helps to raise awareness, especially among primary care practitioners and clinicians who are often the ones treating patients with long COVID.”

The department says about 10% of people infected with COVID have at least one long COVID symptom. Physical symptoms include dizziness, stomach upset, heart palpitations, issues with sexual desire or capacity, loss of smell or taste, thirst, chronic coughing, chest pain, and abnormal movements. 

“We know that people living with long COVID need help today, and providers need help understanding what long COVID is and how to treat it,” Admiral Rachel Levine, MD, assistant secretary for health, said in the statement. “This advisory helps bridge that gap for the behavioral health impacts of long COVID.”

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

The Department of Health & Human Services has issued an advisory to help medical professionals better recognize the mental health symptoms that may come with long COVID.

The nine mental health symptoms highlighted in the advisory are fatigue; cognitive impairment, including brain fog; anxiety; depression; obsessive-compulsive disorder; sleep disorders; PTSD; psychotic disorder; and start of a substance use disorder.

The advisory noted that social factors can contribute to the mental health problems for racial and ethnic minorities; people with limited access to health care; people who already have behavioral health conditions and physical disabilities; and people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex.

“Long COVID has a range of burdensome physical symptoms and can take a toll on a person’s mental health. It can be very challenging for a person, whether they are impacted themselves, or they are a caregiver for someone who is affected,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “This advisory helps to raise awareness, especially among primary care practitioners and clinicians who are often the ones treating patients with long COVID.”

The department says about 10% of people infected with COVID have at least one long COVID symptom. Physical symptoms include dizziness, stomach upset, heart palpitations, issues with sexual desire or capacity, loss of smell or taste, thirst, chronic coughing, chest pain, and abnormal movements. 

“We know that people living with long COVID need help today, and providers need help understanding what long COVID is and how to treat it,” Admiral Rachel Levine, MD, assistant secretary for health, said in the statement. “This advisory helps bridge that gap for the behavioral health impacts of long COVID.”

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