Clinical Psychiatry News

Of all the currently available pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies for attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults, only stimulants and atomoxetine are effective at reducing core symptoms, results of a large comprehensive meta-analysis showed.

The study of 113 randomized controlled trials with nearly 15,000 adults with a formal diagnosis of ADHD also revealed that atomoxetine is less acceptable to patients and that results of efficacy of nonpharmacological strategies are inconsistent.

Data on long-term efficacy of ADHD therapies are lacking, investigators noted, so these results only apply to short-term efficacy.

“There is a lot of controversy about medication, so these are quite reassuring data and certainly reinforce the role of medication as a treatment for ADHD,” study investigator Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton, England, said during a press briefing hosted by the UK Science Media Center where the findings were released.

The results also point to the “possible role of nonpharmacological interventions, which are currently not well established in current guidelines. However, there is a need for better evidence to fully understand the exact effect of these nonpharmacological interventions,” Cortese noted.

The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry. 

 

Bridging the Knowledge Gap

Once thought to be a childhood disorder only, ADHD is now well-known to persist into adulthood, affecting roughly 2.5% of the general adult population worldwide. The comparative benefits and harms of available interventions for ADHD in adults remain unclear.

To address this knowledge gap, researchers did a comprehensive systematic review and component network meta-analysis comparing a broad range of drug and nondrug treatments for adults with ADHD across several outcomes.

For reducing core ADHD symptoms at 12 weeks, only stimulants and atomoxetine were better than placebo in self-reported and clinician-reported rating scales, the study team found.

For stimulants, the standardized mean differences (SMDs) on the self-reported and clinician-reported scales were 0.39 and 0.61, respectively. The corresponding SMDs for atomoxetine were 0.38 and 0.51.

There was no evidence that ADHD medications were better than placebo in improving additional relevant outcomes such as quality of life.

In terms of nondrug interventions, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive remediation, mindfulness, psychoeducation, and transcranial direct current stimulation were better than placebo only on clinician-reported measures, with SMDs of −1.35, −0.79, −0.77, and −0.78, respectively.

However, the evidence for nondrug strategies is less conclusive overall, with “discordant results across types of raters and based on a small body of evidence,” the authors wrote in their article.

And evidence for long-term efficacy (beyond 12 weeks) for ADHD interventions is “limited and under-investigated,” they said.

Regarding acceptability, all strategies were similar to placebo except for atomoxetine and guanfacine which had lower acceptability than placebo.

“It’s very important to emphasize that we focused on the average effect, not at an individual level,” first author Edoardo Ostinelli, MD, with University of Oxford, England, said at the briefing. “Therefore, we cannot make any recommendation at an individual level. We need studies with individual participant data so that we can personalize treatment.”

Cortese said the information from this analysis may be particularly important for “psychoeducation” of the patient before actually starting with a treatment plan. Patients often ask about nonpharmacological interventions and this study provides the “best synthesis of available data to inform these discussions,” he said.

 

Experts Weigh In 

Several experts weighed in on the results in a statement from the UK Science Media Center.

Celso Arango, MD, PhD, psychiatrist with Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, Spain, noted that there is a “clear shortage of research on ADHD in adulthood, particularly regarding medium-term (beyond 12 weeks) and long-term treatment outcomes. Consequently, the findings are applicable only to short-term treatment.”

Another strength of the study is that it was developed with input from people with ADHD, Arango added, making it “highly relevant.”

The majority of studies available for the analysis involved pharmacological treatments, which is important to consider when interpreting the findings, noted Katya Rubia, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience, King’s College London, England.

“For example, for neurostimulation, only 10 studies were included and on very heterogeneous stimulation methods,” Rubia said. “The evidence on the efficacy of neurostimulation is therefore hardly conclusive and more studies are needed to establish their efficacy.”

Roi Cohen Kadosh, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, agreed. While the study is a “valuable contribution to the literature,” it sheds light on “both the scarcity of neurostimulation research and the limited exploration of combined treatment approaches for ADHD,” he said.

“While novel neurostimulation methods linked to neuroplasticity — such as those we have demonstrated to be superior in children with ADHD — were not covered here, they have shown promising and lasting benefits. In contrast, research in adults remains relatively underdeveloped. Moving forward, greater emphasis on innovative, tolerable, personalized, and sustainable neurostimulation approaches is essential to meet the unmet clinical needs of adults with ADHD,” Kadosh added.

In a commentary in The Lancet Psychiatry, David Coghill, MD, with The University of Melbourne, Australia, cautioned that the findings do not mean that potential benefits of nonpharmacological interventions should be dismissed.

“While some of the nonpharmacological treatments (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive remediation, mindfulness, psychoeducation, and transcranial direct current stimulation) showed effects on clinician-rated outcomes similar to, and in some cases greater than, the pharmacological treatments, they did not show the same effects on self-reported outcomes. These interventions were therefore considered less robust than the pharmacological treatments that showed changes on both measurement types,” he wrote.

This study had no commercial funding. Ostinelli had received research and consultancy fees from Angelini Pharma. Cortese received reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses in relation to lectures delivered for the Association for Child and Adolescent Central Health, the Canadian ADHD Alliance Resource, and the British Association of Psychopharmacology; and had received honoraria from MEDICE; and is chair of the European ADHD Guidelines Group. Arango, Rubia, and Kadosh had no relevant disclosures. Coghill had received honoraria from CCM Conecta, Takeda, Novartis, Servier, and MEDICE.

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

Of all the currently available pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies for attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults, only stimulants and atomoxetine are effective at reducing core symptoms, results of a large comprehensive meta-analysis showed.

The study of 113 randomized controlled trials with nearly 15,000 adults with a formal diagnosis of ADHD also revealed that atomoxetine is less acceptable to patients and that results of efficacy of nonpharmacological strategies are inconsistent.

Data on long-term efficacy of ADHD therapies are lacking, investigators noted, so these results only apply to short-term efficacy.

“There is a lot of controversy about medication, so these are quite reassuring data and certainly reinforce the role of medication as a treatment for ADHD,” study investigator Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton, England, said during a press briefing hosted by the UK Science Media Center where the findings were released.

The results also point to the “possible role of nonpharmacological interventions, which are currently not well established in current guidelines. However, there is a need for better evidence to fully understand the exact effect of these nonpharmacological interventions,” Cortese noted.

The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry. 

 

Bridging the Knowledge Gap

Once thought to be a childhood disorder only, ADHD is now well-known to persist into adulthood, affecting roughly 2.5% of the general adult population worldwide. The comparative benefits and harms of available interventions for ADHD in adults remain unclear.

To address this knowledge gap, researchers did a comprehensive systematic review and component network meta-analysis comparing a broad range of drug and nondrug treatments for adults with ADHD across several outcomes.

For reducing core ADHD symptoms at 12 weeks, only stimulants and atomoxetine were better than placebo in self-reported and clinician-reported rating scales, the study team found.

For stimulants, the standardized mean differences (SMDs) on the self-reported and clinician-reported scales were 0.39 and 0.61, respectively. The corresponding SMDs for atomoxetine were 0.38 and 0.51.

There was no evidence that ADHD medications were better than placebo in improving additional relevant outcomes such as quality of life.

In terms of nondrug interventions, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive remediation, mindfulness, psychoeducation, and transcranial direct current stimulation were better than placebo only on clinician-reported measures, with SMDs of −1.35, −0.79, −0.77, and −0.78, respectively.

However, the evidence for nondrug strategies is less conclusive overall, with “discordant results across types of raters and based on a small body of evidence,” the authors wrote in their article.

And evidence for long-term efficacy (beyond 12 weeks) for ADHD interventions is “limited and under-investigated,” they said.

Regarding acceptability, all strategies were similar to placebo except for atomoxetine and guanfacine which had lower acceptability than placebo.

“It’s very important to emphasize that we focused on the average effect, not at an individual level,” first author Edoardo Ostinelli, MD, with University of Oxford, England, said at the briefing. “Therefore, we cannot make any recommendation at an individual level. We need studies with individual participant data so that we can personalize treatment.”

Cortese said the information from this analysis may be particularly important for “psychoeducation” of the patient before actually starting with a treatment plan. Patients often ask about nonpharmacological interventions and this study provides the “best synthesis of available data to inform these discussions,” he said.

 

Experts Weigh In 

Several experts weighed in on the results in a statement from the UK Science Media Center.

Celso Arango, MD, PhD, psychiatrist with Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, Spain, noted that there is a “clear shortage of research on ADHD in adulthood, particularly regarding medium-term (beyond 12 weeks) and long-term treatment outcomes. Consequently, the findings are applicable only to short-term treatment.”

Another strength of the study is that it was developed with input from people with ADHD, Arango added, making it “highly relevant.”

The majority of studies available for the analysis involved pharmacological treatments, which is important to consider when interpreting the findings, noted Katya Rubia, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience, King’s College London, England.

“For example, for neurostimulation, only 10 studies were included and on very heterogeneous stimulation methods,” Rubia said. “The evidence on the efficacy of neurostimulation is therefore hardly conclusive and more studies are needed to establish their efficacy.”

Roi Cohen Kadosh, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, agreed. While the study is a “valuable contribution to the literature,” it sheds light on “both the scarcity of neurostimulation research and the limited exploration of combined treatment approaches for ADHD,” he said.

“While novel neurostimulation methods linked to neuroplasticity — such as those we have demonstrated to be superior in children with ADHD — were not covered here, they have shown promising and lasting benefits. In contrast, research in adults remains relatively underdeveloped. Moving forward, greater emphasis on innovative, tolerable, personalized, and sustainable neurostimulation approaches is essential to meet the unmet clinical needs of adults with ADHD,” Kadosh added.

In a commentary in The Lancet Psychiatry, David Coghill, MD, with The University of Melbourne, Australia, cautioned that the findings do not mean that potential benefits of nonpharmacological interventions should be dismissed.

“While some of the nonpharmacological treatments (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive remediation, mindfulness, psychoeducation, and transcranial direct current stimulation) showed effects on clinician-rated outcomes similar to, and in some cases greater than, the pharmacological treatments, they did not show the same effects on self-reported outcomes. These interventions were therefore considered less robust than the pharmacological treatments that showed changes on both measurement types,” he wrote.

This study had no commercial funding. Ostinelli had received research and consultancy fees from Angelini Pharma. Cortese received reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses in relation to lectures delivered for the Association for Child and Adolescent Central Health, the Canadian ADHD Alliance Resource, and the British Association of Psychopharmacology; and had received honoraria from MEDICE; and is chair of the European ADHD Guidelines Group. Arango, Rubia, and Kadosh had no relevant disclosures. Coghill had received honoraria from CCM Conecta, Takeda, Novartis, Servier, and MEDICE.

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

Of all the currently available pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies for attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults, only stimulants and atomoxetine are effective at reducing core symptoms, results of a large comprehensive meta-analysis showed.

The study of 113 randomized controlled trials with nearly 15,000 adults with a formal diagnosis of ADHD also revealed that atomoxetine is less acceptable to patients and that results of efficacy of nonpharmacological strategies are inconsistent.

Data on long-term efficacy of ADHD therapies are lacking, investigators noted, so these results only apply to short-term efficacy.

“There is a lot of controversy about medication, so these are quite reassuring data and certainly reinforce the role of medication as a treatment for ADHD,” study investigator Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton, England, said during a press briefing hosted by the UK Science Media Center where the findings were released.

The results also point to the “possible role of nonpharmacological interventions, which are currently not well established in current guidelines. However, there is a need for better evidence to fully understand the exact effect of these nonpharmacological interventions,” Cortese noted.

The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry. 

 

Bridging the Knowledge Gap

Once thought to be a childhood disorder only, ADHD is now well-known to persist into adulthood, affecting roughly 2.5% of the general adult population worldwide. The comparative benefits and harms of available interventions for ADHD in adults remain unclear.

To address this knowledge gap, researchers did a comprehensive systematic review and component network meta-analysis comparing a broad range of drug and nondrug treatments for adults with ADHD across several outcomes.

For reducing core ADHD symptoms at 12 weeks, only stimulants and atomoxetine were better than placebo in self-reported and clinician-reported rating scales, the study team found.

For stimulants, the standardized mean differences (SMDs) on the self-reported and clinician-reported scales were 0.39 and 0.61, respectively. The corresponding SMDs for atomoxetine were 0.38 and 0.51.

There was no evidence that ADHD medications were better than placebo in improving additional relevant outcomes such as quality of life.

In terms of nondrug interventions, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive remediation, mindfulness, psychoeducation, and transcranial direct current stimulation were better than placebo only on clinician-reported measures, with SMDs of −1.35, −0.79, −0.77, and −0.78, respectively.

However, the evidence for nondrug strategies is less conclusive overall, with “discordant results across types of raters and based on a small body of evidence,” the authors wrote in their article.

And evidence for long-term efficacy (beyond 12 weeks) for ADHD interventions is “limited and under-investigated,” they said.

Regarding acceptability, all strategies were similar to placebo except for atomoxetine and guanfacine which had lower acceptability than placebo.

“It’s very important to emphasize that we focused on the average effect, not at an individual level,” first author Edoardo Ostinelli, MD, with University of Oxford, England, said at the briefing. “Therefore, we cannot make any recommendation at an individual level. We need studies with individual participant data so that we can personalize treatment.”

Cortese said the information from this analysis may be particularly important for “psychoeducation” of the patient before actually starting with a treatment plan. Patients often ask about nonpharmacological interventions and this study provides the “best synthesis of available data to inform these discussions,” he said.

 

Experts Weigh In 

Several experts weighed in on the results in a statement from the UK Science Media Center.

Celso Arango, MD, PhD, psychiatrist with Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, Spain, noted that there is a “clear shortage of research on ADHD in adulthood, particularly regarding medium-term (beyond 12 weeks) and long-term treatment outcomes. Consequently, the findings are applicable only to short-term treatment.”

Another strength of the study is that it was developed with input from people with ADHD, Arango added, making it “highly relevant.”

The majority of studies available for the analysis involved pharmacological treatments, which is important to consider when interpreting the findings, noted Katya Rubia, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience, King’s College London, England.

“For example, for neurostimulation, only 10 studies were included and on very heterogeneous stimulation methods,” Rubia said. “The evidence on the efficacy of neurostimulation is therefore hardly conclusive and more studies are needed to establish their efficacy.”

Roi Cohen Kadosh, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, agreed. While the study is a “valuable contribution to the literature,” it sheds light on “both the scarcity of neurostimulation research and the limited exploration of combined treatment approaches for ADHD,” he said.

“While novel neurostimulation methods linked to neuroplasticity — such as those we have demonstrated to be superior in children with ADHD — were not covered here, they have shown promising and lasting benefits. In contrast, research in adults remains relatively underdeveloped. Moving forward, greater emphasis on innovative, tolerable, personalized, and sustainable neurostimulation approaches is essential to meet the unmet clinical needs of adults with ADHD,” Kadosh added.

In a commentary in The Lancet Psychiatry, David Coghill, MD, with The University of Melbourne, Australia, cautioned that the findings do not mean that potential benefits of nonpharmacological interventions should be dismissed.

“While some of the nonpharmacological treatments (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive remediation, mindfulness, psychoeducation, and transcranial direct current stimulation) showed effects on clinician-rated outcomes similar to, and in some cases greater than, the pharmacological treatments, they did not show the same effects on self-reported outcomes. These interventions were therefore considered less robust than the pharmacological treatments that showed changes on both measurement types,” he wrote.

This study had no commercial funding. Ostinelli had received research and consultancy fees from Angelini Pharma. Cortese received reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses in relation to lectures delivered for the Association for Child and Adolescent Central Health, the Canadian ADHD Alliance Resource, and the British Association of Psychopharmacology; and had received honoraria from MEDICE; and is chair of the European ADHD Guidelines Group. Arango, Rubia, and Kadosh had no relevant disclosures. Coghill had received honoraria from CCM Conecta, Takeda, Novartis, Servier, and MEDICE.

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.

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive. 

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

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive. 

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

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive. 

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.

For the first time since 2001, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its clinical practice guideline on borderline personality disorder (BPD).

The new guideline is “quite substantial and really serves as a rich textbook of the literature, about borderline personality disorder that any clinician would find very valuable,” John Oldham, MD, MS, member of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.

“The overall goal is to improve the quality of care and treatment outcomes for patients with BPD,” said Oldham, distinguished emeritus professor, Menninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. 

The updated guideline was published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry. 

It includes eight evidence-based recommendation statements covering assessment and determination of treatment plan, psychosocial interventions, and pharmacology. 

Recommendations denoted by the numeral 1 after the guideline statement indicates confidence that the benefits of the intervention clearly outweigh the harms. A suggestion (denoted by the numeral 2 after the guideline statement) indicates greater uncertainty. 

Each guideline statement also has an associated rating for the strength of supporting research evidence — high, moderate, and low, denoted by the letters A, B, and C, respectively.

The APA recommends (1C) that the initial assessment of a patient with possible BPD include the reason the individual is presenting for evaluation; the patient’s goals and preferences for treatment; a review of psychiatric symptoms, including core features of personality disorders and common co-occurring disorders; a psychiatric treatment history; assessment of physical health and psychosocial and cultural factors; a mental status examination; and an assessment of risk of suicide, self-injury, and aggressive behaviors, as outlined in APA Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults, Third Edition. 

The APA suggests (2C) that the initial psychiatric evaluation of a patient with BPD include a quantitative measure to identify and determine the severity of symptoms and impairments of functioning that may be a focus of treatment. 

The guideline lists several options, including (but not limited to) the 23-item version of the Borderline Symptom List; the Borderline Evaluation of Severity Over Time; 11-item Borderline Personality Features Scale for Children; and Difficulty in Emotional Regulation Scale.

The APA recommends (1C) that a patient with BPD have a documented, comprehensive, and person-centered treatment plan and be engaged in a collaborative discussion about their diagnosis and treatment, which includes psychoeducation related to the disorder. “This is a new recommendation,” Oldham said.

Another new recommendation (1B) advises a structured approach to psychotherapy that has support in the literature and targets the core features of the disorder. These include dialectical behavior therapy and mentalization-based therapy along with other therapies that have demonstrated efficacy in recent studies.

The APA recommends (1C) that a patient with BPD have a review of co-occurring disorders, prior psychotherapies, other nonpharmacological treatments, past medication trials, and current medications before initiating any new medication.

The APA suggests (2C) that that any psychotropic medication treatment of BPD be “time-limited, aimed at addressing a specific measurable target symptom, and adjunctive to psychotherapy.”

“Medication is not a primary treatment but may help diminish symptoms such as affective instability, impulsivity, or psychotic-like symptoms in individual patients, helping them to remain engaged in treatment or reducing short-term risks of self-harm,” said Oldham.

The APA recommends (1C) a review and reconciliation of medications at least every 6 months to assess the effectiveness of treatment and identify medications that warrant tapering or discontinuation.

 

An Alternative Model of Care

Oldham said it’s important to note that the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) is increasingly being integrated into clinical practice with adolescents and adults. 

Unlike the traditional categorical system, which diagnoses personality disorders as distinct and separate conditions, the AMPD views personality disorders along a continuum of severity and impairment. 

The AMPD recognizes the variability and overlap in personality disorder symptoms and provides a nuanced, individualized framework for assessment and treatment planning. 

Oldham co-chaired the work group that developed the proposal for the alternative model. 

“Despite the growing recognition of the importance of the alternative model, our systematic reviews did not identify treatment studies using the alternative model that met our inclusion criteria. Therefore, it is not included in the new guideline,” he said. 

Development of the guideline had no commercial funding. Oldham reported no conflicts of interest with his work on the guideline.

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

For the first time since 2001, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its clinical practice guideline on borderline personality disorder (BPD).

The new guideline is “quite substantial and really serves as a rich textbook of the literature, about borderline personality disorder that any clinician would find very valuable,” John Oldham, MD, MS, member of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.

“The overall goal is to improve the quality of care and treatment outcomes for patients with BPD,” said Oldham, distinguished emeritus professor, Menninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. 

The updated guideline was published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry. 

It includes eight evidence-based recommendation statements covering assessment and determination of treatment plan, psychosocial interventions, and pharmacology. 

Recommendations denoted by the numeral 1 after the guideline statement indicates confidence that the benefits of the intervention clearly outweigh the harms. A suggestion (denoted by the numeral 2 after the guideline statement) indicates greater uncertainty. 

Each guideline statement also has an associated rating for the strength of supporting research evidence — high, moderate, and low, denoted by the letters A, B, and C, respectively.

The APA recommends (1C) that the initial assessment of a patient with possible BPD include the reason the individual is presenting for evaluation; the patient’s goals and preferences for treatment; a review of psychiatric symptoms, including core features of personality disorders and common co-occurring disorders; a psychiatric treatment history; assessment of physical health and psychosocial and cultural factors; a mental status examination; and an assessment of risk of suicide, self-injury, and aggressive behaviors, as outlined in APA Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults, Third Edition. 

The APA suggests (2C) that the initial psychiatric evaluation of a patient with BPD include a quantitative measure to identify and determine the severity of symptoms and impairments of functioning that may be a focus of treatment. 

The guideline lists several options, including (but not limited to) the 23-item version of the Borderline Symptom List; the Borderline Evaluation of Severity Over Time; 11-item Borderline Personality Features Scale for Children; and Difficulty in Emotional Regulation Scale.

The APA recommends (1C) that a patient with BPD have a documented, comprehensive, and person-centered treatment plan and be engaged in a collaborative discussion about their diagnosis and treatment, which includes psychoeducation related to the disorder. “This is a new recommendation,” Oldham said.

Another new recommendation (1B) advises a structured approach to psychotherapy that has support in the literature and targets the core features of the disorder. These include dialectical behavior therapy and mentalization-based therapy along with other therapies that have demonstrated efficacy in recent studies.

The APA recommends (1C) that a patient with BPD have a review of co-occurring disorders, prior psychotherapies, other nonpharmacological treatments, past medication trials, and current medications before initiating any new medication.

The APA suggests (2C) that that any psychotropic medication treatment of BPD be “time-limited, aimed at addressing a specific measurable target symptom, and adjunctive to psychotherapy.”

“Medication is not a primary treatment but may help diminish symptoms such as affective instability, impulsivity, or psychotic-like symptoms in individual patients, helping them to remain engaged in treatment or reducing short-term risks of self-harm,” said Oldham.

The APA recommends (1C) a review and reconciliation of medications at least every 6 months to assess the effectiveness of treatment and identify medications that warrant tapering or discontinuation.

 

An Alternative Model of Care

Oldham said it’s important to note that the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) is increasingly being integrated into clinical practice with adolescents and adults. 

Unlike the traditional categorical system, which diagnoses personality disorders as distinct and separate conditions, the AMPD views personality disorders along a continuum of severity and impairment. 

The AMPD recognizes the variability and overlap in personality disorder symptoms and provides a nuanced, individualized framework for assessment and treatment planning. 

Oldham co-chaired the work group that developed the proposal for the alternative model. 

“Despite the growing recognition of the importance of the alternative model, our systematic reviews did not identify treatment studies using the alternative model that met our inclusion criteria. Therefore, it is not included in the new guideline,” he said. 

Development of the guideline had no commercial funding. Oldham reported no conflicts of interest with his work on the guideline.

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

For the first time since 2001, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its clinical practice guideline on borderline personality disorder (BPD).

The new guideline is “quite substantial and really serves as a rich textbook of the literature, about borderline personality disorder that any clinician would find very valuable,” John Oldham, MD, MS, member of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.

“The overall goal is to improve the quality of care and treatment outcomes for patients with BPD,” said Oldham, distinguished emeritus professor, Menninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. 

The updated guideline was published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry. 

It includes eight evidence-based recommendation statements covering assessment and determination of treatment plan, psychosocial interventions, and pharmacology. 

Recommendations denoted by the numeral 1 after the guideline statement indicates confidence that the benefits of the intervention clearly outweigh the harms. A suggestion (denoted by the numeral 2 after the guideline statement) indicates greater uncertainty. 

Each guideline statement also has an associated rating for the strength of supporting research evidence — high, moderate, and low, denoted by the letters A, B, and C, respectively.

The APA recommends (1C) that the initial assessment of a patient with possible BPD include the reason the individual is presenting for evaluation; the patient’s goals and preferences for treatment; a review of psychiatric symptoms, including core features of personality disorders and common co-occurring disorders; a psychiatric treatment history; assessment of physical health and psychosocial and cultural factors; a mental status examination; and an assessment of risk of suicide, self-injury, and aggressive behaviors, as outlined in APA Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults, Third Edition. 

The APA suggests (2C) that the initial psychiatric evaluation of a patient with BPD include a quantitative measure to identify and determine the severity of symptoms and impairments of functioning that may be a focus of treatment. 

The guideline lists several options, including (but not limited to) the 23-item version of the Borderline Symptom List; the Borderline Evaluation of Severity Over Time; 11-item Borderline Personality Features Scale for Children; and Difficulty in Emotional Regulation Scale.

The APA recommends (1C) that a patient with BPD have a documented, comprehensive, and person-centered treatment plan and be engaged in a collaborative discussion about their diagnosis and treatment, which includes psychoeducation related to the disorder. “This is a new recommendation,” Oldham said.

Another new recommendation (1B) advises a structured approach to psychotherapy that has support in the literature and targets the core features of the disorder. These include dialectical behavior therapy and mentalization-based therapy along with other therapies that have demonstrated efficacy in recent studies.

The APA recommends (1C) that a patient with BPD have a review of co-occurring disorders, prior psychotherapies, other nonpharmacological treatments, past medication trials, and current medications before initiating any new medication.

The APA suggests (2C) that that any psychotropic medication treatment of BPD be “time-limited, aimed at addressing a specific measurable target symptom, and adjunctive to psychotherapy.”

“Medication is not a primary treatment but may help diminish symptoms such as affective instability, impulsivity, or psychotic-like symptoms in individual patients, helping them to remain engaged in treatment or reducing short-term risks of self-harm,” said Oldham.

The APA recommends (1C) a review and reconciliation of medications at least every 6 months to assess the effectiveness of treatment and identify medications that warrant tapering or discontinuation.

 

An Alternative Model of Care

Oldham said it’s important to note that the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) is increasingly being integrated into clinical practice with adolescents and adults. 

Unlike the traditional categorical system, which diagnoses personality disorders as distinct and separate conditions, the AMPD views personality disorders along a continuum of severity and impairment. 

The AMPD recognizes the variability and overlap in personality disorder symptoms and provides a nuanced, individualized framework for assessment and treatment planning. 

Oldham co-chaired the work group that developed the proposal for the alternative model. 

“Despite the growing recognition of the importance of the alternative model, our systematic reviews did not identify treatment studies using the alternative model that met our inclusion criteria. Therefore, it is not included in the new guideline,” he said. 

Development of the guideline had no commercial funding. Oldham reported no conflicts of interest with his work on the guideline.

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

There has been a lot of talk about polarization in America in the past year and how hard it can be to talk with someone with a different world view. It also seems that the COVID pandemic and a move to non–face-to-face communication has eroded social skills, increased disinformation, and made people irritable. As pediatric providers dealing with all kinds of people we have to increasingly deal with difficult communications.

We pediatric providers tend to be a friendly bunch with a mission of helping the health and well-being of children whose problems are no fault of their own. What’s not to like about us? Hence, one of the most difficult situations is a parent approaching us in anger. [All that follows also applies generally to adults, teens, and children but I here focus on parents.]

 

Health problems are often very frustrating. Parents mainly want their child’s problem fixed, yet that is not easy. Frustration with the health condition is compounded by having to wait, costs for care, life interruption, and confusing information. Anger and aggression are natural results of frustration (remember the Frustration-Aggression paradigm in animals?). Frustration is cumulative — a health problem may be the last straw, especially when social stressors or past trauma, also out of their control, were already present. Individuals with mental disorders or substance use are especially vulnerable to anger reactions.

 

Allaying Anger

As providers, we don’t know how anger may have been reinforced in the individual’s past. Anger may have scared others into giving in to them and thus became a familiar weapon. Sometimes angry outbursts get people to the front of the line. Expressing anger is also a kind of relief valve for emotions. Acknowledging that their situation is “very upsetting” and “frustrating” and that you will try to get a solution is the first step in effective communication.

Anger also comes from anxiety or fear. Anxiety is often a missed cause of childhood aggressive behavior. Parents are scared about poor short-and long-term outcomes of health problems in their child. Asking “What worries you the most about this illness?” or “What have you heard about this illness?” can elicit reports of fears you may be able to debunk or put in perspective. 

Keeping their child healthy and safe are parents’ top priorities, so feeling helpless and out of control when an illness or injury occurs is very disturbing. Being a good parent is partly driven by guilt, which may be unrealistic, or from omission (eg, did not bring the child in sooner), or commission (eg, shouldn’t have taken her to that birthday party where she caught it). This is where you may normalize their actions such as saying “a child really can’t grow up in a bubble” or “symptoms can mean many things. I usually tell parents they don’t need to call unless the temperature is over 101,” for example. If appropriate, you might clarify what actions they should take in the future and provide a handout or instructions for sources of reliable information (and perhaps what is unreliable, such as TikTok!) to give them more power. 

Feeling helpless may also evoke memories from the past when, as a child themselves, they were not able to help a loved one suffering from an accident or a health or mental health issue. They may have been helpless in the face of bullying, domestic violence, or racism. Even a hint of helplessness now can tap into the previous emotions, accelerating their reactivity. Promising to “work on this together” lends them your agency. 

Of course, the main thing angry parents need is to have their child’s issue resolved. But this may not be a quick fix, especially if they are too incensed to cooperate. But what we can always do is address their need to be heard — both in content and emotion — and to help them regain a sense of control.

 

Pacing Can Help

One strategy that may seem counterintuitive is called “pacing.” Instead of begging the parent to calm down, which denigrates their strong feelings, we can echo their concerns while mirroring their emotions (within limits) to demonstrate that we understand them. Mirroring emotions may include your physical posture, volume and speed of speech, as well as use of similar sensory modalities. As for the modality component, you may notice that people tend to use visual, auditory or kinesthetic (feeling or action) words. So, for example, for an angry parent “screaming that no one has looked at the lab results yet” we might posture as they do, increase our volume, and use visual words such as saying “You are upset because you don’t see anyone looking over the labs in all this time.” As you hear more, you can continue to paraphrase and summarize what they are saying including their examples or wording. You can then change your own tone and posture progressively downshifting, bringing them along, and establishing rapport as they can tell that you are understanding them. Validating their emotions does not mean you have to agree with what they are saying; it demonstrates that you hear them.

Other strategies to demonstrate listening that can be helpful include sitting down side by side, and taking notes they can see, asking if you are getting the details correct. Using open-ended questions to elicit answers other than yes/no conveys openness to hear their story and may also reveal some of the causes for the upset. Sitting side by side conveys collaboration, whereas face to face implies more confrontation. Keep your arms down and arms and legs uncrossed and your head nodding and tilted somewhat down. These positions and verbal techniques demonstrate that you are listening to both their content and feelings. 

 

Next Steps

The other main component to communication with an angry parent is providing action on the issue, especially involving them in a way that gives them some sense of control. Once they can tell that you understand them, it is then key to stay focused on solutions, bringing the discussion back if it veers off. There may be things they can do or you can do together such as log in to their portal, get on the phone with a relevant staff person such as a referral coordinator, or set a time for a follow-up appointment or call. Any action step they can do, even asking that they record a temperature every 6 hours, reduces helplessness.

It is crucial to elicit the parents’ criteria for satisfaction of their complaint. You may try asking: “What would tell you that your child’s problem is being adequately addressed?” Write down these criteria as part of the overall plan, making sure they are detailed, measurable, feasible, time related, and relevant. Include actions for the parent to take, if possible. By setting criteria and times for follow-up you establish accountability that also gives them a sense of control. 

There are certain communications that can make things worse with an angry parent, some of which you may not even know occurred. Their anger may well have sparked a reaction in our staff, who are getting it full force before we even start our visit. Not only you but also your staff need to avoid making excuses for what happened (or didn’t happen) to the patient, blame the family for the child’s issue, imply that the parent’s feelings are invalid, or react as though their anger was a personal affront. 

 

Setting Boundaries

There are certainly times when a parent’s behavior is unacceptable or even dangerous. It is important to have policies about what action to take so that we can verbally refer to these, if needed. We should all avoid threatening expulsion from the practice or calling security. Instead, assertively state the boundaries and rules and tell them what will happen if the behavior continues or exceeds a limit, such as frightening other patients or damaging equipment. It is essential to use respectful language and address them by name and certainly not make comments about them personally or criticize them, as these raise defensiveness. Suggesting they or you “take a break,” give them “some space” for a few minutes in a safe private room, or leave and come back in 15 minutes allows the upset parent to save face and gather themselves. All these things also work with children and teens. 

Health care is stressful, especially with short staffing, and is often intensely personal and emotional. The human struggles we deal with may also be present in our own and our staff’s experiences. Mastering skills for interacting with angry parents can strengthen our relationships with them, our staff, and even our understanding of ourselves.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

There has been a lot of talk about polarization in America in the past year and how hard it can be to talk with someone with a different world view. It also seems that the COVID pandemic and a move to non–face-to-face communication has eroded social skills, increased disinformation, and made people irritable. As pediatric providers dealing with all kinds of people we have to increasingly deal with difficult communications.

We pediatric providers tend to be a friendly bunch with a mission of helping the health and well-being of children whose problems are no fault of their own. What’s not to like about us? Hence, one of the most difficult situations is a parent approaching us in anger. [All that follows also applies generally to adults, teens, and children but I here focus on parents.]

 

Health problems are often very frustrating. Parents mainly want their child’s problem fixed, yet that is not easy. Frustration with the health condition is compounded by having to wait, costs for care, life interruption, and confusing information. Anger and aggression are natural results of frustration (remember the Frustration-Aggression paradigm in animals?). Frustration is cumulative — a health problem may be the last straw, especially when social stressors or past trauma, also out of their control, were already present. Individuals with mental disorders or substance use are especially vulnerable to anger reactions.

 

Allaying Anger

As providers, we don’t know how anger may have been reinforced in the individual’s past. Anger may have scared others into giving in to them and thus became a familiar weapon. Sometimes angry outbursts get people to the front of the line. Expressing anger is also a kind of relief valve for emotions. Acknowledging that their situation is “very upsetting” and “frustrating” and that you will try to get a solution is the first step in effective communication.

Anger also comes from anxiety or fear. Anxiety is often a missed cause of childhood aggressive behavior. Parents are scared about poor short-and long-term outcomes of health problems in their child. Asking “What worries you the most about this illness?” or “What have you heard about this illness?” can elicit reports of fears you may be able to debunk or put in perspective. 

Keeping their child healthy and safe are parents’ top priorities, so feeling helpless and out of control when an illness or injury occurs is very disturbing. Being a good parent is partly driven by guilt, which may be unrealistic, or from omission (eg, did not bring the child in sooner), or commission (eg, shouldn’t have taken her to that birthday party where she caught it). This is where you may normalize their actions such as saying “a child really can’t grow up in a bubble” or “symptoms can mean many things. I usually tell parents they don’t need to call unless the temperature is over 101,” for example. If appropriate, you might clarify what actions they should take in the future and provide a handout or instructions for sources of reliable information (and perhaps what is unreliable, such as TikTok!) to give them more power. 

Feeling helpless may also evoke memories from the past when, as a child themselves, they were not able to help a loved one suffering from an accident or a health or mental health issue. They may have been helpless in the face of bullying, domestic violence, or racism. Even a hint of helplessness now can tap into the previous emotions, accelerating their reactivity. Promising to “work on this together” lends them your agency. 

Of course, the main thing angry parents need is to have their child’s issue resolved. But this may not be a quick fix, especially if they are too incensed to cooperate. But what we can always do is address their need to be heard — both in content and emotion — and to help them regain a sense of control.

 

Pacing Can Help

One strategy that may seem counterintuitive is called “pacing.” Instead of begging the parent to calm down, which denigrates their strong feelings, we can echo their concerns while mirroring their emotions (within limits) to demonstrate that we understand them. Mirroring emotions may include your physical posture, volume and speed of speech, as well as use of similar sensory modalities. As for the modality component, you may notice that people tend to use visual, auditory or kinesthetic (feeling or action) words. So, for example, for an angry parent “screaming that no one has looked at the lab results yet” we might posture as they do, increase our volume, and use visual words such as saying “You are upset because you don’t see anyone looking over the labs in all this time.” As you hear more, you can continue to paraphrase and summarize what they are saying including their examples or wording. You can then change your own tone and posture progressively downshifting, bringing them along, and establishing rapport as they can tell that you are understanding them. Validating their emotions does not mean you have to agree with what they are saying; it demonstrates that you hear them.

Other strategies to demonstrate listening that can be helpful include sitting down side by side, and taking notes they can see, asking if you are getting the details correct. Using open-ended questions to elicit answers other than yes/no conveys openness to hear their story and may also reveal some of the causes for the upset. Sitting side by side conveys collaboration, whereas face to face implies more confrontation. Keep your arms down and arms and legs uncrossed and your head nodding and tilted somewhat down. These positions and verbal techniques demonstrate that you are listening to both their content and feelings. 

 

Next Steps

The other main component to communication with an angry parent is providing action on the issue, especially involving them in a way that gives them some sense of control. Once they can tell that you understand them, it is then key to stay focused on solutions, bringing the discussion back if it veers off. There may be things they can do or you can do together such as log in to their portal, get on the phone with a relevant staff person such as a referral coordinator, or set a time for a follow-up appointment or call. Any action step they can do, even asking that they record a temperature every 6 hours, reduces helplessness.

It is crucial to elicit the parents’ criteria for satisfaction of their complaint. You may try asking: “What would tell you that your child’s problem is being adequately addressed?” Write down these criteria as part of the overall plan, making sure they are detailed, measurable, feasible, time related, and relevant. Include actions for the parent to take, if possible. By setting criteria and times for follow-up you establish accountability that also gives them a sense of control. 

There are certain communications that can make things worse with an angry parent, some of which you may not even know occurred. Their anger may well have sparked a reaction in our staff, who are getting it full force before we even start our visit. Not only you but also your staff need to avoid making excuses for what happened (or didn’t happen) to the patient, blame the family for the child’s issue, imply that the parent’s feelings are invalid, or react as though their anger was a personal affront. 

 

Setting Boundaries

There are certainly times when a parent’s behavior is unacceptable or even dangerous. It is important to have policies about what action to take so that we can verbally refer to these, if needed. We should all avoid threatening expulsion from the practice or calling security. Instead, assertively state the boundaries and rules and tell them what will happen if the behavior continues or exceeds a limit, such as frightening other patients or damaging equipment. It is essential to use respectful language and address them by name and certainly not make comments about them personally or criticize them, as these raise defensiveness. Suggesting they or you “take a break,” give them “some space” for a few minutes in a safe private room, or leave and come back in 15 minutes allows the upset parent to save face and gather themselves. All these things also work with children and teens. 

Health care is stressful, especially with short staffing, and is often intensely personal and emotional. The human struggles we deal with may also be present in our own and our staff’s experiences. Mastering skills for interacting with angry parents can strengthen our relationships with them, our staff, and even our understanding of ourselves.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

There has been a lot of talk about polarization in America in the past year and how hard it can be to talk with someone with a different world view. It also seems that the COVID pandemic and a move to non–face-to-face communication has eroded social skills, increased disinformation, and made people irritable. As pediatric providers dealing with all kinds of people we have to increasingly deal with difficult communications.

We pediatric providers tend to be a friendly bunch with a mission of helping the health and well-being of children whose problems are no fault of their own. What’s not to like about us? Hence, one of the most difficult situations is a parent approaching us in anger. [All that follows also applies generally to adults, teens, and children but I here focus on parents.]

 

Health problems are often very frustrating. Parents mainly want their child’s problem fixed, yet that is not easy. Frustration with the health condition is compounded by having to wait, costs for care, life interruption, and confusing information. Anger and aggression are natural results of frustration (remember the Frustration-Aggression paradigm in animals?). Frustration is cumulative — a health problem may be the last straw, especially when social stressors or past trauma, also out of their control, were already present. Individuals with mental disorders or substance use are especially vulnerable to anger reactions.

 

Allaying Anger

As providers, we don’t know how anger may have been reinforced in the individual’s past. Anger may have scared others into giving in to them and thus became a familiar weapon. Sometimes angry outbursts get people to the front of the line. Expressing anger is also a kind of relief valve for emotions. Acknowledging that their situation is “very upsetting” and “frustrating” and that you will try to get a solution is the first step in effective communication.

Anger also comes from anxiety or fear. Anxiety is often a missed cause of childhood aggressive behavior. Parents are scared about poor short-and long-term outcomes of health problems in their child. Asking “What worries you the most about this illness?” or “What have you heard about this illness?” can elicit reports of fears you may be able to debunk or put in perspective. 

Keeping their child healthy and safe are parents’ top priorities, so feeling helpless and out of control when an illness or injury occurs is very disturbing. Being a good parent is partly driven by guilt, which may be unrealistic, or from omission (eg, did not bring the child in sooner), or commission (eg, shouldn’t have taken her to that birthday party where she caught it). This is where you may normalize their actions such as saying “a child really can’t grow up in a bubble” or “symptoms can mean many things. I usually tell parents they don’t need to call unless the temperature is over 101,” for example. If appropriate, you might clarify what actions they should take in the future and provide a handout or instructions for sources of reliable information (and perhaps what is unreliable, such as TikTok!) to give them more power. 

Feeling helpless may also evoke memories from the past when, as a child themselves, they were not able to help a loved one suffering from an accident or a health or mental health issue. They may have been helpless in the face of bullying, domestic violence, or racism. Even a hint of helplessness now can tap into the previous emotions, accelerating their reactivity. Promising to “work on this together” lends them your agency. 

Of course, the main thing angry parents need is to have their child’s issue resolved. But this may not be a quick fix, especially if they are too incensed to cooperate. But what we can always do is address their need to be heard — both in content and emotion — and to help them regain a sense of control.

 

Pacing Can Help

One strategy that may seem counterintuitive is called “pacing.” Instead of begging the parent to calm down, which denigrates their strong feelings, we can echo their concerns while mirroring their emotions (within limits) to demonstrate that we understand them. Mirroring emotions may include your physical posture, volume and speed of speech, as well as use of similar sensory modalities. As for the modality component, you may notice that people tend to use visual, auditory or kinesthetic (feeling or action) words. So, for example, for an angry parent “screaming that no one has looked at the lab results yet” we might posture as they do, increase our volume, and use visual words such as saying “You are upset because you don’t see anyone looking over the labs in all this time.” As you hear more, you can continue to paraphrase and summarize what they are saying including their examples or wording. You can then change your own tone and posture progressively downshifting, bringing them along, and establishing rapport as they can tell that you are understanding them. Validating their emotions does not mean you have to agree with what they are saying; it demonstrates that you hear them.

Other strategies to demonstrate listening that can be helpful include sitting down side by side, and taking notes they can see, asking if you are getting the details correct. Using open-ended questions to elicit answers other than yes/no conveys openness to hear their story and may also reveal some of the causes for the upset. Sitting side by side conveys collaboration, whereas face to face implies more confrontation. Keep your arms down and arms and legs uncrossed and your head nodding and tilted somewhat down. These positions and verbal techniques demonstrate that you are listening to both their content and feelings. 

 

Next Steps

The other main component to communication with an angry parent is providing action on the issue, especially involving them in a way that gives them some sense of control. Once they can tell that you understand them, it is then key to stay focused on solutions, bringing the discussion back if it veers off. There may be things they can do or you can do together such as log in to their portal, get on the phone with a relevant staff person such as a referral coordinator, or set a time for a follow-up appointment or call. Any action step they can do, even asking that they record a temperature every 6 hours, reduces helplessness.

It is crucial to elicit the parents’ criteria for satisfaction of their complaint. You may try asking: “What would tell you that your child’s problem is being adequately addressed?” Write down these criteria as part of the overall plan, making sure they are detailed, measurable, feasible, time related, and relevant. Include actions for the parent to take, if possible. By setting criteria and times for follow-up you establish accountability that also gives them a sense of control. 

There are certain communications that can make things worse with an angry parent, some of which you may not even know occurred. Their anger may well have sparked a reaction in our staff, who are getting it full force before we even start our visit. Not only you but also your staff need to avoid making excuses for what happened (or didn’t happen) to the patient, blame the family for the child’s issue, imply that the parent’s feelings are invalid, or react as though their anger was a personal affront. 

 

Setting Boundaries

There are certainly times when a parent’s behavior is unacceptable or even dangerous. It is important to have policies about what action to take so that we can verbally refer to these, if needed. We should all avoid threatening expulsion from the practice or calling security. Instead, assertively state the boundaries and rules and tell them what will happen if the behavior continues or exceeds a limit, such as frightening other patients or damaging equipment. It is essential to use respectful language and address them by name and certainly not make comments about them personally or criticize them, as these raise defensiveness. Suggesting they or you “take a break,” give them “some space” for a few minutes in a safe private room, or leave and come back in 15 minutes allows the upset parent to save face and gather themselves. All these things also work with children and teens. 

Health care is stressful, especially with short staffing, and is often intensely personal and emotional. The human struggles we deal with may also be present in our own and our staff’s experiences. Mastering skills for interacting with angry parents can strengthen our relationships with them, our staff, and even our understanding of ourselves.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Outpatient psychotherapy use in the United States rose sharply between 2018 and 2021, an increase that was driven primarily by young, urban professionals with higher family incomes, new data exposed significant disparities in access to this treatment type.

Results of a large population-based repeated cross-sectional study revealed that psychotherapy use increased significantly faster for women vs men, younger individuals vs their older counterparts, college graduates than those without a high school diploma, and privately insured vs publicly insured individuals.

Overall, psychotherapy use increased significantly faster among several socioeconomically advantaged groups, and inequalities were evident in teletherapy access. These trends and patterns highlight a need for clinical interventions and healthcare policies to broaden access to psychotherapy, including teletherapy, the authors noted.

“While psychotherapy access has expanded in the US, there’s concern that recent gains may not be equally distributed, despite or maybe because of the growth of teletherapy,” study author Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, Department of Psychiatry, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York City, said in a press release.

“This increase in psychotherapy use, driven by the rise of teletherapy, has largely benefited socioeconomically advantaged adults with mild to moderate distress,” he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

 

Psychotherapy Uptick

Psychotherapy is among the most widely used methods for delivering mental health care in the United States. A recent study conducted by Olfson and colleagues showed that the percentage of US adults receiving psychotherapy increased from 6.5% in 2018 to 8.5% in 2021. However, it was unclear how this overall increase varied across different sociodemographic groups or levels of psychological distress.

Analyzing population-level trends in psychotherapy use can identify sociodemographic groups with declining access to services, providing valuable insights for developing initiatives to improve accessibility, the investigators noted.

To evaluate national trends in psychotherapy use, the researchers analyzed data from the 2018-2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). These are yearly surveys representing noninstitutionalized adults across the United States.

The study included 89,619 adults. Of these, 51.5% were women, nearly half were aged 35-64 years, and 62.2% were White individuals. The study used a repeated cross-sectional design with new, nationally representative samples of about 22,000 participants each year.

The investigators tracked the overall increase in psychotherapy use, especially among groups at higher risk for untreated mental health conditions. They also examined how video-based therapy (teletherapy) was being used, paying particular attention to differences in access among various demographic groups and levels of psychological distress, given ongoing concerns about equity in telehealth access.

Psychological distress was measured using the Kessler-6 scale, with scores ≥ 13 defining serious psychological distress, 1-12 defining mild to moderate distress, and 0 defining no distress.

Psychotherapy use increased across all racial and ethnic groups, with rates rising among Black (5.4% to 7.1%), Hispanic (4.1% to 5.8%), White (7.5% to 9.8%), and other, non-Hispanic (4.8% to 6.6%) individuals.

Participants with mild to moderate distress experienced the greatest increases in psychotherapy use (8.6% to 11.2%, respectively).

After adjusting for age, sex, and level of psychological distress, investigators found that psychotherapy use increased to a greater degree among women (7.7% to 10.5%) vs men (5.2% to 6.3%), younger adults aged 18-34 years (8% to 11.9%) vs adults aged 65 years or older (3.6% to 4.6%), and college graduates (7.6% to 11.4%) than those without a high school diploma (5.5% to 7%).

 

A National Priority

Adults with higher incomes — defined as two to four times the federal poverty level — had greater increases in psychotherapy use (5.7% to 8.2%) than those below the poverty level (9.7% to 10%).

Unsurprisingly, privately insured individuals saw more significant increases (6.1% to 8.9%) than publicly insured individuals (8.8% to 8.8%). Also, there was a larger increase in psychotherapy use among employed individuals (5.7% to 8.9%) than among unemployed individuals (10.8% to 10.5%).

In addition, there was a significantly greater increase in psychotherapy use among urban residents (6.5% to 8.7%), whereas it declined among rural residents (6.4% to 5.9%).

Data on teletherapy use from 2021 revealed that 39.9% of adults receiving psychotherapy had one or more teletherapy visits.

Teletherapy use was higher among younger adults, women, college-educated individuals, those with higher incomes, those with private insurance, and those who lived in urban areas.

The authors noted that while teletherapy is intended to remove transportation and time barriers and was widely adopted during the pandemic, the findings show that those who were older, less educated, and with lower incomes were less likely to use it.

Notably, urban residents were more than twice as likely to use teletherapy than rural residents. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, teletherapy was viewed as a potential solution for individuals living in rural areas facing a shortage of mental health professionals, but study results showed that “teletherapy does not appear to have addressed this public health challenge,” the investigators wrote.

“The trends we are seeing underscore the need for targeted interventions and health policies that expand psychotherapy access to underserved groups,” said Olfson.

“Ensuring that individuals in psychological distress can access care is a national priority. Addressing technical and financial barriers to teletherapy could help bridge the gap in access and promote equity in mental health care,” he added.

Study limitations included a possible underreporting of psychotherapy use by participants. In addition, MEPS does not include nursing home residents, incarcerated, and unhoused individuals.

Study funding was not disclosed. Olfson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Outpatient psychotherapy use in the United States rose sharply between 2018 and 2021, an increase that was driven primarily by young, urban professionals with higher family incomes, new data exposed significant disparities in access to this treatment type.

Results of a large population-based repeated cross-sectional study revealed that psychotherapy use increased significantly faster for women vs men, younger individuals vs their older counterparts, college graduates than those without a high school diploma, and privately insured vs publicly insured individuals.

Overall, psychotherapy use increased significantly faster among several socioeconomically advantaged groups, and inequalities were evident in teletherapy access. These trends and patterns highlight a need for clinical interventions and healthcare policies to broaden access to psychotherapy, including teletherapy, the authors noted.

“While psychotherapy access has expanded in the US, there’s concern that recent gains may not be equally distributed, despite or maybe because of the growth of teletherapy,” study author Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, Department of Psychiatry, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York City, said in a press release.

“This increase in psychotherapy use, driven by the rise of teletherapy, has largely benefited socioeconomically advantaged adults with mild to moderate distress,” he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

 

Psychotherapy Uptick

Psychotherapy is among the most widely used methods for delivering mental health care in the United States. A recent study conducted by Olfson and colleagues showed that the percentage of US adults receiving psychotherapy increased from 6.5% in 2018 to 8.5% in 2021. However, it was unclear how this overall increase varied across different sociodemographic groups or levels of psychological distress.

Analyzing population-level trends in psychotherapy use can identify sociodemographic groups with declining access to services, providing valuable insights for developing initiatives to improve accessibility, the investigators noted.

To evaluate national trends in psychotherapy use, the researchers analyzed data from the 2018-2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). These are yearly surveys representing noninstitutionalized adults across the United States.

The study included 89,619 adults. Of these, 51.5% were women, nearly half were aged 35-64 years, and 62.2% were White individuals. The study used a repeated cross-sectional design with new, nationally representative samples of about 22,000 participants each year.

The investigators tracked the overall increase in psychotherapy use, especially among groups at higher risk for untreated mental health conditions. They also examined how video-based therapy (teletherapy) was being used, paying particular attention to differences in access among various demographic groups and levels of psychological distress, given ongoing concerns about equity in telehealth access.

Psychological distress was measured using the Kessler-6 scale, with scores ≥ 13 defining serious psychological distress, 1-12 defining mild to moderate distress, and 0 defining no distress.

Psychotherapy use increased across all racial and ethnic groups, with rates rising among Black (5.4% to 7.1%), Hispanic (4.1% to 5.8%), White (7.5% to 9.8%), and other, non-Hispanic (4.8% to 6.6%) individuals.

Participants with mild to moderate distress experienced the greatest increases in psychotherapy use (8.6% to 11.2%, respectively).

After adjusting for age, sex, and level of psychological distress, investigators found that psychotherapy use increased to a greater degree among women (7.7% to 10.5%) vs men (5.2% to 6.3%), younger adults aged 18-34 years (8% to 11.9%) vs adults aged 65 years or older (3.6% to 4.6%), and college graduates (7.6% to 11.4%) than those without a high school diploma (5.5% to 7%).

 

A National Priority

Adults with higher incomes — defined as two to four times the federal poverty level — had greater increases in psychotherapy use (5.7% to 8.2%) than those below the poverty level (9.7% to 10%).

Unsurprisingly, privately insured individuals saw more significant increases (6.1% to 8.9%) than publicly insured individuals (8.8% to 8.8%). Also, there was a larger increase in psychotherapy use among employed individuals (5.7% to 8.9%) than among unemployed individuals (10.8% to 10.5%).

In addition, there was a significantly greater increase in psychotherapy use among urban residents (6.5% to 8.7%), whereas it declined among rural residents (6.4% to 5.9%).

Data on teletherapy use from 2021 revealed that 39.9% of adults receiving psychotherapy had one or more teletherapy visits.

Teletherapy use was higher among younger adults, women, college-educated individuals, those with higher incomes, those with private insurance, and those who lived in urban areas.

The authors noted that while teletherapy is intended to remove transportation and time barriers and was widely adopted during the pandemic, the findings show that those who were older, less educated, and with lower incomes were less likely to use it.

Notably, urban residents were more than twice as likely to use teletherapy than rural residents. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, teletherapy was viewed as a potential solution for individuals living in rural areas facing a shortage of mental health professionals, but study results showed that “teletherapy does not appear to have addressed this public health challenge,” the investigators wrote.

“The trends we are seeing underscore the need for targeted interventions and health policies that expand psychotherapy access to underserved groups,” said Olfson.

“Ensuring that individuals in psychological distress can access care is a national priority. Addressing technical and financial barriers to teletherapy could help bridge the gap in access and promote equity in mental health care,” he added.

Study limitations included a possible underreporting of psychotherapy use by participants. In addition, MEPS does not include nursing home residents, incarcerated, and unhoused individuals.

Study funding was not disclosed. Olfson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Outpatient psychotherapy use in the United States rose sharply between 2018 and 2021, an increase that was driven primarily by young, urban professionals with higher family incomes, new data exposed significant disparities in access to this treatment type.

Results of a large population-based repeated cross-sectional study revealed that psychotherapy use increased significantly faster for women vs men, younger individuals vs their older counterparts, college graduates than those without a high school diploma, and privately insured vs publicly insured individuals.

Overall, psychotherapy use increased significantly faster among several socioeconomically advantaged groups, and inequalities were evident in teletherapy access. These trends and patterns highlight a need for clinical interventions and healthcare policies to broaden access to psychotherapy, including teletherapy, the authors noted.

“While psychotherapy access has expanded in the US, there’s concern that recent gains may not be equally distributed, despite or maybe because of the growth of teletherapy,” study author Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, Department of Psychiatry, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York City, said in a press release.

“This increase in psychotherapy use, driven by the rise of teletherapy, has largely benefited socioeconomically advantaged adults with mild to moderate distress,” he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

 

Psychotherapy Uptick

Psychotherapy is among the most widely used methods for delivering mental health care in the United States. A recent study conducted by Olfson and colleagues showed that the percentage of US adults receiving psychotherapy increased from 6.5% in 2018 to 8.5% in 2021. However, it was unclear how this overall increase varied across different sociodemographic groups or levels of psychological distress.

Analyzing population-level trends in psychotherapy use can identify sociodemographic groups with declining access to services, providing valuable insights for developing initiatives to improve accessibility, the investigators noted.

To evaluate national trends in psychotherapy use, the researchers analyzed data from the 2018-2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). These are yearly surveys representing noninstitutionalized adults across the United States.

The study included 89,619 adults. Of these, 51.5% were women, nearly half were aged 35-64 years, and 62.2% were White individuals. The study used a repeated cross-sectional design with new, nationally representative samples of about 22,000 participants each year.

The investigators tracked the overall increase in psychotherapy use, especially among groups at higher risk for untreated mental health conditions. They also examined how video-based therapy (teletherapy) was being used, paying particular attention to differences in access among various demographic groups and levels of psychological distress, given ongoing concerns about equity in telehealth access.

Psychological distress was measured using the Kessler-6 scale, with scores ≥ 13 defining serious psychological distress, 1-12 defining mild to moderate distress, and 0 defining no distress.

Psychotherapy use increased across all racial and ethnic groups, with rates rising among Black (5.4% to 7.1%), Hispanic (4.1% to 5.8%), White (7.5% to 9.8%), and other, non-Hispanic (4.8% to 6.6%) individuals.

Participants with mild to moderate distress experienced the greatest increases in psychotherapy use (8.6% to 11.2%, respectively).

After adjusting for age, sex, and level of psychological distress, investigators found that psychotherapy use increased to a greater degree among women (7.7% to 10.5%) vs men (5.2% to 6.3%), younger adults aged 18-34 years (8% to 11.9%) vs adults aged 65 years or older (3.6% to 4.6%), and college graduates (7.6% to 11.4%) than those without a high school diploma (5.5% to 7%).

 

A National Priority

Adults with higher incomes — defined as two to four times the federal poverty level — had greater increases in psychotherapy use (5.7% to 8.2%) than those below the poverty level (9.7% to 10%).

Unsurprisingly, privately insured individuals saw more significant increases (6.1% to 8.9%) than publicly insured individuals (8.8% to 8.8%). Also, there was a larger increase in psychotherapy use among employed individuals (5.7% to 8.9%) than among unemployed individuals (10.8% to 10.5%).

In addition, there was a significantly greater increase in psychotherapy use among urban residents (6.5% to 8.7%), whereas it declined among rural residents (6.4% to 5.9%).

Data on teletherapy use from 2021 revealed that 39.9% of adults receiving psychotherapy had one or more teletherapy visits.

Teletherapy use was higher among younger adults, women, college-educated individuals, those with higher incomes, those with private insurance, and those who lived in urban areas.

The authors noted that while teletherapy is intended to remove transportation and time barriers and was widely adopted during the pandemic, the findings show that those who were older, less educated, and with lower incomes were less likely to use it.

Notably, urban residents were more than twice as likely to use teletherapy than rural residents. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, teletherapy was viewed as a potential solution for individuals living in rural areas facing a shortage of mental health professionals, but study results showed that “teletherapy does not appear to have addressed this public health challenge,” the investigators wrote.

“The trends we are seeing underscore the need for targeted interventions and health policies that expand psychotherapy access to underserved groups,” said Olfson.

“Ensuring that individuals in psychological distress can access care is a national priority. Addressing technical and financial barriers to teletherapy could help bridge the gap in access and promote equity in mental health care,” he added.

Study limitations included a possible underreporting of psychotherapy use by participants. In addition, MEPS does not include nursing home residents, incarcerated, and unhoused individuals.

Study funding was not disclosed. Olfson reported no relevant disclosures.

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