Depression

TOPLINE:

About one third of US adults aged 50-80 years report feeling lonely and socially isolated, a new study of data from 2018-2024 shows. While the levels have returned to the prepandemic range, investigators say the findings suggest clinicians should screen for loneliness and isolation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationally representative survey of US adults aged 50-80 years through the University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging at six timepoints between 2018 and 2024.
• Data collection involved online surveys conducted using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel from 2018 to 2021, transitioning to online and phone surveys conducted using the National Opinion Research Center AmeriSpeak panel from 2022 to 2024.
• Sample sizes ranged between 2051 and 2576 respondents, with completion rates ranging from 61% to 78% across the survey periods.

TAKEAWAY:

• Loneliness rates among adults aged 50-80 years showed notable fluctuation, starting at 34% (95% CI, 31.7%-36.2%) in 2018, rising to 41% (95% CI, 39.1%-43.7%) in 2020, and returning to 33% (95% CI, 31.7%-35.1%) by 2024.
• Social isolation showed a similar pattern in the study group, starting at 27% (95% CI, 24.5%-28.8%) in 2018, peaking at 56% (95% CI, 53.4%-58.1%) in 2020, and declining to 29% (95% CI, 27.5%-30.9%) by 2024.
• Higher loneliness and social isolation rates were frequently reported among individuals who did not work, lived alone, had lower household incomes, and had self-reported fair and poor physical and mental health than those who reported excellent, very good, or good health.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest that “much like routinely asking about diet and exercise, clinicians should consider screening older adults for loneliness and social isolation and connect them with appropriate resources,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Preeti N. Malani, MD, MSJ, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. It was published online on December 9 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by possible recall bias, reliance on self-reported data, lack of longitudinal results, and differences in survey timing, panels, and question framing across years. The findings may not have been applicable to excluded groups such as nursing home residents or individuals aged > 80 years, which limited their generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by AARP and Michigan Medicine and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Health Systems Research. One author reported receiving consulting fees and honoraria from various organizations. Details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

About one third of US adults aged 50-80 years report feeling lonely and socially isolated, a new study of data from 2018-2024 shows. While the levels have returned to the prepandemic range, investigators say the findings suggest clinicians should screen for loneliness and isolation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationally representative survey of US adults aged 50-80 years through the University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging at six timepoints between 2018 and 2024.
• Data collection involved online surveys conducted using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel from 2018 to 2021, transitioning to online and phone surveys conducted using the National Opinion Research Center AmeriSpeak panel from 2022 to 2024.
• Sample sizes ranged between 2051 and 2576 respondents, with completion rates ranging from 61% to 78% across the survey periods.

TAKEAWAY:

• Loneliness rates among adults aged 50-80 years showed notable fluctuation, starting at 34% (95% CI, 31.7%-36.2%) in 2018, rising to 41% (95% CI, 39.1%-43.7%) in 2020, and returning to 33% (95% CI, 31.7%-35.1%) by 2024.
• Social isolation showed a similar pattern in the study group, starting at 27% (95% CI, 24.5%-28.8%) in 2018, peaking at 56% (95% CI, 53.4%-58.1%) in 2020, and declining to 29% (95% CI, 27.5%-30.9%) by 2024.
• Higher loneliness and social isolation rates were frequently reported among individuals who did not work, lived alone, had lower household incomes, and had self-reported fair and poor physical and mental health than those who reported excellent, very good, or good health.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest that “much like routinely asking about diet and exercise, clinicians should consider screening older adults for loneliness and social isolation and connect them with appropriate resources,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Preeti N. Malani, MD, MSJ, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. It was published online on December 9 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by possible recall bias, reliance on self-reported data, lack of longitudinal results, and differences in survey timing, panels, and question framing across years. The findings may not have been applicable to excluded groups such as nursing home residents or individuals aged > 80 years, which limited their generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by AARP and Michigan Medicine and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Health Systems Research. One author reported receiving consulting fees and honoraria from various organizations. Details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

About one third of US adults aged 50-80 years report feeling lonely and socially isolated, a new study of data from 2018-2024 shows. While the levels have returned to the prepandemic range, investigators say the findings suggest clinicians should screen for loneliness and isolation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationally representative survey of US adults aged 50-80 years through the University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging at six timepoints between 2018 and 2024.
• Data collection involved online surveys conducted using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel from 2018 to 2021, transitioning to online and phone surveys conducted using the National Opinion Research Center AmeriSpeak panel from 2022 to 2024.
• Sample sizes ranged between 2051 and 2576 respondents, with completion rates ranging from 61% to 78% across the survey periods.

TAKEAWAY:

• Loneliness rates among adults aged 50-80 years showed notable fluctuation, starting at 34% (95% CI, 31.7%-36.2%) in 2018, rising to 41% (95% CI, 39.1%-43.7%) in 2020, and returning to 33% (95% CI, 31.7%-35.1%) by 2024.
• Social isolation showed a similar pattern in the study group, starting at 27% (95% CI, 24.5%-28.8%) in 2018, peaking at 56% (95% CI, 53.4%-58.1%) in 2020, and declining to 29% (95% CI, 27.5%-30.9%) by 2024.
• Higher loneliness and social isolation rates were frequently reported among individuals who did not work, lived alone, had lower household incomes, and had self-reported fair and poor physical and mental health than those who reported excellent, very good, or good health.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest that “much like routinely asking about diet and exercise, clinicians should consider screening older adults for loneliness and social isolation and connect them with appropriate resources,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Preeti N. Malani, MD, MSJ, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. It was published online on December 9 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by possible recall bias, reliance on self-reported data, lack of longitudinal results, and differences in survey timing, panels, and question framing across years. The findings may not have been applicable to excluded groups such as nursing home residents or individuals aged > 80 years, which limited their generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by AARP and Michigan Medicine and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Health Systems Research. One author reported receiving consulting fees and honoraria from various organizations. Details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit riskier driving behaviors, compared with their nondepressed peers, including hard braking, cornering, and unpredictable driving patterns, new research showed.

Data for the study came from commercial vehicle data trackers installed in participants’ vehicles. After about a year of follow-up, the investigators found that MDD was associated with an increase in the amount and severity of risking driving, even after they controlled for antidepressant use.

Late-life depression often goes undiagnosed, and the new findings highlight the importance of routine depression screening and targeted interventions to ensure driving safety among older adults, the study team said.

“By using longitudinal, real-world driving data rather than controlled settings or self-reports, the study provides robust evidence of how MDD influences driving behaviors in day-to-day contexts,” first author Ganesh M. Babulal, PhD, OTD, with the Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, said in an interview.

“By analyzing the influence of antidepressant use and overall medication load, the study disentangles the effects of MDD from those of driver-impairing medications, further clarifying the unique contributions of depression to driving behaviors,” Babulal noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Road Risks 

As the number of older adults grows, safe driving practices in this age group become increasingly crucial. By 2050, one quarter of drivers in the United States will be older than 65 years. MDD affects about 8% of US adults and is linked to cognitive impairments that may compromise driving safety.

Prior studies revealed a link between depression and increased car crash risk, regardless of age. And earlier research by Babulal and colleagues showed that older adults with depression were three times more likely to receive a marginal or failing score on a standardized road test.

To further study the issue, Babulal and colleagues examined the impact of MDD on naturalistic driving behaviors among older adults using longitudinal data.

Participants were recruited from the Driving Real-World In-Vehicle Evaluation System Project, where their daily driving behaviors were recorded using commercial vehicle data loggers installed in their personal vehicles.

The cohort included 85 adults with MDD (mean age, 69 years; 71% women) and 310 adults without MDD (mean age, 70 years; 49% women). The majority of participants in both groups were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Based on intercepts, adults with MDD had a propensity toward riskier driving habits with a higher frequency of speeding events and spending more time on the road than those without MDD, they found.

During a mean of 1.1 years of follow-up, compared with older adults without MDD, those with MDD exhibited significantly more hard braking (P < .001) and hard cornering events per trip (P = .04) over time. They also traveled farther from home and visited more unique destinations (P < .001 for both).

Over time, older adults also displayed increased entropy in driving patterns (P < .001), indicated less predictable driving routes.

“Driving unpredictability, as evidenced by increased random entropy, highlights the unique challenges posed by MDD in maintaining safe driving practices,” the researchers wrote.

Adjustment for antidepressant use, which could impair driving, or total medication burden did not change the findings, suggesting MDD independently affects driving.

“Most importantly, our findings demonstrate that MDD — a common and treatable illness in older adults — was associated with an increase in both the amount and magnitude of risky driving behaviors over time,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers noted that the study did not account for changes in depression severity over time and other psychiatric conditions co-occurring with MDD were not adjusted for. Also, situational factors like weather or traffic conditions were not assessed.

 

Clear Clinical Implications

There is a “pressing need” for targeted interventions to manage and mitigate the driving risks associated with late-life depression, the researchers wrote.

“The study emphasizes the need for interventions tailored to the mental health and driving behaviors of older adults. These could include cognitive retraining, driver rehabilitation programs, and routine depression screening to enhance road safety and preserve independence,” Babulal said.

“Encouraging older adults with MDD to self-regulate their driving habits (eg, avoiding night driving or high-traffic situations) and educating them about potential driving challenges related to their condition can enhance safety,” he added.

Commenting on this study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said it “adds nuance to our understanding of how depression can impact driving among older adults.

“While the connection between depression and a higher incident of crashes is known, this study demonstrates an association with riskier driving behaviors such as speeding,” Vahia said. “It highlights the importance of clinicians proactively initiating discussion of driving and safety when working with older adults with depressive symptoms.”

This work was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. Babulal had no relevant disclosures. Vahia had served as a consultant for Otsuka.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit riskier driving behaviors, compared with their nondepressed peers, including hard braking, cornering, and unpredictable driving patterns, new research showed.

Data for the study came from commercial vehicle data trackers installed in participants’ vehicles. After about a year of follow-up, the investigators found that MDD was associated with an increase in the amount and severity of risking driving, even after they controlled for antidepressant use.

Late-life depression often goes undiagnosed, and the new findings highlight the importance of routine depression screening and targeted interventions to ensure driving safety among older adults, the study team said.

“By using longitudinal, real-world driving data rather than controlled settings or self-reports, the study provides robust evidence of how MDD influences driving behaviors in day-to-day contexts,” first author Ganesh M. Babulal, PhD, OTD, with the Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, said in an interview.

“By analyzing the influence of antidepressant use and overall medication load, the study disentangles the effects of MDD from those of driver-impairing medications, further clarifying the unique contributions of depression to driving behaviors,” Babulal noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Road Risks 

As the number of older adults grows, safe driving practices in this age group become increasingly crucial. By 2050, one quarter of drivers in the United States will be older than 65 years. MDD affects about 8% of US adults and is linked to cognitive impairments that may compromise driving safety.

Prior studies revealed a link between depression and increased car crash risk, regardless of age. And earlier research by Babulal and colleagues showed that older adults with depression were three times more likely to receive a marginal or failing score on a standardized road test.

To further study the issue, Babulal and colleagues examined the impact of MDD on naturalistic driving behaviors among older adults using longitudinal data.

Participants were recruited from the Driving Real-World In-Vehicle Evaluation System Project, where their daily driving behaviors were recorded using commercial vehicle data loggers installed in their personal vehicles.

The cohort included 85 adults with MDD (mean age, 69 years; 71% women) and 310 adults without MDD (mean age, 70 years; 49% women). The majority of participants in both groups were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Based on intercepts, adults with MDD had a propensity toward riskier driving habits with a higher frequency of speeding events and spending more time on the road than those without MDD, they found.

During a mean of 1.1 years of follow-up, compared with older adults without MDD, those with MDD exhibited significantly more hard braking (P < .001) and hard cornering events per trip (P = .04) over time. They also traveled farther from home and visited more unique destinations (P < .001 for both).

Over time, older adults also displayed increased entropy in driving patterns (P < .001), indicated less predictable driving routes.

“Driving unpredictability, as evidenced by increased random entropy, highlights the unique challenges posed by MDD in maintaining safe driving practices,” the researchers wrote.

Adjustment for antidepressant use, which could impair driving, or total medication burden did not change the findings, suggesting MDD independently affects driving.

“Most importantly, our findings demonstrate that MDD — a common and treatable illness in older adults — was associated with an increase in both the amount and magnitude of risky driving behaviors over time,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers noted that the study did not account for changes in depression severity over time and other psychiatric conditions co-occurring with MDD were not adjusted for. Also, situational factors like weather or traffic conditions were not assessed.

 

Clear Clinical Implications

There is a “pressing need” for targeted interventions to manage and mitigate the driving risks associated with late-life depression, the researchers wrote.

“The study emphasizes the need for interventions tailored to the mental health and driving behaviors of older adults. These could include cognitive retraining, driver rehabilitation programs, and routine depression screening to enhance road safety and preserve independence,” Babulal said.

“Encouraging older adults with MDD to self-regulate their driving habits (eg, avoiding night driving or high-traffic situations) and educating them about potential driving challenges related to their condition can enhance safety,” he added.

Commenting on this study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said it “adds nuance to our understanding of how depression can impact driving among older adults.

“While the connection between depression and a higher incident of crashes is known, this study demonstrates an association with riskier driving behaviors such as speeding,” Vahia said. “It highlights the importance of clinicians proactively initiating discussion of driving and safety when working with older adults with depressive symptoms.”

This work was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. Babulal had no relevant disclosures. Vahia had served as a consultant for Otsuka.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit riskier driving behaviors, compared with their nondepressed peers, including hard braking, cornering, and unpredictable driving patterns, new research showed.

Data for the study came from commercial vehicle data trackers installed in participants’ vehicles. After about a year of follow-up, the investigators found that MDD was associated with an increase in the amount and severity of risking driving, even after they controlled for antidepressant use.

Late-life depression often goes undiagnosed, and the new findings highlight the importance of routine depression screening and targeted interventions to ensure driving safety among older adults, the study team said.

“By using longitudinal, real-world driving data rather than controlled settings or self-reports, the study provides robust evidence of how MDD influences driving behaviors in day-to-day contexts,” first author Ganesh M. Babulal, PhD, OTD, with the Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, said in an interview.

“By analyzing the influence of antidepressant use and overall medication load, the study disentangles the effects of MDD from those of driver-impairing medications, further clarifying the unique contributions of depression to driving behaviors,” Babulal noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Road Risks 

As the number of older adults grows, safe driving practices in this age group become increasingly crucial. By 2050, one quarter of drivers in the United States will be older than 65 years. MDD affects about 8% of US adults and is linked to cognitive impairments that may compromise driving safety.

Prior studies revealed a link between depression and increased car crash risk, regardless of age. And earlier research by Babulal and colleagues showed that older adults with depression were three times more likely to receive a marginal or failing score on a standardized road test.

To further study the issue, Babulal and colleagues examined the impact of MDD on naturalistic driving behaviors among older adults using longitudinal data.

Participants were recruited from the Driving Real-World In-Vehicle Evaluation System Project, where their daily driving behaviors were recorded using commercial vehicle data loggers installed in their personal vehicles.

The cohort included 85 adults with MDD (mean age, 69 years; 71% women) and 310 adults without MDD (mean age, 70 years; 49% women). The majority of participants in both groups were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Based on intercepts, adults with MDD had a propensity toward riskier driving habits with a higher frequency of speeding events and spending more time on the road than those without MDD, they found.

During a mean of 1.1 years of follow-up, compared with older adults without MDD, those with MDD exhibited significantly more hard braking (P < .001) and hard cornering events per trip (P = .04) over time. They also traveled farther from home and visited more unique destinations (P < .001 for both).

Over time, older adults also displayed increased entropy in driving patterns (P < .001), indicated less predictable driving routes.

“Driving unpredictability, as evidenced by increased random entropy, highlights the unique challenges posed by MDD in maintaining safe driving practices,” the researchers wrote.

Adjustment for antidepressant use, which could impair driving, or total medication burden did not change the findings, suggesting MDD independently affects driving.

“Most importantly, our findings demonstrate that MDD — a common and treatable illness in older adults — was associated with an increase in both the amount and magnitude of risky driving behaviors over time,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers noted that the study did not account for changes in depression severity over time and other psychiatric conditions co-occurring with MDD were not adjusted for. Also, situational factors like weather or traffic conditions were not assessed.

 

Clear Clinical Implications

There is a “pressing need” for targeted interventions to manage and mitigate the driving risks associated with late-life depression, the researchers wrote.

“The study emphasizes the need for interventions tailored to the mental health and driving behaviors of older adults. These could include cognitive retraining, driver rehabilitation programs, and routine depression screening to enhance road safety and preserve independence,” Babulal said.

“Encouraging older adults with MDD to self-regulate their driving habits (eg, avoiding night driving or high-traffic situations) and educating them about potential driving challenges related to their condition can enhance safety,” he added.

Commenting on this study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said it “adds nuance to our understanding of how depression can impact driving among older adults.

“While the connection between depression and a higher incident of crashes is known, this study demonstrates an association with riskier driving behaviors such as speeding,” Vahia said. “It highlights the importance of clinicians proactively initiating discussion of driving and safety when working with older adults with depressive symptoms.”

This work was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. Babulal had no relevant disclosures. Vahia had served as a consultant for Otsuka.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For almost 2 decades, antidepressants have carried boxed warnings linking the medications to an increased risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors in young people. Paradoxically, and for almost as long, evidence suggests these warnings may have led to fewer depression diagnoses, reduced prescriptions, and, ultimately, higher suicide rates.

With mounting evidence of these negative unintended consequences, some clinicians and researchers are urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider revising — or even eliminating — boxed warnings on these medications.

The latest report challenging the utility of the 2005 warnings was particularly sobering. Published in October in Health Affairs, the systematic review of studies from 2003 to 2022 showed a 20%-40% decline in physician visits for depression, a 20%-50% decline in antidepressant use, and an abrupt increase in psychotropic drug poisonings and suicides — all after the warnings were added.

“FDA officials should review the totality of evidence and err on the side of caution in acknowledging possible harms of the antidepressant warnings,” lead author Stephen Soumerai, ScD, professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts and colleagues wrote. They called on the FDA to replace the boxed warnings with a routine warning in labeling.

While good prospective data on the risks and benefits of antidepressants in youth were limited when the boxed warnings were instituted, there is more information now, said Jeffrey Strawn, MD, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Ohio. Strawn, whose research on the topic has been cited frequently over the years, said the new evidence suggests it is time for the FDA to reevaluate the warnings.

“I don’t think that they’ve been useful. They’ve actually been harmful,” Strawn told this news organization. “These boxed warnings have decreased physicians’ and other clinicians’ comfort and tendency to prescribe.”

 

Decline in Diagnoses

The FDA issued its first warning about the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior in children in 2003. After an advisory panel weighed the evidence, the agency added a boxed warning in 2005 to all antidepressants for children younger than 18 years. The warning was expanded in 2007 to include young adults through age 24.

Data suggesting that the warnings have had unintended effects can be found going back to just after they were issued. For instance, in 2009, after rising for years, the rate of new pediatric depression diagnoses fell precipitously after the warning was added, with primary care physicians diagnosing 44% fewer cases.

In 2014, citing evidence of fewer diagnoses and rising psychotropic drug poisonings, Weill Cornell Medicine Professor Richard A. Friedman, MD, called on the FDA in a perspective to remove the boxed warnings.

Strawn and colleagues reported in an often-cited 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis that, in nine trials involving 1673 patients and six medications, antidepressants were superior to placebo, with no increased risk for suicidal thoughts or behavior.

He has also studied adverse effects of the medications, reporting in Pharmacotherapy that suicidality risk might be more likely with some medications, such as paroxetine and venlafaxine, and that it could be influenced by baseline suicidality, among many other factors. A Swedish register study found that risk was highest the month before starting a medication, Strawn and colleagues wrote.

Dara Sakolsky, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and associate medical director, Services for Teens at Risk at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that, because of “these negative unintended consequences,” the FDA should lower the temperature by putting the warnings in labeling.

“It makes sense based on the data that we have at hand now,” said Sakolsky.

 

The Dangers of Untreated Depression

Even with this new information, lingering concerns about earlier studies that pointed to increased suicidality risk may discourage prescribing by primary care physicians and pediatricians, and that worries researchers and psychiatrists.

“My concern is that the risk for suicide and suicidal behavior may be higher in untreated depression than the risk of suicidal thoughts or behaviors from antidepressants,” Jeffrey Bridge, PhD, director of the Center for Suicide Prevention and Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, told this news organization.

Bridge is the lead author of a much-cited 2007 meta-analysis in JAMA that showed that the benefits of antidepressants in children and adolescents appeared to be greater than the risks for suicidality. “The concern about antidepressants must be considered in the context of possible benefit,” wrote Bridge, who also is professor of pediatrics, psychiatry, and behavioral health at Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.

Depression and suicide are a scourge for those younger than 25 years. A 2021 literature review noted that the prevalence of depression — which has been increasing for all Americans — has risen more among adolescents than adults. Depression is “strongly associated with suicide,” the authors wrote.

In 2021, the National Institute of Mental Health reported suicide was the second leading cause of death among 10- to 14-year-olds and the third leading cause of death among those aged 15-24 years.

Suicide kills more kids aged between 10 and 24 years than cancer and all other illnesses combined, John Campo, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and vice president of psychiatric services at Kennedy Krieger Institute, told this news organization.

Meanwhile, he added, the medications work and clinicians balance risk and benefit in prescribing.

The landmark 2007 Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study showed that fluoxetine, especially in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), was significantly better than placebo. Since that time, legions of trials have shown the drugs’ effectiveness.

The most effective treatment for teen depression is a combination of CBT and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, said Sakolsky.

“We know that the evidence for that is pretty good,” she said. “On the flip side, we know the risk of having an adverse outcome is pretty low.”

Sakolsky tells patients and families that perhaps 1 in 146 will have a suicidal thought or behavior. “That’s pretty rare when we know how effective these medicines are.” 

Strawn said he always notes that no suicides took place in the trials that led to the warning and stresses that he closely monitors patients. “While the more recent prospective data are reassuring,” the suicidality risk “is something that we still talk about,” he said. He also discusses how some antidepressants seem to increase risk more than others.

For Campo, the discussion is based on his reading of the evidence, not the presence of the FDA warning.

“Based on what we know, I still think it’s fair to proceed with the idea that there is a small, but real risk,” he said. However, “at the same time, the medications might be exceptionally helpful for some kids.”

 

‘What Do We Do Now?’

When the FDA issued its warning in 2005, the agency said it identified the risk for suicidality in a combined analysis of short-term placebo-controlled trials of nine antidepressants. It ultimately included 24 trials involving more than 4400 patients. The risk was highest in the first few months. The average risk for those taking antidepressants was 4%, twice the placebo risk of 2%. There were no suicides in these trials, however.

The trials relied on spontaneous reports of adverse events, not predetermined measures, Campo said. Even so, that 2% difference is “nothing to sneeze at,” he noted.

Bridge’s meta-analysis showed a smaller difference — closer to 0.7%. “But it was still statistically significant,” Campo said. “I have trouble ignoring that.”

The unintended consequences of the warning can’t be studied in a randomized controlled trial. Studies have shown an association but not a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the warning and a decline in treatment and rise in suicides.

But the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior with antidepressants has been studied prospectively. Some older studies found a significant risk, while more recent trials have not.

While the Health Affairs analysis “certainly makes a strong case,” it is observational data, Campo said.

“The question is, what do we do now in retrospect? Do you say, ‘Never mind. We don’t need the black box warning anymore?’ ” he said. “That would require a pretty careful look.”

The Health Affairs paper “makes me think that there are other areas of research that that need to be completed and done and updated, and then there should be an assessment, a reevaluation from the FDA,” said Bridge. A new meta-analysis “would be very informative,” he said.

 

What’s Next?

When asked about the Health Affairs paper and whether the agency would review the warnings, an FDA spokesperson told this news organization that the agency “does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

Sakolsky said the data clearly point to the damage that the warning has done over the past 2 decades, but that things might be improving. Studies conducted more recently might not have captured some changes in practice.

For instance, she noted, in 2022, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended screening for major depressive disorder in adolescents aged 12-18 years. In turn, she has seen more patients in her office who were referred by pediatricians who had conducted the screening, said Sakolsky.

Strawn said the time for pontificating is long past due. “We’re withholding medications and other treatments that could potentially be effective for disorders that, in and of themselves, are associated with a significant increase in the risk of suicide.” 

After the FDA instituted the warning, “we were all very nervous,” about the potential fallout, said Campo, adding that a part of him wishes that the warnings had been “more mundane and less dramatic.”

Despite the unintended consequences, “it’s going to be hard to put the genie back in the bottle,” he said.

Campo and Sakolsky reported no relevant financial relationships. Strawn disclosed that his institution has received research funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and AbbVie. Bridge reported that he received grant support from the National Institute of Mental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and PCORI; is a scientific adviser to Clarigent Health; and is on the Scientific Council of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

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

For almost 2 decades, antidepressants have carried boxed warnings linking the medications to an increased risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors in young people. Paradoxically, and for almost as long, evidence suggests these warnings may have led to fewer depression diagnoses, reduced prescriptions, and, ultimately, higher suicide rates.

With mounting evidence of these negative unintended consequences, some clinicians and researchers are urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider revising — or even eliminating — boxed warnings on these medications.

The latest report challenging the utility of the 2005 warnings was particularly sobering. Published in October in Health Affairs, the systematic review of studies from 2003 to 2022 showed a 20%-40% decline in physician visits for depression, a 20%-50% decline in antidepressant use, and an abrupt increase in psychotropic drug poisonings and suicides — all after the warnings were added.

“FDA officials should review the totality of evidence and err on the side of caution in acknowledging possible harms of the antidepressant warnings,” lead author Stephen Soumerai, ScD, professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts and colleagues wrote. They called on the FDA to replace the boxed warnings with a routine warning in labeling.

While good prospective data on the risks and benefits of antidepressants in youth were limited when the boxed warnings were instituted, there is more information now, said Jeffrey Strawn, MD, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Ohio. Strawn, whose research on the topic has been cited frequently over the years, said the new evidence suggests it is time for the FDA to reevaluate the warnings.

“I don’t think that they’ve been useful. They’ve actually been harmful,” Strawn told this news organization. “These boxed warnings have decreased physicians’ and other clinicians’ comfort and tendency to prescribe.”

 

Decline in Diagnoses

The FDA issued its first warning about the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior in children in 2003. After an advisory panel weighed the evidence, the agency added a boxed warning in 2005 to all antidepressants for children younger than 18 years. The warning was expanded in 2007 to include young adults through age 24.

Data suggesting that the warnings have had unintended effects can be found going back to just after they were issued. For instance, in 2009, after rising for years, the rate of new pediatric depression diagnoses fell precipitously after the warning was added, with primary care physicians diagnosing 44% fewer cases.

In 2014, citing evidence of fewer diagnoses and rising psychotropic drug poisonings, Weill Cornell Medicine Professor Richard A. Friedman, MD, called on the FDA in a perspective to remove the boxed warnings.

Strawn and colleagues reported in an often-cited 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis that, in nine trials involving 1673 patients and six medications, antidepressants were superior to placebo, with no increased risk for suicidal thoughts or behavior.

He has also studied adverse effects of the medications, reporting in Pharmacotherapy that suicidality risk might be more likely with some medications, such as paroxetine and venlafaxine, and that it could be influenced by baseline suicidality, among many other factors. A Swedish register study found that risk was highest the month before starting a medication, Strawn and colleagues wrote.

Dara Sakolsky, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and associate medical director, Services for Teens at Risk at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that, because of “these negative unintended consequences,” the FDA should lower the temperature by putting the warnings in labeling.

“It makes sense based on the data that we have at hand now,” said Sakolsky.

 

The Dangers of Untreated Depression

Even with this new information, lingering concerns about earlier studies that pointed to increased suicidality risk may discourage prescribing by primary care physicians and pediatricians, and that worries researchers and psychiatrists.

“My concern is that the risk for suicide and suicidal behavior may be higher in untreated depression than the risk of suicidal thoughts or behaviors from antidepressants,” Jeffrey Bridge, PhD, director of the Center for Suicide Prevention and Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, told this news organization.

Bridge is the lead author of a much-cited 2007 meta-analysis in JAMA that showed that the benefits of antidepressants in children and adolescents appeared to be greater than the risks for suicidality. “The concern about antidepressants must be considered in the context of possible benefit,” wrote Bridge, who also is professor of pediatrics, psychiatry, and behavioral health at Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.

Depression and suicide are a scourge for those younger than 25 years. A 2021 literature review noted that the prevalence of depression — which has been increasing for all Americans — has risen more among adolescents than adults. Depression is “strongly associated with suicide,” the authors wrote.

In 2021, the National Institute of Mental Health reported suicide was the second leading cause of death among 10- to 14-year-olds and the third leading cause of death among those aged 15-24 years.

Suicide kills more kids aged between 10 and 24 years than cancer and all other illnesses combined, John Campo, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and vice president of psychiatric services at Kennedy Krieger Institute, told this news organization.

Meanwhile, he added, the medications work and clinicians balance risk and benefit in prescribing.

The landmark 2007 Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study showed that fluoxetine, especially in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), was significantly better than placebo. Since that time, legions of trials have shown the drugs’ effectiveness.

The most effective treatment for teen depression is a combination of CBT and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, said Sakolsky.

“We know that the evidence for that is pretty good,” she said. “On the flip side, we know the risk of having an adverse outcome is pretty low.”

Sakolsky tells patients and families that perhaps 1 in 146 will have a suicidal thought or behavior. “That’s pretty rare when we know how effective these medicines are.” 

Strawn said he always notes that no suicides took place in the trials that led to the warning and stresses that he closely monitors patients. “While the more recent prospective data are reassuring,” the suicidality risk “is something that we still talk about,” he said. He also discusses how some antidepressants seem to increase risk more than others.

For Campo, the discussion is based on his reading of the evidence, not the presence of the FDA warning.

“Based on what we know, I still think it’s fair to proceed with the idea that there is a small, but real risk,” he said. However, “at the same time, the medications might be exceptionally helpful for some kids.”

 

‘What Do We Do Now?’

When the FDA issued its warning in 2005, the agency said it identified the risk for suicidality in a combined analysis of short-term placebo-controlled trials of nine antidepressants. It ultimately included 24 trials involving more than 4400 patients. The risk was highest in the first few months. The average risk for those taking antidepressants was 4%, twice the placebo risk of 2%. There were no suicides in these trials, however.

The trials relied on spontaneous reports of adverse events, not predetermined measures, Campo said. Even so, that 2% difference is “nothing to sneeze at,” he noted.

Bridge’s meta-analysis showed a smaller difference — closer to 0.7%. “But it was still statistically significant,” Campo said. “I have trouble ignoring that.”

The unintended consequences of the warning can’t be studied in a randomized controlled trial. Studies have shown an association but not a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the warning and a decline in treatment and rise in suicides.

But the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior with antidepressants has been studied prospectively. Some older studies found a significant risk, while more recent trials have not.

While the Health Affairs analysis “certainly makes a strong case,” it is observational data, Campo said.

“The question is, what do we do now in retrospect? Do you say, ‘Never mind. We don’t need the black box warning anymore?’ ” he said. “That would require a pretty careful look.”

The Health Affairs paper “makes me think that there are other areas of research that that need to be completed and done and updated, and then there should be an assessment, a reevaluation from the FDA,” said Bridge. A new meta-analysis “would be very informative,” he said.

 

What’s Next?

When asked about the Health Affairs paper and whether the agency would review the warnings, an FDA spokesperson told this news organization that the agency “does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

Sakolsky said the data clearly point to the damage that the warning has done over the past 2 decades, but that things might be improving. Studies conducted more recently might not have captured some changes in practice.

For instance, she noted, in 2022, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended screening for major depressive disorder in adolescents aged 12-18 years. In turn, she has seen more patients in her office who were referred by pediatricians who had conducted the screening, said Sakolsky.

Strawn said the time for pontificating is long past due. “We’re withholding medications and other treatments that could potentially be effective for disorders that, in and of themselves, are associated with a significant increase in the risk of suicide.” 

After the FDA instituted the warning, “we were all very nervous,” about the potential fallout, said Campo, adding that a part of him wishes that the warnings had been “more mundane and less dramatic.”

Despite the unintended consequences, “it’s going to be hard to put the genie back in the bottle,” he said.

Campo and Sakolsky reported no relevant financial relationships. Strawn disclosed that his institution has received research funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and AbbVie. Bridge reported that he received grant support from the National Institute of Mental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and PCORI; is a scientific adviser to Clarigent Health; and is on the Scientific Council of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

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

For almost 2 decades, antidepressants have carried boxed warnings linking the medications to an increased risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors in young people. Paradoxically, and for almost as long, evidence suggests these warnings may have led to fewer depression diagnoses, reduced prescriptions, and, ultimately, higher suicide rates.

With mounting evidence of these negative unintended consequences, some clinicians and researchers are urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider revising — or even eliminating — boxed warnings on these medications.

The latest report challenging the utility of the 2005 warnings was particularly sobering. Published in October in Health Affairs, the systematic review of studies from 2003 to 2022 showed a 20%-40% decline in physician visits for depression, a 20%-50% decline in antidepressant use, and an abrupt increase in psychotropic drug poisonings and suicides — all after the warnings were added.

“FDA officials should review the totality of evidence and err on the side of caution in acknowledging possible harms of the antidepressant warnings,” lead author Stephen Soumerai, ScD, professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts and colleagues wrote. They called on the FDA to replace the boxed warnings with a routine warning in labeling.

While good prospective data on the risks and benefits of antidepressants in youth were limited when the boxed warnings were instituted, there is more information now, said Jeffrey Strawn, MD, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Ohio. Strawn, whose research on the topic has been cited frequently over the years, said the new evidence suggests it is time for the FDA to reevaluate the warnings.

“I don’t think that they’ve been useful. They’ve actually been harmful,” Strawn told this news organization. “These boxed warnings have decreased physicians’ and other clinicians’ comfort and tendency to prescribe.”

 

Decline in Diagnoses

The FDA issued its first warning about the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior in children in 2003. After an advisory panel weighed the evidence, the agency added a boxed warning in 2005 to all antidepressants for children younger than 18 years. The warning was expanded in 2007 to include young adults through age 24.

Data suggesting that the warnings have had unintended effects can be found going back to just after they were issued. For instance, in 2009, after rising for years, the rate of new pediatric depression diagnoses fell precipitously after the warning was added, with primary care physicians diagnosing 44% fewer cases.

In 2014, citing evidence of fewer diagnoses and rising psychotropic drug poisonings, Weill Cornell Medicine Professor Richard A. Friedman, MD, called on the FDA in a perspective to remove the boxed warnings.

Strawn and colleagues reported in an often-cited 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis that, in nine trials involving 1673 patients and six medications, antidepressants were superior to placebo, with no increased risk for suicidal thoughts or behavior.

He has also studied adverse effects of the medications, reporting in Pharmacotherapy that suicidality risk might be more likely with some medications, such as paroxetine and venlafaxine, and that it could be influenced by baseline suicidality, among many other factors. A Swedish register study found that risk was highest the month before starting a medication, Strawn and colleagues wrote.

Dara Sakolsky, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and associate medical director, Services for Teens at Risk at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that, because of “these negative unintended consequences,” the FDA should lower the temperature by putting the warnings in labeling.

“It makes sense based on the data that we have at hand now,” said Sakolsky.

 

The Dangers of Untreated Depression

Even with this new information, lingering concerns about earlier studies that pointed to increased suicidality risk may discourage prescribing by primary care physicians and pediatricians, and that worries researchers and psychiatrists.

“My concern is that the risk for suicide and suicidal behavior may be higher in untreated depression than the risk of suicidal thoughts or behaviors from antidepressants,” Jeffrey Bridge, PhD, director of the Center for Suicide Prevention and Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, told this news organization.

Bridge is the lead author of a much-cited 2007 meta-analysis in JAMA that showed that the benefits of antidepressants in children and adolescents appeared to be greater than the risks for suicidality. “The concern about antidepressants must be considered in the context of possible benefit,” wrote Bridge, who also is professor of pediatrics, psychiatry, and behavioral health at Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.

Depression and suicide are a scourge for those younger than 25 years. A 2021 literature review noted that the prevalence of depression — which has been increasing for all Americans — has risen more among adolescents than adults. Depression is “strongly associated with suicide,” the authors wrote.

In 2021, the National Institute of Mental Health reported suicide was the second leading cause of death among 10- to 14-year-olds and the third leading cause of death among those aged 15-24 years.

Suicide kills more kids aged between 10 and 24 years than cancer and all other illnesses combined, John Campo, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and vice president of psychiatric services at Kennedy Krieger Institute, told this news organization.

Meanwhile, he added, the medications work and clinicians balance risk and benefit in prescribing.

The landmark 2007 Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study showed that fluoxetine, especially in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), was significantly better than placebo. Since that time, legions of trials have shown the drugs’ effectiveness.

The most effective treatment for teen depression is a combination of CBT and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, said Sakolsky.

“We know that the evidence for that is pretty good,” she said. “On the flip side, we know the risk of having an adverse outcome is pretty low.”

Sakolsky tells patients and families that perhaps 1 in 146 will have a suicidal thought or behavior. “That’s pretty rare when we know how effective these medicines are.” 

Strawn said he always notes that no suicides took place in the trials that led to the warning and stresses that he closely monitors patients. “While the more recent prospective data are reassuring,” the suicidality risk “is something that we still talk about,” he said. He also discusses how some antidepressants seem to increase risk more than others.

For Campo, the discussion is based on his reading of the evidence, not the presence of the FDA warning.

“Based on what we know, I still think it’s fair to proceed with the idea that there is a small, but real risk,” he said. However, “at the same time, the medications might be exceptionally helpful for some kids.”

 

‘What Do We Do Now?’

When the FDA issued its warning in 2005, the agency said it identified the risk for suicidality in a combined analysis of short-term placebo-controlled trials of nine antidepressants. It ultimately included 24 trials involving more than 4400 patients. The risk was highest in the first few months. The average risk for those taking antidepressants was 4%, twice the placebo risk of 2%. There were no suicides in these trials, however.

The trials relied on spontaneous reports of adverse events, not predetermined measures, Campo said. Even so, that 2% difference is “nothing to sneeze at,” he noted.

Bridge’s meta-analysis showed a smaller difference — closer to 0.7%. “But it was still statistically significant,” Campo said. “I have trouble ignoring that.”

The unintended consequences of the warning can’t be studied in a randomized controlled trial. Studies have shown an association but not a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the warning and a decline in treatment and rise in suicides.

But the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior with antidepressants has been studied prospectively. Some older studies found a significant risk, while more recent trials have not.

While the Health Affairs analysis “certainly makes a strong case,” it is observational data, Campo said.

“The question is, what do we do now in retrospect? Do you say, ‘Never mind. We don’t need the black box warning anymore?’ ” he said. “That would require a pretty careful look.”

The Health Affairs paper “makes me think that there are other areas of research that that need to be completed and done and updated, and then there should be an assessment, a reevaluation from the FDA,” said Bridge. A new meta-analysis “would be very informative,” he said.

 

What’s Next?

When asked about the Health Affairs paper and whether the agency would review the warnings, an FDA spokesperson told this news organization that the agency “does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

Sakolsky said the data clearly point to the damage that the warning has done over the past 2 decades, but that things might be improving. Studies conducted more recently might not have captured some changes in practice.

For instance, she noted, in 2022, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended screening for major depressive disorder in adolescents aged 12-18 years. In turn, she has seen more patients in her office who were referred by pediatricians who had conducted the screening, said Sakolsky.

Strawn said the time for pontificating is long past due. “We’re withholding medications and other treatments that could potentially be effective for disorders that, in and of themselves, are associated with a significant increase in the risk of suicide.” 

After the FDA instituted the warning, “we were all very nervous,” about the potential fallout, said Campo, adding that a part of him wishes that the warnings had been “more mundane and less dramatic.”

Despite the unintended consequences, “it’s going to be hard to put the genie back in the bottle,” he said.

Campo and Sakolsky reported no relevant financial relationships. Strawn disclosed that his institution has received research funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and AbbVie. Bridge reported that he received grant support from the National Institute of Mental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and PCORI; is a scientific adviser to Clarigent Health; and is on the Scientific Council of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

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

In the latest effort to address the mental health crisis among adolescents, legislation in California would require social media platforms to come with a “black box” mental health warning label.

Despite growing evidence linking young people’s use of social media to significant health risks including depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts, social media companies have failed to be transparent about the risks, said Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), who introduced Assembly Bill (AB) 56.

“AB 56 ensures that families are armed with clear, actionable information to understand these dangers and make decisions that prioritizes their children’s well-being,” she said in a press release.

Bauer-Kahan noted that 95% of teens report using at least one social media platform and that more than one third say they use social media almost constantly.

“There is a powerful profit motive to keep our young people hooked online and engaged and it is exploiting the human psychology with notifications, likes, endless scrolling, and algorithmic amplification that is harming our children every day,” she said at a press conference on December 9 announcing the bill.

The warning labels are an equitable and transparent way to communicate the risks that social media poses to young users, California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta, a sponsor of AB 56, said in a press release.

Speaking at the press conference, Bonta said social media has many “incredible benefits” from giving people an outlet of expression to providing access to critical information but “there is no disputing the fact, it can have an enormously detrimental and dangerous impact on our young people. You cannot debate that. Our children are suffering.”

If AB 56 is successful, he said social media platforms would be required to display a “black box warning” for all users that would appear upon the first use of a platform and weekly thereafter.

The proposed language for the warning label is: “The Surgeon General has advised that there are ample indicators that social media can have a profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents.”

“This warning label isn’t a panacea, we know that, but it is another tool in our toolbox. It’s one prong in what has to be a multi-pronged continued, coordinated effort to address this public health crisis,” Bonta said.

Reached for comment, Bonta’s office said sponsorship of the bill was informed by their ongoing work to create a safer online space for children and teens and by the US Surgeon General’s call to Congress to add warning labels to social media.

In June, US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, said a Surgeon General’s warning label is needed to address the mental health emergency among adolescents and noted that evidence from tobacco studies shows warning labels can increase awareness and change behavior. In September, the attorneys general of 42 states announced their support of the proposal.

Also in September, US Senators John Fetterman (D-PA) and Katie Britt (R-AL) introduced the Stop the Scroll Act to create a mental health warning label requirement for social media platforms.

In a controversial move in November, Australia passed the world’s first law banning social media for children younger than 16 years. The law gives platforms such as TikTok, Facebook, X, Snapchat, and Instagram 1 year to figure out how to implement the ban before facing fines of up 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 years from holding accounts.

 

‘A Broken Fire Alarm’

“Slapping a warning label on social media is like a broken fire alarm going off with no evidence of smoke. It ignores the reality that most teens view social media as an important outlet for social connection,” Todd O’Boyle, with the tech industry policy group Chamber of Progress, said in a statement on AB 56.

He highlighted a 2022 Pew Research Center survey reporting that most teens credit social media with deepening connections and providing a support network and a 2020 study reporting that social media is not a strong or consistent risk factor for depressive symptoms in US adolescents.

O’Boyle predicted that, without strong evidence, AB 56 will run into the same “First Amendment buzzsaw” that has doomed other California kids’ bills.

Pediatrician Jason Nagata, MD, University of California San Francisco, points out in Bonta’s press release that social media can displace time for other healthful activities including sleep, exercise, and in-person socialization.

“While social media can provide educational content, it can also provide misinformation about health and expose children to content that damages their mental well-being. These are risks that adolescents and their parents should be aware of,” Nagata said.

Indeed, a tearful Victoria Hinks of Larkspur, California, spoke at the press conference of her 16-year-old daughter, Alexandra, who committed suicide 4 months ago after being sucked into social media and served content on self-harm, eating disorders, suicidal ideation, and glamorization of suicide.

“She was led down dark rabbit holes she had no hope of escaping,” Hinks said. “There is not a bone in my body that doubts social media played a role leading her to that final irreversible decision.”

Jim Steyer, CEO and founder of Common Sense Media, applauded California for being the first state to introduce social media warning label legislation. The group plans to lobby for similar proposals in other states he said at the press conference, noting that there are “tens of thousands of Alexandras out there.”

“We have seat belt laws, we have warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol, and that’s what we’re doing here,” Steyer said. “It’s a straightforward simple proposition, which is put your kids and teenagers first, put their self-interest first and hold the largest, most powerful, and wealthy companies in all of our lifetimes accountable for the harms that have happened on their platforms.”

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

In the latest effort to address the mental health crisis among adolescents, legislation in California would require social media platforms to come with a “black box” mental health warning label.

Despite growing evidence linking young people’s use of social media to significant health risks including depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts, social media companies have failed to be transparent about the risks, said Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), who introduced Assembly Bill (AB) 56.

“AB 56 ensures that families are armed with clear, actionable information to understand these dangers and make decisions that prioritizes their children’s well-being,” she said in a press release.

Bauer-Kahan noted that 95% of teens report using at least one social media platform and that more than one third say they use social media almost constantly.

“There is a powerful profit motive to keep our young people hooked online and engaged and it is exploiting the human psychology with notifications, likes, endless scrolling, and algorithmic amplification that is harming our children every day,” she said at a press conference on December 9 announcing the bill.

The warning labels are an equitable and transparent way to communicate the risks that social media poses to young users, California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta, a sponsor of AB 56, said in a press release.

Speaking at the press conference, Bonta said social media has many “incredible benefits” from giving people an outlet of expression to providing access to critical information but “there is no disputing the fact, it can have an enormously detrimental and dangerous impact on our young people. You cannot debate that. Our children are suffering.”

If AB 56 is successful, he said social media platforms would be required to display a “black box warning” for all users that would appear upon the first use of a platform and weekly thereafter.

The proposed language for the warning label is: “The Surgeon General has advised that there are ample indicators that social media can have a profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents.”

“This warning label isn’t a panacea, we know that, but it is another tool in our toolbox. It’s one prong in what has to be a multi-pronged continued, coordinated effort to address this public health crisis,” Bonta said.

Reached for comment, Bonta’s office said sponsorship of the bill was informed by their ongoing work to create a safer online space for children and teens and by the US Surgeon General’s call to Congress to add warning labels to social media.

In June, US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, said a Surgeon General’s warning label is needed to address the mental health emergency among adolescents and noted that evidence from tobacco studies shows warning labels can increase awareness and change behavior. In September, the attorneys general of 42 states announced their support of the proposal.

Also in September, US Senators John Fetterman (D-PA) and Katie Britt (R-AL) introduced the Stop the Scroll Act to create a mental health warning label requirement for social media platforms.

In a controversial move in November, Australia passed the world’s first law banning social media for children younger than 16 years. The law gives platforms such as TikTok, Facebook, X, Snapchat, and Instagram 1 year to figure out how to implement the ban before facing fines of up 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 years from holding accounts.

 

‘A Broken Fire Alarm’

“Slapping a warning label on social media is like a broken fire alarm going off with no evidence of smoke. It ignores the reality that most teens view social media as an important outlet for social connection,” Todd O’Boyle, with the tech industry policy group Chamber of Progress, said in a statement on AB 56.

He highlighted a 2022 Pew Research Center survey reporting that most teens credit social media with deepening connections and providing a support network and a 2020 study reporting that social media is not a strong or consistent risk factor for depressive symptoms in US adolescents.

O’Boyle predicted that, without strong evidence, AB 56 will run into the same “First Amendment buzzsaw” that has doomed other California kids’ bills.

Pediatrician Jason Nagata, MD, University of California San Francisco, points out in Bonta’s press release that social media can displace time for other healthful activities including sleep, exercise, and in-person socialization.

“While social media can provide educational content, it can also provide misinformation about health and expose children to content that damages their mental well-being. These are risks that adolescents and their parents should be aware of,” Nagata said.

Indeed, a tearful Victoria Hinks of Larkspur, California, spoke at the press conference of her 16-year-old daughter, Alexandra, who committed suicide 4 months ago after being sucked into social media and served content on self-harm, eating disorders, suicidal ideation, and glamorization of suicide.

“She was led down dark rabbit holes she had no hope of escaping,” Hinks said. “There is not a bone in my body that doubts social media played a role leading her to that final irreversible decision.”

Jim Steyer, CEO and founder of Common Sense Media, applauded California for being the first state to introduce social media warning label legislation. The group plans to lobby for similar proposals in other states he said at the press conference, noting that there are “tens of thousands of Alexandras out there.”

“We have seat belt laws, we have warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol, and that’s what we’re doing here,” Steyer said. “It’s a straightforward simple proposition, which is put your kids and teenagers first, put their self-interest first and hold the largest, most powerful, and wealthy companies in all of our lifetimes accountable for the harms that have happened on their platforms.”

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

In the latest effort to address the mental health crisis among adolescents, legislation in California would require social media platforms to come with a “black box” mental health warning label.

Despite growing evidence linking young people’s use of social media to significant health risks including depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts, social media companies have failed to be transparent about the risks, said Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), who introduced Assembly Bill (AB) 56.

“AB 56 ensures that families are armed with clear, actionable information to understand these dangers and make decisions that prioritizes their children’s well-being,” she said in a press release.

Bauer-Kahan noted that 95% of teens report using at least one social media platform and that more than one third say they use social media almost constantly.

“There is a powerful profit motive to keep our young people hooked online and engaged and it is exploiting the human psychology with notifications, likes, endless scrolling, and algorithmic amplification that is harming our children every day,” she said at a press conference on December 9 announcing the bill.

The warning labels are an equitable and transparent way to communicate the risks that social media poses to young users, California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta, a sponsor of AB 56, said in a press release.

Speaking at the press conference, Bonta said social media has many “incredible benefits” from giving people an outlet of expression to providing access to critical information but “there is no disputing the fact, it can have an enormously detrimental and dangerous impact on our young people. You cannot debate that. Our children are suffering.”

If AB 56 is successful, he said social media platforms would be required to display a “black box warning” for all users that would appear upon the first use of a platform and weekly thereafter.

The proposed language for the warning label is: “The Surgeon General has advised that there are ample indicators that social media can have a profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents.”

“This warning label isn’t a panacea, we know that, but it is another tool in our toolbox. It’s one prong in what has to be a multi-pronged continued, coordinated effort to address this public health crisis,” Bonta said.

Reached for comment, Bonta’s office said sponsorship of the bill was informed by their ongoing work to create a safer online space for children and teens and by the US Surgeon General’s call to Congress to add warning labels to social media.

In June, US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, said a Surgeon General’s warning label is needed to address the mental health emergency among adolescents and noted that evidence from tobacco studies shows warning labels can increase awareness and change behavior. In September, the attorneys general of 42 states announced their support of the proposal.

Also in September, US Senators John Fetterman (D-PA) and Katie Britt (R-AL) introduced the Stop the Scroll Act to create a mental health warning label requirement for social media platforms.

In a controversial move in November, Australia passed the world’s first law banning social media for children younger than 16 years. The law gives platforms such as TikTok, Facebook, X, Snapchat, and Instagram 1 year to figure out how to implement the ban before facing fines of up 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 years from holding accounts.

 

‘A Broken Fire Alarm’

“Slapping a warning label on social media is like a broken fire alarm going off with no evidence of smoke. It ignores the reality that most teens view social media as an important outlet for social connection,” Todd O’Boyle, with the tech industry policy group Chamber of Progress, said in a statement on AB 56.

He highlighted a 2022 Pew Research Center survey reporting that most teens credit social media with deepening connections and providing a support network and a 2020 study reporting that social media is not a strong or consistent risk factor for depressive symptoms in US adolescents.

O’Boyle predicted that, without strong evidence, AB 56 will run into the same “First Amendment buzzsaw” that has doomed other California kids’ bills.

Pediatrician Jason Nagata, MD, University of California San Francisco, points out in Bonta’s press release that social media can displace time for other healthful activities including sleep, exercise, and in-person socialization.

“While social media can provide educational content, it can also provide misinformation about health and expose children to content that damages their mental well-being. These are risks that adolescents and their parents should be aware of,” Nagata said.

Indeed, a tearful Victoria Hinks of Larkspur, California, spoke at the press conference of her 16-year-old daughter, Alexandra, who committed suicide 4 months ago after being sucked into social media and served content on self-harm, eating disorders, suicidal ideation, and glamorization of suicide.

“She was led down dark rabbit holes she had no hope of escaping,” Hinks said. “There is not a bone in my body that doubts social media played a role leading her to that final irreversible decision.”

Jim Steyer, CEO and founder of Common Sense Media, applauded California for being the first state to introduce social media warning label legislation. The group plans to lobby for similar proposals in other states he said at the press conference, noting that there are “tens of thousands of Alexandras out there.”

“We have seat belt laws, we have warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol, and that’s what we’re doing here,” Steyer said. “It’s a straightforward simple proposition, which is put your kids and teenagers first, put their self-interest first and hold the largest, most powerful, and wealthy companies in all of our lifetimes accountable for the harms that have happened on their platforms.”

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

Long COVID can have an enormous impact on people’s ability to work, particularly if they do not have workplace accommodations and support. Although some patients experience symptoms so severe that they cannot work under any conditions, medical providers and employers can help ensure many patients with long COVID can stay in the workforce.

Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems. By the end of 2023, at least 400 million people worldwide were estimated to have long COVID.

As members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers and health advocates living with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions, we have published one of the first research studies of people with long COVID and their desire to work, the specific needs they have, and what doctors and employers can do to create a path for returning to the workforce. 

In our recent paper, we document the barriers and facilitators that individuals living with long COVID experience when attempting to return to work. Our recommendations are based on these findings and include recommendations for both medical providers and employers. 

If you are a medical provider:

• Ensure you adequately document your patients’ COVID cases, any long COVID diagnoses, and the functional impairment that long COVID causes. Remember that you can diagnose a patient with long COVID on the basis of their symptoms, and clinical guidelines do not require a record of a positive COVID-19 test, which many patients lack owing to testing barriers.
• Keep up to date on research on long COVID and related infection-associated chronic conditions — for example, through the Project ECHO Long COVID and Fatiguing Illness Recovery Program — and learn about pacing and other treatment options.

If you are an employer: 

• Utilize a return-to-work model in which any worker with suspected or confirmed COVID discusses support they may need with their employer when they return to work, with additional check-in dates scheduled to reevaluate supports as needed. Planning for this collaborative and iterative evaluation of return-to-work supports for all workers with COVID-19 is important because it may not be immediately clear to a worker whether they have developed long COVID or are generally recuperating from the illness.
• Do not require medical documentation of a SARS-CoV-2 infection or a Long COVID diagnosis to access accommodations — this is owing to disparities in accessing documentation.
• Tailor job responsibilities, provide remote options, allow flexible hours, and provide longer-range deadlines to account for symptoms for people with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions.
• Provide accommodations to any caregivers of people with long COVID in your workplace.
• If requiring in-person work, make the workplace as safe as possible through ventilation and masking requirements, which will help ensure fewer of your workers develop long COVID, and those already with infection-associated chronic conditions will not get worse.

Our findings and recommendations are specific to long COVID, but they can and should apply to other disabilities. Given that our study’s sample was predominately White and working in jobs that did not require substantial physical labor, additional recommendations may be needed for other populations and workers who have labor-intensive jobs.

 

510 Study Participants

Long COVID is characterized as a relapsing-remitting illness, often described as episodic, in which an individual’s symptoms may fluctuate. Symptoms can become more or less severe depending on tasks, exertion, and social support in addition to physiologic processes and medical intervention. In our paper, we illustrate how the long COVID return-to-work experience and individuals’ symptoms can be shaped by workplace, home, and medical environments. 

We randomly selected 510 participants from a global survey of people living with long COVID and systematically analyzed their open-ended responses using established qualitative analysis methods. In this study, we specifically analyzed what patients wrote about their return-to-work experiences, considering how work experiences and relapsing and remitting long COVID symptoms intersected with personal lives and medical care. 

Most of the study participants identified as White, were 30-60 years old (ie, in their key earning years), and had at least a baccalaureate degree. Participants lived in the United States (38%), United Kingdom (25%), continental Europe (8%), Canada (4%), or other countries (25%). Most participants worked in professions that did not require substantial physical labor, and individuals in those fields may experience even greater return-to-work barriers than are reported in this study.

 

Key Findings

Through our qualitative analysis, we identified four primary return-to-work themes: 

1. People living with long COVID have a strong desire and financial need to return to work. 

The participants in our study described how they had experienced financial hardship because they could not successfully return to work and may have incurred new expenses with long COVID. They also often wrote how they wanted to return to work because their jobs provided meaning and structure for their lives. Some people in this study shared how they had tried to return to their jobs but relapsed. As a result, they considered leaving the workforce.

2. Workers’ long COVID symptoms intersect with organization of work and home life.

Most of the people in our study were employed in positions that did not require substantial physical labor. Even so, workers described how their long COVID symptoms were exacerbated by some job tasks. Computer screen time; reading dense material or writing (including emails); and conversations and meetings, regardless of whether they were in-person or via phone or video conferencing, could trigger or make symptoms worse. Workers who needed to stand for long periods of time, such as teachers and healthcare workers, and workers who needed to do lifting as part of their jobs described how these requirements were too taxing and could lead to relapses.

Because of the relapsing and remitting nature of many long COVID symptoms, people reported how it could be difficult to predict how job tasks, long hours, or pressing deadlines may exacerbate symptoms, which would require them to take time off work. For these participants, “pushing through” symptoms only made the symptoms worse. However, people in the study who were allowed to work from home reported how pacing, elevating their legs, and conserving energy (especially by not commuting) was key to doing their jobs well.

Some people in the study described how they were only able to return to work because they had substantial support from family or partners at home. These individuals shared how the people they lived with did most of the cooking, cleaning, and other household tasks so that the person living with long COVID could conserve their energy for work. This reorganization of home life notably shifted household tasks and caregiving to other people in the household, but without this shift, the individual’s long COVID symptoms may be too severe to work.

3. People with long COVID experience disbelief and stigma at work and healthcare settings.

Some people in our study described how their colleagues, supervisors, and human resource managers insinuated that they were fabricating or exaggerating their symptoms. This made it hard for workers to communicate what support they needed and could limit access to necessary work accommodations.

Many people in our study also described how medical providers did not believe that they had long COVID despite experiencing debilitating symptoms, often because they did not have a positive COVID-19 test to prove they had had an acute infection. Many people with long COVID may not have a positive COVID-19 test because:

• They could not access a test because testing access was limited at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are transportation and cost barriers to tests, many health insurance providers no longer cover tests; and there are fewer public testing sites since the World Health Organization declared an end to the public health emergency;
• There is a high probability of false-negative results for viral and antibody tests (especially during the first wave of the pandemic and for individuals with limited immune response); and
• People can develop long COVID after asymptomatic acute infection.

Although healthcare providers can provide a long COVID diagnosis without a positive COVID-19 test on the basis of a patient’s presentation of symptoms and clinical history, many people in our study said that their providers would not provide this diagnosis, which restricted access to worker’s compensation, paid time off, and job accommodations.

Many people in the study also reported that their medical providers misdiagnosed them with a mental health disorder, such as anxiety, instead of long COVID. Although some people with long COVID may experience poor mental health as a natural consequence of dealing with a debilitating medical condition or may have neuropsychiatric symptoms as part of their long COVID, long COVID is not caused by an underlying psychiatric illness.

4. Support of medical providers is key to successful return to work for people living with long COVID.

Some people in our study described how they were able to get workplace accommodations or access workers’ compensation or sick leave because their medical providers recognized they had long COVID and provided them with this documentation. Some of these participants did not have a positive COVID-19 test, but their medical providers were able to diagnose them with long COVID on the basis of symptom presentation and clinical history. This documentation was critical for helping workers remain financially stable and able to return to work.

 

Conclusion

While we continue to search for treatment and cures for long COVID and work to provide a robust social safety net, it is crucial to address the stigma, inaccessibility, and lack of support often experienced by patients in their workplaces. Disabled people have long faced these issues; long COVID may be an opportunity to revolutionize the workplace to ensure an inclusive and accessible environment that can improve the lives of all workers.

For more on how to best be inclusive of employees with long COVID, read Harvard Business Review’s “Long Covid at Work: A Manager’s Guide” and visit the Job Accommodation Network webpage dedicated to long COVID.

Additional discussion about our study and applying the findings to improve work and medical care can be found by listening to the Healthy Work podcast episode titled “Supporting Long COVID at Work.” 

 

Elisabeth Stelson, Gina Assaf, and Lisa McCorkell are members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers. Dr Stelson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Gina Assaf is Research Lead, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC. Lisa McCorkell is a long COVID patient; Cofounder, Team Lead, Researcher, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Long COVID can have an enormous impact on people’s ability to work, particularly if they do not have workplace accommodations and support. Although some patients experience symptoms so severe that they cannot work under any conditions, medical providers and employers can help ensure many patients with long COVID can stay in the workforce.

Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems. By the end of 2023, at least 400 million people worldwide were estimated to have long COVID.

As members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers and health advocates living with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions, we have published one of the first research studies of people with long COVID and their desire to work, the specific needs they have, and what doctors and employers can do to create a path for returning to the workforce. 

In our recent paper, we document the barriers and facilitators that individuals living with long COVID experience when attempting to return to work. Our recommendations are based on these findings and include recommendations for both medical providers and employers. 

If you are a medical provider:

• Ensure you adequately document your patients’ COVID cases, any long COVID diagnoses, and the functional impairment that long COVID causes. Remember that you can diagnose a patient with long COVID on the basis of their symptoms, and clinical guidelines do not require a record of a positive COVID-19 test, which many patients lack owing to testing barriers.
• Keep up to date on research on long COVID and related infection-associated chronic conditions — for example, through the Project ECHO Long COVID and Fatiguing Illness Recovery Program — and learn about pacing and other treatment options.

If you are an employer: 

• Utilize a return-to-work model in which any worker with suspected or confirmed COVID discusses support they may need with their employer when they return to work, with additional check-in dates scheduled to reevaluate supports as needed. Planning for this collaborative and iterative evaluation of return-to-work supports for all workers with COVID-19 is important because it may not be immediately clear to a worker whether they have developed long COVID or are generally recuperating from the illness.
• Do not require medical documentation of a SARS-CoV-2 infection or a Long COVID diagnosis to access accommodations — this is owing to disparities in accessing documentation.
• Tailor job responsibilities, provide remote options, allow flexible hours, and provide longer-range deadlines to account for symptoms for people with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions.
• Provide accommodations to any caregivers of people with long COVID in your workplace.
• If requiring in-person work, make the workplace as safe as possible through ventilation and masking requirements, which will help ensure fewer of your workers develop long COVID, and those already with infection-associated chronic conditions will not get worse.

Our findings and recommendations are specific to long COVID, but they can and should apply to other disabilities. Given that our study’s sample was predominately White and working in jobs that did not require substantial physical labor, additional recommendations may be needed for other populations and workers who have labor-intensive jobs.

 

510 Study Participants

Long COVID is characterized as a relapsing-remitting illness, often described as episodic, in which an individual’s symptoms may fluctuate. Symptoms can become more or less severe depending on tasks, exertion, and social support in addition to physiologic processes and medical intervention. In our paper, we illustrate how the long COVID return-to-work experience and individuals’ symptoms can be shaped by workplace, home, and medical environments. 

We randomly selected 510 participants from a global survey of people living with long COVID and systematically analyzed their open-ended responses using established qualitative analysis methods. In this study, we specifically analyzed what patients wrote about their return-to-work experiences, considering how work experiences and relapsing and remitting long COVID symptoms intersected with personal lives and medical care. 

Most of the study participants identified as White, were 30-60 years old (ie, in their key earning years), and had at least a baccalaureate degree. Participants lived in the United States (38%), United Kingdom (25%), continental Europe (8%), Canada (4%), or other countries (25%). Most participants worked in professions that did not require substantial physical labor, and individuals in those fields may experience even greater return-to-work barriers than are reported in this study.

 

Key Findings

Through our qualitative analysis, we identified four primary return-to-work themes: 

1. People living with long COVID have a strong desire and financial need to return to work. 

The participants in our study described how they had experienced financial hardship because they could not successfully return to work and may have incurred new expenses with long COVID. They also often wrote how they wanted to return to work because their jobs provided meaning and structure for their lives. Some people in this study shared how they had tried to return to their jobs but relapsed. As a result, they considered leaving the workforce.

2. Workers’ long COVID symptoms intersect with organization of work and home life.

Most of the people in our study were employed in positions that did not require substantial physical labor. Even so, workers described how their long COVID symptoms were exacerbated by some job tasks. Computer screen time; reading dense material or writing (including emails); and conversations and meetings, regardless of whether they were in-person or via phone or video conferencing, could trigger or make symptoms worse. Workers who needed to stand for long periods of time, such as teachers and healthcare workers, and workers who needed to do lifting as part of their jobs described how these requirements were too taxing and could lead to relapses.

Because of the relapsing and remitting nature of many long COVID symptoms, people reported how it could be difficult to predict how job tasks, long hours, or pressing deadlines may exacerbate symptoms, which would require them to take time off work. For these participants, “pushing through” symptoms only made the symptoms worse. However, people in the study who were allowed to work from home reported how pacing, elevating their legs, and conserving energy (especially by not commuting) was key to doing their jobs well.

Some people in the study described how they were only able to return to work because they had substantial support from family or partners at home. These individuals shared how the people they lived with did most of the cooking, cleaning, and other household tasks so that the person living with long COVID could conserve their energy for work. This reorganization of home life notably shifted household tasks and caregiving to other people in the household, but without this shift, the individual’s long COVID symptoms may be too severe to work.

3. People with long COVID experience disbelief and stigma at work and healthcare settings.

Some people in our study described how their colleagues, supervisors, and human resource managers insinuated that they were fabricating or exaggerating their symptoms. This made it hard for workers to communicate what support they needed and could limit access to necessary work accommodations.

Many people in our study also described how medical providers did not believe that they had long COVID despite experiencing debilitating symptoms, often because they did not have a positive COVID-19 test to prove they had had an acute infection. Many people with long COVID may not have a positive COVID-19 test because:

• They could not access a test because testing access was limited at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are transportation and cost barriers to tests, many health insurance providers no longer cover tests; and there are fewer public testing sites since the World Health Organization declared an end to the public health emergency;
• There is a high probability of false-negative results for viral and antibody tests (especially during the first wave of the pandemic and for individuals with limited immune response); and
• People can develop long COVID after asymptomatic acute infection.

Although healthcare providers can provide a long COVID diagnosis without a positive COVID-19 test on the basis of a patient’s presentation of symptoms and clinical history, many people in our study said that their providers would not provide this diagnosis, which restricted access to worker’s compensation, paid time off, and job accommodations.

Many people in the study also reported that their medical providers misdiagnosed them with a mental health disorder, such as anxiety, instead of long COVID. Although some people with long COVID may experience poor mental health as a natural consequence of dealing with a debilitating medical condition or may have neuropsychiatric symptoms as part of their long COVID, long COVID is not caused by an underlying psychiatric illness.

4. Support of medical providers is key to successful return to work for people living with long COVID.

Some people in our study described how they were able to get workplace accommodations or access workers’ compensation or sick leave because their medical providers recognized they had long COVID and provided them with this documentation. Some of these participants did not have a positive COVID-19 test, but their medical providers were able to diagnose them with long COVID on the basis of symptom presentation and clinical history. This documentation was critical for helping workers remain financially stable and able to return to work.

 

Conclusion

While we continue to search for treatment and cures for long COVID and work to provide a robust social safety net, it is crucial to address the stigma, inaccessibility, and lack of support often experienced by patients in their workplaces. Disabled people have long faced these issues; long COVID may be an opportunity to revolutionize the workplace to ensure an inclusive and accessible environment that can improve the lives of all workers.

For more on how to best be inclusive of employees with long COVID, read Harvard Business Review’s “Long Covid at Work: A Manager’s Guide” and visit the Job Accommodation Network webpage dedicated to long COVID.

Additional discussion about our study and applying the findings to improve work and medical care can be found by listening to the Healthy Work podcast episode titled “Supporting Long COVID at Work.” 

 

Elisabeth Stelson, Gina Assaf, and Lisa McCorkell are members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers. Dr Stelson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Gina Assaf is Research Lead, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC. Lisa McCorkell is a long COVID patient; Cofounder, Team Lead, Researcher, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Long COVID can have an enormous impact on people’s ability to work, particularly if they do not have workplace accommodations and support. Although some patients experience symptoms so severe that they cannot work under any conditions, medical providers and employers can help ensure many patients with long COVID can stay in the workforce.

Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems. By the end of 2023, at least 400 million people worldwide were estimated to have long COVID.

As members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers and health advocates living with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions, we have published one of the first research studies of people with long COVID and their desire to work, the specific needs they have, and what doctors and employers can do to create a path for returning to the workforce. 

In our recent paper, we document the barriers and facilitators that individuals living with long COVID experience when attempting to return to work. Our recommendations are based on these findings and include recommendations for both medical providers and employers. 

If you are a medical provider:

• Ensure you adequately document your patients’ COVID cases, any long COVID diagnoses, and the functional impairment that long COVID causes. Remember that you can diagnose a patient with long COVID on the basis of their symptoms, and clinical guidelines do not require a record of a positive COVID-19 test, which many patients lack owing to testing barriers.
• Keep up to date on research on long COVID and related infection-associated chronic conditions — for example, through the Project ECHO Long COVID and Fatiguing Illness Recovery Program — and learn about pacing and other treatment options.

If you are an employer: 

• Utilize a return-to-work model in which any worker with suspected or confirmed COVID discusses support they may need with their employer when they return to work, with additional check-in dates scheduled to reevaluate supports as needed. Planning for this collaborative and iterative evaluation of return-to-work supports for all workers with COVID-19 is important because it may not be immediately clear to a worker whether they have developed long COVID or are generally recuperating from the illness.
• Do not require medical documentation of a SARS-CoV-2 infection or a Long COVID diagnosis to access accommodations — this is owing to disparities in accessing documentation.
• Tailor job responsibilities, provide remote options, allow flexible hours, and provide longer-range deadlines to account for symptoms for people with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions.
• Provide accommodations to any caregivers of people with long COVID in your workplace.
• If requiring in-person work, make the workplace as safe as possible through ventilation and masking requirements, which will help ensure fewer of your workers develop long COVID, and those already with infection-associated chronic conditions will not get worse.

Our findings and recommendations are specific to long COVID, but they can and should apply to other disabilities. Given that our study’s sample was predominately White and working in jobs that did not require substantial physical labor, additional recommendations may be needed for other populations and workers who have labor-intensive jobs.

 

510 Study Participants

Long COVID is characterized as a relapsing-remitting illness, often described as episodic, in which an individual’s symptoms may fluctuate. Symptoms can become more or less severe depending on tasks, exertion, and social support in addition to physiologic processes and medical intervention. In our paper, we illustrate how the long COVID return-to-work experience and individuals’ symptoms can be shaped by workplace, home, and medical environments. 

We randomly selected 510 participants from a global survey of people living with long COVID and systematically analyzed their open-ended responses using established qualitative analysis methods. In this study, we specifically analyzed what patients wrote about their return-to-work experiences, considering how work experiences and relapsing and remitting long COVID symptoms intersected with personal lives and medical care. 

Most of the study participants identified as White, were 30-60 years old (ie, in their key earning years), and had at least a baccalaureate degree. Participants lived in the United States (38%), United Kingdom (25%), continental Europe (8%), Canada (4%), or other countries (25%). Most participants worked in professions that did not require substantial physical labor, and individuals in those fields may experience even greater return-to-work barriers than are reported in this study.

 

Key Findings

Through our qualitative analysis, we identified four primary return-to-work themes: 

1. People living with long COVID have a strong desire and financial need to return to work. 

The participants in our study described how they had experienced financial hardship because they could not successfully return to work and may have incurred new expenses with long COVID. They also often wrote how they wanted to return to work because their jobs provided meaning and structure for their lives. Some people in this study shared how they had tried to return to their jobs but relapsed. As a result, they considered leaving the workforce.

2. Workers’ long COVID symptoms intersect with organization of work and home life.

Most of the people in our study were employed in positions that did not require substantial physical labor. Even so, workers described how their long COVID symptoms were exacerbated by some job tasks. Computer screen time; reading dense material or writing (including emails); and conversations and meetings, regardless of whether they were in-person or via phone or video conferencing, could trigger or make symptoms worse. Workers who needed to stand for long periods of time, such as teachers and healthcare workers, and workers who needed to do lifting as part of their jobs described how these requirements were too taxing and could lead to relapses.

Because of the relapsing and remitting nature of many long COVID symptoms, people reported how it could be difficult to predict how job tasks, long hours, or pressing deadlines may exacerbate symptoms, which would require them to take time off work. For these participants, “pushing through” symptoms only made the symptoms worse. However, people in the study who were allowed to work from home reported how pacing, elevating their legs, and conserving energy (especially by not commuting) was key to doing their jobs well.

Some people in the study described how they were only able to return to work because they had substantial support from family or partners at home. These individuals shared how the people they lived with did most of the cooking, cleaning, and other household tasks so that the person living with long COVID could conserve their energy for work. This reorganization of home life notably shifted household tasks and caregiving to other people in the household, but without this shift, the individual’s long COVID symptoms may be too severe to work.

3. People with long COVID experience disbelief and stigma at work and healthcare settings.

Some people in our study described how their colleagues, supervisors, and human resource managers insinuated that they were fabricating or exaggerating their symptoms. This made it hard for workers to communicate what support they needed and could limit access to necessary work accommodations.

Many people in our study also described how medical providers did not believe that they had long COVID despite experiencing debilitating symptoms, often because they did not have a positive COVID-19 test to prove they had had an acute infection. Many people with long COVID may not have a positive COVID-19 test because:

• They could not access a test because testing access was limited at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are transportation and cost barriers to tests, many health insurance providers no longer cover tests; and there are fewer public testing sites since the World Health Organization declared an end to the public health emergency;
• There is a high probability of false-negative results for viral and antibody tests (especially during the first wave of the pandemic and for individuals with limited immune response); and
• People can develop long COVID after asymptomatic acute infection.

Although healthcare providers can provide a long COVID diagnosis without a positive COVID-19 test on the basis of a patient’s presentation of symptoms and clinical history, many people in our study said that their providers would not provide this diagnosis, which restricted access to worker’s compensation, paid time off, and job accommodations.

Many people in the study also reported that their medical providers misdiagnosed them with a mental health disorder, such as anxiety, instead of long COVID. Although some people with long COVID may experience poor mental health as a natural consequence of dealing with a debilitating medical condition or may have neuropsychiatric symptoms as part of their long COVID, long COVID is not caused by an underlying psychiatric illness.

4. Support of medical providers is key to successful return to work for people living with long COVID.

Some people in our study described how they were able to get workplace accommodations or access workers’ compensation or sick leave because their medical providers recognized they had long COVID and provided them with this documentation. Some of these participants did not have a positive COVID-19 test, but their medical providers were able to diagnose them with long COVID on the basis of symptom presentation and clinical history. This documentation was critical for helping workers remain financially stable and able to return to work.

 

Conclusion

While we continue to search for treatment and cures for long COVID and work to provide a robust social safety net, it is crucial to address the stigma, inaccessibility, and lack of support often experienced by patients in their workplaces. Disabled people have long faced these issues; long COVID may be an opportunity to revolutionize the workplace to ensure an inclusive and accessible environment that can improve the lives of all workers.

For more on how to best be inclusive of employees with long COVID, read Harvard Business Review’s “Long Covid at Work: A Manager’s Guide” and visit the Job Accommodation Network webpage dedicated to long COVID.

Additional discussion about our study and applying the findings to improve work and medical care can be found by listening to the Healthy Work podcast episode titled “Supporting Long COVID at Work.” 

 

Elisabeth Stelson, Gina Assaf, and Lisa McCorkell are members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers. Dr Stelson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Gina Assaf is Research Lead, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC. Lisa McCorkell is a long COVID patient; Cofounder, Team Lead, Researcher, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

InterRhythmic care (IRC), a novel digital intervention, was linked to greater improvements in depressive symptoms, anxiety, interpersonal relationships, and social functioning in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), compared with internet general psychoeducation in new research.

METHODOLOGY:

• The randomized, single-blind trial included 120 outpatients from the Shanghai Mental Health Center between March and November 2021 with MDD (mean age, 28.2 years; 99% Han Chinese; 83% women) who were randomly assigned to receive either IRC or internet general psychoeducation (control group).
• IRC included computer-based psychoeducation on stabilizing social rhythm regularity and resolution of interpersonal problems plus brief online interactions with clinicians. Patients received 10 minutes of IRC daily, Monday through Friday, for 8 weeks.
• The researchers assessed participants’ depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, interpersonal relationships, social function, and biological rhythms using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Scale, Interpersonal Comprehensive Diagnostic Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, and Morning and Evening Questionnaire at baseline and at 8 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• The participants who received IRC had significantly lower Hamilton Depression Rating total scores than those who received internet general psychoeducation (P < .001).
• The IRC group demonstrated improved anxiety symptoms, as evidenced by lower Hamilton Anxiety Scale total scores, than those observed for the control group (P < .001).
• The IRC group also showed improved outcomes in interpersonal relationships, as indicated by lower Interpersonal Comprehensive Diagnostic Scale total scores (P < .001).
• Social functioning improved significantly in the IRC group, as measured by the Sheehan Disability Scale subscores for work/school (P = .03), social life (P < .001), and family life (P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study demonstrated that IRC can improve clinical symptoms such as depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, interpersonal problems, and social function in patients with MDD. Our study suggested that the IRC can be used in clinical practice,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chuchen Xu, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine in China. It was published online on November 20, 2024, in The Journal of Psychiatric Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The 8-week follow-up period was considered too short to comprehensively evaluate the intervention’s long-term impact. Additionally, the researchers had to check and supervise assignment completion, which increased research costs and may, therefore, potentially limit broader implementation.

DISCLOSURES:

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

InterRhythmic care (IRC), a novel digital intervention, was linked to greater improvements in depressive symptoms, anxiety, interpersonal relationships, and social functioning in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), compared with internet general psychoeducation in new research.

METHODOLOGY:

• The randomized, single-blind trial included 120 outpatients from the Shanghai Mental Health Center between March and November 2021 with MDD (mean age, 28.2 years; 99% Han Chinese; 83% women) who were randomly assigned to receive either IRC or internet general psychoeducation (control group).
• IRC included computer-based psychoeducation on stabilizing social rhythm regularity and resolution of interpersonal problems plus brief online interactions with clinicians. Patients received 10 minutes of IRC daily, Monday through Friday, for 8 weeks.
• The researchers assessed participants’ depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, interpersonal relationships, social function, and biological rhythms using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Scale, Interpersonal Comprehensive Diagnostic Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, and Morning and Evening Questionnaire at baseline and at 8 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• The participants who received IRC had significantly lower Hamilton Depression Rating total scores than those who received internet general psychoeducation (P < .001).
• The IRC group demonstrated improved anxiety symptoms, as evidenced by lower Hamilton Anxiety Scale total scores, than those observed for the control group (P < .001).
• The IRC group also showed improved outcomes in interpersonal relationships, as indicated by lower Interpersonal Comprehensive Diagnostic Scale total scores (P < .001).
• Social functioning improved significantly in the IRC group, as measured by the Sheehan Disability Scale subscores for work/school (P = .03), social life (P < .001), and family life (P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study demonstrated that IRC can improve clinical symptoms such as depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, interpersonal problems, and social function in patients with MDD. Our study suggested that the IRC can be used in clinical practice,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chuchen Xu, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine in China. It was published online on November 20, 2024, in The Journal of Psychiatric Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The 8-week follow-up period was considered too short to comprehensively evaluate the intervention’s long-term impact. Additionally, the researchers had to check and supervise assignment completion, which increased research costs and may, therefore, potentially limit broader implementation.

DISCLOSURES:

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

InterRhythmic care (IRC), a novel digital intervention, was linked to greater improvements in depressive symptoms, anxiety, interpersonal relationships, and social functioning in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), compared with internet general psychoeducation in new research.

METHODOLOGY:

• The randomized, single-blind trial included 120 outpatients from the Shanghai Mental Health Center between March and November 2021 with MDD (mean age, 28.2 years; 99% Han Chinese; 83% women) who were randomly assigned to receive either IRC or internet general psychoeducation (control group).
• IRC included computer-based psychoeducation on stabilizing social rhythm regularity and resolution of interpersonal problems plus brief online interactions with clinicians. Patients received 10 minutes of IRC daily, Monday through Friday, for 8 weeks.
• The researchers assessed participants’ depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, interpersonal relationships, social function, and biological rhythms using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Scale, Interpersonal Comprehensive Diagnostic Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, and Morning and Evening Questionnaire at baseline and at 8 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• The participants who received IRC had significantly lower Hamilton Depression Rating total scores than those who received internet general psychoeducation (P < .001).
• The IRC group demonstrated improved anxiety symptoms, as evidenced by lower Hamilton Anxiety Scale total scores, than those observed for the control group (P < .001).
• The IRC group also showed improved outcomes in interpersonal relationships, as indicated by lower Interpersonal Comprehensive Diagnostic Scale total scores (P < .001).
• Social functioning improved significantly in the IRC group, as measured by the Sheehan Disability Scale subscores for work/school (P = .03), social life (P < .001), and family life (P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study demonstrated that IRC can improve clinical symptoms such as depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, interpersonal problems, and social function in patients with MDD. Our study suggested that the IRC can be used in clinical practice,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chuchen Xu, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine in China. It was published online on November 20, 2024, in The Journal of Psychiatric Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The 8-week follow-up period was considered too short to comprehensively evaluate the intervention’s long-term impact. Additionally, the researchers had to check and supervise assignment completion, which increased research costs and may, therefore, potentially limit broader implementation.

DISCLOSURES:

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Earlier in 2024, Utah became the seventh state to allow psychologists with the proper training to prescribe psychotropic medications, giving supporters reason to hope that more states might support expanding this scope of practice.

However, the American Psychiatric Association — and some psychologists — oppose granting psychologists this privilege, arguing that the training offered is insufficient and could jeopardize patient safety.

The controversy over whether psychologists should be allowed to prescribe is as old as the so-called RxP movement itself, which began in the early 1990s.

Psychologists have not rushed to become licensed prescribers. After three decades, an estimated 226 psychologists — representing just 0.14% of all those licensed in the United States — have been authorized to prescribe in the six states and one territory where it has been legalized, according to a just-published study in Clinical Psychology.

These are Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Guam. Data from the study show that only 73 psychologists are prescribing in New Mexico, which authorized it in 2002.

Less is known about the number of psychologists who are prescribing under allowances in the Department of Defense, Indian Health Service and US Public Health Service.

Some psychologists — and the American Psychological Association (APA) — believe that the persistence of the opioid epidemic coupled with a continued lack of access to mental health care for millions of Americans will bring more legislators on-side.

“I feel like we’re on an upswing again,” Deborah Baker, director of legal and regulatory policy for the APA, told Medscape Medical News. “The access issue continues to be a perennial kind of driver.” She noted that at least six states pursued expanding privileges this year.

Robert L. Trestman, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Healthcare Systems and Financing, said he doesn’t see new momentum. The interest in having psychologists prescribe “continues to trickle based on just the frustration that people have about not getting adequate access to psychiatry,” he told Medscape Medical News.

While states may be trying to increase access to care, granting psychologists privileges is “not a very effective way of doing it,” said Trestman, Chair of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine in Roanoke. Psychologists are needed to deliver psychotherapy, he said. “It makes almost no sense to try to make them into pseudo medical professionals,” said Trestman. “It just exposes people to risks.”

William Robiner, PhD — author of Clinical Psychology study — is a long-time opponent of RxP. The psychologist told Medscape Medical News he’s concerned about patient safety and “about some of the disingenuous reasons” that psychologists want to prescribe. Among these are the ability to increase status and income, said Robiner, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, and a board member of Psychologists Opposed to Prescription Privileges for Psychologists.

 

Adequate Training?

Only PhD and PsyD psychologists are eligible for RxP training, which entails a master’s in clinical psychopharmacology. After receiving the master’s, they must pass the Psychopharmacology Examination for Psychologists and then are only permitted to prescribe medications for mental health disorders.

They must also obtain a Drug Enforcement Administration license but can’t write prescriptions for schedule 2 medications. In some states, psychologists can prescribe buprenorphine and other opioid use disorder medications.

The APA has developed guidance for master’s programs, which currently number just over a handful in the United States.

At Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey, students enrolled in the master’s program — a distance-learning format — complete 10 courses over five 15-week semesters. The curriculum spans a range of topics, from foundational sciences and legal and ethical considerations to strategies for treating specific disorders.

Derek Phillips, PhD, the program’s executive director, said that when he took the position in 2020, enrollment was capped at 45 students, but “we were not routinely enrolling the maximum.” Now, even with class size increased to 60 “we are consistently full and have a waitlist,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Interest is being driven in part by new laws in Colorado (2023) and Utah, said Phillips. But many are enrolling without intending to write a prescription, he said. The degree gives graduates the ability to better collaborate with other clinicians, teach clinical psychopharmacology, and be expert witnesses in medico-legal cases, he said.

In addition, the training gives students “a balanced and thorough biopsychosocial understanding of our patients,” he said. Students also see the “potential of being able to be a ‘one-stop-stop’ of mental health services,” said Phillips.

The American Board of Professional Psychology is developing a board certification in clinical psychopharmacology.

The APA states on its website that prescribing psychologists have “more training in diagnosing and treating (including prescribing) mental health disorders than primary care physicians.”

However, critics argue that the training falls short. Most psychologists, said Robiner, have not completed the undergraduate prerequisites — such as anatomy, physiology, and chemistry — that are required for other prescribing professionals.

In a 2019 article comparing the training of prescribing professionals, Robiner and colleagues reported that psychiatrists undergo 4- to 6-week rotations during medical school and accumulate 8000 clinical hours focused on psychiatric conditions over the course of their 4-year residencies.

States set requirements for clinical hours for prescribing psychologists, but they are generally elective and completed after individuals receive a master’s degree.

Robiner said psychologists aren’t trained in evaluating drug-related adverse events. “If you show a psychologist a rash, they have no idea whether that rash might be a medication adverse effect or poison ivy,” he said.

Trestman pointed out that many psychotropic medications have black box warnings. “The risk of toxicity is by no means trivial, and the majority of people who are seeking care in psychiatry have multiple comorbidities,” he said. “Giving people the equivalent of more or less 10 weeks of training is just woefully inappropriate,” Trestman said.

 

Increase in Access?

Psychology’s main argument for expanding its scope of practice is that it will increase the number of clinicians available to provide behavioral and mental health care.

Critics said that is a failed experiment, in part because so few psychologists have become prescribers, but also because most psychologists practice in the same areas as psychiatrists. Both specialists tend to cluster in urban regions, which already have high clinician density, said Trestman.

Psychologists are not practicing in underserved rural areas, as even APA data show. A 2018 APA snapshot of the workforce found that the highest density of psychologists was in Washington, DC, Massachusetts, and New York. South Carolina, West Virginia and Mississippi had the fewest number of psychologists per 100,000 people.

The University of Washington Rural Health Research Center reported in 2022 that in 2021, almost half of rural counties did not have a psychologist compared with 15.7% of urban counties.

Psychiatrists also are concentrated on the coasts and New England, according to a study by Ohio State researchers. The highest densities were in Washington, DC (79 per 100,000), Massachusetts (45.3), Rhode Island (42.6), Connecticut (38.6) and Vermont (37.7), whereas the lowest densities were in Idaho (11.8), Mississippi (11.8), Wyoming (12.4), Alabama (13.1), and Indiana (13.5). The study estimated that there were 57,163 psychiatrists responsible for the care of 333,287,557 Americans. “Clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, and counselors can provide alternative forms of intervention, though access to such services is also poor in rural areas,” wrote the authors.

The APA counters with data it says shows that RxP may have increased access. Using the number of psychology practices as a proxy for supply, the authors reported that practices grew in New Mexico, Illinois, Iowa, and Idaho — states that have implemented prescription privileges. Overall, there was an increase of 0.8047 practices per 100,000 residents per county.

However, the access argument “is seriously challenged by the reality of the limited number of psychologists who complete the pathway to prescribing,” Robiner and his colleague Tanya Tompkins countered in Clinical Psychology. They note that in Idaho — a state with shortages of psychologists and psychiatrists — just 10 of the state’s 615 psychologists had prescriptive authority. An estimated 5131 nonpsychologists are prescribers.

Robiner and Tompkins noted that it’s not clear why so few psychologists are pursuing RxP but that many seem to be unaware of the possibility.

 

Do Benefits Outweigh the Harms? 

There is not a large body of literature assessing the harms or benefits of prescribing privileges for psychologists.

Baker shared several studies by Phillip Hughes, PhD, an outcomes researcher at the University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In one study, Hughes found that patients of prescribing psychologists had a 24% lower rate of adverse drug events than patients of psychiatrists. Psychologists’ patients had lower rates of psychotropic polypharmacy but similar rates of emergency room use.

In another paper Hughes suggested that deaths attributable to mental illness had declined in New Mexico after it passed its law. There was no change in Louisiana.

With little evidence of harm — and ongoing provider shortages — making use of nonphysician prescribers is gaining traction with policymakers, claims the psychology association’s Baker, adding that in Utah, the Republican governor was the biggest supporter.

But psychiatrists argue that it’s more important to increase their numbers. Congress agreed in 2021 and 2023 to add 1200 new residency slots — in every specialty — to ease physician shortages. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently announced that 70% of the new slots for July 2025 will go to primary care and psychiatry.

“Once those positions are in place, it will be four more years before the first crop of new psychiatrists come out,” noted Trestman. “None of these fixes are quick,” he said.

Baker, Robiner, and Trestman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Earlier in 2024, Utah became the seventh state to allow psychologists with the proper training to prescribe psychotropic medications, giving supporters reason to hope that more states might support expanding this scope of practice.

However, the American Psychiatric Association — and some psychologists — oppose granting psychologists this privilege, arguing that the training offered is insufficient and could jeopardize patient safety.

The controversy over whether psychologists should be allowed to prescribe is as old as the so-called RxP movement itself, which began in the early 1990s.

Psychologists have not rushed to become licensed prescribers. After three decades, an estimated 226 psychologists — representing just 0.14% of all those licensed in the United States — have been authorized to prescribe in the six states and one territory where it has been legalized, according to a just-published study in Clinical Psychology.

These are Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Guam. Data from the study show that only 73 psychologists are prescribing in New Mexico, which authorized it in 2002.

Less is known about the number of psychologists who are prescribing under allowances in the Department of Defense, Indian Health Service and US Public Health Service.

Some psychologists — and the American Psychological Association (APA) — believe that the persistence of the opioid epidemic coupled with a continued lack of access to mental health care for millions of Americans will bring more legislators on-side.

“I feel like we’re on an upswing again,” Deborah Baker, director of legal and regulatory policy for the APA, told Medscape Medical News. “The access issue continues to be a perennial kind of driver.” She noted that at least six states pursued expanding privileges this year.

Robert L. Trestman, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Healthcare Systems and Financing, said he doesn’t see new momentum. The interest in having psychologists prescribe “continues to trickle based on just the frustration that people have about not getting adequate access to psychiatry,” he told Medscape Medical News.

While states may be trying to increase access to care, granting psychologists privileges is “not a very effective way of doing it,” said Trestman, Chair of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine in Roanoke. Psychologists are needed to deliver psychotherapy, he said. “It makes almost no sense to try to make them into pseudo medical professionals,” said Trestman. “It just exposes people to risks.”

William Robiner, PhD — author of Clinical Psychology study — is a long-time opponent of RxP. The psychologist told Medscape Medical News he’s concerned about patient safety and “about some of the disingenuous reasons” that psychologists want to prescribe. Among these are the ability to increase status and income, said Robiner, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, and a board member of Psychologists Opposed to Prescription Privileges for Psychologists.

 

Adequate Training?

Only PhD and PsyD psychologists are eligible for RxP training, which entails a master’s in clinical psychopharmacology. After receiving the master’s, they must pass the Psychopharmacology Examination for Psychologists and then are only permitted to prescribe medications for mental health disorders.

They must also obtain a Drug Enforcement Administration license but can’t write prescriptions for schedule 2 medications. In some states, psychologists can prescribe buprenorphine and other opioid use disorder medications.

The APA has developed guidance for master’s programs, which currently number just over a handful in the United States.

At Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey, students enrolled in the master’s program — a distance-learning format — complete 10 courses over five 15-week semesters. The curriculum spans a range of topics, from foundational sciences and legal and ethical considerations to strategies for treating specific disorders.

Derek Phillips, PhD, the program’s executive director, said that when he took the position in 2020, enrollment was capped at 45 students, but “we were not routinely enrolling the maximum.” Now, even with class size increased to 60 “we are consistently full and have a waitlist,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Interest is being driven in part by new laws in Colorado (2023) and Utah, said Phillips. But many are enrolling without intending to write a prescription, he said. The degree gives graduates the ability to better collaborate with other clinicians, teach clinical psychopharmacology, and be expert witnesses in medico-legal cases, he said.

In addition, the training gives students “a balanced and thorough biopsychosocial understanding of our patients,” he said. Students also see the “potential of being able to be a ‘one-stop-stop’ of mental health services,” said Phillips.

The American Board of Professional Psychology is developing a board certification in clinical psychopharmacology.

The APA states on its website that prescribing psychologists have “more training in diagnosing and treating (including prescribing) mental health disorders than primary care physicians.”

However, critics argue that the training falls short. Most psychologists, said Robiner, have not completed the undergraduate prerequisites — such as anatomy, physiology, and chemistry — that are required for other prescribing professionals.

In a 2019 article comparing the training of prescribing professionals, Robiner and colleagues reported that psychiatrists undergo 4- to 6-week rotations during medical school and accumulate 8000 clinical hours focused on psychiatric conditions over the course of their 4-year residencies.

States set requirements for clinical hours for prescribing psychologists, but they are generally elective and completed after individuals receive a master’s degree.

Robiner said psychologists aren’t trained in evaluating drug-related adverse events. “If you show a psychologist a rash, they have no idea whether that rash might be a medication adverse effect or poison ivy,” he said.

Trestman pointed out that many psychotropic medications have black box warnings. “The risk of toxicity is by no means trivial, and the majority of people who are seeking care in psychiatry have multiple comorbidities,” he said. “Giving people the equivalent of more or less 10 weeks of training is just woefully inappropriate,” Trestman said.

 

Increase in Access?

Psychology’s main argument for expanding its scope of practice is that it will increase the number of clinicians available to provide behavioral and mental health care.

Critics said that is a failed experiment, in part because so few psychologists have become prescribers, but also because most psychologists practice in the same areas as psychiatrists. Both specialists tend to cluster in urban regions, which already have high clinician density, said Trestman.

Psychologists are not practicing in underserved rural areas, as even APA data show. A 2018 APA snapshot of the workforce found that the highest density of psychologists was in Washington, DC, Massachusetts, and New York. South Carolina, West Virginia and Mississippi had the fewest number of psychologists per 100,000 people.

The University of Washington Rural Health Research Center reported in 2022 that in 2021, almost half of rural counties did not have a psychologist compared with 15.7% of urban counties.

Psychiatrists also are concentrated on the coasts and New England, according to a study by Ohio State researchers. The highest densities were in Washington, DC (79 per 100,000), Massachusetts (45.3), Rhode Island (42.6), Connecticut (38.6) and Vermont (37.7), whereas the lowest densities were in Idaho (11.8), Mississippi (11.8), Wyoming (12.4), Alabama (13.1), and Indiana (13.5). The study estimated that there were 57,163 psychiatrists responsible for the care of 333,287,557 Americans. “Clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, and counselors can provide alternative forms of intervention, though access to such services is also poor in rural areas,” wrote the authors.

The APA counters with data it says shows that RxP may have increased access. Using the number of psychology practices as a proxy for supply, the authors reported that practices grew in New Mexico, Illinois, Iowa, and Idaho — states that have implemented prescription privileges. Overall, there was an increase of 0.8047 practices per 100,000 residents per county.

However, the access argument “is seriously challenged by the reality of the limited number of psychologists who complete the pathway to prescribing,” Robiner and his colleague Tanya Tompkins countered in Clinical Psychology. They note that in Idaho — a state with shortages of psychologists and psychiatrists — just 10 of the state’s 615 psychologists had prescriptive authority. An estimated 5131 nonpsychologists are prescribers.

Robiner and Tompkins noted that it’s not clear why so few psychologists are pursuing RxP but that many seem to be unaware of the possibility.

 

Do Benefits Outweigh the Harms? 

There is not a large body of literature assessing the harms or benefits of prescribing privileges for psychologists.

Baker shared several studies by Phillip Hughes, PhD, an outcomes researcher at the University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In one study, Hughes found that patients of prescribing psychologists had a 24% lower rate of adverse drug events than patients of psychiatrists. Psychologists’ patients had lower rates of psychotropic polypharmacy but similar rates of emergency room use.

In another paper Hughes suggested that deaths attributable to mental illness had declined in New Mexico after it passed its law. There was no change in Louisiana.

With little evidence of harm — and ongoing provider shortages — making use of nonphysician prescribers is gaining traction with policymakers, claims the psychology association’s Baker, adding that in Utah, the Republican governor was the biggest supporter.

But psychiatrists argue that it’s more important to increase their numbers. Congress agreed in 2021 and 2023 to add 1200 new residency slots — in every specialty — to ease physician shortages. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently announced that 70% of the new slots for July 2025 will go to primary care and psychiatry.

“Once those positions are in place, it will be four more years before the first crop of new psychiatrists come out,” noted Trestman. “None of these fixes are quick,” he said.

Baker, Robiner, and Trestman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Earlier in 2024, Utah became the seventh state to allow psychologists with the proper training to prescribe psychotropic medications, giving supporters reason to hope that more states might support expanding this scope of practice.

However, the American Psychiatric Association — and some psychologists — oppose granting psychologists this privilege, arguing that the training offered is insufficient and could jeopardize patient safety.

The controversy over whether psychologists should be allowed to prescribe is as old as the so-called RxP movement itself, which began in the early 1990s.

Psychologists have not rushed to become licensed prescribers. After three decades, an estimated 226 psychologists — representing just 0.14% of all those licensed in the United States — have been authorized to prescribe in the six states and one territory where it has been legalized, according to a just-published study in Clinical Psychology.

These are Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Guam. Data from the study show that only 73 psychologists are prescribing in New Mexico, which authorized it in 2002.

Less is known about the number of psychologists who are prescribing under allowances in the Department of Defense, Indian Health Service and US Public Health Service.

Some psychologists — and the American Psychological Association (APA) — believe that the persistence of the opioid epidemic coupled with a continued lack of access to mental health care for millions of Americans will bring more legislators on-side.

“I feel like we’re on an upswing again,” Deborah Baker, director of legal and regulatory policy for the APA, told Medscape Medical News. “The access issue continues to be a perennial kind of driver.” She noted that at least six states pursued expanding privileges this year.

Robert L. Trestman, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Healthcare Systems and Financing, said he doesn’t see new momentum. The interest in having psychologists prescribe “continues to trickle based on just the frustration that people have about not getting adequate access to psychiatry,” he told Medscape Medical News.

While states may be trying to increase access to care, granting psychologists privileges is “not a very effective way of doing it,” said Trestman, Chair of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine in Roanoke. Psychologists are needed to deliver psychotherapy, he said. “It makes almost no sense to try to make them into pseudo medical professionals,” said Trestman. “It just exposes people to risks.”

William Robiner, PhD — author of Clinical Psychology study — is a long-time opponent of RxP. The psychologist told Medscape Medical News he’s concerned about patient safety and “about some of the disingenuous reasons” that psychologists want to prescribe. Among these are the ability to increase status and income, said Robiner, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, and a board member of Psychologists Opposed to Prescription Privileges for Psychologists.

 

Adequate Training?

Only PhD and PsyD psychologists are eligible for RxP training, which entails a master’s in clinical psychopharmacology. After receiving the master’s, they must pass the Psychopharmacology Examination for Psychologists and then are only permitted to prescribe medications for mental health disorders.

They must also obtain a Drug Enforcement Administration license but can’t write prescriptions for schedule 2 medications. In some states, psychologists can prescribe buprenorphine and other opioid use disorder medications.

The APA has developed guidance for master’s programs, which currently number just over a handful in the United States.

At Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey, students enrolled in the master’s program — a distance-learning format — complete 10 courses over five 15-week semesters. The curriculum spans a range of topics, from foundational sciences and legal and ethical considerations to strategies for treating specific disorders.

Derek Phillips, PhD, the program’s executive director, said that when he took the position in 2020, enrollment was capped at 45 students, but “we were not routinely enrolling the maximum.” Now, even with class size increased to 60 “we are consistently full and have a waitlist,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Interest is being driven in part by new laws in Colorado (2023) and Utah, said Phillips. But many are enrolling without intending to write a prescription, he said. The degree gives graduates the ability to better collaborate with other clinicians, teach clinical psychopharmacology, and be expert witnesses in medico-legal cases, he said.

In addition, the training gives students “a balanced and thorough biopsychosocial understanding of our patients,” he said. Students also see the “potential of being able to be a ‘one-stop-stop’ of mental health services,” said Phillips.

The American Board of Professional Psychology is developing a board certification in clinical psychopharmacology.

The APA states on its website that prescribing psychologists have “more training in diagnosing and treating (including prescribing) mental health disorders than primary care physicians.”

However, critics argue that the training falls short. Most psychologists, said Robiner, have not completed the undergraduate prerequisites — such as anatomy, physiology, and chemistry — that are required for other prescribing professionals.

In a 2019 article comparing the training of prescribing professionals, Robiner and colleagues reported that psychiatrists undergo 4- to 6-week rotations during medical school and accumulate 8000 clinical hours focused on psychiatric conditions over the course of their 4-year residencies.

States set requirements for clinical hours for prescribing psychologists, but they are generally elective and completed after individuals receive a master’s degree.

Robiner said psychologists aren’t trained in evaluating drug-related adverse events. “If you show a psychologist a rash, they have no idea whether that rash might be a medication adverse effect or poison ivy,” he said.

Trestman pointed out that many psychotropic medications have black box warnings. “The risk of toxicity is by no means trivial, and the majority of people who are seeking care in psychiatry have multiple comorbidities,” he said. “Giving people the equivalent of more or less 10 weeks of training is just woefully inappropriate,” Trestman said.

 

Increase in Access?

Psychology’s main argument for expanding its scope of practice is that it will increase the number of clinicians available to provide behavioral and mental health care.

Critics said that is a failed experiment, in part because so few psychologists have become prescribers, but also because most psychologists practice in the same areas as psychiatrists. Both specialists tend to cluster in urban regions, which already have high clinician density, said Trestman.

Psychologists are not practicing in underserved rural areas, as even APA data show. A 2018 APA snapshot of the workforce found that the highest density of psychologists was in Washington, DC, Massachusetts, and New York. South Carolina, West Virginia and Mississippi had the fewest number of psychologists per 100,000 people.

The University of Washington Rural Health Research Center reported in 2022 that in 2021, almost half of rural counties did not have a psychologist compared with 15.7% of urban counties.

Psychiatrists also are concentrated on the coasts and New England, according to a study by Ohio State researchers. The highest densities were in Washington, DC (79 per 100,000), Massachusetts (45.3), Rhode Island (42.6), Connecticut (38.6) and Vermont (37.7), whereas the lowest densities were in Idaho (11.8), Mississippi (11.8), Wyoming (12.4), Alabama (13.1), and Indiana (13.5). The study estimated that there were 57,163 psychiatrists responsible for the care of 333,287,557 Americans. “Clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, and counselors can provide alternative forms of intervention, though access to such services is also poor in rural areas,” wrote the authors.

The APA counters with data it says shows that RxP may have increased access. Using the number of psychology practices as a proxy for supply, the authors reported that practices grew in New Mexico, Illinois, Iowa, and Idaho — states that have implemented prescription privileges. Overall, there was an increase of 0.8047 practices per 100,000 residents per county.

However, the access argument “is seriously challenged by the reality of the limited number of psychologists who complete the pathway to prescribing,” Robiner and his colleague Tanya Tompkins countered in Clinical Psychology. They note that in Idaho — a state with shortages of psychologists and psychiatrists — just 10 of the state’s 615 psychologists had prescriptive authority. An estimated 5131 nonpsychologists are prescribers.

Robiner and Tompkins noted that it’s not clear why so few psychologists are pursuing RxP but that many seem to be unaware of the possibility.

 

Do Benefits Outweigh the Harms? 

There is not a large body of literature assessing the harms or benefits of prescribing privileges for psychologists.

Baker shared several studies by Phillip Hughes, PhD, an outcomes researcher at the University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In one study, Hughes found that patients of prescribing psychologists had a 24% lower rate of adverse drug events than patients of psychiatrists. Psychologists’ patients had lower rates of psychotropic polypharmacy but similar rates of emergency room use.

In another paper Hughes suggested that deaths attributable to mental illness had declined in New Mexico after it passed its law. There was no change in Louisiana.

With little evidence of harm — and ongoing provider shortages — making use of nonphysician prescribers is gaining traction with policymakers, claims the psychology association’s Baker, adding that in Utah, the Republican governor was the biggest supporter.

But psychiatrists argue that it’s more important to increase their numbers. Congress agreed in 2021 and 2023 to add 1200 new residency slots — in every specialty — to ease physician shortages. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently announced that 70% of the new slots for July 2025 will go to primary care and psychiatry.

“Once those positions are in place, it will be four more years before the first crop of new psychiatrists come out,” noted Trestman. “None of these fixes are quick,” he said.

Baker, Robiner, and Trestman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Childhood exposure to leaded gasoline via car exhaust over the past 75 years is linked to 151 million excess cases of psychiatric disorders in the United States, new research suggested.

The data revealed that the group most heavily exposed to lead — individuals born between 1966 and 1986, commonly known as Generation X — experienced the biggest increases in mental health issues.

Within this cohort, those born between 1966 and 1970 were affected the most. This timeline, the investigators noted, aligns with the peak use of leaded gasoline during the mid-1960s and 1970s. Specifically for this group, overall mental health issues increase by 0.35 times the average, anxiety and depression by 1.75 times, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms by 1.17 times.

“Lead exposure across the country has probably played a significant role in worsening mental health in ways that had previously been unappreciated and invisible,” study investigator Aaron Reuben, PhD, assistant professor of clinical neuropsychology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said in an interview.

However, the investigators emphasized that the study only establishes an association and not a causal relationship between leaded gas exposure and subsequent psychopathology.

The findings were published online on December 4 in The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.

 

Lead Astray?

Leaded gasoline was first used in the 1920s to stop engine knocking and improve performance. Despite early evidence of neurotoxicity its use continued until 1996 when it was banned.

The investigators noted that over half of the current US population was exposed to adverse lead levels from gasoline in childhood. However, they added the total contribution of childhood lead exposure to the population’s mental health and personality has not previously been evaluated.

For the study, the researchers combined serial, cross-sectional data on blood lead levels (BLLs) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and integrated it with historical data on gasoline usage, allowing them to estimate childhood BLLs in the United States from 1940 to 2015.

They calculated the impact of lead exposure on mental health using general psychopathology factor points, also referred to as mental illness points, which function similarly to IQ points.

These measures used were based on a prior study led by Reuben in 2019 from a New Zealand cohort and a study by a different group that followed a longitudinal birth cohort in Chicago .

Using these data, the researchers calculated population-level elevations in mental health symptoms on the basis of lead exposure and five key psychiatric outcomes in the US population.

These included general psychopathology, which reflects an individual’s overall liability to mental disorders and was scaled to match IQ scores with a mean of 100 and an SD of 15.

They also evaluated symptoms of internalizing disorders including anxiety and depression and ADHD and standardized them to a mean of 0 and an SD of 1.

The researchers also looked at differences in the personality traits of neuroticism, which relate to emotional instability and conscientiousness and reflect organization and responsibility. Both of these were assessed using similar standardized scales.

 

151 Million Excess Cases of Mental Illness

Using this approach, the researchers were able to assess the historical and long-term implications of lead exposure on mental health and personality traits in the US population over time.

Results showed that during the peak era of leaded gasoline in the United States, children were routinely exposed to lead levels three to six times higher than the current reference point for clinical concern (3.5 μg/dL of blood), the authors noted.

While the United States banned leaded gasoline in 1996, lead can still be present in water pipes, old paint, and soil. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cautions that no BLLs are safe.

The investigators found that between 1940 and 2015, the US population gained 602 million general psychopathology points, which the investigators said equates to 151 million excess instances of mental disorders that are primarily, but not completely, attributable to early life exposure to leaded gasoline.

“Assuming that published lead-psychopathology associations are causal and not purely correlational, we estimate that by 2015, the US population had gained 602 million General Psychopathology factor points because of exposure arising from leaded gasoline, reflecting a 0.13 standard deviation increase in overall liability to mental illness in the population and an estimated 151 million excess mental disorders attributable to lead exposure,” the researchers wrote.

Specific effects included a 0.64 SD increase in anxiety and depression symptoms, a 0.42 SD increase in ADHD symptoms, a 0.14 SD increase in ADHD symptoms, a 0.14 SD increase in emotional instability (neuroticism), and a 0.20 SD decrease in traits like organization and responsibility (conscientiousness).

These mental health and personality changes were not distributed evenly among the generations, most significant in those born between 1966 and 1986, the investigators reported.

For example, children between 1966 and 1970, the period when leaded gasoline use was at its peak, had BLLs > 5 μg/dL and experienced a 1.75 SD increase in internalizing symptoms and a 1.17 SD increase in ADHD symptoms.

 

Assess Lead Risk

The study had several limitations. Causality could not be established, and the accuracy of the estimates relied on findings from the researchers’ two previous key studies.

However, the investigators noted that these findings have been replicated across multiple cohorts and settings. Additionally, the results may not be fully generalizable to the entire US population, as one study was based in New Zealand and the other in urban Chicago.

Reuben cautioned that even though gasoline and new paint no longer contain lead, exposure is still possible.

“We saw this most acutely in Flint, Michigan,” when aging water pipes exposed more than 100,000 residents to high lead levels in 2014. “This situation made us aware that thousands of communities are exposed to lead service lines.”

He recommended that physicians consider screening patients for lead exposure — both new and old. Experts estimate that 90% of lead in the body is stored in the skeleton and can be released back into the bloodstream over time, particularly in cases of calcium deficiency, pregnancy, or osteoporosis.

While reversing childhood lead exposure is not possible, Reuben noted that healthy lifestyle choices and multimodal interventions such as medication and therapy can effectively address and alleviate mental illness.

 

‘Legacy of Lead’

In a comment, Terrie Moffitt, PhD, who was not involved in the research, said the study “is important because it gives us a crystal ball to see into the future of children living with lead today.”

“It’s called the ‘legacy of lead,’ and what a legacy,” said Moffitt, professor in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Nannerl O. Keohane University at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

Moffitt emphasized that children exposed to lead today often live in areas of poverty and disadvantage, making it difficult to disentangle the potential effects of lead exposure from those of childhood adversity that predispose individuals to mental illness.

“This study tells us about lead’s damage in an era when it was everywhere, not just in poor communities,” she said.

The study was funded by a fellowship from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Reuben and Moffitt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Childhood exposure to leaded gasoline via car exhaust over the past 75 years is linked to 151 million excess cases of psychiatric disorders in the United States, new research suggested.

The data revealed that the group most heavily exposed to lead — individuals born between 1966 and 1986, commonly known as Generation X — experienced the biggest increases in mental health issues.

Within this cohort, those born between 1966 and 1970 were affected the most. This timeline, the investigators noted, aligns with the peak use of leaded gasoline during the mid-1960s and 1970s. Specifically for this group, overall mental health issues increase by 0.35 times the average, anxiety and depression by 1.75 times, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms by 1.17 times.

“Lead exposure across the country has probably played a significant role in worsening mental health in ways that had previously been unappreciated and invisible,” study investigator Aaron Reuben, PhD, assistant professor of clinical neuropsychology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said in an interview.

However, the investigators emphasized that the study only establishes an association and not a causal relationship between leaded gas exposure and subsequent psychopathology.

The findings were published online on December 4 in The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.

 

Lead Astray?

Leaded gasoline was first used in the 1920s to stop engine knocking and improve performance. Despite early evidence of neurotoxicity its use continued until 1996 when it was banned.

The investigators noted that over half of the current US population was exposed to adverse lead levels from gasoline in childhood. However, they added the total contribution of childhood lead exposure to the population’s mental health and personality has not previously been evaluated.

For the study, the researchers combined serial, cross-sectional data on blood lead levels (BLLs) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and integrated it with historical data on gasoline usage, allowing them to estimate childhood BLLs in the United States from 1940 to 2015.

They calculated the impact of lead exposure on mental health using general psychopathology factor points, also referred to as mental illness points, which function similarly to IQ points.

These measures used were based on a prior study led by Reuben in 2019 from a New Zealand cohort and a study by a different group that followed a longitudinal birth cohort in Chicago .

Using these data, the researchers calculated population-level elevations in mental health symptoms on the basis of lead exposure and five key psychiatric outcomes in the US population.

These included general psychopathology, which reflects an individual’s overall liability to mental disorders and was scaled to match IQ scores with a mean of 100 and an SD of 15.

They also evaluated symptoms of internalizing disorders including anxiety and depression and ADHD and standardized them to a mean of 0 and an SD of 1.

The researchers also looked at differences in the personality traits of neuroticism, which relate to emotional instability and conscientiousness and reflect organization and responsibility. Both of these were assessed using similar standardized scales.

 

151 Million Excess Cases of Mental Illness

Using this approach, the researchers were able to assess the historical and long-term implications of lead exposure on mental health and personality traits in the US population over time.

Results showed that during the peak era of leaded gasoline in the United States, children were routinely exposed to lead levels three to six times higher than the current reference point for clinical concern (3.5 μg/dL of blood), the authors noted.

While the United States banned leaded gasoline in 1996, lead can still be present in water pipes, old paint, and soil. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cautions that no BLLs are safe.

The investigators found that between 1940 and 2015, the US population gained 602 million general psychopathology points, which the investigators said equates to 151 million excess instances of mental disorders that are primarily, but not completely, attributable to early life exposure to leaded gasoline.

“Assuming that published lead-psychopathology associations are causal and not purely correlational, we estimate that by 2015, the US population had gained 602 million General Psychopathology factor points because of exposure arising from leaded gasoline, reflecting a 0.13 standard deviation increase in overall liability to mental illness in the population and an estimated 151 million excess mental disorders attributable to lead exposure,” the researchers wrote.

Specific effects included a 0.64 SD increase in anxiety and depression symptoms, a 0.42 SD increase in ADHD symptoms, a 0.14 SD increase in ADHD symptoms, a 0.14 SD increase in emotional instability (neuroticism), and a 0.20 SD decrease in traits like organization and responsibility (conscientiousness).

These mental health and personality changes were not distributed evenly among the generations, most significant in those born between 1966 and 1986, the investigators reported.

For example, children between 1966 and 1970, the period when leaded gasoline use was at its peak, had BLLs > 5 μg/dL and experienced a 1.75 SD increase in internalizing symptoms and a 1.17 SD increase in ADHD symptoms.

 

Assess Lead Risk

The study had several limitations. Causality could not be established, and the accuracy of the estimates relied on findings from the researchers’ two previous key studies.

However, the investigators noted that these findings have been replicated across multiple cohorts and settings. Additionally, the results may not be fully generalizable to the entire US population, as one study was based in New Zealand and the other in urban Chicago.

Reuben cautioned that even though gasoline and new paint no longer contain lead, exposure is still possible.

“We saw this most acutely in Flint, Michigan,” when aging water pipes exposed more than 100,000 residents to high lead levels in 2014. “This situation made us aware that thousands of communities are exposed to lead service lines.”

He recommended that physicians consider screening patients for lead exposure — both new and old. Experts estimate that 90% of lead in the body is stored in the skeleton and can be released back into the bloodstream over time, particularly in cases of calcium deficiency, pregnancy, or osteoporosis.

While reversing childhood lead exposure is not possible, Reuben noted that healthy lifestyle choices and multimodal interventions such as medication and therapy can effectively address and alleviate mental illness.

 

‘Legacy of Lead’

In a comment, Terrie Moffitt, PhD, who was not involved in the research, said the study “is important because it gives us a crystal ball to see into the future of children living with lead today.”

“It’s called the ‘legacy of lead,’ and what a legacy,” said Moffitt, professor in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Nannerl O. Keohane University at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

Moffitt emphasized that children exposed to lead today often live in areas of poverty and disadvantage, making it difficult to disentangle the potential effects of lead exposure from those of childhood adversity that predispose individuals to mental illness.

“This study tells us about lead’s damage in an era when it was everywhere, not just in poor communities,” she said.

The study was funded by a fellowship from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Reuben and Moffitt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Childhood exposure to leaded gasoline via car exhaust over the past 75 years is linked to 151 million excess cases of psychiatric disorders in the United States, new research suggested.

The data revealed that the group most heavily exposed to lead — individuals born between 1966 and 1986, commonly known as Generation X — experienced the biggest increases in mental health issues.

Within this cohort, those born between 1966 and 1970 were affected the most. This timeline, the investigators noted, aligns with the peak use of leaded gasoline during the mid-1960s and 1970s. Specifically for this group, overall mental health issues increase by 0.35 times the average, anxiety and depression by 1.75 times, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms by 1.17 times.

“Lead exposure across the country has probably played a significant role in worsening mental health in ways that had previously been unappreciated and invisible,” study investigator Aaron Reuben, PhD, assistant professor of clinical neuropsychology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said in an interview.

However, the investigators emphasized that the study only establishes an association and not a causal relationship between leaded gas exposure and subsequent psychopathology.

The findings were published online on December 4 in The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.

 

Lead Astray?

Leaded gasoline was first used in the 1920s to stop engine knocking and improve performance. Despite early evidence of neurotoxicity its use continued until 1996 when it was banned.

The investigators noted that over half of the current US population was exposed to adverse lead levels from gasoline in childhood. However, they added the total contribution of childhood lead exposure to the population’s mental health and personality has not previously been evaluated.

For the study, the researchers combined serial, cross-sectional data on blood lead levels (BLLs) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and integrated it with historical data on gasoline usage, allowing them to estimate childhood BLLs in the United States from 1940 to 2015.

They calculated the impact of lead exposure on mental health using general psychopathology factor points, also referred to as mental illness points, which function similarly to IQ points.

These measures used were based on a prior study led by Reuben in 2019 from a New Zealand cohort and a study by a different group that followed a longitudinal birth cohort in Chicago .

Using these data, the researchers calculated population-level elevations in mental health symptoms on the basis of lead exposure and five key psychiatric outcomes in the US population.

These included general psychopathology, which reflects an individual’s overall liability to mental disorders and was scaled to match IQ scores with a mean of 100 and an SD of 15.

They also evaluated symptoms of internalizing disorders including anxiety and depression and ADHD and standardized them to a mean of 0 and an SD of 1.

The researchers also looked at differences in the personality traits of neuroticism, which relate to emotional instability and conscientiousness and reflect organization and responsibility. Both of these were assessed using similar standardized scales.

 

151 Million Excess Cases of Mental Illness

Using this approach, the researchers were able to assess the historical and long-term implications of lead exposure on mental health and personality traits in the US population over time.

Results showed that during the peak era of leaded gasoline in the United States, children were routinely exposed to lead levels three to six times higher than the current reference point for clinical concern (3.5 μg/dL of blood), the authors noted.

While the United States banned leaded gasoline in 1996, lead can still be present in water pipes, old paint, and soil. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cautions that no BLLs are safe.

The investigators found that between 1940 and 2015, the US population gained 602 million general psychopathology points, which the investigators said equates to 151 million excess instances of mental disorders that are primarily, but not completely, attributable to early life exposure to leaded gasoline.

“Assuming that published lead-psychopathology associations are causal and not purely correlational, we estimate that by 2015, the US population had gained 602 million General Psychopathology factor points because of exposure arising from leaded gasoline, reflecting a 0.13 standard deviation increase in overall liability to mental illness in the population and an estimated 151 million excess mental disorders attributable to lead exposure,” the researchers wrote.

Specific effects included a 0.64 SD increase in anxiety and depression symptoms, a 0.42 SD increase in ADHD symptoms, a 0.14 SD increase in ADHD symptoms, a 0.14 SD increase in emotional instability (neuroticism), and a 0.20 SD decrease in traits like organization and responsibility (conscientiousness).

These mental health and personality changes were not distributed evenly among the generations, most significant in those born between 1966 and 1986, the investigators reported.

For example, children between 1966 and 1970, the period when leaded gasoline use was at its peak, had BLLs > 5 μg/dL and experienced a 1.75 SD increase in internalizing symptoms and a 1.17 SD increase in ADHD symptoms.

 

Assess Lead Risk

The study had several limitations. Causality could not be established, and the accuracy of the estimates relied on findings from the researchers’ two previous key studies.

However, the investigators noted that these findings have been replicated across multiple cohorts and settings. Additionally, the results may not be fully generalizable to the entire US population, as one study was based in New Zealand and the other in urban Chicago.

Reuben cautioned that even though gasoline and new paint no longer contain lead, exposure is still possible.

“We saw this most acutely in Flint, Michigan,” when aging water pipes exposed more than 100,000 residents to high lead levels in 2014. “This situation made us aware that thousands of communities are exposed to lead service lines.”

He recommended that physicians consider screening patients for lead exposure — both new and old. Experts estimate that 90% of lead in the body is stored in the skeleton and can be released back into the bloodstream over time, particularly in cases of calcium deficiency, pregnancy, or osteoporosis.

While reversing childhood lead exposure is not possible, Reuben noted that healthy lifestyle choices and multimodal interventions such as medication and therapy can effectively address and alleviate mental illness.

 

‘Legacy of Lead’

In a comment, Terrie Moffitt, PhD, who was not involved in the research, said the study “is important because it gives us a crystal ball to see into the future of children living with lead today.”

“It’s called the ‘legacy of lead,’ and what a legacy,” said Moffitt, professor in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Nannerl O. Keohane University at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

Moffitt emphasized that children exposed to lead today often live in areas of poverty and disadvantage, making it difficult to disentangle the potential effects of lead exposure from those of childhood adversity that predispose individuals to mental illness.

“This study tells us about lead’s damage in an era when it was everywhere, not just in poor communities,” she said.

The study was funded by a fellowship from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Reuben and Moffitt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Domestic abuse is a leading cause of violence against women in Europe. In France alone, 122 women were killed by their partner or ex-partner in 2021. A 2024 study led by French GP Dr Noémie Deparis, who has expertise in domestic violence, revealed that female victims often want their GPs to recognize signs of abuse and offer support. 

In this interview with Medscape, Deparis provides practical advice for doctors on identifying the subtle signs of domestic violence and offering compassionate, effective support to affected patients.

How can GPs identify victims of domestic abuse during consultations? What are the signs and symptoms they should look out for?

GPs play an important role in identifying victims of domestic violence or child abuse. They need to be alert to any signs that might suggest violence. Physical signs may include unexplained or recurring injuries, scars, and bruising in unusual areas such as the torso, back, or face. Delays in seeking care for their injuries may also be a cause for concern.

There are also psychological signs to look out for, including anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and lowered self-esteem. Other signs can include a change in the patient’s behavior or avoidance behavior. A partner who dominates the consultation, prevents the victim from speaking freely, or watches her excessively could also be an indicator.

There are also contextual signs to look out for — for example, frequent consultations for chronic pain, and multiple reasons for vague, unexplained symptoms such as headaches, abdominal pain, and chronic fatigue. A medical history that is incompatible with the explanations given by the patient can also be a warning sign, as can medical nomadism, where a patient consults with multiple GPs for the same symptoms over a period of time. 

It is crucial to remember that domestic violence can affect individuals across all sociocultural backgrounds, ages, and sexual orientations. Every GP’s patient population includes people who may have experienced domestic violence. In my practice, I’ve developed the habit of reminding myself that when there’s a patient I don’t understand or the situation isn’t clear, it’s often a signal to ask the question.

How can GPs initiate conversations on the topic sensitively, should they have concerns?

For GPs to be able to ask the question systematically when they suspect violence, the most important point is that they themselves should be comfortable with the question they are asking. Obviously, the question must be asked in a nonjudgmental way and in a safe and confidential environment. 

The question can be asked systematically, with a direct question and a routine to normalize the topic. For example: “This is a question I ask all my patients: Have you ever experienced violence in your life?”

GPs can also approach the subject in a more general way. For example: “You seem to be under a lot of stress recently. Is everything okay at home?” or “Sometimes when patients come in with these symptoms, they may be under pressure or experiencing stress in their lives. Could this be the case for you?”

It is essential to express understanding without insistence, depending on the patient’s response. 

Are there specific protocols or guidelines in Europe for recognizing and addressing such cases?

I don’t know enough about the particularities of each European country, but in France since 2022, the French National Authority for Health has recommended systematic screening for domestic violence. The French National Medical Council has also issued recommendations for medical certificates and reporting to the judicial authorities of victims of violence without their consent in cases of control and risk of serious and imminent danger. 

The French College of General Practitioners has recently published practical information sheets to help GPs deal with violence. For more than 5 years, the Déclic Violence website has been regularly updated to help GPs deal with and support victims of violence. Across France, an increasing number of women’s centers are being set up in every region. These centers serve as essential resources, not only for women experiencing violence but also for professionals assisting them.

Could you describe what happens in Europe once a GP confirms that a patient is a victim of domestic violence, including what steps they would take and what support is available?

When a doctor confirms a situation of violence, it is important to provide an active listening ear, a safe space, and immediate support adapted to the victim’s situation and wishes. All the information brought to our attention must be written in the medical file, both the facts reported and the physical or psychological clinical findings. This information should enable us to draw up a descriptive medical certificate at the time of the consultation, if the victim so wishes, or at a later date.

It is important not to be left on your own and to refer the victim to other health professionals; to legal, judicial, or social aid structures; to local or national associations; or to a victim support number. 

How can GPs ensure that their involvement helps victims to access broader support systems such as shelters or counseling services?

As in many areas of medical care, GPs have an important role to play in coordinating the efforts of all the professionals involved. Victims of domestic violence often require long-term monitoring, with periods of improvement and setbacks. In my consultations, I often use the concept of the cycle of violence to help patients recognize the powerful control mechanisms at play. Collaboration with support networks ensures that the victim is not isolated after their GP consultation.

What role can GPs play in documenting cases to assist with legal or social interventions?

GPs play a crucial role in documenting cases of domestic violence to support legal and social interventions. This involves maintaining detailed, objective medical records that include descriptions of injuries, the patient’s account in their own words, psychological observations, and findings from physical examinations.

GPs can issue legally recognized medical certificates detailing the injuries and their consistency. Photographic evidence, with patient consent, can further substantiate claims. GPs also contribute to risk assessments, identifying immediate dangers to the victim or others, which inform protective actions by social services or law enforcement. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Domestic abuse is a leading cause of violence against women in Europe. In France alone, 122 women were killed by their partner or ex-partner in 2021. A 2024 study led by French GP Dr Noémie Deparis, who has expertise in domestic violence, revealed that female victims often want their GPs to recognize signs of abuse and offer support. 

In this interview with Medscape, Deparis provides practical advice for doctors on identifying the subtle signs of domestic violence and offering compassionate, effective support to affected patients.

How can GPs identify victims of domestic abuse during consultations? What are the signs and symptoms they should look out for?

GPs play an important role in identifying victims of domestic violence or child abuse. They need to be alert to any signs that might suggest violence. Physical signs may include unexplained or recurring injuries, scars, and bruising in unusual areas such as the torso, back, or face. Delays in seeking care for their injuries may also be a cause for concern.

There are also psychological signs to look out for, including anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and lowered self-esteem. Other signs can include a change in the patient’s behavior or avoidance behavior. A partner who dominates the consultation, prevents the victim from speaking freely, or watches her excessively could also be an indicator.

There are also contextual signs to look out for — for example, frequent consultations for chronic pain, and multiple reasons for vague, unexplained symptoms such as headaches, abdominal pain, and chronic fatigue. A medical history that is incompatible with the explanations given by the patient can also be a warning sign, as can medical nomadism, where a patient consults with multiple GPs for the same symptoms over a period of time. 

It is crucial to remember that domestic violence can affect individuals across all sociocultural backgrounds, ages, and sexual orientations. Every GP’s patient population includes people who may have experienced domestic violence. In my practice, I’ve developed the habit of reminding myself that when there’s a patient I don’t understand or the situation isn’t clear, it’s often a signal to ask the question.

How can GPs initiate conversations on the topic sensitively, should they have concerns?

For GPs to be able to ask the question systematically when they suspect violence, the most important point is that they themselves should be comfortable with the question they are asking. Obviously, the question must be asked in a nonjudgmental way and in a safe and confidential environment. 

The question can be asked systematically, with a direct question and a routine to normalize the topic. For example: “This is a question I ask all my patients: Have you ever experienced violence in your life?”

GPs can also approach the subject in a more general way. For example: “You seem to be under a lot of stress recently. Is everything okay at home?” or “Sometimes when patients come in with these symptoms, they may be under pressure or experiencing stress in their lives. Could this be the case for you?”

It is essential to express understanding without insistence, depending on the patient’s response. 

Are there specific protocols or guidelines in Europe for recognizing and addressing such cases?

I don’t know enough about the particularities of each European country, but in France since 2022, the French National Authority for Health has recommended systematic screening for domestic violence. The French National Medical Council has also issued recommendations for medical certificates and reporting to the judicial authorities of victims of violence without their consent in cases of control and risk of serious and imminent danger. 

The French College of General Practitioners has recently published practical information sheets to help GPs deal with violence. For more than 5 years, the Déclic Violence website has been regularly updated to help GPs deal with and support victims of violence. Across France, an increasing number of women’s centers are being set up in every region. These centers serve as essential resources, not only for women experiencing violence but also for professionals assisting them.

Could you describe what happens in Europe once a GP confirms that a patient is a victim of domestic violence, including what steps they would take and what support is available?

When a doctor confirms a situation of violence, it is important to provide an active listening ear, a safe space, and immediate support adapted to the victim’s situation and wishes. All the information brought to our attention must be written in the medical file, both the facts reported and the physical or psychological clinical findings. This information should enable us to draw up a descriptive medical certificate at the time of the consultation, if the victim so wishes, or at a later date.

It is important not to be left on your own and to refer the victim to other health professionals; to legal, judicial, or social aid structures; to local or national associations; or to a victim support number. 

How can GPs ensure that their involvement helps victims to access broader support systems such as shelters or counseling services?

As in many areas of medical care, GPs have an important role to play in coordinating the efforts of all the professionals involved. Victims of domestic violence often require long-term monitoring, with periods of improvement and setbacks. In my consultations, I often use the concept of the cycle of violence to help patients recognize the powerful control mechanisms at play. Collaboration with support networks ensures that the victim is not isolated after their GP consultation.

What role can GPs play in documenting cases to assist with legal or social interventions?

GPs play a crucial role in documenting cases of domestic violence to support legal and social interventions. This involves maintaining detailed, objective medical records that include descriptions of injuries, the patient’s account in their own words, psychological observations, and findings from physical examinations.

GPs can issue legally recognized medical certificates detailing the injuries and their consistency. Photographic evidence, with patient consent, can further substantiate claims. GPs also contribute to risk assessments, identifying immediate dangers to the victim or others, which inform protective actions by social services or law enforcement. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Domestic abuse is a leading cause of violence against women in Europe. In France alone, 122 women were killed by their partner or ex-partner in 2021. A 2024 study led by French GP Dr Noémie Deparis, who has expertise in domestic violence, revealed that female victims often want their GPs to recognize signs of abuse and offer support. 

In this interview with Medscape, Deparis provides practical advice for doctors on identifying the subtle signs of domestic violence and offering compassionate, effective support to affected patients.

How can GPs identify victims of domestic abuse during consultations? What are the signs and symptoms they should look out for?

GPs play an important role in identifying victims of domestic violence or child abuse. They need to be alert to any signs that might suggest violence. Physical signs may include unexplained or recurring injuries, scars, and bruising in unusual areas such as the torso, back, or face. Delays in seeking care for their injuries may also be a cause for concern.

There are also psychological signs to look out for, including anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and lowered self-esteem. Other signs can include a change in the patient’s behavior or avoidance behavior. A partner who dominates the consultation, prevents the victim from speaking freely, or watches her excessively could also be an indicator.

There are also contextual signs to look out for — for example, frequent consultations for chronic pain, and multiple reasons for vague, unexplained symptoms such as headaches, abdominal pain, and chronic fatigue. A medical history that is incompatible with the explanations given by the patient can also be a warning sign, as can medical nomadism, where a patient consults with multiple GPs for the same symptoms over a period of time. 

It is crucial to remember that domestic violence can affect individuals across all sociocultural backgrounds, ages, and sexual orientations. Every GP’s patient population includes people who may have experienced domestic violence. In my practice, I’ve developed the habit of reminding myself that when there’s a patient I don’t understand or the situation isn’t clear, it’s often a signal to ask the question.

How can GPs initiate conversations on the topic sensitively, should they have concerns?

For GPs to be able to ask the question systematically when they suspect violence, the most important point is that they themselves should be comfortable with the question they are asking. Obviously, the question must be asked in a nonjudgmental way and in a safe and confidential environment. 

The question can be asked systematically, with a direct question and a routine to normalize the topic. For example: “This is a question I ask all my patients: Have you ever experienced violence in your life?”

GPs can also approach the subject in a more general way. For example: “You seem to be under a lot of stress recently. Is everything okay at home?” or “Sometimes when patients come in with these symptoms, they may be under pressure or experiencing stress in their lives. Could this be the case for you?”

It is essential to express understanding without insistence, depending on the patient’s response. 

Are there specific protocols or guidelines in Europe for recognizing and addressing such cases?

I don’t know enough about the particularities of each European country, but in France since 2022, the French National Authority for Health has recommended systematic screening for domestic violence. The French National Medical Council has also issued recommendations for medical certificates and reporting to the judicial authorities of victims of violence without their consent in cases of control and risk of serious and imminent danger. 

The French College of General Practitioners has recently published practical information sheets to help GPs deal with violence. For more than 5 years, the Déclic Violence website has been regularly updated to help GPs deal with and support victims of violence. Across France, an increasing number of women’s centers are being set up in every region. These centers serve as essential resources, not only for women experiencing violence but also for professionals assisting them.

Could you describe what happens in Europe once a GP confirms that a patient is a victim of domestic violence, including what steps they would take and what support is available?

When a doctor confirms a situation of violence, it is important to provide an active listening ear, a safe space, and immediate support adapted to the victim’s situation and wishes. All the information brought to our attention must be written in the medical file, both the facts reported and the physical or psychological clinical findings. This information should enable us to draw up a descriptive medical certificate at the time of the consultation, if the victim so wishes, or at a later date.

It is important not to be left on your own and to refer the victim to other health professionals; to legal, judicial, or social aid structures; to local or national associations; or to a victim support number. 

How can GPs ensure that their involvement helps victims to access broader support systems such as shelters or counseling services?

As in many areas of medical care, GPs have an important role to play in coordinating the efforts of all the professionals involved. Victims of domestic violence often require long-term monitoring, with periods of improvement and setbacks. In my consultations, I often use the concept of the cycle of violence to help patients recognize the powerful control mechanisms at play. Collaboration with support networks ensures that the victim is not isolated after their GP consultation.

What role can GPs play in documenting cases to assist with legal or social interventions?

GPs play a crucial role in documenting cases of domestic violence to support legal and social interventions. This involves maintaining detailed, objective medical records that include descriptions of injuries, the patient’s account in their own words, psychological observations, and findings from physical examinations.

GPs can issue legally recognized medical certificates detailing the injuries and their consistency. Photographic evidence, with patient consent, can further substantiate claims. GPs also contribute to risk assessments, identifying immediate dangers to the victim or others, which inform protective actions by social services or law enforcement. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.