Mental Health

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) affects about 10 to 25% of veterans in the US and is associated with reductions in quality of life and poor occupational functioning.^1,2 PTSD is often associated with multiple cognitive deficits that play a role in a number of clinical symptoms and impair cognition beyond what can be solely attributed to the effects of physical or psychological trauma.^3-5 Although the literature on the pattern and magnitude of cognitive deficits associated with PTSD is mixed, dysfunction in attention, verbal memory, speed of information processing, working memory, and executive functioning are the most consistent findings.^6-11Verbal memory and attention seem to be particularly negatively impacted by PTSD and especially so in combat-exposed war veterans.^7,12 Verbal memory difficulties in returning war veterans also may mediate quality of life and be particularly disruptive to everyday functioning.¹³ Further, evidence exists that a diagnosis of PTSD is associated with increased risk for dementia and deficits in episodic memory in older adults.^14,15

The PTSD-associated cognitive deficits are routinely assessed through neuropsychological measures within the US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is a commonly used cognitive screening measure in medical settings, and prior research has reinforced its clinical utility across a variety of populations, including Alzheimer disease, schizophrenia, Parkinson disease, Huntington disease, stroke, and traumatic brain injury (TBI).^16-24

McKay and colleagues previously examined the use of the RBANS within a sample of individuals who had a history of moderate-to-severe TBIs, with findings suggesting the RBANS is a valid and reliable screening measure in this population.²⁵However, McKay and colleagues used a carefully defined sample in a cognitive neurorehabilitation setting, many of whom experienced a TBI significant enough to require ongoing medical monitoring, attendant care, or substantial support services.

The influence of PTSD-associated cognitive deficits on the RBANS performance is unclear, and which subtests of the measure, if any, are differentially impacted in individuals with and those without a diagnosis of PTSD is uncertain. Further, less is known about the influence of PTSD in outpatient clinical settings when PTSD and TBI are not necessarily the primary presenting problem. The purpose of the current study was to determine the influence of a PTSD diagnosis on performance on the RBANS in an outpatient VA setting.

Methods

Participants included 153 veterans who were 90% male with a mean (SD) age of 46.8 (11.3) years and a mean (SD) education of 14.2 (2.3) years from a catchment area ranging from Montana south through western Texas, and all states west of that line, sequentially evaluated as part of a clinic workup at the California War Related Illness and Injury Study Center (WRIISC-CA). WRIISC-CA is a second-level evaluation clinic under patient primary care in the VA system dedicated to providing comprehensive medical evaluations on postdeployment veterans with complex medical concerns, including possible TBI and PTSD. Participants included 23 Vietnam-era, 72 Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield-era, and 58 Operation Iraqi Freedom/Enduring Freedom-era veterans. We have previously published a more thorough analysis of medical characteristics for a WRIISC-CA sample.²⁶

A Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM IV) diagnosis of current PTSD was determined by the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-IV), as administered or supervised by a licensed clinical psychologist during the course of the larger medical evaluation.²⁷ Given the co-occurring nature of TBI and PTSD and their complicated relationship with regard to cognitive functioning, all veterans also underwent a comprehensive examination by a board-certified neurologist to assess for a possible history of TBI, based on the presence of at least 1 past event according to the guidelines recommended by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine.^28,29Veterans were categorized as having a history of no TBI, mild TBI, or moderate TBI. No veterans met criteria for history of severe TBI.Veterans were excluded from the analysis if unable to complete the mental health, neurological, or cognitive evaluations. Informed consent was obtained consistent with the Declaration of Helsinki and institutional guidelines established by the VA Palo Alto Human Subjects Review Committee. The study was approved by the VA Palo Alto and Stanford School of Medicine institutional review boards.

Cognitive Measures

All veterans completed a targeted cognitive battery that included the following: a reading recognition measure designed to estimate premorbid intellectual functioning (Wechsler Test of Adult Reading [WTAR]); a measure assessing auditory attention and working memory ability (Wechsler Adults Intelligence Scale-IV [WAIS-IV] Digit Span subtest); a measure assessing processing speed, attention, and cognitive flexibility (Trails A and B); and the RBANS.^16,30-32The focus of the current study was on the RBANS, a brief cognitive screening measure that contains 12 subtests examining a variety of cognitive functions. Given that all participants were veterans receiving outpatient services, there was no nonpatient control group for comparison. To address this, all raw data were converted to standardized scores based on healthy normative data provided within the test manual. Specifically, the 12 RBANS subtest scores were converted to age-corrected standardized z scores, which in turn created a total summary score and 5 composite summary indexes: immediate memory, visuospatial/constructional, attention, language, and delayed memory. All veterans completed the Form A version of the measure.

Statistical Analyses

Group level differences on selective demographic and cognitive measures between veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD and those without were examined using t tests. Cognitive variables included standardized scores for the RBANS, including age-adjusted total summary score, index scores, and subtest scores.¹⁶ Estimated full-scale IQ and standardized summary scores from the WTAR, demographically adjusted standardized scores for the total time to complete Trails A and time to complete Trails B, and age-adjusted standardized scores for the WAIS-IV Digit Span subtest (forward, backward, and sequencing trials, as well as the summary total score) were examined for group differences.^30,31,33 To further examine the association between PTSD and RBANS performance, multivariate multiple regressions were conducted using measures of episodic memory and processing speed from the RBANS (ie, story tasks, list learning tasks, and coding subtests). These specific measures were selected ad hoc based on extant literature.^6,10The dependent variable for each analysis was the standardized score from the selected subtest; PTSD status, a diagnosis of TBI, a diagnosis of co-occurring TBI and PTSD, gender, and years of education were predictor variables.

Results

Of the 153 study participants, 98 (64%) met DSM-4 criteria for current PTSD, whereas 55 (36%) did not (Table). There was no group statistical difference between veterans with or without a diagnosis of PTSD for age, education, or gender (P < .05). A diagnosis of PTSD tended to be more frequent in participants with a history of head injury (χ² = 7.72; P < .05). Veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD performed significantly worse on the RBANS Story Recall subtest compared with the results of those without PTSD (t[138] = 3.10; P < .01); performance on other cognitive measures was not significantly different between the PTSD groups. A diagnosis of PTSD was also significantly associated with self-reported depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory-II; t[123] = -2.81; P < .01). Depressive symptoms were not associated with a history of TBI, and group differences were not significant.

Given the high co-occurrence of PTSD and TBI (68%) in our PTSD sample, secondary analyses examined the association of select diagnoses with performance on the RBANS, specifically veterans with a historical diagnosis of TBI (n = 92) from those without a diagnosis of TBI (n = 61), as well as those with co-occurring PTSD and TBI (n = 71) from those without (n = 82). The majority of the sample met criteria for a history of mild TBI (n = 79) when compared with moderate TBI (n = 13); none met criteria for a past history of severe TBI. PTSD status (β = .63, P = .04) and years of education (β = .16, P < .01) were associated with performance on the RBANS Story Recall subtest (R²= .23, F[5,139] = 8.11, P < .01). Education was the only significant predictor for the rest of the multivariate multiple regressions (all P < .05). A diagnosis of TBI or co-occurring PTSD and TBI was not significantly associated with performance on the Story Memory, Story Recall, List Learning, List Recall, or Coding subtests. multivariate analysis of variance tests for the hypothesis of an overall main effect of PTSD (F(5,130) = 1.08, P = .34), TBI (F[5,130] = .91, P = .48), or PTSD+TBI (F[5,130] =.47, P = .80) on the 4 selected tests were not significant.

Discussion

The findings of the present study suggest that veterans with PTSD perform worse on specific RBANS subtests compared with veterans without PTSD. Specifically, worse performance on the Story Recall subtest of the RBANS memory index was a significant predictor of a diagnosis of PTSD within the statistical model. This association with PTSD was not seen in other demographic (excluding education) or cognitive measures, including other memory tasks, such as List Recall and Figure Recall, and attentional measures, such as WAIS-IV Digit Span, and the Trail Making Test. Overall RBANS index scores were not significantly different between groups, though this is not surprising given that recent research suggests the RBANS composite scores have questionable validity and reliability.³⁴

The finding that a measure of episodic memory is most influenced by PTSD status is consistent with prior research.³⁵ However, there are several possible reasons why Story Recall in particular showed the greatest association, even more than other episodic memory measures. A review by Isaac and colleagues found a diagnosis of PTSD correlated with frontal lobe-associated memory deficits.⁶ As Story Recall provides only 2 rehearsal trials compared with the 4 trials provided in the RBANS List Learning subtest, it is possible that Story Recall relies more on attentional processes than on learning with repetition.

Research has indicated attention and verbal episodic memory dysfunction are associated with a diagnosis of PTSD in combat veterans, and individuals with a diagnosis of PTSD show deficits in executive functioning, including attention difficulties beyond what is seen in trauma-exposed controls.^4,7,8,11,35Furthermore, a diagnosis of PTSD has been shown to be associated with impaired performance on the Logical Memory subtest of the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised, a very similar measure to the RBANS Story Recall.³⁶

The present finding that performance on a RBANS subtest was associated with a diagnosis of PTSD but not a history of TBI is not surprising. The majority of the present sample who reported a history of TBI met criteria for a remote head injury of mild severity (86%). Cognitive symptoms related to mild TBI are thought to generally resolve over time, and recent research suggests that PTSD symptoms may account for a substantial portion of reported postconcussive symptoms.^37,38Similarly, recent research suggests a diagnosis of mild TBI does not necessarily result in additive cognitive impairment in combat veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD, and that a diagnosis of PTSD is more strongly associated with cognitive symptoms than is mild TBI.^5,39,40

The lack of association with RBANS performance and co-occurring PTSD and TBI is less clear. Although both conditions are heterogenous, it may be that individuals with a diagnosis solely of PTSD are quantitively different from those with a concurrent diagnosis of PTSD and TBI (ie, PTSD presumed due to a mild TBI). Specifically, the impact of PTSD on cognition may be related to symptom severity and indexed trauma. A published systematic review on the PTSD-related cognitive impairment showed a medium-to-strong effect size for severity of PTSD symptoms on cognitive performance, with war trauma showing the strongest effect.⁴In particular, individuals who experience repeated or complex trauma are prone to experience PTSD symptoms with concurrent cognitive deficits, again suggesting the possibility of qualitative differences between outpatient veterans with PTSD and those with mild TBI associated PTSD.⁴¹While disentangling PTSD and mild TBI symptoms are notoriously difficult, future research aiming to examine these factors may be beneficial in the ability to draw larger conclusions on the relationship between cognition and PTSD.

Limitations

Several limitations may affect the generalizability of the findings. The present study used a veteran sample referred to a specialty clinic for complicated postdeployment health concerns. Although findings may not be representative of an inpatient population or clinics that focus solely on TBI, they may more adequately reflect veterans using clinical services at VA medical centers. We also did not include measures of PTSD symptom severity (eg, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist), instead using diagnosis based on the gold standard CAPS. In addition, the likelihood of the presence of a remote TBI was based on a clinical interview with a neurologist and not on acute neurologic findings. TBI is a heterogenous diagnosis, with multiple factors that likely influence cognitive performance, including location of the injury, type of injury, and time since injury, which may be lost during group analysis. Further, the RBANS is not intended to serve as a method for a differential diagnosis of PTSD or TBI. Concordant with this, the intention of the current study was to capture the quality of cognitive function on the RBANS within individuals with PTSD.

Conslusions

The ability for veterans to remember a short story following a delay (ie, RBANS Story Recall subtest) was negatively associated with a diagnosis of PTSD. Further, the RBANS best captured cognitive deficits associated with PTSD compared with those with a history of mild TBI, or co-occurring mild TBI and PTSD. These findings may provide insight into the interpretation and attribution of cognitive deficits in the veteran population and holds potential to guide future research examining focused cognitive phenotypes to provide precision targets in individual treatment.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) affects about 10 to 25% of veterans in the US and is associated with reductions in quality of life and poor occupational functioning.^1,2 PTSD is often associated with multiple cognitive deficits that play a role in a number of clinical symptoms and impair cognition beyond what can be solely attributed to the effects of physical or psychological trauma.^3-5 Although the literature on the pattern and magnitude of cognitive deficits associated with PTSD is mixed, dysfunction in attention, verbal memory, speed of information processing, working memory, and executive functioning are the most consistent findings.^6-11Verbal memory and attention seem to be particularly negatively impacted by PTSD and especially so in combat-exposed war veterans.^7,12 Verbal memory difficulties in returning war veterans also may mediate quality of life and be particularly disruptive to everyday functioning.¹³ Further, evidence exists that a diagnosis of PTSD is associated with increased risk for dementia and deficits in episodic memory in older adults.^14,15

The PTSD-associated cognitive deficits are routinely assessed through neuropsychological measures within the US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is a commonly used cognitive screening measure in medical settings, and prior research has reinforced its clinical utility across a variety of populations, including Alzheimer disease, schizophrenia, Parkinson disease, Huntington disease, stroke, and traumatic brain injury (TBI).^16-24

McKay and colleagues previously examined the use of the RBANS within a sample of individuals who had a history of moderate-to-severe TBIs, with findings suggesting the RBANS is a valid and reliable screening measure in this population.²⁵However, McKay and colleagues used a carefully defined sample in a cognitive neurorehabilitation setting, many of whom experienced a TBI significant enough to require ongoing medical monitoring, attendant care, or substantial support services.

The influence of PTSD-associated cognitive deficits on the RBANS performance is unclear, and which subtests of the measure, if any, are differentially impacted in individuals with and those without a diagnosis of PTSD is uncertain. Further, less is known about the influence of PTSD in outpatient clinical settings when PTSD and TBI are not necessarily the primary presenting problem. The purpose of the current study was to determine the influence of a PTSD diagnosis on performance on the RBANS in an outpatient VA setting.

Methods

Participants included 153 veterans who were 90% male with a mean (SD) age of 46.8 (11.3) years and a mean (SD) education of 14.2 (2.3) years from a catchment area ranging from Montana south through western Texas, and all states west of that line, sequentially evaluated as part of a clinic workup at the California War Related Illness and Injury Study Center (WRIISC-CA). WRIISC-CA is a second-level evaluation clinic under patient primary care in the VA system dedicated to providing comprehensive medical evaluations on postdeployment veterans with complex medical concerns, including possible TBI and PTSD. Participants included 23 Vietnam-era, 72 Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield-era, and 58 Operation Iraqi Freedom/Enduring Freedom-era veterans. We have previously published a more thorough analysis of medical characteristics for a WRIISC-CA sample.²⁶

A Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM IV) diagnosis of current PTSD was determined by the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-IV), as administered or supervised by a licensed clinical psychologist during the course of the larger medical evaluation.²⁷ Given the co-occurring nature of TBI and PTSD and their complicated relationship with regard to cognitive functioning, all veterans also underwent a comprehensive examination by a board-certified neurologist to assess for a possible history of TBI, based on the presence of at least 1 past event according to the guidelines recommended by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine.^28,29Veterans were categorized as having a history of no TBI, mild TBI, or moderate TBI. No veterans met criteria for history of severe TBI.Veterans were excluded from the analysis if unable to complete the mental health, neurological, or cognitive evaluations. Informed consent was obtained consistent with the Declaration of Helsinki and institutional guidelines established by the VA Palo Alto Human Subjects Review Committee. The study was approved by the VA Palo Alto and Stanford School of Medicine institutional review boards.

Cognitive Measures

All veterans completed a targeted cognitive battery that included the following: a reading recognition measure designed to estimate premorbid intellectual functioning (Wechsler Test of Adult Reading [WTAR]); a measure assessing auditory attention and working memory ability (Wechsler Adults Intelligence Scale-IV [WAIS-IV] Digit Span subtest); a measure assessing processing speed, attention, and cognitive flexibility (Trails A and B); and the RBANS.^16,30-32The focus of the current study was on the RBANS, a brief cognitive screening measure that contains 12 subtests examining a variety of cognitive functions. Given that all participants were veterans receiving outpatient services, there was no nonpatient control group for comparison. To address this, all raw data were converted to standardized scores based on healthy normative data provided within the test manual. Specifically, the 12 RBANS subtest scores were converted to age-corrected standardized z scores, which in turn created a total summary score and 5 composite summary indexes: immediate memory, visuospatial/constructional, attention, language, and delayed memory. All veterans completed the Form A version of the measure.

Statistical Analyses

Group level differences on selective demographic and cognitive measures between veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD and those without were examined using t tests. Cognitive variables included standardized scores for the RBANS, including age-adjusted total summary score, index scores, and subtest scores.¹⁶ Estimated full-scale IQ and standardized summary scores from the WTAR, demographically adjusted standardized scores for the total time to complete Trails A and time to complete Trails B, and age-adjusted standardized scores for the WAIS-IV Digit Span subtest (forward, backward, and sequencing trials, as well as the summary total score) were examined for group differences.^30,31,33 To further examine the association between PTSD and RBANS performance, multivariate multiple regressions were conducted using measures of episodic memory and processing speed from the RBANS (ie, story tasks, list learning tasks, and coding subtests). These specific measures were selected ad hoc based on extant literature.^6,10The dependent variable for each analysis was the standardized score from the selected subtest; PTSD status, a diagnosis of TBI, a diagnosis of co-occurring TBI and PTSD, gender, and years of education were predictor variables.

Results

Of the 153 study participants, 98 (64%) met DSM-4 criteria for current PTSD, whereas 55 (36%) did not (Table). There was no group statistical difference between veterans with or without a diagnosis of PTSD for age, education, or gender (P < .05). A diagnosis of PTSD tended to be more frequent in participants with a history of head injury (χ² = 7.72; P < .05). Veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD performed significantly worse on the RBANS Story Recall subtest compared with the results of those without PTSD (t[138] = 3.10; P < .01); performance on other cognitive measures was not significantly different between the PTSD groups. A diagnosis of PTSD was also significantly associated with self-reported depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory-II; t[123] = -2.81; P < .01). Depressive symptoms were not associated with a history of TBI, and group differences were not significant.

Given the high co-occurrence of PTSD and TBI (68%) in our PTSD sample, secondary analyses examined the association of select diagnoses with performance on the RBANS, specifically veterans with a historical diagnosis of TBI (n = 92) from those without a diagnosis of TBI (n = 61), as well as those with co-occurring PTSD and TBI (n = 71) from those without (n = 82). The majority of the sample met criteria for a history of mild TBI (n = 79) when compared with moderate TBI (n = 13); none met criteria for a past history of severe TBI. PTSD status (β = .63, P = .04) and years of education (β = .16, P < .01) were associated with performance on the RBANS Story Recall subtest (R²= .23, F[5,139] = 8.11, P < .01). Education was the only significant predictor for the rest of the multivariate multiple regressions (all P < .05). A diagnosis of TBI or co-occurring PTSD and TBI was not significantly associated with performance on the Story Memory, Story Recall, List Learning, List Recall, or Coding subtests. multivariate analysis of variance tests for the hypothesis of an overall main effect of PTSD (F(5,130) = 1.08, P = .34), TBI (F[5,130] = .91, P = .48), or PTSD+TBI (F[5,130] =.47, P = .80) on the 4 selected tests were not significant.

Discussion

The findings of the present study suggest that veterans with PTSD perform worse on specific RBANS subtests compared with veterans without PTSD. Specifically, worse performance on the Story Recall subtest of the RBANS memory index was a significant predictor of a diagnosis of PTSD within the statistical model. This association with PTSD was not seen in other demographic (excluding education) or cognitive measures, including other memory tasks, such as List Recall and Figure Recall, and attentional measures, such as WAIS-IV Digit Span, and the Trail Making Test. Overall RBANS index scores were not significantly different between groups, though this is not surprising given that recent research suggests the RBANS composite scores have questionable validity and reliability.³⁴

The finding that a measure of episodic memory is most influenced by PTSD status is consistent with prior research.³⁵ However, there are several possible reasons why Story Recall in particular showed the greatest association, even more than other episodic memory measures. A review by Isaac and colleagues found a diagnosis of PTSD correlated with frontal lobe-associated memory deficits.⁶ As Story Recall provides only 2 rehearsal trials compared with the 4 trials provided in the RBANS List Learning subtest, it is possible that Story Recall relies more on attentional processes than on learning with repetition.

Research has indicated attention and verbal episodic memory dysfunction are associated with a diagnosis of PTSD in combat veterans, and individuals with a diagnosis of PTSD show deficits in executive functioning, including attention difficulties beyond what is seen in trauma-exposed controls.^4,7,8,11,35Furthermore, a diagnosis of PTSD has been shown to be associated with impaired performance on the Logical Memory subtest of the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised, a very similar measure to the RBANS Story Recall.³⁶

The present finding that performance on a RBANS subtest was associated with a diagnosis of PTSD but not a history of TBI is not surprising. The majority of the present sample who reported a history of TBI met criteria for a remote head injury of mild severity (86%). Cognitive symptoms related to mild TBI are thought to generally resolve over time, and recent research suggests that PTSD symptoms may account for a substantial portion of reported postconcussive symptoms.^37,38Similarly, recent research suggests a diagnosis of mild TBI does not necessarily result in additive cognitive impairment in combat veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD, and that a diagnosis of PTSD is more strongly associated with cognitive symptoms than is mild TBI.^5,39,40

The lack of association with RBANS performance and co-occurring PTSD and TBI is less clear. Although both conditions are heterogenous, it may be that individuals with a diagnosis solely of PTSD are quantitively different from those with a concurrent diagnosis of PTSD and TBI (ie, PTSD presumed due to a mild TBI). Specifically, the impact of PTSD on cognition may be related to symptom severity and indexed trauma. A published systematic review on the PTSD-related cognitive impairment showed a medium-to-strong effect size for severity of PTSD symptoms on cognitive performance, with war trauma showing the strongest effect.⁴In particular, individuals who experience repeated or complex trauma are prone to experience PTSD symptoms with concurrent cognitive deficits, again suggesting the possibility of qualitative differences between outpatient veterans with PTSD and those with mild TBI associated PTSD.⁴¹While disentangling PTSD and mild TBI symptoms are notoriously difficult, future research aiming to examine these factors may be beneficial in the ability to draw larger conclusions on the relationship between cognition and PTSD.

Limitations

Several limitations may affect the generalizability of the findings. The present study used a veteran sample referred to a specialty clinic for complicated postdeployment health concerns. Although findings may not be representative of an inpatient population or clinics that focus solely on TBI, they may more adequately reflect veterans using clinical services at VA medical centers. We also did not include measures of PTSD symptom severity (eg, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist), instead using diagnosis based on the gold standard CAPS. In addition, the likelihood of the presence of a remote TBI was based on a clinical interview with a neurologist and not on acute neurologic findings. TBI is a heterogenous diagnosis, with multiple factors that likely influence cognitive performance, including location of the injury, type of injury, and time since injury, which may be lost during group analysis. Further, the RBANS is not intended to serve as a method for a differential diagnosis of PTSD or TBI. Concordant with this, the intention of the current study was to capture the quality of cognitive function on the RBANS within individuals with PTSD.

Conslusions

The ability for veterans to remember a short story following a delay (ie, RBANS Story Recall subtest) was negatively associated with a diagnosis of PTSD. Further, the RBANS best captured cognitive deficits associated with PTSD compared with those with a history of mild TBI, or co-occurring mild TBI and PTSD. These findings may provide insight into the interpretation and attribution of cognitive deficits in the veteran population and holds potential to guide future research examining focused cognitive phenotypes to provide precision targets in individual treatment.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) affects about 10 to 25% of veterans in the US and is associated with reductions in quality of life and poor occupational functioning.^1,2 PTSD is often associated with multiple cognitive deficits that play a role in a number of clinical symptoms and impair cognition beyond what can be solely attributed to the effects of physical or psychological trauma.^3-5 Although the literature on the pattern and magnitude of cognitive deficits associated with PTSD is mixed, dysfunction in attention, verbal memory, speed of information processing, working memory, and executive functioning are the most consistent findings.^6-11Verbal memory and attention seem to be particularly negatively impacted by PTSD and especially so in combat-exposed war veterans.^7,12 Verbal memory difficulties in returning war veterans also may mediate quality of life and be particularly disruptive to everyday functioning.¹³ Further, evidence exists that a diagnosis of PTSD is associated with increased risk for dementia and deficits in episodic memory in older adults.^14,15

The PTSD-associated cognitive deficits are routinely assessed through neuropsychological measures within the US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is a commonly used cognitive screening measure in medical settings, and prior research has reinforced its clinical utility across a variety of populations, including Alzheimer disease, schizophrenia, Parkinson disease, Huntington disease, stroke, and traumatic brain injury (TBI).^16-24

McKay and colleagues previously examined the use of the RBANS within a sample of individuals who had a history of moderate-to-severe TBIs, with findings suggesting the RBANS is a valid and reliable screening measure in this population.²⁵However, McKay and colleagues used a carefully defined sample in a cognitive neurorehabilitation setting, many of whom experienced a TBI significant enough to require ongoing medical monitoring, attendant care, or substantial support services.

The influence of PTSD-associated cognitive deficits on the RBANS performance is unclear, and which subtests of the measure, if any, are differentially impacted in individuals with and those without a diagnosis of PTSD is uncertain. Further, less is known about the influence of PTSD in outpatient clinical settings when PTSD and TBI are not necessarily the primary presenting problem. The purpose of the current study was to determine the influence of a PTSD diagnosis on performance on the RBANS in an outpatient VA setting.

Methods

Participants included 153 veterans who were 90% male with a mean (SD) age of 46.8 (11.3) years and a mean (SD) education of 14.2 (2.3) years from a catchment area ranging from Montana south through western Texas, and all states west of that line, sequentially evaluated as part of a clinic workup at the California War Related Illness and Injury Study Center (WRIISC-CA). WRIISC-CA is a second-level evaluation clinic under patient primary care in the VA system dedicated to providing comprehensive medical evaluations on postdeployment veterans with complex medical concerns, including possible TBI and PTSD. Participants included 23 Vietnam-era, 72 Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield-era, and 58 Operation Iraqi Freedom/Enduring Freedom-era veterans. We have previously published a more thorough analysis of medical characteristics for a WRIISC-CA sample.²⁶

A Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM IV) diagnosis of current PTSD was determined by the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-IV), as administered or supervised by a licensed clinical psychologist during the course of the larger medical evaluation.²⁷ Given the co-occurring nature of TBI and PTSD and their complicated relationship with regard to cognitive functioning, all veterans also underwent a comprehensive examination by a board-certified neurologist to assess for a possible history of TBI, based on the presence of at least 1 past event according to the guidelines recommended by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine.^28,29Veterans were categorized as having a history of no TBI, mild TBI, or moderate TBI. No veterans met criteria for history of severe TBI.Veterans were excluded from the analysis if unable to complete the mental health, neurological, or cognitive evaluations. Informed consent was obtained consistent with the Declaration of Helsinki and institutional guidelines established by the VA Palo Alto Human Subjects Review Committee. The study was approved by the VA Palo Alto and Stanford School of Medicine institutional review boards.

Cognitive Measures

All veterans completed a targeted cognitive battery that included the following: a reading recognition measure designed to estimate premorbid intellectual functioning (Wechsler Test of Adult Reading [WTAR]); a measure assessing auditory attention and working memory ability (Wechsler Adults Intelligence Scale-IV [WAIS-IV] Digit Span subtest); a measure assessing processing speed, attention, and cognitive flexibility (Trails A and B); and the RBANS.^16,30-32The focus of the current study was on the RBANS, a brief cognitive screening measure that contains 12 subtests examining a variety of cognitive functions. Given that all participants were veterans receiving outpatient services, there was no nonpatient control group for comparison. To address this, all raw data were converted to standardized scores based on healthy normative data provided within the test manual. Specifically, the 12 RBANS subtest scores were converted to age-corrected standardized z scores, which in turn created a total summary score and 5 composite summary indexes: immediate memory, visuospatial/constructional, attention, language, and delayed memory. All veterans completed the Form A version of the measure.

Statistical Analyses

Group level differences on selective demographic and cognitive measures between veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD and those without were examined using t tests. Cognitive variables included standardized scores for the RBANS, including age-adjusted total summary score, index scores, and subtest scores.¹⁶ Estimated full-scale IQ and standardized summary scores from the WTAR, demographically adjusted standardized scores for the total time to complete Trails A and time to complete Trails B, and age-adjusted standardized scores for the WAIS-IV Digit Span subtest (forward, backward, and sequencing trials, as well as the summary total score) were examined for group differences.^30,31,33 To further examine the association between PTSD and RBANS performance, multivariate multiple regressions were conducted using measures of episodic memory and processing speed from the RBANS (ie, story tasks, list learning tasks, and coding subtests). These specific measures were selected ad hoc based on extant literature.^6,10The dependent variable for each analysis was the standardized score from the selected subtest; PTSD status, a diagnosis of TBI, a diagnosis of co-occurring TBI and PTSD, gender, and years of education were predictor variables.

Results

Of the 153 study participants, 98 (64%) met DSM-4 criteria for current PTSD, whereas 55 (36%) did not (Table). There was no group statistical difference between veterans with or without a diagnosis of PTSD for age, education, or gender (P < .05). A diagnosis of PTSD tended to be more frequent in participants with a history of head injury (χ² = 7.72; P < .05). Veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD performed significantly worse on the RBANS Story Recall subtest compared with the results of those without PTSD (t[138] = 3.10; P < .01); performance on other cognitive measures was not significantly different between the PTSD groups. A diagnosis of PTSD was also significantly associated with self-reported depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory-II; t[123] = -2.81; P < .01). Depressive symptoms were not associated with a history of TBI, and group differences were not significant.

Given the high co-occurrence of PTSD and TBI (68%) in our PTSD sample, secondary analyses examined the association of select diagnoses with performance on the RBANS, specifically veterans with a historical diagnosis of TBI (n = 92) from those without a diagnosis of TBI (n = 61), as well as those with co-occurring PTSD and TBI (n = 71) from those without (n = 82). The majority of the sample met criteria for a history of mild TBI (n = 79) when compared with moderate TBI (n = 13); none met criteria for a past history of severe TBI. PTSD status (β = .63, P = .04) and years of education (β = .16, P < .01) were associated with performance on the RBANS Story Recall subtest (R²= .23, F[5,139] = 8.11, P < .01). Education was the only significant predictor for the rest of the multivariate multiple regressions (all P < .05). A diagnosis of TBI or co-occurring PTSD and TBI was not significantly associated with performance on the Story Memory, Story Recall, List Learning, List Recall, or Coding subtests. multivariate analysis of variance tests for the hypothesis of an overall main effect of PTSD (F(5,130) = 1.08, P = .34), TBI (F[5,130] = .91, P = .48), or PTSD+TBI (F[5,130] =.47, P = .80) on the 4 selected tests were not significant.

Discussion

The findings of the present study suggest that veterans with PTSD perform worse on specific RBANS subtests compared with veterans without PTSD. Specifically, worse performance on the Story Recall subtest of the RBANS memory index was a significant predictor of a diagnosis of PTSD within the statistical model. This association with PTSD was not seen in other demographic (excluding education) or cognitive measures, including other memory tasks, such as List Recall and Figure Recall, and attentional measures, such as WAIS-IV Digit Span, and the Trail Making Test. Overall RBANS index scores were not significantly different between groups, though this is not surprising given that recent research suggests the RBANS composite scores have questionable validity and reliability.³⁴

The finding that a measure of episodic memory is most influenced by PTSD status is consistent with prior research.³⁵ However, there are several possible reasons why Story Recall in particular showed the greatest association, even more than other episodic memory measures. A review by Isaac and colleagues found a diagnosis of PTSD correlated with frontal lobe-associated memory deficits.⁶ As Story Recall provides only 2 rehearsal trials compared with the 4 trials provided in the RBANS List Learning subtest, it is possible that Story Recall relies more on attentional processes than on learning with repetition.

Research has indicated attention and verbal episodic memory dysfunction are associated with a diagnosis of PTSD in combat veterans, and individuals with a diagnosis of PTSD show deficits in executive functioning, including attention difficulties beyond what is seen in trauma-exposed controls.^4,7,8,11,35Furthermore, a diagnosis of PTSD has been shown to be associated with impaired performance on the Logical Memory subtest of the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised, a very similar measure to the RBANS Story Recall.³⁶

The present finding that performance on a RBANS subtest was associated with a diagnosis of PTSD but not a history of TBI is not surprising. The majority of the present sample who reported a history of TBI met criteria for a remote head injury of mild severity (86%). Cognitive symptoms related to mild TBI are thought to generally resolve over time, and recent research suggests that PTSD symptoms may account for a substantial portion of reported postconcussive symptoms.^37,38Similarly, recent research suggests a diagnosis of mild TBI does not necessarily result in additive cognitive impairment in combat veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD, and that a diagnosis of PTSD is more strongly associated with cognitive symptoms than is mild TBI.^5,39,40

The lack of association with RBANS performance and co-occurring PTSD and TBI is less clear. Although both conditions are heterogenous, it may be that individuals with a diagnosis solely of PTSD are quantitively different from those with a concurrent diagnosis of PTSD and TBI (ie, PTSD presumed due to a mild TBI). Specifically, the impact of PTSD on cognition may be related to symptom severity and indexed trauma. A published systematic review on the PTSD-related cognitive impairment showed a medium-to-strong effect size for severity of PTSD symptoms on cognitive performance, with war trauma showing the strongest effect.⁴In particular, individuals who experience repeated or complex trauma are prone to experience PTSD symptoms with concurrent cognitive deficits, again suggesting the possibility of qualitative differences between outpatient veterans with PTSD and those with mild TBI associated PTSD.⁴¹While disentangling PTSD and mild TBI symptoms are notoriously difficult, future research aiming to examine these factors may be beneficial in the ability to draw larger conclusions on the relationship between cognition and PTSD.

Limitations

Several limitations may affect the generalizability of the findings. The present study used a veteran sample referred to a specialty clinic for complicated postdeployment health concerns. Although findings may not be representative of an inpatient population or clinics that focus solely on TBI, they may more adequately reflect veterans using clinical services at VA medical centers. We also did not include measures of PTSD symptom severity (eg, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist), instead using diagnosis based on the gold standard CAPS. In addition, the likelihood of the presence of a remote TBI was based on a clinical interview with a neurologist and not on acute neurologic findings. TBI is a heterogenous diagnosis, with multiple factors that likely influence cognitive performance, including location of the injury, type of injury, and time since injury, which may be lost during group analysis. Further, the RBANS is not intended to serve as a method for a differential diagnosis of PTSD or TBI. Concordant with this, the intention of the current study was to capture the quality of cognitive function on the RBANS within individuals with PTSD.

Conslusions

The ability for veterans to remember a short story following a delay (ie, RBANS Story Recall subtest) was negatively associated with a diagnosis of PTSD. Further, the RBANS best captured cognitive deficits associated with PTSD compared with those with a history of mild TBI, or co-occurring mild TBI and PTSD. These findings may provide insight into the interpretation and attribution of cognitive deficits in the veteran population and holds potential to guide future research examining focused cognitive phenotypes to provide precision targets in individual treatment.

Krissy Williams, 15, had attempted suicide before, but never with pills.

The teen was diagnosed with schizophrenia when she was 9. People with this chronic mental health condition perceive reality differently and often experience hallucinations and delusions. She learned to manage these symptoms with a variety of services offered at home and at school.

But the pandemic upended those lifelines. She lost much of the support offered at school. She also lost regular contact with her peers. Her mother lost access to respite care – which allowed her to take a break.

On a Thursday in October, the isolation and sadness came to a head. As Krissy’s mother, Patricia Williams, called a mental crisis hotline for help, she said, Krissy stood on the deck of their Maryland home with a bottle of pain medication in one hand and water in the other.

Before Patricia could react, Krissy placed the pills in her mouth and swallowed.

Efforts to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus in the United States have led to drastic changes in the way children and teens learn, play and socialize. Tens of millions of students are attending school through some form of distance learning. Many extracurricular activities have been canceled. Playgrounds, zoos, and other recreational spaces have closed. Kids like Krissy have struggled to cope and the toll is becoming evident.

Government figures show the proportion of children who arrived in EDs with mental health issues increased 24% from mid-March through mid-October, compared with the same period in 2019. Among preteens and adolescents, it rose by 31%. Anecdotally, some hospitals said they are seeing more cases of severe depression and suicidal thoughts among children, particularly attempts to overdose.

The increased demand for intensive mental health care that has accompanied the pandemic has worsened issues that have long plagued the system. In some hospitals, the number of children unable to immediately get a bed in the psychiatric unit rose. Others reduced the number of beds or closed psychiatric units altogether to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

“It’s only a matter of time before a tsunami sort of reaches the shore of our service system, and it’s going to be overwhelmed with the mental health needs of kids,” said Jason Williams, PsyD, a psychologist and director of operations of the Pediatric Mental Health Institute at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

“I think we’re just starting to see the tip of the iceberg, to be honest with you.”

Before COVID, more than 8 million kids between ages 3 and 17 were diagnosed with a mental or behavioral health condition, according to the most recent National Survey of Children’s Health. A separate survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found one in three high school students in 2019 reported feeling persistently sad and hopeless – a 40% increase from 2009.

The coronavirus pandemic appears to be adding to these difficulties. A review of 80 studies found forced isolation and loneliness among children correlated with an increased risk of depression.

“We’re all social beings, but they’re [teenagers] at the point in their development where their peers are their reality,” said Terrie Andrews, PhD, a psychologist and administrator of behavioral health at Wolfson Children’s Hospital in Jacksonville, Fla. “Their peers are their grounding mechanism.”

Children’s hospitals in Colorado, Missouri, and New York all reported an uptick in the number of patients who thought about or attempted suicide. Clinicians also mentioned spikes in children with severe depression and those with autism who are acting out.

The number of overdose attempts among children has caught the attention of clinicians at two facilities. Dr. Andrews said the facility gives out lockboxes for weapons and medication to the public – including parents who come in after children attempted to take their life using medication.

Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., also has experienced an uptick, said Colby Tyson, MD, associate director of inpatient psychiatry. She’s seen children’s mental health deteriorate because of a likely increase in family conflict – often a consequence of the chaos caused by the pandemic. Without school, connections with peers or employment, families don’t have the opportunity to spend time away from one another and regroup, which can add stress to an already tense situation.

“That break is gone,” she said.

The higher demand for child mental health services caused by the pandemic has made finding a bed at an inpatient unit more difficult.

Now, some hospitals report running at full capacity and having more children “boarding,” or sleeping in EDs before being admitted to the psychiatric unit. Among them is the Pediatric Mental Health Institute at Children’s Hospital Colorado. Williams said the inpatient unit has been full since March. Some children now wait nearly 2 days for a bed, up from the 8-10 hours common before the pandemic.

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio is also running at full capacity, said clinicians, and had several days in which the unit was above capacity and placed kids instead in the emergency department waiting to be admitted. In Florida, Dr. Andrews said, up to 25 children have been held on surgical floors at Wolfson Children’s while waiting for a spot to open in the inpatient psychiatric unit. Their wait could last as long as 5 days, she said.

Multiple hospitals said the usual summer slump in child psychiatric admissions was missing last year. “We never saw that during the pandemic,” said Andrews. “We stayed completely busy the entire time.”

Some facilities have decided to reduce the number of beds available to maintain physical distancing, further constricting supply. Children’s National in D.C. cut five beds from its unit to maintain single occupancy in every room, said Adelaide Robb, MD, division chief of psychiatry and behavioral sciences.

The measures taken to curb the spread of COVID have also affected the way hospitalized children receive mental health services. In addition to providers wearing protective equipment, some hospitals like Cincinnati Children’s rearranged furniture and placed cues on the floor as reminders to stay 6 feet apart. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Western Psychiatric Hospital and other facilities encourage children to keep their masks on by offering rewards like extra computer time. Patients at Children’s National now eat in their rooms, a change from when they ate together.

Despite the need for distance, social interaction still represents an important part of mental health care for children, clinicians said. Facilities have come up with various ways to do so safely, including creating smaller pods for group therapy. Children at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital can play with toys, but only with ones that can be wiped clean afterward. No cards or board games, said Suzanne Sampang, MD, clinical medical director for child and adolescent psychiatry at the hospital.

“I think what’s different about psychiatric treatment is that, really, interaction is the treatment,” she said, “just as much as a medication.”

The added infection-control precautions pose challenges to forging therapeutic connections. Masks can complicate the ability to read a person’s face. Online meetings make it difficult to build trust between a patient and a therapist.

“There’s something about the real relationship in person that the best technology can’t give to you,” said Dr. Robb.

For now, Krissy Williams is relying on virtual platforms to receive some of her mental health services. Despite being hospitalized and suffering brain damage due to the overdose, she is now at home and in good spirits. She enjoys geometry, dancing on TikTok, and trying to beat her mother at Super Mario Bros. on the Wii. But being away from her friends, she said, has been a hard adjustment.

“When you’re used to something,” she said, “it’s not easy to change everything.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Krissy Williams, 15, had attempted suicide before, but never with pills.

The teen was diagnosed with schizophrenia when she was 9. People with this chronic mental health condition perceive reality differently and often experience hallucinations and delusions. She learned to manage these symptoms with a variety of services offered at home and at school.

But the pandemic upended those lifelines. She lost much of the support offered at school. She also lost regular contact with her peers. Her mother lost access to respite care – which allowed her to take a break.

On a Thursday in October, the isolation and sadness came to a head. As Krissy’s mother, Patricia Williams, called a mental crisis hotline for help, she said, Krissy stood on the deck of their Maryland home with a bottle of pain medication in one hand and water in the other.

Before Patricia could react, Krissy placed the pills in her mouth and swallowed.

Efforts to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus in the United States have led to drastic changes in the way children and teens learn, play and socialize. Tens of millions of students are attending school through some form of distance learning. Many extracurricular activities have been canceled. Playgrounds, zoos, and other recreational spaces have closed. Kids like Krissy have struggled to cope and the toll is becoming evident.

Government figures show the proportion of children who arrived in EDs with mental health issues increased 24% from mid-March through mid-October, compared with the same period in 2019. Among preteens and adolescents, it rose by 31%. Anecdotally, some hospitals said they are seeing more cases of severe depression and suicidal thoughts among children, particularly attempts to overdose.

The increased demand for intensive mental health care that has accompanied the pandemic has worsened issues that have long plagued the system. In some hospitals, the number of children unable to immediately get a bed in the psychiatric unit rose. Others reduced the number of beds or closed psychiatric units altogether to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

“It’s only a matter of time before a tsunami sort of reaches the shore of our service system, and it’s going to be overwhelmed with the mental health needs of kids,” said Jason Williams, PsyD, a psychologist and director of operations of the Pediatric Mental Health Institute at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

“I think we’re just starting to see the tip of the iceberg, to be honest with you.”

Before COVID, more than 8 million kids between ages 3 and 17 were diagnosed with a mental or behavioral health condition, according to the most recent National Survey of Children’s Health. A separate survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found one in three high school students in 2019 reported feeling persistently sad and hopeless – a 40% increase from 2009.

The coronavirus pandemic appears to be adding to these difficulties. A review of 80 studies found forced isolation and loneliness among children correlated with an increased risk of depression.

“We’re all social beings, but they’re [teenagers] at the point in their development where their peers are their reality,” said Terrie Andrews, PhD, a psychologist and administrator of behavioral health at Wolfson Children’s Hospital in Jacksonville, Fla. “Their peers are their grounding mechanism.”

Children’s hospitals in Colorado, Missouri, and New York all reported an uptick in the number of patients who thought about or attempted suicide. Clinicians also mentioned spikes in children with severe depression and those with autism who are acting out.

The number of overdose attempts among children has caught the attention of clinicians at two facilities. Dr. Andrews said the facility gives out lockboxes for weapons and medication to the public – including parents who come in after children attempted to take their life using medication.

Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., also has experienced an uptick, said Colby Tyson, MD, associate director of inpatient psychiatry. She’s seen children’s mental health deteriorate because of a likely increase in family conflict – often a consequence of the chaos caused by the pandemic. Without school, connections with peers or employment, families don’t have the opportunity to spend time away from one another and regroup, which can add stress to an already tense situation.

“That break is gone,” she said.

The higher demand for child mental health services caused by the pandemic has made finding a bed at an inpatient unit more difficult.

Now, some hospitals report running at full capacity and having more children “boarding,” or sleeping in EDs before being admitted to the psychiatric unit. Among them is the Pediatric Mental Health Institute at Children’s Hospital Colorado. Williams said the inpatient unit has been full since March. Some children now wait nearly 2 days for a bed, up from the 8-10 hours common before the pandemic.

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio is also running at full capacity, said clinicians, and had several days in which the unit was above capacity and placed kids instead in the emergency department waiting to be admitted. In Florida, Dr. Andrews said, up to 25 children have been held on surgical floors at Wolfson Children’s while waiting for a spot to open in the inpatient psychiatric unit. Their wait could last as long as 5 days, she said.

Multiple hospitals said the usual summer slump in child psychiatric admissions was missing last year. “We never saw that during the pandemic,” said Andrews. “We stayed completely busy the entire time.”

Some facilities have decided to reduce the number of beds available to maintain physical distancing, further constricting supply. Children’s National in D.C. cut five beds from its unit to maintain single occupancy in every room, said Adelaide Robb, MD, division chief of psychiatry and behavioral sciences.

The measures taken to curb the spread of COVID have also affected the way hospitalized children receive mental health services. In addition to providers wearing protective equipment, some hospitals like Cincinnati Children’s rearranged furniture and placed cues on the floor as reminders to stay 6 feet apart. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Western Psychiatric Hospital and other facilities encourage children to keep their masks on by offering rewards like extra computer time. Patients at Children’s National now eat in their rooms, a change from when they ate together.

Despite the need for distance, social interaction still represents an important part of mental health care for children, clinicians said. Facilities have come up with various ways to do so safely, including creating smaller pods for group therapy. Children at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital can play with toys, but only with ones that can be wiped clean afterward. No cards or board games, said Suzanne Sampang, MD, clinical medical director for child and adolescent psychiatry at the hospital.

“I think what’s different about psychiatric treatment is that, really, interaction is the treatment,” she said, “just as much as a medication.”

The added infection-control precautions pose challenges to forging therapeutic connections. Masks can complicate the ability to read a person’s face. Online meetings make it difficult to build trust between a patient and a therapist.

“There’s something about the real relationship in person that the best technology can’t give to you,” said Dr. Robb.

For now, Krissy Williams is relying on virtual platforms to receive some of her mental health services. Despite being hospitalized and suffering brain damage due to the overdose, she is now at home and in good spirits. She enjoys geometry, dancing on TikTok, and trying to beat her mother at Super Mario Bros. on the Wii. But being away from her friends, she said, has been a hard adjustment.

“When you’re used to something,” she said, “it’s not easy to change everything.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Krissy Williams, 15, had attempted suicide before, but never with pills.

The teen was diagnosed with schizophrenia when she was 9. People with this chronic mental health condition perceive reality differently and often experience hallucinations and delusions. She learned to manage these symptoms with a variety of services offered at home and at school.

But the pandemic upended those lifelines. She lost much of the support offered at school. She also lost regular contact with her peers. Her mother lost access to respite care – which allowed her to take a break.

On a Thursday in October, the isolation and sadness came to a head. As Krissy’s mother, Patricia Williams, called a mental crisis hotline for help, she said, Krissy stood on the deck of their Maryland home with a bottle of pain medication in one hand and water in the other.

Before Patricia could react, Krissy placed the pills in her mouth and swallowed.

Efforts to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus in the United States have led to drastic changes in the way children and teens learn, play and socialize. Tens of millions of students are attending school through some form of distance learning. Many extracurricular activities have been canceled. Playgrounds, zoos, and other recreational spaces have closed. Kids like Krissy have struggled to cope and the toll is becoming evident.

Government figures show the proportion of children who arrived in EDs with mental health issues increased 24% from mid-March through mid-October, compared with the same period in 2019. Among preteens and adolescents, it rose by 31%. Anecdotally, some hospitals said they are seeing more cases of severe depression and suicidal thoughts among children, particularly attempts to overdose.

The increased demand for intensive mental health care that has accompanied the pandemic has worsened issues that have long plagued the system. In some hospitals, the number of children unable to immediately get a bed in the psychiatric unit rose. Others reduced the number of beds or closed psychiatric units altogether to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

“It’s only a matter of time before a tsunami sort of reaches the shore of our service system, and it’s going to be overwhelmed with the mental health needs of kids,” said Jason Williams, PsyD, a psychologist and director of operations of the Pediatric Mental Health Institute at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

“I think we’re just starting to see the tip of the iceberg, to be honest with you.”

Before COVID, more than 8 million kids between ages 3 and 17 were diagnosed with a mental or behavioral health condition, according to the most recent National Survey of Children’s Health. A separate survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found one in three high school students in 2019 reported feeling persistently sad and hopeless – a 40% increase from 2009.

The coronavirus pandemic appears to be adding to these difficulties. A review of 80 studies found forced isolation and loneliness among children correlated with an increased risk of depression.

“We’re all social beings, but they’re [teenagers] at the point in their development where their peers are their reality,” said Terrie Andrews, PhD, a psychologist and administrator of behavioral health at Wolfson Children’s Hospital in Jacksonville, Fla. “Their peers are their grounding mechanism.”

Children’s hospitals in Colorado, Missouri, and New York all reported an uptick in the number of patients who thought about or attempted suicide. Clinicians also mentioned spikes in children with severe depression and those with autism who are acting out.

The number of overdose attempts among children has caught the attention of clinicians at two facilities. Dr. Andrews said the facility gives out lockboxes for weapons and medication to the public – including parents who come in after children attempted to take their life using medication.

Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., also has experienced an uptick, said Colby Tyson, MD, associate director of inpatient psychiatry. She’s seen children’s mental health deteriorate because of a likely increase in family conflict – often a consequence of the chaos caused by the pandemic. Without school, connections with peers or employment, families don’t have the opportunity to spend time away from one another and regroup, which can add stress to an already tense situation.

“That break is gone,” she said.

The higher demand for child mental health services caused by the pandemic has made finding a bed at an inpatient unit more difficult.

Now, some hospitals report running at full capacity and having more children “boarding,” or sleeping in EDs before being admitted to the psychiatric unit. Among them is the Pediatric Mental Health Institute at Children’s Hospital Colorado. Williams said the inpatient unit has been full since March. Some children now wait nearly 2 days for a bed, up from the 8-10 hours common before the pandemic.

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio is also running at full capacity, said clinicians, and had several days in which the unit was above capacity and placed kids instead in the emergency department waiting to be admitted. In Florida, Dr. Andrews said, up to 25 children have been held on surgical floors at Wolfson Children’s while waiting for a spot to open in the inpatient psychiatric unit. Their wait could last as long as 5 days, she said.

Multiple hospitals said the usual summer slump in child psychiatric admissions was missing last year. “We never saw that during the pandemic,” said Andrews. “We stayed completely busy the entire time.”

Some facilities have decided to reduce the number of beds available to maintain physical distancing, further constricting supply. Children’s National in D.C. cut five beds from its unit to maintain single occupancy in every room, said Adelaide Robb, MD, division chief of psychiatry and behavioral sciences.

The measures taken to curb the spread of COVID have also affected the way hospitalized children receive mental health services. In addition to providers wearing protective equipment, some hospitals like Cincinnati Children’s rearranged furniture and placed cues on the floor as reminders to stay 6 feet apart. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Western Psychiatric Hospital and other facilities encourage children to keep their masks on by offering rewards like extra computer time. Patients at Children’s National now eat in their rooms, a change from when they ate together.

Despite the need for distance, social interaction still represents an important part of mental health care for children, clinicians said. Facilities have come up with various ways to do so safely, including creating smaller pods for group therapy. Children at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital can play with toys, but only with ones that can be wiped clean afterward. No cards or board games, said Suzanne Sampang, MD, clinical medical director for child and adolescent psychiatry at the hospital.

“I think what’s different about psychiatric treatment is that, really, interaction is the treatment,” she said, “just as much as a medication.”

The added infection-control precautions pose challenges to forging therapeutic connections. Masks can complicate the ability to read a person’s face. Online meetings make it difficult to build trust between a patient and a therapist.

“There’s something about the real relationship in person that the best technology can’t give to you,” said Dr. Robb.

For now, Krissy Williams is relying on virtual platforms to receive some of her mental health services. Despite being hospitalized and suffering brain damage due to the overdose, she is now at home and in good spirits. She enjoys geometry, dancing on TikTok, and trying to beat her mother at Super Mario Bros. on the Wii. But being away from her friends, she said, has been a hard adjustment.

“When you’re used to something,” she said, “it’s not easy to change everything.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Isolation in response to COVID-19 pandemic has driven many people to reestablish long forgotten connections between old friends and geographically distant relatives. Fed by the ease in which Zoom and other electronic miracles can bring once familiar voices and faces into our homes, we no longer need to wait until our high school or college reunions to reconnect.

The Class of 1962 at Pleasantville (N.Y.) High School has always attracted an unusually large number of attendees at its reunions, and its exuberant response to pandemic-fueled mini Zoom reunions is not surprising. With each virtual gathering we learn and relearn more about each other. I had always felt that because my birthday was in December that I was among the very youngest in my class. (New York’s school enrollment calendar cutoff is in December.) However, I recently learned that some of my classmates were even younger, having been born in the following spring.

This revelation prompted a discussion among the younger septuagenarians about whether we felt that our relative immaturity, at least as measured by the calendar, affected us. It was generally agreed that for the women, being younger seemed to present little problem. For, the men there were a few for whom immaturity put them at an athletic disadvantage. But, there was uniform agreement that social immaturity made dating an uncomfortable adventure. No one felt that his or her immaturity placed them at an academic disadvantage. Of course, all of these observations are heavily colored by the bias of those who have chosen to maintain contact with classmates.

A recent flurry of papers and commentaries about relative age at school entry and the diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder prompted me to ask my Zoom mates if they could recall anyone whom they would label as having exhibited the behavior we have all come to associate with ADHD (Vuori M et al. Children’s relative age and ADHD medication use: A Finnish population-based study. Pediatrics 2020 Oct. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-4046, and Butter EM. Keeping relative age effects and ADHD care in context. Pediatrics. 2020;146[4]:e2020022798).

We could all recall classmates who struggled academically and seemed to not be paying attention. However, when one includes the hyperactivity descriptor we couldn’t recall anyone whose in-classroom physical activity drew our attention. Of course, there were many shared anecdotes about note passing, spitball throwing, and out-of-class shenanigans. But, from the perspective of behavior that disrupted the classroom there were very few. And, not surprisingly, given the intervening 6 decades, none of us could make an association between immaturity and the behavior.

While I have very few memories of what happened when I was in grade school, many of my classmates have vivid recollections of events both mundane and dramatic even as far back as first and second grade. Why do none of them recall classmates whose behavior would in current terminology be labeled as ADHD?

Were most of us that age bouncing off the walls and so there were no outliers? Were the teachers more tolerant because they expected that many children, particularly the younger ones, would be more physically active? Or, maybe we arrived at school, even those who were chronologically less mature, having already been settled down by home environments that neither fostered nor tolerated hyperactivity?

If you ask a pediatrician over the age of 70 if he or she recalls being taught anything about ADHD in medical school or seeing any children in his or her first years of practice who would fit the current diagnostic criteria, you will see them simply shrug. ADHD was simply not on our radar in the 1970s and 1980s. And it’s not because radar hadn’t been invented. We pediatricians were paying attention, and I trust in my high school classmates’ observations. I am sure there were isolated cases that could easily have been labeled as ADHD if the term had existed. But, the volume of hyperactive children a pediatrician sees today in the course of a normal office day just didn’t exist.

I have trouble believing that this dramatic increase in frequency is the result of accumulating genetic damage from Teflon cookware or climate change or air pollution. Although I am open to any serious attempt to explain the phenomenon I think we should look first into the home environment in which children are being raised. Sleep schedules, activity, and amusement opportunities as well as discipline styles – just to name a few – are far different now than before the ADHD diagnosis overtook the landscape.
 

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

Isolation in response to COVID-19 pandemic has driven many people to reestablish long forgotten connections between old friends and geographically distant relatives. Fed by the ease in which Zoom and other electronic miracles can bring once familiar voices and faces into our homes, we no longer need to wait until our high school or college reunions to reconnect.

The Class of 1962 at Pleasantville (N.Y.) High School has always attracted an unusually large number of attendees at its reunions, and its exuberant response to pandemic-fueled mini Zoom reunions is not surprising. With each virtual gathering we learn and relearn more about each other. I had always felt that because my birthday was in December that I was among the very youngest in my class. (New York’s school enrollment calendar cutoff is in December.) However, I recently learned that some of my classmates were even younger, having been born in the following spring.

This revelation prompted a discussion among the younger septuagenarians about whether we felt that our relative immaturity, at least as measured by the calendar, affected us. It was generally agreed that for the women, being younger seemed to present little problem. For, the men there were a few for whom immaturity put them at an athletic disadvantage. But, there was uniform agreement that social immaturity made dating an uncomfortable adventure. No one felt that his or her immaturity placed them at an academic disadvantage. Of course, all of these observations are heavily colored by the bias of those who have chosen to maintain contact with classmates.

A recent flurry of papers and commentaries about relative age at school entry and the diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder prompted me to ask my Zoom mates if they could recall anyone whom they would label as having exhibited the behavior we have all come to associate with ADHD (Vuori M et al. Children’s relative age and ADHD medication use: A Finnish population-based study. Pediatrics 2020 Oct. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-4046, and Butter EM. Keeping relative age effects and ADHD care in context. Pediatrics. 2020;146[4]:e2020022798).

We could all recall classmates who struggled academically and seemed to not be paying attention. However, when one includes the hyperactivity descriptor we couldn’t recall anyone whose in-classroom physical activity drew our attention. Of course, there were many shared anecdotes about note passing, spitball throwing, and out-of-class shenanigans. But, from the perspective of behavior that disrupted the classroom there were very few. And, not surprisingly, given the intervening 6 decades, none of us could make an association between immaturity and the behavior.

While I have very few memories of what happened when I was in grade school, many of my classmates have vivid recollections of events both mundane and dramatic even as far back as first and second grade. Why do none of them recall classmates whose behavior would in current terminology be labeled as ADHD?

Were most of us that age bouncing off the walls and so there were no outliers? Were the teachers more tolerant because they expected that many children, particularly the younger ones, would be more physically active? Or, maybe we arrived at school, even those who were chronologically less mature, having already been settled down by home environments that neither fostered nor tolerated hyperactivity?

If you ask a pediatrician over the age of 70 if he or she recalls being taught anything about ADHD in medical school or seeing any children in his or her first years of practice who would fit the current diagnostic criteria, you will see them simply shrug. ADHD was simply not on our radar in the 1970s and 1980s. And it’s not because radar hadn’t been invented. We pediatricians were paying attention, and I trust in my high school classmates’ observations. I am sure there were isolated cases that could easily have been labeled as ADHD if the term had existed. But, the volume of hyperactive children a pediatrician sees today in the course of a normal office day just didn’t exist.

I have trouble believing that this dramatic increase in frequency is the result of accumulating genetic damage from Teflon cookware or climate change or air pollution. Although I am open to any serious attempt to explain the phenomenon I think we should look first into the home environment in which children are being raised. Sleep schedules, activity, and amusement opportunities as well as discipline styles – just to name a few – are far different now than before the ADHD diagnosis overtook the landscape.
 

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

Isolation in response to COVID-19 pandemic has driven many people to reestablish long forgotten connections between old friends and geographically distant relatives. Fed by the ease in which Zoom and other electronic miracles can bring once familiar voices and faces into our homes, we no longer need to wait until our high school or college reunions to reconnect.

The Class of 1962 at Pleasantville (N.Y.) High School has always attracted an unusually large number of attendees at its reunions, and its exuberant response to pandemic-fueled mini Zoom reunions is not surprising. With each virtual gathering we learn and relearn more about each other. I had always felt that because my birthday was in December that I was among the very youngest in my class. (New York’s school enrollment calendar cutoff is in December.) However, I recently learned that some of my classmates were even younger, having been born in the following spring.

This revelation prompted a discussion among the younger septuagenarians about whether we felt that our relative immaturity, at least as measured by the calendar, affected us. It was generally agreed that for the women, being younger seemed to present little problem. For, the men there were a few for whom immaturity put them at an athletic disadvantage. But, there was uniform agreement that social immaturity made dating an uncomfortable adventure. No one felt that his or her immaturity placed them at an academic disadvantage. Of course, all of these observations are heavily colored by the bias of those who have chosen to maintain contact with classmates.

A recent flurry of papers and commentaries about relative age at school entry and the diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder prompted me to ask my Zoom mates if they could recall anyone whom they would label as having exhibited the behavior we have all come to associate with ADHD (Vuori M et al. Children’s relative age and ADHD medication use: A Finnish population-based study. Pediatrics 2020 Oct. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-4046, and Butter EM. Keeping relative age effects and ADHD care in context. Pediatrics. 2020;146[4]:e2020022798).

We could all recall classmates who struggled academically and seemed to not be paying attention. However, when one includes the hyperactivity descriptor we couldn’t recall anyone whose in-classroom physical activity drew our attention. Of course, there were many shared anecdotes about note passing, spitball throwing, and out-of-class shenanigans. But, from the perspective of behavior that disrupted the classroom there were very few. And, not surprisingly, given the intervening 6 decades, none of us could make an association between immaturity and the behavior.

While I have very few memories of what happened when I was in grade school, many of my classmates have vivid recollections of events both mundane and dramatic even as far back as first and second grade. Why do none of them recall classmates whose behavior would in current terminology be labeled as ADHD?

Were most of us that age bouncing off the walls and so there were no outliers? Were the teachers more tolerant because they expected that many children, particularly the younger ones, would be more physically active? Or, maybe we arrived at school, even those who were chronologically less mature, having already been settled down by home environments that neither fostered nor tolerated hyperactivity?

If you ask a pediatrician over the age of 70 if he or she recalls being taught anything about ADHD in medical school or seeing any children in his or her first years of practice who would fit the current diagnostic criteria, you will see them simply shrug. ADHD was simply not on our radar in the 1970s and 1980s. And it’s not because radar hadn’t been invented. We pediatricians were paying attention, and I trust in my high school classmates’ observations. I am sure there were isolated cases that could easily have been labeled as ADHD if the term had existed. But, the volume of hyperactive children a pediatrician sees today in the course of a normal office day just didn’t exist.

I have trouble believing that this dramatic increase in frequency is the result of accumulating genetic damage from Teflon cookware or climate change or air pollution. Although I am open to any serious attempt to explain the phenomenon I think we should look first into the home environment in which children are being raised. Sleep schedules, activity, and amusement opportunities as well as discipline styles – just to name a few – are far different now than before the ADHD diagnosis overtook the landscape.
 

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

During a busy morning of rounds, our patient, Mrs. M., appeared distraught. She was diagnosed with COVID-19 2 weeks prior and remained inpatient because of medicosocial reasons. Since admission she remained on the same ward, in the same room, cared for by the same group of providers donned in masks, gowns, gloves, and face shields. The personal protective equipment helped to shield us from the virus, but it also shielded Mrs. M. from us.

During initial interaction, Mrs. M. appeared anxious, tearful, and detached. It seemed that she recognized a new voice; however, she did not express much interest in engaging during the visit. When she realized that she was not being discharged, Mrs. M. appeared to lose further interest. She wanted to go home. Her outpatient dialysis arrangements were not complete, and that precluded hospital discharge. Prescribed anxiolytics were doing little to relieve her symptoms.

The next day, Mrs. M. continued to ask if she could go home. She stated that there was nothing for her to do while in the hospital. She was tired of watching TV, she was unable to call her friends, and was not able to see her family. Because of COVID-19 status, Mrs. M was not permitted to leave her hospital room, and she was transported to the dialysis unit via stretcher, being unable to walk. The more we talked, the more engaged Mrs. M. had become. When it was time to complete the encounter, Mrs. M. started pleading with us to “stay a little longer, please don’t leave.”

Throughout her hospitalization, Mrs. M. had an extremely limited number of human encounters. Those encounters were fragmented and brief, centered on the infection mitigation. The chaplain was not permitted to enter her room, and she was unwilling to use the phone. The subspecialty consultants utilized telemedicine visits. As a result, Mrs. M. felt isolated and lonely. Social distancing in the hospital makes human interactions particularly challenging and contributes to the development of isolation, loneliness, and fear.
 

Loneliness is real

Loneliness is the “subjective experience of involuntary social isolation.”¹ As the COVID-19 pandemic began to entrap the world in early 2020, many people have faced new challenges – loneliness and its impact on physical and mental health. The prevalence of loneliness nearly tripled in the early months of the pandemic, leading to psychological distress and reopening conversations on ethical issues.²

Ethical implications of loneliness

Social distancing challenges all four main ethical principles: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. How do we reconcile these principles from the standpoint of each affected individual, their caregivers, health care providers, and public health at large? How can we continue to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, but also remain attentive to our patients who are still in need of human interactions to recover and thrive?

Social distancing is important, but so is social interaction. What strategies do we have in place to combat loneliness? How do we help our hospitalized patients who feel connected to the “outside world?” Is battling loneliness worth the risks of additional exposure to COVID-19? These dilemmas cannot be easily resolved. However, it is important for us to recognize the negative impacts of loneliness and identify measures to help our patients.

In our mission to fulfill the beneficence and nonmaleficence principles of caring for patients affected by COVID-19, patients like Mrs. M. lose much of their autonomy during hospital admission. Despite our best efforts, our isolated patients during the pandemic, remain alone, which further heightens their feeling of loneliness.
 

Clinical implications of loneliness

With the advancements in technology, our capabilities to substitute personal human interactions have grown exponentially. The use of telemedicine, video- and audio-conferencing communications have changed the landscape of our capacities to exchange information. This could be a blessing and a curse. While the use of digital platforms for virtual communication is tempting, we should preserve human interactions as much as possible, particularly when caring for patients affected by COVID-19. Interpersonal “connectedness” plays a crucial role in providing psychological and psychotherapeutic support, particularly when the number of human encounters is already limited.

Social distancing requirements have magnified loneliness. Several studies demonstrate that the perception of loneliness leads to poor health outcomes, including lower immunity, increased peripheral vascular resistance,³ and higher overall mortality.⁴ Loneliness can lead to functional impairment, such as poor social skills, and even increased inflammation.⁵ The negative emotional impact of SARS-CoV-2 echoes the experiences of patients affected by the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003. However, with COVID-19, we are witnessing the amplified effects of loneliness on a global scale. The majority of affected patients during the 2003 SARS outbreak in Canada reported loneliness, fear, aggression, and boredom: They had concerns about the impacts of the infection on loved ones, and psychological support was required for many patients with mild to moderate SARS disease.⁶
 

Nonpharmacological management strategies for battling loneliness

Utilization of early supportive services has been well described in literature and includes extending additional resources such as books, newspapers and, most importantly, additional in-person time to our patients.⁶ Maintaining rapport with patients’ families is also helpful in reducing anxiety and fear. The following measures have been suggested to prevent the negative impacts of loneliness and should be considered when caring for hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19.⁷

• Screen patients for depression and delirium and utilize delirium prevention measures throughout the hospitalization.
• Educate patients about the signs and symptoms of loneliness, fear, and anxiety.
• Extend additional resources to patients, including books, magazines, and newspapers.
• Keep the patient’s cell or hospital phone within their reach.
• Adequately manage pain and prevent insomnia.
• Communicate frequently, utilizing audio- and visual-teleconferencing platforms that simultaneously include the patient and their loved ones.
• For patients who continue to exhibit feelings of loneliness despite the above interventions, consider consultations with psychiatry to offer additional coping strategies.
• Ensure a multidisciplinary approach when applicable – proactive consultation with the members of a palliative care team, ethics, spiritual health, social and ancillary services.

It is important to recognize how vulnerable our patients are. Diagnosed with COVID-19, and caught in the midst of the current pandemic, not only do they suffer from the physical effects of this novel disease, but they also have to endure prolonged confinement, social isolation, and uncertainty – all wrapped in a cloak of loneliness and fear.

With our main focus being on the management of a largely unknown viral illness, patients’ personal experiences can be easily overlooked. It is vital for us as health care providers on the front lines to recognize, reflect, and reform to ease our patients’ journey through COVID-19.

Dr. Burklin is an assistant professor of medicine, division of hospital medicine, at the department of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Wiley is an assistant professor of medicine, division of infectious disease, at the department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta.

References

1. Schlomann A et al. Use of information and communication technology (ICT) devices among the oldest-old: Loneliness, anomie, and autonomy. Innov Aging. 2020 Jan 1;4(2):igz050.

2. McGinty E et al. Psychological distress and loneliness reported by U.S. adults in 2018 and April 2020. JAMA. 2020 Jun 3. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.9740. 3. Wang J et al. Associations between loneliness and perceived social support and outcomes of mental health problems: A systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. 2018 May 29;18(1):156.

4. Luo Y et al. Loneliness, health, and mortality in old age: A national longitudinal study. Soc Sci Med. 2012 Mar;74(6):907-14.

5. Smith KJ et al. The association between loneliness, social isolation, and inflammation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020 Feb 21; 112:519-41.

6. Maunder R et al. The immediate psychological and occupational impact of the 2003 SARS outbreak in a teaching hospital. CMAJ. 2003 May 13;168(10):1245-51.

7. Masi CM et al. A meta-analysis of interventions to reduce loneliness. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2011 Aug;15(3):219-66.

During a busy morning of rounds, our patient, Mrs. M., appeared distraught. She was diagnosed with COVID-19 2 weeks prior and remained inpatient because of medicosocial reasons. Since admission she remained on the same ward, in the same room, cared for by the same group of providers donned in masks, gowns, gloves, and face shields. The personal protective equipment helped to shield us from the virus, but it also shielded Mrs. M. from us.

During initial interaction, Mrs. M. appeared anxious, tearful, and detached. It seemed that she recognized a new voice; however, she did not express much interest in engaging during the visit. When she realized that she was not being discharged, Mrs. M. appeared to lose further interest. She wanted to go home. Her outpatient dialysis arrangements were not complete, and that precluded hospital discharge. Prescribed anxiolytics were doing little to relieve her symptoms.

The next day, Mrs. M. continued to ask if she could go home. She stated that there was nothing for her to do while in the hospital. She was tired of watching TV, she was unable to call her friends, and was not able to see her family. Because of COVID-19 status, Mrs. M was not permitted to leave her hospital room, and she was transported to the dialysis unit via stretcher, being unable to walk. The more we talked, the more engaged Mrs. M. had become. When it was time to complete the encounter, Mrs. M. started pleading with us to “stay a little longer, please don’t leave.”

Throughout her hospitalization, Mrs. M. had an extremely limited number of human encounters. Those encounters were fragmented and brief, centered on the infection mitigation. The chaplain was not permitted to enter her room, and she was unwilling to use the phone. The subspecialty consultants utilized telemedicine visits. As a result, Mrs. M. felt isolated and lonely. Social distancing in the hospital makes human interactions particularly challenging and contributes to the development of isolation, loneliness, and fear.
 

Loneliness is real

Loneliness is the “subjective experience of involuntary social isolation.”¹ As the COVID-19 pandemic began to entrap the world in early 2020, many people have faced new challenges – loneliness and its impact on physical and mental health. The prevalence of loneliness nearly tripled in the early months of the pandemic, leading to psychological distress and reopening conversations on ethical issues.²

Ethical implications of loneliness

Social distancing challenges all four main ethical principles: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. How do we reconcile these principles from the standpoint of each affected individual, their caregivers, health care providers, and public health at large? How can we continue to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, but also remain attentive to our patients who are still in need of human interactions to recover and thrive?

Social distancing is important, but so is social interaction. What strategies do we have in place to combat loneliness? How do we help our hospitalized patients who feel connected to the “outside world?” Is battling loneliness worth the risks of additional exposure to COVID-19? These dilemmas cannot be easily resolved. However, it is important for us to recognize the negative impacts of loneliness and identify measures to help our patients.

In our mission to fulfill the beneficence and nonmaleficence principles of caring for patients affected by COVID-19, patients like Mrs. M. lose much of their autonomy during hospital admission. Despite our best efforts, our isolated patients during the pandemic, remain alone, which further heightens their feeling of loneliness.
 

Clinical implications of loneliness

With the advancements in technology, our capabilities to substitute personal human interactions have grown exponentially. The use of telemedicine, video- and audio-conferencing communications have changed the landscape of our capacities to exchange information. This could be a blessing and a curse. While the use of digital platforms for virtual communication is tempting, we should preserve human interactions as much as possible, particularly when caring for patients affected by COVID-19. Interpersonal “connectedness” plays a crucial role in providing psychological and psychotherapeutic support, particularly when the number of human encounters is already limited.

Social distancing requirements have magnified loneliness. Several studies demonstrate that the perception of loneliness leads to poor health outcomes, including lower immunity, increased peripheral vascular resistance,³ and higher overall mortality.⁴ Loneliness can lead to functional impairment, such as poor social skills, and even increased inflammation.⁵ The negative emotional impact of SARS-CoV-2 echoes the experiences of patients affected by the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003. However, with COVID-19, we are witnessing the amplified effects of loneliness on a global scale. The majority of affected patients during the 2003 SARS outbreak in Canada reported loneliness, fear, aggression, and boredom: They had concerns about the impacts of the infection on loved ones, and psychological support was required for many patients with mild to moderate SARS disease.⁶
 

Nonpharmacological management strategies for battling loneliness

Utilization of early supportive services has been well described in literature and includes extending additional resources such as books, newspapers and, most importantly, additional in-person time to our patients.⁶ Maintaining rapport with patients’ families is also helpful in reducing anxiety and fear. The following measures have been suggested to prevent the negative impacts of loneliness and should be considered when caring for hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19.⁷

• Screen patients for depression and delirium and utilize delirium prevention measures throughout the hospitalization.
• Educate patients about the signs and symptoms of loneliness, fear, and anxiety.
• Extend additional resources to patients, including books, magazines, and newspapers.
• Keep the patient’s cell or hospital phone within their reach.
• Adequately manage pain and prevent insomnia.
• Communicate frequently, utilizing audio- and visual-teleconferencing platforms that simultaneously include the patient and their loved ones.
• For patients who continue to exhibit feelings of loneliness despite the above interventions, consider consultations with psychiatry to offer additional coping strategies.
• Ensure a multidisciplinary approach when applicable – proactive consultation with the members of a palliative care team, ethics, spiritual health, social and ancillary services.

It is important to recognize how vulnerable our patients are. Diagnosed with COVID-19, and caught in the midst of the current pandemic, not only do they suffer from the physical effects of this novel disease, but they also have to endure prolonged confinement, social isolation, and uncertainty – all wrapped in a cloak of loneliness and fear.

With our main focus being on the management of a largely unknown viral illness, patients’ personal experiences can be easily overlooked. It is vital for us as health care providers on the front lines to recognize, reflect, and reform to ease our patients’ journey through COVID-19.

Dr. Burklin is an assistant professor of medicine, division of hospital medicine, at the department of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Wiley is an assistant professor of medicine, division of infectious disease, at the department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta.

References

1. Schlomann A et al. Use of information and communication technology (ICT) devices among the oldest-old: Loneliness, anomie, and autonomy. Innov Aging. 2020 Jan 1;4(2):igz050.

2. McGinty E et al. Psychological distress and loneliness reported by U.S. adults in 2018 and April 2020. JAMA. 2020 Jun 3. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.9740. 3. Wang J et al. Associations between loneliness and perceived social support and outcomes of mental health problems: A systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. 2018 May 29;18(1):156.

4. Luo Y et al. Loneliness, health, and mortality in old age: A national longitudinal study. Soc Sci Med. 2012 Mar;74(6):907-14.

5. Smith KJ et al. The association between loneliness, social isolation, and inflammation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020 Feb 21; 112:519-41.

6. Maunder R et al. The immediate psychological and occupational impact of the 2003 SARS outbreak in a teaching hospital. CMAJ. 2003 May 13;168(10):1245-51.

7. Masi CM et al. A meta-analysis of interventions to reduce loneliness. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2011 Aug;15(3):219-66.

During a busy morning of rounds, our patient, Mrs. M., appeared distraught. She was diagnosed with COVID-19 2 weeks prior and remained inpatient because of medicosocial reasons. Since admission she remained on the same ward, in the same room, cared for by the same group of providers donned in masks, gowns, gloves, and face shields. The personal protective equipment helped to shield us from the virus, but it also shielded Mrs. M. from us.

During initial interaction, Mrs. M. appeared anxious, tearful, and detached. It seemed that she recognized a new voice; however, she did not express much interest in engaging during the visit. When she realized that she was not being discharged, Mrs. M. appeared to lose further interest. She wanted to go home. Her outpatient dialysis arrangements were not complete, and that precluded hospital discharge. Prescribed anxiolytics were doing little to relieve her symptoms.

The next day, Mrs. M. continued to ask if she could go home. She stated that there was nothing for her to do while in the hospital. She was tired of watching TV, she was unable to call her friends, and was not able to see her family. Because of COVID-19 status, Mrs. M was not permitted to leave her hospital room, and she was transported to the dialysis unit via stretcher, being unable to walk. The more we talked, the more engaged Mrs. M. had become. When it was time to complete the encounter, Mrs. M. started pleading with us to “stay a little longer, please don’t leave.”

Throughout her hospitalization, Mrs. M. had an extremely limited number of human encounters. Those encounters were fragmented and brief, centered on the infection mitigation. The chaplain was not permitted to enter her room, and she was unwilling to use the phone. The subspecialty consultants utilized telemedicine visits. As a result, Mrs. M. felt isolated and lonely. Social distancing in the hospital makes human interactions particularly challenging and contributes to the development of isolation, loneliness, and fear.
 

Loneliness is real

Loneliness is the “subjective experience of involuntary social isolation.”¹ As the COVID-19 pandemic began to entrap the world in early 2020, many people have faced new challenges – loneliness and its impact on physical and mental health. The prevalence of loneliness nearly tripled in the early months of the pandemic, leading to psychological distress and reopening conversations on ethical issues.²

Ethical implications of loneliness

Social distancing challenges all four main ethical principles: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. How do we reconcile these principles from the standpoint of each affected individual, their caregivers, health care providers, and public health at large? How can we continue to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, but also remain attentive to our patients who are still in need of human interactions to recover and thrive?

Social distancing is important, but so is social interaction. What strategies do we have in place to combat loneliness? How do we help our hospitalized patients who feel connected to the “outside world?” Is battling loneliness worth the risks of additional exposure to COVID-19? These dilemmas cannot be easily resolved. However, it is important for us to recognize the negative impacts of loneliness and identify measures to help our patients.

In our mission to fulfill the beneficence and nonmaleficence principles of caring for patients affected by COVID-19, patients like Mrs. M. lose much of their autonomy during hospital admission. Despite our best efforts, our isolated patients during the pandemic, remain alone, which further heightens their feeling of loneliness.
 

Clinical implications of loneliness

With the advancements in technology, our capabilities to substitute personal human interactions have grown exponentially. The use of telemedicine, video- and audio-conferencing communications have changed the landscape of our capacities to exchange information. This could be a blessing and a curse. While the use of digital platforms for virtual communication is tempting, we should preserve human interactions as much as possible, particularly when caring for patients affected by COVID-19. Interpersonal “connectedness” plays a crucial role in providing psychological and psychotherapeutic support, particularly when the number of human encounters is already limited.

Social distancing requirements have magnified loneliness. Several studies demonstrate that the perception of loneliness leads to poor health outcomes, including lower immunity, increased peripheral vascular resistance,³ and higher overall mortality.⁴ Loneliness can lead to functional impairment, such as poor social skills, and even increased inflammation.⁵ The negative emotional impact of SARS-CoV-2 echoes the experiences of patients affected by the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003. However, with COVID-19, we are witnessing the amplified effects of loneliness on a global scale. The majority of affected patients during the 2003 SARS outbreak in Canada reported loneliness, fear, aggression, and boredom: They had concerns about the impacts of the infection on loved ones, and psychological support was required for many patients with mild to moderate SARS disease.⁶
 

Nonpharmacological management strategies for battling loneliness

Utilization of early supportive services has been well described in literature and includes extending additional resources such as books, newspapers and, most importantly, additional in-person time to our patients.⁶ Maintaining rapport with patients’ families is also helpful in reducing anxiety and fear. The following measures have been suggested to prevent the negative impacts of loneliness and should be considered when caring for hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19.⁷

• Screen patients for depression and delirium and utilize delirium prevention measures throughout the hospitalization.
• Educate patients about the signs and symptoms of loneliness, fear, and anxiety.
• Extend additional resources to patients, including books, magazines, and newspapers.
• Keep the patient’s cell or hospital phone within their reach.
• Adequately manage pain and prevent insomnia.
• Communicate frequently, utilizing audio- and visual-teleconferencing platforms that simultaneously include the patient and their loved ones.
• For patients who continue to exhibit feelings of loneliness despite the above interventions, consider consultations with psychiatry to offer additional coping strategies.
• Ensure a multidisciplinary approach when applicable – proactive consultation with the members of a palliative care team, ethics, spiritual health, social and ancillary services.

It is important to recognize how vulnerable our patients are. Diagnosed with COVID-19, and caught in the midst of the current pandemic, not only do they suffer from the physical effects of this novel disease, but they also have to endure prolonged confinement, social isolation, and uncertainty – all wrapped in a cloak of loneliness and fear.

With our main focus being on the management of a largely unknown viral illness, patients’ personal experiences can be easily overlooked. It is vital for us as health care providers on the front lines to recognize, reflect, and reform to ease our patients’ journey through COVID-19.

Dr. Burklin is an assistant professor of medicine, division of hospital medicine, at the department of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Wiley is an assistant professor of medicine, division of infectious disease, at the department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta.

References

1. Schlomann A et al. Use of information and communication technology (ICT) devices among the oldest-old: Loneliness, anomie, and autonomy. Innov Aging. 2020 Jan 1;4(2):igz050.

2. McGinty E et al. Psychological distress and loneliness reported by U.S. adults in 2018 and April 2020. JAMA. 2020 Jun 3. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.9740. 3. Wang J et al. Associations between loneliness and perceived social support and outcomes of mental health problems: A systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. 2018 May 29;18(1):156.

4. Luo Y et al. Loneliness, health, and mortality in old age: A national longitudinal study. Soc Sci Med. 2012 Mar;74(6):907-14.

5. Smith KJ et al. The association between loneliness, social isolation, and inflammation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020 Feb 21; 112:519-41.

6. Maunder R et al. The immediate psychological and occupational impact of the 2003 SARS outbreak in a teaching hospital. CMAJ. 2003 May 13;168(10):1245-51.

7. Masi CM et al. A meta-analysis of interventions to reduce loneliness. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2011 Aug;15(3):219-66.

A physician assistant participating in a virtual workshop began to cry, confessing that she felt overwhelmed with guilt because New Yorkers were hailing her as a frontline hero in the pandemic. That was when Joe Ciavarro knew he was in the right place.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

“She was saying all the things I could not verbalize because I, too, didn’t feel like I deserved all this praise and thousands of people cheering for us every evening when people were losing jobs, didn’t have money for food, and their loved ones were dying without family at their side,” says Mr. Ciavarro, a PA at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

Mr. Ciavarro, who also manages 170 other PAs on two of Mount Sinai’s campuses in Manhattan, has been on the front lines since COVID-19 first hit; he lost a colleague and friend to suicide in September.

The mental anguish from his job prompted him to sign up for the resilience workshop offered by Mount Sinai’s Center for Stress, Resilience, and Personal Growth. The center – the first of its kind in North America – was launched in June to help health care workers like him cope with the intense psychological pressures they were facing. The weekly workshops became a safe place where Mr. Ciavarro and other staff members could share their darkest fears and learn ways to help them deal with their situation.

“It’s been grueling but we learned how to take care of ourselves so we can take care of our patients,” said Mr. Ciavarro. “This has become like a guided group therapy session on ways to manage and develop resilience. And I feel like my emotions are validated, knowing that others feel the same way.”
 

Caring for their own

Medical professionals treating patients with COVID-19 are in similar predicaments, and the psychological fallout is enormous: They’re exhausted by the seemingly never-ending patient load and staffing shortages, and haunted by fears for their own safety and that of their families. Studies in China, Canada, and Italy have revealed that a significant number of doctors and nurses in the early days of the pandemic experienced high levels of distress, depression, anxiety, nightmares, and insomnia.

Trauma experts at Mount Sinai believe that, globally, up to 40% of first responders and health care workers – tens of thousands of people – will suffer from PTSD after witnessing the deaths of so many patients who were alone, without family.

How to protect in midst of trauma

In formulating the program’s platform, Mount Sinai experts drew upon their extensive experience aiding 9/11 responders at the World Trade Center (WTC), as well as their system-wide wellness program that aids demoralized and burned-out physicians. While the reach of the pandemic is much broader than 9/11, experts see some commonalities in conditions that emerge after traumatic events, and they also discovered what can help.

“We learned from our WTC experience about what are protective factors – what are the social supports that buffer against depression, anxiety, and PTSD,” said Jonathan DePierro, PhD, clinical director of CSRPG and a psychologist at the Mount Sinai WTC Mental Health Program. “We also learned that people who have more prolonged exposures are at greater risk of developing mental health difficulties.”

The program itself reflects these lessons – and that’s why it’s open to all employees, not just medical professionals. Housekeepers, security staffers, even construction workers are also dealing with their lives being in danger. “That wasn’t in their job description,” said Dr. DePierro. “These people tend to have fewer social and economic resources, make less money and have fewer structural supports, which makes them even more vulnerable.”

Dr. Charney’s strategies on building resilience became a bible of sorts for the workshops, according to Dr. Katz, who authored the training curriculum. Sessions deal with how to build up reservoirs of realistic optimism, keep gratitude journals, find spiritual meaning in their lives, maintain physical wellness and create networks of social support. The workshops are meant to help participants create action plans, to reach out for support in their social networks, and keep the focus on the positives.

The goal is to give demoralized health care workers a renewed sense of competence. “The resilience workshop is a launching point to get people to show up and talk,” said Dr. Katz. “And if we do that, we’ve accomplished a lot just getting people in the door.”

The center will also have a research component to identify what works and what doesn’t so their platform can provide a template for other institutions; Dr. Marin said they’ve gotten inquiries about the program from major hospital systems in Michigan and California. They’ll also conduct longitudinal research to determine what lingering problems persist among healthcare workers over time.

Since the center opened its virtual doors, the curriculum has also been altered in response to feedback from the support staff, many of whom live in the community that surrounds Mount Sinai in northern Manhattan, which is largely lower-income Latinx and Black individuals. Workshop materials have been translated into Spanish and now feature people who reflect a more diverse set of experiences.

“Many of our employees and the population we serve identify as non-White so we’ve been doing outreach with a lot of the local unions,” said Dr. Marin. “Our next step is to take what we’re doing and work with local community organizations.”

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

A physician assistant participating in a virtual workshop began to cry, confessing that she felt overwhelmed with guilt because New Yorkers were hailing her as a frontline hero in the pandemic. That was when Joe Ciavarro knew he was in the right place.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

“She was saying all the things I could not verbalize because I, too, didn’t feel like I deserved all this praise and thousands of people cheering for us every evening when people were losing jobs, didn’t have money for food, and their loved ones were dying without family at their side,” says Mr. Ciavarro, a PA at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

Mr. Ciavarro, who also manages 170 other PAs on two of Mount Sinai’s campuses in Manhattan, has been on the front lines since COVID-19 first hit; he lost a colleague and friend to suicide in September.

The mental anguish from his job prompted him to sign up for the resilience workshop offered by Mount Sinai’s Center for Stress, Resilience, and Personal Growth. The center – the first of its kind in North America – was launched in June to help health care workers like him cope with the intense psychological pressures they were facing. The weekly workshops became a safe place where Mr. Ciavarro and other staff members could share their darkest fears and learn ways to help them deal with their situation.

“It’s been grueling but we learned how to take care of ourselves so we can take care of our patients,” said Mr. Ciavarro. “This has become like a guided group therapy session on ways to manage and develop resilience. And I feel like my emotions are validated, knowing that others feel the same way.”
 

Caring for their own

Medical professionals treating patients with COVID-19 are in similar predicaments, and the psychological fallout is enormous: They’re exhausted by the seemingly never-ending patient load and staffing shortages, and haunted by fears for their own safety and that of their families. Studies in China, Canada, and Italy have revealed that a significant number of doctors and nurses in the early days of the pandemic experienced high levels of distress, depression, anxiety, nightmares, and insomnia.

Trauma experts at Mount Sinai believe that, globally, up to 40% of first responders and health care workers – tens of thousands of people – will suffer from PTSD after witnessing the deaths of so many patients who were alone, without family.

How to protect in midst of trauma

In formulating the program’s platform, Mount Sinai experts drew upon their extensive experience aiding 9/11 responders at the World Trade Center (WTC), as well as their system-wide wellness program that aids demoralized and burned-out physicians. While the reach of the pandemic is much broader than 9/11, experts see some commonalities in conditions that emerge after traumatic events, and they also discovered what can help.

“We learned from our WTC experience about what are protective factors – what are the social supports that buffer against depression, anxiety, and PTSD,” said Jonathan DePierro, PhD, clinical director of CSRPG and a psychologist at the Mount Sinai WTC Mental Health Program. “We also learned that people who have more prolonged exposures are at greater risk of developing mental health difficulties.”

The program itself reflects these lessons – and that’s why it’s open to all employees, not just medical professionals. Housekeepers, security staffers, even construction workers are also dealing with their lives being in danger. “That wasn’t in their job description,” said Dr. DePierro. “These people tend to have fewer social and economic resources, make less money and have fewer structural supports, which makes them even more vulnerable.”

Dr. Charney’s strategies on building resilience became a bible of sorts for the workshops, according to Dr. Katz, who authored the training curriculum. Sessions deal with how to build up reservoirs of realistic optimism, keep gratitude journals, find spiritual meaning in their lives, maintain physical wellness and create networks of social support. The workshops are meant to help participants create action plans, to reach out for support in their social networks, and keep the focus on the positives.

The goal is to give demoralized health care workers a renewed sense of competence. “The resilience workshop is a launching point to get people to show up and talk,” said Dr. Katz. “And if we do that, we’ve accomplished a lot just getting people in the door.”

The center will also have a research component to identify what works and what doesn’t so their platform can provide a template for other institutions; Dr. Marin said they’ve gotten inquiries about the program from major hospital systems in Michigan and California. They’ll also conduct longitudinal research to determine what lingering problems persist among healthcare workers over time.

Since the center opened its virtual doors, the curriculum has also been altered in response to feedback from the support staff, many of whom live in the community that surrounds Mount Sinai in northern Manhattan, which is largely lower-income Latinx and Black individuals. Workshop materials have been translated into Spanish and now feature people who reflect a more diverse set of experiences.

“Many of our employees and the population we serve identify as non-White so we’ve been doing outreach with a lot of the local unions,” said Dr. Marin. “Our next step is to take what we’re doing and work with local community organizations.”

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

A physician assistant participating in a virtual workshop began to cry, confessing that she felt overwhelmed with guilt because New Yorkers were hailing her as a frontline hero in the pandemic. That was when Joe Ciavarro knew he was in the right place.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

“She was saying all the things I could not verbalize because I, too, didn’t feel like I deserved all this praise and thousands of people cheering for us every evening when people were losing jobs, didn’t have money for food, and their loved ones were dying without family at their side,” says Mr. Ciavarro, a PA at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

Mr. Ciavarro, who also manages 170 other PAs on two of Mount Sinai’s campuses in Manhattan, has been on the front lines since COVID-19 first hit; he lost a colleague and friend to suicide in September.

The mental anguish from his job prompted him to sign up for the resilience workshop offered by Mount Sinai’s Center for Stress, Resilience, and Personal Growth. The center – the first of its kind in North America – was launched in June to help health care workers like him cope with the intense psychological pressures they were facing. The weekly workshops became a safe place where Mr. Ciavarro and other staff members could share their darkest fears and learn ways to help them deal with their situation.

“It’s been grueling but we learned how to take care of ourselves so we can take care of our patients,” said Mr. Ciavarro. “This has become like a guided group therapy session on ways to manage and develop resilience. And I feel like my emotions are validated, knowing that others feel the same way.”
 

Caring for their own

Medical professionals treating patients with COVID-19 are in similar predicaments, and the psychological fallout is enormous: They’re exhausted by the seemingly never-ending patient load and staffing shortages, and haunted by fears for their own safety and that of their families. Studies in China, Canada, and Italy have revealed that a significant number of doctors and nurses in the early days of the pandemic experienced high levels of distress, depression, anxiety, nightmares, and insomnia.

Trauma experts at Mount Sinai believe that, globally, up to 40% of first responders and health care workers – tens of thousands of people – will suffer from PTSD after witnessing the deaths of so many patients who were alone, without family.

How to protect in midst of trauma

In formulating the program’s platform, Mount Sinai experts drew upon their extensive experience aiding 9/11 responders at the World Trade Center (WTC), as well as their system-wide wellness program that aids demoralized and burned-out physicians. While the reach of the pandemic is much broader than 9/11, experts see some commonalities in conditions that emerge after traumatic events, and they also discovered what can help.

“We learned from our WTC experience about what are protective factors – what are the social supports that buffer against depression, anxiety, and PTSD,” said Jonathan DePierro, PhD, clinical director of CSRPG and a psychologist at the Mount Sinai WTC Mental Health Program. “We also learned that people who have more prolonged exposures are at greater risk of developing mental health difficulties.”

The program itself reflects these lessons – and that’s why it’s open to all employees, not just medical professionals. Housekeepers, security staffers, even construction workers are also dealing with their lives being in danger. “That wasn’t in their job description,” said Dr. DePierro. “These people tend to have fewer social and economic resources, make less money and have fewer structural supports, which makes them even more vulnerable.”

Dr. Charney’s strategies on building resilience became a bible of sorts for the workshops, according to Dr. Katz, who authored the training curriculum. Sessions deal with how to build up reservoirs of realistic optimism, keep gratitude journals, find spiritual meaning in their lives, maintain physical wellness and create networks of social support. The workshops are meant to help participants create action plans, to reach out for support in their social networks, and keep the focus on the positives.

The goal is to give demoralized health care workers a renewed sense of competence. “The resilience workshop is a launching point to get people to show up and talk,” said Dr. Katz. “And if we do that, we’ve accomplished a lot just getting people in the door.”

The center will also have a research component to identify what works and what doesn’t so their platform can provide a template for other institutions; Dr. Marin said they’ve gotten inquiries about the program from major hospital systems in Michigan and California. They’ll also conduct longitudinal research to determine what lingering problems persist among healthcare workers over time.

Since the center opened its virtual doors, the curriculum has also been altered in response to feedback from the support staff, many of whom live in the community that surrounds Mount Sinai in northern Manhattan, which is largely lower-income Latinx and Black individuals. Workshop materials have been translated into Spanish and now feature people who reflect a more diverse set of experiences.

“Many of our employees and the population we serve identify as non-White so we’ve been doing outreach with a lot of the local unions,” said Dr. Marin. “Our next step is to take what we’re doing and work with local community organizations.”

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

An intense and assertive “won’t take no for an answer” approach is effective for engaging in treatment young adults with substance abuse who have been in and out of various recovery programs for years, new research suggests.

The Youth Opioid Recovery Support (YORS) program is a team effort that includes home delivery of the prescribed medication, family engagement, assertive outreach, and contingency management.

In a new study of 42 patients in recovery for substance use disorder (SUD), those who were treated with extended-release naltrexone or extended-release buprenorphine plus YORS received more outpatient doses of their medication, and rates of opioid relapse at 12 and 24 weeks were lower compared with their peers who received only treatment as usual.

“These developmentally vulnerable youths need something extra that is specifically targeted to who they are and their vulnerabilities,” coinvestigator Marc Fishman, MD, director of the Maryland Treatment Centers, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry 31st Annual Meeting.
 

Treatment barriers

Young adults with SUD are difficult to reach, which leads to decreased addiction program retention, decreased medication adherence, early drop out, waxing and waning motivation, and worse outcomes, compared with older adults with SUD, Dr. Fishman said.

In July, positive results from a pilot trial conducted by the investigators of YORS were published online in Addiction.

In that study, 41 young adults aged 18-26 years who intended to undergo treatment for SUD with extended-release naltrexone were randomly assigned to also undergo YORS or treatment as usual, which consisted of a standard referral to outpatient care following an inpatient stay.

The primary outcomes were number of medication doses received over 24 weeks and relapse to opioid use, which was defined as 10 or more days of use within 28 days at 24 weeks.

Participants in the YORS group received more doses of extended-release naltrexone (mean, 4.28; standard deviation, 2.3) than participants in the treatment-as-usual group (mean, 0.70; SD, 1.2; P < .01).

In the YORS group, rates of relapse at both 12 and 24 weeks were lower, and there were fewer overall days of opioid use.

For the current study, the investigators wanted to test whether there was a possible effect when patients were given a choice of medication. In the earlier trial, patients did not have a choice – they had to take extended-release naltrexone. In this study, they could opt for it or extended-release buprenorphine.

The researchers recruited 22 young adults (aged 18-26 years) from their inpatient clinic to participate. Half the patients chose to take extended-release naltrexone, and the other half chose extended-release buprenorphine.

The groups were then compared to a historical group of 20 patients who received treatment as usual and served as the control group.
 

Positive outcomes

As in the first study, outcomes in the new study were better with YORS.

All participants who underwent YORS received more outpatient medication doses at 12 weeks and 24 weeks than those who received treatment as usual (1.91 vs. 0.40 and 3.76 vs. 0.70, respectively; P < .001).

For the YORS group, rates of opioid relapse were lower at 12 weeks (27.3% vs. 75.0%) and at 24 weeks (52.9% vs. 95.0%; P < .01.)

All components of YORS work together to improve retention, Dr. Fishman noted. Patients do much better if a relative such as a mother, father, or grandmother is closely involved, he added.

Also important is drug delivery.

“In some ways, this is similar to the assertive community treatment, or ACT, for schizophrenia. Like substance use disorder, schizophrenia requires long-acting injectable antipsychotics. When that is delivered to the patient through an organized delivery service like YORS, it improves outcomes,” said Dr. Fishman.

SUD is a chronic, relapsing illness in which an individual’s judgment is impaired, he added.

“ACT has become a relatively standard feature of treatment in most communities in this country and internationally and is sustainable under public sector funding, so it’s not an impossible leap to say it could be done. But it will not be cheap,” Dr. Fishman said.
 

Removing barriers

In a comment, Serra Akyar, MD, a psychiatry resident at Northwell Health’s Staten Island University Hospital, New York, said that the YORS program may appear to be labor intensive.

“However, the combination of medication-assisted treatment and support are essential to the treatment of opioid use disorder, especially for young adults. Developing effective interventions for young adults is particularly important, given the plasticity of their brains,” said Dr. Akyar, who was not involved with the research.

Inability to access medication and a lack of a supportive environment, both in everyday life and in regards to therapy, are barriers to successful treatment, she noted.

“The YORS intervention aims to remove these barriers to further enhance engagement to care through a combination of medication delivery and family engagement and assertive outreach via text messaging, a modality presumed to be well received by youth,” Dr. Akyar said.

Despite having a limited sample size, the study shows how a comprehensive intervention can have a large impact on the maintenance of medication adherence and reduction of relapse in young adults, she added.

“Its early success is encouraging and warrants further study on a larger scale to determine long-term effectiveness, overall costs and feasibility, generalizability, and whether certain independent factors exist that may predict medication adherence and reduction of relapse,” she said.
 

Wraparound support

The study is also a significant reminder that the opioid crisis has affected the young adult population, who are very vulnerable to OUD, said Jose Vito, MD, child, adolescent, and addiction psychiatrist at New York University.

“The study made me realize the importance of the four components of YORS, which were the outreach, family involvement, home delivery, and monetary incentives,” Dr. Vito said in an interview.

All of these components, in addition to extended-release naltrexone or extended-release buprenorphine, “have contributed to lower rates of opioid relapse, and the relapses are much later in the course of treatment if they do occur,” he said.

Overall, the findings demonstrate the importance of not giving up on these youths, he noted.

“Programs like YORS that provide wraparound support can help alleviate the opioid health care crisis by keeping these young adults in treatment,” Dr. Vito concluded.

The study was funded by the University of Maryland Center for Addiction Research, Education, and Service. Dr. Fishman has a financial relationship with Alkermes.

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

An intense and assertive “won’t take no for an answer” approach is effective for engaging in treatment young adults with substance abuse who have been in and out of various recovery programs for years, new research suggests.

The Youth Opioid Recovery Support (YORS) program is a team effort that includes home delivery of the prescribed medication, family engagement, assertive outreach, and contingency management.

In a new study of 42 patients in recovery for substance use disorder (SUD), those who were treated with extended-release naltrexone or extended-release buprenorphine plus YORS received more outpatient doses of their medication, and rates of opioid relapse at 12 and 24 weeks were lower compared with their peers who received only treatment as usual.

“These developmentally vulnerable youths need something extra that is specifically targeted to who they are and their vulnerabilities,” coinvestigator Marc Fishman, MD, director of the Maryland Treatment Centers, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry 31st Annual Meeting.
 

Treatment barriers

Young adults with SUD are difficult to reach, which leads to decreased addiction program retention, decreased medication adherence, early drop out, waxing and waning motivation, and worse outcomes, compared with older adults with SUD, Dr. Fishman said.

In July, positive results from a pilot trial conducted by the investigators of YORS were published online in Addiction.

In that study, 41 young adults aged 18-26 years who intended to undergo treatment for SUD with extended-release naltrexone were randomly assigned to also undergo YORS or treatment as usual, which consisted of a standard referral to outpatient care following an inpatient stay.

The primary outcomes were number of medication doses received over 24 weeks and relapse to opioid use, which was defined as 10 or more days of use within 28 days at 24 weeks.

Participants in the YORS group received more doses of extended-release naltrexone (mean, 4.28; standard deviation, 2.3) than participants in the treatment-as-usual group (mean, 0.70; SD, 1.2; P < .01).

In the YORS group, rates of relapse at both 12 and 24 weeks were lower, and there were fewer overall days of opioid use.

For the current study, the investigators wanted to test whether there was a possible effect when patients were given a choice of medication. In the earlier trial, patients did not have a choice – they had to take extended-release naltrexone. In this study, they could opt for it or extended-release buprenorphine.

The researchers recruited 22 young adults (aged 18-26 years) from their inpatient clinic to participate. Half the patients chose to take extended-release naltrexone, and the other half chose extended-release buprenorphine.

The groups were then compared to a historical group of 20 patients who received treatment as usual and served as the control group.
 

Positive outcomes

As in the first study, outcomes in the new study were better with YORS.

All participants who underwent YORS received more outpatient medication doses at 12 weeks and 24 weeks than those who received treatment as usual (1.91 vs. 0.40 and 3.76 vs. 0.70, respectively; P < .001).

For the YORS group, rates of opioid relapse were lower at 12 weeks (27.3% vs. 75.0%) and at 24 weeks (52.9% vs. 95.0%; P < .01.)

All components of YORS work together to improve retention, Dr. Fishman noted. Patients do much better if a relative such as a mother, father, or grandmother is closely involved, he added.

Also important is drug delivery.

“In some ways, this is similar to the assertive community treatment, or ACT, for schizophrenia. Like substance use disorder, schizophrenia requires long-acting injectable antipsychotics. When that is delivered to the patient through an organized delivery service like YORS, it improves outcomes,” said Dr. Fishman.

SUD is a chronic, relapsing illness in which an individual’s judgment is impaired, he added.

“ACT has become a relatively standard feature of treatment in most communities in this country and internationally and is sustainable under public sector funding, so it’s not an impossible leap to say it could be done. But it will not be cheap,” Dr. Fishman said.
 

Removing barriers

In a comment, Serra Akyar, MD, a psychiatry resident at Northwell Health’s Staten Island University Hospital, New York, said that the YORS program may appear to be labor intensive.

“However, the combination of medication-assisted treatment and support are essential to the treatment of opioid use disorder, especially for young adults. Developing effective interventions for young adults is particularly important, given the plasticity of their brains,” said Dr. Akyar, who was not involved with the research.

Inability to access medication and a lack of a supportive environment, both in everyday life and in regards to therapy, are barriers to successful treatment, she noted.

“The YORS intervention aims to remove these barriers to further enhance engagement to care through a combination of medication delivery and family engagement and assertive outreach via text messaging, a modality presumed to be well received by youth,” Dr. Akyar said.

Despite having a limited sample size, the study shows how a comprehensive intervention can have a large impact on the maintenance of medication adherence and reduction of relapse in young adults, she added.

“Its early success is encouraging and warrants further study on a larger scale to determine long-term effectiveness, overall costs and feasibility, generalizability, and whether certain independent factors exist that may predict medication adherence and reduction of relapse,” she said.
 

Wraparound support

The study is also a significant reminder that the opioid crisis has affected the young adult population, who are very vulnerable to OUD, said Jose Vito, MD, child, adolescent, and addiction psychiatrist at New York University.

“The study made me realize the importance of the four components of YORS, which were the outreach, family involvement, home delivery, and monetary incentives,” Dr. Vito said in an interview.

All of these components, in addition to extended-release naltrexone or extended-release buprenorphine, “have contributed to lower rates of opioid relapse, and the relapses are much later in the course of treatment if they do occur,” he said.

Overall, the findings demonstrate the importance of not giving up on these youths, he noted.

“Programs like YORS that provide wraparound support can help alleviate the opioid health care crisis by keeping these young adults in treatment,” Dr. Vito concluded.

The study was funded by the University of Maryland Center for Addiction Research, Education, and Service. Dr. Fishman has a financial relationship with Alkermes.

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

An intense and assertive “won’t take no for an answer” approach is effective for engaging in treatment young adults with substance abuse who have been in and out of various recovery programs for years, new research suggests.

The Youth Opioid Recovery Support (YORS) program is a team effort that includes home delivery of the prescribed medication, family engagement, assertive outreach, and contingency management.

In a new study of 42 patients in recovery for substance use disorder (SUD), those who were treated with extended-release naltrexone or extended-release buprenorphine plus YORS received more outpatient doses of their medication, and rates of opioid relapse at 12 and 24 weeks were lower compared with their peers who received only treatment as usual.

“These developmentally vulnerable youths need something extra that is specifically targeted to who they are and their vulnerabilities,” coinvestigator Marc Fishman, MD, director of the Maryland Treatment Centers, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry 31st Annual Meeting.
 

Treatment barriers

Young adults with SUD are difficult to reach, which leads to decreased addiction program retention, decreased medication adherence, early drop out, waxing and waning motivation, and worse outcomes, compared with older adults with SUD, Dr. Fishman said.

In July, positive results from a pilot trial conducted by the investigators of YORS were published online in Addiction.

In that study, 41 young adults aged 18-26 years who intended to undergo treatment for SUD with extended-release naltrexone were randomly assigned to also undergo YORS or treatment as usual, which consisted of a standard referral to outpatient care following an inpatient stay.

The primary outcomes were number of medication doses received over 24 weeks and relapse to opioid use, which was defined as 10 or more days of use within 28 days at 24 weeks.

Participants in the YORS group received more doses of extended-release naltrexone (mean, 4.28; standard deviation, 2.3) than participants in the treatment-as-usual group (mean, 0.70; SD, 1.2; P < .01).

In the YORS group, rates of relapse at both 12 and 24 weeks were lower, and there were fewer overall days of opioid use.

For the current study, the investigators wanted to test whether there was a possible effect when patients were given a choice of medication. In the earlier trial, patients did not have a choice – they had to take extended-release naltrexone. In this study, they could opt for it or extended-release buprenorphine.

The researchers recruited 22 young adults (aged 18-26 years) from their inpatient clinic to participate. Half the patients chose to take extended-release naltrexone, and the other half chose extended-release buprenorphine.

The groups were then compared to a historical group of 20 patients who received treatment as usual and served as the control group.
 

Positive outcomes

As in the first study, outcomes in the new study were better with YORS.

All participants who underwent YORS received more outpatient medication doses at 12 weeks and 24 weeks than those who received treatment as usual (1.91 vs. 0.40 and 3.76 vs. 0.70, respectively; P < .001).

For the YORS group, rates of opioid relapse were lower at 12 weeks (27.3% vs. 75.0%) and at 24 weeks (52.9% vs. 95.0%; P < .01.)

All components of YORS work together to improve retention, Dr. Fishman noted. Patients do much better if a relative such as a mother, father, or grandmother is closely involved, he added.

Also important is drug delivery.

“In some ways, this is similar to the assertive community treatment, or ACT, for schizophrenia. Like substance use disorder, schizophrenia requires long-acting injectable antipsychotics. When that is delivered to the patient through an organized delivery service like YORS, it improves outcomes,” said Dr. Fishman.

SUD is a chronic, relapsing illness in which an individual’s judgment is impaired, he added.

“ACT has become a relatively standard feature of treatment in most communities in this country and internationally and is sustainable under public sector funding, so it’s not an impossible leap to say it could be done. But it will not be cheap,” Dr. Fishman said.
 

Removing barriers

In a comment, Serra Akyar, MD, a psychiatry resident at Northwell Health’s Staten Island University Hospital, New York, said that the YORS program may appear to be labor intensive.

“However, the combination of medication-assisted treatment and support are essential to the treatment of opioid use disorder, especially for young adults. Developing effective interventions for young adults is particularly important, given the plasticity of their brains,” said Dr. Akyar, who was not involved with the research.

Inability to access medication and a lack of a supportive environment, both in everyday life and in regards to therapy, are barriers to successful treatment, she noted.

“The YORS intervention aims to remove these barriers to further enhance engagement to care through a combination of medication delivery and family engagement and assertive outreach via text messaging, a modality presumed to be well received by youth,” Dr. Akyar said.

Despite having a limited sample size, the study shows how a comprehensive intervention can have a large impact on the maintenance of medication adherence and reduction of relapse in young adults, she added.

“Its early success is encouraging and warrants further study on a larger scale to determine long-term effectiveness, overall costs and feasibility, generalizability, and whether certain independent factors exist that may predict medication adherence and reduction of relapse,” she said.
 

Wraparound support

The study is also a significant reminder that the opioid crisis has affected the young adult population, who are very vulnerable to OUD, said Jose Vito, MD, child, adolescent, and addiction psychiatrist at New York University.

“The study made me realize the importance of the four components of YORS, which were the outreach, family involvement, home delivery, and monetary incentives,” Dr. Vito said in an interview.

All of these components, in addition to extended-release naltrexone or extended-release buprenorphine, “have contributed to lower rates of opioid relapse, and the relapses are much later in the course of treatment if they do occur,” he said.

Overall, the findings demonstrate the importance of not giving up on these youths, he noted.

“Programs like YORS that provide wraparound support can help alleviate the opioid health care crisis by keeping these young adults in treatment,” Dr. Vito concluded.

The study was funded by the University of Maryland Center for Addiction Research, Education, and Service. Dr. Fishman has a financial relationship with Alkermes.

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

Shared medical appointments (SMAs) are an acceptable way to receive treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), new research suggests.

In a survey study, participants attending an urban outpatient buprenorphine clinic reported a high degree of satisfaction with SMAs. However, the majority also reported they preferred individual appointments.

Still, SMAs may serve a role in providing comprehensive care for certain subpopulations with OUD who are prone to isolation and may also increase capacity to treat more patients with a substance use disorder (SUD), said coinvestigator Serra Akyar, MD, Northwell Health Staten Island University Hospital, New York.

“By providing education and a forum for sharing, SMAs can lead to changes in behavior and enhance and reinforce coping and problem-solving skills,” Dr. Akyar said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry 31st Annual Meeting.
 

SMA vs. group therapy

SMA is not a form of group therapy, Dr. Akyar noted. Group therapy has a psychotherapy component and is led by a therapist. SMAs do not have a psychotherapeutic or a behavioral therapy component but provide education and an opportunity for sharing personal experiences of recovery.

“For example, the doctor participating in the group describes what happens in the brain to drive addiction and fellow participants share their personal anecdotes of recovery, including their struggles and successes,” Dr. Akyar said.

“While SMAs and group therapy seem similar, using the terms interchangeably would be incorrect given the differences in the type of care each group provides,” she added.

Recent research on SMAs for OUD is limited. Although previous studies have shown that the practice is highly acceptable and has comparable or better retention in care rates with buprenorphine versus individual appointments, these studies have been conducted in predominantly White populations and in suburban settings.

For the new study, the investigators wanted to examine how acceptable SMAs for OUD would be in an urban setting involving predominantly racial and ethnic minorities.

They administered a 15-minute survey to patients with OUD who were attending the Comprehensive Addiction Resources and Education Center, an outpatient psychiatry clinic located at New Jersey Medical School, from December 2019 to February 2020.

Of the 42 participants who initially consented, 39 completed the survey. The majority of the responders were Black (64.1%), had an annual income that was less than $20,000 (61.5%), and/or were unemployed or disabled (69.3%).

Most of the participants agreed or strongly agreed with the following statements:

• Scheduling appointments for SMAs is easy.
• I gain valuable information from the responses to other patients’ questions in SMAs.
• There is enough time for questions during SMAs.
• I gain valuable information from the doctor and social worker in SMAs.
• My medical needs are met during SMAs.
• I would recommend an SMA to other patients.
• Since starting SMAs, I find it easier to stick to my treatment plan.
• I have a lot of support outside of SMAs.
• People in SMAs give me the support I need to stick to my treatment plan.

Interestingly, despite the overall high satisfaction with SMAs, just 33% of participants said they preferred them to one-on-one visits, Dr. Akyar noted.

Further analyses showed that total satisfaction scores were positively associated with older age, being on disability, or being in retirement.
 

Bridging the gap

In a comment, Philip Wong, MD, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, noted that a more widespread use of SMAs could potentially bridge the treatment gap that currently exists in the United States.

“For providers, SMAs help reduce costs, improve productivity, prevent repeating of common advice, and increase outreach. These are all important at a time when the need for OUD treatment is increasing. This is especially true for places like Newark, which is one of the prime epicenters of the opioid epidemic,” said Dr. Wong.

Although he was not involved with this research, he and his colleagues recently conducted a literature review of publications relating to SMAs and found seven peer-reviewed articles. However, none was appropriately designed to compare SMAs with traditional one-on-one recovery treatment.

“We definitely need more clinical studies to further our understanding of SMAs as a tool for the medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder,” Dr. Wong said.

“There are currently a very limited number of physicians who can prescribe medication-assisted treatment in the first place. So, if that one provider can reach a larger community by doing these SMAs, then the potential is very great in terms of addressing the opioid epidemic,” he said.

David Kan, MD, chief medical officer of Bright Heart Health, San Ramon, Calif., agreed.

“SMAs are promising because they are efficient and allow more people to access treatment,” Dr. Kan said in an interview.

“Although the mechanism of SMA satisfaction is unclear, other research shows peer support and groups helpful for SUD treatment as a whole. SMA takes the best of many worlds and increases the potential number of patients treated for SUD,” he said.

Also asked to comment, Lewei (Allison) Lin, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said SMAs “are one of a number of important interventions that should be considered” in order to increase availability and access to medication providers for OUD.

However, more research is needed “to examine the impact on treatment uptake and patient and provider experiences,” said Dr. Lin.

Dr. Akyar, Dr. Wong, Dr. Kan, and Dr. Lin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Shared medical appointments (SMAs) are an acceptable way to receive treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), new research suggests.

In a survey study, participants attending an urban outpatient buprenorphine clinic reported a high degree of satisfaction with SMAs. However, the majority also reported they preferred individual appointments.

Still, SMAs may serve a role in providing comprehensive care for certain subpopulations with OUD who are prone to isolation and may also increase capacity to treat more patients with a substance use disorder (SUD), said coinvestigator Serra Akyar, MD, Northwell Health Staten Island University Hospital, New York.

“By providing education and a forum for sharing, SMAs can lead to changes in behavior and enhance and reinforce coping and problem-solving skills,” Dr. Akyar said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry 31st Annual Meeting.
 

SMA vs. group therapy

SMA is not a form of group therapy, Dr. Akyar noted. Group therapy has a psychotherapy component and is led by a therapist. SMAs do not have a psychotherapeutic or a behavioral therapy component but provide education and an opportunity for sharing personal experiences of recovery.

“For example, the doctor participating in the group describes what happens in the brain to drive addiction and fellow participants share their personal anecdotes of recovery, including their struggles and successes,” Dr. Akyar said.

“While SMAs and group therapy seem similar, using the terms interchangeably would be incorrect given the differences in the type of care each group provides,” she added.

Recent research on SMAs for OUD is limited. Although previous studies have shown that the practice is highly acceptable and has comparable or better retention in care rates with buprenorphine versus individual appointments, these studies have been conducted in predominantly White populations and in suburban settings.

For the new study, the investigators wanted to examine how acceptable SMAs for OUD would be in an urban setting involving predominantly racial and ethnic minorities.

They administered a 15-minute survey to patients with OUD who were attending the Comprehensive Addiction Resources and Education Center, an outpatient psychiatry clinic located at New Jersey Medical School, from December 2019 to February 2020.

Of the 42 participants who initially consented, 39 completed the survey. The majority of the responders were Black (64.1%), had an annual income that was less than $20,000 (61.5%), and/or were unemployed or disabled (69.3%).

Most of the participants agreed or strongly agreed with the following statements:

• Scheduling appointments for SMAs is easy.
• I gain valuable information from the responses to other patients’ questions in SMAs.
• There is enough time for questions during SMAs.
• I gain valuable information from the doctor and social worker in SMAs.
• My medical needs are met during SMAs.
• I would recommend an SMA to other patients.
• Since starting SMAs, I find it easier to stick to my treatment plan.
• I have a lot of support outside of SMAs.
• People in SMAs give me the support I need to stick to my treatment plan.

Interestingly, despite the overall high satisfaction with SMAs, just 33% of participants said they preferred them to one-on-one visits, Dr. Akyar noted.

Further analyses showed that total satisfaction scores were positively associated with older age, being on disability, or being in retirement.
 

Bridging the gap

In a comment, Philip Wong, MD, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, noted that a more widespread use of SMAs could potentially bridge the treatment gap that currently exists in the United States.

“For providers, SMAs help reduce costs, improve productivity, prevent repeating of common advice, and increase outreach. These are all important at a time when the need for OUD treatment is increasing. This is especially true for places like Newark, which is one of the prime epicenters of the opioid epidemic,” said Dr. Wong.

Although he was not involved with this research, he and his colleagues recently conducted a literature review of publications relating to SMAs and found seven peer-reviewed articles. However, none was appropriately designed to compare SMAs with traditional one-on-one recovery treatment.

“We definitely need more clinical studies to further our understanding of SMAs as a tool for the medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder,” Dr. Wong said.

“There are currently a very limited number of physicians who can prescribe medication-assisted treatment in the first place. So, if that one provider can reach a larger community by doing these SMAs, then the potential is very great in terms of addressing the opioid epidemic,” he said.

David Kan, MD, chief medical officer of Bright Heart Health, San Ramon, Calif., agreed.

“SMAs are promising because they are efficient and allow more people to access treatment,” Dr. Kan said in an interview.

“Although the mechanism of SMA satisfaction is unclear, other research shows peer support and groups helpful for SUD treatment as a whole. SMA takes the best of many worlds and increases the potential number of patients treated for SUD,” he said.

Also asked to comment, Lewei (Allison) Lin, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said SMAs “are one of a number of important interventions that should be considered” in order to increase availability and access to medication providers for OUD.

However, more research is needed “to examine the impact on treatment uptake and patient and provider experiences,” said Dr. Lin.

Dr. Akyar, Dr. Wong, Dr. Kan, and Dr. Lin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Shared medical appointments (SMAs) are an acceptable way to receive treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), new research suggests.

In a survey study, participants attending an urban outpatient buprenorphine clinic reported a high degree of satisfaction with SMAs. However, the majority also reported they preferred individual appointments.

Still, SMAs may serve a role in providing comprehensive care for certain subpopulations with OUD who are prone to isolation and may also increase capacity to treat more patients with a substance use disorder (SUD), said coinvestigator Serra Akyar, MD, Northwell Health Staten Island University Hospital, New York.

“By providing education and a forum for sharing, SMAs can lead to changes in behavior and enhance and reinforce coping and problem-solving skills,” Dr. Akyar said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry 31st Annual Meeting.
 

SMA vs. group therapy

SMA is not a form of group therapy, Dr. Akyar noted. Group therapy has a psychotherapy component and is led by a therapist. SMAs do not have a psychotherapeutic or a behavioral therapy component but provide education and an opportunity for sharing personal experiences of recovery.

“For example, the doctor participating in the group describes what happens in the brain to drive addiction and fellow participants share their personal anecdotes of recovery, including their struggles and successes,” Dr. Akyar said.

“While SMAs and group therapy seem similar, using the terms interchangeably would be incorrect given the differences in the type of care each group provides,” she added.

Recent research on SMAs for OUD is limited. Although previous studies have shown that the practice is highly acceptable and has comparable or better retention in care rates with buprenorphine versus individual appointments, these studies have been conducted in predominantly White populations and in suburban settings.

For the new study, the investigators wanted to examine how acceptable SMAs for OUD would be in an urban setting involving predominantly racial and ethnic minorities.

They administered a 15-minute survey to patients with OUD who were attending the Comprehensive Addiction Resources and Education Center, an outpatient psychiatry clinic located at New Jersey Medical School, from December 2019 to February 2020.

Of the 42 participants who initially consented, 39 completed the survey. The majority of the responders were Black (64.1%), had an annual income that was less than $20,000 (61.5%), and/or were unemployed or disabled (69.3%).

Most of the participants agreed or strongly agreed with the following statements:

• Scheduling appointments for SMAs is easy.
• I gain valuable information from the responses to other patients’ questions in SMAs.
• There is enough time for questions during SMAs.
• I gain valuable information from the doctor and social worker in SMAs.
• My medical needs are met during SMAs.
• I would recommend an SMA to other patients.
• Since starting SMAs, I find it easier to stick to my treatment plan.
• I have a lot of support outside of SMAs.
• People in SMAs give me the support I need to stick to my treatment plan.

Interestingly, despite the overall high satisfaction with SMAs, just 33% of participants said they preferred them to one-on-one visits, Dr. Akyar noted.

Further analyses showed that total satisfaction scores were positively associated with older age, being on disability, or being in retirement.
 

Bridging the gap

In a comment, Philip Wong, MD, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, noted that a more widespread use of SMAs could potentially bridge the treatment gap that currently exists in the United States.

“For providers, SMAs help reduce costs, improve productivity, prevent repeating of common advice, and increase outreach. These are all important at a time when the need for OUD treatment is increasing. This is especially true for places like Newark, which is one of the prime epicenters of the opioid epidemic,” said Dr. Wong.

Although he was not involved with this research, he and his colleagues recently conducted a literature review of publications relating to SMAs and found seven peer-reviewed articles. However, none was appropriately designed to compare SMAs with traditional one-on-one recovery treatment.

“We definitely need more clinical studies to further our understanding of SMAs as a tool for the medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder,” Dr. Wong said.

“There are currently a very limited number of physicians who can prescribe medication-assisted treatment in the first place. So, if that one provider can reach a larger community by doing these SMAs, then the potential is very great in terms of addressing the opioid epidemic,” he said.

David Kan, MD, chief medical officer of Bright Heart Health, San Ramon, Calif., agreed.

“SMAs are promising because they are efficient and allow more people to access treatment,” Dr. Kan said in an interview.

“Although the mechanism of SMA satisfaction is unclear, other research shows peer support and groups helpful for SUD treatment as a whole. SMA takes the best of many worlds and increases the potential number of patients treated for SUD,” he said.

Also asked to comment, Lewei (Allison) Lin, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said SMAs “are one of a number of important interventions that should be considered” in order to increase availability and access to medication providers for OUD.

However, more research is needed “to examine the impact on treatment uptake and patient and provider experiences,” said Dr. Lin.

Dr. Akyar, Dr. Wong, Dr. Kan, and Dr. Lin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Caring for LGBTQ+ pediatric patients often requires physicians to consider issues – such as preservation of fertility for transgender youth and resource allocation to sexual-minority youth in the foster-care system – that they may not think about as frequently with their other patients.

monkeybusinessimages/Getty Images

“It’s important to engage transgender and gender-diverse youth and families in fertility counseling early in their gender affirmation process,” but it does not happen as often as it should, said Jason Rafferty, MD (he/him/his), a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Rafferty discussed two studies at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year: one on fertility outcomes among a small transgender sample and another finding that sexual-minority youth are 2.5 times more likely to be involved in the foster-care system.

“We need to recognize and address disparities in health that place sexual-minority youth at increased risk for child welfare involvement,” he told attendees.
 

Fertility preservation and counseling for transgender patients

Evidence suggests gender-affirming hormone treatment affects gonadal structures and functions in ways that may decrease fertility potential, Dr. Rafferty said. “Yet, there’s very little [research] into the reversibility or thresholds above which fertility potential is affected.”

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) recommends that doctors discuss the possible adverse health effects of feminizing or masculinizing treatments and the patient’s reproductive options before starting hormone therapy, although the extent to which this therapy may impair fertility isn’t known.

The first study Dr. Rafferty discussed was an assessment of semen cryopreservation outcomes among youth asserting a female identity. The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review on a convenience sample of 11 transgender and gender-diverse adolescents and young adults who had been referred for fertility preservation between January 2015 and September 2018 at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Children’s Hospital and the UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital in Pittsburgh.

Of the 11, 1 did not provide a sample, and another discarded their sample after 4 months. The seven patients without prior gender-affirming hormone treatment (average age 19 at time of fertility consultation) were all able to produce a semen sample, which showed normal parameters, except for some abnormal morphology. The significance of that one abnormal finding was unclear without a control group, Dr. Rafferty said. All seven began gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapy, and four also began estradiol therapy, although Dr. Rafferty questioned why GnRH agonist therapy was started at such late ages.

Regardless, he said, the takeaway from this first group was the efficiency and effectiveness of getting a semen sample before beginning gender-affirming hormone therapy. The second group offered a different takeaway.

“What I think is probably the most unique aspect of this study is this second group of two individuals who had previously received hormones or blockers,” Dr. Rafferty told attendees. The first patient was 13 years of age at gender dysphoria onset and 18 years at the time of their fertility consultation. They had been on GnRH agonists for 6 months before semen collection. Their first sample, at 3 months after discontinuing hormones, was low-quality, but they did produce a viable sample 2 months later.

The other patient, who underwent fertility consultation at age 19, had taken estrogen and spironolactone for 26 months before semen collection and were not able to produce sperm 4 months after stopping the treatment. They did not try again because they underwent an orchiectomy.

Despite the small sample size and lack of confounding data, such as smoking and stress, the study remains the first to show successful sampling after gender-affirming hormone therapy in a teen, Dr. Rafferty said. It also shows that sampling after beginning hormone therapy may require discontinuation for several months before a successful sample is possible, thereby supporting WPATH’s recommendation for early fertility counseling.

“However, the standard of providing fertility counseling before intervention does not always occur,” Dr. Rafferty said, citing research that found low percentages of teens had received fertility counseling or discussed negative effects of therapy on fertility prior to starting it. These low numbers may result from changes in youths’ interest in fertility throughout development, but they could also relate to youths’ reluctance to discuss family planning while they feel uncomfortable in their bodies.

“My experience, and there is some empirical evidence for this, is that many transgender and gender-diverse youth feel more comfortable conceptualizing and pursuing intimate partner relationships and family planning after they start gender affirmation interventions,” Dr. Rafferty said. The stress associated with gender dysphoria can further complicate fertility discussions, and providers have to consider whether it’s more stressful to hold off on gender-affirming hormone therapy until the patient gets a successful semen sample or to start therapy and then discontinue for several months to get a sample later.

While decisions about fertility services should be fully up to the patient, in reality, multiple barriers – such as high cost, low insurance coverage, a dearth of specialists who can do the procedures, and inaccurate assumptions about transgender people’s interest in family planning – complicate the decision,.

“Systemically denying a marginalized population the ability to reproduce, or at least the ability to make a free choice about reproduction and family planning, is a reproductive justice issue that’s not getting the attention it deserves,” Dr. Rafferty said.

Clair Kronk, BSc, a session attendee from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, said in an interview that she appreciated the session even while she lamented the lack of adequate evidence on transgender and gender-diverse care.

“I do feel like there are a lot of provider-based questions with no sufficient guidelines right now when it comes to transgender care,” Ms. Kronk said. “Despite being nearly a century old, treatment of trans patients is somehow still a ‘Wild West’ of medical care, which is sad to see.” She is grateful to see attention finally reaching this population.

“It is imperative that medical institutions focus on real, advanceable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives which center marginalized groups,” she said. “Centering minoritized and marginalized peoples in improving care is the only way lasting change will happen.”
 

Sexual-minority youth in foster care

The second study Dr. Rafferty discussed was the first nationally representative systemic assessment of the prevalence of sexual-minority youth in foster care, child welfare, and out-of-home placement. Anecdotal evidence and community samples already suggest that a disproportionately higher number of sexual-minority youth enter foster care, he said, possibly resulting in part from family conflict about sexual orientation. In addition, LGBTQ+ youth already experience higher rates of psychological and physical abuse at home – a top reason for entry into child welfare – and this population has high rates of running away, particularly around the time of coming out.

Past research has found that sexual-minority youth experience higher rates of maltreatment and discrimination than do their peers from foster parents, siblings, and agency staff, which translates to fewer support services and lower levels of reunification or adoption.

In the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health involving 14,154 respondents, 6.3% reported any same-sex attraction, and 2.1% were involved in the foster-care system. The researchers determined that 4.3% of sexual-minority youth were involved in foster care, compared with just 1.9% of heterosexual youth (P = .002) – a 2.5 times greater rate – with a stronger effect among those with exclusively same-sex attraction.

In the second part of the study, the researchers looked at 1,014 youths in the foster-care system, of whom 80% had experienced an out-of-home placement. The 16% of youth in foster care reporting same sex attraction did not have a higher rate of out-of-home placement than did heterosexual youth within the system. However, there were twice as many sexual-minority youth in child welfare and four times as many in out-of-home placement, compared with their heterosexual peers, possibly suggesting that sexual-minority youth are less likely to exit the system, Dr. Rafferty said.

“Many studies have shown that family acceptance is a critical factor in building resiliency, while rejection is tied to poor physical and emotional outcomes,” he said. “It would follow that we’re identifying a critical at-risk group of sexual-minority youth lacking in fundamental and essential family support.”

This population “experiences the intersection of multiple forces of marginalization, including out-of-home placement, socioeconomic stress, sexual minority status, and likely, race,” Dr. Rafferty said.

Ms. Kronk commented during the session that fertility services and collection are extremely expensive, often forcing trans people into the absurd situation of having to choose between paying for hormone therapy or paying for fertility treatment.

“This makes a really strong argument for resource allocation based on risk” and has ramifications for the higher proportions of sexual-minority youth facing transition without adequate support services, Dr. Rafferty said.

It also suggests the need for providers to help patients feel comfortable and safe talking about their needs, Ms. Kronk said.

“Unfortunately, LGBTQIA+ health care is not taught very comprehensively in the United States [and most other countries],” she said. “Oftentimes, this leads to awkward situations where patients are more knowledgeable than their providers. Listening, learning, supporting, and being open to change are what every provider should take to heart.”

Dr. Rafferty and Ms. Kronk had no relevant financial disclosures.

Caring for LGBTQ+ pediatric patients often requires physicians to consider issues – such as preservation of fertility for transgender youth and resource allocation to sexual-minority youth in the foster-care system – that they may not think about as frequently with their other patients.

monkeybusinessimages/Getty Images

“It’s important to engage transgender and gender-diverse youth and families in fertility counseling early in their gender affirmation process,” but it does not happen as often as it should, said Jason Rafferty, MD (he/him/his), a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Rafferty discussed two studies at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year: one on fertility outcomes among a small transgender sample and another finding that sexual-minority youth are 2.5 times more likely to be involved in the foster-care system.

“We need to recognize and address disparities in health that place sexual-minority youth at increased risk for child welfare involvement,” he told attendees.
 

Fertility preservation and counseling for transgender patients

Evidence suggests gender-affirming hormone treatment affects gonadal structures and functions in ways that may decrease fertility potential, Dr. Rafferty said. “Yet, there’s very little [research] into the reversibility or thresholds above which fertility potential is affected.”

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) recommends that doctors discuss the possible adverse health effects of feminizing or masculinizing treatments and the patient’s reproductive options before starting hormone therapy, although the extent to which this therapy may impair fertility isn’t known.

The first study Dr. Rafferty discussed was an assessment of semen cryopreservation outcomes among youth asserting a female identity. The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review on a convenience sample of 11 transgender and gender-diverse adolescents and young adults who had been referred for fertility preservation between January 2015 and September 2018 at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Children’s Hospital and the UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital in Pittsburgh.

Of the 11, 1 did not provide a sample, and another discarded their sample after 4 months. The seven patients without prior gender-affirming hormone treatment (average age 19 at time of fertility consultation) were all able to produce a semen sample, which showed normal parameters, except for some abnormal morphology. The significance of that one abnormal finding was unclear without a control group, Dr. Rafferty said. All seven began gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapy, and four also began estradiol therapy, although Dr. Rafferty questioned why GnRH agonist therapy was started at such late ages.

Regardless, he said, the takeaway from this first group was the efficiency and effectiveness of getting a semen sample before beginning gender-affirming hormone therapy. The second group offered a different takeaway.

“What I think is probably the most unique aspect of this study is this second group of two individuals who had previously received hormones or blockers,” Dr. Rafferty told attendees. The first patient was 13 years of age at gender dysphoria onset and 18 years at the time of their fertility consultation. They had been on GnRH agonists for 6 months before semen collection. Their first sample, at 3 months after discontinuing hormones, was low-quality, but they did produce a viable sample 2 months later.

The other patient, who underwent fertility consultation at age 19, had taken estrogen and spironolactone for 26 months before semen collection and were not able to produce sperm 4 months after stopping the treatment. They did not try again because they underwent an orchiectomy.

Despite the small sample size and lack of confounding data, such as smoking and stress, the study remains the first to show successful sampling after gender-affirming hormone therapy in a teen, Dr. Rafferty said. It also shows that sampling after beginning hormone therapy may require discontinuation for several months before a successful sample is possible, thereby supporting WPATH’s recommendation for early fertility counseling.

“However, the standard of providing fertility counseling before intervention does not always occur,” Dr. Rafferty said, citing research that found low percentages of teens had received fertility counseling or discussed negative effects of therapy on fertility prior to starting it. These low numbers may result from changes in youths’ interest in fertility throughout development, but they could also relate to youths’ reluctance to discuss family planning while they feel uncomfortable in their bodies.

“My experience, and there is some empirical evidence for this, is that many transgender and gender-diverse youth feel more comfortable conceptualizing and pursuing intimate partner relationships and family planning after they start gender affirmation interventions,” Dr. Rafferty said. The stress associated with gender dysphoria can further complicate fertility discussions, and providers have to consider whether it’s more stressful to hold off on gender-affirming hormone therapy until the patient gets a successful semen sample or to start therapy and then discontinue for several months to get a sample later.

While decisions about fertility services should be fully up to the patient, in reality, multiple barriers – such as high cost, low insurance coverage, a dearth of specialists who can do the procedures, and inaccurate assumptions about transgender people’s interest in family planning – complicate the decision,.

“Systemically denying a marginalized population the ability to reproduce, or at least the ability to make a free choice about reproduction and family planning, is a reproductive justice issue that’s not getting the attention it deserves,” Dr. Rafferty said.

Clair Kronk, BSc, a session attendee from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, said in an interview that she appreciated the session even while she lamented the lack of adequate evidence on transgender and gender-diverse care.

“I do feel like there are a lot of provider-based questions with no sufficient guidelines right now when it comes to transgender care,” Ms. Kronk said. “Despite being nearly a century old, treatment of trans patients is somehow still a ‘Wild West’ of medical care, which is sad to see.” She is grateful to see attention finally reaching this population.

“It is imperative that medical institutions focus on real, advanceable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives which center marginalized groups,” she said. “Centering minoritized and marginalized peoples in improving care is the only way lasting change will happen.”
 

Sexual-minority youth in foster care

The second study Dr. Rafferty discussed was the first nationally representative systemic assessment of the prevalence of sexual-minority youth in foster care, child welfare, and out-of-home placement. Anecdotal evidence and community samples already suggest that a disproportionately higher number of sexual-minority youth enter foster care, he said, possibly resulting in part from family conflict about sexual orientation. In addition, LGBTQ+ youth already experience higher rates of psychological and physical abuse at home – a top reason for entry into child welfare – and this population has high rates of running away, particularly around the time of coming out.

Past research has found that sexual-minority youth experience higher rates of maltreatment and discrimination than do their peers from foster parents, siblings, and agency staff, which translates to fewer support services and lower levels of reunification or adoption.

In the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health involving 14,154 respondents, 6.3% reported any same-sex attraction, and 2.1% were involved in the foster-care system. The researchers determined that 4.3% of sexual-minority youth were involved in foster care, compared with just 1.9% of heterosexual youth (P = .002) – a 2.5 times greater rate – with a stronger effect among those with exclusively same-sex attraction.

In the second part of the study, the researchers looked at 1,014 youths in the foster-care system, of whom 80% had experienced an out-of-home placement. The 16% of youth in foster care reporting same sex attraction did not have a higher rate of out-of-home placement than did heterosexual youth within the system. However, there were twice as many sexual-minority youth in child welfare and four times as many in out-of-home placement, compared with their heterosexual peers, possibly suggesting that sexual-minority youth are less likely to exit the system, Dr. Rafferty said.

“Many studies have shown that family acceptance is a critical factor in building resiliency, while rejection is tied to poor physical and emotional outcomes,” he said. “It would follow that we’re identifying a critical at-risk group of sexual-minority youth lacking in fundamental and essential family support.”

This population “experiences the intersection of multiple forces of marginalization, including out-of-home placement, socioeconomic stress, sexual minority status, and likely, race,” Dr. Rafferty said.

Ms. Kronk commented during the session that fertility services and collection are extremely expensive, often forcing trans people into the absurd situation of having to choose between paying for hormone therapy or paying for fertility treatment.

“This makes a really strong argument for resource allocation based on risk” and has ramifications for the higher proportions of sexual-minority youth facing transition without adequate support services, Dr. Rafferty said.

It also suggests the need for providers to help patients feel comfortable and safe talking about their needs, Ms. Kronk said.

“Unfortunately, LGBTQIA+ health care is not taught very comprehensively in the United States [and most other countries],” she said. “Oftentimes, this leads to awkward situations where patients are more knowledgeable than their providers. Listening, learning, supporting, and being open to change are what every provider should take to heart.”

Dr. Rafferty and Ms. Kronk had no relevant financial disclosures.

Caring for LGBTQ+ pediatric patients often requires physicians to consider issues – such as preservation of fertility for transgender youth and resource allocation to sexual-minority youth in the foster-care system – that they may not think about as frequently with their other patients.

monkeybusinessimages/Getty Images

“It’s important to engage transgender and gender-diverse youth and families in fertility counseling early in their gender affirmation process,” but it does not happen as often as it should, said Jason Rafferty, MD (he/him/his), a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Rafferty discussed two studies at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year: one on fertility outcomes among a small transgender sample and another finding that sexual-minority youth are 2.5 times more likely to be involved in the foster-care system.

“We need to recognize and address disparities in health that place sexual-minority youth at increased risk for child welfare involvement,” he told attendees.
 

Fertility preservation and counseling for transgender patients

Evidence suggests gender-affirming hormone treatment affects gonadal structures and functions in ways that may decrease fertility potential, Dr. Rafferty said. “Yet, there’s very little [research] into the reversibility or thresholds above which fertility potential is affected.”

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) recommends that doctors discuss the possible adverse health effects of feminizing or masculinizing treatments and the patient’s reproductive options before starting hormone therapy, although the extent to which this therapy may impair fertility isn’t known.

The first study Dr. Rafferty discussed was an assessment of semen cryopreservation outcomes among youth asserting a female identity. The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review on a convenience sample of 11 transgender and gender-diverse adolescents and young adults who had been referred for fertility preservation between January 2015 and September 2018 at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Children’s Hospital and the UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital in Pittsburgh.

Of the 11, 1 did not provide a sample, and another discarded their sample after 4 months. The seven patients without prior gender-affirming hormone treatment (average age 19 at time of fertility consultation) were all able to produce a semen sample, which showed normal parameters, except for some abnormal morphology. The significance of that one abnormal finding was unclear without a control group, Dr. Rafferty said. All seven began gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapy, and four also began estradiol therapy, although Dr. Rafferty questioned why GnRH agonist therapy was started at such late ages.

Regardless, he said, the takeaway from this first group was the efficiency and effectiveness of getting a semen sample before beginning gender-affirming hormone therapy. The second group offered a different takeaway.

“What I think is probably the most unique aspect of this study is this second group of two individuals who had previously received hormones or blockers,” Dr. Rafferty told attendees. The first patient was 13 years of age at gender dysphoria onset and 18 years at the time of their fertility consultation. They had been on GnRH agonists for 6 months before semen collection. Their first sample, at 3 months after discontinuing hormones, was low-quality, but they did produce a viable sample 2 months later.

The other patient, who underwent fertility consultation at age 19, had taken estrogen and spironolactone for 26 months before semen collection and were not able to produce sperm 4 months after stopping the treatment. They did not try again because they underwent an orchiectomy.

Despite the small sample size and lack of confounding data, such as smoking and stress, the study remains the first to show successful sampling after gender-affirming hormone therapy in a teen, Dr. Rafferty said. It also shows that sampling after beginning hormone therapy may require discontinuation for several months before a successful sample is possible, thereby supporting WPATH’s recommendation for early fertility counseling.

“However, the standard of providing fertility counseling before intervention does not always occur,” Dr. Rafferty said, citing research that found low percentages of teens had received fertility counseling or discussed negative effects of therapy on fertility prior to starting it. These low numbers may result from changes in youths’ interest in fertility throughout development, but they could also relate to youths’ reluctance to discuss family planning while they feel uncomfortable in their bodies.

“My experience, and there is some empirical evidence for this, is that many transgender and gender-diverse youth feel more comfortable conceptualizing and pursuing intimate partner relationships and family planning after they start gender affirmation interventions,” Dr. Rafferty said. The stress associated with gender dysphoria can further complicate fertility discussions, and providers have to consider whether it’s more stressful to hold off on gender-affirming hormone therapy until the patient gets a successful semen sample or to start therapy and then discontinue for several months to get a sample later.

While decisions about fertility services should be fully up to the patient, in reality, multiple barriers – such as high cost, low insurance coverage, a dearth of specialists who can do the procedures, and inaccurate assumptions about transgender people’s interest in family planning – complicate the decision,.

“Systemically denying a marginalized population the ability to reproduce, or at least the ability to make a free choice about reproduction and family planning, is a reproductive justice issue that’s not getting the attention it deserves,” Dr. Rafferty said.

Clair Kronk, BSc, a session attendee from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, said in an interview that she appreciated the session even while she lamented the lack of adequate evidence on transgender and gender-diverse care.

“I do feel like there are a lot of provider-based questions with no sufficient guidelines right now when it comes to transgender care,” Ms. Kronk said. “Despite being nearly a century old, treatment of trans patients is somehow still a ‘Wild West’ of medical care, which is sad to see.” She is grateful to see attention finally reaching this population.

“It is imperative that medical institutions focus on real, advanceable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives which center marginalized groups,” she said. “Centering minoritized and marginalized peoples in improving care is the only way lasting change will happen.”
 

Sexual-minority youth in foster care

The second study Dr. Rafferty discussed was the first nationally representative systemic assessment of the prevalence of sexual-minority youth in foster care, child welfare, and out-of-home placement. Anecdotal evidence and community samples already suggest that a disproportionately higher number of sexual-minority youth enter foster care, he said, possibly resulting in part from family conflict about sexual orientation. In addition, LGBTQ+ youth already experience higher rates of psychological and physical abuse at home – a top reason for entry into child welfare – and this population has high rates of running away, particularly around the time of coming out.

Past research has found that sexual-minority youth experience higher rates of maltreatment and discrimination than do their peers from foster parents, siblings, and agency staff, which translates to fewer support services and lower levels of reunification or adoption.

In the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health involving 14,154 respondents, 6.3% reported any same-sex attraction, and 2.1% were involved in the foster-care system. The researchers determined that 4.3% of sexual-minority youth were involved in foster care, compared with just 1.9% of heterosexual youth (P = .002) – a 2.5 times greater rate – with a stronger effect among those with exclusively same-sex attraction.

In the second part of the study, the researchers looked at 1,014 youths in the foster-care system, of whom 80% had experienced an out-of-home placement. The 16% of youth in foster care reporting same sex attraction did not have a higher rate of out-of-home placement than did heterosexual youth within the system. However, there were twice as many sexual-minority youth in child welfare and four times as many in out-of-home placement, compared with their heterosexual peers, possibly suggesting that sexual-minority youth are less likely to exit the system, Dr. Rafferty said.

“Many studies have shown that family acceptance is a critical factor in building resiliency, while rejection is tied to poor physical and emotional outcomes,” he said. “It would follow that we’re identifying a critical at-risk group of sexual-minority youth lacking in fundamental and essential family support.”

This population “experiences the intersection of multiple forces of marginalization, including out-of-home placement, socioeconomic stress, sexual minority status, and likely, race,” Dr. Rafferty said.

Ms. Kronk commented during the session that fertility services and collection are extremely expensive, often forcing trans people into the absurd situation of having to choose between paying for hormone therapy or paying for fertility treatment.

“This makes a really strong argument for resource allocation based on risk” and has ramifications for the higher proportions of sexual-minority youth facing transition without adequate support services, Dr. Rafferty said.

It also suggests the need for providers to help patients feel comfortable and safe talking about their needs, Ms. Kronk said.

“Unfortunately, LGBTQIA+ health care is not taught very comprehensively in the United States [and most other countries],” she said. “Oftentimes, this leads to awkward situations where patients are more knowledgeable than their providers. Listening, learning, supporting, and being open to change are what every provider should take to heart.”

Dr. Rafferty and Ms. Kronk had no relevant financial disclosures.

Emergency department visits related to child abuse and neglect dropped by half early in the pandemic, compared with 2019, but the visits in 2020 were significantly more likely to result in hospitalization, based on analysis of a national ED database.

The number of ED visits involving child abuse and neglect was down by 53% during the 4-week period from March 29 to April 25, 2020, compared with the 4 weeks from March 31 to April 27, 2019. The proportion of those ED visits that ended in hospitalizations, however, increased from 2.1% in 2019 to 3.2% in 2020, Elizabeth Swedo, MD, and associates at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“ED visits related to suspected or confirmed child abuse and neglect decreased beginning the week of March 15, 2020, coinciding with the declaration of a national emergency related to COVID-19 and implementation of community mitigation measures,” they wrote.

An earlier study involving the same database (the National Syndromic Surveillance Program) showed that, over the two same 4-week periods, the volume of all ED visits in 2020 was down 72% for children aged 10 years and younger and 71% for those aged 11-14 years.

In the current study, however, all age subgroups had significant increases in hospital admissions. The proportion of ED visits related to child abuse and neglect that resulted in hospitalization rose from 3.5% in 2019 to 5.3% in 2020 among ages 0-4 years, 0.7% to 1.3% for ages 5-11 years, and 1.6% to 2.2% for adolescents aged 12-17, Dr. Swedo and associates reported.

The absence of a corresponding drop in hospitalizations may be tied to risk factors related to the pandemic, “such as loss of income, increased stress related to parental child care and schooling responsibilities, and increased substance use and mental health conditions among adults,” the investigators added.

The National Syndromic Surveillance Program receives daily data from 3,310 EDs in 47 states, but the number of facilities meeting the investigators’ criteria averaged 2,970 a week for the 8 weeks of the study period.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Swedo E et al. MMWR. 2020 Dec. 11;69(49):1841-7.

Emergency department visits related to child abuse and neglect dropped by half early in the pandemic, compared with 2019, but the visits in 2020 were significantly more likely to result in hospitalization, based on analysis of a national ED database.

The number of ED visits involving child abuse and neglect was down by 53% during the 4-week period from March 29 to April 25, 2020, compared with the 4 weeks from March 31 to April 27, 2019. The proportion of those ED visits that ended in hospitalizations, however, increased from 2.1% in 2019 to 3.2% in 2020, Elizabeth Swedo, MD, and associates at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“ED visits related to suspected or confirmed child abuse and neglect decreased beginning the week of March 15, 2020, coinciding with the declaration of a national emergency related to COVID-19 and implementation of community mitigation measures,” they wrote.

An earlier study involving the same database (the National Syndromic Surveillance Program) showed that, over the two same 4-week periods, the volume of all ED visits in 2020 was down 72% for children aged 10 years and younger and 71% for those aged 11-14 years.

In the current study, however, all age subgroups had significant increases in hospital admissions. The proportion of ED visits related to child abuse and neglect that resulted in hospitalization rose from 3.5% in 2019 to 5.3% in 2020 among ages 0-4 years, 0.7% to 1.3% for ages 5-11 years, and 1.6% to 2.2% for adolescents aged 12-17, Dr. Swedo and associates reported.

The absence of a corresponding drop in hospitalizations may be tied to risk factors related to the pandemic, “such as loss of income, increased stress related to parental child care and schooling responsibilities, and increased substance use and mental health conditions among adults,” the investigators added.

The National Syndromic Surveillance Program receives daily data from 3,310 EDs in 47 states, but the number of facilities meeting the investigators’ criteria averaged 2,970 a week for the 8 weeks of the study period.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Swedo E et al. MMWR. 2020 Dec. 11;69(49):1841-7.

Emergency department visits related to child abuse and neglect dropped by half early in the pandemic, compared with 2019, but the visits in 2020 were significantly more likely to result in hospitalization, based on analysis of a national ED database.

The number of ED visits involving child abuse and neglect was down by 53% during the 4-week period from March 29 to April 25, 2020, compared with the 4 weeks from March 31 to April 27, 2019. The proportion of those ED visits that ended in hospitalizations, however, increased from 2.1% in 2019 to 3.2% in 2020, Elizabeth Swedo, MD, and associates at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“ED visits related to suspected or confirmed child abuse and neglect decreased beginning the week of March 15, 2020, coinciding with the declaration of a national emergency related to COVID-19 and implementation of community mitigation measures,” they wrote.

An earlier study involving the same database (the National Syndromic Surveillance Program) showed that, over the two same 4-week periods, the volume of all ED visits in 2020 was down 72% for children aged 10 years and younger and 71% for those aged 11-14 years.

In the current study, however, all age subgroups had significant increases in hospital admissions. The proportion of ED visits related to child abuse and neglect that resulted in hospitalization rose from 3.5% in 2019 to 5.3% in 2020 among ages 0-4 years, 0.7% to 1.3% for ages 5-11 years, and 1.6% to 2.2% for adolescents aged 12-17, Dr. Swedo and associates reported.

The absence of a corresponding drop in hospitalizations may be tied to risk factors related to the pandemic, “such as loss of income, increased stress related to parental child care and schooling responsibilities, and increased substance use and mental health conditions among adults,” the investigators added.

The National Syndromic Surveillance Program receives daily data from 3,310 EDs in 47 states, but the number of facilities meeting the investigators’ criteria averaged 2,970 a week for the 8 weeks of the study period.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Swedo E et al. MMWR. 2020 Dec. 11;69(49):1841-7.

In this day and age, a new question should make its way to the top of the list for new parents and their pediatricians: How will the family approach the issue of household technology use – for their children as well as themselves?

Yuji_Karaki/Getty Images

Managing screen time is one of the most vexing challenges facing today’s parents. Even the most vigilant among them will find much available guidance conflicting – and a good deal of it may feel oblivious to their day-to-day realities. This is especially true now, as many families face the daunting demands of pandemic parenting – juggling full-time jobs with childcare and distance learning.

While the American Academy of Pediatrics still specifies daily time limits by age (difficult for many families to achieve even in “normal” times), pediatricians and other child development experts now recognize that a host of factors should inform decisions about healthy screen use. There’s no one “magic number” for acceptable daily use, as not all screen time is the same (particularly during the pandemic) – and different children will experience the effects of technology usage differently.

The quality of content the child engages with; the degree of parental involvement; and the individual cognitive and behavioral considerations of a child are just some of the factors that should be considered. Given the complexities, it’s unfortunate that many parents will not have discussed screen use with their pediatrician or even their partner before their child first reaches for that glowing screen – and certainly not before they are using technology to multitask work, social connections, and day-to-day child rearing. Screen habits form early for both children and families.
 

An early well-visit priority

Pediatricians have an important role to play in helping families develop a more purposeful approach to household technology by providing them with trusted, evidence-based information on screens and the potential impact on children’s development. This is not information parents should receive when a child is 2 or 3 years of age. By then, toddlers are often already avid tablet users and parents may have come to rely on technology as a parenting aid.

Parents also need to know that, from birth, they can influence their child’s brain and communication development through undistracted time for talking, reading, singing, and interacting with their baby. Though the way children develop speech and language skills has not changed, the level of distraction posed by technology has grown immensely. It is much more difficult for parents to notice a baby’s subtle communication attempts – a coo or a smile, for instance, and respond accordingly – with a smartphone in hand. Rather than admonish parents for overusing their devices, we can focus them on what supports healthy child development instead.

By talking to parents earlier, pediatricians can help prevent premature or excessive exposure to technology – as well as encourage parents to dedicate “unplugged” times of day with their baby, such as during feeding time or before bedtime. By accenting the positive – educating parents about how they can encourage development and growth, how they can bond with their baby, and how they can establish a loving and nurturing relationship – pediatricians can motivate them towards simple steps that limit technology’s disruption of daily developmental opportunities. They can also help them lay a solid foundation for healthy screen time habits in the long term for their family.
 

The critical period for speech and language development is early

The impact of screen use on a child’s communication development is a significant concern. The critical time window for the development of speech, language, and social skills is between birth and 3 years. What happens then is the precursor for later reading and writing skills that are key to academic and vocational success.

A meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics in July 2020 found that greater quantity of screen use was associated with poorer language skills – while screen-use onset at later ages was also associated with stronger child language skills. A November 2019 JAMA Pediatrics study using brain imaging in pre–school age children found an association between increased screen-based media use, compared with the AAP guidelines, and lower integrity of white matter tracts supporting language and emergent literacy skills. That study also used several language and literacy tests, finding that children with higher screen exposure had poorer expressive language and worse language processing speed. A 2017 study of 900 children between 18 and 24 months found that every 30-minute increase in daily screen time was linked to a 49% increased risk of expressive speech delay. And on the parental side, numerous studies have documented decreased verbal and nonverbal interactions initiated by parents when they are using a device.
 

Be tech wise with baby

AAP offers many resources in its Media and Children Communication Toolkit that serve as helpful starting points for conversations, including its family media use plan templates. However, more resources tailored to parents of newborns and very young children are needed.

One new option recently developed by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the Children’s Screen Time Action Network is Be Tech Wise With Baby! Aimed at prospective and new parents, this simple handout, available for free in English and Spanish, is an easy takeaway from early well-child visits that pediatricians and pediatric nurses can distribute.

Pediatricians have a vital role to play championing healthy, balanced screen time use for children and adults – starting from baby’s first moments of life. By guiding new parents towards simple steps, such as carving out tech-free times of day and delaying introduction of screens, they can positively influence the screen-time habits of the next generation of connected kids.
 

Mark Bertin, MD, is a developmental pediatrician and author of numerous parenting books, including “How Children Thrive: The Practical Science of Raising Independent, Resilient, and Happy Kids” and “Mindful Parenting for ADHD.” Diane Paul, PhD, CCC-SLP, is the director of clinical issues in speech-language pathology for the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and author of numerous books, including “Talking on the Go: Everyday Activities to Enhance Speech and Language Development.” Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.

In this day and age, a new question should make its way to the top of the list for new parents and their pediatricians: How will the family approach the issue of household technology use – for their children as well as themselves?

Yuji_Karaki/Getty Images

Managing screen time is one of the most vexing challenges facing today’s parents. Even the most vigilant among them will find much available guidance conflicting – and a good deal of it may feel oblivious to their day-to-day realities. This is especially true now, as many families face the daunting demands of pandemic parenting – juggling full-time jobs with childcare and distance learning.

While the American Academy of Pediatrics still specifies daily time limits by age (difficult for many families to achieve even in “normal” times), pediatricians and other child development experts now recognize that a host of factors should inform decisions about healthy screen use. There’s no one “magic number” for acceptable daily use, as not all screen time is the same (particularly during the pandemic) – and different children will experience the effects of technology usage differently.

The quality of content the child engages with; the degree of parental involvement; and the individual cognitive and behavioral considerations of a child are just some of the factors that should be considered. Given the complexities, it’s unfortunate that many parents will not have discussed screen use with their pediatrician or even their partner before their child first reaches for that glowing screen – and certainly not before they are using technology to multitask work, social connections, and day-to-day child rearing. Screen habits form early for both children and families.
 

An early well-visit priority

Pediatricians have an important role to play in helping families develop a more purposeful approach to household technology by providing them with trusted, evidence-based information on screens and the potential impact on children’s development. This is not information parents should receive when a child is 2 or 3 years of age. By then, toddlers are often already avid tablet users and parents may have come to rely on technology as a parenting aid.

Parents also need to know that, from birth, they can influence their child’s brain and communication development through undistracted time for talking, reading, singing, and interacting with their baby. Though the way children develop speech and language skills has not changed, the level of distraction posed by technology has grown immensely. It is much more difficult for parents to notice a baby’s subtle communication attempts – a coo or a smile, for instance, and respond accordingly – with a smartphone in hand. Rather than admonish parents for overusing their devices, we can focus them on what supports healthy child development instead.

By talking to parents earlier, pediatricians can help prevent premature or excessive exposure to technology – as well as encourage parents to dedicate “unplugged” times of day with their baby, such as during feeding time or before bedtime. By accenting the positive – educating parents about how they can encourage development and growth, how they can bond with their baby, and how they can establish a loving and nurturing relationship – pediatricians can motivate them towards simple steps that limit technology’s disruption of daily developmental opportunities. They can also help them lay a solid foundation for healthy screen time habits in the long term for their family.
 

The critical period for speech and language development is early

The impact of screen use on a child’s communication development is a significant concern. The critical time window for the development of speech, language, and social skills is between birth and 3 years. What happens then is the precursor for later reading and writing skills that are key to academic and vocational success.

A meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics in July 2020 found that greater quantity of screen use was associated with poorer language skills – while screen-use onset at later ages was also associated with stronger child language skills. A November 2019 JAMA Pediatrics study using brain imaging in pre–school age children found an association between increased screen-based media use, compared with the AAP guidelines, and lower integrity of white matter tracts supporting language and emergent literacy skills. That study also used several language and literacy tests, finding that children with higher screen exposure had poorer expressive language and worse language processing speed. A 2017 study of 900 children between 18 and 24 months found that every 30-minute increase in daily screen time was linked to a 49% increased risk of expressive speech delay. And on the parental side, numerous studies have documented decreased verbal and nonverbal interactions initiated by parents when they are using a device.
 

Be tech wise with baby

AAP offers many resources in its Media and Children Communication Toolkit that serve as helpful starting points for conversations, including its family media use plan templates. However, more resources tailored to parents of newborns and very young children are needed.

One new option recently developed by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the Children’s Screen Time Action Network is Be Tech Wise With Baby! Aimed at prospective and new parents, this simple handout, available for free in English and Spanish, is an easy takeaway from early well-child visits that pediatricians and pediatric nurses can distribute.

Pediatricians have a vital role to play championing healthy, balanced screen time use for children and adults – starting from baby’s first moments of life. By guiding new parents towards simple steps, such as carving out tech-free times of day and delaying introduction of screens, they can positively influence the screen-time habits of the next generation of connected kids.
 

Mark Bertin, MD, is a developmental pediatrician and author of numerous parenting books, including “How Children Thrive: The Practical Science of Raising Independent, Resilient, and Happy Kids” and “Mindful Parenting for ADHD.” Diane Paul, PhD, CCC-SLP, is the director of clinical issues in speech-language pathology for the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and author of numerous books, including “Talking on the Go: Everyday Activities to Enhance Speech and Language Development.” Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.

In this day and age, a new question should make its way to the top of the list for new parents and their pediatricians: How will the family approach the issue of household technology use – for their children as well as themselves?

Yuji_Karaki/Getty Images

Managing screen time is one of the most vexing challenges facing today’s parents. Even the most vigilant among them will find much available guidance conflicting – and a good deal of it may feel oblivious to their day-to-day realities. This is especially true now, as many families face the daunting demands of pandemic parenting – juggling full-time jobs with childcare and distance learning.

While the American Academy of Pediatrics still specifies daily time limits by age (difficult for many families to achieve even in “normal” times), pediatricians and other child development experts now recognize that a host of factors should inform decisions about healthy screen use. There’s no one “magic number” for acceptable daily use, as not all screen time is the same (particularly during the pandemic) – and different children will experience the effects of technology usage differently.

The quality of content the child engages with; the degree of parental involvement; and the individual cognitive and behavioral considerations of a child are just some of the factors that should be considered. Given the complexities, it’s unfortunate that many parents will not have discussed screen use with their pediatrician or even their partner before their child first reaches for that glowing screen – and certainly not before they are using technology to multitask work, social connections, and day-to-day child rearing. Screen habits form early for both children and families.
 

An early well-visit priority

Pediatricians have an important role to play in helping families develop a more purposeful approach to household technology by providing them with trusted, evidence-based information on screens and the potential impact on children’s development. This is not information parents should receive when a child is 2 or 3 years of age. By then, toddlers are often already avid tablet users and parents may have come to rely on technology as a parenting aid.

Parents also need to know that, from birth, they can influence their child’s brain and communication development through undistracted time for talking, reading, singing, and interacting with their baby. Though the way children develop speech and language skills has not changed, the level of distraction posed by technology has grown immensely. It is much more difficult for parents to notice a baby’s subtle communication attempts – a coo or a smile, for instance, and respond accordingly – with a smartphone in hand. Rather than admonish parents for overusing their devices, we can focus them on what supports healthy child development instead.

By talking to parents earlier, pediatricians can help prevent premature or excessive exposure to technology – as well as encourage parents to dedicate “unplugged” times of day with their baby, such as during feeding time or before bedtime. By accenting the positive – educating parents about how they can encourage development and growth, how they can bond with their baby, and how they can establish a loving and nurturing relationship – pediatricians can motivate them towards simple steps that limit technology’s disruption of daily developmental opportunities. They can also help them lay a solid foundation for healthy screen time habits in the long term for their family.
 

The critical period for speech and language development is early

The impact of screen use on a child’s communication development is a significant concern. The critical time window for the development of speech, language, and social skills is between birth and 3 years. What happens then is the precursor for later reading and writing skills that are key to academic and vocational success.

A meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics in July 2020 found that greater quantity of screen use was associated with poorer language skills – while screen-use onset at later ages was also associated with stronger child language skills. A November 2019 JAMA Pediatrics study using brain imaging in pre–school age children found an association between increased screen-based media use, compared with the AAP guidelines, and lower integrity of white matter tracts supporting language and emergent literacy skills. That study also used several language and literacy tests, finding that children with higher screen exposure had poorer expressive language and worse language processing speed. A 2017 study of 900 children between 18 and 24 months found that every 30-minute increase in daily screen time was linked to a 49% increased risk of expressive speech delay. And on the parental side, numerous studies have documented decreased verbal and nonverbal interactions initiated by parents when they are using a device.
 

Be tech wise with baby

AAP offers many resources in its Media and Children Communication Toolkit that serve as helpful starting points for conversations, including its family media use plan templates. However, more resources tailored to parents of newborns and very young children are needed.

One new option recently developed by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the Children’s Screen Time Action Network is Be Tech Wise With Baby! Aimed at prospective and new parents, this simple handout, available for free in English and Spanish, is an easy takeaway from early well-child visits that pediatricians and pediatric nurses can distribute.

Pediatricians have a vital role to play championing healthy, balanced screen time use for children and adults – starting from baby’s first moments of life. By guiding new parents towards simple steps, such as carving out tech-free times of day and delaying introduction of screens, they can positively influence the screen-time habits of the next generation of connected kids.
 

Mark Bertin, MD, is a developmental pediatrician and author of numerous parenting books, including “How Children Thrive: The Practical Science of Raising Independent, Resilient, and Happy Kids” and “Mindful Parenting for ADHD.” Diane Paul, PhD, CCC-SLP, is the director of clinical issues in speech-language pathology for the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and author of numerous books, including “Talking on the Go: Everyday Activities to Enhance Speech and Language Development.” Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.