Commentary

Although teledermatology utilization in the United States traditionally has lagged behind other countries,^1,2 the COVID-19 pandemic upended this trend by creating the need for a massive teledermatology experiment. Recently reported survey results from a large representative sample of US dermatologists (5000 participants) on perceptions of teledermatology during COVID-19 indicated that only 14.1% of participants used teledermatology prior to the COVID-19 pandemic vs 54.1% of dermatologists in Europe.^2,3 Since the pandemic started, 97% of US dermatologists reported teledermatology use,³ demonstrating a huge shift in utilization. This trend is notable, as teledermatology has been shown to increase access to dermatology in underserved areas, reduce patient travel times, improve patient triage, and even reduce carbon footprints.^1,4 Thus, to sustain the momentum, insights from the recent teledermatology experience during the pandemic should inform future development.

Notably, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid shift in focus from store-and-forward teledermatology to live video–based models.^1,2 Logistically, live video visits are challenging, require more time and resources, and often are diagnostically limited, with concerns regarding technology, connectivity, reimbursement, and appropriate use.³ Prior to COVID-19, formal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant teledermatology platforms often were costly to establish and maintain, largely relegating use to academic centers and Veterans Affairs hospitals. Thus, many fewer private practice dermatologists had used teledermatology compared to academic dermatologists in the United States (11.4% vs 27.6%).³ Government regulations—a key barrier to the adoption of teledermatology in private practice before COVID-19—were greatly relaxed during the pandemic. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services removed restrictions on where patients could be seen, improved reimbursement for video visits, and allowed the use of platforms that are not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. Many states also relaxed medical licensing rules.

Overall, the general outlook on telehealth seems positive. Reimbursement has been found to be a primary factor in dermatologists’ willingness to use teledermatology.³ Thus, sustainable use of teledermatology likely will depend on continued reimbursement parity for live video as well as store-and-forward consultations, which have several advantages but currently are de-incentivized by low reimbursement. The survey also found that 70% of respondents felt that teledermatology use will continue after COVID-19, while 58% intended to continue use—nearly 5-fold more than before the pandemic.³ We suspect the discrepancy between participants’ predictions regarding future use of teledermatology and their personal intent to use it highlights perceived barriers and limitations of the long-term success of teledermatology. Aside from reimbursement, connectivity and functionality were common concerns, emphasizing the need for innovative technological solutions.³ Moving forward, we anticipate that dermatologists will need to establish consistent workflows to establish consistent triage for the most appropriate visit—in-person visits vs teledermatology, which may include augmented, intelligence-enhanced solutions. Similar to prior clinician perspectives about which types of visits are conducive to teledermatology,² most survey participants believed virtual visits were effective for acne, routine follow-ups, medication monitoring, and some inflammatory conditions.³

Importantly, we must be mindful of patients who may be left behind by the digital divide, such as those with lack of access to a smartphone or the internet, language barriers, or limited telehealth experience.⁵ Systems should be designed to provide these patients with technologic and health literacy aid or alternate modalities to access care. For example, structured methods could be introduced to provide training and instructions on how to access phone applications, computer-based programs, and more. Likewise, for those with hearing or vision deficits, it will be important to improve sound amplification and accessibility for headphones or hearing aid connectivity, as well as appropriate font size, button size, and application navigation. In remote areas, existing clinics may be used to help field specialty consultation teleconferences. Certainly, applications and platforms devised for teledermatology must be designed to serve diverse patient groups, with special consideration for the elderly, those who speak languages other than English, and those with disabilities that may make telehealth use more challenging.

Large-scale regulatory changes and reimbursement parity can have a substantial impact on future teledermatology use. Advocacy efforts continue to push for fair valuation of telemedicine, coverage of store-and-forward teledermatology codes, and coverage for all models of care. It is imperative for the dermatology community to continue discussions on implementation and methodology to best leverage this technology for the most patient benefit.

Although teledermatology utilization in the United States traditionally has lagged behind other countries,^1,2 the COVID-19 pandemic upended this trend by creating the need for a massive teledermatology experiment. Recently reported survey results from a large representative sample of US dermatologists (5000 participants) on perceptions of teledermatology during COVID-19 indicated that only 14.1% of participants used teledermatology prior to the COVID-19 pandemic vs 54.1% of dermatologists in Europe.^2,3 Since the pandemic started, 97% of US dermatologists reported teledermatology use,³ demonstrating a huge shift in utilization. This trend is notable, as teledermatology has been shown to increase access to dermatology in underserved areas, reduce patient travel times, improve patient triage, and even reduce carbon footprints.^1,4 Thus, to sustain the momentum, insights from the recent teledermatology experience during the pandemic should inform future development.

Notably, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid shift in focus from store-and-forward teledermatology to live video–based models.^1,2 Logistically, live video visits are challenging, require more time and resources, and often are diagnostically limited, with concerns regarding technology, connectivity, reimbursement, and appropriate use.³ Prior to COVID-19, formal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant teledermatology platforms often were costly to establish and maintain, largely relegating use to academic centers and Veterans Affairs hospitals. Thus, many fewer private practice dermatologists had used teledermatology compared to academic dermatologists in the United States (11.4% vs 27.6%).³ Government regulations—a key barrier to the adoption of teledermatology in private practice before COVID-19—were greatly relaxed during the pandemic. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services removed restrictions on where patients could be seen, improved reimbursement for video visits, and allowed the use of platforms that are not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. Many states also relaxed medical licensing rules.

Overall, the general outlook on telehealth seems positive. Reimbursement has been found to be a primary factor in dermatologists’ willingness to use teledermatology.³ Thus, sustainable use of teledermatology likely will depend on continued reimbursement parity for live video as well as store-and-forward consultations, which have several advantages but currently are de-incentivized by low reimbursement. The survey also found that 70% of respondents felt that teledermatology use will continue after COVID-19, while 58% intended to continue use—nearly 5-fold more than before the pandemic.³ We suspect the discrepancy between participants’ predictions regarding future use of teledermatology and their personal intent to use it highlights perceived barriers and limitations of the long-term success of teledermatology. Aside from reimbursement, connectivity and functionality were common concerns, emphasizing the need for innovative technological solutions.³ Moving forward, we anticipate that dermatologists will need to establish consistent workflows to establish consistent triage for the most appropriate visit—in-person visits vs teledermatology, which may include augmented, intelligence-enhanced solutions. Similar to prior clinician perspectives about which types of visits are conducive to teledermatology,² most survey participants believed virtual visits were effective for acne, routine follow-ups, medication monitoring, and some inflammatory conditions.³

Importantly, we must be mindful of patients who may be left behind by the digital divide, such as those with lack of access to a smartphone or the internet, language barriers, or limited telehealth experience.⁵ Systems should be designed to provide these patients with technologic and health literacy aid or alternate modalities to access care. For example, structured methods could be introduced to provide training and instructions on how to access phone applications, computer-based programs, and more. Likewise, for those with hearing or vision deficits, it will be important to improve sound amplification and accessibility for headphones or hearing aid connectivity, as well as appropriate font size, button size, and application navigation. In remote areas, existing clinics may be used to help field specialty consultation teleconferences. Certainly, applications and platforms devised for teledermatology must be designed to serve diverse patient groups, with special consideration for the elderly, those who speak languages other than English, and those with disabilities that may make telehealth use more challenging.

Large-scale regulatory changes and reimbursement parity can have a substantial impact on future teledermatology use. Advocacy efforts continue to push for fair valuation of telemedicine, coverage of store-and-forward teledermatology codes, and coverage for all models of care. It is imperative for the dermatology community to continue discussions on implementation and methodology to best leverage this technology for the most patient benefit.

Although teledermatology utilization in the United States traditionally has lagged behind other countries,^1,2 the COVID-19 pandemic upended this trend by creating the need for a massive teledermatology experiment. Recently reported survey results from a large representative sample of US dermatologists (5000 participants) on perceptions of teledermatology during COVID-19 indicated that only 14.1% of participants used teledermatology prior to the COVID-19 pandemic vs 54.1% of dermatologists in Europe.^2,3 Since the pandemic started, 97% of US dermatologists reported teledermatology use,³ demonstrating a huge shift in utilization. This trend is notable, as teledermatology has been shown to increase access to dermatology in underserved areas, reduce patient travel times, improve patient triage, and even reduce carbon footprints.^1,4 Thus, to sustain the momentum, insights from the recent teledermatology experience during the pandemic should inform future development.

Notably, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid shift in focus from store-and-forward teledermatology to live video–based models.^1,2 Logistically, live video visits are challenging, require more time and resources, and often are diagnostically limited, with concerns regarding technology, connectivity, reimbursement, and appropriate use.³ Prior to COVID-19, formal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant teledermatology platforms often were costly to establish and maintain, largely relegating use to academic centers and Veterans Affairs hospitals. Thus, many fewer private practice dermatologists had used teledermatology compared to academic dermatologists in the United States (11.4% vs 27.6%).³ Government regulations—a key barrier to the adoption of teledermatology in private practice before COVID-19—were greatly relaxed during the pandemic. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services removed restrictions on where patients could be seen, improved reimbursement for video visits, and allowed the use of platforms that are not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. Many states also relaxed medical licensing rules.

Overall, the general outlook on telehealth seems positive. Reimbursement has been found to be a primary factor in dermatologists’ willingness to use teledermatology.³ Thus, sustainable use of teledermatology likely will depend on continued reimbursement parity for live video as well as store-and-forward consultations, which have several advantages but currently are de-incentivized by low reimbursement. The survey also found that 70% of respondents felt that teledermatology use will continue after COVID-19, while 58% intended to continue use—nearly 5-fold more than before the pandemic.³ We suspect the discrepancy between participants’ predictions regarding future use of teledermatology and their personal intent to use it highlights perceived barriers and limitations of the long-term success of teledermatology. Aside from reimbursement, connectivity and functionality were common concerns, emphasizing the need for innovative technological solutions.³ Moving forward, we anticipate that dermatologists will need to establish consistent workflows to establish consistent triage for the most appropriate visit—in-person visits vs teledermatology, which may include augmented, intelligence-enhanced solutions. Similar to prior clinician perspectives about which types of visits are conducive to teledermatology,² most survey participants believed virtual visits were effective for acne, routine follow-ups, medication monitoring, and some inflammatory conditions.³

Importantly, we must be mindful of patients who may be left behind by the digital divide, such as those with lack of access to a smartphone or the internet, language barriers, or limited telehealth experience.⁵ Systems should be designed to provide these patients with technologic and health literacy aid or alternate modalities to access care. For example, structured methods could be introduced to provide training and instructions on how to access phone applications, computer-based programs, and more. Likewise, for those with hearing or vision deficits, it will be important to improve sound amplification and accessibility for headphones or hearing aid connectivity, as well as appropriate font size, button size, and application navigation. In remote areas, existing clinics may be used to help field specialty consultation teleconferences. Certainly, applications and platforms devised for teledermatology must be designed to serve diverse patient groups, with special consideration for the elderly, those who speak languages other than English, and those with disabilities that may make telehealth use more challenging.

Large-scale regulatory changes and reimbursement parity can have a substantial impact on future teledermatology use. Advocacy efforts continue to push for fair valuation of telemedicine, coverage of store-and-forward teledermatology codes, and coverage for all models of care. It is imperative for the dermatology community to continue discussions on implementation and methodology to best leverage this technology for the most patient benefit.

I would like to start the new year off by returning to the past – when the physical exam was emphasized and utilized in decision making. I think a big reason that its use has diminished in recent years is due to the physical exam not having been emphasized in training.

For those seeking to increase their comfort with conducting the physical exam, below are several methods I have found helpful to use in practice.
 

Examining the pharynx

We were usually taught to ask the patient to say ahhh, with or without a nasty tongue depressor.

When I was on my pediatrics rotation, I was taught to ask the patients to roar like a lion, which always gave a nice look at their posterior pharynx. The kids also really liked doing this, but it might seem a little strange to ask adults to do this.

A technique I have found that works well with adults is to ask them to yawn. I have found that this get me a great look at the pharynx for about half of my patients.
 

Auscultatory percussion for pleural effusions

Guarino and colleagues described a technique that is easily mastered and very effective for determining the presence of pleural effusions.¹ It involves placing the stethoscope 3 cm below the last rib in the mid clavicular line and tapping from the apex down to the last rib.

For patients without effusion, a sharp change to a loud percussion note will occur at the last rib.

If the patient has an effusion, the loud percussion note will start at the top of the effusion.

This method was remarkably successful at finding pleural effusions. In the study, Dr. Guarino found a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 100%.
 

Physical exam for anemia

Look at the nails and see if they look pale. How can we do this?

The first step is to know what your own hematocrit is. You can then compare the color of your nail to that of the patient.

If you have a normal hematocrit and the patient’s nail bed color is lighter than yours, the patient likely has anemia. If you do this frequently, you will get good at estimating hematocrit. This is especially important if you do not have labs readily available.

Another way to assess for anemia is to look at the color tint of the lower conjunctiva. The best way to look for this is to look at whether there is a generous amount of visible capillaries in the lower conjunctiva. Patients without anemia have a darker red color because of these vessels, whereas patients with anemia are a lighter pink.

Strobach and colleagues² looked at both nail bed rubor and color tint of the lower conjunctiva and found that both reliably predicted presence and degree of anemia.

Determining if clubbing is present

Most physicians are aware of Shamroth sign, and use it to evaluate for clubbing. Shamroth sign is the loss of the diamond that is created by placing the back surfaces of opposite terminal phalanges together.

I have found that it’s easier to diagnose mild clubbing by looking at the finger in profile. If the ratio of the distal phalangeal depth compared to the depth across the distal interphalangeal joint is greater than 1:1, then clubbing is present.³

Pearls

1. Have the patient try yawning to better see the pharynx without using a tongue blade.

2. Try the technique of auscultatory percussion to be more accurate at picking up pleural effusions.

3. Know your hematocrit, so you can better use color shade to assess for anemia.

4. Try looking at fingers in profile to pick up clubbing.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as 3rd-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Guarino JR and Guarino JC. Auscultatory percussion: A simple method to detect pleural effusion. J Gen Intern Med. 1994 Feb;9(2):71-4.

2. Strobach RS et al. The value of the physical examination in the diagnosis of anemia. Correlation of the physical findings and the hemoglobin concentration. Arch Intern Med. 1988 Apr;148(4):831-2.

3. Spicknall KE et al. Clubbing: an update on diagnosis, differential diagnosis, pathophysiology, and clinical relevance. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 Jun;52(6):1020-8.

I would like to start the new year off by returning to the past – when the physical exam was emphasized and utilized in decision making. I think a big reason that its use has diminished in recent years is due to the physical exam not having been emphasized in training.

For those seeking to increase their comfort with conducting the physical exam, below are several methods I have found helpful to use in practice.
 

Examining the pharynx

We were usually taught to ask the patient to say ahhh, with or without a nasty tongue depressor.

When I was on my pediatrics rotation, I was taught to ask the patients to roar like a lion, which always gave a nice look at their posterior pharynx. The kids also really liked doing this, but it might seem a little strange to ask adults to do this.

A technique I have found that works well with adults is to ask them to yawn. I have found that this get me a great look at the pharynx for about half of my patients.
 

Auscultatory percussion for pleural effusions

Guarino and colleagues described a technique that is easily mastered and very effective for determining the presence of pleural effusions.¹ It involves placing the stethoscope 3 cm below the last rib in the mid clavicular line and tapping from the apex down to the last rib.

For patients without effusion, a sharp change to a loud percussion note will occur at the last rib.

If the patient has an effusion, the loud percussion note will start at the top of the effusion.

This method was remarkably successful at finding pleural effusions. In the study, Dr. Guarino found a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 100%.
 

Physical exam for anemia

Look at the nails and see if they look pale. How can we do this?

The first step is to know what your own hematocrit is. You can then compare the color of your nail to that of the patient.

If you have a normal hematocrit and the patient’s nail bed color is lighter than yours, the patient likely has anemia. If you do this frequently, you will get good at estimating hematocrit. This is especially important if you do not have labs readily available.

Another way to assess for anemia is to look at the color tint of the lower conjunctiva. The best way to look for this is to look at whether there is a generous amount of visible capillaries in the lower conjunctiva. Patients without anemia have a darker red color because of these vessels, whereas patients with anemia are a lighter pink.

Strobach and colleagues² looked at both nail bed rubor and color tint of the lower conjunctiva and found that both reliably predicted presence and degree of anemia.

Determining if clubbing is present

Most physicians are aware of Shamroth sign, and use it to evaluate for clubbing. Shamroth sign is the loss of the diamond that is created by placing the back surfaces of opposite terminal phalanges together.

I have found that it’s easier to diagnose mild clubbing by looking at the finger in profile. If the ratio of the distal phalangeal depth compared to the depth across the distal interphalangeal joint is greater than 1:1, then clubbing is present.³

Pearls

1. Have the patient try yawning to better see the pharynx without using a tongue blade.

2. Try the technique of auscultatory percussion to be more accurate at picking up pleural effusions.

3. Know your hematocrit, so you can better use color shade to assess for anemia.

4. Try looking at fingers in profile to pick up clubbing.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as 3rd-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Guarino JR and Guarino JC. Auscultatory percussion: A simple method to detect pleural effusion. J Gen Intern Med. 1994 Feb;9(2):71-4.

2. Strobach RS et al. The value of the physical examination in the diagnosis of anemia. Correlation of the physical findings and the hemoglobin concentration. Arch Intern Med. 1988 Apr;148(4):831-2.

3. Spicknall KE et al. Clubbing: an update on diagnosis, differential diagnosis, pathophysiology, and clinical relevance. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 Jun;52(6):1020-8.

I would like to start the new year off by returning to the past – when the physical exam was emphasized and utilized in decision making. I think a big reason that its use has diminished in recent years is due to the physical exam not having been emphasized in training.

For those seeking to increase their comfort with conducting the physical exam, below are several methods I have found helpful to use in practice.
 

Examining the pharynx

We were usually taught to ask the patient to say ahhh, with or without a nasty tongue depressor.

When I was on my pediatrics rotation, I was taught to ask the patients to roar like a lion, which always gave a nice look at their posterior pharynx. The kids also really liked doing this, but it might seem a little strange to ask adults to do this.

A technique I have found that works well with adults is to ask them to yawn. I have found that this get me a great look at the pharynx for about half of my patients.
 

Auscultatory percussion for pleural effusions

Guarino and colleagues described a technique that is easily mastered and very effective for determining the presence of pleural effusions.¹ It involves placing the stethoscope 3 cm below the last rib in the mid clavicular line and tapping from the apex down to the last rib.

For patients without effusion, a sharp change to a loud percussion note will occur at the last rib.

If the patient has an effusion, the loud percussion note will start at the top of the effusion.

This method was remarkably successful at finding pleural effusions. In the study, Dr. Guarino found a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 100%.
 

Physical exam for anemia

Look at the nails and see if they look pale. How can we do this?

The first step is to know what your own hematocrit is. You can then compare the color of your nail to that of the patient.

If you have a normal hematocrit and the patient’s nail bed color is lighter than yours, the patient likely has anemia. If you do this frequently, you will get good at estimating hematocrit. This is especially important if you do not have labs readily available.

Another way to assess for anemia is to look at the color tint of the lower conjunctiva. The best way to look for this is to look at whether there is a generous amount of visible capillaries in the lower conjunctiva. Patients without anemia have a darker red color because of these vessels, whereas patients with anemia are a lighter pink.

Strobach and colleagues² looked at both nail bed rubor and color tint of the lower conjunctiva and found that both reliably predicted presence and degree of anemia.

Determining if clubbing is present

Most physicians are aware of Shamroth sign, and use it to evaluate for clubbing. Shamroth sign is the loss of the diamond that is created by placing the back surfaces of opposite terminal phalanges together.

I have found that it’s easier to diagnose mild clubbing by looking at the finger in profile. If the ratio of the distal phalangeal depth compared to the depth across the distal interphalangeal joint is greater than 1:1, then clubbing is present.³

Pearls

1. Have the patient try yawning to better see the pharynx without using a tongue blade.

2. Try the technique of auscultatory percussion to be more accurate at picking up pleural effusions.

3. Know your hematocrit, so you can better use color shade to assess for anemia.

4. Try looking at fingers in profile to pick up clubbing.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as 3rd-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Guarino JR and Guarino JC. Auscultatory percussion: A simple method to detect pleural effusion. J Gen Intern Med. 1994 Feb;9(2):71-4.

2. Strobach RS et al. The value of the physical examination in the diagnosis of anemia. Correlation of the physical findings and the hemoglobin concentration. Arch Intern Med. 1988 Apr;148(4):831-2.

3. Spicknall KE et al. Clubbing: an update on diagnosis, differential diagnosis, pathophysiology, and clinical relevance. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 Jun;52(6):1020-8.

I am a psychiatrist, which means I am a mental health professional, which means I work with people with mental illness. Sometimes people with mental health conditions who suffer from mental illness need to take a day off work – also called a mental health day – because they are too symptomatic to work, and sometimes people who don’t have a mental illness need to take a day off work, also called a mental health day, because they are feeling stressed.

Sometimes professional athletes don’t do things they agreed to do in their contracts because they realize that doing these things is very upsetting and will be detrimental to their mental health, or maybe they have a mental illness and doing these things will worsen their mental health condition, which is, in fact, a mental illness. Other times people with mental health conditions need to have pets travel with them because this mitigates the symptoms of their mental illness or perhaps it’s just good for their mental health. And finally, some people suffer from mental illnesses, or sometimes from learning problems, which are severe enough that a person with these conditions has a disability and needs special accommodations to function optimally in educational or occupational settings, or needs public financial support because their difficulties disable them to the point that they can’t work at all.

Is your head spinning yet? The point I am trying to make is that, as a profession, we have done an abysmal job of defining what we do, who we serve, and differentiating the fact that what someone with a psychiatric disorder needs to do to function or to alleviate emotional suffering may be entirely different from the things that everyone needs to do, regardless of whether they have a psychiatric disorder, to feel their emotional best.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness tells us that one in five Americans are suffering from a mental illness, while the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Program revealed that half of people will meet criteria for a mental illness at some point in their lives. We hear about “the mentally ill” constantly in the news – often in relation to mass shooters or homelessness – yet even psychiatrists might be pressed to define who exactly the “mentally ill” are. And how many of us could not somehow, at some time, find ourselves in 1 of the 157 disorders that DSM-5 lists – down from 365 disorders in the DSM-IV-TR?

Differentiating mental health from mental illness is just the beginning of our semantic confusion. As psychiatrists we treat major depression, and yet the illness “depression,” a syndromic constellation of symptoms, includes the key symptom of sadness. People often say they are “depressed” when they mean they are sad or demoralized, and yet, if their sadness persists in the absence of other symptoms, they may well want, or feel they “should” have medications, even in the absence of a disorder. And maybe those medications help them feel better, so that the presence or absence of a verified illness doesn’t really matter. But if the medications cause adverse reactions, then psychiatry might have done a better job by that person’s sadness. Melancholia, or perhaps any designation than “depression,” with its multiple meanings, might better serve our patients and our profession. This is only one example, as the number of people who tell me they have obsessive-compulsive disorder – or more often announce, “I’m OCD!” because they are well organized in a productive way is remarkable. And while I have treated only a few people who meet the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder, from general conversation it would seem that they are at every dinner table and by every water cooler.

Does it matter? A diagnostic lexicon can be so helpful when it guides treatment, provides a heterogeneous group of patients for research studies, and allows for an understanding of the etiology, course, and prognosis of a given condition. When someone is so depressed that they can’t get out of bed, or is so disorganized that they can’t perform their job and might cause a disturbance in their workplace, it is good to instruct them to take time off work and send them back well with a doctor’s note. But this is different from the person who doesn’t want to face a difficult situation, who simply doesn’t like their job or their boss, or who wants their pet declared an emotional support animal to avoid the fee the airlines charge to bring an animal on board if one does not have a psychiatric diagnosis. Sometimes these lines are blurry – if someone does not want to do something because it makes them anxious, does it matter how deep the pit in their stomach is, or if they are having full-blown panic attacks? When do we agree that their distress is reason to allow them to avoid responsibilities without repercussions versus a violation of their obligations and an infringement on others?

Diagnoses offer solace to some patients: There is a name for their suffering, available treatment, and often others with the same condition to look to for guidance and community. For others, a psychiatric diagnosis is a source of shame, a label they see as damaging to their character and sometimes to their careers – including in medicine – where we have been particularly unsympathetic to those who announce a psychiatric history.

In some cultures, the label itself decreases someone’s attractiveness as a potential marriage partner. We would all like to see the stigma of mental illness vanish, but we have a long way to go.

Psychiatric diagnoses move over time and with our politics and culture. This is good; we don’t hold on to what we learn to be untrue. But they may well add to issues of inequity. Those who can afford to pay for expensive educational assessments can request educational accommodations, including untimed standardized tests. This advantage may not be available to those without the resources to pay for these evaluations, and one might wonder why all comers can’t take untimed tests so as not to favor the privileged. Psychiatry has long been accused of diagnosing people of color with poor prognosis illnesses and women with conditions that imply emotional weakness.

While our diagnoses have clinical utility, it is unfortunate that they have come to be about reimbursement. A diagnosis needs to be assigned for insurers to pay for care, and so we create diagnostic categories to allow for treatment. Is this reasonable? Do we need to say that someone who is suffering after the death of a loved one has a mental illness in order to allow them to seek relief from their suffering? It leads us to believe that all suffering is about pathology, that we should expect pain-free emotional lives. Perhaps we need a diagnostic category of psychic pain, not otherwise specified, to allow for treatment for those who simply ache.

Mental illness is about interventions to alleviate the suffering of those with disorders. Mental health is about interventions that may benefit everyone, whether they suffer from a mental illness or not. Sleep, nutrition, exercise, sunlight, nature, entertainment and escape, yoga, meditation, vacations in beautiful places with loving people – these are things that potentially help us all whether we do or do not have an illness. With so much confusion about what it is we do, and about who “should” get help, who can get help, who might want help, and where they should go to seek help, perhaps it would be better if our lingo were more precise.

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). The has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry ad behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore. She has no disclosures.

I am a psychiatrist, which means I am a mental health professional, which means I work with people with mental illness. Sometimes people with mental health conditions who suffer from mental illness need to take a day off work – also called a mental health day – because they are too symptomatic to work, and sometimes people who don’t have a mental illness need to take a day off work, also called a mental health day, because they are feeling stressed.

Sometimes professional athletes don’t do things they agreed to do in their contracts because they realize that doing these things is very upsetting and will be detrimental to their mental health, or maybe they have a mental illness and doing these things will worsen their mental health condition, which is, in fact, a mental illness. Other times people with mental health conditions need to have pets travel with them because this mitigates the symptoms of their mental illness or perhaps it’s just good for their mental health. And finally, some people suffer from mental illnesses, or sometimes from learning problems, which are severe enough that a person with these conditions has a disability and needs special accommodations to function optimally in educational or occupational settings, or needs public financial support because their difficulties disable them to the point that they can’t work at all.

Is your head spinning yet? The point I am trying to make is that, as a profession, we have done an abysmal job of defining what we do, who we serve, and differentiating the fact that what someone with a psychiatric disorder needs to do to function or to alleviate emotional suffering may be entirely different from the things that everyone needs to do, regardless of whether they have a psychiatric disorder, to feel their emotional best.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness tells us that one in five Americans are suffering from a mental illness, while the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Program revealed that half of people will meet criteria for a mental illness at some point in their lives. We hear about “the mentally ill” constantly in the news – often in relation to mass shooters or homelessness – yet even psychiatrists might be pressed to define who exactly the “mentally ill” are. And how many of us could not somehow, at some time, find ourselves in 1 of the 157 disorders that DSM-5 lists – down from 365 disorders in the DSM-IV-TR?

Differentiating mental health from mental illness is just the beginning of our semantic confusion. As psychiatrists we treat major depression, and yet the illness “depression,” a syndromic constellation of symptoms, includes the key symptom of sadness. People often say they are “depressed” when they mean they are sad or demoralized, and yet, if their sadness persists in the absence of other symptoms, they may well want, or feel they “should” have medications, even in the absence of a disorder. And maybe those medications help them feel better, so that the presence or absence of a verified illness doesn’t really matter. But if the medications cause adverse reactions, then psychiatry might have done a better job by that person’s sadness. Melancholia, or perhaps any designation than “depression,” with its multiple meanings, might better serve our patients and our profession. This is only one example, as the number of people who tell me they have obsessive-compulsive disorder – or more often announce, “I’m OCD!” because they are well organized in a productive way is remarkable. And while I have treated only a few people who meet the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder, from general conversation it would seem that they are at every dinner table and by every water cooler.

Does it matter? A diagnostic lexicon can be so helpful when it guides treatment, provides a heterogeneous group of patients for research studies, and allows for an understanding of the etiology, course, and prognosis of a given condition. When someone is so depressed that they can’t get out of bed, or is so disorganized that they can’t perform their job and might cause a disturbance in their workplace, it is good to instruct them to take time off work and send them back well with a doctor’s note. But this is different from the person who doesn’t want to face a difficult situation, who simply doesn’t like their job or their boss, or who wants their pet declared an emotional support animal to avoid the fee the airlines charge to bring an animal on board if one does not have a psychiatric diagnosis. Sometimes these lines are blurry – if someone does not want to do something because it makes them anxious, does it matter how deep the pit in their stomach is, or if they are having full-blown panic attacks? When do we agree that their distress is reason to allow them to avoid responsibilities without repercussions versus a violation of their obligations and an infringement on others?

Diagnoses offer solace to some patients: There is a name for their suffering, available treatment, and often others with the same condition to look to for guidance and community. For others, a psychiatric diagnosis is a source of shame, a label they see as damaging to their character and sometimes to their careers – including in medicine – where we have been particularly unsympathetic to those who announce a psychiatric history.

In some cultures, the label itself decreases someone’s attractiveness as a potential marriage partner. We would all like to see the stigma of mental illness vanish, but we have a long way to go.

Psychiatric diagnoses move over time and with our politics and culture. This is good; we don’t hold on to what we learn to be untrue. But they may well add to issues of inequity. Those who can afford to pay for expensive educational assessments can request educational accommodations, including untimed standardized tests. This advantage may not be available to those without the resources to pay for these evaluations, and one might wonder why all comers can’t take untimed tests so as not to favor the privileged. Psychiatry has long been accused of diagnosing people of color with poor prognosis illnesses and women with conditions that imply emotional weakness.

While our diagnoses have clinical utility, it is unfortunate that they have come to be about reimbursement. A diagnosis needs to be assigned for insurers to pay for care, and so we create diagnostic categories to allow for treatment. Is this reasonable? Do we need to say that someone who is suffering after the death of a loved one has a mental illness in order to allow them to seek relief from their suffering? It leads us to believe that all suffering is about pathology, that we should expect pain-free emotional lives. Perhaps we need a diagnostic category of psychic pain, not otherwise specified, to allow for treatment for those who simply ache.

Mental illness is about interventions to alleviate the suffering of those with disorders. Mental health is about interventions that may benefit everyone, whether they suffer from a mental illness or not. Sleep, nutrition, exercise, sunlight, nature, entertainment and escape, yoga, meditation, vacations in beautiful places with loving people – these are things that potentially help us all whether we do or do not have an illness. With so much confusion about what it is we do, and about who “should” get help, who can get help, who might want help, and where they should go to seek help, perhaps it would be better if our lingo were more precise.

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). The has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry ad behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore. She has no disclosures.

I am a psychiatrist, which means I am a mental health professional, which means I work with people with mental illness. Sometimes people with mental health conditions who suffer from mental illness need to take a day off work – also called a mental health day – because they are too symptomatic to work, and sometimes people who don’t have a mental illness need to take a day off work, also called a mental health day, because they are feeling stressed.

Sometimes professional athletes don’t do things they agreed to do in their contracts because they realize that doing these things is very upsetting and will be detrimental to their mental health, or maybe they have a mental illness and doing these things will worsen their mental health condition, which is, in fact, a mental illness. Other times people with mental health conditions need to have pets travel with them because this mitigates the symptoms of their mental illness or perhaps it’s just good for their mental health. And finally, some people suffer from mental illnesses, or sometimes from learning problems, which are severe enough that a person with these conditions has a disability and needs special accommodations to function optimally in educational or occupational settings, or needs public financial support because their difficulties disable them to the point that they can’t work at all.

Is your head spinning yet? The point I am trying to make is that, as a profession, we have done an abysmal job of defining what we do, who we serve, and differentiating the fact that what someone with a psychiatric disorder needs to do to function or to alleviate emotional suffering may be entirely different from the things that everyone needs to do, regardless of whether they have a psychiatric disorder, to feel their emotional best.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness tells us that one in five Americans are suffering from a mental illness, while the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Program revealed that half of people will meet criteria for a mental illness at some point in their lives. We hear about “the mentally ill” constantly in the news – often in relation to mass shooters or homelessness – yet even psychiatrists might be pressed to define who exactly the “mentally ill” are. And how many of us could not somehow, at some time, find ourselves in 1 of the 157 disorders that DSM-5 lists – down from 365 disorders in the DSM-IV-TR?

Differentiating mental health from mental illness is just the beginning of our semantic confusion. As psychiatrists we treat major depression, and yet the illness “depression,” a syndromic constellation of symptoms, includes the key symptom of sadness. People often say they are “depressed” when they mean they are sad or demoralized, and yet, if their sadness persists in the absence of other symptoms, they may well want, or feel they “should” have medications, even in the absence of a disorder. And maybe those medications help them feel better, so that the presence or absence of a verified illness doesn’t really matter. But if the medications cause adverse reactions, then psychiatry might have done a better job by that person’s sadness. Melancholia, or perhaps any designation than “depression,” with its multiple meanings, might better serve our patients and our profession. This is only one example, as the number of people who tell me they have obsessive-compulsive disorder – or more often announce, “I’m OCD!” because they are well organized in a productive way is remarkable. And while I have treated only a few people who meet the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder, from general conversation it would seem that they are at every dinner table and by every water cooler.

Does it matter? A diagnostic lexicon can be so helpful when it guides treatment, provides a heterogeneous group of patients for research studies, and allows for an understanding of the etiology, course, and prognosis of a given condition. When someone is so depressed that they can’t get out of bed, or is so disorganized that they can’t perform their job and might cause a disturbance in their workplace, it is good to instruct them to take time off work and send them back well with a doctor’s note. But this is different from the person who doesn’t want to face a difficult situation, who simply doesn’t like their job or their boss, or who wants their pet declared an emotional support animal to avoid the fee the airlines charge to bring an animal on board if one does not have a psychiatric diagnosis. Sometimes these lines are blurry – if someone does not want to do something because it makes them anxious, does it matter how deep the pit in their stomach is, or if they are having full-blown panic attacks? When do we agree that their distress is reason to allow them to avoid responsibilities without repercussions versus a violation of their obligations and an infringement on others?

Diagnoses offer solace to some patients: There is a name for their suffering, available treatment, and often others with the same condition to look to for guidance and community. For others, a psychiatric diagnosis is a source of shame, a label they see as damaging to their character and sometimes to their careers – including in medicine – where we have been particularly unsympathetic to those who announce a psychiatric history.

In some cultures, the label itself decreases someone’s attractiveness as a potential marriage partner. We would all like to see the stigma of mental illness vanish, but we have a long way to go.

Psychiatric diagnoses move over time and with our politics and culture. This is good; we don’t hold on to what we learn to be untrue. But they may well add to issues of inequity. Those who can afford to pay for expensive educational assessments can request educational accommodations, including untimed standardized tests. This advantage may not be available to those without the resources to pay for these evaluations, and one might wonder why all comers can’t take untimed tests so as not to favor the privileged. Psychiatry has long been accused of diagnosing people of color with poor prognosis illnesses and women with conditions that imply emotional weakness.

While our diagnoses have clinical utility, it is unfortunate that they have come to be about reimbursement. A diagnosis needs to be assigned for insurers to pay for care, and so we create diagnostic categories to allow for treatment. Is this reasonable? Do we need to say that someone who is suffering after the death of a loved one has a mental illness in order to allow them to seek relief from their suffering? It leads us to believe that all suffering is about pathology, that we should expect pain-free emotional lives. Perhaps we need a diagnostic category of psychic pain, not otherwise specified, to allow for treatment for those who simply ache.

Mental illness is about interventions to alleviate the suffering of those with disorders. Mental health is about interventions that may benefit everyone, whether they suffer from a mental illness or not. Sleep, nutrition, exercise, sunlight, nature, entertainment and escape, yoga, meditation, vacations in beautiful places with loving people – these are things that potentially help us all whether we do or do not have an illness. With so much confusion about what it is we do, and about who “should” get help, who can get help, who might want help, and where they should go to seek help, perhaps it would be better if our lingo were more precise.

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). The has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry ad behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore. She has no disclosures.

As a physician first and a mental health clinician second, I hope to provide factual medical information on the Omicron variant to my patients, family members, and friends. I also try to remain curious instead of angry about why some choose not to vaccinate.

The most effective way to encourage people to obtain a vaccination is to use communication free of judgment and criticism, which allows a safe space for the unvaccinated to express their motivations and fears behind their current choice of not vaccinating and explore possible barriers to an alternative option that could lead to vaccination.

As an adult psychiatrist, ADHD specialist, and amateur COVID-19 expert, I’d like to offer 10 reasons why Omicron – which ironically means “small” in Latin, can still cause big destruction. Please share these 10 reasons with your patients.

• If you are not vaccinated, this virus will find you within the next few weeks and likely lead to severe symptoms.
• Long-haul symptoms from COVID-19 infection are still possible even for people who contract a milder case of the Omicron variant.
• The monoclonal antibody and antiviral treatments recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for pre-exposure prevention of COVID-19 are limited. For many reasons, now is not the best time to play Russian roulette and intentionally get infected with a “mild” variant.
• There are not enough testing sites or over-the-counter rapid COVID tests available to keep up with the demand, and the latter are cost prohibitive for many people.
• Emergency care during the next few weeks for unforeseen non–COVID-related illnesses, such as a sudden heart attack or stroke, may be affected by the shortage of medical providers because of illness, quarantine, and burnout.
• There will be fewer first responders, including EMTs, police officers, and firefighters, because of COVID quarantines from illness and exposure.
• Although most Americans oppose temporary shutdowns, de facto shutdowns might be necessary because of the absence of healthy, COVID-negative individuals to maintain a functional society.
• Omicron math is deceiving, since the risk of hospitalization with Omicron appears to be far lower than with the Delta variant. However, the higher volume of infections with Omicron will offset the lower severity leading to comparable numbers of hospitalizations.
• Omicron has made it difficult for some schools to reopen after the holiday break, and reopening might become even more difficult as the surge progresses. Many schools already were in desperate need of substitute teachers, bus drivers, and additional staff necessary for COVID safety precautions before the emergence of the Omicron variant.
• And, for a less altruistic reason, as if the nine reasons above weren’t enough – if infections continue, especially among the unvaccinated – where the virus mutates the most – this can lead to a trifecta variant that not only evades the immune system and is highly infectious but causes severe disease in both the unvaccinated as well as the vaccinated.

Because of its extremely high transmissibility, the Omicron variant – layered atop Delta – presents great risk to us as a society. We must do all we can as clinicians to educate our patients so that they can protect themselves and their families.

Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.

As a physician first and a mental health clinician second, I hope to provide factual medical information on the Omicron variant to my patients, family members, and friends. I also try to remain curious instead of angry about why some choose not to vaccinate.

The most effective way to encourage people to obtain a vaccination is to use communication free of judgment and criticism, which allows a safe space for the unvaccinated to express their motivations and fears behind their current choice of not vaccinating and explore possible barriers to an alternative option that could lead to vaccination.

As an adult psychiatrist, ADHD specialist, and amateur COVID-19 expert, I’d like to offer 10 reasons why Omicron – which ironically means “small” in Latin, can still cause big destruction. Please share these 10 reasons with your patients.

• If you are not vaccinated, this virus will find you within the next few weeks and likely lead to severe symptoms.
• Long-haul symptoms from COVID-19 infection are still possible even for people who contract a milder case of the Omicron variant.
• The monoclonal antibody and antiviral treatments recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for pre-exposure prevention of COVID-19 are limited. For many reasons, now is not the best time to play Russian roulette and intentionally get infected with a “mild” variant.
• There are not enough testing sites or over-the-counter rapid COVID tests available to keep up with the demand, and the latter are cost prohibitive for many people.
• Emergency care during the next few weeks for unforeseen non–COVID-related illnesses, such as a sudden heart attack or stroke, may be affected by the shortage of medical providers because of illness, quarantine, and burnout.
• There will be fewer first responders, including EMTs, police officers, and firefighters, because of COVID quarantines from illness and exposure.
• Although most Americans oppose temporary shutdowns, de facto shutdowns might be necessary because of the absence of healthy, COVID-negative individuals to maintain a functional society.
• Omicron math is deceiving, since the risk of hospitalization with Omicron appears to be far lower than with the Delta variant. However, the higher volume of infections with Omicron will offset the lower severity leading to comparable numbers of hospitalizations.
• Omicron has made it difficult for some schools to reopen after the holiday break, and reopening might become even more difficult as the surge progresses. Many schools already were in desperate need of substitute teachers, bus drivers, and additional staff necessary for COVID safety precautions before the emergence of the Omicron variant.
• And, for a less altruistic reason, as if the nine reasons above weren’t enough – if infections continue, especially among the unvaccinated – where the virus mutates the most – this can lead to a trifecta variant that not only evades the immune system and is highly infectious but causes severe disease in both the unvaccinated as well as the vaccinated.

Because of its extremely high transmissibility, the Omicron variant – layered atop Delta – presents great risk to us as a society. We must do all we can as clinicians to educate our patients so that they can protect themselves and their families.

Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.

As a physician first and a mental health clinician second, I hope to provide factual medical information on the Omicron variant to my patients, family members, and friends. I also try to remain curious instead of angry about why some choose not to vaccinate.

The most effective way to encourage people to obtain a vaccination is to use communication free of judgment and criticism, which allows a safe space for the unvaccinated to express their motivations and fears behind their current choice of not vaccinating and explore possible barriers to an alternative option that could lead to vaccination.

As an adult psychiatrist, ADHD specialist, and amateur COVID-19 expert, I’d like to offer 10 reasons why Omicron – which ironically means “small” in Latin, can still cause big destruction. Please share these 10 reasons with your patients.

• If you are not vaccinated, this virus will find you within the next few weeks and likely lead to severe symptoms.
• Long-haul symptoms from COVID-19 infection are still possible even for people who contract a milder case of the Omicron variant.
• The monoclonal antibody and antiviral treatments recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for pre-exposure prevention of COVID-19 are limited. For many reasons, now is not the best time to play Russian roulette and intentionally get infected with a “mild” variant.
• There are not enough testing sites or over-the-counter rapid COVID tests available to keep up with the demand, and the latter are cost prohibitive for many people.
• Emergency care during the next few weeks for unforeseen non–COVID-related illnesses, such as a sudden heart attack or stroke, may be affected by the shortage of medical providers because of illness, quarantine, and burnout.
• There will be fewer first responders, including EMTs, police officers, and firefighters, because of COVID quarantines from illness and exposure.
• Although most Americans oppose temporary shutdowns, de facto shutdowns might be necessary because of the absence of healthy, COVID-negative individuals to maintain a functional society.
• Omicron math is deceiving, since the risk of hospitalization with Omicron appears to be far lower than with the Delta variant. However, the higher volume of infections with Omicron will offset the lower severity leading to comparable numbers of hospitalizations.
• Omicron has made it difficult for some schools to reopen after the holiday break, and reopening might become even more difficult as the surge progresses. Many schools already were in desperate need of substitute teachers, bus drivers, and additional staff necessary for COVID safety precautions before the emergence of the Omicron variant.
• And, for a less altruistic reason, as if the nine reasons above weren’t enough – if infections continue, especially among the unvaccinated – where the virus mutates the most – this can lead to a trifecta variant that not only evades the immune system and is highly infectious but causes severe disease in both the unvaccinated as well as the vaccinated.

Because of its extremely high transmissibility, the Omicron variant – layered atop Delta – presents great risk to us as a society. We must do all we can as clinicians to educate our patients so that they can protect themselves and their families.

Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.

The nation’s Surgeon General, Vice Admiral Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, recently released an advisory report on the current state of youth mental health and recommendations to improve well-being. This action follows a number of emergency declarations that have been made by professional organizations such as the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and other health care groups to raise awareness about the alarming increase of depression, suicide, anxiety, and other mental health problems in youth.

These reports can be helpful in focusing attention and resources for important public health problems. Many still reference the 1999 report from former Surgeon General David Satcher, MD, PhD, which offered a number of eye-opening statistics regarding the prevalence of mental health conditions and the amount of disability associated with them.

Sadly, the present report indicates that many of these indices have grown worse in the past 20 years. For example, the advisory notes that, even before COVID-19, fully half of female high school students reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness (up 40% from 2009). The report then goes on to cite a number of studies documenting even further rises in youth mental health problems associated with the pandemic.

Most of the advisory, however, is devoted to actions that can be taken by different groups, including young people themselves, parents, educators, the government, and even social media and video game companies, to support mental health and well-being. Multiple online resources are provided at the end of each of these sections.

One of the segments is aimed at health care organizations and professionals. While first making a fairly sweeping statement that “our health care system today is not set up optimally to support the mental health and well-being of children and youth,” this part then outlines five broad recommendations that might help improve the fit. These include the following.

• Increase prevention efforts, such as coordination to enrichment programs and referrals for economic and legal supports for families in need.
• Screen routinely for mental health conditions and link those who screen in with appropriate care.
• Identify mental health needs in parents and caregivers such as depression and substance use that can have negative effects on children.
• Increase partnerships between health care groups and community organizations.
• Build multidisciplinary teams that are culturally appropriate and maximally engage children and caretakers in the decision-making process.

The current report is downloadable for free (see reference below) and it is certainly worthwhile for pediatricians to take a look. Dr. Murthy writes, regarding the current state of mental health, that “it would be a tragedy if we beat back one public health crisis only to allow another to grow in its place.”

The report also outlines specific areas where additional research is needed, such as data on racial and sexual minorities and research on innovative and scalable therapies. In addition to the online resources that are provided, the report is backed by over 250 references.

Since its release, the report has generally been well received, and, indeed, there is much to support. The well-known Child Mind Institute in New York tweeted that “this document is a wake-up call for the country and a long-overdue statement of leadership from the federal government.”

Many of the recommendations are admittedly somewhat commons sense, but there are some that are much less so. For example, one recommendation to youth themselves is to serve others – something that may first come across as counterintuitive but can indeed help children and adolescents develop a sense of purpose and self-worth. The call for pediatric health care professionals to screen parents in addition to the patients themselves will likely result in some debate as well. The recommendation to reduce access to lethal means, including the specific naming of firearms, is also a welcome addition. This report also rightly puts a spotlight on the role of societal factors such as racism and poverty in the development of mental health problems and in getting access to quality treatment.

Also worth noting is how much of the advisory examined the role of media in both the problem and the solution. While recognizing that technology, smartphones, and social media are here to stay, a number of suggestions were given to parents, media organizations, journalists, and entertainment companies to reduce the negative impacts these mediums can have. Explicitly recognized in the report is that “there can be tension between what’s best for the technology company and what’s best for the individual user or society.” Also acknowledged was that the link between media of various types and mental health is complex and inconsistent with there being a strong need for additional work in this area when it comes to academic research as well as product development within these companies themselves.

Yet while there is much to like about the advisory, there remain some areas that seem lacking. For example, the text about what causes mental health conditions gets a little dualistic in mentioning biological and environmental factors without much appreciation that these are hardly independent domains. Perhaps more substantially, there was surprisingly little airtime devoted to an enormous issue that underlies so many other challenges related to mental health care – namely an inadequate workforce that gets smaller by the minute. The topic was treated much too superficially with lots of vague calls to “expand” the workforce that lacked substance or detail.

Overall, however, the new Surgeon General’s Advisory is a welcome document that offers updated knowledge of our current challenges and provides practical responses that truly could make a difference. Now all we have to do is put these recommendations into action.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and medical director of Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.” You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

Reference

“Protecting Youth Mental Health – The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory,” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2021).

The nation’s Surgeon General, Vice Admiral Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, recently released an advisory report on the current state of youth mental health and recommendations to improve well-being. This action follows a number of emergency declarations that have been made by professional organizations such as the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and other health care groups to raise awareness about the alarming increase of depression, suicide, anxiety, and other mental health problems in youth.

These reports can be helpful in focusing attention and resources for important public health problems. Many still reference the 1999 report from former Surgeon General David Satcher, MD, PhD, which offered a number of eye-opening statistics regarding the prevalence of mental health conditions and the amount of disability associated with them.

Sadly, the present report indicates that many of these indices have grown worse in the past 20 years. For example, the advisory notes that, even before COVID-19, fully half of female high school students reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness (up 40% from 2009). The report then goes on to cite a number of studies documenting even further rises in youth mental health problems associated with the pandemic.

Most of the advisory, however, is devoted to actions that can be taken by different groups, including young people themselves, parents, educators, the government, and even social media and video game companies, to support mental health and well-being. Multiple online resources are provided at the end of each of these sections.

One of the segments is aimed at health care organizations and professionals. While first making a fairly sweeping statement that “our health care system today is not set up optimally to support the mental health and well-being of children and youth,” this part then outlines five broad recommendations that might help improve the fit. These include the following.

• Increase prevention efforts, such as coordination to enrichment programs and referrals for economic and legal supports for families in need.
• Screen routinely for mental health conditions and link those who screen in with appropriate care.
• Identify mental health needs in parents and caregivers such as depression and substance use that can have negative effects on children.
• Increase partnerships between health care groups and community organizations.
• Build multidisciplinary teams that are culturally appropriate and maximally engage children and caretakers in the decision-making process.

The current report is downloadable for free (see reference below) and it is certainly worthwhile for pediatricians to take a look. Dr. Murthy writes, regarding the current state of mental health, that “it would be a tragedy if we beat back one public health crisis only to allow another to grow in its place.”

The report also outlines specific areas where additional research is needed, such as data on racial and sexual minorities and research on innovative and scalable therapies. In addition to the online resources that are provided, the report is backed by over 250 references.

Since its release, the report has generally been well received, and, indeed, there is much to support. The well-known Child Mind Institute in New York tweeted that “this document is a wake-up call for the country and a long-overdue statement of leadership from the federal government.”

Many of the recommendations are admittedly somewhat commons sense, but there are some that are much less so. For example, one recommendation to youth themselves is to serve others – something that may first come across as counterintuitive but can indeed help children and adolescents develop a sense of purpose and self-worth. The call for pediatric health care professionals to screen parents in addition to the patients themselves will likely result in some debate as well. The recommendation to reduce access to lethal means, including the specific naming of firearms, is also a welcome addition. This report also rightly puts a spotlight on the role of societal factors such as racism and poverty in the development of mental health problems and in getting access to quality treatment.

Also worth noting is how much of the advisory examined the role of media in both the problem and the solution. While recognizing that technology, smartphones, and social media are here to stay, a number of suggestions were given to parents, media organizations, journalists, and entertainment companies to reduce the negative impacts these mediums can have. Explicitly recognized in the report is that “there can be tension between what’s best for the technology company and what’s best for the individual user or society.” Also acknowledged was that the link between media of various types and mental health is complex and inconsistent with there being a strong need for additional work in this area when it comes to academic research as well as product development within these companies themselves.

Yet while there is much to like about the advisory, there remain some areas that seem lacking. For example, the text about what causes mental health conditions gets a little dualistic in mentioning biological and environmental factors without much appreciation that these are hardly independent domains. Perhaps more substantially, there was surprisingly little airtime devoted to an enormous issue that underlies so many other challenges related to mental health care – namely an inadequate workforce that gets smaller by the minute. The topic was treated much too superficially with lots of vague calls to “expand” the workforce that lacked substance or detail.

Overall, however, the new Surgeon General’s Advisory is a welcome document that offers updated knowledge of our current challenges and provides practical responses that truly could make a difference. Now all we have to do is put these recommendations into action.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and medical director of Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.” You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

Reference

“Protecting Youth Mental Health – The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory,” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2021).

The nation’s Surgeon General, Vice Admiral Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, recently released an advisory report on the current state of youth mental health and recommendations to improve well-being. This action follows a number of emergency declarations that have been made by professional organizations such as the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and other health care groups to raise awareness about the alarming increase of depression, suicide, anxiety, and other mental health problems in youth.

These reports can be helpful in focusing attention and resources for important public health problems. Many still reference the 1999 report from former Surgeon General David Satcher, MD, PhD, which offered a number of eye-opening statistics regarding the prevalence of mental health conditions and the amount of disability associated with them.

Sadly, the present report indicates that many of these indices have grown worse in the past 20 years. For example, the advisory notes that, even before COVID-19, fully half of female high school students reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness (up 40% from 2009). The report then goes on to cite a number of studies documenting even further rises in youth mental health problems associated with the pandemic.

Most of the advisory, however, is devoted to actions that can be taken by different groups, including young people themselves, parents, educators, the government, and even social media and video game companies, to support mental health and well-being. Multiple online resources are provided at the end of each of these sections.

One of the segments is aimed at health care organizations and professionals. While first making a fairly sweeping statement that “our health care system today is not set up optimally to support the mental health and well-being of children and youth,” this part then outlines five broad recommendations that might help improve the fit. These include the following.

• Increase prevention efforts, such as coordination to enrichment programs and referrals for economic and legal supports for families in need.
• Screen routinely for mental health conditions and link those who screen in with appropriate care.
• Identify mental health needs in parents and caregivers such as depression and substance use that can have negative effects on children.
• Increase partnerships between health care groups and community organizations.
• Build multidisciplinary teams that are culturally appropriate and maximally engage children and caretakers in the decision-making process.

The current report is downloadable for free (see reference below) and it is certainly worthwhile for pediatricians to take a look. Dr. Murthy writes, regarding the current state of mental health, that “it would be a tragedy if we beat back one public health crisis only to allow another to grow in its place.”

The report also outlines specific areas where additional research is needed, such as data on racial and sexual minorities and research on innovative and scalable therapies. In addition to the online resources that are provided, the report is backed by over 250 references.

Since its release, the report has generally been well received, and, indeed, there is much to support. The well-known Child Mind Institute in New York tweeted that “this document is a wake-up call for the country and a long-overdue statement of leadership from the federal government.”

Many of the recommendations are admittedly somewhat commons sense, but there are some that are much less so. For example, one recommendation to youth themselves is to serve others – something that may first come across as counterintuitive but can indeed help children and adolescents develop a sense of purpose and self-worth. The call for pediatric health care professionals to screen parents in addition to the patients themselves will likely result in some debate as well. The recommendation to reduce access to lethal means, including the specific naming of firearms, is also a welcome addition. This report also rightly puts a spotlight on the role of societal factors such as racism and poverty in the development of mental health problems and in getting access to quality treatment.

Also worth noting is how much of the advisory examined the role of media in both the problem and the solution. While recognizing that technology, smartphones, and social media are here to stay, a number of suggestions were given to parents, media organizations, journalists, and entertainment companies to reduce the negative impacts these mediums can have. Explicitly recognized in the report is that “there can be tension between what’s best for the technology company and what’s best for the individual user or society.” Also acknowledged was that the link between media of various types and mental health is complex and inconsistent with there being a strong need for additional work in this area when it comes to academic research as well as product development within these companies themselves.

Yet while there is much to like about the advisory, there remain some areas that seem lacking. For example, the text about what causes mental health conditions gets a little dualistic in mentioning biological and environmental factors without much appreciation that these are hardly independent domains. Perhaps more substantially, there was surprisingly little airtime devoted to an enormous issue that underlies so many other challenges related to mental health care – namely an inadequate workforce that gets smaller by the minute. The topic was treated much too superficially with lots of vague calls to “expand” the workforce that lacked substance or detail.

Overall, however, the new Surgeon General’s Advisory is a welcome document that offers updated knowledge of our current challenges and provides practical responses that truly could make a difference. Now all we have to do is put these recommendations into action.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and medical director of Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.” You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

Reference

“Protecting Youth Mental Health – The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory,” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2021).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s decision to shorten the length of isolation time for asymptomatic Americans with COVID-19, regardless of their vaccination status, to 5 days from 10 days is confusing. I hope the agency reconsiders this decision.

After all, one of the CDC’s key messages during this pandemic has been that even people with asymptomatic COVID who have been vaccinated and boosted can transmit the disease. So it seems to me that the Dec. 27, 2021, recommendation about shortening the isolation time for COVID-19–positive people, like the agency’s earlier guidance encouraging people who are vaccinated to stop wearing masks while in indoor settings, runs contrary to good public health principles.

As an expert in human behavior, I am worried about the impact of these confusing messages on the psyche of people in general, as well as on our patients.
 

Mental health impact

Soon after the United States went on lockdown in March 2020, I wrote about the likelihood of a pandemic of PTSD, anxiety, and depression that would occur in the wake of rising COVID-19 rates. Well, it happened.

Many people have felt a sense of existential despair, depression, and anxiety. As we head into year No. 3 of disruption of our daily lives – and face the loss of more than 825,000 Americans to COVID – we continue to navigate this uncertainty. And now we must deal with Omicron, a variant that is so highly transmissible that it is apparently able to, in some cases, evade two-dose regimens of mRNA vaccines, boosters, and immunity from past infections, according to a report from Imperial College London. Yet, we are being told by some that Omicron might be less severe, compared with other variants. I worry that this assessment is misleading. In that same report, the Imperial College said it “found no evidence” that Omicron is less virulent than Delta, based on the risk of hospitalization and symptom status.

Meanwhile, animal studies suggest that the Omicron variant might lead to less lung damage than previous variants. A preprint article that is being considered for publication by a Nature Portfolio journal suggests that hamsters and mice infected with the Omicron variant do not have as much lung damage as those infected with other variants. More data need to come in for us to get a true understanding of Omicron’s virulence and transmissibility. We should keep an eye on Israel, which is launching a clinical trial of a second booster, or fourth mRNA shot.

As clinicians, we should give our patients and other people with whom we come in contact a sense of hope. In addition to urging people to get boosters, let’s tell them to err on the side of safety when it comes to this pandemic. That means encouraging them to remain isolated for longer than 5 days – until they test negative for COVID. It also means encouraging patients to wear high-quality face masks while inside public spaces – even in the absence of mandates. I have found it heartbreaking to watch televised broadcasts of sporting events held at some stadiums across the country where masks are not being worn. This absence of face coverings is counterintuitive at a time when some Broadway shows are closing. Even the great Radio City Rockettes shut down their holiday shows early in December 2021 because of COVID.

And, as I’ve argued before, we must not give up on unvaccinated people. I have had success in changing the minds of a few patients and some acquaintances with gentle, respectful prodding and vaccine education.

I would also like to see public health principles implemented in our schools and colleges. To protect the health of our children and young adults, we must continue to be nimble – which means school districts should implement layered prevention strategies, as the CDC recommends. This includes not only encouraging eligible staff members and students to get vaccinated, but requiring face masks inside school facilities, maintaining a physical distance of at least 3 feet, “screening testing, ventilation, handwashing, and staying home when sick.”

Furthermore, in deciding whether schools should remain open or be closed after positive COVID cases are discovered, officials should look at the vaccine demographics of that particular school. For example, if 15% of students are vaccinated in one school and 70% are vaccinated in another, the judgment would be different. Of course, it’s clearly best for schools to remain open, but perhaps closing them temporarily – perhaps for a week or 10 days – should be on the table if infection rates reach a certain level.

Now that we know more and have the benefit of getting more than 200 million Americans fully vaccinated, we can be far more selective about closings and openings. An important part of our strategy must be to communicate honestly with the public about which measures are best for safety. As a key tenet of cognitive-behavioral therapy tells us, “all-or-nothing” thinking is not productive. That should also be the case with our approach to managing COVID-19.

We don’t know the future of the pandemic. Yes, it will end, and possibly COVID will become endemic – like the flu. However, in the meantime, in addition to promoting vaccinations and boosters, we must rigorously encourage our patients to follow public health standards of masking, social distancing, and closing down businesses – and schools – temporarily.

This pandemic has taken a horrendous mental health toll on all of us – especially our patients and frontline health care workers. I’ve spoken with numerous people who were anxious, depressed, and showed signs of PTSD in early 2020; after they got vaccinated, COVID spread diminished, and as public health protocols began to lift, so did their spirits. Clearly for some, the benefit of psychiatric/psychological care centering on the pandemic has proven invaluable. In some ways, the pandemic has brought to the surface the importance of mental health care and removed some of the stigma from mental illness. And that’s a good thing.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist who has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s decision to shorten the length of isolation time for asymptomatic Americans with COVID-19, regardless of their vaccination status, to 5 days from 10 days is confusing. I hope the agency reconsiders this decision.

After all, one of the CDC’s key messages during this pandemic has been that even people with asymptomatic COVID who have been vaccinated and boosted can transmit the disease. So it seems to me that the Dec. 27, 2021, recommendation about shortening the isolation time for COVID-19–positive people, like the agency’s earlier guidance encouraging people who are vaccinated to stop wearing masks while in indoor settings, runs contrary to good public health principles.

As an expert in human behavior, I am worried about the impact of these confusing messages on the psyche of people in general, as well as on our patients.
 

Mental health impact

Soon after the United States went on lockdown in March 2020, I wrote about the likelihood of a pandemic of PTSD, anxiety, and depression that would occur in the wake of rising COVID-19 rates. Well, it happened.

Many people have felt a sense of existential despair, depression, and anxiety. As we head into year No. 3 of disruption of our daily lives – and face the loss of more than 825,000 Americans to COVID – we continue to navigate this uncertainty. And now we must deal with Omicron, a variant that is so highly transmissible that it is apparently able to, in some cases, evade two-dose regimens of mRNA vaccines, boosters, and immunity from past infections, according to a report from Imperial College London. Yet, we are being told by some that Omicron might be less severe, compared with other variants. I worry that this assessment is misleading. In that same report, the Imperial College said it “found no evidence” that Omicron is less virulent than Delta, based on the risk of hospitalization and symptom status.

Meanwhile, animal studies suggest that the Omicron variant might lead to less lung damage than previous variants. A preprint article that is being considered for publication by a Nature Portfolio journal suggests that hamsters and mice infected with the Omicron variant do not have as much lung damage as those infected with other variants. More data need to come in for us to get a true understanding of Omicron’s virulence and transmissibility. We should keep an eye on Israel, which is launching a clinical trial of a second booster, or fourth mRNA shot.

As clinicians, we should give our patients and other people with whom we come in contact a sense of hope. In addition to urging people to get boosters, let’s tell them to err on the side of safety when it comes to this pandemic. That means encouraging them to remain isolated for longer than 5 days – until they test negative for COVID. It also means encouraging patients to wear high-quality face masks while inside public spaces – even in the absence of mandates. I have found it heartbreaking to watch televised broadcasts of sporting events held at some stadiums across the country where masks are not being worn. This absence of face coverings is counterintuitive at a time when some Broadway shows are closing. Even the great Radio City Rockettes shut down their holiday shows early in December 2021 because of COVID.

And, as I’ve argued before, we must not give up on unvaccinated people. I have had success in changing the minds of a few patients and some acquaintances with gentle, respectful prodding and vaccine education.

I would also like to see public health principles implemented in our schools and colleges. To protect the health of our children and young adults, we must continue to be nimble – which means school districts should implement layered prevention strategies, as the CDC recommends. This includes not only encouraging eligible staff members and students to get vaccinated, but requiring face masks inside school facilities, maintaining a physical distance of at least 3 feet, “screening testing, ventilation, handwashing, and staying home when sick.”

Furthermore, in deciding whether schools should remain open or be closed after positive COVID cases are discovered, officials should look at the vaccine demographics of that particular school. For example, if 15% of students are vaccinated in one school and 70% are vaccinated in another, the judgment would be different. Of course, it’s clearly best for schools to remain open, but perhaps closing them temporarily – perhaps for a week or 10 days – should be on the table if infection rates reach a certain level.

Now that we know more and have the benefit of getting more than 200 million Americans fully vaccinated, we can be far more selective about closings and openings. An important part of our strategy must be to communicate honestly with the public about which measures are best for safety. As a key tenet of cognitive-behavioral therapy tells us, “all-or-nothing” thinking is not productive. That should also be the case with our approach to managing COVID-19.

We don’t know the future of the pandemic. Yes, it will end, and possibly COVID will become endemic – like the flu. However, in the meantime, in addition to promoting vaccinations and boosters, we must rigorously encourage our patients to follow public health standards of masking, social distancing, and closing down businesses – and schools – temporarily.

This pandemic has taken a horrendous mental health toll on all of us – especially our patients and frontline health care workers. I’ve spoken with numerous people who were anxious, depressed, and showed signs of PTSD in early 2020; after they got vaccinated, COVID spread diminished, and as public health protocols began to lift, so did their spirits. Clearly for some, the benefit of psychiatric/psychological care centering on the pandemic has proven invaluable. In some ways, the pandemic has brought to the surface the importance of mental health care and removed some of the stigma from mental illness. And that’s a good thing.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist who has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s decision to shorten the length of isolation time for asymptomatic Americans with COVID-19, regardless of their vaccination status, to 5 days from 10 days is confusing. I hope the agency reconsiders this decision.

After all, one of the CDC’s key messages during this pandemic has been that even people with asymptomatic COVID who have been vaccinated and boosted can transmit the disease. So it seems to me that the Dec. 27, 2021, recommendation about shortening the isolation time for COVID-19–positive people, like the agency’s earlier guidance encouraging people who are vaccinated to stop wearing masks while in indoor settings, runs contrary to good public health principles.

As an expert in human behavior, I am worried about the impact of these confusing messages on the psyche of people in general, as well as on our patients.
 

Mental health impact

Soon after the United States went on lockdown in March 2020, I wrote about the likelihood of a pandemic of PTSD, anxiety, and depression that would occur in the wake of rising COVID-19 rates. Well, it happened.

Many people have felt a sense of existential despair, depression, and anxiety. As we head into year No. 3 of disruption of our daily lives – and face the loss of more than 825,000 Americans to COVID – we continue to navigate this uncertainty. And now we must deal with Omicron, a variant that is so highly transmissible that it is apparently able to, in some cases, evade two-dose regimens of mRNA vaccines, boosters, and immunity from past infections, according to a report from Imperial College London. Yet, we are being told by some that Omicron might be less severe, compared with other variants. I worry that this assessment is misleading. In that same report, the Imperial College said it “found no evidence” that Omicron is less virulent than Delta, based on the risk of hospitalization and symptom status.

Meanwhile, animal studies suggest that the Omicron variant might lead to less lung damage than previous variants. A preprint article that is being considered for publication by a Nature Portfolio journal suggests that hamsters and mice infected with the Omicron variant do not have as much lung damage as those infected with other variants. More data need to come in for us to get a true understanding of Omicron’s virulence and transmissibility. We should keep an eye on Israel, which is launching a clinical trial of a second booster, or fourth mRNA shot.

As clinicians, we should give our patients and other people with whom we come in contact a sense of hope. In addition to urging people to get boosters, let’s tell them to err on the side of safety when it comes to this pandemic. That means encouraging them to remain isolated for longer than 5 days – until they test negative for COVID. It also means encouraging patients to wear high-quality face masks while inside public spaces – even in the absence of mandates. I have found it heartbreaking to watch televised broadcasts of sporting events held at some stadiums across the country where masks are not being worn. This absence of face coverings is counterintuitive at a time when some Broadway shows are closing. Even the great Radio City Rockettes shut down their holiday shows early in December 2021 because of COVID.

And, as I’ve argued before, we must not give up on unvaccinated people. I have had success in changing the minds of a few patients and some acquaintances with gentle, respectful prodding and vaccine education.

I would also like to see public health principles implemented in our schools and colleges. To protect the health of our children and young adults, we must continue to be nimble – which means school districts should implement layered prevention strategies, as the CDC recommends. This includes not only encouraging eligible staff members and students to get vaccinated, but requiring face masks inside school facilities, maintaining a physical distance of at least 3 feet, “screening testing, ventilation, handwashing, and staying home when sick.”

Furthermore, in deciding whether schools should remain open or be closed after positive COVID cases are discovered, officials should look at the vaccine demographics of that particular school. For example, if 15% of students are vaccinated in one school and 70% are vaccinated in another, the judgment would be different. Of course, it’s clearly best for schools to remain open, but perhaps closing them temporarily – perhaps for a week or 10 days – should be on the table if infection rates reach a certain level.

Now that we know more and have the benefit of getting more than 200 million Americans fully vaccinated, we can be far more selective about closings and openings. An important part of our strategy must be to communicate honestly with the public about which measures are best for safety. As a key tenet of cognitive-behavioral therapy tells us, “all-or-nothing” thinking is not productive. That should also be the case with our approach to managing COVID-19.

We don’t know the future of the pandemic. Yes, it will end, and possibly COVID will become endemic – like the flu. However, in the meantime, in addition to promoting vaccinations and boosters, we must rigorously encourage our patients to follow public health standards of masking, social distancing, and closing down businesses – and schools – temporarily.

This pandemic has taken a horrendous mental health toll on all of us – especially our patients and frontline health care workers. I’ve spoken with numerous people who were anxious, depressed, and showed signs of PTSD in early 2020; after they got vaccinated, COVID spread diminished, and as public health protocols began to lift, so did their spirits. Clearly for some, the benefit of psychiatric/psychological care centering on the pandemic has proven invaluable. In some ways, the pandemic has brought to the surface the importance of mental health care and removed some of the stigma from mental illness. And that’s a good thing.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist who has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
 

The rapid and unprecedented expansion of virtual care in response to COVID-19 is likely to leave a permanent mark on how health care is delivered. While this expansion has been critical in the near term in caring for our patients while minimizing risk of exposure during the pandemic, it is vital to be forward thinking in considering the ongoing value of virtual care in optimizing routine patient care and in reaching our high-need patients in rural and other underserved areas. We are likely to hear more in the coming months regarding the short- and long-term impacts of virtual care expansion as we transition away from COVID and begin to consider how to maximize use of virtual care in our routine practice. Many questions remain, including defining the optimal balance between virtual and in-person care, assessing whether virtual care is a substitute for in-person care or simply additive, and understanding the impacts of virtual care on outcomes. On the latter questions, a recent study from Kaiser Permanente Northern California found that primary care visits conducted virtually resulted in modestly higher rates of follow-up outpatient office visits than initial in-person visits, but no significant difference in 7-day ED visits or hospitalizations. Whether these results are generalizable to GI patient populations is unclear.

Highlights from this month’s issue of GIHN include a study evaluating the impact of a “virtual” liver transplant center on access to liver transplant listing among patients in rural areas, another suggesting lower serologic response to COVID-19 vaccines among patients with IBD, a new AGA Clinical Practice Update: Commentary offering tips regarding surveillance after endoscopic submucosal dissection for dysplasia and early-stage GI cancer, and results from a phase 3 clinical trial demonstrating the efficacy of upadacitinib for treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

And while the winter weather here in Michigan may suggest otherwise, DDW 2022 is just around the corner – registration opens on Jan. 19, and we look forward to the GI community coming together, whether in person in sunny San Diego or virtually at home or office, for this hybrid conference.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor in Chief

The rapid and unprecedented expansion of virtual care in response to COVID-19 is likely to leave a permanent mark on how health care is delivered. While this expansion has been critical in the near term in caring for our patients while minimizing risk of exposure during the pandemic, it is vital to be forward thinking in considering the ongoing value of virtual care in optimizing routine patient care and in reaching our high-need patients in rural and other underserved areas. We are likely to hear more in the coming months regarding the short- and long-term impacts of virtual care expansion as we transition away from COVID and begin to consider how to maximize use of virtual care in our routine practice. Many questions remain, including defining the optimal balance between virtual and in-person care, assessing whether virtual care is a substitute for in-person care or simply additive, and understanding the impacts of virtual care on outcomes. On the latter questions, a recent study from Kaiser Permanente Northern California found that primary care visits conducted virtually resulted in modestly higher rates of follow-up outpatient office visits than initial in-person visits, but no significant difference in 7-day ED visits or hospitalizations. Whether these results are generalizable to GI patient populations is unclear.

Highlights from this month’s issue of GIHN include a study evaluating the impact of a “virtual” liver transplant center on access to liver transplant listing among patients in rural areas, another suggesting lower serologic response to COVID-19 vaccines among patients with IBD, a new AGA Clinical Practice Update: Commentary offering tips regarding surveillance after endoscopic submucosal dissection for dysplasia and early-stage GI cancer, and results from a phase 3 clinical trial demonstrating the efficacy of upadacitinib for treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

And while the winter weather here in Michigan may suggest otherwise, DDW 2022 is just around the corner – registration opens on Jan. 19, and we look forward to the GI community coming together, whether in person in sunny San Diego or virtually at home or office, for this hybrid conference.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor in Chief

The rapid and unprecedented expansion of virtual care in response to COVID-19 is likely to leave a permanent mark on how health care is delivered. While this expansion has been critical in the near term in caring for our patients while minimizing risk of exposure during the pandemic, it is vital to be forward thinking in considering the ongoing value of virtual care in optimizing routine patient care and in reaching our high-need patients in rural and other underserved areas. We are likely to hear more in the coming months regarding the short- and long-term impacts of virtual care expansion as we transition away from COVID and begin to consider how to maximize use of virtual care in our routine practice. Many questions remain, including defining the optimal balance between virtual and in-person care, assessing whether virtual care is a substitute for in-person care or simply additive, and understanding the impacts of virtual care on outcomes. On the latter questions, a recent study from Kaiser Permanente Northern California found that primary care visits conducted virtually resulted in modestly higher rates of follow-up outpatient office visits than initial in-person visits, but no significant difference in 7-day ED visits or hospitalizations. Whether these results are generalizable to GI patient populations is unclear.

Highlights from this month’s issue of GIHN include a study evaluating the impact of a “virtual” liver transplant center on access to liver transplant listing among patients in rural areas, another suggesting lower serologic response to COVID-19 vaccines among patients with IBD, a new AGA Clinical Practice Update: Commentary offering tips regarding surveillance after endoscopic submucosal dissection for dysplasia and early-stage GI cancer, and results from a phase 3 clinical trial demonstrating the efficacy of upadacitinib for treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

And while the winter weather here in Michigan may suggest otherwise, DDW 2022 is just around the corner – registration opens on Jan. 19, and we look forward to the GI community coming together, whether in person in sunny San Diego or virtually at home or office, for this hybrid conference.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor in Chief

For this Psychiatry Leaders’ Perspectives, Awais Aftab, MD, interviewed Alan F. Schatzberg, MD. Dr. Schatzberg is the Kenneth T. Norris, Jr., Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University. He served as the Chair of the Department at Stanford until 2010 and currently directs the Stanford Mood Disorders Center. He was the 136th president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) (2009-2010). He has been an active investigator in the biology and psycho­pharmacology of depressive disorders, and has authored more than 700 publications and abstracts, including Schatzberg’s Manual of Clinical Psychopharmacology. Dr. Schatzberg is also the coeditor of the Textbook of Psychopharmacology with Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD. He is a Past President of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP) and the Society of Biological Psychiatry, and was also the Secretary-General of the International Society of Psychoneuroendocrinology (ISPNE). In 2003, he was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences (National Academy of Medicine). He has received numerous prestigious awards, including the 2005 Distinguished Service in Psychiatry Award from the American College of Psychiatrists, the 2005 Falcone Award from the National Alliance for Research in Schizophrenia and Affective Disorders, the 2014 Kraepelin Gold Medal from the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, the 2015 Gold Medal from the Society of Biological Psychiatry, the 2015 Lifetime Achievement Award of the ISPNE, the 2017 Julius Axelrod Mentorship Award from the ACNP, the 2018 Donald Klein, MD, Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology, and the 2018 Jules Marmor, MD, Award for Biopsychosocial Research from the APA.

Dr. Aftab: You have devoted much of your career to the development of psychopharmacology. What is your perspective on where the field of psychopharmacology stands at present, especially amid the widespread recognition of “treatment resistance” as a pervasive phenomenon and the scarcity of validated neurobiologic etiological models for psychiatric disorders?

Dr. Schatzberg: We have made considerable progress in the development of new classes of agents for major depression, but as we develop new agents, we still see a large percentage of patients who do not seem to demonstrate adequate responses, particularly in major depressive disorder. This has driven us to look for agents that work differently than previous ones. Although we have some new agents with seeming efficacy and newer mechanisms of action, eg, esketamine, these have largely been derived from clinical, often serendipitous, observations of antidepressant effects rather than from prospective development based on a known pharmacological effect or a biological construct of the disorder. Another intriguing and possibly effective anxiolytic and antidepressive agent is psilocybin, whose potential use is largely derived from clinicians who found it helpful in their practices in combination with psychotherapy. These 2 demonstrate how as we branch out into new territory, we find ourselves moving more and more toward drugs of known clinical risk; eg, mind-altering agents or drugs of abuse. These agents may offer risk-benefit ratios that can ultimately prove to be less attractive than what we might have wanted when we ventured on the journey. Unfortunately, there has been little dialogue about the limitations of several of these agents.

In the case of esketamine, the notion has been that the drug is a blocker of the N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptor, suggesting it is relatively safe. However, we and others have now clearly demonstrated that the antidepressant effect in humans and the antidepressant behavioral effects in rodents are mediated via the mu opioid receptor.^1-3 This implies an abuse and dependence risk, and it is concerning that there has been much emphasis on ketamine’s effect on the NMDA glutamate receptor and not enough on this opioid effect, even though the very active enantiomer esketamine demonstrates relatively equal micromolar binding to both mu and NMDA receptors. Understanding the biology of major depression better and elucidating the key mechanisms of action of agents are both needed if we are to develop more effective and still safe agents.

One approach that has been applied recently is target validation that purports to use functional MRI to assess behavioral and cognitive effects of drugs to allow inferences regarding efficacy in specific disorders. As we have discussed in a recent paper published in the American Journal of Psychiatry,⁴ this can be quite misleading and may provide both false positive and negative information. From my perspective, these tests do not appear sensitive enough to screen for patients having a disorder, nor for assessing possible drug effects in those patients. Thus, it is unclear if they can provide answers today that we can be confident in.

Continue to: Dr. Aftab...

For this Psychiatry Leaders’ Perspectives, Awais Aftab, MD, interviewed Alan F. Schatzberg, MD. Dr. Schatzberg is the Kenneth T. Norris, Jr., Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University. He served as the Chair of the Department at Stanford until 2010 and currently directs the Stanford Mood Disorders Center. He was the 136th president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) (2009-2010). He has been an active investigator in the biology and psycho­pharmacology of depressive disorders, and has authored more than 700 publications and abstracts, including Schatzberg’s Manual of Clinical Psychopharmacology. Dr. Schatzberg is also the coeditor of the Textbook of Psychopharmacology with Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD. He is a Past President of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP) and the Society of Biological Psychiatry, and was also the Secretary-General of the International Society of Psychoneuroendocrinology (ISPNE). In 2003, he was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences (National Academy of Medicine). He has received numerous prestigious awards, including the 2005 Distinguished Service in Psychiatry Award from the American College of Psychiatrists, the 2005 Falcone Award from the National Alliance for Research in Schizophrenia and Affective Disorders, the 2014 Kraepelin Gold Medal from the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, the 2015 Gold Medal from the Society of Biological Psychiatry, the 2015 Lifetime Achievement Award of the ISPNE, the 2017 Julius Axelrod Mentorship Award from the ACNP, the 2018 Donald Klein, MD, Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology, and the 2018 Jules Marmor, MD, Award for Biopsychosocial Research from the APA.

Dr. Aftab: You have devoted much of your career to the development of psychopharmacology. What is your perspective on where the field of psychopharmacology stands at present, especially amid the widespread recognition of “treatment resistance” as a pervasive phenomenon and the scarcity of validated neurobiologic etiological models for psychiatric disorders?

Dr. Schatzberg: We have made considerable progress in the development of new classes of agents for major depression, but as we develop new agents, we still see a large percentage of patients who do not seem to demonstrate adequate responses, particularly in major depressive disorder. This has driven us to look for agents that work differently than previous ones. Although we have some new agents with seeming efficacy and newer mechanisms of action, eg, esketamine, these have largely been derived from clinical, often serendipitous, observations of antidepressant effects rather than from prospective development based on a known pharmacological effect or a biological construct of the disorder. Another intriguing and possibly effective anxiolytic and antidepressive agent is psilocybin, whose potential use is largely derived from clinicians who found it helpful in their practices in combination with psychotherapy. These 2 demonstrate how as we branch out into new territory, we find ourselves moving more and more toward drugs of known clinical risk; eg, mind-altering agents or drugs of abuse. These agents may offer risk-benefit ratios that can ultimately prove to be less attractive than what we might have wanted when we ventured on the journey. Unfortunately, there has been little dialogue about the limitations of several of these agents.

In the case of esketamine, the notion has been that the drug is a blocker of the N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptor, suggesting it is relatively safe. However, we and others have now clearly demonstrated that the antidepressant effect in humans and the antidepressant behavioral effects in rodents are mediated via the mu opioid receptor.^1-3 This implies an abuse and dependence risk, and it is concerning that there has been much emphasis on ketamine’s effect on the NMDA glutamate receptor and not enough on this opioid effect, even though the very active enantiomer esketamine demonstrates relatively equal micromolar binding to both mu and NMDA receptors. Understanding the biology of major depression better and elucidating the key mechanisms of action of agents are both needed if we are to develop more effective and still safe agents.

One approach that has been applied recently is target validation that purports to use functional MRI to assess behavioral and cognitive effects of drugs to allow inferences regarding efficacy in specific disorders. As we have discussed in a recent paper published in the American Journal of Psychiatry,⁴ this can be quite misleading and may provide both false positive and negative information. From my perspective, these tests do not appear sensitive enough to screen for patients having a disorder, nor for assessing possible drug effects in those patients. Thus, it is unclear if they can provide answers today that we can be confident in.

Continue to: Dr. Aftab...

For this Psychiatry Leaders’ Perspectives, Awais Aftab, MD, interviewed Alan F. Schatzberg, MD. Dr. Schatzberg is the Kenneth T. Norris, Jr., Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University. He served as the Chair of the Department at Stanford until 2010 and currently directs the Stanford Mood Disorders Center. He was the 136th president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) (2009-2010). He has been an active investigator in the biology and psycho­pharmacology of depressive disorders, and has authored more than 700 publications and abstracts, including Schatzberg’s Manual of Clinical Psychopharmacology. Dr. Schatzberg is also the coeditor of the Textbook of Psychopharmacology with Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD. He is a Past President of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP) and the Society of Biological Psychiatry, and was also the Secretary-General of the International Society of Psychoneuroendocrinology (ISPNE). In 2003, he was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences (National Academy of Medicine). He has received numerous prestigious awards, including the 2005 Distinguished Service in Psychiatry Award from the American College of Psychiatrists, the 2005 Falcone Award from the National Alliance for Research in Schizophrenia and Affective Disorders, the 2014 Kraepelin Gold Medal from the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, the 2015 Gold Medal from the Society of Biological Psychiatry, the 2015 Lifetime Achievement Award of the ISPNE, the 2017 Julius Axelrod Mentorship Award from the ACNP, the 2018 Donald Klein, MD, Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology, and the 2018 Jules Marmor, MD, Award for Biopsychosocial Research from the APA.

Dr. Aftab: You have devoted much of your career to the development of psychopharmacology. What is your perspective on where the field of psychopharmacology stands at present, especially amid the widespread recognition of “treatment resistance” as a pervasive phenomenon and the scarcity of validated neurobiologic etiological models for psychiatric disorders?

Dr. Schatzberg: We have made considerable progress in the development of new classes of agents for major depression, but as we develop new agents, we still see a large percentage of patients who do not seem to demonstrate adequate responses, particularly in major depressive disorder. This has driven us to look for agents that work differently than previous ones. Although we have some new agents with seeming efficacy and newer mechanisms of action, eg, esketamine, these have largely been derived from clinical, often serendipitous, observations of antidepressant effects rather than from prospective development based on a known pharmacological effect or a biological construct of the disorder. Another intriguing and possibly effective anxiolytic and antidepressive agent is psilocybin, whose potential use is largely derived from clinicians who found it helpful in their practices in combination with psychotherapy. These 2 demonstrate how as we branch out into new territory, we find ourselves moving more and more toward drugs of known clinical risk; eg, mind-altering agents or drugs of abuse. These agents may offer risk-benefit ratios that can ultimately prove to be less attractive than what we might have wanted when we ventured on the journey. Unfortunately, there has been little dialogue about the limitations of several of these agents.

In the case of esketamine, the notion has been that the drug is a blocker of the N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptor, suggesting it is relatively safe. However, we and others have now clearly demonstrated that the antidepressant effect in humans and the antidepressant behavioral effects in rodents are mediated via the mu opioid receptor.^1-3 This implies an abuse and dependence risk, and it is concerning that there has been much emphasis on ketamine’s effect on the NMDA glutamate receptor and not enough on this opioid effect, even though the very active enantiomer esketamine demonstrates relatively equal micromolar binding to both mu and NMDA receptors. Understanding the biology of major depression better and elucidating the key mechanisms of action of agents are both needed if we are to develop more effective and still safe agents.

One approach that has been applied recently is target validation that purports to use functional MRI to assess behavioral and cognitive effects of drugs to allow inferences regarding efficacy in specific disorders. As we have discussed in a recent paper published in the American Journal of Psychiatry,⁴ this can be quite misleading and may provide both false positive and negative information. From my perspective, these tests do not appear sensitive enough to screen for patients having a disorder, nor for assessing possible drug effects in those patients. Thus, it is unclear if they can provide answers today that we can be confident in.

Continue to: Dr. Aftab...

Perinatal mental health disorders such as perinatal depression are common complications of pregnancy¹ and cause significant disability in mothers and children.² Yet despite facing higher 12-month rates of depression than White women,³ Black and Hispanic women are less likely than White women to be diagnosed with and receive treatment for postpartum depression.⁴

In addition to leading to >800,000 deaths in the United States alone (as of mid-December 2021),⁵ COVID-19 has disrupted health care delivery, including perinatal mental health services.⁶ Emerging data also describe neuropsychiatric effects of COVID-19 on both infected and uninfected individuals.⁷ Because Black and Hispanic individuals bear a disproportionate burden of COVID-19,⁸ compared to White women, women of color stand to be more adversely impacted by the direct effects of the disease as well as by related disruptions in perinatal psychiatry services.

Reasons for perinatal health disparities are multifactorial, complex, and interrelated. Disparities, which can be seen as proportionate differences in access by members of minority groups compared with groups in the majority, are related to differences in mental health screening, health care accessibility, and decisions to initiate treatment. In this commentary, we define “women of color” as non-White women, and focus on how traditional barriers to perinatal mental health treatment in women of color are exacerbated in the era of COVID-19. We focus primarily on postpartum depression because it is the peripartum mental health disorder with the highest likelihood of uptake in screening and treatment practices; however, disparities may be present in other mental health disorders during this period.

Gaps in screening and identification

Postpartum depression is a source of mitigatable risk for mother and neonate in the peripartum period, and the topic of screening for its presence arises in educational and best practices materials for primary care, OB-GYN, and pediatric care clinicians. Despite considerable evidence demonstrating better outcomes (for mother and child) with early detection and treatment of perinatal mental health disorders, racial and ethnic disparities persist in the screening process. At baseline, Black, Asian, and American Indian and Alaska Native women are less likely than White women to be screened for depression.⁹ Research shows that screening practices differ based on type of clinic, with one study noting that patients of family physicians were more likely to be screened for perinatal depression than were patients of OB-GYNs or nursing midwives.⁹ Even after adjusting for clinic type, racial differences in screening persist, with fewer women of color screened than their White counterparts.⁹ The literature consistently shows that within the same care settings, physicians deliver less information, less supportive talk, and less evidence-based treatment to Black and Hispanic patients and patients of lower economic status.^10-12 Patient-clinician ethnic concordance is shown to positively impact the therapeutic relationship; at present, depressive symptoms are underrecognized in people of color, for whom referral to psychiatric care may be further compounded by inadequate knowledge of psychiatric resources.^10-13

Data from Medicaid programs reveal that compared to White women, Black women are less likely to attend postpartum visits, which leads to a downstream effect on the ability to identify Black women with mental health disorders during the postpartum period.¹⁴ In addition to experiencing fewer opportunities for detection, women of color are more likely to report somatic symptoms of depression, which may not be detected in routinely employed perinatal depression screening tools.¹⁵

Continue to: Disparities in accessibility and treatment...

Disparities in accessibility and treatment

Black women are more likely to present in crisis and, hence, to acute care settings, which is likely related to disparities in screening and early detection.^16,17 In a recent study investigating racial and ethnic differences in postpartum depression care, Chan et al¹⁶ found that Black women experience higher rates of hospital-based care compared with other racial groups. This study highlights the unavailability or inaccessibility of primary preventive measures to women in racial minority groups, which supports earlier studies that reported a correlation between access to care and severity of illness.¹⁶ Women in crisis may experience magnified disparities in access to high-quality care as they encounter institutional racism, potential loss of parental rights, and barriers due to insurance status.^17,18 Furthermore, access to care for patients who are members of racial minority groups is limited in settings where culturally competent practices are absent or diminished, or discriminatory procedures are implicitly accepted and prevalent.^12,19-22 The adverse impact of language constraints on accessibility of care is also well-documented, with recommendations such as ready access to interpreters to mitigate against miscommunications.²³

Black and Hispanic women also experience significant delays between the time of delivery and treatment initiation.⁴ Studies of postpartum depression detection and treatment in specialty and primary care clinics show that, even when they desire treatment, women of color are less likely than White women to be offered treatment for postpartum depression.²⁴ In terms of treatment options, research suggests women of color prefer psychotherapy over medication management.^25,26 However, studies show that White women are more likely to be referred to psychotherapy.²⁷ Research also reveals that Black and Hispanic women who are receptive to psychotropic medications have reduced rates of medication refills,⁴ which suggests that in these patients, counseling and monitoring adverse effects is suboptimal. In terms of treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs), after adjusting for maternal characteristics, Black and Hispanic women are significantly less likely to receive medication-assisted treatment (MAT) in pregnancy,²⁸ and MAT is significantly less likely to be available in neighborhoods more densely populated by individuals of color.^29,30

Several studies have explored possible explanations for discrepancies in treatment, including cultural expectations, differences in socioeconomic class, and racism. The stigma associated with psychiatric illness, misinformation about psychiatric treatments, and financial limitations have a substantial bearing on a patient’s willingness or ability to engage in psychiatric care.²⁵ Regarding SUDs, a fear of legal reprisal is likely to deter women of color from seeking care.³¹ Such fears are not unfounded; research has demonstrated that interactions with Child Protective Services are increased among women of color compared to White women in similar situations.³²

Furthermore, there is evidence that women of color receive less practical support, such as childcare, breastfeeding support, and transportation, during the postpartum period. Despite the preponderance of literature demonstrating the psychological benefits of breastfeeding,^33,34 structural and psychosocial barriers appear to disproportionately affect breastfeeding rates in Hispanic, Black, American Indian, and Native women, with Black women experiencing the lowest rates of breastfeeding overall.³⁵ Women in minority groups additionally experience disproportionate uncertainty about employment-based breastfeeding regulations.^35,36 Specifically, many low-income jobs are not covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and compared to White women, Black women return to work on average 2 weeks earlier to jobs that are less welcoming to breastfeeding.³⁵ In addition, insufficient education and support from health care settings and counselors play significant roles in disincentivizing women in minority groups from engaging in recommended breastfeeding and childcare practices.^37,38

Continue to: COVID-19’s influence on these disparities...

COVID-19’s influence on these disparities

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted individuals of color. Black communities have experienced a higher rate of COVID-19 infection and a higher rate of death attributed to COVID-19, even after adjusting for age, poverty, medical comorbidities, and epidemic duration.³⁹ The reasons for the disproportionate effects of the pandemic are complex and deeply ingrained in society.³⁹ Emerging data indicate that COVID-19 might also lead to increased levels of psychological distress, anxiety, and depression in pregnant women^33,40,41 and in Black women in particular.⁴² A survey of 913 pregnant women in Philadelphia conducted in May 2020 found significantly higher rates of anxiety and depression among Black women compared with White women, even after controlling for maternal age, gestational age, socioeconomic status, and marital status.⁴² A cross-sectional study of 163 women found that during the perinatal period, women of color were more likely than their White counterparts to experience negative changes in their mental health.⁴³ These differences are concerning because pregnant women who experience high levels of stress during the pandemic are at high risk for preterm delivery and perinatal complications.⁴⁴

Women of color may be disproportionately excluded by models of care that have become commonplace during the pandemic. Remote obstetric care became more common during the COVID-19 pandemic⁴⁵; however, Black and Hispanic patients have been less likely than White patients to use telehealth services.⁴⁶ Whether the differences are related to a lower likelihood of having a usual source of care, less access to digital resources, decreased awareness of the availability of telehealth, or less familiarity with digital technology, the common factor in all of the hypothesized reasons is structural racism.⁴⁶ This is despite the fact that pregnant Black women report higher rates of concern than their White peers regarding the quality of their prenatal care during the pandemic.⁴² In a small study that surveyed 100 women about their preference for obstetric care, a significantly higher proportion of White women preferred virtual visits, with non-White women preferring in-person visits.⁴⁷ Reasons cited for preferring virtual visits included convenience, safety with respect to viral transmission, compatibility with working from home, and less time waiting for the clinician; reasons cited for preferring in-person visits included a feeling of missing out on important parts of care, receiving less clinician attention, and having less of a connection with their clinician during virtual visits.⁴⁷ Women of color have lower rates of perinatal depression screening than their White counterparts,⁹ and less frequent telehealth visits might lead to a further reduction in the detection and treatment of depression and other mental health conditions in this population.

Along with increasing telehealth services during the pandemic, many hospitals implemented stricter visitation policies for patients, including women giving birth, with the potential for greater detrimental impact on women of color. Before the pandemic, a survey of >2,500 women found that up to 10% of Black women reported experiencing racism during hospitalization for obstetrics-related care.⁴⁸ These women also reported barriers to open and supportive communication with their clinicians.⁴⁸ A recent study by Gur et al⁴² found that pregnant Black women reported more worries about the birthing experience during the pandemic than White women. In a setting with restricted visitors, all women are at risk for having a lonelier birth experience, but women of color who are already concerned about barriers to communication and racist care practices also must contend with their lived experience of systemic inequity, barriers to communication, and concerns about frank racism, without the support and potential advocacy they may usually rely upon to get them through medical experiences. Furthermore, pregnant women with mental illness are at greater risk for pregnancy complications. Together, these data suggest that women in minority groups who are pregnant and have mental illness are particularly vulnerable and are at greater risk without social support and advocacy during hospitalization.

The postpartum period is accompanied by unique concerns in terms of breastfeeding and social support for women of color. Women in minority groups had lower breastfeeding rates before the pandemic. Several studies looked at the impact of COVID-19 and associated restrictions on breastfeeding. In the United Kingdom, women in minority groups were more likely to stop breastfeeding due to the challenges of COVID-19–related restrictions.⁴⁹ Compared with White women, these women were also more likely to report less practical support for breastfeeding during the pandemic.⁴⁹ Other factors associated with low breastfeeding rates include lower levels of education and stressful living conditions.⁴⁹ Though these factors were present before COVID-19, the pandemic has exacerbated these differences. Taken together, the evidence points to a role of long-standing structural and systemic inequity and racism in the health and wellbeing of women in minority groups.

A look towards solutions

Although perinatal mental health racial disparities predate the COVID-19 pandemic, differences in access to screening, identification, and treatment for mental health disorders place pregnant women of color and their children at heightened risk for poor health outcomes compared to their White counterparts during and after the pandemic. Despite the advent and progression of telehealth, existing race-based differences appear to have been maintained or exacerbated. The reasons for disparities are multifactorial and interrelated, and some of the outcomes perpetuate certain drivers of racism, which in turn drive continued inequity. Given the symptoms of depression, it is especially worrisome that clinicians may expect vulnerable women with illness-induced amotivation, anhedonia, and apathy to advocate for their own care.

Overall, the evidence confirms an imperative need—before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic—to provide education in mental health and cultural competency to clinicians such as obstetricians and pediatricians, who are more likely to have the first contact with women with perinatal depression. Health systems and government agencies also bear a responsibility to provide avenues for perinatal care clinicians to receive training and to increase access to culturally appropriate treatments through policy and structural changes.

Bottom Line

Racial disparities in perinatal mental health care persist despite widespread incorporation of telehealth into psychiatric services. Until causal factors are appropriately addressed through education, implementation, and structural changes, the benefits that have accompanied expanded psychiatric services via telehealth may only serve to exacerbate these differences.

Perinatal mental health disorders such as perinatal depression are common complications of pregnancy¹ and cause significant disability in mothers and children.² Yet despite facing higher 12-month rates of depression than White women,³ Black and Hispanic women are less likely than White women to be diagnosed with and receive treatment for postpartum depression.⁴

In addition to leading to >800,000 deaths in the United States alone (as of mid-December 2021),⁵ COVID-19 has disrupted health care delivery, including perinatal mental health services.⁶ Emerging data also describe neuropsychiatric effects of COVID-19 on both infected and uninfected individuals.⁷ Because Black and Hispanic individuals bear a disproportionate burden of COVID-19,⁸ compared to White women, women of color stand to be more adversely impacted by the direct effects of the disease as well as by related disruptions in perinatal psychiatry services.

Reasons for perinatal health disparities are multifactorial, complex, and interrelated. Disparities, which can be seen as proportionate differences in access by members of minority groups compared with groups in the majority, are related to differences in mental health screening, health care accessibility, and decisions to initiate treatment. In this commentary, we define “women of color” as non-White women, and focus on how traditional barriers to perinatal mental health treatment in women of color are exacerbated in the era of COVID-19. We focus primarily on postpartum depression because it is the peripartum mental health disorder with the highest likelihood of uptake in screening and treatment practices; however, disparities may be present in other mental health disorders during this period.

Gaps in screening and identification

Postpartum depression is a source of mitigatable risk for mother and neonate in the peripartum period, and the topic of screening for its presence arises in educational and best practices materials for primary care, OB-GYN, and pediatric care clinicians. Despite considerable evidence demonstrating better outcomes (for mother and child) with early detection and treatment of perinatal mental health disorders, racial and ethnic disparities persist in the screening process. At baseline, Black, Asian, and American Indian and Alaska Native women are less likely than White women to be screened for depression.⁹ Research shows that screening practices differ based on type of clinic, with one study noting that patients of family physicians were more likely to be screened for perinatal depression than were patients of OB-GYNs or nursing midwives.⁹ Even after adjusting for clinic type, racial differences in screening persist, with fewer women of color screened than their White counterparts.⁹ The literature consistently shows that within the same care settings, physicians deliver less information, less supportive talk, and less evidence-based treatment to Black and Hispanic patients and patients of lower economic status.^10-12 Patient-clinician ethnic concordance is shown to positively impact the therapeutic relationship; at present, depressive symptoms are underrecognized in people of color, for whom referral to psychiatric care may be further compounded by inadequate knowledge of psychiatric resources.^10-13

Data from Medicaid programs reveal that compared to White women, Black women are less likely to attend postpartum visits, which leads to a downstream effect on the ability to identify Black women with mental health disorders during the postpartum period.¹⁴ In addition to experiencing fewer opportunities for detection, women of color are more likely to report somatic symptoms of depression, which may not be detected in routinely employed perinatal depression screening tools.¹⁵

Continue to: Disparities in accessibility and treatment...

Disparities in accessibility and treatment

Black women are more likely to present in crisis and, hence, to acute care settings, which is likely related to disparities in screening and early detection.^16,17 In a recent study investigating racial and ethnic differences in postpartum depression care, Chan et al¹⁶ found that Black women experience higher rates of hospital-based care compared with other racial groups. This study highlights the unavailability or inaccessibility of primary preventive measures to women in racial minority groups, which supports earlier studies that reported a correlation between access to care and severity of illness.¹⁶ Women in crisis may experience magnified disparities in access to high-quality care as they encounter institutional racism, potential loss of parental rights, and barriers due to insurance status.^17,18 Furthermore, access to care for patients who are members of racial minority groups is limited in settings where culturally competent practices are absent or diminished, or discriminatory procedures are implicitly accepted and prevalent.^12,19-22 The adverse impact of language constraints on accessibility of care is also well-documented, with recommendations such as ready access to interpreters to mitigate against miscommunications.²³

Black and Hispanic women also experience significant delays between the time of delivery and treatment initiation.⁴ Studies of postpartum depression detection and treatment in specialty and primary care clinics show that, even when they desire treatment, women of color are less likely than White women to be offered treatment for postpartum depression.²⁴ In terms of treatment options, research suggests women of color prefer psychotherapy over medication management.^25,26 However, studies show that White women are more likely to be referred to psychotherapy.²⁷ Research also reveals that Black and Hispanic women who are receptive to psychotropic medications have reduced rates of medication refills,⁴ which suggests that in these patients, counseling and monitoring adverse effects is suboptimal. In terms of treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs), after adjusting for maternal characteristics, Black and Hispanic women are significantly less likely to receive medication-assisted treatment (MAT) in pregnancy,²⁸ and MAT is significantly less likely to be available in neighborhoods more densely populated by individuals of color.^29,30

Several studies have explored possible explanations for discrepancies in treatment, including cultural expectations, differences in socioeconomic class, and racism. The stigma associated with psychiatric illness, misinformation about psychiatric treatments, and financial limitations have a substantial bearing on a patient’s willingness or ability to engage in psychiatric care.²⁵ Regarding SUDs, a fear of legal reprisal is likely to deter women of color from seeking care.³¹ Such fears are not unfounded; research has demonstrated that interactions with Child Protective Services are increased among women of color compared to White women in similar situations.³²

Furthermore, there is evidence that women of color receive less practical support, such as childcare, breastfeeding support, and transportation, during the postpartum period. Despite the preponderance of literature demonstrating the psychological benefits of breastfeeding,^33,34 structural and psychosocial barriers appear to disproportionately affect breastfeeding rates in Hispanic, Black, American Indian, and Native women, with Black women experiencing the lowest rates of breastfeeding overall.³⁵ Women in minority groups additionally experience disproportionate uncertainty about employment-based breastfeeding regulations.^35,36 Specifically, many low-income jobs are not covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and compared to White women, Black women return to work on average 2 weeks earlier to jobs that are less welcoming to breastfeeding.³⁵ In addition, insufficient education and support from health care settings and counselors play significant roles in disincentivizing women in minority groups from engaging in recommended breastfeeding and childcare practices.^37,38

Continue to: COVID-19’s influence on these disparities...

COVID-19’s influence on these disparities

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted individuals of color. Black communities have experienced a higher rate of COVID-19 infection and a higher rate of death attributed to COVID-19, even after adjusting for age, poverty, medical comorbidities, and epidemic duration.³⁹ The reasons for the disproportionate effects of the pandemic are complex and deeply ingrained in society.³⁹ Emerging data indicate that COVID-19 might also lead to increased levels of psychological distress, anxiety, and depression in pregnant women^33,40,41 and in Black women in particular.⁴² A survey of 913 pregnant women in Philadelphia conducted in May 2020 found significantly higher rates of anxiety and depression among Black women compared with White women, even after controlling for maternal age, gestational age, socioeconomic status, and marital status.⁴² A cross-sectional study of 163 women found that during the perinatal period, women of color were more likely than their White counterparts to experience negative changes in their mental health.⁴³ These differences are concerning because pregnant women who experience high levels of stress during the pandemic are at high risk for preterm delivery and perinatal complications.⁴⁴

Women of color may be disproportionately excluded by models of care that have become commonplace during the pandemic. Remote obstetric care became more common during the COVID-19 pandemic⁴⁵; however, Black and Hispanic patients have been less likely than White patients to use telehealth services.⁴⁶ Whether the differences are related to a lower likelihood of having a usual source of care, less access to digital resources, decreased awareness of the availability of telehealth, or less familiarity with digital technology, the common factor in all of the hypothesized reasons is structural racism.⁴⁶ This is despite the fact that pregnant Black women report higher rates of concern than their White peers regarding the quality of their prenatal care during the pandemic.⁴² In a small study that surveyed 100 women about their preference for obstetric care, a significantly higher proportion of White women preferred virtual visits, with non-White women preferring in-person visits.⁴⁷ Reasons cited for preferring virtual visits included convenience, safety with respect to viral transmission, compatibility with working from home, and less time waiting for the clinician; reasons cited for preferring in-person visits included a feeling of missing out on important parts of care, receiving less clinician attention, and having less of a connection with their clinician during virtual visits.⁴⁷ Women of color have lower rates of perinatal depression screening than their White counterparts,⁹ and less frequent telehealth visits might lead to a further reduction in the detection and treatment of depression and other mental health conditions in this population.

Along with increasing telehealth services during the pandemic, many hospitals implemented stricter visitation policies for patients, including women giving birth, with the potential for greater detrimental impact on women of color. Before the pandemic, a survey of >2,500 women found that up to 10% of Black women reported experiencing racism during hospitalization for obstetrics-related care.⁴⁸ These women also reported barriers to open and supportive communication with their clinicians.⁴⁸ A recent study by Gur et al⁴² found that pregnant Black women reported more worries about the birthing experience during the pandemic than White women. In a setting with restricted visitors, all women are at risk for having a lonelier birth experience, but women of color who are already concerned about barriers to communication and racist care practices also must contend with their lived experience of systemic inequity, barriers to communication, and concerns about frank racism, without the support and potential advocacy they may usually rely upon to get them through medical experiences. Furthermore, pregnant women with mental illness are at greater risk for pregnancy complications. Together, these data suggest that women in minority groups who are pregnant and have mental illness are particularly vulnerable and are at greater risk without social support and advocacy during hospitalization.

The postpartum period is accompanied by unique concerns in terms of breastfeeding and social support for women of color. Women in minority groups had lower breastfeeding rates before the pandemic. Several studies looked at the impact of COVID-19 and associated restrictions on breastfeeding. In the United Kingdom, women in minority groups were more likely to stop breastfeeding due to the challenges of COVID-19–related restrictions.⁴⁹ Compared with White women, these women were also more likely to report less practical support for breastfeeding during the pandemic.⁴⁹ Other factors associated with low breastfeeding rates include lower levels of education and stressful living conditions.⁴⁹ Though these factors were present before COVID-19, the pandemic has exacerbated these differences. Taken together, the evidence points to a role of long-standing structural and systemic inequity and racism in the health and wellbeing of women in minority groups.

A look towards solutions

Although perinatal mental health racial disparities predate the COVID-19 pandemic, differences in access to screening, identification, and treatment for mental health disorders place pregnant women of color and their children at heightened risk for poor health outcomes compared to their White counterparts during and after the pandemic. Despite the advent and progression of telehealth, existing race-based differences appear to have been maintained or exacerbated. The reasons for disparities are multifactorial and interrelated, and some of the outcomes perpetuate certain drivers of racism, which in turn drive continued inequity. Given the symptoms of depression, it is especially worrisome that clinicians may expect vulnerable women with illness-induced amotivation, anhedonia, and apathy to advocate for their own care.

Overall, the evidence confirms an imperative need—before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic—to provide education in mental health and cultural competency to clinicians such as obstetricians and pediatricians, who are more likely to have the first contact with women with perinatal depression. Health systems and government agencies also bear a responsibility to provide avenues for perinatal care clinicians to receive training and to increase access to culturally appropriate treatments through policy and structural changes.

Bottom Line

Racial disparities in perinatal mental health care persist despite widespread incorporation of telehealth into psychiatric services. Until causal factors are appropriately addressed through education, implementation, and structural changes, the benefits that have accompanied expanded psychiatric services via telehealth may only serve to exacerbate these differences.

Perinatal mental health disorders such as perinatal depression are common complications of pregnancy¹ and cause significant disability in mothers and children.² Yet despite facing higher 12-month rates of depression than White women,³ Black and Hispanic women are less likely than White women to be diagnosed with and receive treatment for postpartum depression.⁴

In addition to leading to >800,000 deaths in the United States alone (as of mid-December 2021),⁵ COVID-19 has disrupted health care delivery, including perinatal mental health services.⁶ Emerging data also describe neuropsychiatric effects of COVID-19 on both infected and uninfected individuals.⁷ Because Black and Hispanic individuals bear a disproportionate burden of COVID-19,⁸ compared to White women, women of color stand to be more adversely impacted by the direct effects of the disease as well as by related disruptions in perinatal psychiatry services.

Reasons for perinatal health disparities are multifactorial, complex, and interrelated. Disparities, which can be seen as proportionate differences in access by members of minority groups compared with groups in the majority, are related to differences in mental health screening, health care accessibility, and decisions to initiate treatment. In this commentary, we define “women of color” as non-White women, and focus on how traditional barriers to perinatal mental health treatment in women of color are exacerbated in the era of COVID-19. We focus primarily on postpartum depression because it is the peripartum mental health disorder with the highest likelihood of uptake in screening and treatment practices; however, disparities may be present in other mental health disorders during this period.

Gaps in screening and identification

Postpartum depression is a source of mitigatable risk for mother and neonate in the peripartum period, and the topic of screening for its presence arises in educational and best practices materials for primary care, OB-GYN, and pediatric care clinicians. Despite considerable evidence demonstrating better outcomes (for mother and child) with early detection and treatment of perinatal mental health disorders, racial and ethnic disparities persist in the screening process. At baseline, Black, Asian, and American Indian and Alaska Native women are less likely than White women to be screened for depression.⁹ Research shows that screening practices differ based on type of clinic, with one study noting that patients of family physicians were more likely to be screened for perinatal depression than were patients of OB-GYNs or nursing midwives.⁹ Even after adjusting for clinic type, racial differences in screening persist, with fewer women of color screened than their White counterparts.⁹ The literature consistently shows that within the same care settings, physicians deliver less information, less supportive talk, and less evidence-based treatment to Black and Hispanic patients and patients of lower economic status.^10-12 Patient-clinician ethnic concordance is shown to positively impact the therapeutic relationship; at present, depressive symptoms are underrecognized in people of color, for whom referral to psychiatric care may be further compounded by inadequate knowledge of psychiatric resources.^10-13

Data from Medicaid programs reveal that compared to White women, Black women are less likely to attend postpartum visits, which leads to a downstream effect on the ability to identify Black women with mental health disorders during the postpartum period.¹⁴ In addition to experiencing fewer opportunities for detection, women of color are more likely to report somatic symptoms of depression, which may not be detected in routinely employed perinatal depression screening tools.¹⁵

Continue to: Disparities in accessibility and treatment...

Disparities in accessibility and treatment

Black women are more likely to present in crisis and, hence, to acute care settings, which is likely related to disparities in screening and early detection.^16,17 In a recent study investigating racial and ethnic differences in postpartum depression care, Chan et al¹⁶ found that Black women experience higher rates of hospital-based care compared with other racial groups. This study highlights the unavailability or inaccessibility of primary preventive measures to women in racial minority groups, which supports earlier studies that reported a correlation between access to care and severity of illness.¹⁶ Women in crisis may experience magnified disparities in access to high-quality care as they encounter institutional racism, potential loss of parental rights, and barriers due to insurance status.^17,18 Furthermore, access to care for patients who are members of racial minority groups is limited in settings where culturally competent practices are absent or diminished, or discriminatory procedures are implicitly accepted and prevalent.^12,19-22 The adverse impact of language constraints on accessibility of care is also well-documented, with recommendations such as ready access to interpreters to mitigate against miscommunications.²³

Black and Hispanic women also experience significant delays between the time of delivery and treatment initiation.⁴ Studies of postpartum depression detection and treatment in specialty and primary care clinics show that, even when they desire treatment, women of color are less likely than White women to be offered treatment for postpartum depression.²⁴ In terms of treatment options, research suggests women of color prefer psychotherapy over medication management.^25,26 However, studies show that White women are more likely to be referred to psychotherapy.²⁷ Research also reveals that Black and Hispanic women who are receptive to psychotropic medications have reduced rates of medication refills,⁴ which suggests that in these patients, counseling and monitoring adverse effects is suboptimal. In terms of treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs), after adjusting for maternal characteristics, Black and Hispanic women are significantly less likely to receive medication-assisted treatment (MAT) in pregnancy,²⁸ and MAT is significantly less likely to be available in neighborhoods more densely populated by individuals of color.^29,30

Several studies have explored possible explanations for discrepancies in treatment, including cultural expectations, differences in socioeconomic class, and racism. The stigma associated with psychiatric illness, misinformation about psychiatric treatments, and financial limitations have a substantial bearing on a patient’s willingness or ability to engage in psychiatric care.²⁵ Regarding SUDs, a fear of legal reprisal is likely to deter women of color from seeking care.³¹ Such fears are not unfounded; research has demonstrated that interactions with Child Protective Services are increased among women of color compared to White women in similar situations.³²

Furthermore, there is evidence that women of color receive less practical support, such as childcare, breastfeeding support, and transportation, during the postpartum period. Despite the preponderance of literature demonstrating the psychological benefits of breastfeeding,^33,34 structural and psychosocial barriers appear to disproportionately affect breastfeeding rates in Hispanic, Black, American Indian, and Native women, with Black women experiencing the lowest rates of breastfeeding overall.³⁵ Women in minority groups additionally experience disproportionate uncertainty about employment-based breastfeeding regulations.^35,36 Specifically, many low-income jobs are not covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and compared to White women, Black women return to work on average 2 weeks earlier to jobs that are less welcoming to breastfeeding.³⁵ In addition, insufficient education and support from health care settings and counselors play significant roles in disincentivizing women in minority groups from engaging in recommended breastfeeding and childcare practices.^37,38

Continue to: COVID-19’s influence on these disparities...

COVID-19’s influence on these disparities

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted individuals of color. Black communities have experienced a higher rate of COVID-19 infection and a higher rate of death attributed to COVID-19, even after adjusting for age, poverty, medical comorbidities, and epidemic duration.³⁹ The reasons for the disproportionate effects of the pandemic are complex and deeply ingrained in society.³⁹ Emerging data indicate that COVID-19 might also lead to increased levels of psychological distress, anxiety, and depression in pregnant women^33,40,41 and in Black women in particular.⁴² A survey of 913 pregnant women in Philadelphia conducted in May 2020 found significantly higher rates of anxiety and depression among Black women compared with White women, even after controlling for maternal age, gestational age, socioeconomic status, and marital status.⁴² A cross-sectional study of 163 women found that during the perinatal period, women of color were more likely than their White counterparts to experience negative changes in their mental health.⁴³ These differences are concerning because pregnant women who experience high levels of stress during the pandemic are at high risk for preterm delivery and perinatal complications.⁴⁴

Women of color may be disproportionately excluded by models of care that have become commonplace during the pandemic. Remote obstetric care became more common during the COVID-19 pandemic⁴⁵; however, Black and Hispanic patients have been less likely than White patients to use telehealth services.⁴⁶ Whether the differences are related to a lower likelihood of having a usual source of care, less access to digital resources, decreased awareness of the availability of telehealth, or less familiarity with digital technology, the common factor in all of the hypothesized reasons is structural racism.⁴⁶ This is despite the fact that pregnant Black women report higher rates of concern than their White peers regarding the quality of their prenatal care during the pandemic.⁴² In a small study that surveyed 100 women about their preference for obstetric care, a significantly higher proportion of White women preferred virtual visits, with non-White women preferring in-person visits.⁴⁷ Reasons cited for preferring virtual visits included convenience, safety with respect to viral transmission, compatibility with working from home, and less time waiting for the clinician; reasons cited for preferring in-person visits included a feeling of missing out on important parts of care, receiving less clinician attention, and having less of a connection with their clinician during virtual visits.⁴⁷ Women of color have lower rates of perinatal depression screening than their White counterparts,⁹ and less frequent telehealth visits might lead to a further reduction in the detection and treatment of depression and other mental health conditions in this population.

Along with increasing telehealth services during the pandemic, many hospitals implemented stricter visitation policies for patients, including women giving birth, with the potential for greater detrimental impact on women of color. Before the pandemic, a survey of >2,500 women found that up to 10% of Black women reported experiencing racism during hospitalization for obstetrics-related care.⁴⁸ These women also reported barriers to open and supportive communication with their clinicians.⁴⁸ A recent study by Gur et al⁴² found that pregnant Black women reported more worries about the birthing experience during the pandemic than White women. In a setting with restricted visitors, all women are at risk for having a lonelier birth experience, but women of color who are already concerned about barriers to communication and racist care practices also must contend with their lived experience of systemic inequity, barriers to communication, and concerns about frank racism, without the support and potential advocacy they may usually rely upon to get them through medical experiences. Furthermore, pregnant women with mental illness are at greater risk for pregnancy complications. Together, these data suggest that women in minority groups who are pregnant and have mental illness are particularly vulnerable and are at greater risk without social support and advocacy during hospitalization.

The postpartum period is accompanied by unique concerns in terms of breastfeeding and social support for women of color. Women in minority groups had lower breastfeeding rates before the pandemic. Several studies looked at the impact of COVID-19 and associated restrictions on breastfeeding. In the United Kingdom, women in minority groups were more likely to stop breastfeeding due to the challenges of COVID-19–related restrictions.⁴⁹ Compared with White women, these women were also more likely to report less practical support for breastfeeding during the pandemic.⁴⁹ Other factors associated with low breastfeeding rates include lower levels of education and stressful living conditions.⁴⁹ Though these factors were present before COVID-19, the pandemic has exacerbated these differences. Taken together, the evidence points to a role of long-standing structural and systemic inequity and racism in the health and wellbeing of women in minority groups.

A look towards solutions

Although perinatal mental health racial disparities predate the COVID-19 pandemic, differences in access to screening, identification, and treatment for mental health disorders place pregnant women of color and their children at heightened risk for poor health outcomes compared to their White counterparts during and after the pandemic. Despite the advent and progression of telehealth, existing race-based differences appear to have been maintained or exacerbated. The reasons for disparities are multifactorial and interrelated, and some of the outcomes perpetuate certain drivers of racism, which in turn drive continued inequity. Given the symptoms of depression, it is especially worrisome that clinicians may expect vulnerable women with illness-induced amotivation, anhedonia, and apathy to advocate for their own care.

Overall, the evidence confirms an imperative need—before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic—to provide education in mental health and cultural competency to clinicians such as obstetricians and pediatricians, who are more likely to have the first contact with women with perinatal depression. Health systems and government agencies also bear a responsibility to provide avenues for perinatal care clinicians to receive training and to increase access to culturally appropriate treatments through policy and structural changes.

Bottom Line

Racial disparities in perinatal mental health care persist despite widespread incorporation of telehealth into psychiatric services. Until causal factors are appropriately addressed through education, implementation, and structural changes, the benefits that have accompanied expanded psychiatric services via telehealth may only serve to exacerbate these differences.

As a health care provider, I have always been interested in topics that concern incarcerated citizens, whether the discussion is related to the pursuit of aggressive care or jurisprudence in general. Additionally, I have followed the issue of capital punishment for most of my career, wondering if our democracy would continue this form of punishment for violent crimes.

In the early 2000s, public opinion moved away from capital punishment. The days of executing violent criminals such as Ted Bundy (who was killed in the electric chair in 1989) seemed to be in the rearview mirror. The ability of prison systems to obtain drugs for execution had become arduous, and Americans appeared disinterested in continuing with the process. Slowly, states began opting out of executions. Currently, 27 U.S. states offer the death penalty as an option at prosecution.
 

Botched executions

So far in 2021, 11 prisoners have been put to death by the federal government as well as five states, using either a one-drug or three-drug intravenous protocol. Of those prisoners, one was female.

The length of time from sentencing to date of execution varied from a low of 9 years to a high of 29 years, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Of the executions performed this year, one was considered “botched.” The victim convulsed and vomited for several minutes before his ultimate demise. In fact, in the history of using the death penalty, from 1890 to 2010, approximately 3% of total executions (276 prisoners) were botched. They involved failed electric shocks, convulsions, labored breathing, and in one particularly horrific incident, a victim who was shot in the hip and abdomen by a firing squad and took several minutes to die.

One of the more difficult tasks for conducting an execution is intravenous access, with acquisition of an intravenous site proving to be a common issue. Another concern involves intravenous efficacy, or failure of the site to remain patent until death is achieved. That is why a few states that still practice capital punishment have returned to an electric chair option for execution (the method is chosen by the prisoner).
 

Majority favor capital punishment

But why do most Americans believe we need the death penalty? According to a 2021 poll by the Pew Research Center, 60% of U.S. citizens favor the use of capital punishment for those convicted of murder, including 27% who strongly favor its use. About 4 in 10 oppose the punishment, but only 15% are strongly opposed. The belief of those who favor retaining execution is that use of the death penalty deters violent crime.

Surprisingly, the American South has both the highest murder rate in the country and the highest percentage of executions. This geographic area encompasses 81% of the nation’s executions. A 2012 National Research Council poll determined that studies claiming the death penalty deters violent crime are “fundamentally flawed.” States that have abolished the death penalty do not show an increase in murder rates; in fact, the opposite is true, the organization concluded.

Since 1990, states without death penalty punishment have had consistently lower murder rates than those that retain capital punishment.
 

Where does that leave us?

Place my attitude in the column labeled “undecided.” I would love to believe capital punishment is a deterrent to violent crime, yet statistics do not prove the hypothesis to be true. We live in one of the more violent times in history, with mass shootings becoming commonplace. Large-scale retail theft has also been on the rise, especially in recent weeks.

The idea of severe punishment for heinous crime appeals to me, yet in 2001 Timothy McVeigh was executed after eating ice cream and gazing at the moon. His treatment before execution and the length of time he served were in opposition to other inmates sentenced to death. This, despite being punished for killing 168 people (including 19 children) in the Oklahoma City bombings.

I know we cannot be complacent. Violent crime needs to be reduced, and Americans need to feel safe. The process for achieving that goal? You tell me.
 

Nurses in prisons

About 1% of employed nurses (i.e., close to 21,000) in the United States work in prisons. This figure does not include the many LPNs and unlicensed assistive personnel who are also working in the field and may underrepresent actual numbers.

Correctional nurses have their own scope and standards of practice. They demonstrate superb assessment skills and organization.

If you can hire a correctional nurse, or even aspire to be one, do not hesitate. Patients will thank you.

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

As a health care provider, I have always been interested in topics that concern incarcerated citizens, whether the discussion is related to the pursuit of aggressive care or jurisprudence in general. Additionally, I have followed the issue of capital punishment for most of my career, wondering if our democracy would continue this form of punishment for violent crimes.

In the early 2000s, public opinion moved away from capital punishment. The days of executing violent criminals such as Ted Bundy (who was killed in the electric chair in 1989) seemed to be in the rearview mirror. The ability of prison systems to obtain drugs for execution had become arduous, and Americans appeared disinterested in continuing with the process. Slowly, states began opting out of executions. Currently, 27 U.S. states offer the death penalty as an option at prosecution.
 

Botched executions

So far in 2021, 11 prisoners have been put to death by the federal government as well as five states, using either a one-drug or three-drug intravenous protocol. Of those prisoners, one was female.

The length of time from sentencing to date of execution varied from a low of 9 years to a high of 29 years, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Of the executions performed this year, one was considered “botched.” The victim convulsed and vomited for several minutes before his ultimate demise. In fact, in the history of using the death penalty, from 1890 to 2010, approximately 3% of total executions (276 prisoners) were botched. They involved failed electric shocks, convulsions, labored breathing, and in one particularly horrific incident, a victim who was shot in the hip and abdomen by a firing squad and took several minutes to die.

One of the more difficult tasks for conducting an execution is intravenous access, with acquisition of an intravenous site proving to be a common issue. Another concern involves intravenous efficacy, or failure of the site to remain patent until death is achieved. That is why a few states that still practice capital punishment have returned to an electric chair option for execution (the method is chosen by the prisoner).
 

Majority favor capital punishment

But why do most Americans believe we need the death penalty? According to a 2021 poll by the Pew Research Center, 60% of U.S. citizens favor the use of capital punishment for those convicted of murder, including 27% who strongly favor its use. About 4 in 10 oppose the punishment, but only 15% are strongly opposed. The belief of those who favor retaining execution is that use of the death penalty deters violent crime.

Surprisingly, the American South has both the highest murder rate in the country and the highest percentage of executions. This geographic area encompasses 81% of the nation’s executions. A 2012 National Research Council poll determined that studies claiming the death penalty deters violent crime are “fundamentally flawed.” States that have abolished the death penalty do not show an increase in murder rates; in fact, the opposite is true, the organization concluded.

Since 1990, states without death penalty punishment have had consistently lower murder rates than those that retain capital punishment.
 

Where does that leave us?

Place my attitude in the column labeled “undecided.” I would love to believe capital punishment is a deterrent to violent crime, yet statistics do not prove the hypothesis to be true. We live in one of the more violent times in history, with mass shootings becoming commonplace. Large-scale retail theft has also been on the rise, especially in recent weeks.

The idea of severe punishment for heinous crime appeals to me, yet in 2001 Timothy McVeigh was executed after eating ice cream and gazing at the moon. His treatment before execution and the length of time he served were in opposition to other inmates sentenced to death. This, despite being punished for killing 168 people (including 19 children) in the Oklahoma City bombings.

I know we cannot be complacent. Violent crime needs to be reduced, and Americans need to feel safe. The process for achieving that goal? You tell me.
 

Nurses in prisons

About 1% of employed nurses (i.e., close to 21,000) in the United States work in prisons. This figure does not include the many LPNs and unlicensed assistive personnel who are also working in the field and may underrepresent actual numbers.

Correctional nurses have their own scope and standards of practice. They demonstrate superb assessment skills and organization.

If you can hire a correctional nurse, or even aspire to be one, do not hesitate. Patients will thank you.

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

As a health care provider, I have always been interested in topics that concern incarcerated citizens, whether the discussion is related to the pursuit of aggressive care or jurisprudence in general. Additionally, I have followed the issue of capital punishment for most of my career, wondering if our democracy would continue this form of punishment for violent crimes.

In the early 2000s, public opinion moved away from capital punishment. The days of executing violent criminals such as Ted Bundy (who was killed in the electric chair in 1989) seemed to be in the rearview mirror. The ability of prison systems to obtain drugs for execution had become arduous, and Americans appeared disinterested in continuing with the process. Slowly, states began opting out of executions. Currently, 27 U.S. states offer the death penalty as an option at prosecution.
 

Botched executions

So far in 2021, 11 prisoners have been put to death by the federal government as well as five states, using either a one-drug or three-drug intravenous protocol. Of those prisoners, one was female.

The length of time from sentencing to date of execution varied from a low of 9 years to a high of 29 years, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Of the executions performed this year, one was considered “botched.” The victim convulsed and vomited for several minutes before his ultimate demise. In fact, in the history of using the death penalty, from 1890 to 2010, approximately 3% of total executions (276 prisoners) were botched. They involved failed electric shocks, convulsions, labored breathing, and in one particularly horrific incident, a victim who was shot in the hip and abdomen by a firing squad and took several minutes to die.

One of the more difficult tasks for conducting an execution is intravenous access, with acquisition of an intravenous site proving to be a common issue. Another concern involves intravenous efficacy, or failure of the site to remain patent until death is achieved. That is why a few states that still practice capital punishment have returned to an electric chair option for execution (the method is chosen by the prisoner).
 

Majority favor capital punishment

But why do most Americans believe we need the death penalty? According to a 2021 poll by the Pew Research Center, 60% of U.S. citizens favor the use of capital punishment for those convicted of murder, including 27% who strongly favor its use. About 4 in 10 oppose the punishment, but only 15% are strongly opposed. The belief of those who favor retaining execution is that use of the death penalty deters violent crime.

Surprisingly, the American South has both the highest murder rate in the country and the highest percentage of executions. This geographic area encompasses 81% of the nation’s executions. A 2012 National Research Council poll determined that studies claiming the death penalty deters violent crime are “fundamentally flawed.” States that have abolished the death penalty do not show an increase in murder rates; in fact, the opposite is true, the organization concluded.

Since 1990, states without death penalty punishment have had consistently lower murder rates than those that retain capital punishment.
 

Where does that leave us?

Place my attitude in the column labeled “undecided.” I would love to believe capital punishment is a deterrent to violent crime, yet statistics do not prove the hypothesis to be true. We live in one of the more violent times in history, with mass shootings becoming commonplace. Large-scale retail theft has also been on the rise, especially in recent weeks.

The idea of severe punishment for heinous crime appeals to me, yet in 2001 Timothy McVeigh was executed after eating ice cream and gazing at the moon. His treatment before execution and the length of time he served were in opposition to other inmates sentenced to death. This, despite being punished for killing 168 people (including 19 children) in the Oklahoma City bombings.

I know we cannot be complacent. Violent crime needs to be reduced, and Americans need to feel safe. The process for achieving that goal? You tell me.
 

Nurses in prisons

About 1% of employed nurses (i.e., close to 21,000) in the United States work in prisons. This figure does not include the many LPNs and unlicensed assistive personnel who are also working in the field and may underrepresent actual numbers.

Correctional nurses have their own scope and standards of practice. They demonstrate superb assessment skills and organization.

If you can hire a correctional nurse, or even aspire to be one, do not hesitate. Patients will thank you.

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