User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack nav-ce-stack__large-screen')]
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
Long-Acting Injectables in the Management of Bipolar 1 Disorder
Bipolar 1 disorder is a chronic and disabling mental health disorder that results in cognitive, functional, and social impairments associated with an increased risk for hospitalization and premature death.
Bipolar 1 disorder is characterized by manic episodes that last for at least 7 days, or manic symptoms that are so severe that they require immediate medical care. Depressive episodes also occur.
Dr Michael Thase, from the University of Pennsylvania, explains that although ongoing treatment is essential to prevent relapse and recurrence, particularly after a hospitalization, adherence can be serious problem.
Long-acting injectable (LAI) agents can act as a bridge between oral medications initiated in hospital and ongoing prevention therapies.
Dr Thase says LAIs can help improve adherence and patient quality of life, and are effective against relapses in adults with bipolar 1 disorder.
--
Michael E. Thase, MD, Professor of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Michael E. Thase, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as an advisor or consultant for: Acadia, Inc; Akili, Inc; Alkermes PLC; Allergan, Inc; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; Biohaven, Inc; Bocemtium Consulting, SL; Boehringer Ingelheim International; CatalYm GmbH; Clexio Biosciences; Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc; H Lundbeck, A/S; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; Janssen; Johnson & Johnson; Luye Pharma Group, Ltd; Merck & Company, Inc; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Pfizer, Inc; Sage Pharmaceuticals; Seelos Therapeutics; Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd
Receive research funding from: Acadia, Inc; Allergan, Inc; AssureRx; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; Biohaven, Inc; Intracellular, Inc; Johnson & Johnson; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI); Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd
Receive royalties from: American Psychiatric Foundation; Guilford Publications; Herald House; Kluwer-Wolters; W.W. Norton & Company, Inc
Bipolar 1 disorder is a chronic and disabling mental health disorder that results in cognitive, functional, and social impairments associated with an increased risk for hospitalization and premature death.
Bipolar 1 disorder is characterized by manic episodes that last for at least 7 days, or manic symptoms that are so severe that they require immediate medical care. Depressive episodes also occur.
Dr Michael Thase, from the University of Pennsylvania, explains that although ongoing treatment is essential to prevent relapse and recurrence, particularly after a hospitalization, adherence can be serious problem.
Long-acting injectable (LAI) agents can act as a bridge between oral medications initiated in hospital and ongoing prevention therapies.
Dr Thase says LAIs can help improve adherence and patient quality of life, and are effective against relapses in adults with bipolar 1 disorder.
--
Michael E. Thase, MD, Professor of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Michael E. Thase, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as an advisor or consultant for: Acadia, Inc; Akili, Inc; Alkermes PLC; Allergan, Inc; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; Biohaven, Inc; Bocemtium Consulting, SL; Boehringer Ingelheim International; CatalYm GmbH; Clexio Biosciences; Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc; H Lundbeck, A/S; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; Janssen; Johnson & Johnson; Luye Pharma Group, Ltd; Merck & Company, Inc; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Pfizer, Inc; Sage Pharmaceuticals; Seelos Therapeutics; Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd
Receive research funding from: Acadia, Inc; Allergan, Inc; AssureRx; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; Biohaven, Inc; Intracellular, Inc; Johnson & Johnson; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI); Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd
Receive royalties from: American Psychiatric Foundation; Guilford Publications; Herald House; Kluwer-Wolters; W.W. Norton & Company, Inc
Bipolar 1 disorder is a chronic and disabling mental health disorder that results in cognitive, functional, and social impairments associated with an increased risk for hospitalization and premature death.
Bipolar 1 disorder is characterized by manic episodes that last for at least 7 days, or manic symptoms that are so severe that they require immediate medical care. Depressive episodes also occur.
Dr Michael Thase, from the University of Pennsylvania, explains that although ongoing treatment is essential to prevent relapse and recurrence, particularly after a hospitalization, adherence can be serious problem.
Long-acting injectable (LAI) agents can act as a bridge between oral medications initiated in hospital and ongoing prevention therapies.
Dr Thase says LAIs can help improve adherence and patient quality of life, and are effective against relapses in adults with bipolar 1 disorder.
--
Michael E. Thase, MD, Professor of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Michael E. Thase, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as an advisor or consultant for: Acadia, Inc; Akili, Inc; Alkermes PLC; Allergan, Inc; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; Biohaven, Inc; Bocemtium Consulting, SL; Boehringer Ingelheim International; CatalYm GmbH; Clexio Biosciences; Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc; H Lundbeck, A/S; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; Janssen; Johnson & Johnson; Luye Pharma Group, Ltd; Merck & Company, Inc; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Pfizer, Inc; Sage Pharmaceuticals; Seelos Therapeutics; Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd
Receive research funding from: Acadia, Inc; Allergan, Inc; AssureRx; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; Biohaven, Inc; Intracellular, Inc; Johnson & Johnson; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI); Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd
Receive royalties from: American Psychiatric Foundation; Guilford Publications; Herald House; Kluwer-Wolters; W.W. Norton & Company, Inc
Childhood Adversity Robustly Linked to Adult Mental Illness
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with a significantly increased risk for adult depressive, anxiety, and stress-related disorders, new data from a large registry study of twins showed.
Researchers found that each additional adverse event placed children at a 52% greater risk for a psychiatric disorder as an adult, with sexual abuse associated with the greatest risk.
The findings showed that the association held even after controlling for shared genetic and environmental factors.
The results suggested that “interventions targeting ACEs, including primary prevention and enhanced access to evidence-based trauma therapies to individuals who experienced ACEs, may be associated with reduced risk of future psychopathology,” the investigators, with first author Hilda Björk Daníelsdóttir, MSc, of the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland, wrote.
The findings were published online on March 6 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Dose-Dependent Effect
Previous research has shown a robust link between childhood abuse and an increased risk for psychiatric disorders in adulthood, but evidence of this association in studies that adjust for familial confounding is “completely lacking,” the investigators wrote.
To learn more about how genetic factors may affect the relationship between ACEs and later psychiatric diagnoses, the investigators used data from the nationwide Swedish Twin Registry, which includes data on more than 25,000 identical and nonidentical twins.
The twin registry is linked to the Swedish National Patient Registry, which includes information on inpatient or outpatient psychiatric diagnoses after age 19.
The twins responded to a large web-based questionnaire about past-week depressive symptoms as a measure of current mental health and distinct types of ACEs including family violence, emotional abuse or neglect, physical neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, rape, and hate crime.
Three birth cohorts from the twin registry were surveyed between 2005 and 2016 and followed up in the national registry from age 19 until the end of 2016.
Among the sample of 25,000 twin pairs (15,000 female; mean age at assessment, 29 years), 9750 (39%) participants reported exposure to at least one ACE, while 2000 (8%) reported exposure to three or more ACEs. Most respondents — 61% — reported no ACE exposure.
More than 2300 participants received a psychiatric diagnosis as an adult. The incidence of any psychiatric disorder increased from 503 individuals (6.4%) among participants without any ACEs to 993 individuals (24.6%) among those reporting three or more.
At the cohort level, a greater number of ACEs was associated with increased odds of any psychiatric disorder in a dose-dependent manner, the investigators noted (odds ratio [OR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.48-1.57).
Untangling Genes and Environment
To determine how much of the increased risk for adult mental illness is due to ACEs and how much can be attributed to genetics and environment, the researchers focused on twin pairs where one had exposure to one type of ACEs and the other did not. This analysis revealed that the association remained but was attenuated. In identical twins, the effect of each ACE raised the odds of having a psychiatric condition by 20% (1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40), and for nonidentical twins, the odds increased by 29% (1.29; 95% CI, 1.14-1.47).
The weakening of the risk “suggests that familial confounding contributed to the association between ACEs and adult mental health outcomes,” the authors wrote.
Of all the ACEs, sexual abuse carried the highest risk for adult psychiatric disorders. Children who were exposed to sexual abuse, compared with those who were not, had up to a 200% higher risk for any psychiatric disorder in the following comparisons: Full cohort (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.68-3.56), dizygotic twin pairs (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.33-3.32), and monozygotic twin pairs (1.80; 95% CI, 1.04-3.11).
“Our results demonstrated that familial factors contributed to a lesser extent to the association between sexual abuse and adult psychiatric disorders,” the authors wrote.
One major limitation of the study was that ACEs were based on retrospective report and thus may be subject to recall bias. Also, the findings cannot be generalized to other countries or cultures.
The study was funded by the European Research Council, the Icelandic Center for Research, and the European Union Horizon 2020. Disclosures are noted in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with a significantly increased risk for adult depressive, anxiety, and stress-related disorders, new data from a large registry study of twins showed.
Researchers found that each additional adverse event placed children at a 52% greater risk for a psychiatric disorder as an adult, with sexual abuse associated with the greatest risk.
The findings showed that the association held even after controlling for shared genetic and environmental factors.
The results suggested that “interventions targeting ACEs, including primary prevention and enhanced access to evidence-based trauma therapies to individuals who experienced ACEs, may be associated with reduced risk of future psychopathology,” the investigators, with first author Hilda Björk Daníelsdóttir, MSc, of the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland, wrote.
The findings were published online on March 6 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Dose-Dependent Effect
Previous research has shown a robust link between childhood abuse and an increased risk for psychiatric disorders in adulthood, but evidence of this association in studies that adjust for familial confounding is “completely lacking,” the investigators wrote.
To learn more about how genetic factors may affect the relationship between ACEs and later psychiatric diagnoses, the investigators used data from the nationwide Swedish Twin Registry, which includes data on more than 25,000 identical and nonidentical twins.
The twin registry is linked to the Swedish National Patient Registry, which includes information on inpatient or outpatient psychiatric diagnoses after age 19.
The twins responded to a large web-based questionnaire about past-week depressive symptoms as a measure of current mental health and distinct types of ACEs including family violence, emotional abuse or neglect, physical neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, rape, and hate crime.
Three birth cohorts from the twin registry were surveyed between 2005 and 2016 and followed up in the national registry from age 19 until the end of 2016.
Among the sample of 25,000 twin pairs (15,000 female; mean age at assessment, 29 years), 9750 (39%) participants reported exposure to at least one ACE, while 2000 (8%) reported exposure to three or more ACEs. Most respondents — 61% — reported no ACE exposure.
More than 2300 participants received a psychiatric diagnosis as an adult. The incidence of any psychiatric disorder increased from 503 individuals (6.4%) among participants without any ACEs to 993 individuals (24.6%) among those reporting three or more.
At the cohort level, a greater number of ACEs was associated with increased odds of any psychiatric disorder in a dose-dependent manner, the investigators noted (odds ratio [OR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.48-1.57).
Untangling Genes and Environment
To determine how much of the increased risk for adult mental illness is due to ACEs and how much can be attributed to genetics and environment, the researchers focused on twin pairs where one had exposure to one type of ACEs and the other did not. This analysis revealed that the association remained but was attenuated. In identical twins, the effect of each ACE raised the odds of having a psychiatric condition by 20% (1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40), and for nonidentical twins, the odds increased by 29% (1.29; 95% CI, 1.14-1.47).
The weakening of the risk “suggests that familial confounding contributed to the association between ACEs and adult mental health outcomes,” the authors wrote.
Of all the ACEs, sexual abuse carried the highest risk for adult psychiatric disorders. Children who were exposed to sexual abuse, compared with those who were not, had up to a 200% higher risk for any psychiatric disorder in the following comparisons: Full cohort (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.68-3.56), dizygotic twin pairs (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.33-3.32), and monozygotic twin pairs (1.80; 95% CI, 1.04-3.11).
“Our results demonstrated that familial factors contributed to a lesser extent to the association between sexual abuse and adult psychiatric disorders,” the authors wrote.
One major limitation of the study was that ACEs were based on retrospective report and thus may be subject to recall bias. Also, the findings cannot be generalized to other countries or cultures.
The study was funded by the European Research Council, the Icelandic Center for Research, and the European Union Horizon 2020. Disclosures are noted in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with a significantly increased risk for adult depressive, anxiety, and stress-related disorders, new data from a large registry study of twins showed.
Researchers found that each additional adverse event placed children at a 52% greater risk for a psychiatric disorder as an adult, with sexual abuse associated with the greatest risk.
The findings showed that the association held even after controlling for shared genetic and environmental factors.
The results suggested that “interventions targeting ACEs, including primary prevention and enhanced access to evidence-based trauma therapies to individuals who experienced ACEs, may be associated with reduced risk of future psychopathology,” the investigators, with first author Hilda Björk Daníelsdóttir, MSc, of the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland, wrote.
The findings were published online on March 6 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Dose-Dependent Effect
Previous research has shown a robust link between childhood abuse and an increased risk for psychiatric disorders in adulthood, but evidence of this association in studies that adjust for familial confounding is “completely lacking,” the investigators wrote.
To learn more about how genetic factors may affect the relationship between ACEs and later psychiatric diagnoses, the investigators used data from the nationwide Swedish Twin Registry, which includes data on more than 25,000 identical and nonidentical twins.
The twin registry is linked to the Swedish National Patient Registry, which includes information on inpatient or outpatient psychiatric diagnoses after age 19.
The twins responded to a large web-based questionnaire about past-week depressive symptoms as a measure of current mental health and distinct types of ACEs including family violence, emotional abuse or neglect, physical neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, rape, and hate crime.
Three birth cohorts from the twin registry were surveyed between 2005 and 2016 and followed up in the national registry from age 19 until the end of 2016.
Among the sample of 25,000 twin pairs (15,000 female; mean age at assessment, 29 years), 9750 (39%) participants reported exposure to at least one ACE, while 2000 (8%) reported exposure to three or more ACEs. Most respondents — 61% — reported no ACE exposure.
More than 2300 participants received a psychiatric diagnosis as an adult. The incidence of any psychiatric disorder increased from 503 individuals (6.4%) among participants without any ACEs to 993 individuals (24.6%) among those reporting three or more.
At the cohort level, a greater number of ACEs was associated with increased odds of any psychiatric disorder in a dose-dependent manner, the investigators noted (odds ratio [OR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.48-1.57).
Untangling Genes and Environment
To determine how much of the increased risk for adult mental illness is due to ACEs and how much can be attributed to genetics and environment, the researchers focused on twin pairs where one had exposure to one type of ACEs and the other did not. This analysis revealed that the association remained but was attenuated. In identical twins, the effect of each ACE raised the odds of having a psychiatric condition by 20% (1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40), and for nonidentical twins, the odds increased by 29% (1.29; 95% CI, 1.14-1.47).
The weakening of the risk “suggests that familial confounding contributed to the association between ACEs and adult mental health outcomes,” the authors wrote.
Of all the ACEs, sexual abuse carried the highest risk for adult psychiatric disorders. Children who were exposed to sexual abuse, compared with those who were not, had up to a 200% higher risk for any psychiatric disorder in the following comparisons: Full cohort (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.68-3.56), dizygotic twin pairs (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.33-3.32), and monozygotic twin pairs (1.80; 95% CI, 1.04-3.11).
“Our results demonstrated that familial factors contributed to a lesser extent to the association between sexual abuse and adult psychiatric disorders,” the authors wrote.
One major limitation of the study was that ACEs were based on retrospective report and thus may be subject to recall bias. Also, the findings cannot be generalized to other countries or cultures.
The study was funded by the European Research Council, the Icelandic Center for Research, and the European Union Horizon 2020. Disclosures are noted in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AI May Help Docs Reply to Patients’ Portal Messages
Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.
Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.
Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
Large Language Model Used
All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.
The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.
Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.
Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time
AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)
The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
Quality of AI Responses
Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).
Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even — 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.
The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”
One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported.
Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.
Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.
Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
Large Language Model Used
All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.
The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.
Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.
Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time
AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)
The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
Quality of AI Responses
Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).
Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even — 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.
The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”
One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported.
Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.
Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.
Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
Large Language Model Used
All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.
The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.
Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.
Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time
AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)
The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
Quality of AI Responses
Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).
Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even — 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.
The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”
One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Diagnosis Denial: How Doctors Help Patients Accept Their Condition
Informing patients of a dire diagnosis — or even one that will require significant lifestyle changes — is never easy. But what’s even more challenging is when patients don’t accept their medical condition or a future that might include a difficult treatment protocol or even new medications or surgery.
“This is a challenging space to be in because this isn’t an exact science,” said Jack Jacoub, MD, medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Memorial in Fountain Valley, California. “There’s no formal training to deal with this — experience is your best teacher.”
Ultimately, helping a person reconceptualize what their future looks like is at the heart of every one of these conversations, said Sourav Sengupta, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. “As physicians, we’re charged with helping our patients navigate a difficult and challenging time in their life,” he told this news organization.
“It’s not infrequent that patients are struggling to rethink what it will be like to be a person with an illness that might be chronic and how this will change their life,” he said.
And because denial is commonly the initial way a patient might cope with absorbing news that’s hard to hear, you’ll need to be extremely patient and empathetic.
“The goal is to build trust with this person, including trust in you, the hospital itself, and the entire team treating the patient,” Dr. Jacoub said.
“A diagnosis, especially in my field of oncology, can be scary. Spending time explaining their prognosis is very important. This can’t be a rushed scenario.”
More advice on helping patients who are in denial about their medical condition:
Make Sure They Understand What’s Going on
In cardiology, it’s common for patients to be hospitalized when they first learn that they have a disease they must manage for the rest of their life, said Stephanie Saucier, MD, a noninvasive cardiologist and codirector of the Women’s Heart Wellness Program at Hartford Healthcare’s Heart and Vascular Institute.
“Especially after someone has had a heart attack, a stroke, or they had bypass or stents placed, I like to see what their understanding of the disease is,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them, ‘What do you understand about what happened to you’. It can get confusing when you’re in the hospital and are told a lot of information in a short period of time.”
Share the Data
If a patient remains resistant to the news of a diagnosis, sharing test results can be beneficial. “I’ll often say, ‘here are the scans; this is the path report; this is the bloodwork; this is your biopsy report; these are the things we have’,” Dr. Jacoub said.
“Yes, this is clinical, but it helps to communicate the information you have and do it with data. For example, I might add, ‘Would you like to see some of the things [results, scans, tests] we’re talking about today?’ This also helps establish trust.”
Help Them Wrap Their Mind Around a Lifelong Condition
It’s often challenging for patients to accept that what they think is a one-time health issue will affect them for a lifetime. “I use juvenile diabetes as a way to explain this,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them what they would do if, say, their child was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes.”
Of course, patients agree that they wouldn’t give a child insulin for only a brief period. They understand that the condition must be treated in the long term. This kind of analogy can help patients understand that they, too, have a disorder requiring lifelong treatment.
Be Ready to Respond
Dr. Sengupta says that it’s important to be prepared with an answer if your patient is challenging or suggests that the diagnosis is fake or that you don’t have their best interests in mind.
“It’s understandable that patients might feel frustrated and upset,” he said. “It’s challenging when somehow a patient doesn’t assume my best intent.”
They might say something like, “You’re trying to make more money” or “you’re a shill for a pharma company.” In that case, you must listen. Patiently explain, “I’m your doctor; I work for you; I’m most interested in you feeling healthy and well.”
Occasionally, you’ll need a thick skin when it comes to inaccurate, controversial, or conspiratorial conversations with patients.
Acknowledge Differences
News of an illness may clash with a person’s take on the world. “A cancer diagnosis, for example, may clash with religious beliefs or faith-based ideology about the healthcare system,” said Aaron Fletcher, MD, a board-certified otolaryngologist specializing in head and neck surgery at the Georgia Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Facial Plastic Surgery in Atlanta, Georgia.
“If you have a patient who is coming to you with these beliefs, you need to have a lot of empathy, patience, and good communication skills. It’s up to you to break through the initial doubt and do your best to explain things in layman’s terms.”
Find Mutual Ground
If your patient still denies their health issues, try to find one thing you can agree on regarding a long-term game plan. “I’ll say, ‘Can we at least agree to discuss this with other family members or people who care about you’?” Dr. Jacoub said.
“I always tell patients that loved ones are welcome to call me so long as they [the patient] give permission. Sometimes, this is all that it takes to get them to accept their health situation.”
Seven Ways to Cope With Diagnosis Denial
This news organization asked David Cutler, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician at Providence Saint John›s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, for tips in helping patients who are having a challenging time accepting their condition:
- Listen Actively. Allow the patient to express their feelings and concerns without judgment. Active listening can help them feel heard and understood, which may open the door to discussing their condition more openly.
- Provide Information. Offer factual information about their medical condition, treatment options, and the potential consequences of denial. Provide resources such as pamphlets, websites, or books that they can review at their own pace.
- Encourage Professional Help. You may want to suggest that your patient seek professional help from a therapist, counselor, or support group. A mental health professional can assist patients in processing their emotions and addressing their denial constructively.
- Involve Trusted Individuals. Enlist the support of trusted friends, family members, or healthcare professionals who can help reinforce the importance of facing their medical condition.
- Respect Autonomy. While it’s essential to encourage the person to accept their diagnosis, ultimately, the decision to get treatment lies with them. Respect their autonomy and avoid pushing them too hard, which could lead to resistance or further denial.
- Be Patient and Persistent. Overcoming denial is often a gradual process. Be patient and persistent in supporting the person, even if progress seems slow.
- Set Boundaries. It’s essential to set boundaries to protect your well-being. While you can offer support and encouragement, you cannot force someone to accept their medical condition. Recognize when your efforts are not being productive and take care of yourself in the process.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Informing patients of a dire diagnosis — or even one that will require significant lifestyle changes — is never easy. But what’s even more challenging is when patients don’t accept their medical condition or a future that might include a difficult treatment protocol or even new medications or surgery.
“This is a challenging space to be in because this isn’t an exact science,” said Jack Jacoub, MD, medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Memorial in Fountain Valley, California. “There’s no formal training to deal with this — experience is your best teacher.”
Ultimately, helping a person reconceptualize what their future looks like is at the heart of every one of these conversations, said Sourav Sengupta, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. “As physicians, we’re charged with helping our patients navigate a difficult and challenging time in their life,” he told this news organization.
“It’s not infrequent that patients are struggling to rethink what it will be like to be a person with an illness that might be chronic and how this will change their life,” he said.
And because denial is commonly the initial way a patient might cope with absorbing news that’s hard to hear, you’ll need to be extremely patient and empathetic.
“The goal is to build trust with this person, including trust in you, the hospital itself, and the entire team treating the patient,” Dr. Jacoub said.
“A diagnosis, especially in my field of oncology, can be scary. Spending time explaining their prognosis is very important. This can’t be a rushed scenario.”
More advice on helping patients who are in denial about their medical condition:
Make Sure They Understand What’s Going on
In cardiology, it’s common for patients to be hospitalized when they first learn that they have a disease they must manage for the rest of their life, said Stephanie Saucier, MD, a noninvasive cardiologist and codirector of the Women’s Heart Wellness Program at Hartford Healthcare’s Heart and Vascular Institute.
“Especially after someone has had a heart attack, a stroke, or they had bypass or stents placed, I like to see what their understanding of the disease is,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them, ‘What do you understand about what happened to you’. It can get confusing when you’re in the hospital and are told a lot of information in a short period of time.”
Share the Data
If a patient remains resistant to the news of a diagnosis, sharing test results can be beneficial. “I’ll often say, ‘here are the scans; this is the path report; this is the bloodwork; this is your biopsy report; these are the things we have’,” Dr. Jacoub said.
“Yes, this is clinical, but it helps to communicate the information you have and do it with data. For example, I might add, ‘Would you like to see some of the things [results, scans, tests] we’re talking about today?’ This also helps establish trust.”
Help Them Wrap Their Mind Around a Lifelong Condition
It’s often challenging for patients to accept that what they think is a one-time health issue will affect them for a lifetime. “I use juvenile diabetes as a way to explain this,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them what they would do if, say, their child was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes.”
Of course, patients agree that they wouldn’t give a child insulin for only a brief period. They understand that the condition must be treated in the long term. This kind of analogy can help patients understand that they, too, have a disorder requiring lifelong treatment.
Be Ready to Respond
Dr. Sengupta says that it’s important to be prepared with an answer if your patient is challenging or suggests that the diagnosis is fake or that you don’t have their best interests in mind.
“It’s understandable that patients might feel frustrated and upset,” he said. “It’s challenging when somehow a patient doesn’t assume my best intent.”
They might say something like, “You’re trying to make more money” or “you’re a shill for a pharma company.” In that case, you must listen. Patiently explain, “I’m your doctor; I work for you; I’m most interested in you feeling healthy and well.”
Occasionally, you’ll need a thick skin when it comes to inaccurate, controversial, or conspiratorial conversations with patients.
Acknowledge Differences
News of an illness may clash with a person’s take on the world. “A cancer diagnosis, for example, may clash with religious beliefs or faith-based ideology about the healthcare system,” said Aaron Fletcher, MD, a board-certified otolaryngologist specializing in head and neck surgery at the Georgia Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Facial Plastic Surgery in Atlanta, Georgia.
“If you have a patient who is coming to you with these beliefs, you need to have a lot of empathy, patience, and good communication skills. It’s up to you to break through the initial doubt and do your best to explain things in layman’s terms.”
Find Mutual Ground
If your patient still denies their health issues, try to find one thing you can agree on regarding a long-term game plan. “I’ll say, ‘Can we at least agree to discuss this with other family members or people who care about you’?” Dr. Jacoub said.
“I always tell patients that loved ones are welcome to call me so long as they [the patient] give permission. Sometimes, this is all that it takes to get them to accept their health situation.”
Seven Ways to Cope With Diagnosis Denial
This news organization asked David Cutler, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician at Providence Saint John›s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, for tips in helping patients who are having a challenging time accepting their condition:
- Listen Actively. Allow the patient to express their feelings and concerns without judgment. Active listening can help them feel heard and understood, which may open the door to discussing their condition more openly.
- Provide Information. Offer factual information about their medical condition, treatment options, and the potential consequences of denial. Provide resources such as pamphlets, websites, or books that they can review at their own pace.
- Encourage Professional Help. You may want to suggest that your patient seek professional help from a therapist, counselor, or support group. A mental health professional can assist patients in processing their emotions and addressing their denial constructively.
- Involve Trusted Individuals. Enlist the support of trusted friends, family members, or healthcare professionals who can help reinforce the importance of facing their medical condition.
- Respect Autonomy. While it’s essential to encourage the person to accept their diagnosis, ultimately, the decision to get treatment lies with them. Respect their autonomy and avoid pushing them too hard, which could lead to resistance or further denial.
- Be Patient and Persistent. Overcoming denial is often a gradual process. Be patient and persistent in supporting the person, even if progress seems slow.
- Set Boundaries. It’s essential to set boundaries to protect your well-being. While you can offer support and encouragement, you cannot force someone to accept their medical condition. Recognize when your efforts are not being productive and take care of yourself in the process.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Informing patients of a dire diagnosis — or even one that will require significant lifestyle changes — is never easy. But what’s even more challenging is when patients don’t accept their medical condition or a future that might include a difficult treatment protocol or even new medications or surgery.
“This is a challenging space to be in because this isn’t an exact science,” said Jack Jacoub, MD, medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Memorial in Fountain Valley, California. “There’s no formal training to deal with this — experience is your best teacher.”
Ultimately, helping a person reconceptualize what their future looks like is at the heart of every one of these conversations, said Sourav Sengupta, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. “As physicians, we’re charged with helping our patients navigate a difficult and challenging time in their life,” he told this news organization.
“It’s not infrequent that patients are struggling to rethink what it will be like to be a person with an illness that might be chronic and how this will change their life,” he said.
And because denial is commonly the initial way a patient might cope with absorbing news that’s hard to hear, you’ll need to be extremely patient and empathetic.
“The goal is to build trust with this person, including trust in you, the hospital itself, and the entire team treating the patient,” Dr. Jacoub said.
“A diagnosis, especially in my field of oncology, can be scary. Spending time explaining their prognosis is very important. This can’t be a rushed scenario.”
More advice on helping patients who are in denial about their medical condition:
Make Sure They Understand What’s Going on
In cardiology, it’s common for patients to be hospitalized when they first learn that they have a disease they must manage for the rest of their life, said Stephanie Saucier, MD, a noninvasive cardiologist and codirector of the Women’s Heart Wellness Program at Hartford Healthcare’s Heart and Vascular Institute.
“Especially after someone has had a heart attack, a stroke, or they had bypass or stents placed, I like to see what their understanding of the disease is,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them, ‘What do you understand about what happened to you’. It can get confusing when you’re in the hospital and are told a lot of information in a short period of time.”
Share the Data
If a patient remains resistant to the news of a diagnosis, sharing test results can be beneficial. “I’ll often say, ‘here are the scans; this is the path report; this is the bloodwork; this is your biopsy report; these are the things we have’,” Dr. Jacoub said.
“Yes, this is clinical, but it helps to communicate the information you have and do it with data. For example, I might add, ‘Would you like to see some of the things [results, scans, tests] we’re talking about today?’ This also helps establish trust.”
Help Them Wrap Their Mind Around a Lifelong Condition
It’s often challenging for patients to accept that what they think is a one-time health issue will affect them for a lifetime. “I use juvenile diabetes as a way to explain this,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them what they would do if, say, their child was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes.”
Of course, patients agree that they wouldn’t give a child insulin for only a brief period. They understand that the condition must be treated in the long term. This kind of analogy can help patients understand that they, too, have a disorder requiring lifelong treatment.
Be Ready to Respond
Dr. Sengupta says that it’s important to be prepared with an answer if your patient is challenging or suggests that the diagnosis is fake or that you don’t have their best interests in mind.
“It’s understandable that patients might feel frustrated and upset,” he said. “It’s challenging when somehow a patient doesn’t assume my best intent.”
They might say something like, “You’re trying to make more money” or “you’re a shill for a pharma company.” In that case, you must listen. Patiently explain, “I’m your doctor; I work for you; I’m most interested in you feeling healthy and well.”
Occasionally, you’ll need a thick skin when it comes to inaccurate, controversial, or conspiratorial conversations with patients.
Acknowledge Differences
News of an illness may clash with a person’s take on the world. “A cancer diagnosis, for example, may clash with religious beliefs or faith-based ideology about the healthcare system,” said Aaron Fletcher, MD, a board-certified otolaryngologist specializing in head and neck surgery at the Georgia Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Facial Plastic Surgery in Atlanta, Georgia.
“If you have a patient who is coming to you with these beliefs, you need to have a lot of empathy, patience, and good communication skills. It’s up to you to break through the initial doubt and do your best to explain things in layman’s terms.”
Find Mutual Ground
If your patient still denies their health issues, try to find one thing you can agree on regarding a long-term game plan. “I’ll say, ‘Can we at least agree to discuss this with other family members or people who care about you’?” Dr. Jacoub said.
“I always tell patients that loved ones are welcome to call me so long as they [the patient] give permission. Sometimes, this is all that it takes to get them to accept their health situation.”
Seven Ways to Cope With Diagnosis Denial
This news organization asked David Cutler, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician at Providence Saint John›s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, for tips in helping patients who are having a challenging time accepting their condition:
- Listen Actively. Allow the patient to express their feelings and concerns without judgment. Active listening can help them feel heard and understood, which may open the door to discussing their condition more openly.
- Provide Information. Offer factual information about their medical condition, treatment options, and the potential consequences of denial. Provide resources such as pamphlets, websites, or books that they can review at their own pace.
- Encourage Professional Help. You may want to suggest that your patient seek professional help from a therapist, counselor, or support group. A mental health professional can assist patients in processing their emotions and addressing their denial constructively.
- Involve Trusted Individuals. Enlist the support of trusted friends, family members, or healthcare professionals who can help reinforce the importance of facing their medical condition.
- Respect Autonomy. While it’s essential to encourage the person to accept their diagnosis, ultimately, the decision to get treatment lies with them. Respect their autonomy and avoid pushing them too hard, which could lead to resistance or further denial.
- Be Patient and Persistent. Overcoming denial is often a gradual process. Be patient and persistent in supporting the person, even if progress seems slow.
- Set Boundaries. It’s essential to set boundaries to protect your well-being. While you can offer support and encouragement, you cannot force someone to accept their medical condition. Recognize when your efforts are not being productive and take care of yourself in the process.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
What Do Sex Therapists Do? (Hint: It’s Not What You Think)
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Rachel S. Rubin, MD: We are here at the Harvard Continuing Medical Education Course in Orlando, Florida. It’s all about testosterone therapy and sexual medicine. I have with me today the wonderful Dr. Marianne Brandon, who is an amazing sex therapist. Could you introduce yourself?
Marianne Brandon, PhD: I am a clinical psychologist and sex therapist. I’ve been in practice for more than 25 years. I’m currently located in Sarasota. I have a Psychology Today blog called The Future of Intimacy, which I have a lot of fun with.
Dr. Rubin: It’s very important, when taking care of patients, that we work in a biopsychosocial model. Yes, we can fix erectile dysfunction. We can help with menopause symptoms and that helps sexual function. But what I find makes my patients able to live their best lives is when they have a team, including a mental health professional — often a sex therapist or a couples’ therapist — where they can learn communication skills. Why is it important for primary care doctors to talk to their patients about sex? My primary care doctor has never asked me about sex.
Dr. Brandon: People have more struggles than you realize. Sexual dysfunction correlates with emotional issues such as depression and anxiety, with medical problems, and with medication use. Chances are that your patients have some kind of sexual concern, even if that’s not to the degree that it would be classified as a sexual dysfunction.
But sexual concerns wreak havoc. Believing they have a sexual problem, they stop touching, they stop relating to their partner. It becomes a really big deal in their lives. If you can open the door for a conversation about sex with your patients, it could do them a great deal of good. It’s also good for the practitioner, because if your patients think they can talk with you about anything, that’s going to establish your relationship with them. Practitioners avoid these conversations because they don’t have the time or the training to offer help.
Dr. Rubin: You don’t have to know all the answers. You just have to show empathy and compassion and say, “I hear you.” That’s the magic in the doctor-patient relationship. We refer patients to specialists when we don’t know what to do. What happens when I send a patient to a sex therapist? Do they watch them have sex? Of course not, but everyone thinks that is what sex therapists do.
Dr. Brandon: Sex therapy is just like any other type of therapy, but we discuss sexual issues. And because just about anything that’s happening in your patient’s life can trickle down into the bedroom, we end up talking about a lot of stuff that’s not directly related to sex but ultimately impacts the patient’s sex life.
Dr. Rubin: It’s true. Most medical conditions that we treat — from diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and obesity to depression and anxiety — are strongly correlated with sexual health. We treat the underlying condition, but our patients don’t care about their A1c levels. They care about the fact that they cannot get aroused; their genitals don’t feel the same way they used to.
Dr. Brandon: I love that point because people make meaning out of their sexual concerns and dysfunction. Suddenly their body isn’t responding the way it used to. They think something’s wrong with them, or maybe they are with the wrong partner. This meaning becomes very powerful in their mind and perpetuates the sexual problem.
Dr. Rubin: First and foremost, we are educators. We can say, “You have pretty out-of-control diabetes,” or, “You’re a smoker, which can affect the health of your genitals. Have you noticed any issues going on there?” If you don’t ask, patients will not bring up their concerns with their doctors.
So how do people find a sex therapist?
Dr. Brandon: There are a few fabulous organizations that provide on their websites ways to find a therapist: the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) and Sex Therapy and Research (STAR). Giving patients this information is a huge intervention.
Other places to find a therapist include the International Society for Sexual Medicine, and the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health.
Since COVID, many therapists have gone virtual. Encourage your patients to look within their states to find options for therapists and psychologists. Recent legislation allows psychologists who have signed up for PSYPACT to practice almost throughout the entire United States. We used to think if we didn’t have a therapist in the community, we couldn’t make a referral. That›s not the case anymore.
Dr. Rubin: All doctors are really sexual medicine doctors. We can change the whole world by giving our patients a better quality of life.
Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, disclosed ties to Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Rachel S. Rubin, MD: We are here at the Harvard Continuing Medical Education Course in Orlando, Florida. It’s all about testosterone therapy and sexual medicine. I have with me today the wonderful Dr. Marianne Brandon, who is an amazing sex therapist. Could you introduce yourself?
Marianne Brandon, PhD: I am a clinical psychologist and sex therapist. I’ve been in practice for more than 25 years. I’m currently located in Sarasota. I have a Psychology Today blog called The Future of Intimacy, which I have a lot of fun with.
Dr. Rubin: It’s very important, when taking care of patients, that we work in a biopsychosocial model. Yes, we can fix erectile dysfunction. We can help with menopause symptoms and that helps sexual function. But what I find makes my patients able to live their best lives is when they have a team, including a mental health professional — often a sex therapist or a couples’ therapist — where they can learn communication skills. Why is it important for primary care doctors to talk to their patients about sex? My primary care doctor has never asked me about sex.
Dr. Brandon: People have more struggles than you realize. Sexual dysfunction correlates with emotional issues such as depression and anxiety, with medical problems, and with medication use. Chances are that your patients have some kind of sexual concern, even if that’s not to the degree that it would be classified as a sexual dysfunction.
But sexual concerns wreak havoc. Believing they have a sexual problem, they stop touching, they stop relating to their partner. It becomes a really big deal in their lives. If you can open the door for a conversation about sex with your patients, it could do them a great deal of good. It’s also good for the practitioner, because if your patients think they can talk with you about anything, that’s going to establish your relationship with them. Practitioners avoid these conversations because they don’t have the time or the training to offer help.
Dr. Rubin: You don’t have to know all the answers. You just have to show empathy and compassion and say, “I hear you.” That’s the magic in the doctor-patient relationship. We refer patients to specialists when we don’t know what to do. What happens when I send a patient to a sex therapist? Do they watch them have sex? Of course not, but everyone thinks that is what sex therapists do.
Dr. Brandon: Sex therapy is just like any other type of therapy, but we discuss sexual issues. And because just about anything that’s happening in your patient’s life can trickle down into the bedroom, we end up talking about a lot of stuff that’s not directly related to sex but ultimately impacts the patient’s sex life.
Dr. Rubin: It’s true. Most medical conditions that we treat — from diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and obesity to depression and anxiety — are strongly correlated with sexual health. We treat the underlying condition, but our patients don’t care about their A1c levels. They care about the fact that they cannot get aroused; their genitals don’t feel the same way they used to.
Dr. Brandon: I love that point because people make meaning out of their sexual concerns and dysfunction. Suddenly their body isn’t responding the way it used to. They think something’s wrong with them, or maybe they are with the wrong partner. This meaning becomes very powerful in their mind and perpetuates the sexual problem.
Dr. Rubin: First and foremost, we are educators. We can say, “You have pretty out-of-control diabetes,” or, “You’re a smoker, which can affect the health of your genitals. Have you noticed any issues going on there?” If you don’t ask, patients will not bring up their concerns with their doctors.
So how do people find a sex therapist?
Dr. Brandon: There are a few fabulous organizations that provide on their websites ways to find a therapist: the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) and Sex Therapy and Research (STAR). Giving patients this information is a huge intervention.
Other places to find a therapist include the International Society for Sexual Medicine, and the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health.
Since COVID, many therapists have gone virtual. Encourage your patients to look within their states to find options for therapists and psychologists. Recent legislation allows psychologists who have signed up for PSYPACT to practice almost throughout the entire United States. We used to think if we didn’t have a therapist in the community, we couldn’t make a referral. That›s not the case anymore.
Dr. Rubin: All doctors are really sexual medicine doctors. We can change the whole world by giving our patients a better quality of life.
Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, disclosed ties to Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Rachel S. Rubin, MD: We are here at the Harvard Continuing Medical Education Course in Orlando, Florida. It’s all about testosterone therapy and sexual medicine. I have with me today the wonderful Dr. Marianne Brandon, who is an amazing sex therapist. Could you introduce yourself?
Marianne Brandon, PhD: I am a clinical psychologist and sex therapist. I’ve been in practice for more than 25 years. I’m currently located in Sarasota. I have a Psychology Today blog called The Future of Intimacy, which I have a lot of fun with.
Dr. Rubin: It’s very important, when taking care of patients, that we work in a biopsychosocial model. Yes, we can fix erectile dysfunction. We can help with menopause symptoms and that helps sexual function. But what I find makes my patients able to live their best lives is when they have a team, including a mental health professional — often a sex therapist or a couples’ therapist — where they can learn communication skills. Why is it important for primary care doctors to talk to their patients about sex? My primary care doctor has never asked me about sex.
Dr. Brandon: People have more struggles than you realize. Sexual dysfunction correlates with emotional issues such as depression and anxiety, with medical problems, and with medication use. Chances are that your patients have some kind of sexual concern, even if that’s not to the degree that it would be classified as a sexual dysfunction.
But sexual concerns wreak havoc. Believing they have a sexual problem, they stop touching, they stop relating to their partner. It becomes a really big deal in their lives. If you can open the door for a conversation about sex with your patients, it could do them a great deal of good. It’s also good for the practitioner, because if your patients think they can talk with you about anything, that’s going to establish your relationship with them. Practitioners avoid these conversations because they don’t have the time or the training to offer help.
Dr. Rubin: You don’t have to know all the answers. You just have to show empathy and compassion and say, “I hear you.” That’s the magic in the doctor-patient relationship. We refer patients to specialists when we don’t know what to do. What happens when I send a patient to a sex therapist? Do they watch them have sex? Of course not, but everyone thinks that is what sex therapists do.
Dr. Brandon: Sex therapy is just like any other type of therapy, but we discuss sexual issues. And because just about anything that’s happening in your patient’s life can trickle down into the bedroom, we end up talking about a lot of stuff that’s not directly related to sex but ultimately impacts the patient’s sex life.
Dr. Rubin: It’s true. Most medical conditions that we treat — from diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and obesity to depression and anxiety — are strongly correlated with sexual health. We treat the underlying condition, but our patients don’t care about their A1c levels. They care about the fact that they cannot get aroused; their genitals don’t feel the same way they used to.
Dr. Brandon: I love that point because people make meaning out of their sexual concerns and dysfunction. Suddenly their body isn’t responding the way it used to. They think something’s wrong with them, or maybe they are with the wrong partner. This meaning becomes very powerful in their mind and perpetuates the sexual problem.
Dr. Rubin: First and foremost, we are educators. We can say, “You have pretty out-of-control diabetes,” or, “You’re a smoker, which can affect the health of your genitals. Have you noticed any issues going on there?” If you don’t ask, patients will not bring up their concerns with their doctors.
So how do people find a sex therapist?
Dr. Brandon: There are a few fabulous organizations that provide on their websites ways to find a therapist: the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) and Sex Therapy and Research (STAR). Giving patients this information is a huge intervention.
Other places to find a therapist include the International Society for Sexual Medicine, and the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health.
Since COVID, many therapists have gone virtual. Encourage your patients to look within their states to find options for therapists and psychologists. Recent legislation allows psychologists who have signed up for PSYPACT to practice almost throughout the entire United States. We used to think if we didn’t have a therapist in the community, we couldn’t make a referral. That›s not the case anymore.
Dr. Rubin: All doctors are really sexual medicine doctors. We can change the whole world by giving our patients a better quality of life.
Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, disclosed ties to Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Issues New Guidance for Early Alzheimer’s Drug Development
The agency’s draft guidance is the first update since 2018 for products aimed at the earliest stages of the disease, which the FDA defines as stages 1, 2, and 3. Such guidance — when it is made final, after public comment closes in mid-May — is considered a template that will guide discussions between the FDA and drug makers and help determine the structure of clinical trials.
It is considered the FDA’s “current thinking on the topic,” and should not be construed as “legally enforceable responsibilities,” the FDA document, which was published March 12, noted.
In a statement to this news agency, the Alzheimer’s Association said it “is fully supportive of the FDA’s revised draft guidance.”
The association is enthusiastic about the agency’s encouragement of “the use of biologically based diagnostic criteria that are grounded in a contemporary understanding of the pathophysiology and evolution” of Alzheimer’s disease, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in the statement.
Dr. Edelmayer noted that an Alzheimer’s Association work group is “leading the process of defining and building consensus for biologically based diagnostic and staging criteria for Alzheimer’s disease.
A New POV
The FDA noted that “it is expected that biomarker evidence of disease will establish the reliable diagnosis of subjects in trials of early Alzheimer’s disease.” This is crucial when many individuals in the earliest phases of Alzheimer’s disease may have mild cognitive decline but no functional decline, the agency added.
In 2018, the FDA suggested that biomarker evidence of disease might only play a role in identifying trial participants but should not be a defining element.
In another shift away from 2018 guidance, the FDA gave more credence to surrogate endpoints as measures of a drug’s efficacy for early disease.
“Surrogate endpoints or intermediate clinical endpoints that do not directly measure clinical benefit but that are considered reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit may support an accelerated approval,” the agency noted.
The FDA added that it “has considered a reduction of the brain amyloid beta burden, as assessed by positron emission tomography, to be a surrogate endpoint that is ‘reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit,’ ” noting that this endpoint was used as a basis for accelerated approval for the monoclonal antibodies lecanemab (Leqembi) and aducanumab (Aduhelm).
“The FDA has determined there is substantial evidence that reduction of amyloid beta plaques in the brain is reasonably likely to predict important clinical benefits to patients,” said Dr. Edelmayer, adding the agency’s “determination is correct.”
However, she noted, “’reasonably likely’ is not a guarantee, and long-term, real-world data in representative populations is required to provide more conclusive evidence,” which is why the FDA requires post-approval studies for accelerated approvals.
A Faster Pathway to Approval
The agency noted that clinical outcomes should also be measured in trials of products seeking accelerated approval, “to assess early clinical changes that may potentially provide support for any changes observed on biomarkers.”
Indeed, it’s not always a slam-dunk for drugs that may show positive effects on biomarkers. The FDA is taking a closer look at donanemab for early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease. Patients were enrolled based on PET-positive amyloid or tau, but efficacy was evaluated based on cognition and functional measures.
Earlier this month the agency postponed an approval decision and instead will convene an advisory panel meeting to assess overall safety and efficacy and the unique trial design, which allowed patients to stop treatment based on amyloid levels.
The FDA emphasized throughout its guidance document that it is trying to find a faster pathway to approval for therapies for early Alzheimer’s disease. If conventional approaches for testing therapeutics were used in early disease it might “take longer to establish a clinically meaningful treatment effect” because of the “minimal or absent cognitive and functional deficits seen in those stages of the disease,” the agency wrote.
The use of surrogate endpoints “may allow for shorter trial durations,” the FDA added.
Dr. Edelmayer applauded the agency’s efforts to shorten the process. “Finding ways to make the trials shorter and easier to conduct, without sacrificing scientific rigor or patient safety, is a very worthwhile thing to do,” she said.
The FDA noted that a key principle in developing guidance for early Alzheimer’s disease therapies is that treatment “must begin before there are overt clinical symptoms.”
“We enthusiastically support this idea,” said Dr. Edelmeyer. “Prevention of Alzheimer’s dementia is possible through changing the course, stopping the progression, and eventually interrupting the causes of the disease, most likely through a combination of lifestyle/behavior choices and pharmaceutical intervention,” she added.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency’s draft guidance is the first update since 2018 for products aimed at the earliest stages of the disease, which the FDA defines as stages 1, 2, and 3. Such guidance — when it is made final, after public comment closes in mid-May — is considered a template that will guide discussions between the FDA and drug makers and help determine the structure of clinical trials.
It is considered the FDA’s “current thinking on the topic,” and should not be construed as “legally enforceable responsibilities,” the FDA document, which was published March 12, noted.
In a statement to this news agency, the Alzheimer’s Association said it “is fully supportive of the FDA’s revised draft guidance.”
The association is enthusiastic about the agency’s encouragement of “the use of biologically based diagnostic criteria that are grounded in a contemporary understanding of the pathophysiology and evolution” of Alzheimer’s disease, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in the statement.
Dr. Edelmayer noted that an Alzheimer’s Association work group is “leading the process of defining and building consensus for biologically based diagnostic and staging criteria for Alzheimer’s disease.
A New POV
The FDA noted that “it is expected that biomarker evidence of disease will establish the reliable diagnosis of subjects in trials of early Alzheimer’s disease.” This is crucial when many individuals in the earliest phases of Alzheimer’s disease may have mild cognitive decline but no functional decline, the agency added.
In 2018, the FDA suggested that biomarker evidence of disease might only play a role in identifying trial participants but should not be a defining element.
In another shift away from 2018 guidance, the FDA gave more credence to surrogate endpoints as measures of a drug’s efficacy for early disease.
“Surrogate endpoints or intermediate clinical endpoints that do not directly measure clinical benefit but that are considered reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit may support an accelerated approval,” the agency noted.
The FDA added that it “has considered a reduction of the brain amyloid beta burden, as assessed by positron emission tomography, to be a surrogate endpoint that is ‘reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit,’ ” noting that this endpoint was used as a basis for accelerated approval for the monoclonal antibodies lecanemab (Leqembi) and aducanumab (Aduhelm).
“The FDA has determined there is substantial evidence that reduction of amyloid beta plaques in the brain is reasonably likely to predict important clinical benefits to patients,” said Dr. Edelmayer, adding the agency’s “determination is correct.”
However, she noted, “’reasonably likely’ is not a guarantee, and long-term, real-world data in representative populations is required to provide more conclusive evidence,” which is why the FDA requires post-approval studies for accelerated approvals.
A Faster Pathway to Approval
The agency noted that clinical outcomes should also be measured in trials of products seeking accelerated approval, “to assess early clinical changes that may potentially provide support for any changes observed on biomarkers.”
Indeed, it’s not always a slam-dunk for drugs that may show positive effects on biomarkers. The FDA is taking a closer look at donanemab for early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease. Patients were enrolled based on PET-positive amyloid or tau, but efficacy was evaluated based on cognition and functional measures.
Earlier this month the agency postponed an approval decision and instead will convene an advisory panel meeting to assess overall safety and efficacy and the unique trial design, which allowed patients to stop treatment based on amyloid levels.
The FDA emphasized throughout its guidance document that it is trying to find a faster pathway to approval for therapies for early Alzheimer’s disease. If conventional approaches for testing therapeutics were used in early disease it might “take longer to establish a clinically meaningful treatment effect” because of the “minimal or absent cognitive and functional deficits seen in those stages of the disease,” the agency wrote.
The use of surrogate endpoints “may allow for shorter trial durations,” the FDA added.
Dr. Edelmayer applauded the agency’s efforts to shorten the process. “Finding ways to make the trials shorter and easier to conduct, without sacrificing scientific rigor or patient safety, is a very worthwhile thing to do,” she said.
The FDA noted that a key principle in developing guidance for early Alzheimer’s disease therapies is that treatment “must begin before there are overt clinical symptoms.”
“We enthusiastically support this idea,” said Dr. Edelmeyer. “Prevention of Alzheimer’s dementia is possible through changing the course, stopping the progression, and eventually interrupting the causes of the disease, most likely through a combination of lifestyle/behavior choices and pharmaceutical intervention,” she added.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency’s draft guidance is the first update since 2018 for products aimed at the earliest stages of the disease, which the FDA defines as stages 1, 2, and 3. Such guidance — when it is made final, after public comment closes in mid-May — is considered a template that will guide discussions between the FDA and drug makers and help determine the structure of clinical trials.
It is considered the FDA’s “current thinking on the topic,” and should not be construed as “legally enforceable responsibilities,” the FDA document, which was published March 12, noted.
In a statement to this news agency, the Alzheimer’s Association said it “is fully supportive of the FDA’s revised draft guidance.”
The association is enthusiastic about the agency’s encouragement of “the use of biologically based diagnostic criteria that are grounded in a contemporary understanding of the pathophysiology and evolution” of Alzheimer’s disease, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in the statement.
Dr. Edelmayer noted that an Alzheimer’s Association work group is “leading the process of defining and building consensus for biologically based diagnostic and staging criteria for Alzheimer’s disease.
A New POV
The FDA noted that “it is expected that biomarker evidence of disease will establish the reliable diagnosis of subjects in trials of early Alzheimer’s disease.” This is crucial when many individuals in the earliest phases of Alzheimer’s disease may have mild cognitive decline but no functional decline, the agency added.
In 2018, the FDA suggested that biomarker evidence of disease might only play a role in identifying trial participants but should not be a defining element.
In another shift away from 2018 guidance, the FDA gave more credence to surrogate endpoints as measures of a drug’s efficacy for early disease.
“Surrogate endpoints or intermediate clinical endpoints that do not directly measure clinical benefit but that are considered reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit may support an accelerated approval,” the agency noted.
The FDA added that it “has considered a reduction of the brain amyloid beta burden, as assessed by positron emission tomography, to be a surrogate endpoint that is ‘reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit,’ ” noting that this endpoint was used as a basis for accelerated approval for the monoclonal antibodies lecanemab (Leqembi) and aducanumab (Aduhelm).
“The FDA has determined there is substantial evidence that reduction of amyloid beta plaques in the brain is reasonably likely to predict important clinical benefits to patients,” said Dr. Edelmayer, adding the agency’s “determination is correct.”
However, she noted, “’reasonably likely’ is not a guarantee, and long-term, real-world data in representative populations is required to provide more conclusive evidence,” which is why the FDA requires post-approval studies for accelerated approvals.
A Faster Pathway to Approval
The agency noted that clinical outcomes should also be measured in trials of products seeking accelerated approval, “to assess early clinical changes that may potentially provide support for any changes observed on biomarkers.”
Indeed, it’s not always a slam-dunk for drugs that may show positive effects on biomarkers. The FDA is taking a closer look at donanemab for early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease. Patients were enrolled based on PET-positive amyloid or tau, but efficacy was evaluated based on cognition and functional measures.
Earlier this month the agency postponed an approval decision and instead will convene an advisory panel meeting to assess overall safety and efficacy and the unique trial design, which allowed patients to stop treatment based on amyloid levels.
The FDA emphasized throughout its guidance document that it is trying to find a faster pathway to approval for therapies for early Alzheimer’s disease. If conventional approaches for testing therapeutics were used in early disease it might “take longer to establish a clinically meaningful treatment effect” because of the “minimal or absent cognitive and functional deficits seen in those stages of the disease,” the agency wrote.
The use of surrogate endpoints “may allow for shorter trial durations,” the FDA added.
Dr. Edelmayer applauded the agency’s efforts to shorten the process. “Finding ways to make the trials shorter and easier to conduct, without sacrificing scientific rigor or patient safety, is a very worthwhile thing to do,” she said.
The FDA noted that a key principle in developing guidance for early Alzheimer’s disease therapies is that treatment “must begin before there are overt clinical symptoms.”
“We enthusiastically support this idea,” said Dr. Edelmeyer. “Prevention of Alzheimer’s dementia is possible through changing the course, stopping the progression, and eventually interrupting the causes of the disease, most likely through a combination of lifestyle/behavior choices and pharmaceutical intervention,” she added.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Methylphenidate Linked to Small Increase in CV Event Risk
TOPLINE:
Methylphenidate was associated with a small increased risk for cardiovascular events in individuals taking the drug for more than 6 months in a new cohort study.
METHODOLOGY:
- The retrospective, population-based cohort study was based on national Swedish registry data and included 26,710 patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) aged 12-60 years (median age 20) who had been prescribed methylphenidate between 2007 and 2012. They were each matched on birth date, sex, and county with up to 10 nonusers without ADHD (a total of 225,672 controls).
- Rates of cardiovascular events, including ischemic heart disease, venous thromboembolism, heart failure, or tachyarrhythmias 1 year before methylphenidate treatment and 6 months after treatment initiation were compared between individuals receiving methylphenidate and matched controls using a Bayesian within-individual design.
TAKEAWAY:
- The overall incidence of cardiovascular events was 1.51 per 10,000 person-weeks for individuals receiving methylphenidate and 0.77 for the matched controls.
- Individuals taking methylphenidate had a 70% posterior probability for a greater than 10% increased risk for cardiovascular events than controls and a 49% posterior probability for an increased risk larger than 20%.
- No difference was found in this risk between individuals with and without a history of cardiovascular disease.
IN PRACTICE:
The researchers concluded that these results support a small (10%) increased risk for cardiovascular events in individuals receiving methylphenidate compared with matched controls after 6 months of treatment. The probability of finding a difference in risk between users and nonusers decreased when considering risk for 20% or larger, with no evidence of differences between those with and without a history of cardiovascular disease. They said the findings suggest the decision to initiate methylphenidate should incorporate considerations of potential adverse cardiovascular effects among the broader benefits and risks for treatment for individual patients.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Miguel Garcia-Argibay, PhD, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open on March 6.
LIMITATIONS:
The data were observational, and thus, causality could not be inferred. Lack of information on methylphenidate dose meant that it was not possible to assess a dose effect. Compliance with the medication was also not known, and the association may therefore have been underestimated. The findings of this study were based on data collected from a Swedish population, which may not be representative of other populations.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Methylphenidate was associated with a small increased risk for cardiovascular events in individuals taking the drug for more than 6 months in a new cohort study.
METHODOLOGY:
- The retrospective, population-based cohort study was based on national Swedish registry data and included 26,710 patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) aged 12-60 years (median age 20) who had been prescribed methylphenidate between 2007 and 2012. They were each matched on birth date, sex, and county with up to 10 nonusers without ADHD (a total of 225,672 controls).
- Rates of cardiovascular events, including ischemic heart disease, venous thromboembolism, heart failure, or tachyarrhythmias 1 year before methylphenidate treatment and 6 months after treatment initiation were compared between individuals receiving methylphenidate and matched controls using a Bayesian within-individual design.
TAKEAWAY:
- The overall incidence of cardiovascular events was 1.51 per 10,000 person-weeks for individuals receiving methylphenidate and 0.77 for the matched controls.
- Individuals taking methylphenidate had a 70% posterior probability for a greater than 10% increased risk for cardiovascular events than controls and a 49% posterior probability for an increased risk larger than 20%.
- No difference was found in this risk between individuals with and without a history of cardiovascular disease.
IN PRACTICE:
The researchers concluded that these results support a small (10%) increased risk for cardiovascular events in individuals receiving methylphenidate compared with matched controls after 6 months of treatment. The probability of finding a difference in risk between users and nonusers decreased when considering risk for 20% or larger, with no evidence of differences between those with and without a history of cardiovascular disease. They said the findings suggest the decision to initiate methylphenidate should incorporate considerations of potential adverse cardiovascular effects among the broader benefits and risks for treatment for individual patients.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Miguel Garcia-Argibay, PhD, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open on March 6.
LIMITATIONS:
The data were observational, and thus, causality could not be inferred. Lack of information on methylphenidate dose meant that it was not possible to assess a dose effect. Compliance with the medication was also not known, and the association may therefore have been underestimated. The findings of this study were based on data collected from a Swedish population, which may not be representative of other populations.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Methylphenidate was associated with a small increased risk for cardiovascular events in individuals taking the drug for more than 6 months in a new cohort study.
METHODOLOGY:
- The retrospective, population-based cohort study was based on national Swedish registry data and included 26,710 patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) aged 12-60 years (median age 20) who had been prescribed methylphenidate between 2007 and 2012. They were each matched on birth date, sex, and county with up to 10 nonusers without ADHD (a total of 225,672 controls).
- Rates of cardiovascular events, including ischemic heart disease, venous thromboembolism, heart failure, or tachyarrhythmias 1 year before methylphenidate treatment and 6 months after treatment initiation were compared between individuals receiving methylphenidate and matched controls using a Bayesian within-individual design.
TAKEAWAY:
- The overall incidence of cardiovascular events was 1.51 per 10,000 person-weeks for individuals receiving methylphenidate and 0.77 for the matched controls.
- Individuals taking methylphenidate had a 70% posterior probability for a greater than 10% increased risk for cardiovascular events than controls and a 49% posterior probability for an increased risk larger than 20%.
- No difference was found in this risk between individuals with and without a history of cardiovascular disease.
IN PRACTICE:
The researchers concluded that these results support a small (10%) increased risk for cardiovascular events in individuals receiving methylphenidate compared with matched controls after 6 months of treatment. The probability of finding a difference in risk between users and nonusers decreased when considering risk for 20% or larger, with no evidence of differences between those with and without a history of cardiovascular disease. They said the findings suggest the decision to initiate methylphenidate should incorporate considerations of potential adverse cardiovascular effects among the broader benefits and risks for treatment for individual patients.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Miguel Garcia-Argibay, PhD, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open on March 6.
LIMITATIONS:
The data were observational, and thus, causality could not be inferred. Lack of information on methylphenidate dose meant that it was not possible to assess a dose effect. Compliance with the medication was also not known, and the association may therefore have been underestimated. The findings of this study were based on data collected from a Swedish population, which may not be representative of other populations.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Can Treating Depression Mitigate CVD Risk?
TOPLINE:
Depression is linked to a significantly increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly in women, new data from a large retrospective cohort study show.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed health insurance claims from more than 4 million Japanese patients filed between 2005 and 2022.
- Participants were 18-75 (median age, 44) without a history of CVD or stroke, heart failure, or atrial fibrillation.
- Investigators followed participants for a mean period of 2.5-3.5 years to observe the number of CVD events in those who had a diagnosis of depression.
- During the follow-up period, there were 119,000 CVD events in men (14 per 10,000 person-years) and 61,800 CVD events in women (111 per 10,000 person-years).
TAKEAWAY:
- Compared with women without depression, those with depression had a 64% higher risk for CVD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64), while men with depression had a 39% higher risk for CVD vs their counterparts without depression (HR, 1.39; P < .001).
- This association was significant even after controlling for various factors such as body mass index, diabetes, smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical inactivity.
- Investigators offered several theories about the increased risk for CVD in women with depression, including how depression during hormonal shifts can contribute to a greater impact on cardiovascular health.
IN PRACTICE:
“Healthcare professionals must recognize the important role of depression in the development of CVD and emphasize the importance of a comprehensive, patient-centered approach to its prevention and management,” study author Hidehiro Kaneko, MD, said in a press release. “Assessing the risk of CVD in depressed patients and treating and preventing depression may lead to a decrease of CVD cases.”
SOURCE:
Keitaro Senoo, MD, of the Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan, led the study, which was published online on March 12 in JACC: Asia.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is observational, so causality between depression and subsequent CVD events cannot be established. In addition, depression severity is unknown.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, Japan, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan. There were no disclosures reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Depression is linked to a significantly increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly in women, new data from a large retrospective cohort study show.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed health insurance claims from more than 4 million Japanese patients filed between 2005 and 2022.
- Participants were 18-75 (median age, 44) without a history of CVD or stroke, heart failure, or atrial fibrillation.
- Investigators followed participants for a mean period of 2.5-3.5 years to observe the number of CVD events in those who had a diagnosis of depression.
- During the follow-up period, there were 119,000 CVD events in men (14 per 10,000 person-years) and 61,800 CVD events in women (111 per 10,000 person-years).
TAKEAWAY:
- Compared with women without depression, those with depression had a 64% higher risk for CVD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64), while men with depression had a 39% higher risk for CVD vs their counterparts without depression (HR, 1.39; P < .001).
- This association was significant even after controlling for various factors such as body mass index, diabetes, smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical inactivity.
- Investigators offered several theories about the increased risk for CVD in women with depression, including how depression during hormonal shifts can contribute to a greater impact on cardiovascular health.
IN PRACTICE:
“Healthcare professionals must recognize the important role of depression in the development of CVD and emphasize the importance of a comprehensive, patient-centered approach to its prevention and management,” study author Hidehiro Kaneko, MD, said in a press release. “Assessing the risk of CVD in depressed patients and treating and preventing depression may lead to a decrease of CVD cases.”
SOURCE:
Keitaro Senoo, MD, of the Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan, led the study, which was published online on March 12 in JACC: Asia.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is observational, so causality between depression and subsequent CVD events cannot be established. In addition, depression severity is unknown.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, Japan, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan. There were no disclosures reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Depression is linked to a significantly increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly in women, new data from a large retrospective cohort study show.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed health insurance claims from more than 4 million Japanese patients filed between 2005 and 2022.
- Participants were 18-75 (median age, 44) without a history of CVD or stroke, heart failure, or atrial fibrillation.
- Investigators followed participants for a mean period of 2.5-3.5 years to observe the number of CVD events in those who had a diagnosis of depression.
- During the follow-up period, there were 119,000 CVD events in men (14 per 10,000 person-years) and 61,800 CVD events in women (111 per 10,000 person-years).
TAKEAWAY:
- Compared with women without depression, those with depression had a 64% higher risk for CVD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64), while men with depression had a 39% higher risk for CVD vs their counterparts without depression (HR, 1.39; P < .001).
- This association was significant even after controlling for various factors such as body mass index, diabetes, smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical inactivity.
- Investigators offered several theories about the increased risk for CVD in women with depression, including how depression during hormonal shifts can contribute to a greater impact on cardiovascular health.
IN PRACTICE:
“Healthcare professionals must recognize the important role of depression in the development of CVD and emphasize the importance of a comprehensive, patient-centered approach to its prevention and management,” study author Hidehiro Kaneko, MD, said in a press release. “Assessing the risk of CVD in depressed patients and treating and preventing depression may lead to a decrease of CVD cases.”
SOURCE:
Keitaro Senoo, MD, of the Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan, led the study, which was published online on March 12 in JACC: Asia.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is observational, so causality between depression and subsequent CVD events cannot be established. In addition, depression severity is unknown.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, Japan, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan. There were no disclosures reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Paid Parental Leave: Impact on Maternal Mental Health and Child Wellbeing
Maternal mental health has a profound impact on the health and wellbeing of the child. Since the onset of the pandemic, rates of postpartum depression have increased, affecting an estimated 1 in 5 women.1 Numerous studies show the impact of postpartum depression on the newborn child across multiple domains, from bonding to healthy weight gain to meeting developmental milestones.
While new medications are being studied and approved to specifically target postpartum depression, these treatments are inaccessible to many because of high costs and long wait lists. Beyond medication, structural changes such as paid parental leave have been shown to have a substantial impact on maternal mental health, thus impacting the health of children as well.
Implications for Mothers and Children
Psychiatric diagnoses such as postpartum depression are on the rise.1,2 This is likely attributable to a combination of factors, including increased isolation since the start of the pandemic, worsening health inequities across race and socioeconomic status, and difficulty accessing mental health care.3-5 The effect that postpartum depression has on the family is significant for the newborn as well as other children in the home.
Data suggest that postpartum depression impacts both the physical and mental health of the child. Infants of mothers with postpartum depression may experience challenges with weight gain, decreased breastfeeding, sleep disruptions, and delays in achieving developmental milestones.6-9 They may also show decreased maternal infant bonding, challenges with cognitive development including language and IQ, and increased risk of behavioral disturbances.10,11 These effects are likely attributable to a combination of factors, including decreased maternal responsiveness to infant cues.7,12 Many of these effects are mediated by the chronicity and severity of depressive symptoms, suggesting the importance of screening and treatment of postpartum depression.10,11 However, treatment for postpartum depression can be difficult to access, particularly given the increased level of need.
It is therefore critical to consider what structural interventions and policy changes can decrease the risk of developing postpartum depression. Data consistently show that access to paid parental leave improves maternal mental health outcomes. Among patients with access to parental leave, research shows that paid leave of longer duration, at least 2-3 months, is the most protective.13 Studies have identified decreased depressive symptoms, decreased stress, decreased use of mental health services, and decreased hospital admissions among women with longer parental leave.13 The positive effects of paid parental leave on maternal mental health can extend beyond the postpartum period, solidifying its impact on the long-term health outcomes of both mother and child.13
Advocacy Is Imperative
In 2024, the United States is the only high-income country, and one of only seven countries in the world, that does not guarantee access to paid parental leave. The Family Medical Leave Act is a 31-year-old federal law that requires some employers to provide unpaid leave to eligible employees. It is narrow in scope, and it excludes many low-wage workers and LGBTQ+ families. Thirteen states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington — as well as the District of Columbia, have enacted their own paid leave policies. However, there are no federal laws requiring access to paid parental leave. As of 2023, fewer than 30% of workers in the United States have access to paid parental leave, and only 16% of employees in the service industry have access to paid parental leave.14 This disproportionately affects families from lower income backgrounds, and further exacerbates socioeconomic, racial, and gender inequities. From a health systems lens, this increases risk of adverse maternal mental health outcomes among those who already have decreased access to mental health services, worsening health disparities.
Paid parental leave has strong public support across party lines, with polls showing the majority of Americans support comprehensive paid family and medical leave.15 Despite this, the United States has failed to enact legislation on this issue since 1993. Multiple attempts at expanding leave have not come to fruition. In the past year, both the house and the senate have announced bipartisan efforts to expand access to paid parental leave. However, legislative frameworks are still in early stages.
As physicians, it is crucial that we advocate for expanded access to paid parental leave. We must use our expertise to speak to the impact that paid parental leave can have on the mental and physical health of parents, children, and families. By advocating for paid parental leave, we can help create a more just and equitable healthcare system.
Dr. Shannon is a second-year psychiatry resident at University of California, Los Angeles. She attended Stanford University for her undergraduate degree and Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine for medical school. Her interests include perinatal psychiatry, health systems research, and mental health policy advocacy. Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences; program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship; and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Los Angeles.
References
1. Wang Z et al. Mapping Global Prevalence of Depression Among Postpartum Women. Transl Psychiatry. 2021 Oct 20. doi: 10.1038/s41398-021-01663-6.
2. Iyengar U et al. One Year Into the Pandemic: A Systematic Review of Perinatal Mental Health Outcomes During COVID-19. Front Psychiatry. 2021 Jun 24. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.674194.
3. World Health Organization. Mental Health and COVID-19: Early Evidence of the Pandemic’s Impact: Scientific Brief. 2022 Mar 2. www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Sci_Brief-Mental_health-2022.1.
4. Masters GA et al. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Health, Access to Care, and Health Disparities in the Perinatal Period. J Psychiatr Res. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.02.056.
5. Shuffrey LC et al. Improving Perinatal Maternal Mental Health Starts With Addressing Structural Inequities. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022 May 1. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0097.
6. Lubotzky-Gete S et al. Postpartum Depression and Infant Development Up to 24 months: A Nationwide Population-Based Study. J Affect Disord. 2021 Apr 15. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.02.042.
7. Saharoy R et al. Postpartum Depression and Maternal Care: Exploring the Complex Effects on Mothers and Infants. Cureus. 2023 Jul 4. doi: 10.7759/cureus.41381..
8. Gress-Smith JL et al. Postpartum Depression Prevalence and Impact on Infant Health, Weight, and Sleep in Low-Income and Ethnic Minority Women and Infants. Matern Child Health J. 2012 May. doi: 10.1007/s10995-011-0812-y.
9. Kim S et al. The Impact of Antepartum Depression and Postpartum Depression on Exclusive Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Nurs Res. 2022 Jun. doi: 10.1177/10547738211053507.
10. Mirhosseini H et al. Cognitive Behavioral Development in Children Following Maternal Postpartum Depression: A Review Article. Electron Physician. 2015 Dec 20. doi: 10.19082/1673.
11. Grace SL et al. The Effect of Postpartum Depression on Child Cognitive Development and Behavior: A Review and Critical Analysis of the Literature. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2003 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s00737-003-0024-6.
12. Milgrom J et al. The Mediating Role of Maternal Responsiveness in Some Longer Term Effects of Postnatal Depression on Infant Development. Infant Behavior and Development. 2004 Sep 11. doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2004.03.003.
13. Heshmati A et al. The Effect of Parental Leave on Parents’ Mental Health: A Systematic Review. Lancet Public Health. 2023 Jan. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00311-5.
14. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, What Data Does the BLS Publish on Family Leave? 2023 Sept 21. www.bls.gov/ebs/factsheets/family-leave-benefits-fact-sheet.htm.
15. Horowitz JM et al. Americans Widely Support Paid Family and Medical Leave, But Differ Over Specific Policies. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project, Pew Research Center. 2017 Mar 23. www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/03/23/americans-widely-support-paid-family-and-medical-leave-but-differ-over-specific-policies/.
Maternal mental health has a profound impact on the health and wellbeing of the child. Since the onset of the pandemic, rates of postpartum depression have increased, affecting an estimated 1 in 5 women.1 Numerous studies show the impact of postpartum depression on the newborn child across multiple domains, from bonding to healthy weight gain to meeting developmental milestones.
While new medications are being studied and approved to specifically target postpartum depression, these treatments are inaccessible to many because of high costs and long wait lists. Beyond medication, structural changes such as paid parental leave have been shown to have a substantial impact on maternal mental health, thus impacting the health of children as well.
Implications for Mothers and Children
Psychiatric diagnoses such as postpartum depression are on the rise.1,2 This is likely attributable to a combination of factors, including increased isolation since the start of the pandemic, worsening health inequities across race and socioeconomic status, and difficulty accessing mental health care.3-5 The effect that postpartum depression has on the family is significant for the newborn as well as other children in the home.
Data suggest that postpartum depression impacts both the physical and mental health of the child. Infants of mothers with postpartum depression may experience challenges with weight gain, decreased breastfeeding, sleep disruptions, and delays in achieving developmental milestones.6-9 They may also show decreased maternal infant bonding, challenges with cognitive development including language and IQ, and increased risk of behavioral disturbances.10,11 These effects are likely attributable to a combination of factors, including decreased maternal responsiveness to infant cues.7,12 Many of these effects are mediated by the chronicity and severity of depressive symptoms, suggesting the importance of screening and treatment of postpartum depression.10,11 However, treatment for postpartum depression can be difficult to access, particularly given the increased level of need.
It is therefore critical to consider what structural interventions and policy changes can decrease the risk of developing postpartum depression. Data consistently show that access to paid parental leave improves maternal mental health outcomes. Among patients with access to parental leave, research shows that paid leave of longer duration, at least 2-3 months, is the most protective.13 Studies have identified decreased depressive symptoms, decreased stress, decreased use of mental health services, and decreased hospital admissions among women with longer parental leave.13 The positive effects of paid parental leave on maternal mental health can extend beyond the postpartum period, solidifying its impact on the long-term health outcomes of both mother and child.13
Advocacy Is Imperative
In 2024, the United States is the only high-income country, and one of only seven countries in the world, that does not guarantee access to paid parental leave. The Family Medical Leave Act is a 31-year-old federal law that requires some employers to provide unpaid leave to eligible employees. It is narrow in scope, and it excludes many low-wage workers and LGBTQ+ families. Thirteen states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington — as well as the District of Columbia, have enacted their own paid leave policies. However, there are no federal laws requiring access to paid parental leave. As of 2023, fewer than 30% of workers in the United States have access to paid parental leave, and only 16% of employees in the service industry have access to paid parental leave.14 This disproportionately affects families from lower income backgrounds, and further exacerbates socioeconomic, racial, and gender inequities. From a health systems lens, this increases risk of adverse maternal mental health outcomes among those who already have decreased access to mental health services, worsening health disparities.
Paid parental leave has strong public support across party lines, with polls showing the majority of Americans support comprehensive paid family and medical leave.15 Despite this, the United States has failed to enact legislation on this issue since 1993. Multiple attempts at expanding leave have not come to fruition. In the past year, both the house and the senate have announced bipartisan efforts to expand access to paid parental leave. However, legislative frameworks are still in early stages.
As physicians, it is crucial that we advocate for expanded access to paid parental leave. We must use our expertise to speak to the impact that paid parental leave can have on the mental and physical health of parents, children, and families. By advocating for paid parental leave, we can help create a more just and equitable healthcare system.
Dr. Shannon is a second-year psychiatry resident at University of California, Los Angeles. She attended Stanford University for her undergraduate degree and Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine for medical school. Her interests include perinatal psychiatry, health systems research, and mental health policy advocacy. Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences; program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship; and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Los Angeles.
References
1. Wang Z et al. Mapping Global Prevalence of Depression Among Postpartum Women. Transl Psychiatry. 2021 Oct 20. doi: 10.1038/s41398-021-01663-6.
2. Iyengar U et al. One Year Into the Pandemic: A Systematic Review of Perinatal Mental Health Outcomes During COVID-19. Front Psychiatry. 2021 Jun 24. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.674194.
3. World Health Organization. Mental Health and COVID-19: Early Evidence of the Pandemic’s Impact: Scientific Brief. 2022 Mar 2. www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Sci_Brief-Mental_health-2022.1.
4. Masters GA et al. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Health, Access to Care, and Health Disparities in the Perinatal Period. J Psychiatr Res. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.02.056.
5. Shuffrey LC et al. Improving Perinatal Maternal Mental Health Starts With Addressing Structural Inequities. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022 May 1. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0097.
6. Lubotzky-Gete S et al. Postpartum Depression and Infant Development Up to 24 months: A Nationwide Population-Based Study. J Affect Disord. 2021 Apr 15. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.02.042.
7. Saharoy R et al. Postpartum Depression and Maternal Care: Exploring the Complex Effects on Mothers and Infants. Cureus. 2023 Jul 4. doi: 10.7759/cureus.41381..
8. Gress-Smith JL et al. Postpartum Depression Prevalence and Impact on Infant Health, Weight, and Sleep in Low-Income and Ethnic Minority Women and Infants. Matern Child Health J. 2012 May. doi: 10.1007/s10995-011-0812-y.
9. Kim S et al. The Impact of Antepartum Depression and Postpartum Depression on Exclusive Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Nurs Res. 2022 Jun. doi: 10.1177/10547738211053507.
10. Mirhosseini H et al. Cognitive Behavioral Development in Children Following Maternal Postpartum Depression: A Review Article. Electron Physician. 2015 Dec 20. doi: 10.19082/1673.
11. Grace SL et al. The Effect of Postpartum Depression on Child Cognitive Development and Behavior: A Review and Critical Analysis of the Literature. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2003 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s00737-003-0024-6.
12. Milgrom J et al. The Mediating Role of Maternal Responsiveness in Some Longer Term Effects of Postnatal Depression on Infant Development. Infant Behavior and Development. 2004 Sep 11. doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2004.03.003.
13. Heshmati A et al. The Effect of Parental Leave on Parents’ Mental Health: A Systematic Review. Lancet Public Health. 2023 Jan. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00311-5.
14. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, What Data Does the BLS Publish on Family Leave? 2023 Sept 21. www.bls.gov/ebs/factsheets/family-leave-benefits-fact-sheet.htm.
15. Horowitz JM et al. Americans Widely Support Paid Family and Medical Leave, But Differ Over Specific Policies. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project, Pew Research Center. 2017 Mar 23. www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/03/23/americans-widely-support-paid-family-and-medical-leave-but-differ-over-specific-policies/.
Maternal mental health has a profound impact on the health and wellbeing of the child. Since the onset of the pandemic, rates of postpartum depression have increased, affecting an estimated 1 in 5 women.1 Numerous studies show the impact of postpartum depression on the newborn child across multiple domains, from bonding to healthy weight gain to meeting developmental milestones.
While new medications are being studied and approved to specifically target postpartum depression, these treatments are inaccessible to many because of high costs and long wait lists. Beyond medication, structural changes such as paid parental leave have been shown to have a substantial impact on maternal mental health, thus impacting the health of children as well.
Implications for Mothers and Children
Psychiatric diagnoses such as postpartum depression are on the rise.1,2 This is likely attributable to a combination of factors, including increased isolation since the start of the pandemic, worsening health inequities across race and socioeconomic status, and difficulty accessing mental health care.3-5 The effect that postpartum depression has on the family is significant for the newborn as well as other children in the home.
Data suggest that postpartum depression impacts both the physical and mental health of the child. Infants of mothers with postpartum depression may experience challenges with weight gain, decreased breastfeeding, sleep disruptions, and delays in achieving developmental milestones.6-9 They may also show decreased maternal infant bonding, challenges with cognitive development including language and IQ, and increased risk of behavioral disturbances.10,11 These effects are likely attributable to a combination of factors, including decreased maternal responsiveness to infant cues.7,12 Many of these effects are mediated by the chronicity and severity of depressive symptoms, suggesting the importance of screening and treatment of postpartum depression.10,11 However, treatment for postpartum depression can be difficult to access, particularly given the increased level of need.
It is therefore critical to consider what structural interventions and policy changes can decrease the risk of developing postpartum depression. Data consistently show that access to paid parental leave improves maternal mental health outcomes. Among patients with access to parental leave, research shows that paid leave of longer duration, at least 2-3 months, is the most protective.13 Studies have identified decreased depressive symptoms, decreased stress, decreased use of mental health services, and decreased hospital admissions among women with longer parental leave.13 The positive effects of paid parental leave on maternal mental health can extend beyond the postpartum period, solidifying its impact on the long-term health outcomes of both mother and child.13
Advocacy Is Imperative
In 2024, the United States is the only high-income country, and one of only seven countries in the world, that does not guarantee access to paid parental leave. The Family Medical Leave Act is a 31-year-old federal law that requires some employers to provide unpaid leave to eligible employees. It is narrow in scope, and it excludes many low-wage workers and LGBTQ+ families. Thirteen states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington — as well as the District of Columbia, have enacted their own paid leave policies. However, there are no federal laws requiring access to paid parental leave. As of 2023, fewer than 30% of workers in the United States have access to paid parental leave, and only 16% of employees in the service industry have access to paid parental leave.14 This disproportionately affects families from lower income backgrounds, and further exacerbates socioeconomic, racial, and gender inequities. From a health systems lens, this increases risk of adverse maternal mental health outcomes among those who already have decreased access to mental health services, worsening health disparities.
Paid parental leave has strong public support across party lines, with polls showing the majority of Americans support comprehensive paid family and medical leave.15 Despite this, the United States has failed to enact legislation on this issue since 1993. Multiple attempts at expanding leave have not come to fruition. In the past year, both the house and the senate have announced bipartisan efforts to expand access to paid parental leave. However, legislative frameworks are still in early stages.
As physicians, it is crucial that we advocate for expanded access to paid parental leave. We must use our expertise to speak to the impact that paid parental leave can have on the mental and physical health of parents, children, and families. By advocating for paid parental leave, we can help create a more just and equitable healthcare system.
Dr. Shannon is a second-year psychiatry resident at University of California, Los Angeles. She attended Stanford University for her undergraduate degree and Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine for medical school. Her interests include perinatal psychiatry, health systems research, and mental health policy advocacy. Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences; program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship; and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Los Angeles.
References
1. Wang Z et al. Mapping Global Prevalence of Depression Among Postpartum Women. Transl Psychiatry. 2021 Oct 20. doi: 10.1038/s41398-021-01663-6.
2. Iyengar U et al. One Year Into the Pandemic: A Systematic Review of Perinatal Mental Health Outcomes During COVID-19. Front Psychiatry. 2021 Jun 24. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.674194.
3. World Health Organization. Mental Health and COVID-19: Early Evidence of the Pandemic’s Impact: Scientific Brief. 2022 Mar 2. www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Sci_Brief-Mental_health-2022.1.
4. Masters GA et al. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Health, Access to Care, and Health Disparities in the Perinatal Period. J Psychiatr Res. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.02.056.
5. Shuffrey LC et al. Improving Perinatal Maternal Mental Health Starts With Addressing Structural Inequities. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022 May 1. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0097.
6. Lubotzky-Gete S et al. Postpartum Depression and Infant Development Up to 24 months: A Nationwide Population-Based Study. J Affect Disord. 2021 Apr 15. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.02.042.
7. Saharoy R et al. Postpartum Depression and Maternal Care: Exploring the Complex Effects on Mothers and Infants. Cureus. 2023 Jul 4. doi: 10.7759/cureus.41381..
8. Gress-Smith JL et al. Postpartum Depression Prevalence and Impact on Infant Health, Weight, and Sleep in Low-Income and Ethnic Minority Women and Infants. Matern Child Health J. 2012 May. doi: 10.1007/s10995-011-0812-y.
9. Kim S et al. The Impact of Antepartum Depression and Postpartum Depression on Exclusive Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Nurs Res. 2022 Jun. doi: 10.1177/10547738211053507.
10. Mirhosseini H et al. Cognitive Behavioral Development in Children Following Maternal Postpartum Depression: A Review Article. Electron Physician. 2015 Dec 20. doi: 10.19082/1673.
11. Grace SL et al. The Effect of Postpartum Depression on Child Cognitive Development and Behavior: A Review and Critical Analysis of the Literature. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2003 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s00737-003-0024-6.
12. Milgrom J et al. The Mediating Role of Maternal Responsiveness in Some Longer Term Effects of Postnatal Depression on Infant Development. Infant Behavior and Development. 2004 Sep 11. doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2004.03.003.
13. Heshmati A et al. The Effect of Parental Leave on Parents’ Mental Health: A Systematic Review. Lancet Public Health. 2023 Jan. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00311-5.
14. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, What Data Does the BLS Publish on Family Leave? 2023 Sept 21. www.bls.gov/ebs/factsheets/family-leave-benefits-fact-sheet.htm.
15. Horowitz JM et al. Americans Widely Support Paid Family and Medical Leave, But Differ Over Specific Policies. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project, Pew Research Center. 2017 Mar 23. www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/03/23/americans-widely-support-paid-family-and-medical-leave-but-differ-over-specific-policies/.
Adolescent Risk and Resilience
Bullying, heavy social media use, experimentation with drugs and alcohol: These are the well-described hazards of adolescence. We have growing knowledge of the risks associated with these experiences and which youth are more vulnerable to these risks. Developmentally, adolescence is a time of critical brain development marked by heightened sensitivity to social approval and limited impulse control. Adolescents also have growing autonomy from parents alongside a stronger need for time with friends (the new peer home away from the parental home). These factors alone make adolescence a period of heightened sensitivity to these experiences, but some youth have greater vulnerability to develop psychopathology such as anxiety, depression, eating disorders, or addiction after exposure to these common experiences. Pediatricians can assess these broader vulnerabilities during well child visits of pre- and early teens and offer patients and their parents strategies for minimizing risk and cultivating resilience.
Bullying
Bullying, both verbal and physical, has long been an unwelcome part of youth. Cellphones and social media have brought bullying into the 21st century. Cyberbullying has meant that targeted youth are no longer safe after school and it carries higher risk of self-harm and suicidality than the analog version. No child benefits from bullying, but some children are more vulnerable to develop an anxiety or mood disorder, self-injury, or suicidality, whereas others experience stress and distress, but are able to adaptively seek support from friends and adults and stay on track developmentally, even to flourish. There is evidence that girls and LGBTQ youth are more commonly bullied and at higher risk for depression, self-harm, and suicidality as a consequence of cyberbullying. Youth already suffering from a psychiatric illness or substance abuse who are bullied are at higher risk for self-harm and suicidality than that of their bullied peers. Youth whose parents score high on measures of distress and family dysfunction also face higher risk of self-harm and suicidality after bullying.1
Social Media
Unlike bullying, social media has been a force only in 21st century life, with Facebook starting in 2004 and cellphones in common use by adolescents in the past 2 decades. While there are potential benefits of social media use, such as stronger connections to supportive peers for isolated LGBTQ youth or youth who live in rural areas, there are also risks. Of course, social media carries the risk of cyberbullying. It also carries the risk for very heavy patterns of use that can interfere with physical activity, adequate sleep, academic performance, and healthy in-person social activities. There is robust emerging evidence that heavy users have higher rates of mood disorders and anxiety symptoms, although it is unclear whether social media exacerbates, or more social media use is the result of depression and/or anxiety. Adolescents’ desire for social acceptance makes them especially sensitive to the social rewards of “likes” and they are thus vulnerable to becoming heavy users. Adolescent girls who are heavy users are vulnerable to developing a disordered body image and eating disorders. Those youth with especially low levels of impulse control, such as those with ADHD, have greater risk of developing problematic use.2-4
Substance Use and Abuse
Exploration of alcohol and drug use has been a common experience, and hazard, of adolescence for many generations. As a result, we have richer knowledge of those factors that are associated with risk of and protection against that use progressing to a use disorder. Earlier age at first experimentation appears to be independently correlated with increased risk of developing a substance use disorder. Every pediatrician should be aware of a family history of substance use disorders, especially alcohol, as they are strongly associated with higher risk. Youth with temperaments that are sensation seeking, externalizing and impulsive are at higher risk. Youth with anxiety and mood disorders and untreated attention deficit disorders are at higher risk. Youth whose parents have high levels of conflict or “permissive” parenting styles are at higher risk as are those who as children experienced abuse or neglect.5-7
Minimizing Risk and Cultivating Resilience
Protective factors balance these risks: adequate sleep; positive relationships with friends and parents; and confidence in their academic, athletic, or social abilities all are correlated with good outcomes after bullying, drug and alcohol use, and social media use. These teenagers are meaningfully connected to caring adults and peers, have a future orientation, and typically have higher self-esteem. Youth whose parents balance attunement with rules and expectations (“authoritative” parenting) appear to be at lower risk of poor mental health outcomes associated with heavy social media use as well as other risk behaviors. These parents have clear rules and expectations, including about drugs and alcohol, and enforce rules reasonably calmly and consistently. Youth whose families eat dinner together at least three times weekly, who attend schools that offer a wide range of after-school activities, and who learn to use problem-focused coping skills rather than emotion-focused coping skills are protected against poor mental health outcomes in the face of these challenges.
While bullying is a stressor, social media and substances may seem like ways of managing stress and connecting with peers. There are youth with clear vulnerabilities to the risks associated with each of them. Shared factors include vulnerable temperaments, high conflict or permissive parenting, family history of substance use disorders or preexisting psychiatric illness. Pediatricians are in a unique position to raise teenagers’ awareness of their specific vulnerabilities. Talk about the heightened risk of experimentation with alcohol or drugs in your patients who are in treatment for an anxiety or mood disorder. Help them cultivate critical thinking — an adolescent specialty — around marketing and peer pressure. Remind them that social media companies make money from keeping them online longer. Then help them identify what strategies are in their control, such as limiting their time online. What else could they be doing with their time that they actually enjoy? Remind them about the value of protecting time for adequate sleep, regular exercise, and sitting down for dinner with their family. Ask about their nourishing relationships with peers and adults and talk about the value of protecting time for them. Ask your patients and their parents about how they face stress, emphasizing their ability to locate what is within their control. While awareness of feelings is important, learning to manage intense emotions is more connected to healthy habits of sleep and exercise and strategies to get support or pivot to engaging activities. Discussing this openly models for parents how to bear difficulty alongside their children without becoming distressed or punitive themselves. Talk with worried parents about the value of regular meals together, shared physical activities, and supporting time for their children’s emerging interests and hobbies. Equipping your patients and their parents with knowledge about their particular vulnerabilities, reminders about what is known about these risks, and all that is in their power to build resilience, may be as meaningful a public health intervention as asking them about biking with helmets and using seat belts.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
References
1. Zych I et al. Protective Factors Against Bullying and Cyberbullying: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses. Aggress Violent Behav. 2019;45:4-19. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.008.
2. Office of the Surgeon General. Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory. 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594761/.
3. Uhls Y et al. Benefits and Costs of Social Media in Adolescence. Pediatrics. 2017 Nov;140(Suppl 2):S67-S70. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1758E.
4. Health Advisory on Social Media Use in Adolescence. American Psychological Association (2023).
5. Sloboda Z et al. Revisiting the Concepts of Risk and Protective Factors for Understanding the Etiology and Development of Substance Use and Substance Use Disorders: Implications for Prevention, Substance Use and Misuse, Subst Use Misuse. 2012 Jun-Jul;47(8-9):944-62. doi: 10.3109/10826084.2012.663280.
6. O’Connell M et al. Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press and US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. 2009 (https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12480/preventing-mental-emotional-and-behavioral-disorders-among-young-people-progress).
7. Staiger P et al. Can Emotion-Focused Coping Help Explain the Link Between Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Severity and Triggers for Substance Use in Young Adults? J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009 Mar;36(2):220-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2008.05.008.
Bullying, heavy social media use, experimentation with drugs and alcohol: These are the well-described hazards of adolescence. We have growing knowledge of the risks associated with these experiences and which youth are more vulnerable to these risks. Developmentally, adolescence is a time of critical brain development marked by heightened sensitivity to social approval and limited impulse control. Adolescents also have growing autonomy from parents alongside a stronger need for time with friends (the new peer home away from the parental home). These factors alone make adolescence a period of heightened sensitivity to these experiences, but some youth have greater vulnerability to develop psychopathology such as anxiety, depression, eating disorders, or addiction after exposure to these common experiences. Pediatricians can assess these broader vulnerabilities during well child visits of pre- and early teens and offer patients and their parents strategies for minimizing risk and cultivating resilience.
Bullying
Bullying, both verbal and physical, has long been an unwelcome part of youth. Cellphones and social media have brought bullying into the 21st century. Cyberbullying has meant that targeted youth are no longer safe after school and it carries higher risk of self-harm and suicidality than the analog version. No child benefits from bullying, but some children are more vulnerable to develop an anxiety or mood disorder, self-injury, or suicidality, whereas others experience stress and distress, but are able to adaptively seek support from friends and adults and stay on track developmentally, even to flourish. There is evidence that girls and LGBTQ youth are more commonly bullied and at higher risk for depression, self-harm, and suicidality as a consequence of cyberbullying. Youth already suffering from a psychiatric illness or substance abuse who are bullied are at higher risk for self-harm and suicidality than that of their bullied peers. Youth whose parents score high on measures of distress and family dysfunction also face higher risk of self-harm and suicidality after bullying.1
Social Media
Unlike bullying, social media has been a force only in 21st century life, with Facebook starting in 2004 and cellphones in common use by adolescents in the past 2 decades. While there are potential benefits of social media use, such as stronger connections to supportive peers for isolated LGBTQ youth or youth who live in rural areas, there are also risks. Of course, social media carries the risk of cyberbullying. It also carries the risk for very heavy patterns of use that can interfere with physical activity, adequate sleep, academic performance, and healthy in-person social activities. There is robust emerging evidence that heavy users have higher rates of mood disorders and anxiety symptoms, although it is unclear whether social media exacerbates, or more social media use is the result of depression and/or anxiety. Adolescents’ desire for social acceptance makes them especially sensitive to the social rewards of “likes” and they are thus vulnerable to becoming heavy users. Adolescent girls who are heavy users are vulnerable to developing a disordered body image and eating disorders. Those youth with especially low levels of impulse control, such as those with ADHD, have greater risk of developing problematic use.2-4
Substance Use and Abuse
Exploration of alcohol and drug use has been a common experience, and hazard, of adolescence for many generations. As a result, we have richer knowledge of those factors that are associated with risk of and protection against that use progressing to a use disorder. Earlier age at first experimentation appears to be independently correlated with increased risk of developing a substance use disorder. Every pediatrician should be aware of a family history of substance use disorders, especially alcohol, as they are strongly associated with higher risk. Youth with temperaments that are sensation seeking, externalizing and impulsive are at higher risk. Youth with anxiety and mood disorders and untreated attention deficit disorders are at higher risk. Youth whose parents have high levels of conflict or “permissive” parenting styles are at higher risk as are those who as children experienced abuse or neglect.5-7
Minimizing Risk and Cultivating Resilience
Protective factors balance these risks: adequate sleep; positive relationships with friends and parents; and confidence in their academic, athletic, or social abilities all are correlated with good outcomes after bullying, drug and alcohol use, and social media use. These teenagers are meaningfully connected to caring adults and peers, have a future orientation, and typically have higher self-esteem. Youth whose parents balance attunement with rules and expectations (“authoritative” parenting) appear to be at lower risk of poor mental health outcomes associated with heavy social media use as well as other risk behaviors. These parents have clear rules and expectations, including about drugs and alcohol, and enforce rules reasonably calmly and consistently. Youth whose families eat dinner together at least three times weekly, who attend schools that offer a wide range of after-school activities, and who learn to use problem-focused coping skills rather than emotion-focused coping skills are protected against poor mental health outcomes in the face of these challenges.
While bullying is a stressor, social media and substances may seem like ways of managing stress and connecting with peers. There are youth with clear vulnerabilities to the risks associated with each of them. Shared factors include vulnerable temperaments, high conflict or permissive parenting, family history of substance use disorders or preexisting psychiatric illness. Pediatricians are in a unique position to raise teenagers’ awareness of their specific vulnerabilities. Talk about the heightened risk of experimentation with alcohol or drugs in your patients who are in treatment for an anxiety or mood disorder. Help them cultivate critical thinking — an adolescent specialty — around marketing and peer pressure. Remind them that social media companies make money from keeping them online longer. Then help them identify what strategies are in their control, such as limiting their time online. What else could they be doing with their time that they actually enjoy? Remind them about the value of protecting time for adequate sleep, regular exercise, and sitting down for dinner with their family. Ask about their nourishing relationships with peers and adults and talk about the value of protecting time for them. Ask your patients and their parents about how they face stress, emphasizing their ability to locate what is within their control. While awareness of feelings is important, learning to manage intense emotions is more connected to healthy habits of sleep and exercise and strategies to get support or pivot to engaging activities. Discussing this openly models for parents how to bear difficulty alongside their children without becoming distressed or punitive themselves. Talk with worried parents about the value of regular meals together, shared physical activities, and supporting time for their children’s emerging interests and hobbies. Equipping your patients and their parents with knowledge about their particular vulnerabilities, reminders about what is known about these risks, and all that is in their power to build resilience, may be as meaningful a public health intervention as asking them about biking with helmets and using seat belts.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
References
1. Zych I et al. Protective Factors Against Bullying and Cyberbullying: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses. Aggress Violent Behav. 2019;45:4-19. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.008.
2. Office of the Surgeon General. Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory. 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594761/.
3. Uhls Y et al. Benefits and Costs of Social Media in Adolescence. Pediatrics. 2017 Nov;140(Suppl 2):S67-S70. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1758E.
4. Health Advisory on Social Media Use in Adolescence. American Psychological Association (2023).
5. Sloboda Z et al. Revisiting the Concepts of Risk and Protective Factors for Understanding the Etiology and Development of Substance Use and Substance Use Disorders: Implications for Prevention, Substance Use and Misuse, Subst Use Misuse. 2012 Jun-Jul;47(8-9):944-62. doi: 10.3109/10826084.2012.663280.
6. O’Connell M et al. Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press and US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. 2009 (https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12480/preventing-mental-emotional-and-behavioral-disorders-among-young-people-progress).
7. Staiger P et al. Can Emotion-Focused Coping Help Explain the Link Between Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Severity and Triggers for Substance Use in Young Adults? J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009 Mar;36(2):220-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2008.05.008.
Bullying, heavy social media use, experimentation with drugs and alcohol: These are the well-described hazards of adolescence. We have growing knowledge of the risks associated with these experiences and which youth are more vulnerable to these risks. Developmentally, adolescence is a time of critical brain development marked by heightened sensitivity to social approval and limited impulse control. Adolescents also have growing autonomy from parents alongside a stronger need for time with friends (the new peer home away from the parental home). These factors alone make adolescence a period of heightened sensitivity to these experiences, but some youth have greater vulnerability to develop psychopathology such as anxiety, depression, eating disorders, or addiction after exposure to these common experiences. Pediatricians can assess these broader vulnerabilities during well child visits of pre- and early teens and offer patients and their parents strategies for minimizing risk and cultivating resilience.
Bullying
Bullying, both verbal and physical, has long been an unwelcome part of youth. Cellphones and social media have brought bullying into the 21st century. Cyberbullying has meant that targeted youth are no longer safe after school and it carries higher risk of self-harm and suicidality than the analog version. No child benefits from bullying, but some children are more vulnerable to develop an anxiety or mood disorder, self-injury, or suicidality, whereas others experience stress and distress, but are able to adaptively seek support from friends and adults and stay on track developmentally, even to flourish. There is evidence that girls and LGBTQ youth are more commonly bullied and at higher risk for depression, self-harm, and suicidality as a consequence of cyberbullying. Youth already suffering from a psychiatric illness or substance abuse who are bullied are at higher risk for self-harm and suicidality than that of their bullied peers. Youth whose parents score high on measures of distress and family dysfunction also face higher risk of self-harm and suicidality after bullying.1
Social Media
Unlike bullying, social media has been a force only in 21st century life, with Facebook starting in 2004 and cellphones in common use by adolescents in the past 2 decades. While there are potential benefits of social media use, such as stronger connections to supportive peers for isolated LGBTQ youth or youth who live in rural areas, there are also risks. Of course, social media carries the risk of cyberbullying. It also carries the risk for very heavy patterns of use that can interfere with physical activity, adequate sleep, academic performance, and healthy in-person social activities. There is robust emerging evidence that heavy users have higher rates of mood disorders and anxiety symptoms, although it is unclear whether social media exacerbates, or more social media use is the result of depression and/or anxiety. Adolescents’ desire for social acceptance makes them especially sensitive to the social rewards of “likes” and they are thus vulnerable to becoming heavy users. Adolescent girls who are heavy users are vulnerable to developing a disordered body image and eating disorders. Those youth with especially low levels of impulse control, such as those with ADHD, have greater risk of developing problematic use.2-4
Substance Use and Abuse
Exploration of alcohol and drug use has been a common experience, and hazard, of adolescence for many generations. As a result, we have richer knowledge of those factors that are associated with risk of and protection against that use progressing to a use disorder. Earlier age at first experimentation appears to be independently correlated with increased risk of developing a substance use disorder. Every pediatrician should be aware of a family history of substance use disorders, especially alcohol, as they are strongly associated with higher risk. Youth with temperaments that are sensation seeking, externalizing and impulsive are at higher risk. Youth with anxiety and mood disorders and untreated attention deficit disorders are at higher risk. Youth whose parents have high levels of conflict or “permissive” parenting styles are at higher risk as are those who as children experienced abuse or neglect.5-7
Minimizing Risk and Cultivating Resilience
Protective factors balance these risks: adequate sleep; positive relationships with friends and parents; and confidence in their academic, athletic, or social abilities all are correlated with good outcomes after bullying, drug and alcohol use, and social media use. These teenagers are meaningfully connected to caring adults and peers, have a future orientation, and typically have higher self-esteem. Youth whose parents balance attunement with rules and expectations (“authoritative” parenting) appear to be at lower risk of poor mental health outcomes associated with heavy social media use as well as other risk behaviors. These parents have clear rules and expectations, including about drugs and alcohol, and enforce rules reasonably calmly and consistently. Youth whose families eat dinner together at least three times weekly, who attend schools that offer a wide range of after-school activities, and who learn to use problem-focused coping skills rather than emotion-focused coping skills are protected against poor mental health outcomes in the face of these challenges.
While bullying is a stressor, social media and substances may seem like ways of managing stress and connecting with peers. There are youth with clear vulnerabilities to the risks associated with each of them. Shared factors include vulnerable temperaments, high conflict or permissive parenting, family history of substance use disorders or preexisting psychiatric illness. Pediatricians are in a unique position to raise teenagers’ awareness of their specific vulnerabilities. Talk about the heightened risk of experimentation with alcohol or drugs in your patients who are in treatment for an anxiety or mood disorder. Help them cultivate critical thinking — an adolescent specialty — around marketing and peer pressure. Remind them that social media companies make money from keeping them online longer. Then help them identify what strategies are in their control, such as limiting their time online. What else could they be doing with their time that they actually enjoy? Remind them about the value of protecting time for adequate sleep, regular exercise, and sitting down for dinner with their family. Ask about their nourishing relationships with peers and adults and talk about the value of protecting time for them. Ask your patients and their parents about how they face stress, emphasizing their ability to locate what is within their control. While awareness of feelings is important, learning to manage intense emotions is more connected to healthy habits of sleep and exercise and strategies to get support or pivot to engaging activities. Discussing this openly models for parents how to bear difficulty alongside their children without becoming distressed or punitive themselves. Talk with worried parents about the value of regular meals together, shared physical activities, and supporting time for their children’s emerging interests and hobbies. Equipping your patients and their parents with knowledge about their particular vulnerabilities, reminders about what is known about these risks, and all that is in their power to build resilience, may be as meaningful a public health intervention as asking them about biking with helmets and using seat belts.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
References
1. Zych I et al. Protective Factors Against Bullying and Cyberbullying: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses. Aggress Violent Behav. 2019;45:4-19. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.008.
2. Office of the Surgeon General. Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory. 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594761/.
3. Uhls Y et al. Benefits and Costs of Social Media in Adolescence. Pediatrics. 2017 Nov;140(Suppl 2):S67-S70. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1758E.
4. Health Advisory on Social Media Use in Adolescence. American Psychological Association (2023).
5. Sloboda Z et al. Revisiting the Concepts of Risk and Protective Factors for Understanding the Etiology and Development of Substance Use and Substance Use Disorders: Implications for Prevention, Substance Use and Misuse, Subst Use Misuse. 2012 Jun-Jul;47(8-9):944-62. doi: 10.3109/10826084.2012.663280.
6. O’Connell M et al. Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press and US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. 2009 (https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12480/preventing-mental-emotional-and-behavioral-disorders-among-young-people-progress).
7. Staiger P et al. Can Emotion-Focused Coping Help Explain the Link Between Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Severity and Triggers for Substance Use in Young Adults? J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009 Mar;36(2):220-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2008.05.008.