Key clinical point: Resuming anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) therapy was beneficial in patients with migraine who had responded to this treatment previously but relapsed upon discontinuation.

Major finding: The median monthly headache days (MHD) improved from 16 in the month before antibody reintroduction to 8 after 3 months of treatment re-introduction. The majority of patients achieved 30% reduction in MHD (75.3%) and monthly migraine days (80.8%) during the second treatment period with anti-CGRP mAb.

Study details: This observational prospective analytical multicentric study included 360 patients with migraine who had shown prior response to anti-CGRP mAb, with clinical worsening after withdrawal and were re-introduced anti-CGRP mAb therapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, European Union, and  Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) funds. Several authors declared receiving speaker honoraria, payments or honoraria for lectures, or research support or grants from various sources.

Source: Romero Del Rincón C, Gonzalez-Martinez A, Quintas S et al. RE-START: Exploring the effectiveness of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide resumption after discontinuation in migraine. Eur J Neurol. 2024 (Jan 25). doi: 10.1111/ene.16203 Source

Key clinical point: Resuming anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) therapy was beneficial in patients with migraine who had responded to this treatment previously but relapsed upon discontinuation.

Major finding: The median monthly headache days (MHD) improved from 16 in the month before antibody reintroduction to 8 after 3 months of treatment re-introduction. The majority of patients achieved 30% reduction in MHD (75.3%) and monthly migraine days (80.8%) during the second treatment period with anti-CGRP mAb.

Study details: This observational prospective analytical multicentric study included 360 patients with migraine who had shown prior response to anti-CGRP mAb, with clinical worsening after withdrawal and were re-introduced anti-CGRP mAb therapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, European Union, and  Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) funds. Several authors declared receiving speaker honoraria, payments or honoraria for lectures, or research support or grants from various sources.

Source: Romero Del Rincón C, Gonzalez-Martinez A, Quintas S et al. RE-START: Exploring the effectiveness of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide resumption after discontinuation in migraine. Eur J Neurol. 2024 (Jan 25). doi: 10.1111/ene.16203 Source

Key clinical point: Resuming anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) therapy was beneficial in patients with migraine who had responded to this treatment previously but relapsed upon discontinuation.

Major finding: The median monthly headache days (MHD) improved from 16 in the month before antibody reintroduction to 8 after 3 months of treatment re-introduction. The majority of patients achieved 30% reduction in MHD (75.3%) and monthly migraine days (80.8%) during the second treatment period with anti-CGRP mAb.

Study details: This observational prospective analytical multicentric study included 360 patients with migraine who had shown prior response to anti-CGRP mAb, with clinical worsening after withdrawal and were re-introduced anti-CGRP mAb therapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, European Union, and  Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) funds. Several authors declared receiving speaker honoraria, payments or honoraria for lectures, or research support or grants from various sources.

Source: Romero Del Rincón C, Gonzalez-Martinez A, Quintas S et al. RE-START: Exploring the effectiveness of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide resumption after discontinuation in migraine. Eur J Neurol. 2024 (Jan 25). doi: 10.1111/ene.16203 Source

Key clinical point: Body mass index (BMI) was positively correlated with an increased risk for severe headache or migraine, with the association being further increased in patients with diabetes and high BMI.

Major finding: BMI was positively associated with a higher risk for migraine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.02; P < .001), with participants in the highest (≥30.0 kg/m²) vs lowest (<25.0 kg/m²) BMI groups reporting an increased risk for migraine (aOR 1.30; P = .0022). The positive association between BMI and migraine was further strengthened in patients with diabetes, who had BMI ≥ 29.71 kg/m² (aOR 1.30; P = . 003).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 10,074 participants, of whom 2004 had migraine and 1020 had diabetes.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Jiangxi Province, Jiangxi Provincial Department of Education Science and Technology Program Project, and Jiangxi Province Postgraduate Innovation Special Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Tian S, Cheng Z, Zheng H et al. Interaction between diabetes and body mass index on severe headache or migraine in adults: A cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2024;24:76. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-04657-3 Source

Key clinical point: Body mass index (BMI) was positively correlated with an increased risk for severe headache or migraine, with the association being further increased in patients with diabetes and high BMI.

Major finding: BMI was positively associated with a higher risk for migraine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.02; P < .001), with participants in the highest (≥30.0 kg/m²) vs lowest (<25.0 kg/m²) BMI groups reporting an increased risk for migraine (aOR 1.30; P = .0022). The positive association between BMI and migraine was further strengthened in patients with diabetes, who had BMI ≥ 29.71 kg/m² (aOR 1.30; P = . 003).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 10,074 participants, of whom 2004 had migraine and 1020 had diabetes.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Jiangxi Province, Jiangxi Provincial Department of Education Science and Technology Program Project, and Jiangxi Province Postgraduate Innovation Special Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Tian S, Cheng Z, Zheng H et al. Interaction between diabetes and body mass index on severe headache or migraine in adults: A cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2024;24:76. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-04657-3 Source

Key clinical point: Body mass index (BMI) was positively correlated with an increased risk for severe headache or migraine, with the association being further increased in patients with diabetes and high BMI.

Major finding: BMI was positively associated with a higher risk for migraine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.02; P < .001), with participants in the highest (≥30.0 kg/m²) vs lowest (<25.0 kg/m²) BMI groups reporting an increased risk for migraine (aOR 1.30; P = .0022). The positive association between BMI and migraine was further strengthened in patients with diabetes, who had BMI ≥ 29.71 kg/m² (aOR 1.30; P = . 003).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 10,074 participants, of whom 2004 had migraine and 1020 had diabetes.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Jiangxi Province, Jiangxi Provincial Department of Education Science and Technology Program Project, and Jiangxi Province Postgraduate Innovation Special Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Tian S, Cheng Z, Zheng H et al. Interaction between diabetes and body mass index on severe headache or migraine in adults: A cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2024;24:76. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-04657-3 Source

Key clinical point: Eptinezumab vs placebo led to a greater reduction in migraine frequency and an improvement in migraine response in patients with migraine, irrespective of the type of prior treatment failure.

Major finding: Across weeks 1-12, patients receiving eptinezumab vs placebo experienced greater reductions in monthly migraine days (MMD) from baseline in all subgroups, with even greater improvements at weeks 13-24 (all P < .0001). Migraine responder rates (≥50% reduction in MMD) were also higher with eptinezumab vs placebo and increased following a second infusion (all P < .0001).

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the DELIVER trial that included 890 patients with migraine who were randomly assigned to receive either 100 mg or 300 mg eptinezumab or placebo.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored and funded by H. Lundbeck A/S. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, research support, or research funding from various sources. Four authors declared being full-time employees of or holding stocks in Lundbeck or one of its subsidiary companies.

Source: Pozo-Rosich P, Ashina M, Tepper SJ et al. Eptinezumab demonstrated efficacy regardless of prior preventive migraine treatment failure type: Post hoc analyses of the DELIVER study. Neurol Ther. 2024 (Jan 18). doi: 10.1007/s40120-023-00575-5  Source

Key clinical point: Eptinezumab vs placebo led to a greater reduction in migraine frequency and an improvement in migraine response in patients with migraine, irrespective of the type of prior treatment failure.

Major finding: Across weeks 1-12, patients receiving eptinezumab vs placebo experienced greater reductions in monthly migraine days (MMD) from baseline in all subgroups, with even greater improvements at weeks 13-24 (all P < .0001). Migraine responder rates (≥50% reduction in MMD) were also higher with eptinezumab vs placebo and increased following a second infusion (all P < .0001).

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the DELIVER trial that included 890 patients with migraine who were randomly assigned to receive either 100 mg or 300 mg eptinezumab or placebo.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored and funded by H. Lundbeck A/S. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, research support, or research funding from various sources. Four authors declared being full-time employees of or holding stocks in Lundbeck or one of its subsidiary companies.

Source: Pozo-Rosich P, Ashina M, Tepper SJ et al. Eptinezumab demonstrated efficacy regardless of prior preventive migraine treatment failure type: Post hoc analyses of the DELIVER study. Neurol Ther. 2024 (Jan 18). doi: 10.1007/s40120-023-00575-5  Source

Key clinical point: Eptinezumab vs placebo led to a greater reduction in migraine frequency and an improvement in migraine response in patients with migraine, irrespective of the type of prior treatment failure.

Major finding: Across weeks 1-12, patients receiving eptinezumab vs placebo experienced greater reductions in monthly migraine days (MMD) from baseline in all subgroups, with even greater improvements at weeks 13-24 (all P < .0001). Migraine responder rates (≥50% reduction in MMD) were also higher with eptinezumab vs placebo and increased following a second infusion (all P < .0001).

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the DELIVER trial that included 890 patients with migraine who were randomly assigned to receive either 100 mg or 300 mg eptinezumab or placebo.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored and funded by H. Lundbeck A/S. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, research support, or research funding from various sources. Four authors declared being full-time employees of or holding stocks in Lundbeck or one of its subsidiary companies.

Source: Pozo-Rosich P, Ashina M, Tepper SJ et al. Eptinezumab demonstrated efficacy regardless of prior preventive migraine treatment failure type: Post hoc analyses of the DELIVER study. Neurol Ther. 2024 (Jan 18). doi: 10.1007/s40120-023-00575-5  Source

Key clinical point: Patients diagnosed with migraine should be monitored for the potential onset of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), including Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC); particularly, men with migraine may require increased monitoring for the development of UC.

Major finding: Patients with migraine had a higher risk for IBD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.31; P < .0001), CD (aHR 1.58; P = .0002), and UC (aHR 1.26; P = .0004) than those without migraine. Presence of migraine increased the risk for UC more prominently in men (aHR 1.43; 95% CI 1.20-1.71) than in women (aHR 1.12; 95% CI 0.94-1.34; P_interaction = .042).

Study details: The data come from a nationwide population-based cohort study that included 10,131,193 individuals who had undergone a national health examination conducted by the Korean National Health Insurance Service in 2009, of which 281,144 patients had migraine.

Disclosures: This study did not disclose the funding source. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Lee CH, Han K, Lee HJ et al. Migraine is associated with the development of adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A nationwide, population-based study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:1157 (Jan 12).  doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-51455-3  Source.

Key clinical point: Patients diagnosed with migraine should be monitored for the potential onset of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), including Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC); particularly, men with migraine may require increased monitoring for the development of UC.

Major finding: Patients with migraine had a higher risk for IBD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.31; P < .0001), CD (aHR 1.58; P = .0002), and UC (aHR 1.26; P = .0004) than those without migraine. Presence of migraine increased the risk for UC more prominently in men (aHR 1.43; 95% CI 1.20-1.71) than in women (aHR 1.12; 95% CI 0.94-1.34; P_interaction = .042).

Study details: The data come from a nationwide population-based cohort study that included 10,131,193 individuals who had undergone a national health examination conducted by the Korean National Health Insurance Service in 2009, of which 281,144 patients had migraine.

Disclosures: This study did not disclose the funding source. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Lee CH, Han K, Lee HJ et al. Migraine is associated with the development of adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A nationwide, population-based study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:1157 (Jan 12).  doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-51455-3  Source.

Key clinical point: Patients diagnosed with migraine should be monitored for the potential onset of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), including Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC); particularly, men with migraine may require increased monitoring for the development of UC.

Major finding: Patients with migraine had a higher risk for IBD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.31; P < .0001), CD (aHR 1.58; P = .0002), and UC (aHR 1.26; P = .0004) than those without migraine. Presence of migraine increased the risk for UC more prominently in men (aHR 1.43; 95% CI 1.20-1.71) than in women (aHR 1.12; 95% CI 0.94-1.34; P_interaction = .042).

Study details: The data come from a nationwide population-based cohort study that included 10,131,193 individuals who had undergone a national health examination conducted by the Korean National Health Insurance Service in 2009, of which 281,144 patients had migraine.

Disclosures: This study did not disclose the funding source. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Lee CH, Han K, Lee HJ et al. Migraine is associated with the development of adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A nationwide, population-based study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:1157 (Jan 12).  doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-51455-3  Source.

Key clinical point: Patients with chronic migraine may be informed that they should not expect a consistent wearing-off effect when being treated with erenumab or fremanezumab as anxiety regarding attacks toward the end of the month may potentially trigger further migraine episodes.

Major finding: Overall, 62% of patients treated with erenumab and fremanezumab achieved a consistent ≥30% reduction in migraine days over 2 consecutive months (≥30% responders), with no consistent wearing-off effect (ie, an increase of ≥2 weekly migraine days from week 2 to 4 over 2 consecutive treatment months) in the erenumab (P = .194) and fremanezumab (P = .581) groups. Among ≥30% responders, there was no significant wearing-off effect from week 2 to 4 over 2 consecutive months (1.43 vs 1.52 days; P = .573).

Study details: This single-center, real-world, observational study included 100 patients with chronic migraine (age ≥ 18 years) who received either erenumab (n = 60) or fremanezumab (n = 40).

Disclosures: This study was supported by Lundbeck Foundation. Two authors declared receiving personal fees or honoraria from or serving on advisory boards for various sources.

Source: Florescu AM, Lannov LV, Younis S et al. No wearing-off effect of erenumab or fremanezumab for chronic migraine prevention: A single-center, real-world, observational study. Cephalalgia. 2024 (Jan 12). doi: 10.1177/03331024231222 Source.

Key clinical point: Patients with chronic migraine may be informed that they should not expect a consistent wearing-off effect when being treated with erenumab or fremanezumab as anxiety regarding attacks toward the end of the month may potentially trigger further migraine episodes.

Major finding: Overall, 62% of patients treated with erenumab and fremanezumab achieved a consistent ≥30% reduction in migraine days over 2 consecutive months (≥30% responders), with no consistent wearing-off effect (ie, an increase of ≥2 weekly migraine days from week 2 to 4 over 2 consecutive treatment months) in the erenumab (P = .194) and fremanezumab (P = .581) groups. Among ≥30% responders, there was no significant wearing-off effect from week 2 to 4 over 2 consecutive months (1.43 vs 1.52 days; P = .573).

Study details: This single-center, real-world, observational study included 100 patients with chronic migraine (age ≥ 18 years) who received either erenumab (n = 60) or fremanezumab (n = 40).

Disclosures: This study was supported by Lundbeck Foundation. Two authors declared receiving personal fees or honoraria from or serving on advisory boards for various sources.

Source: Florescu AM, Lannov LV, Younis S et al. No wearing-off effect of erenumab or fremanezumab for chronic migraine prevention: A single-center, real-world, observational study. Cephalalgia. 2024 (Jan 12). doi: 10.1177/03331024231222 Source.

Key clinical point: Patients with chronic migraine may be informed that they should not expect a consistent wearing-off effect when being treated with erenumab or fremanezumab as anxiety regarding attacks toward the end of the month may potentially trigger further migraine episodes.

Major finding: Overall, 62% of patients treated with erenumab and fremanezumab achieved a consistent ≥30% reduction in migraine days over 2 consecutive months (≥30% responders), with no consistent wearing-off effect (ie, an increase of ≥2 weekly migraine days from week 2 to 4 over 2 consecutive treatment months) in the erenumab (P = .194) and fremanezumab (P = .581) groups. Among ≥30% responders, there was no significant wearing-off effect from week 2 to 4 over 2 consecutive months (1.43 vs 1.52 days; P = .573).

Study details: This single-center, real-world, observational study included 100 patients with chronic migraine (age ≥ 18 years) who received either erenumab (n = 60) or fremanezumab (n = 40).

Disclosures: This study was supported by Lundbeck Foundation. Two authors declared receiving personal fees or honoraria from or serving on advisory boards for various sources.

Source: Florescu AM, Lannov LV, Younis S et al. No wearing-off effect of erenumab or fremanezumab for chronic migraine prevention: A single-center, real-world, observational study. Cephalalgia. 2024 (Jan 12). doi: 10.1177/03331024231222 Source.

Key clinical point: Women who had menarche at older age had a lower risk for migraine, whereas those who used oral contraceptives and those who had children had a higher risk for migraine.

Major finding: Older age at menarche decreased migraine risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.96; 95% CI 0.95-0.98), whereas oral contraceptive use (aHR 1.12; 95% CI 1.06-1.18) and having children (aHR 1.37; 95% CI 1.29-1.46) increased migraine risk.

Study details: This study evaluated the data of 62,959 women (age 30-70 years) from the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study, of whom 15,635 (24.8%) had migraine.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bugge NS, Grøtta Vetvik K, Alstadhaug KB, Braaten T et al. Cumulative exposure to estrogen may increase the risk of migraine in women. Cephalalgia. 2024 (Jan 12). doi: 10.1177/03331024231225 Source.

Key clinical point: Women who had menarche at older age had a lower risk for migraine, whereas those who used oral contraceptives and those who had children had a higher risk for migraine.

Major finding: Older age at menarche decreased migraine risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.96; 95% CI 0.95-0.98), whereas oral contraceptive use (aHR 1.12; 95% CI 1.06-1.18) and having children (aHR 1.37; 95% CI 1.29-1.46) increased migraine risk.

Study details: This study evaluated the data of 62,959 women (age 30-70 years) from the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study, of whom 15,635 (24.8%) had migraine.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bugge NS, Grøtta Vetvik K, Alstadhaug KB, Braaten T et al. Cumulative exposure to estrogen may increase the risk of migraine in women. Cephalalgia. 2024 (Jan 12). doi: 10.1177/03331024231225 Source.

Key clinical point: Women who had menarche at older age had a lower risk for migraine, whereas those who used oral contraceptives and those who had children had a higher risk for migraine.

Major finding: Older age at menarche decreased migraine risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.96; 95% CI 0.95-0.98), whereas oral contraceptive use (aHR 1.12; 95% CI 1.06-1.18) and having children (aHR 1.37; 95% CI 1.29-1.46) increased migraine risk.

Study details: This study evaluated the data of 62,959 women (age 30-70 years) from the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study, of whom 15,635 (24.8%) had migraine.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bugge NS, Grøtta Vetvik K, Alstadhaug KB, Braaten T et al. Cumulative exposure to estrogen may increase the risk of migraine in women. Cephalalgia. 2024 (Jan 12). doi: 10.1177/03331024231225 Source.

I can’t remember where I heard it. Maybe I made it up myself. But, one definition of a family is a group of folks with whom you share your genes and germs. In that same vein, one could define daycare as a group of germ-sharing children. Of course that’s news to almost no one. Parents who decide, or are forced, to send their children to daycare expect that those children will get more colds, “stomach flu,” and ear infections than the children who spend their days in isolation at home. Everyone from the pediatrician to the little old lady next door has warned parents of the inevitable reality of daycare. Of course there are upsides that parents can cling to, including increased socialization and the hope that getting sick young will build a more robust immunity in the long run.

However, there has been little research exploring the nuances of the germ sharing that we all know is happening in these and other social settings.

A team of evolutionary biologists at Harvard is working to better define the “social microbiome” and its “role in individuals’ susceptibility to, and resilience against, both communicable and noncommunicable diseases.” These researchers point out that while we harbor our own unique collection of microbes, we share those with the microbiomes of the people with whom we interact socially. They report that studies by other investigators have shown that residents of a household share a significant proportion of their gastrointestinal flora. There are other studies that have shown that villages can be identified by their own social biome. There are few social settings more intimately involved in microbe sharing than daycares. I have a friends who calls them “petri dishes.”

The biologists point out that antibiotic-resistant microbes can become part of an individual’s microbiome and can be shared with other individuals in their social group, who can then go on and share them in a different social environment. Imagine there is one popular physician in a community whose sense of antibiotic stewardship is, shall we say, somewhat lacking. By inappropriately prescribing antibiotics to a child or two in a daycare, he may be altering the social biome in that daycare, which could then jeopardize the health of all the children and eventually their own home-based social biomes, that may include an immune deficient individual.

The researchers also remind us that different cultures and countries may have different antibiotic usage patterns. Does this mean I am taking a risk by traveling in these “culture-dependent transmission landscapes”? Am I more likely to encounter an antibiotic-resistant microbe when I am visiting a country whose healthcare providers are less prudent prescribers?

However, as these evolutionary biologists point out, not all shared microbes are bad. There is some evidence in animals that individuals can share microbes that have been found to “increase resilience against colitis or improve their responsiveness to cancer therapy.” If a microbe can contribute to a disease that was once considered to be “noncommunicable,” we may need to redefine “communicable” in the light this more nuanced view of the social biome.

It became standard practice during the COVID pandemic to test dormitory and community sewage water to determine the level of infection. Can sewage water be used as a proxy for a social biome? If a parent is lucky enough to have a choice of daycares, would knowing each facility’s biome, as reflected in an analysis of its sewage effluent, help him or her decide? Should a daycare ask for a stool sample from each child before accepting him or her? Seems like this would raise some privacy issues, not to mention the logistical messiness of the process. As we learn more about social biomes, can we imagine a time when a daycare or country or region might proudly advertise itself as having the healthiest spectrum of microbes in its sewage system?

Communal living certainly has its benefits, not just for children but also adults as we realize how loneliness is eating its way into our society. However, living in close social contact means that, for better or worse, we will be reconfiguring our own personal biomes thanks to the inevitable gifts from our cohabitants.

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

I can’t remember where I heard it. Maybe I made it up myself. But, one definition of a family is a group of folks with whom you share your genes and germs. In that same vein, one could define daycare as a group of germ-sharing children. Of course that’s news to almost no one. Parents who decide, or are forced, to send their children to daycare expect that those children will get more colds, “stomach flu,” and ear infections than the children who spend their days in isolation at home. Everyone from the pediatrician to the little old lady next door has warned parents of the inevitable reality of daycare. Of course there are upsides that parents can cling to, including increased socialization and the hope that getting sick young will build a more robust immunity in the long run.

However, there has been little research exploring the nuances of the germ sharing that we all know is happening in these and other social settings.

A team of evolutionary biologists at Harvard is working to better define the “social microbiome” and its “role in individuals’ susceptibility to, and resilience against, both communicable and noncommunicable diseases.” These researchers point out that while we harbor our own unique collection of microbes, we share those with the microbiomes of the people with whom we interact socially. They report that studies by other investigators have shown that residents of a household share a significant proportion of their gastrointestinal flora. There are other studies that have shown that villages can be identified by their own social biome. There are few social settings more intimately involved in microbe sharing than daycares. I have a friends who calls them “petri dishes.”

The biologists point out that antibiotic-resistant microbes can become part of an individual’s microbiome and can be shared with other individuals in their social group, who can then go on and share them in a different social environment. Imagine there is one popular physician in a community whose sense of antibiotic stewardship is, shall we say, somewhat lacking. By inappropriately prescribing antibiotics to a child or two in a daycare, he may be altering the social biome in that daycare, which could then jeopardize the health of all the children and eventually their own home-based social biomes, that may include an immune deficient individual.

The researchers also remind us that different cultures and countries may have different antibiotic usage patterns. Does this mean I am taking a risk by traveling in these “culture-dependent transmission landscapes”? Am I more likely to encounter an antibiotic-resistant microbe when I am visiting a country whose healthcare providers are less prudent prescribers?

However, as these evolutionary biologists point out, not all shared microbes are bad. There is some evidence in animals that individuals can share microbes that have been found to “increase resilience against colitis or improve their responsiveness to cancer therapy.” If a microbe can contribute to a disease that was once considered to be “noncommunicable,” we may need to redefine “communicable” in the light this more nuanced view of the social biome.

It became standard practice during the COVID pandemic to test dormitory and community sewage water to determine the level of infection. Can sewage water be used as a proxy for a social biome? If a parent is lucky enough to have a choice of daycares, would knowing each facility’s biome, as reflected in an analysis of its sewage effluent, help him or her decide? Should a daycare ask for a stool sample from each child before accepting him or her? Seems like this would raise some privacy issues, not to mention the logistical messiness of the process. As we learn more about social biomes, can we imagine a time when a daycare or country or region might proudly advertise itself as having the healthiest spectrum of microbes in its sewage system?

Communal living certainly has its benefits, not just for children but also adults as we realize how loneliness is eating its way into our society. However, living in close social contact means that, for better or worse, we will be reconfiguring our own personal biomes thanks to the inevitable gifts from our cohabitants.

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

I can’t remember where I heard it. Maybe I made it up myself. But, one definition of a family is a group of folks with whom you share your genes and germs. In that same vein, one could define daycare as a group of germ-sharing children. Of course that’s news to almost no one. Parents who decide, or are forced, to send their children to daycare expect that those children will get more colds, “stomach flu,” and ear infections than the children who spend their days in isolation at home. Everyone from the pediatrician to the little old lady next door has warned parents of the inevitable reality of daycare. Of course there are upsides that parents can cling to, including increased socialization and the hope that getting sick young will build a more robust immunity in the long run.

However, there has been little research exploring the nuances of the germ sharing that we all know is happening in these and other social settings.

A team of evolutionary biologists at Harvard is working to better define the “social microbiome” and its “role in individuals’ susceptibility to, and resilience against, both communicable and noncommunicable diseases.” These researchers point out that while we harbor our own unique collection of microbes, we share those with the microbiomes of the people with whom we interact socially. They report that studies by other investigators have shown that residents of a household share a significant proportion of their gastrointestinal flora. There are other studies that have shown that villages can be identified by their own social biome. There are few social settings more intimately involved in microbe sharing than daycares. I have a friends who calls them “petri dishes.”

The biologists point out that antibiotic-resistant microbes can become part of an individual’s microbiome and can be shared with other individuals in their social group, who can then go on and share them in a different social environment. Imagine there is one popular physician in a community whose sense of antibiotic stewardship is, shall we say, somewhat lacking. By inappropriately prescribing antibiotics to a child or two in a daycare, he may be altering the social biome in that daycare, which could then jeopardize the health of all the children and eventually their own home-based social biomes, that may include an immune deficient individual.

The researchers also remind us that different cultures and countries may have different antibiotic usage patterns. Does this mean I am taking a risk by traveling in these “culture-dependent transmission landscapes”? Am I more likely to encounter an antibiotic-resistant microbe when I am visiting a country whose healthcare providers are less prudent prescribers?

However, as these evolutionary biologists point out, not all shared microbes are bad. There is some evidence in animals that individuals can share microbes that have been found to “increase resilience against colitis or improve their responsiveness to cancer therapy.” If a microbe can contribute to a disease that was once considered to be “noncommunicable,” we may need to redefine “communicable” in the light this more nuanced view of the social biome.

It became standard practice during the COVID pandemic to test dormitory and community sewage water to determine the level of infection. Can sewage water be used as a proxy for a social biome? If a parent is lucky enough to have a choice of daycares, would knowing each facility’s biome, as reflected in an analysis of its sewage effluent, help him or her decide? Should a daycare ask for a stool sample from each child before accepting him or her? Seems like this would raise some privacy issues, not to mention the logistical messiness of the process. As we learn more about social biomes, can we imagine a time when a daycare or country or region might proudly advertise itself as having the healthiest spectrum of microbes in its sewage system?

Communal living certainly has its benefits, not just for children but also adults as we realize how loneliness is eating its way into our society. However, living in close social contact means that, for better or worse, we will be reconfiguring our own personal biomes thanks to the inevitable gifts from our cohabitants.

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

In my previous article, “Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children,” we learned that in recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children. Refugee children and their families experience a variety of traumas, often sustained across years and even decades, because of armed conflict, persecution, social upheavals, or environmental disasters. Refugees are at greater risks for PTSD and affective and psychotic disorders presumably due to increased traumatic life events before, during, and after migration. I used my own experience as a child refugee from Vietnam to elucidate the stressors evident in various phases of forced displacement.¹

Risk Factors and Protective Factors

To a certain extent, the experiences of refugees are universal. All refugees experience some sort of humanitarian crisis that forces an emergent escape from their home across international borders to a new resettlement area. It is important to note that internally displaced people do not meet the United Nations’ (UN) official designation of refugee status; however, some agencies use a broader definition where they are designated as such.^2,3 We will refer to those not meeting the UN criteria as displaced people, while refugees are those that do meet the UN criteria. Dr. Mina Fazel’s 2012 systematic review in The Lancet of mental health risk factors and protective factors for displaced and refugee children is the most comprehensive of its kind.⁴ It will be summarized in this section with some relevant personal reflection.

In terms of risk factors, external displacement likely results in additional stress and trauma, presumably from the lack of assess to one’s culture and the host country’s language. Understandably, this makes rebuilding of one’s life more difficult. Several studies show that displaced/refugee children experience more difficulty with psychosocial adaptation than non-displaced children. Violence, directly experienced or indirectly feared, both to the child and their parents, was the strongest predictor of mental health problems and withdrawn behavior. Children who were separated from their parents clearly fared worst in their mental health than those who did not, which is not surprising given the nature of their dependence on caregivers for protection and guidance. During resettlement, experienced or perceived discrimination from the host country was also a risk factor, as well as instability in housing and a drawn-out resettlement process. Female sex was a risk factor mainly for emotional problems. Poor financial support post-migration is associated with depression, but it is unclear whether pre-migration financial status was protective. From my own experience, it is likely not, given that once one becomes a refugee one does not have access to one’s wealth, except that which could be hidden on one’s body. Another risk factor was also if one’s parent had psychiatric problems or was single. Due to the migration, my mother was separated permanently from her husband, which caused her extraordinary isolation and loneliness, something that was palpably felt by myself as I grew up.

In terms of protective factors, family cohesion and cultural continuity appear critical. For myself, not only would I not have survived without my mother and aunt, but they constantly protected me from the harsh realities. My mother would distract me with seemingly trivial goals once we got to America, like finally tasting a hamburger, or talking about school and being reunited with my uncle. This is in line with another finding — that children have better mental health outcomes when their parents do not talk about their hardships. Once my family was resettled with my uncle and his family, they played a critical role in smoothing our transition, not only by providing us with housing, but also cultural knowledge. Cultural havens can restore some of the social position and way of life that refugees lose when they are able to reconnect with a society that recognizes their previous achievements and status. Finally, religion also seemed to be a protective factor.
 

Mental Health Interventions

In 2018, Dr. Fazel identified mental health interventions for refugee children in a narrative review.⁵ She acknowledged that these conclusions are limited by the paucity of preventive mental health research in children in general, as well as the mobile nature and complex cultural differences of refugee children. This is exacerbated by the small evidence base. Given that, she makes these recommendations for varying levels of interventions: individual, group, family, living circumstances, social interactions, and school.

On an individual level, effective interventions developed to address PTSD include narrative exposure therapy, trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy, and eye-movement and desensitization therapy. Group-based interventions for trauma, for example school-based PTSD intervention programs in conflicted areas, have either been shown to not be effective, or only effective for reducing depression. The mental health of unaccompanied children separated from family fare better when placed in foster care, rather than other types of social support. This is further enhanced if the foster family is the same ethnicity.

On a family level, improvements in parenting style and parental mental health, family engagement with local culture and structures, and family-based mental health interventions all positively impact refugee children. Not surprisingly, refugee parents have a greater prevalence of mental health conditions. Several studies on refugeeism point out a greater occurrence of intimate partner violence (that negatively affects children) as well has harsher discipline and maltreatment of refugee children. Thus, mental health treatment for parents also directly improves the well-being of their children. Teaching parenting skills to mitigate the violent effect of their PTSD symptoms, as well as parenting classes that teach gentler styles, have been shown to reduce harsh parenting and mitigate aggressive behaviors in these children. These improvements are enhanced when these classes are taught by other refugees themselves.

School is key for helping refugee children since it is a site where they can access language proficiency, successful acculturation, and medical and mental health services. Several studies have identified the positive effects of better parental engagement with school, resulting in improved academic performance and reduced levels of depressive and PTSD symptoms. A review of learning problems in refugee children identified several factors for success. These include high academic and life ambition, parental involvement in education, accurate educational assessment and grade placement, teacher understanding of linguistic and cultural heritage, culturally appropriate school transition, supportive peer relationships, and successful acculturation. School certainly was key for my acculturation and language proficiency. When I arrived at 6 years old I was selectively mute for my year in first grade, namely because I did not know how to speak English and because I did not share the culture. However, my teacher correctly identified my deficiency and chose to place me in kindergarten, which allowed me the time to gain English proficiency. Though I was always the oldest one in class, that remediation was key in allowing eventual success in school leading up to my admission to UC Berkeley.
 

Summary

In recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children leading to traumas sustained across years and even decades, and greater risks for PTSD, as well as affective and psychotic disorders. Risk factors include the experience of violence, the separation from family, female gender, discrimination in the host country, unstable housing, and a drawn-out resettlement process. Protective factors consist of family cohesion, cultural continuity, support at schools, being protected from the truth of their harsh reality, stable housing, language acquisition, and quick resettlement. From these factors, effective mental interventions have been found to be the promotion of these protective factors as well as support for parental mental health and parenting skills, better parental engagement at school, and schools that correctly identify and address these children’s educational needs.

Dr. Nguyen is a second-year resident at UCSF Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously.*

References

1. Nguyen D. Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children. Pediatric News. 2023 Nov. 14. https://www.mdedge.com/pediatrics/article/266518/mental-health/mental-health-characteristics-refugee-children.

2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Refugee Concept Under International Law. Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. 2018 March 8. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5aa290937.pdf.

3. Winer JP. Mental Health Practice with Immigrant and Refugee Youth [Power Point Slides]. Michigan Medicine. 2021 June 24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICkg4132SQY

4. Fazel M et al. Mental Health of Displaced and Refugee Children Resettled in High-Income Countries: Risk and Protective Factors. Lancet. 2012 Jan 21;379(9812):266-282. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60051-2.

5. Fazel M, Betancourt TS. Preventive Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Children and Adolescents in High-Income Settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-132. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5.

*Correction, 2/27: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Nguyen's affiliation.

In my previous article, “Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children,” we learned that in recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children. Refugee children and their families experience a variety of traumas, often sustained across years and even decades, because of armed conflict, persecution, social upheavals, or environmental disasters. Refugees are at greater risks for PTSD and affective and psychotic disorders presumably due to increased traumatic life events before, during, and after migration. I used my own experience as a child refugee from Vietnam to elucidate the stressors evident in various phases of forced displacement.¹

Risk Factors and Protective Factors

To a certain extent, the experiences of refugees are universal. All refugees experience some sort of humanitarian crisis that forces an emergent escape from their home across international borders to a new resettlement area. It is important to note that internally displaced people do not meet the United Nations’ (UN) official designation of refugee status; however, some agencies use a broader definition where they are designated as such.^2,3 We will refer to those not meeting the UN criteria as displaced people, while refugees are those that do meet the UN criteria. Dr. Mina Fazel’s 2012 systematic review in The Lancet of mental health risk factors and protective factors for displaced and refugee children is the most comprehensive of its kind.⁴ It will be summarized in this section with some relevant personal reflection.

In terms of risk factors, external displacement likely results in additional stress and trauma, presumably from the lack of assess to one’s culture and the host country’s language. Understandably, this makes rebuilding of one’s life more difficult. Several studies show that displaced/refugee children experience more difficulty with psychosocial adaptation than non-displaced children. Violence, directly experienced or indirectly feared, both to the child and their parents, was the strongest predictor of mental health problems and withdrawn behavior. Children who were separated from their parents clearly fared worst in their mental health than those who did not, which is not surprising given the nature of their dependence on caregivers for protection and guidance. During resettlement, experienced or perceived discrimination from the host country was also a risk factor, as well as instability in housing and a drawn-out resettlement process. Female sex was a risk factor mainly for emotional problems. Poor financial support post-migration is associated with depression, but it is unclear whether pre-migration financial status was protective. From my own experience, it is likely not, given that once one becomes a refugee one does not have access to one’s wealth, except that which could be hidden on one’s body. Another risk factor was also if one’s parent had psychiatric problems or was single. Due to the migration, my mother was separated permanently from her husband, which caused her extraordinary isolation and loneliness, something that was palpably felt by myself as I grew up.

In terms of protective factors, family cohesion and cultural continuity appear critical. For myself, not only would I not have survived without my mother and aunt, but they constantly protected me from the harsh realities. My mother would distract me with seemingly trivial goals once we got to America, like finally tasting a hamburger, or talking about school and being reunited with my uncle. This is in line with another finding — that children have better mental health outcomes when their parents do not talk about their hardships. Once my family was resettled with my uncle and his family, they played a critical role in smoothing our transition, not only by providing us with housing, but also cultural knowledge. Cultural havens can restore some of the social position and way of life that refugees lose when they are able to reconnect with a society that recognizes their previous achievements and status. Finally, religion also seemed to be a protective factor.
 

Mental Health Interventions

In 2018, Dr. Fazel identified mental health interventions for refugee children in a narrative review.⁵ She acknowledged that these conclusions are limited by the paucity of preventive mental health research in children in general, as well as the mobile nature and complex cultural differences of refugee children. This is exacerbated by the small evidence base. Given that, she makes these recommendations for varying levels of interventions: individual, group, family, living circumstances, social interactions, and school.

On an individual level, effective interventions developed to address PTSD include narrative exposure therapy, trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy, and eye-movement and desensitization therapy. Group-based interventions for trauma, for example school-based PTSD intervention programs in conflicted areas, have either been shown to not be effective, or only effective for reducing depression. The mental health of unaccompanied children separated from family fare better when placed in foster care, rather than other types of social support. This is further enhanced if the foster family is the same ethnicity.

On a family level, improvements in parenting style and parental mental health, family engagement with local culture and structures, and family-based mental health interventions all positively impact refugee children. Not surprisingly, refugee parents have a greater prevalence of mental health conditions. Several studies on refugeeism point out a greater occurrence of intimate partner violence (that negatively affects children) as well has harsher discipline and maltreatment of refugee children. Thus, mental health treatment for parents also directly improves the well-being of their children. Teaching parenting skills to mitigate the violent effect of their PTSD symptoms, as well as parenting classes that teach gentler styles, have been shown to reduce harsh parenting and mitigate aggressive behaviors in these children. These improvements are enhanced when these classes are taught by other refugees themselves.

School is key for helping refugee children since it is a site where they can access language proficiency, successful acculturation, and medical and mental health services. Several studies have identified the positive effects of better parental engagement with school, resulting in improved academic performance and reduced levels of depressive and PTSD symptoms. A review of learning problems in refugee children identified several factors for success. These include high academic and life ambition, parental involvement in education, accurate educational assessment and grade placement, teacher understanding of linguistic and cultural heritage, culturally appropriate school transition, supportive peer relationships, and successful acculturation. School certainly was key for my acculturation and language proficiency. When I arrived at 6 years old I was selectively mute for my year in first grade, namely because I did not know how to speak English and because I did not share the culture. However, my teacher correctly identified my deficiency and chose to place me in kindergarten, which allowed me the time to gain English proficiency. Though I was always the oldest one in class, that remediation was key in allowing eventual success in school leading up to my admission to UC Berkeley.
 

Summary

In recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children leading to traumas sustained across years and even decades, and greater risks for PTSD, as well as affective and psychotic disorders. Risk factors include the experience of violence, the separation from family, female gender, discrimination in the host country, unstable housing, and a drawn-out resettlement process. Protective factors consist of family cohesion, cultural continuity, support at schools, being protected from the truth of their harsh reality, stable housing, language acquisition, and quick resettlement. From these factors, effective mental interventions have been found to be the promotion of these protective factors as well as support for parental mental health and parenting skills, better parental engagement at school, and schools that correctly identify and address these children’s educational needs.

Dr. Nguyen is a second-year resident at UCSF Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously.*

References

1. Nguyen D. Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children. Pediatric News. 2023 Nov. 14. https://www.mdedge.com/pediatrics/article/266518/mental-health/mental-health-characteristics-refugee-children.

2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Refugee Concept Under International Law. Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. 2018 March 8. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5aa290937.pdf.

3. Winer JP. Mental Health Practice with Immigrant and Refugee Youth [Power Point Slides]. Michigan Medicine. 2021 June 24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICkg4132SQY

4. Fazel M et al. Mental Health of Displaced and Refugee Children Resettled in High-Income Countries: Risk and Protective Factors. Lancet. 2012 Jan 21;379(9812):266-282. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60051-2.

5. Fazel M, Betancourt TS. Preventive Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Children and Adolescents in High-Income Settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-132. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5.

*Correction, 2/27: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Nguyen's affiliation.

In my previous article, “Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children,” we learned that in recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children. Refugee children and their families experience a variety of traumas, often sustained across years and even decades, because of armed conflict, persecution, social upheavals, or environmental disasters. Refugees are at greater risks for PTSD and affective and psychotic disorders presumably due to increased traumatic life events before, during, and after migration. I used my own experience as a child refugee from Vietnam to elucidate the stressors evident in various phases of forced displacement.¹

Risk Factors and Protective Factors

To a certain extent, the experiences of refugees are universal. All refugees experience some sort of humanitarian crisis that forces an emergent escape from their home across international borders to a new resettlement area. It is important to note that internally displaced people do not meet the United Nations’ (UN) official designation of refugee status; however, some agencies use a broader definition where they are designated as such.^2,3 We will refer to those not meeting the UN criteria as displaced people, while refugees are those that do meet the UN criteria. Dr. Mina Fazel’s 2012 systematic review in The Lancet of mental health risk factors and protective factors for displaced and refugee children is the most comprehensive of its kind.⁴ It will be summarized in this section with some relevant personal reflection.

In terms of risk factors, external displacement likely results in additional stress and trauma, presumably from the lack of assess to one’s culture and the host country’s language. Understandably, this makes rebuilding of one’s life more difficult. Several studies show that displaced/refugee children experience more difficulty with psychosocial adaptation than non-displaced children. Violence, directly experienced or indirectly feared, both to the child and their parents, was the strongest predictor of mental health problems and withdrawn behavior. Children who were separated from their parents clearly fared worst in their mental health than those who did not, which is not surprising given the nature of their dependence on caregivers for protection and guidance. During resettlement, experienced or perceived discrimination from the host country was also a risk factor, as well as instability in housing and a drawn-out resettlement process. Female sex was a risk factor mainly for emotional problems. Poor financial support post-migration is associated with depression, but it is unclear whether pre-migration financial status was protective. From my own experience, it is likely not, given that once one becomes a refugee one does not have access to one’s wealth, except that which could be hidden on one’s body. Another risk factor was also if one’s parent had psychiatric problems or was single. Due to the migration, my mother was separated permanently from her husband, which caused her extraordinary isolation and loneliness, something that was palpably felt by myself as I grew up.

In terms of protective factors, family cohesion and cultural continuity appear critical. For myself, not only would I not have survived without my mother and aunt, but they constantly protected me from the harsh realities. My mother would distract me with seemingly trivial goals once we got to America, like finally tasting a hamburger, or talking about school and being reunited with my uncle. This is in line with another finding — that children have better mental health outcomes when their parents do not talk about their hardships. Once my family was resettled with my uncle and his family, they played a critical role in smoothing our transition, not only by providing us with housing, but also cultural knowledge. Cultural havens can restore some of the social position and way of life that refugees lose when they are able to reconnect with a society that recognizes their previous achievements and status. Finally, religion also seemed to be a protective factor.
 

Mental Health Interventions

In 2018, Dr. Fazel identified mental health interventions for refugee children in a narrative review.⁵ She acknowledged that these conclusions are limited by the paucity of preventive mental health research in children in general, as well as the mobile nature and complex cultural differences of refugee children. This is exacerbated by the small evidence base. Given that, she makes these recommendations for varying levels of interventions: individual, group, family, living circumstances, social interactions, and school.

On an individual level, effective interventions developed to address PTSD include narrative exposure therapy, trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy, and eye-movement and desensitization therapy. Group-based interventions for trauma, for example school-based PTSD intervention programs in conflicted areas, have either been shown to not be effective, or only effective for reducing depression. The mental health of unaccompanied children separated from family fare better when placed in foster care, rather than other types of social support. This is further enhanced if the foster family is the same ethnicity.

On a family level, improvements in parenting style and parental mental health, family engagement with local culture and structures, and family-based mental health interventions all positively impact refugee children. Not surprisingly, refugee parents have a greater prevalence of mental health conditions. Several studies on refugeeism point out a greater occurrence of intimate partner violence (that negatively affects children) as well has harsher discipline and maltreatment of refugee children. Thus, mental health treatment for parents also directly improves the well-being of their children. Teaching parenting skills to mitigate the violent effect of their PTSD symptoms, as well as parenting classes that teach gentler styles, have been shown to reduce harsh parenting and mitigate aggressive behaviors in these children. These improvements are enhanced when these classes are taught by other refugees themselves.

School is key for helping refugee children since it is a site where they can access language proficiency, successful acculturation, and medical and mental health services. Several studies have identified the positive effects of better parental engagement with school, resulting in improved academic performance and reduced levels of depressive and PTSD symptoms. A review of learning problems in refugee children identified several factors for success. These include high academic and life ambition, parental involvement in education, accurate educational assessment and grade placement, teacher understanding of linguistic and cultural heritage, culturally appropriate school transition, supportive peer relationships, and successful acculturation. School certainly was key for my acculturation and language proficiency. When I arrived at 6 years old I was selectively mute for my year in first grade, namely because I did not know how to speak English and because I did not share the culture. However, my teacher correctly identified my deficiency and chose to place me in kindergarten, which allowed me the time to gain English proficiency. Though I was always the oldest one in class, that remediation was key in allowing eventual success in school leading up to my admission to UC Berkeley.
 

Summary

In recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children leading to traumas sustained across years and even decades, and greater risks for PTSD, as well as affective and psychotic disorders. Risk factors include the experience of violence, the separation from family, female gender, discrimination in the host country, unstable housing, and a drawn-out resettlement process. Protective factors consist of family cohesion, cultural continuity, support at schools, being protected from the truth of their harsh reality, stable housing, language acquisition, and quick resettlement. From these factors, effective mental interventions have been found to be the promotion of these protective factors as well as support for parental mental health and parenting skills, better parental engagement at school, and schools that correctly identify and address these children’s educational needs.

Dr. Nguyen is a second-year resident at UCSF Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously.*

References

1. Nguyen D. Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children. Pediatric News. 2023 Nov. 14. https://www.mdedge.com/pediatrics/article/266518/mental-health/mental-health-characteristics-refugee-children.

2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Refugee Concept Under International Law. Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. 2018 March 8. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5aa290937.pdf.

3. Winer JP. Mental Health Practice with Immigrant and Refugee Youth [Power Point Slides]. Michigan Medicine. 2021 June 24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICkg4132SQY

4. Fazel M et al. Mental Health of Displaced and Refugee Children Resettled in High-Income Countries: Risk and Protective Factors. Lancet. 2012 Jan 21;379(9812):266-282. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60051-2.

5. Fazel M, Betancourt TS. Preventive Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Children and Adolescents in High-Income Settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-132. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5.

*Correction, 2/27: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Nguyen's affiliation.

Dermatologists in training are exposed to many different clinical scenarios—from the quick 15-minute encounter to diagnose a case of atopic dermatitis to hours of digging through a medical record to identify a culprit medication in a hospitalized patient with a life-threatening cutaneous drug reaction. Amidst the day-to-day clinical work that we do, there inevitably are interactions we have with patients that are less than ideal. These challenging encounters—whether they be subtle microaggressions that unfortunately enter the workplace or blatant quarrels between providers and patients that leave both parties dissatisfied—are notable contributors to physician stress levels and can lead to burnout.^1,2 However, there are positive lessons to be learned from these challenging patient encounters if we manage to withstand them. When we start to understand the factors contributing to difficult clinical encounters, we can begin to develop and apply effective communication tools to productively navigate these experiences.

Defining the Difficult Patient

In 2017, the Global Burden of Disease study revealed that skin disease is the fourth leading cause of nonfatal disease burden worldwide.³ Based on this statistic, it is easy to see how some patients may experience frustration associated with their condition and subsequently displace their discontent on the physician. In one study, nearly 1 of every 6 (16.7%) outpatient encounters was considered difficult by physicians.⁴ Family medicine physicians defined the difficult patient as one who is violent, demanding, aggressive, and rude.⁵ Others in primary care specialties have considered difficult patients to have characteristics that include mental health problems, more than 5 somatic symptoms, and abrasive personalities.^4,6

Situational and Physician-Centered Factors in Difficult Patient Encounters

In our medical system, the narrative often is focused on the patient, for better or worse—the patient was difficult, thereby making the encounter difficult. However, it is important to remember that difficult encounters can be attributed to several different factors, including those related to the physician, the clinical situation, or both. For example, dermatology residents juggle their clinical duties; academic work including studying, teaching, and/or research; and systemic and personal pressures at all times, whether they are cognizant of it or not. For better or worse, by virtue of being human, residents bring these factors with them to each clinical encounter. The delicate balance of these components can have a considerable impact on our delivery of good health care. This is particularly relevant in dermatology, where residents are subject to limited time during visits, work culture among clinic staff that is out of our control, and prominent complex social issues (for those of us practicing in medically underserved areas). Poor communication skills, underlying bias toward specific health conditions, limited knowledge as a trainee, and our own personal stressors also may play large roles in perceiving a clinical encounter as difficult during dermatology residency.⁷

Strategies to Mitigate Difficult Encounters

As a resident, if you make a statement that sparks a negative response from the patient, acknowledge their negative emotion, try to offer help, or rephrase the original statement to quickly dispel the tension. Validating a patient’s emotions and helping them embrace uncertainty can go a long way in the therapeutic relationship, especially in dermatology where so many of our diseases are chronic and without a definite cure.⁸ Additionally, it is important to apply strategies to redirect and de-escalate the situation during emotionally charged conversations, such as active listening, validating and empathizing with emotions, exploring alternative solutions, and providing closure to the conversation. Consensus recommendations for managing challenging encounters established by the American Academy of Family Physicians in 2013 include setting boundaries or modifying schedules, as needed, to handle difficult encounters; employing empathetic listening skills and a nonjudgmental attitude to facilitate trust and adherence to treatment; and assessing for underlying psychological illnesses with referral for appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Finally, the CALMER method—catalyst for change, alter thoughts to change feelings, listen and then make a diagnosis, make an agreement, education and follow-up, reach out and discuss feelings—is another approach that may be useful.⁷ In dermatology, this approach may not only dissipate unwanted tension but also make progress toward a therapeutic relationship. We cannot control the patient’s behavior in a visit, but we need to keep in mind that we are in control of our own reactions to said behavior.⁹ After first acknowledging this, we can then guide patients to take steps toward overcoming the issue. Within the time restrictions of a dermatology clinic visit, residents may use this approach to quickly feel more in control of a distressing situation and remain calm to better care for the patient.

Final Thoughts

Difficult patient encounters are impossible to avoid in any field of medicine, and dermatology is no exception. It will only benefit residents to recognize the multiple factors impacting a challenging encounter now and learn or enhance conflict resolution and communication skills to navigate these dissatisfying and uncomfortable situations, as they are inevitable in our careers.

Dermatologists in training are exposed to many different clinical scenarios—from the quick 15-minute encounter to diagnose a case of atopic dermatitis to hours of digging through a medical record to identify a culprit medication in a hospitalized patient with a life-threatening cutaneous drug reaction. Amidst the day-to-day clinical work that we do, there inevitably are interactions we have with patients that are less than ideal. These challenging encounters—whether they be subtle microaggressions that unfortunately enter the workplace or blatant quarrels between providers and patients that leave both parties dissatisfied—are notable contributors to physician stress levels and can lead to burnout.^1,2 However, there are positive lessons to be learned from these challenging patient encounters if we manage to withstand them. When we start to understand the factors contributing to difficult clinical encounters, we can begin to develop and apply effective communication tools to productively navigate these experiences.

Defining the Difficult Patient

In 2017, the Global Burden of Disease study revealed that skin disease is the fourth leading cause of nonfatal disease burden worldwide.³ Based on this statistic, it is easy to see how some patients may experience frustration associated with their condition and subsequently displace their discontent on the physician. In one study, nearly 1 of every 6 (16.7%) outpatient encounters was considered difficult by physicians.⁴ Family medicine physicians defined the difficult patient as one who is violent, demanding, aggressive, and rude.⁵ Others in primary care specialties have considered difficult patients to have characteristics that include mental health problems, more than 5 somatic symptoms, and abrasive personalities.^4,6

Situational and Physician-Centered Factors in Difficult Patient Encounters

In our medical system, the narrative often is focused on the patient, for better or worse—the patient was difficult, thereby making the encounter difficult. However, it is important to remember that difficult encounters can be attributed to several different factors, including those related to the physician, the clinical situation, or both. For example, dermatology residents juggle their clinical duties; academic work including studying, teaching, and/or research; and systemic and personal pressures at all times, whether they are cognizant of it or not. For better or worse, by virtue of being human, residents bring these factors with them to each clinical encounter. The delicate balance of these components can have a considerable impact on our delivery of good health care. This is particularly relevant in dermatology, where residents are subject to limited time during visits, work culture among clinic staff that is out of our control, and prominent complex social issues (for those of us practicing in medically underserved areas). Poor communication skills, underlying bias toward specific health conditions, limited knowledge as a trainee, and our own personal stressors also may play large roles in perceiving a clinical encounter as difficult during dermatology residency.⁷

Strategies to Mitigate Difficult Encounters

As a resident, if you make a statement that sparks a negative response from the patient, acknowledge their negative emotion, try to offer help, or rephrase the original statement to quickly dispel the tension. Validating a patient’s emotions and helping them embrace uncertainty can go a long way in the therapeutic relationship, especially in dermatology where so many of our diseases are chronic and without a definite cure.⁸ Additionally, it is important to apply strategies to redirect and de-escalate the situation during emotionally charged conversations, such as active listening, validating and empathizing with emotions, exploring alternative solutions, and providing closure to the conversation. Consensus recommendations for managing challenging encounters established by the American Academy of Family Physicians in 2013 include setting boundaries or modifying schedules, as needed, to handle difficult encounters; employing empathetic listening skills and a nonjudgmental attitude to facilitate trust and adherence to treatment; and assessing for underlying psychological illnesses with referral for appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Finally, the CALMER method—catalyst for change, alter thoughts to change feelings, listen and then make a diagnosis, make an agreement, education and follow-up, reach out and discuss feelings—is another approach that may be useful.⁷ In dermatology, this approach may not only dissipate unwanted tension but also make progress toward a therapeutic relationship. We cannot control the patient’s behavior in a visit, but we need to keep in mind that we are in control of our own reactions to said behavior.⁹ After first acknowledging this, we can then guide patients to take steps toward overcoming the issue. Within the time restrictions of a dermatology clinic visit, residents may use this approach to quickly feel more in control of a distressing situation and remain calm to better care for the patient.

Final Thoughts

Difficult patient encounters are impossible to avoid in any field of medicine, and dermatology is no exception. It will only benefit residents to recognize the multiple factors impacting a challenging encounter now and learn or enhance conflict resolution and communication skills to navigate these dissatisfying and uncomfortable situations, as they are inevitable in our careers.

Dermatologists in training are exposed to many different clinical scenarios—from the quick 15-minute encounter to diagnose a case of atopic dermatitis to hours of digging through a medical record to identify a culprit medication in a hospitalized patient with a life-threatening cutaneous drug reaction. Amidst the day-to-day clinical work that we do, there inevitably are interactions we have with patients that are less than ideal. These challenging encounters—whether they be subtle microaggressions that unfortunately enter the workplace or blatant quarrels between providers and patients that leave both parties dissatisfied—are notable contributors to physician stress levels and can lead to burnout.^1,2 However, there are positive lessons to be learned from these challenging patient encounters if we manage to withstand them. When we start to understand the factors contributing to difficult clinical encounters, we can begin to develop and apply effective communication tools to productively navigate these experiences.

Defining the Difficult Patient

In 2017, the Global Burden of Disease study revealed that skin disease is the fourth leading cause of nonfatal disease burden worldwide.³ Based on this statistic, it is easy to see how some patients may experience frustration associated with their condition and subsequently displace their discontent on the physician. In one study, nearly 1 of every 6 (16.7%) outpatient encounters was considered difficult by physicians.⁴ Family medicine physicians defined the difficult patient as one who is violent, demanding, aggressive, and rude.⁵ Others in primary care specialties have considered difficult patients to have characteristics that include mental health problems, more than 5 somatic symptoms, and abrasive personalities.^4,6

Situational and Physician-Centered Factors in Difficult Patient Encounters

In our medical system, the narrative often is focused on the patient, for better or worse—the patient was difficult, thereby making the encounter difficult. However, it is important to remember that difficult encounters can be attributed to several different factors, including those related to the physician, the clinical situation, or both. For example, dermatology residents juggle their clinical duties; academic work including studying, teaching, and/or research; and systemic and personal pressures at all times, whether they are cognizant of it or not. For better or worse, by virtue of being human, residents bring these factors with them to each clinical encounter. The delicate balance of these components can have a considerable impact on our delivery of good health care. This is particularly relevant in dermatology, where residents are subject to limited time during visits, work culture among clinic staff that is out of our control, and prominent complex social issues (for those of us practicing in medically underserved areas). Poor communication skills, underlying bias toward specific health conditions, limited knowledge as a trainee, and our own personal stressors also may play large roles in perceiving a clinical encounter as difficult during dermatology residency.⁷

Strategies to Mitigate Difficult Encounters

As a resident, if you make a statement that sparks a negative response from the patient, acknowledge their negative emotion, try to offer help, or rephrase the original statement to quickly dispel the tension. Validating a patient’s emotions and helping them embrace uncertainty can go a long way in the therapeutic relationship, especially in dermatology where so many of our diseases are chronic and without a definite cure.⁸ Additionally, it is important to apply strategies to redirect and de-escalate the situation during emotionally charged conversations, such as active listening, validating and empathizing with emotions, exploring alternative solutions, and providing closure to the conversation. Consensus recommendations for managing challenging encounters established by the American Academy of Family Physicians in 2013 include setting boundaries or modifying schedules, as needed, to handle difficult encounters; employing empathetic listening skills and a nonjudgmental attitude to facilitate trust and adherence to treatment; and assessing for underlying psychological illnesses with referral for appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Finally, the CALMER method—catalyst for change, alter thoughts to change feelings, listen and then make a diagnosis, make an agreement, education and follow-up, reach out and discuss feelings—is another approach that may be useful.⁷ In dermatology, this approach may not only dissipate unwanted tension but also make progress toward a therapeutic relationship. We cannot control the patient’s behavior in a visit, but we need to keep in mind that we are in control of our own reactions to said behavior.⁹ After first acknowledging this, we can then guide patients to take steps toward overcoming the issue. Within the time restrictions of a dermatology clinic visit, residents may use this approach to quickly feel more in control of a distressing situation and remain calm to better care for the patient.

Final Thoughts

Difficult patient encounters are impossible to avoid in any field of medicine, and dermatology is no exception. It will only benefit residents to recognize the multiple factors impacting a challenging encounter now and learn or enhance conflict resolution and communication skills to navigate these dissatisfying and uncomfortable situations, as they are inevitable in our careers.

Exercising for upwards of 30 minutes most days may help relieve pain in patients who’ve been diagnosed with cancer, according to a study of exercise and pain outcomes from more than 60,000 people, including 10,000 with a history of cancer. 

Study participants who’d been diagnosed with cancer and surpassed 150 minutes of moderate activity a week were 16% less likely to report pain than those who did not exercise or who exercised less. Exercise was particularly helpful for those with moderate to severe pain. In general, the more people exercised, the less pain they felt — and that was true for those with and without a history of cancer.

“This adds to a large evidence base regarding other benefits of exercise after cancer,” said lead study author Christopher Swain, PhD, a researcher at the University of Melbourne, Australia, who studies how physical activity can protect against cancer. “It would be great for physicians to encourage physical activity” for anyone who’s ever been diagnosed with cancer. 

The findings also add to mounting evidence — including observational and experimental studies — that physical activity may help ease people’s pain. One large cross-sectional study of Norwegian adults found that the prevalence of chronic pain was 10%-38% lower among people who exercised. Randomized trials suggest exercise could be an effective pain management tool for a range of conditions, including neck and low-back pain, osteoarthritis, myofascial pain, and fibromyalgia. 

Still, the analgesic effects of exercise are less established for cancer-related pain, the authors wrote in the recent study published in Cancer — even though cancer pain remains a common and critical issue. 

Cancer-related pain is unique, stemming from multiple potential causes, said Shakil Ahmed, MB, an anesthesiologist at Weill Cornell Medicine who specializes in treating cancer pain. (Dr. Ahmed was not involved in the study.) Patients “might be having pain from the tumor itself,” — such as a tumor pressing on nerves — “or as a result of treatment, including surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or complications from long-term medications,” Dr. Ahmed said. Indeed, some 40% of patients have chronic pain post cancer diagnosis, and it›s often undertreated and underdiagnosed.
 

How Does Exercise Reduce Pain?

Researchers aren’t exactly sure how exercise modulates pain, but they have some theories.

A 2021 meta-analysis found that exercise training can raise a person›s pain threshold, particularly at the pain site, suggesting adaptations in central inhibition, a process in the central nervous system that suppresses the perception of pain. This echoes a 2017 review that suggests exercise may help relieve pain by activating central inhibitory pathways. 

“There’s definitely evidence that there is improvement in the pain-reduction chemicals and augmentation of the pain inhibitory process in the central nervous system,” said Dr. Ahmed. That is, exercise may induce chemical changes that alter how much pain the brain’s sensory neurons can detect. 

Regular exercise can also reduce inflammation and improve blood flow, noted William McCarthy, PhD, a public health researcher with UCLA Health — both effects that may help to reduce pain.

Psychological factors may be another part of it. “There’s a lot of psychological stress as a result of a cancer diagnosis, which can lower the pain threshold,” said Dr. Ahmed. Exercise may help boost mood and reduce stress, increasing pain tolerance.

“People who are physically active also tend to be more socially active,” Dr. McCarthy added. “Engaging in social networks that provide social support can often palliate a sense of constant battling with fatigue, pain, and other negative effects of cancer.” Social activity, in turn, may promote physical activity: Studies show that when sedentary people socialize with active people, they become more active themselves — often by joining in walks or sports.

 

Help Patients Reap the Pain-Relieving Benefits of Exercise 

For beginners, the key to establishing a long-term exercise routine is to start low and slow, said Dr. Ahmed. That is, start with low-intensity activities like walking (walking was the most common activity reported in the study) or using light weights. Then, build slowly from there. 

Keep in mind that some pain or stiffness is normal at first, as one’s muscles and joints get used to the new activity. But be sure to investigate any new pain, Dr. Ahmed said. “Especially for patients who have had cancer, you want to see if the patient has any recurrence of disease,” Dr. Ahmed said. “That has to be kept in mind when you recommend any kind of exercise. “ 

It’s worth acknowledging that pain can be a significant barrier to exercise. If appropriate, you may consider referring out to exercise or physical therapy professionals in your network. Emphasizing the benefits of exercise — like the pain relief — may help motivate patients as well. 

For Dr. Swain, encouraging exercise is less about prescribing specific quantities and more about helping patients find activities “that give them enjoyment, that they feel comfortable doing, and that they can sustain over time.”

“The field needs to consider the different ways of supporting physical activity after a cancer diagnosis and treatment,” Dr. Swain said. “We have a lot of great research that shows the benefit of physical activity but not as strong an understanding of how to encourage and support it.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exercising for upwards of 30 minutes most days may help relieve pain in patients who’ve been diagnosed with cancer, according to a study of exercise and pain outcomes from more than 60,000 people, including 10,000 with a history of cancer. 

Study participants who’d been diagnosed with cancer and surpassed 150 minutes of moderate activity a week were 16% less likely to report pain than those who did not exercise or who exercised less. Exercise was particularly helpful for those with moderate to severe pain. In general, the more people exercised, the less pain they felt — and that was true for those with and without a history of cancer.

“This adds to a large evidence base regarding other benefits of exercise after cancer,” said lead study author Christopher Swain, PhD, a researcher at the University of Melbourne, Australia, who studies how physical activity can protect against cancer. “It would be great for physicians to encourage physical activity” for anyone who’s ever been diagnosed with cancer. 

The findings also add to mounting evidence — including observational and experimental studies — that physical activity may help ease people’s pain. One large cross-sectional study of Norwegian adults found that the prevalence of chronic pain was 10%-38% lower among people who exercised. Randomized trials suggest exercise could be an effective pain management tool for a range of conditions, including neck and low-back pain, osteoarthritis, myofascial pain, and fibromyalgia. 

Still, the analgesic effects of exercise are less established for cancer-related pain, the authors wrote in the recent study published in Cancer — even though cancer pain remains a common and critical issue. 

Cancer-related pain is unique, stemming from multiple potential causes, said Shakil Ahmed, MB, an anesthesiologist at Weill Cornell Medicine who specializes in treating cancer pain. (Dr. Ahmed was not involved in the study.) Patients “might be having pain from the tumor itself,” — such as a tumor pressing on nerves — “or as a result of treatment, including surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or complications from long-term medications,” Dr. Ahmed said. Indeed, some 40% of patients have chronic pain post cancer diagnosis, and it›s often undertreated and underdiagnosed.
 

How Does Exercise Reduce Pain?

Researchers aren’t exactly sure how exercise modulates pain, but they have some theories.

A 2021 meta-analysis found that exercise training can raise a person›s pain threshold, particularly at the pain site, suggesting adaptations in central inhibition, a process in the central nervous system that suppresses the perception of pain. This echoes a 2017 review that suggests exercise may help relieve pain by activating central inhibitory pathways. 

“There’s definitely evidence that there is improvement in the pain-reduction chemicals and augmentation of the pain inhibitory process in the central nervous system,” said Dr. Ahmed. That is, exercise may induce chemical changes that alter how much pain the brain’s sensory neurons can detect. 

Regular exercise can also reduce inflammation and improve blood flow, noted William McCarthy, PhD, a public health researcher with UCLA Health — both effects that may help to reduce pain.

Psychological factors may be another part of it. “There’s a lot of psychological stress as a result of a cancer diagnosis, which can lower the pain threshold,” said Dr. Ahmed. Exercise may help boost mood and reduce stress, increasing pain tolerance.

“People who are physically active also tend to be more socially active,” Dr. McCarthy added. “Engaging in social networks that provide social support can often palliate a sense of constant battling with fatigue, pain, and other negative effects of cancer.” Social activity, in turn, may promote physical activity: Studies show that when sedentary people socialize with active people, they become more active themselves — often by joining in walks or sports.

 

Help Patients Reap the Pain-Relieving Benefits of Exercise 

For beginners, the key to establishing a long-term exercise routine is to start low and slow, said Dr. Ahmed. That is, start with low-intensity activities like walking (walking was the most common activity reported in the study) or using light weights. Then, build slowly from there. 

Keep in mind that some pain or stiffness is normal at first, as one’s muscles and joints get used to the new activity. But be sure to investigate any new pain, Dr. Ahmed said. “Especially for patients who have had cancer, you want to see if the patient has any recurrence of disease,” Dr. Ahmed said. “That has to be kept in mind when you recommend any kind of exercise. “ 

It’s worth acknowledging that pain can be a significant barrier to exercise. If appropriate, you may consider referring out to exercise or physical therapy professionals in your network. Emphasizing the benefits of exercise — like the pain relief — may help motivate patients as well. 

For Dr. Swain, encouraging exercise is less about prescribing specific quantities and more about helping patients find activities “that give them enjoyment, that they feel comfortable doing, and that they can sustain over time.”

“The field needs to consider the different ways of supporting physical activity after a cancer diagnosis and treatment,” Dr. Swain said. “We have a lot of great research that shows the benefit of physical activity but not as strong an understanding of how to encourage and support it.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exercising for upwards of 30 minutes most days may help relieve pain in patients who’ve been diagnosed with cancer, according to a study of exercise and pain outcomes from more than 60,000 people, including 10,000 with a history of cancer. 

Study participants who’d been diagnosed with cancer and surpassed 150 minutes of moderate activity a week were 16% less likely to report pain than those who did not exercise or who exercised less. Exercise was particularly helpful for those with moderate to severe pain. In general, the more people exercised, the less pain they felt — and that was true for those with and without a history of cancer.

“This adds to a large evidence base regarding other benefits of exercise after cancer,” said lead study author Christopher Swain, PhD, a researcher at the University of Melbourne, Australia, who studies how physical activity can protect against cancer. “It would be great for physicians to encourage physical activity” for anyone who’s ever been diagnosed with cancer. 

The findings also add to mounting evidence — including observational and experimental studies — that physical activity may help ease people’s pain. One large cross-sectional study of Norwegian adults found that the prevalence of chronic pain was 10%-38% lower among people who exercised. Randomized trials suggest exercise could be an effective pain management tool for a range of conditions, including neck and low-back pain, osteoarthritis, myofascial pain, and fibromyalgia. 

Still, the analgesic effects of exercise are less established for cancer-related pain, the authors wrote in the recent study published in Cancer — even though cancer pain remains a common and critical issue. 

Cancer-related pain is unique, stemming from multiple potential causes, said Shakil Ahmed, MB, an anesthesiologist at Weill Cornell Medicine who specializes in treating cancer pain. (Dr. Ahmed was not involved in the study.) Patients “might be having pain from the tumor itself,” — such as a tumor pressing on nerves — “or as a result of treatment, including surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or complications from long-term medications,” Dr. Ahmed said. Indeed, some 40% of patients have chronic pain post cancer diagnosis, and it›s often undertreated and underdiagnosed.
 

How Does Exercise Reduce Pain?

Researchers aren’t exactly sure how exercise modulates pain, but they have some theories.

A 2021 meta-analysis found that exercise training can raise a person›s pain threshold, particularly at the pain site, suggesting adaptations in central inhibition, a process in the central nervous system that suppresses the perception of pain. This echoes a 2017 review that suggests exercise may help relieve pain by activating central inhibitory pathways. 

“There’s definitely evidence that there is improvement in the pain-reduction chemicals and augmentation of the pain inhibitory process in the central nervous system,” said Dr. Ahmed. That is, exercise may induce chemical changes that alter how much pain the brain’s sensory neurons can detect. 

Regular exercise can also reduce inflammation and improve blood flow, noted William McCarthy, PhD, a public health researcher with UCLA Health — both effects that may help to reduce pain.

Psychological factors may be another part of it. “There’s a lot of psychological stress as a result of a cancer diagnosis, which can lower the pain threshold,” said Dr. Ahmed. Exercise may help boost mood and reduce stress, increasing pain tolerance.

“People who are physically active also tend to be more socially active,” Dr. McCarthy added. “Engaging in social networks that provide social support can often palliate a sense of constant battling with fatigue, pain, and other negative effects of cancer.” Social activity, in turn, may promote physical activity: Studies show that when sedentary people socialize with active people, they become more active themselves — often by joining in walks or sports.

 

Help Patients Reap the Pain-Relieving Benefits of Exercise 

For beginners, the key to establishing a long-term exercise routine is to start low and slow, said Dr. Ahmed. That is, start with low-intensity activities like walking (walking was the most common activity reported in the study) or using light weights. Then, build slowly from there. 

Keep in mind that some pain or stiffness is normal at first, as one’s muscles and joints get used to the new activity. But be sure to investigate any new pain, Dr. Ahmed said. “Especially for patients who have had cancer, you want to see if the patient has any recurrence of disease,” Dr. Ahmed said. “That has to be kept in mind when you recommend any kind of exercise. “ 

It’s worth acknowledging that pain can be a significant barrier to exercise. If appropriate, you may consider referring out to exercise or physical therapy professionals in your network. Emphasizing the benefits of exercise — like the pain relief — may help motivate patients as well. 

For Dr. Swain, encouraging exercise is less about prescribing specific quantities and more about helping patients find activities “that give them enjoyment, that they feel comfortable doing, and that they can sustain over time.”

“The field needs to consider the different ways of supporting physical activity after a cancer diagnosis and treatment,” Dr. Swain said. “We have a lot of great research that shows the benefit of physical activity but not as strong an understanding of how to encourage and support it.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.