Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Pharmacotherapy for psychiatric disorders is a mixed blessing. The advent of psychotropic medications since the 1950s (antipsychotics, antidepressants, anxiolytics, mood stabilizers) has revolutionized the treatment of serious psychiatric brain disorders, allowing certain patients to be discharged to the community after a lifetime of institutionalization.

However, like all medications, psychotropic agents are often associated with various potentially intolerable symptoms (Table 1) or safety complications (Table 2) because they interact with every organ in the body besides their intended target, the brain, and its neurochemical circuitry.

Imagine if we could treat our psychiatric patients while bypassing the body and achieve response, remission, and ultimately recovery without any systemic adverse effects. Adherence would dramatically improve, our patients’ quality of life would be enhanced, and the overall effectiveness (defined as the complex package of efficacy, safety, and tolerability) would be superior to current pharmacotherapies. This is important because most psychiatric medications must be taken daily for years, even a lifetime, to avoid a relapse of the illness. Psychiatrists frequently must manage adverse effects or switch the patient to a different medication if a tolerability or safety issue emerges, which is very common in psychiatric practice. A significant part of psychopharmacologic management includes ordering various laboratory tests to monitor adverse reactions in major organs, especially the liver, kidney, and heart. Additionally, psychiatric physicians must be constantly cognizant of medications prescribed by other clinicians for comorbid medical conditions to successfully navigate the turbulent seas of pharmacokinetic interactions.

I am sure you have noticed that whenever you watch a direct-to-consumer commercial for any medication, 90% of the advertisement is a background voice listing the various tolerability and safety complications of the medication as required by the FDA. Interestingly, these ads frequently contain colorful scenery and joyful clips, which I suspect are cleverly designed to distract the audience from focusing on the list of adverse effects.

Benefits of nonpharmacologic treatments

No wonder I am a fan of psychotherapy, a well-established psychiatric treatment modality that completely avoids body tissues. It directly targets the brain without needlessly interacting with any other organ. Psychotherapy’s many benefits (improving insight, enhancing adherence, improving self-esteem, reducing risky behaviors, guiding stress management and coping skills, modifying unhealthy beliefs, and ultimately relieving symptoms such as anxiety and depression) are achieved without any somatic adverse effects! Psychotherapy has also been shown to induce neuroplasticity and reduce inflammatory biomarkers.¹ Unlike FDA-approved medications, psychotherapy does not include a “package insert,” 10 to 20 pages (in small print) that mostly focus on warnings, precautions, and sundry physical adverse effects. Even the dosing of psychotherapy is left entirely up to the treating clinician!

Although I have had many gratifying results with pharmacotherapy in my practice, especially in combination with psychotherapy,² I also have observed excellent outcomes with nonpharmacologic approaches, especially neuromodulation therapies. The best antidepressant I have ever used since my residency training days is electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). My experience is consistent with a large meta-analysis³showing a huge effect size (Cohen d = .91) in contrast to the usual effect size of .3 to .5 for standard antidepressants (except IV ketamine). A recent study showed ECT is even better than the vaunted rapid-acting ketamine,⁴ which is further evidence of its remarkable efficacy in depression. Neuroimaging studies report that ECT rapidly increases the volume of the hippocampus,^5,6 which shrinks in size in patients with unipolar or bipolar depression.

Neuromodulation may very well be the future of psychiatric therapeutics. It targets the brain and avoids the body, thus achieving efficacy with minimal systemic tolerability (ie, patient complaints) (Table 1) or safety (abnormal laboratory test results) issues (Table 2). This sounds ideal, and it is arguably an optimal approach to repairing the brain and healing the mind.

Continue to: ECT is the oldest...

ECT is the oldest neuromodulation technique (developed almost 100 years ago and significantly refined since then). Newer FDA-approved neuromodulation therapies include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), which was approved for depression in 2013, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in 2018, smoking cessation in 2020, and anxious depression in 2021.⁷ Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is used for drug-resistant epilepsy and was later approved for treatment-resistant depression,^8,9 but some studies report it can be helpful for fear and anxiety in autism spectrum disorder¹⁰ and primary insomnia.¹¹

There are many other neuromodulation therapies in development¹² that have not yet been FDA approved (Table 3). The most prominent of these is deep brain stimulation (DBS), which is approved for Parkinson disease and has been reported in many studies to improve treatment-resistant depression^13,14 and OCD.¹⁵ Another promising neuromodulation therapy is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which has promising results in schizophrenia¹⁶ similar to ECT’s effects in treatment-resistant schizophrenia.¹⁷

A particularly exciting neuromodulation approach published by Stanford University researchers is Stanford accelerated intelligent neuromodulation therapy (SAINT),¹⁸ which uses intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) daily for 5 days, targeted at the subgenual anterior cingulate gyrus (Brodman area 25). Remarkably, efficacy was rapid, with a very high remission rate (absence of symptoms) in approximately 90% of patients with severe depression.¹⁸

The future is bright for neuromodulation therapies, and for a good reason. Why send a chemical agent to every cell and organ in the body when the brain can be targeted directly? As psychiatric neuroscience advances to a point where we can localize the abnormal neurologic circuit in a specific brain region for each psychiatric disorder, it will be possible to treat almost all psychiatric disorders without burdening patients with the intolerable symptoms or safety adverse effects of medications. Psychiatrists should modulate their perspective about the future of psychiatric treatments. And finally, I propose that psychotherapy should be reclassified as a “verbal neuromodulation” technique.

Pharmacotherapy for psychiatric disorders is a mixed blessing. The advent of psychotropic medications since the 1950s (antipsychotics, antidepressants, anxiolytics, mood stabilizers) has revolutionized the treatment of serious psychiatric brain disorders, allowing certain patients to be discharged to the community after a lifetime of institutionalization.

However, like all medications, psychotropic agents are often associated with various potentially intolerable symptoms (Table 1) or safety complications (Table 2) because they interact with every organ in the body besides their intended target, the brain, and its neurochemical circuitry.

Imagine if we could treat our psychiatric patients while bypassing the body and achieve response, remission, and ultimately recovery without any systemic adverse effects. Adherence would dramatically improve, our patients’ quality of life would be enhanced, and the overall effectiveness (defined as the complex package of efficacy, safety, and tolerability) would be superior to current pharmacotherapies. This is important because most psychiatric medications must be taken daily for years, even a lifetime, to avoid a relapse of the illness. Psychiatrists frequently must manage adverse effects or switch the patient to a different medication if a tolerability or safety issue emerges, which is very common in psychiatric practice. A significant part of psychopharmacologic management includes ordering various laboratory tests to monitor adverse reactions in major organs, especially the liver, kidney, and heart. Additionally, psychiatric physicians must be constantly cognizant of medications prescribed by other clinicians for comorbid medical conditions to successfully navigate the turbulent seas of pharmacokinetic interactions.

I am sure you have noticed that whenever you watch a direct-to-consumer commercial for any medication, 90% of the advertisement is a background voice listing the various tolerability and safety complications of the medication as required by the FDA. Interestingly, these ads frequently contain colorful scenery and joyful clips, which I suspect are cleverly designed to distract the audience from focusing on the list of adverse effects.

Benefits of nonpharmacologic treatments

No wonder I am a fan of psychotherapy, a well-established psychiatric treatment modality that completely avoids body tissues. It directly targets the brain without needlessly interacting with any other organ. Psychotherapy’s many benefits (improving insight, enhancing adherence, improving self-esteem, reducing risky behaviors, guiding stress management and coping skills, modifying unhealthy beliefs, and ultimately relieving symptoms such as anxiety and depression) are achieved without any somatic adverse effects! Psychotherapy has also been shown to induce neuroplasticity and reduce inflammatory biomarkers.¹ Unlike FDA-approved medications, psychotherapy does not include a “package insert,” 10 to 20 pages (in small print) that mostly focus on warnings, precautions, and sundry physical adverse effects. Even the dosing of psychotherapy is left entirely up to the treating clinician!

Although I have had many gratifying results with pharmacotherapy in my practice, especially in combination with psychotherapy,² I also have observed excellent outcomes with nonpharmacologic approaches, especially neuromodulation therapies. The best antidepressant I have ever used since my residency training days is electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). My experience is consistent with a large meta-analysis³showing a huge effect size (Cohen d = .91) in contrast to the usual effect size of .3 to .5 for standard antidepressants (except IV ketamine). A recent study showed ECT is even better than the vaunted rapid-acting ketamine,⁴ which is further evidence of its remarkable efficacy in depression. Neuroimaging studies report that ECT rapidly increases the volume of the hippocampus,^5,6 which shrinks in size in patients with unipolar or bipolar depression.

Neuromodulation may very well be the future of psychiatric therapeutics. It targets the brain and avoids the body, thus achieving efficacy with minimal systemic tolerability (ie, patient complaints) (Table 1) or safety (abnormal laboratory test results) issues (Table 2). This sounds ideal, and it is arguably an optimal approach to repairing the brain and healing the mind.

Continue to: ECT is the oldest...

ECT is the oldest neuromodulation technique (developed almost 100 years ago and significantly refined since then). Newer FDA-approved neuromodulation therapies include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), which was approved for depression in 2013, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in 2018, smoking cessation in 2020, and anxious depression in 2021.⁷ Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is used for drug-resistant epilepsy and was later approved for treatment-resistant depression,^8,9 but some studies report it can be helpful for fear and anxiety in autism spectrum disorder¹⁰ and primary insomnia.¹¹

There are many other neuromodulation therapies in development¹² that have not yet been FDA approved (Table 3). The most prominent of these is deep brain stimulation (DBS), which is approved for Parkinson disease and has been reported in many studies to improve treatment-resistant depression^13,14 and OCD.¹⁵ Another promising neuromodulation therapy is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which has promising results in schizophrenia¹⁶ similar to ECT’s effects in treatment-resistant schizophrenia.¹⁷

A particularly exciting neuromodulation approach published by Stanford University researchers is Stanford accelerated intelligent neuromodulation therapy (SAINT),¹⁸ which uses intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) daily for 5 days, targeted at the subgenual anterior cingulate gyrus (Brodman area 25). Remarkably, efficacy was rapid, with a very high remission rate (absence of symptoms) in approximately 90% of patients with severe depression.¹⁸

The future is bright for neuromodulation therapies, and for a good reason. Why send a chemical agent to every cell and organ in the body when the brain can be targeted directly? As psychiatric neuroscience advances to a point where we can localize the abnormal neurologic circuit in a specific brain region for each psychiatric disorder, it will be possible to treat almost all psychiatric disorders without burdening patients with the intolerable symptoms or safety adverse effects of medications. Psychiatrists should modulate their perspective about the future of psychiatric treatments. And finally, I propose that psychotherapy should be reclassified as a “verbal neuromodulation” technique.

Pharmacotherapy for psychiatric disorders is a mixed blessing. The advent of psychotropic medications since the 1950s (antipsychotics, antidepressants, anxiolytics, mood stabilizers) has revolutionized the treatment of serious psychiatric brain disorders, allowing certain patients to be discharged to the community after a lifetime of institutionalization.

However, like all medications, psychotropic agents are often associated with various potentially intolerable symptoms (Table 1) or safety complications (Table 2) because they interact with every organ in the body besides their intended target, the brain, and its neurochemical circuitry.

Imagine if we could treat our psychiatric patients while bypassing the body and achieve response, remission, and ultimately recovery without any systemic adverse effects. Adherence would dramatically improve, our patients’ quality of life would be enhanced, and the overall effectiveness (defined as the complex package of efficacy, safety, and tolerability) would be superior to current pharmacotherapies. This is important because most psychiatric medications must be taken daily for years, even a lifetime, to avoid a relapse of the illness. Psychiatrists frequently must manage adverse effects or switch the patient to a different medication if a tolerability or safety issue emerges, which is very common in psychiatric practice. A significant part of psychopharmacologic management includes ordering various laboratory tests to monitor adverse reactions in major organs, especially the liver, kidney, and heart. Additionally, psychiatric physicians must be constantly cognizant of medications prescribed by other clinicians for comorbid medical conditions to successfully navigate the turbulent seas of pharmacokinetic interactions.

I am sure you have noticed that whenever you watch a direct-to-consumer commercial for any medication, 90% of the advertisement is a background voice listing the various tolerability and safety complications of the medication as required by the FDA. Interestingly, these ads frequently contain colorful scenery and joyful clips, which I suspect are cleverly designed to distract the audience from focusing on the list of adverse effects.

Benefits of nonpharmacologic treatments

No wonder I am a fan of psychotherapy, a well-established psychiatric treatment modality that completely avoids body tissues. It directly targets the brain without needlessly interacting with any other organ. Psychotherapy’s many benefits (improving insight, enhancing adherence, improving self-esteem, reducing risky behaviors, guiding stress management and coping skills, modifying unhealthy beliefs, and ultimately relieving symptoms such as anxiety and depression) are achieved without any somatic adverse effects! Psychotherapy has also been shown to induce neuroplasticity and reduce inflammatory biomarkers.¹ Unlike FDA-approved medications, psychotherapy does not include a “package insert,” 10 to 20 pages (in small print) that mostly focus on warnings, precautions, and sundry physical adverse effects. Even the dosing of psychotherapy is left entirely up to the treating clinician!

Although I have had many gratifying results with pharmacotherapy in my practice, especially in combination with psychotherapy,² I also have observed excellent outcomes with nonpharmacologic approaches, especially neuromodulation therapies. The best antidepressant I have ever used since my residency training days is electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). My experience is consistent with a large meta-analysis³showing a huge effect size (Cohen d = .91) in contrast to the usual effect size of .3 to .5 for standard antidepressants (except IV ketamine). A recent study showed ECT is even better than the vaunted rapid-acting ketamine,⁴ which is further evidence of its remarkable efficacy in depression. Neuroimaging studies report that ECT rapidly increases the volume of the hippocampus,^5,6 which shrinks in size in patients with unipolar or bipolar depression.

Neuromodulation may very well be the future of psychiatric therapeutics. It targets the brain and avoids the body, thus achieving efficacy with minimal systemic tolerability (ie, patient complaints) (Table 1) or safety (abnormal laboratory test results) issues (Table 2). This sounds ideal, and it is arguably an optimal approach to repairing the brain and healing the mind.

Continue to: ECT is the oldest...

ECT is the oldest neuromodulation technique (developed almost 100 years ago and significantly refined since then). Newer FDA-approved neuromodulation therapies include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), which was approved for depression in 2013, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in 2018, smoking cessation in 2020, and anxious depression in 2021.⁷ Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is used for drug-resistant epilepsy and was later approved for treatment-resistant depression,^8,9 but some studies report it can be helpful for fear and anxiety in autism spectrum disorder¹⁰ and primary insomnia.¹¹

There are many other neuromodulation therapies in development¹² that have not yet been FDA approved (Table 3). The most prominent of these is deep brain stimulation (DBS), which is approved for Parkinson disease and has been reported in many studies to improve treatment-resistant depression^13,14 and OCD.¹⁵ Another promising neuromodulation therapy is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which has promising results in schizophrenia¹⁶ similar to ECT’s effects in treatment-resistant schizophrenia.¹⁷

A particularly exciting neuromodulation approach published by Stanford University researchers is Stanford accelerated intelligent neuromodulation therapy (SAINT),¹⁸ which uses intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) daily for 5 days, targeted at the subgenual anterior cingulate gyrus (Brodman area 25). Remarkably, efficacy was rapid, with a very high remission rate (absence of symptoms) in approximately 90% of patients with severe depression.¹⁸

The future is bright for neuromodulation therapies, and for a good reason. Why send a chemical agent to every cell and organ in the body when the brain can be targeted directly? As psychiatric neuroscience advances to a point where we can localize the abnormal neurologic circuit in a specific brain region for each psychiatric disorder, it will be possible to treat almost all psychiatric disorders without burdening patients with the intolerable symptoms or safety adverse effects of medications. Psychiatrists should modulate their perspective about the future of psychiatric treatments. And finally, I propose that psychotherapy should be reclassified as a “verbal neuromodulation” technique.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) affects 1-2% of the population. The disorder is characterized by recurrent intrusive unwanted thoughts (obsessions) that cause significant distress and anxiety, and behavioral or mental rituals (compulsions) that are performed to reduce distress stemming from obsessions. OCD may onset at any time in life, but most commonly begins in childhood or in early adulthood.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) with exposure and response prevention is an empirically based and highly effective treatment for OCD. However, most youth with OCD do not receive any treatment, which is related to a shortage of mental health care providers with expertise in assessment and treatment of the disorder, and misdiagnosis of the disorder is all too prevalent.

Aside from the subjective emotional toll associated with OCD, individuals living with this disorder frequently experience interpersonal, academic, and vocational impairments. Nevertheless, OCD is often overlooked or misdiagnosed. This may be more pronounced in youth with OCD, particularly in primary health care settings and large nonspecialized medical institutions. In fact, research indicates that pediatric OCD is often underrecognized even among mental health professionals. This situation is not new, and in fact the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom stated that there is an urgent need to develop brief reliable screeners for OCD nearly 20 years ago.

Although there were several attempts to develop brief screening scales for adults and youth with OCD, none of them were found to be suitable for use as rapid screening tools in nonspecialized settings. One of the primary reasons is that OCD is associated with different “themes” or dimensions. For example, a child with OCD may engage in cleaning rituals because the context (or dimension) of their obsessions is contamination concerns. Another child with OCD, who may suffer from similar overall symptom severity, may primarily engage in checking rituals which are related with obsessions associated with fear of being responsible for harm. Therefore, one child with OCD may score very high on items assessing one dimension (e.g., contamination concerns), but very low on another dimension (e.g., harm obsessions).

This results in a known challenge in the assessment and psychometrics of self-report (as opposed to clinician administered) measures of OCD. Secondly, development of such measures requires very large carefully screened samples of individuals with OCD, with other disorders, and those without a known psychological disorder – which may be more challenging than requiring adult participants.

In order to address the urgent need for an ultrabrief measure for youth with OCD, we formed an international collaboration with the goal of developing a reliable ultrabrief self-report screening scale for this population. To accomplish this, we harmonized data from several sites that included three samples of carefully screened youths with OCD, with other disorders, and without known disorders who completed multiple self-report questionnaires, including the 21-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory – Child Version (OCI-CV).

Utilizing psychometric analyses including factor analyses, invariance analyses, and item response theory methodologies, we were able to develop an ultrabrief measure extracted from the OCI-CV: the 5-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory – Child Version (OCI-CV-5). This very brief self-report measure was found to have very good psychometric properties including a sensitive and specific clinical cutoff score. Youth who score at or above the cutoff score are nearly 21 times more likely to meet criteria for OCD.

This measure corresponds to a need to rapidly screen for OCD in children in nonspecialized settings, including community mental health clinics, primary care settings, and pediatric treatment facilities. However, it is important to note it is not a diagnostic measure. The measure is intended to identify youth who should be referred to a mental health care professional to conduct a diagnostic interview.

Dr. Abramovitch is a clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist based in Austin, Tex., and an associate professor at Texas State University. Dr. Abramowitz is professor and director of clinical training in the Anxiety and Stress Lab at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. McKay is professor of psychology at Fordham University, Bronx, N.Y.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) affects 1-2% of the population. The disorder is characterized by recurrent intrusive unwanted thoughts (obsessions) that cause significant distress and anxiety, and behavioral or mental rituals (compulsions) that are performed to reduce distress stemming from obsessions. OCD may onset at any time in life, but most commonly begins in childhood or in early adulthood.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) with exposure and response prevention is an empirically based and highly effective treatment for OCD. However, most youth with OCD do not receive any treatment, which is related to a shortage of mental health care providers with expertise in assessment and treatment of the disorder, and misdiagnosis of the disorder is all too prevalent.

Aside from the subjective emotional toll associated with OCD, individuals living with this disorder frequently experience interpersonal, academic, and vocational impairments. Nevertheless, OCD is often overlooked or misdiagnosed. This may be more pronounced in youth with OCD, particularly in primary health care settings and large nonspecialized medical institutions. In fact, research indicates that pediatric OCD is often underrecognized even among mental health professionals. This situation is not new, and in fact the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom stated that there is an urgent need to develop brief reliable screeners for OCD nearly 20 years ago.

Although there were several attempts to develop brief screening scales for adults and youth with OCD, none of them were found to be suitable for use as rapid screening tools in nonspecialized settings. One of the primary reasons is that OCD is associated with different “themes” or dimensions. For example, a child with OCD may engage in cleaning rituals because the context (or dimension) of their obsessions is contamination concerns. Another child with OCD, who may suffer from similar overall symptom severity, may primarily engage in checking rituals which are related with obsessions associated with fear of being responsible for harm. Therefore, one child with OCD may score very high on items assessing one dimension (e.g., contamination concerns), but very low on another dimension (e.g., harm obsessions).

This results in a known challenge in the assessment and psychometrics of self-report (as opposed to clinician administered) measures of OCD. Secondly, development of such measures requires very large carefully screened samples of individuals with OCD, with other disorders, and those without a known psychological disorder – which may be more challenging than requiring adult participants.

In order to address the urgent need for an ultrabrief measure for youth with OCD, we formed an international collaboration with the goal of developing a reliable ultrabrief self-report screening scale for this population. To accomplish this, we harmonized data from several sites that included three samples of carefully screened youths with OCD, with other disorders, and without known disorders who completed multiple self-report questionnaires, including the 21-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory – Child Version (OCI-CV).

Utilizing psychometric analyses including factor analyses, invariance analyses, and item response theory methodologies, we were able to develop an ultrabrief measure extracted from the OCI-CV: the 5-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory – Child Version (OCI-CV-5). This very brief self-report measure was found to have very good psychometric properties including a sensitive and specific clinical cutoff score. Youth who score at or above the cutoff score are nearly 21 times more likely to meet criteria for OCD.

This measure corresponds to a need to rapidly screen for OCD in children in nonspecialized settings, including community mental health clinics, primary care settings, and pediatric treatment facilities. However, it is important to note it is not a diagnostic measure. The measure is intended to identify youth who should be referred to a mental health care professional to conduct a diagnostic interview.

Dr. Abramovitch is a clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist based in Austin, Tex., and an associate professor at Texas State University. Dr. Abramowitz is professor and director of clinical training in the Anxiety and Stress Lab at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. McKay is professor of psychology at Fordham University, Bronx, N.Y.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) affects 1-2% of the population. The disorder is characterized by recurrent intrusive unwanted thoughts (obsessions) that cause significant distress and anxiety, and behavioral or mental rituals (compulsions) that are performed to reduce distress stemming from obsessions. OCD may onset at any time in life, but most commonly begins in childhood or in early adulthood.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) with exposure and response prevention is an empirically based and highly effective treatment for OCD. However, most youth with OCD do not receive any treatment, which is related to a shortage of mental health care providers with expertise in assessment and treatment of the disorder, and misdiagnosis of the disorder is all too prevalent.

Aside from the subjective emotional toll associated with OCD, individuals living with this disorder frequently experience interpersonal, academic, and vocational impairments. Nevertheless, OCD is often overlooked or misdiagnosed. This may be more pronounced in youth with OCD, particularly in primary health care settings and large nonspecialized medical institutions. In fact, research indicates that pediatric OCD is often underrecognized even among mental health professionals. This situation is not new, and in fact the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom stated that there is an urgent need to develop brief reliable screeners for OCD nearly 20 years ago.

Although there were several attempts to develop brief screening scales for adults and youth with OCD, none of them were found to be suitable for use as rapid screening tools in nonspecialized settings. One of the primary reasons is that OCD is associated with different “themes” or dimensions. For example, a child with OCD may engage in cleaning rituals because the context (or dimension) of their obsessions is contamination concerns. Another child with OCD, who may suffer from similar overall symptom severity, may primarily engage in checking rituals which are related with obsessions associated with fear of being responsible for harm. Therefore, one child with OCD may score very high on items assessing one dimension (e.g., contamination concerns), but very low on another dimension (e.g., harm obsessions).

This results in a known challenge in the assessment and psychometrics of self-report (as opposed to clinician administered) measures of OCD. Secondly, development of such measures requires very large carefully screened samples of individuals with OCD, with other disorders, and those without a known psychological disorder – which may be more challenging than requiring adult participants.

In order to address the urgent need for an ultrabrief measure for youth with OCD, we formed an international collaboration with the goal of developing a reliable ultrabrief self-report screening scale for this population. To accomplish this, we harmonized data from several sites that included three samples of carefully screened youths with OCD, with other disorders, and without known disorders who completed multiple self-report questionnaires, including the 21-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory – Child Version (OCI-CV).

Utilizing psychometric analyses including factor analyses, invariance analyses, and item response theory methodologies, we were able to develop an ultrabrief measure extracted from the OCI-CV: the 5-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory – Child Version (OCI-CV-5). This very brief self-report measure was found to have very good psychometric properties including a sensitive and specific clinical cutoff score. Youth who score at or above the cutoff score are nearly 21 times more likely to meet criteria for OCD.

This measure corresponds to a need to rapidly screen for OCD in children in nonspecialized settings, including community mental health clinics, primary care settings, and pediatric treatment facilities. However, it is important to note it is not a diagnostic measure. The measure is intended to identify youth who should be referred to a mental health care professional to conduct a diagnostic interview.

Dr. Abramovitch is a clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist based in Austin, Tex., and an associate professor at Texas State University. Dr. Abramowitz is professor and director of clinical training in the Anxiety and Stress Lab at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. McKay is professor of psychology at Fordham University, Bronx, N.Y.

Patients who presented to a laser and cosmetic dermatology clinic were significantly more likely to be on a psychiatric medication and/or carry a psychiatric diagnosis, compared with those who presented to a medical dermatology clinic, results from a large retrospective analysis showed.

“As the rate of cosmetic procedures continues to increase, it is crucial that physicians understand that many patients with a psychiatric disorder require clear communication and appropriate consultation visits,” lead study author Patricia Richey, MD, told this news organization.

While studies have displayed links between the desire for a cosmetic procedure and psychiatric stressors and disorders – most commonly mood disorders, personality disorders, body dysmorphic disorder, and addiction-like behavior – the scarce literature on the subject mostly comes from the realm of plastic surgery.

“The relationship between psychiatric disease and the motivation for dermatologic cosmetic procedures has never been fully elucidated,” said Dr. Richey, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “A possible association between psychiatric disorder and the motivation for cosmetic procedures is critical to understand given increasing procedure rates and the need for clear communication and appropriate consultation visits with these patients.”

For the retrospective cohort study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Richey; Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at MGH; and Ryan W. Chapin, PharmD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, reviewed the medical records of 1,000 patients from a cosmetic dermatology clinic and 1,000 patients from a medical dermatology clinic, both at MGH. Those who crossed over between the two clinics were excluded from the analysis.

Patients in the cosmetic group were significantly younger than those in the medical group (a mean of 48 vs. 56 years, respectively; P < .0001), and there was a higher percentage of women than men in both groups (78.5% vs. 21.5% in the cosmetic group and 61.4% vs. 38.6% in the medical group; P < .00001).

The researchers found that 49% of patients in the cosmetic group had been diagnosed with at least one psychiatric disorder, compared with 33% in the medical group (P < .00001), most commonly anxiety, depression, ADHD, and insomnia. In addition, 39 patients in the cosmetic group had 2 or more psychiatric disorders, compared with 22 of those in the medical group.

Similarly, 44% of patients in the cosmetic group were on a psychiatric medication, compared with 28% in the medical group (P < .00001). The average number of medications among those on more than one psychiatric medication was 1.67 among those in the cosmetic dermatology group versus 1.48 among those in the medical dermatology group (P = .020).

By drug class, a higher percentage of patients in the cosmetic group, compared with those in the medical group, were taking antidepressants (33% vs. 21%, respectively; P < .00001), anxiolytics (26% vs. 13%; P < .00001), mood stabilizers (2.80% vs. 1.10%; P = .006), and stimulants (15.2% vs. 7.20%; P < .00001). The proportion of those taking antipsychotics was essentially even in the two groups (2.50% vs. 2.70%; P = .779).

Dr. Richey and colleagues also observed that patients in the cosmetic group had significantly higher rates of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and ADHD than those in the medical group. “This finding did not particularly surprise me,” she said, since she and her colleagues recently published a study on the association of stimulant use with psychocutaneous disease.

“Stimulants are used to treat ADHD and are also known to trigger OCD-like symptoms,” she said. “I was surprised that no patients had been diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder, but we know that with increased patient access to medical records, physicians are often cautious in their documentation.”

She added that the overall results of the new study underscore the importance of consultation visits with cosmetic patients, including obtaining a full medication list and accurate medical history, if possible. “One could also consider well-studied screening tools mostly from the mood disorder realm, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire–2,” Dr. Richey said. “Much can be gained from simply talking to the patient and trying to understand him/her and underlying motivations prior to performing a procedure.”

Evan Rieder, MD, a New York City–based dermatologist and psychiatrist who was asked to comment on the study, characterized the analysis as demonstrating what medical and cosmetic dermatologists have been seeing in their practices for years. “While this study is limited by its single-center retrospective nature in an academic center that may not be representative of the general population, it does demonstrate a high burden of psychopathology and psychopharmacologic treatments in aesthetic patients,” Dr. Rieder said in an interview.

“While psychiatric illness is not a contraindication to cosmetic treatment, a high percentage of patients with ADHD, OCD, and likely [body dysmorphic disorder] in cosmetic dermatology practices should give us pause.” The nature of these diseases may indicate that some people are seeking aesthetic treatments for reasons yet to be elucidated, he added.

“It certainly indicates that dermatologists should be equipped to screen for, identify, and provide such patients with the appropriate resources for psychological treatment, regardless if they are deemed appropriate candidates for cosmetic intervention,” he said.

In an interview, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, noted that previous studies have demonstrated the interplay between mood disorders and dermatologic conditions for years, namely in acne, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and immune mediated disorders.

“In these conditions, the psychiatric stressors can worsen the skin condition and impede treatment,” Dr. Sodha said. “This study is an important segue into further elucidating our cosmetic patient population, and we should try to ask the next important question: how do we as physicians build a better rapport with these patients, understand their motivations for care, and effectively guide the patient through the consultation process to realistically address their concerns? It might help us both.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Sodha reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Rieder disclosed that he is a consultant for Allergan, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dr. Brandt, L’Oreal, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever.






 

Patients who presented to a laser and cosmetic dermatology clinic were significantly more likely to be on a psychiatric medication and/or carry a psychiatric diagnosis, compared with those who presented to a medical dermatology clinic, results from a large retrospective analysis showed.

“As the rate of cosmetic procedures continues to increase, it is crucial that physicians understand that many patients with a psychiatric disorder require clear communication and appropriate consultation visits,” lead study author Patricia Richey, MD, told this news organization.

While studies have displayed links between the desire for a cosmetic procedure and psychiatric stressors and disorders – most commonly mood disorders, personality disorders, body dysmorphic disorder, and addiction-like behavior – the scarce literature on the subject mostly comes from the realm of plastic surgery.

“The relationship between psychiatric disease and the motivation for dermatologic cosmetic procedures has never been fully elucidated,” said Dr. Richey, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “A possible association between psychiatric disorder and the motivation for cosmetic procedures is critical to understand given increasing procedure rates and the need for clear communication and appropriate consultation visits with these patients.”

For the retrospective cohort study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Richey; Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at MGH; and Ryan W. Chapin, PharmD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, reviewed the medical records of 1,000 patients from a cosmetic dermatology clinic and 1,000 patients from a medical dermatology clinic, both at MGH. Those who crossed over between the two clinics were excluded from the analysis.

Patients in the cosmetic group were significantly younger than those in the medical group (a mean of 48 vs. 56 years, respectively; P < .0001), and there was a higher percentage of women than men in both groups (78.5% vs. 21.5% in the cosmetic group and 61.4% vs. 38.6% in the medical group; P < .00001).

The researchers found that 49% of patients in the cosmetic group had been diagnosed with at least one psychiatric disorder, compared with 33% in the medical group (P < .00001), most commonly anxiety, depression, ADHD, and insomnia. In addition, 39 patients in the cosmetic group had 2 or more psychiatric disorders, compared with 22 of those in the medical group.

Similarly, 44% of patients in the cosmetic group were on a psychiatric medication, compared with 28% in the medical group (P < .00001). The average number of medications among those on more than one psychiatric medication was 1.67 among those in the cosmetic dermatology group versus 1.48 among those in the medical dermatology group (P = .020).

By drug class, a higher percentage of patients in the cosmetic group, compared with those in the medical group, were taking antidepressants (33% vs. 21%, respectively; P < .00001), anxiolytics (26% vs. 13%; P < .00001), mood stabilizers (2.80% vs. 1.10%; P = .006), and stimulants (15.2% vs. 7.20%; P < .00001). The proportion of those taking antipsychotics was essentially even in the two groups (2.50% vs. 2.70%; P = .779).

Dr. Richey and colleagues also observed that patients in the cosmetic group had significantly higher rates of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and ADHD than those in the medical group. “This finding did not particularly surprise me,” she said, since she and her colleagues recently published a study on the association of stimulant use with psychocutaneous disease.

“Stimulants are used to treat ADHD and are also known to trigger OCD-like symptoms,” she said. “I was surprised that no patients had been diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder, but we know that with increased patient access to medical records, physicians are often cautious in their documentation.”

She added that the overall results of the new study underscore the importance of consultation visits with cosmetic patients, including obtaining a full medication list and accurate medical history, if possible. “One could also consider well-studied screening tools mostly from the mood disorder realm, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire–2,” Dr. Richey said. “Much can be gained from simply talking to the patient and trying to understand him/her and underlying motivations prior to performing a procedure.”

Evan Rieder, MD, a New York City–based dermatologist and psychiatrist who was asked to comment on the study, characterized the analysis as demonstrating what medical and cosmetic dermatologists have been seeing in their practices for years. “While this study is limited by its single-center retrospective nature in an academic center that may not be representative of the general population, it does demonstrate a high burden of psychopathology and psychopharmacologic treatments in aesthetic patients,” Dr. Rieder said in an interview.

“While psychiatric illness is not a contraindication to cosmetic treatment, a high percentage of patients with ADHD, OCD, and likely [body dysmorphic disorder] in cosmetic dermatology practices should give us pause.” The nature of these diseases may indicate that some people are seeking aesthetic treatments for reasons yet to be elucidated, he added.

“It certainly indicates that dermatologists should be equipped to screen for, identify, and provide such patients with the appropriate resources for psychological treatment, regardless if they are deemed appropriate candidates for cosmetic intervention,” he said.

In an interview, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, noted that previous studies have demonstrated the interplay between mood disorders and dermatologic conditions for years, namely in acne, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and immune mediated disorders.

“In these conditions, the psychiatric stressors can worsen the skin condition and impede treatment,” Dr. Sodha said. “This study is an important segue into further elucidating our cosmetic patient population, and we should try to ask the next important question: how do we as physicians build a better rapport with these patients, understand their motivations for care, and effectively guide the patient through the consultation process to realistically address their concerns? It might help us both.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Sodha reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Rieder disclosed that he is a consultant for Allergan, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dr. Brandt, L’Oreal, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever.






 

Patients who presented to a laser and cosmetic dermatology clinic were significantly more likely to be on a psychiatric medication and/or carry a psychiatric diagnosis, compared with those who presented to a medical dermatology clinic, results from a large retrospective analysis showed.

“As the rate of cosmetic procedures continues to increase, it is crucial that physicians understand that many patients with a psychiatric disorder require clear communication and appropriate consultation visits,” lead study author Patricia Richey, MD, told this news organization.

While studies have displayed links between the desire for a cosmetic procedure and psychiatric stressors and disorders – most commonly mood disorders, personality disorders, body dysmorphic disorder, and addiction-like behavior – the scarce literature on the subject mostly comes from the realm of plastic surgery.

“The relationship between psychiatric disease and the motivation for dermatologic cosmetic procedures has never been fully elucidated,” said Dr. Richey, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “A possible association between psychiatric disorder and the motivation for cosmetic procedures is critical to understand given increasing procedure rates and the need for clear communication and appropriate consultation visits with these patients.”

For the retrospective cohort study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Richey; Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at MGH; and Ryan W. Chapin, PharmD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, reviewed the medical records of 1,000 patients from a cosmetic dermatology clinic and 1,000 patients from a medical dermatology clinic, both at MGH. Those who crossed over between the two clinics were excluded from the analysis.

Patients in the cosmetic group were significantly younger than those in the medical group (a mean of 48 vs. 56 years, respectively; P < .0001), and there was a higher percentage of women than men in both groups (78.5% vs. 21.5% in the cosmetic group and 61.4% vs. 38.6% in the medical group; P < .00001).

The researchers found that 49% of patients in the cosmetic group had been diagnosed with at least one psychiatric disorder, compared with 33% in the medical group (P < .00001), most commonly anxiety, depression, ADHD, and insomnia. In addition, 39 patients in the cosmetic group had 2 or more psychiatric disorders, compared with 22 of those in the medical group.

Similarly, 44% of patients in the cosmetic group were on a psychiatric medication, compared with 28% in the medical group (P < .00001). The average number of medications among those on more than one psychiatric medication was 1.67 among those in the cosmetic dermatology group versus 1.48 among those in the medical dermatology group (P = .020).

By drug class, a higher percentage of patients in the cosmetic group, compared with those in the medical group, were taking antidepressants (33% vs. 21%, respectively; P < .00001), anxiolytics (26% vs. 13%; P < .00001), mood stabilizers (2.80% vs. 1.10%; P = .006), and stimulants (15.2% vs. 7.20%; P < .00001). The proportion of those taking antipsychotics was essentially even in the two groups (2.50% vs. 2.70%; P = .779).

Dr. Richey and colleagues also observed that patients in the cosmetic group had significantly higher rates of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and ADHD than those in the medical group. “This finding did not particularly surprise me,” she said, since she and her colleagues recently published a study on the association of stimulant use with psychocutaneous disease.

“Stimulants are used to treat ADHD and are also known to trigger OCD-like symptoms,” she said. “I was surprised that no patients had been diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder, but we know that with increased patient access to medical records, physicians are often cautious in their documentation.”

She added that the overall results of the new study underscore the importance of consultation visits with cosmetic patients, including obtaining a full medication list and accurate medical history, if possible. “One could also consider well-studied screening tools mostly from the mood disorder realm, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire–2,” Dr. Richey said. “Much can be gained from simply talking to the patient and trying to understand him/her and underlying motivations prior to performing a procedure.”

Evan Rieder, MD, a New York City–based dermatologist and psychiatrist who was asked to comment on the study, characterized the analysis as demonstrating what medical and cosmetic dermatologists have been seeing in their practices for years. “While this study is limited by its single-center retrospective nature in an academic center that may not be representative of the general population, it does demonstrate a high burden of psychopathology and psychopharmacologic treatments in aesthetic patients,” Dr. Rieder said in an interview.

“While psychiatric illness is not a contraindication to cosmetic treatment, a high percentage of patients with ADHD, OCD, and likely [body dysmorphic disorder] in cosmetic dermatology practices should give us pause.” The nature of these diseases may indicate that some people are seeking aesthetic treatments for reasons yet to be elucidated, he added.

“It certainly indicates that dermatologists should be equipped to screen for, identify, and provide such patients with the appropriate resources for psychological treatment, regardless if they are deemed appropriate candidates for cosmetic intervention,” he said.

In an interview, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, noted that previous studies have demonstrated the interplay between mood disorders and dermatologic conditions for years, namely in acne, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and immune mediated disorders.

“In these conditions, the psychiatric stressors can worsen the skin condition and impede treatment,” Dr. Sodha said. “This study is an important segue into further elucidating our cosmetic patient population, and we should try to ask the next important question: how do we as physicians build a better rapport with these patients, understand their motivations for care, and effectively guide the patient through the consultation process to realistically address their concerns? It might help us both.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Sodha reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Rieder disclosed that he is a consultant for Allergan, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dr. Brandt, L’Oreal, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever.






 

Despite money’s central role in our psychic lives, many trainees – and some seasoned practitioners – skirt around financial issues. Some clinicians confess that inquiring about patients’ finances feels “too personal.” They fear that asking about money could suggest that the clinician is primarily concerned with getting paid. Some clinicians feel that looking into patients’ finances might be unprofessional, outside one’s scope of practice. But it is not.

Trainees often receive little guidance concerning money matters in patients’ lives and treatments, considerations we have labeled clinical psychoeconomics. Considerable evidence suggests that financial concerns often provoke emotional distress and dysfunctional behaviors, and directly influence patient’s health care decisions. Financial issues also influence how clinicians view and react to patients.

We have recently reviewed (and illustrated through case vignettes) how money matters might impact psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychiatric treatments including psychotherapies.¹ Consider how money affects people’s lives: Money helps people meet multiple practical, psychological, and social needs by enabling them to obtain food, clothing, shelter, other material goods, services, discretionary time, and opportunities. And money strongly influences relationships. Regardless of poverty or wealth, thoughts and behaviors connected to acquiring, possessing, and disposing of money, and feelings accompanying these processes such as greed, neediness, envy, pride, shame, guilt, and self-satisfaction often underly intrapsychic and interpersonal conflicts.

Individuals constantly engage in numerous simultaneous conscious, preconscious, and unconscious neuro-economic trade-offs that determine goals, efforts, and timing. Many are financially influenced. Money influences how virtually all patients seek, receive, and sustain their mental health care including psychotherapy.

Money problems can be associated with insecurity, impotence, feeling unloved, and lack of freedom or subjugation. Individuals may resent how they’re forced to acquire money, and feel shamed or morally injured by their jobs, financial dependence on other family members, public assistance, or their questionable ways of obtaining money.

Impoverished individuals may face choosing between food, housing, medications, and medical care. Domestically abused individuals may reluctantly remain with their abusers, risking physical harm or death rather than face destitution. Some families tolerate severely disabled individuals at home because they rely on their disability checks and caregiver payments. Suicides may turn on how individuals forecast financial repercussions affecting their families. Desires to avoid debt may lead to treatment avoidance.

Individuals with enough money to get by face daily financially related choices involving competing needs, desires, values, and loyalties. They may experience conflicts concerning spending on necessities vs. indulgences or spending on oneself vs. significant others.

Whereas some wealthy individuals may assume unwarranted airs of superiority and entitlement, others may feel guilty about wealth, or fearful that others like them only for their money. Individuals on the receiving end of wealth may feel emotionally and behaviorally manipulated by their benefactors.
 

Assessment

Assessments should consider how financial matters have shaped patients’ early psychological development as well their current lives. How do patients’ emotions, thoughts, and behaviors reflect money matters? What money-related pathologies are evident? What aspects of the patient’s “financial world” seem modifiable?

Financial questions should be posed colloquially. Screeners include: “Where do you live?”, “Who’s in the home?”, “How do you (all) manage financially?”, “What do you all do for a living?”, “How do you make ends meet?”, and “What financial problems are you facing?” Clinicians can quickly learn about patients’ financial self-sufficiencies, individuals for whom they bear financial responsibility, and others they rely on for support, for example, relatives. If patients avoid answering such questions forthrightly, particularly when financial arrangements are “complicated,” clinicians will want to revisit these issues later after establishing a firmer alliance but continue to wonder about the meaning of the patient’s reluctance.

Clinically, money matters manifest intrapsychically or interpersonally in three ways: as explicit conflicts, implicit issues, and unequivocal money-related pathologies. When explicit, patients, families, and couples are fully aware of the conflicts but have difficulty resolving financial disputes. When conflicts are implicit, money problems may be unacknowledged, avoided, denied, or minimized. Conflicts concerning money are often transmitted trans-generationally.

Psychopathological conditions unequivocally linked to money include compulsive shopping, gambling disorders, miserly hoarding, impulse buying, and spending sprees during hypomanic and manic states. Mounting debts may create progressively insurmountable sources of distress. Money can be weaponized to sadistically create enticement, envy, or deprivation. Some monetarily antisocial individuals compromise interpersonal relationships as well as treatments. Individuals with alcohol/substance use disorders may spend so much on substances that little is left for necessities. Financially needy individuals may engage in morally questionable behaviors they might otherwise shun.
 

Case formulation and treatment planning

Incorporating money matters into case formulations entails demonstrating how financial concerns influenced maladaptive development and distort current attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors.

Concurrently, clinicians should acknowledge patients’ reality-based fiscal decisions, appreciating cultural and family value differences concerning how money should be acquired and spent. Since money often determines frequency and duration of treatment visits, clinicians are ethically obligated to discuss with patients what they might expect from different medications and psychotherapies, and their comparative costs.
 

Money matters’ impact on psychotherapies

Money matters often affect transference and countertransference reactions. Some reactions stem from how patients and clinicians compare their own financial situations with those of the other.

To help identify and ameliorate money-related countertransference responses, clinicians can reflect on questions such as: “How comfortable are you with people who are much poorer or richer than you are?” “How comfortable are you with impoverished individuals or with multimillionaires or their children?” And “why?” For trainees, all these reactions should be discussed in supervision.
 

Conclusions

To summarize, four clinical psychoeconomic issues should be routinely assessed and factored into psychiatric case formulations and treatment plans: how financial issues 1) have impacted patients’ psychological development; 2) impact patients’ current lives; 3) are likely to impact access, type, intensity, and duration of treatment visits; and 4) might provoke money-related transference and countertransference concerns.

In advising patients about treatment options, clinicians should discuss each treatment’s relative effectiveness and estimated costs of care. Patients’ decisions will likely be heavily influenced by financial considerations.

Dr. Yager is based in the department of psychiatry, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Dr. Kay is based in the department of psychiatry, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. No external funds were received for this project, and the authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Reference

1. Yager J and Kay J. Money matters in psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychotherapy: Clinical psychoeconomics. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2022 Jun 10. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000001552.

Despite money’s central role in our psychic lives, many trainees – and some seasoned practitioners – skirt around financial issues. Some clinicians confess that inquiring about patients’ finances feels “too personal.” They fear that asking about money could suggest that the clinician is primarily concerned with getting paid. Some clinicians feel that looking into patients’ finances might be unprofessional, outside one’s scope of practice. But it is not.

Trainees often receive little guidance concerning money matters in patients’ lives and treatments, considerations we have labeled clinical psychoeconomics. Considerable evidence suggests that financial concerns often provoke emotional distress and dysfunctional behaviors, and directly influence patient’s health care decisions. Financial issues also influence how clinicians view and react to patients.

We have recently reviewed (and illustrated through case vignettes) how money matters might impact psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychiatric treatments including psychotherapies.¹ Consider how money affects people’s lives: Money helps people meet multiple practical, psychological, and social needs by enabling them to obtain food, clothing, shelter, other material goods, services, discretionary time, and opportunities. And money strongly influences relationships. Regardless of poverty or wealth, thoughts and behaviors connected to acquiring, possessing, and disposing of money, and feelings accompanying these processes such as greed, neediness, envy, pride, shame, guilt, and self-satisfaction often underly intrapsychic and interpersonal conflicts.

Individuals constantly engage in numerous simultaneous conscious, preconscious, and unconscious neuro-economic trade-offs that determine goals, efforts, and timing. Many are financially influenced. Money influences how virtually all patients seek, receive, and sustain their mental health care including psychotherapy.

Money problems can be associated with insecurity, impotence, feeling unloved, and lack of freedom or subjugation. Individuals may resent how they’re forced to acquire money, and feel shamed or morally injured by their jobs, financial dependence on other family members, public assistance, or their questionable ways of obtaining money.

Impoverished individuals may face choosing between food, housing, medications, and medical care. Domestically abused individuals may reluctantly remain with their abusers, risking physical harm or death rather than face destitution. Some families tolerate severely disabled individuals at home because they rely on their disability checks and caregiver payments. Suicides may turn on how individuals forecast financial repercussions affecting their families. Desires to avoid debt may lead to treatment avoidance.

Individuals with enough money to get by face daily financially related choices involving competing needs, desires, values, and loyalties. They may experience conflicts concerning spending on necessities vs. indulgences or spending on oneself vs. significant others.

Whereas some wealthy individuals may assume unwarranted airs of superiority and entitlement, others may feel guilty about wealth, or fearful that others like them only for their money. Individuals on the receiving end of wealth may feel emotionally and behaviorally manipulated by their benefactors.
 

Assessment

Assessments should consider how financial matters have shaped patients’ early psychological development as well their current lives. How do patients’ emotions, thoughts, and behaviors reflect money matters? What money-related pathologies are evident? What aspects of the patient’s “financial world” seem modifiable?

Financial questions should be posed colloquially. Screeners include: “Where do you live?”, “Who’s in the home?”, “How do you (all) manage financially?”, “What do you all do for a living?”, “How do you make ends meet?”, and “What financial problems are you facing?” Clinicians can quickly learn about patients’ financial self-sufficiencies, individuals for whom they bear financial responsibility, and others they rely on for support, for example, relatives. If patients avoid answering such questions forthrightly, particularly when financial arrangements are “complicated,” clinicians will want to revisit these issues later after establishing a firmer alliance but continue to wonder about the meaning of the patient’s reluctance.

Clinically, money matters manifest intrapsychically or interpersonally in three ways: as explicit conflicts, implicit issues, and unequivocal money-related pathologies. When explicit, patients, families, and couples are fully aware of the conflicts but have difficulty resolving financial disputes. When conflicts are implicit, money problems may be unacknowledged, avoided, denied, or minimized. Conflicts concerning money are often transmitted trans-generationally.

Psychopathological conditions unequivocally linked to money include compulsive shopping, gambling disorders, miserly hoarding, impulse buying, and spending sprees during hypomanic and manic states. Mounting debts may create progressively insurmountable sources of distress. Money can be weaponized to sadistically create enticement, envy, or deprivation. Some monetarily antisocial individuals compromise interpersonal relationships as well as treatments. Individuals with alcohol/substance use disorders may spend so much on substances that little is left for necessities. Financially needy individuals may engage in morally questionable behaviors they might otherwise shun.
 

Case formulation and treatment planning

Incorporating money matters into case formulations entails demonstrating how financial concerns influenced maladaptive development and distort current attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors.

Concurrently, clinicians should acknowledge patients’ reality-based fiscal decisions, appreciating cultural and family value differences concerning how money should be acquired and spent. Since money often determines frequency and duration of treatment visits, clinicians are ethically obligated to discuss with patients what they might expect from different medications and psychotherapies, and their comparative costs.
 

Money matters’ impact on psychotherapies

Money matters often affect transference and countertransference reactions. Some reactions stem from how patients and clinicians compare their own financial situations with those of the other.

To help identify and ameliorate money-related countertransference responses, clinicians can reflect on questions such as: “How comfortable are you with people who are much poorer or richer than you are?” “How comfortable are you with impoverished individuals or with multimillionaires or their children?” And “why?” For trainees, all these reactions should be discussed in supervision.
 

Conclusions

To summarize, four clinical psychoeconomic issues should be routinely assessed and factored into psychiatric case formulations and treatment plans: how financial issues 1) have impacted patients’ psychological development; 2) impact patients’ current lives; 3) are likely to impact access, type, intensity, and duration of treatment visits; and 4) might provoke money-related transference and countertransference concerns.

In advising patients about treatment options, clinicians should discuss each treatment’s relative effectiveness and estimated costs of care. Patients’ decisions will likely be heavily influenced by financial considerations.

Dr. Yager is based in the department of psychiatry, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Dr. Kay is based in the department of psychiatry, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. No external funds were received for this project, and the authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Reference

1. Yager J and Kay J. Money matters in psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychotherapy: Clinical psychoeconomics. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2022 Jun 10. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000001552.

Despite money’s central role in our psychic lives, many trainees – and some seasoned practitioners – skirt around financial issues. Some clinicians confess that inquiring about patients’ finances feels “too personal.” They fear that asking about money could suggest that the clinician is primarily concerned with getting paid. Some clinicians feel that looking into patients’ finances might be unprofessional, outside one’s scope of practice. But it is not.

Trainees often receive little guidance concerning money matters in patients’ lives and treatments, considerations we have labeled clinical psychoeconomics. Considerable evidence suggests that financial concerns often provoke emotional distress and dysfunctional behaviors, and directly influence patient’s health care decisions. Financial issues also influence how clinicians view and react to patients.

We have recently reviewed (and illustrated through case vignettes) how money matters might impact psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychiatric treatments including psychotherapies.¹ Consider how money affects people’s lives: Money helps people meet multiple practical, psychological, and social needs by enabling them to obtain food, clothing, shelter, other material goods, services, discretionary time, and opportunities. And money strongly influences relationships. Regardless of poverty or wealth, thoughts and behaviors connected to acquiring, possessing, and disposing of money, and feelings accompanying these processes such as greed, neediness, envy, pride, shame, guilt, and self-satisfaction often underly intrapsychic and interpersonal conflicts.

Individuals constantly engage in numerous simultaneous conscious, preconscious, and unconscious neuro-economic trade-offs that determine goals, efforts, and timing. Many are financially influenced. Money influences how virtually all patients seek, receive, and sustain their mental health care including psychotherapy.

Money problems can be associated with insecurity, impotence, feeling unloved, and lack of freedom or subjugation. Individuals may resent how they’re forced to acquire money, and feel shamed or morally injured by their jobs, financial dependence on other family members, public assistance, or their questionable ways of obtaining money.

Impoverished individuals may face choosing between food, housing, medications, and medical care. Domestically abused individuals may reluctantly remain with their abusers, risking physical harm or death rather than face destitution. Some families tolerate severely disabled individuals at home because they rely on their disability checks and caregiver payments. Suicides may turn on how individuals forecast financial repercussions affecting their families. Desires to avoid debt may lead to treatment avoidance.

Individuals with enough money to get by face daily financially related choices involving competing needs, desires, values, and loyalties. They may experience conflicts concerning spending on necessities vs. indulgences or spending on oneself vs. significant others.

Whereas some wealthy individuals may assume unwarranted airs of superiority and entitlement, others may feel guilty about wealth, or fearful that others like them only for their money. Individuals on the receiving end of wealth may feel emotionally and behaviorally manipulated by their benefactors.
 

Assessment

Assessments should consider how financial matters have shaped patients’ early psychological development as well their current lives. How do patients’ emotions, thoughts, and behaviors reflect money matters? What money-related pathologies are evident? What aspects of the patient’s “financial world” seem modifiable?

Financial questions should be posed colloquially. Screeners include: “Where do you live?”, “Who’s in the home?”, “How do you (all) manage financially?”, “What do you all do for a living?”, “How do you make ends meet?”, and “What financial problems are you facing?” Clinicians can quickly learn about patients’ financial self-sufficiencies, individuals for whom they bear financial responsibility, and others they rely on for support, for example, relatives. If patients avoid answering such questions forthrightly, particularly when financial arrangements are “complicated,” clinicians will want to revisit these issues later after establishing a firmer alliance but continue to wonder about the meaning of the patient’s reluctance.

Clinically, money matters manifest intrapsychically or interpersonally in three ways: as explicit conflicts, implicit issues, and unequivocal money-related pathologies. When explicit, patients, families, and couples are fully aware of the conflicts but have difficulty resolving financial disputes. When conflicts are implicit, money problems may be unacknowledged, avoided, denied, or minimized. Conflicts concerning money are often transmitted trans-generationally.

Psychopathological conditions unequivocally linked to money include compulsive shopping, gambling disorders, miserly hoarding, impulse buying, and spending sprees during hypomanic and manic states. Mounting debts may create progressively insurmountable sources of distress. Money can be weaponized to sadistically create enticement, envy, or deprivation. Some monetarily antisocial individuals compromise interpersonal relationships as well as treatments. Individuals with alcohol/substance use disorders may spend so much on substances that little is left for necessities. Financially needy individuals may engage in morally questionable behaviors they might otherwise shun.
 

Case formulation and treatment planning

Incorporating money matters into case formulations entails demonstrating how financial concerns influenced maladaptive development and distort current attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors.

Concurrently, clinicians should acknowledge patients’ reality-based fiscal decisions, appreciating cultural and family value differences concerning how money should be acquired and spent. Since money often determines frequency and duration of treatment visits, clinicians are ethically obligated to discuss with patients what they might expect from different medications and psychotherapies, and their comparative costs.
 

Money matters’ impact on psychotherapies

Money matters often affect transference and countertransference reactions. Some reactions stem from how patients and clinicians compare their own financial situations with those of the other.

To help identify and ameliorate money-related countertransference responses, clinicians can reflect on questions such as: “How comfortable are you with people who are much poorer or richer than you are?” “How comfortable are you with impoverished individuals or with multimillionaires or their children?” And “why?” For trainees, all these reactions should be discussed in supervision.
 

Conclusions

To summarize, four clinical psychoeconomic issues should be routinely assessed and factored into psychiatric case formulations and treatment plans: how financial issues 1) have impacted patients’ psychological development; 2) impact patients’ current lives; 3) are likely to impact access, type, intensity, and duration of treatment visits; and 4) might provoke money-related transference and countertransference concerns.

In advising patients about treatment options, clinicians should discuss each treatment’s relative effectiveness and estimated costs of care. Patients’ decisions will likely be heavily influenced by financial considerations.

Dr. Yager is based in the department of psychiatry, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Dr. Kay is based in the department of psychiatry, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. No external funds were received for this project, and the authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Reference

1. Yager J and Kay J. Money matters in psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychotherapy: Clinical psychoeconomics. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2022 Jun 10. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000001552.

Medicine or dietary supplement? N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is marketed as both and in 2021, the supplement abruptly became difficult to find, causing distress to people who had been using it for a variety of conditions. The story behind its disappearance is one of a cat-and-mouse chase between manufacturers, advocacy agencies, and the Food and Drug Administration.

NAC is a medication that was approved by the FDA in 1963. It has two FDA-approved uses: To prevent hepatotoxicity after overdose with acetaminophen, administered intravenously or by mouth, and as a mucolytic agent – previously available as Mucomyst, now available only as a generic – given by inhaler or nebulizer for pulmonary illnesses. Since the 1990s, NAC has been labeled by manufacturers as a dietary supplement. It is a derivative of the amino acid L-cysteine and a precursor to glutathione, an antioxidant.

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

Medicine or dietary supplement? N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is marketed as both and in 2021, the supplement abruptly became difficult to find, causing distress to people who had been using it for a variety of conditions. The story behind its disappearance is one of a cat-and-mouse chase between manufacturers, advocacy agencies, and the Food and Drug Administration.

NAC is a medication that was approved by the FDA in 1963. It has two FDA-approved uses: To prevent hepatotoxicity after overdose with acetaminophen, administered intravenously or by mouth, and as a mucolytic agent – previously available as Mucomyst, now available only as a generic – given by inhaler or nebulizer for pulmonary illnesses. Since the 1990s, NAC has been labeled by manufacturers as a dietary supplement. It is a derivative of the amino acid L-cysteine and a precursor to glutathione, an antioxidant.

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

Medicine or dietary supplement? N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is marketed as both and in 2021, the supplement abruptly became difficult to find, causing distress to people who had been using it for a variety of conditions. The story behind its disappearance is one of a cat-and-mouse chase between manufacturers, advocacy agencies, and the Food and Drug Administration.

NAC is a medication that was approved by the FDA in 1963. It has two FDA-approved uses: To prevent hepatotoxicity after overdose with acetaminophen, administered intravenously or by mouth, and as a mucolytic agent – previously available as Mucomyst, now available only as a generic – given by inhaler or nebulizer for pulmonary illnesses. Since the 1990s, NAC has been labeled by manufacturers as a dietary supplement. It is a derivative of the amino acid L-cysteine and a precursor to glutathione, an antioxidant.

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

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is safe and effective for individuals with severe obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) that has been resistant to conventional therapy, a meta-analytic review confirms.

“DBS is a viable option for treatment-resistant OCD that can be expected to produce significant clinical benefit in about two out of three cases,” study investigator Wayne Goodman, MD, chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in a statement.

50% reduction in symptoms

The analysis included 34 studies conducted from 2005 to 2021, including 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 25 non-RCTs, involving 352 patients with treatment-resistant OCD.

Both RCTs and non-RCTs had a predominantly low risk of bias.

The results show an average 14.3-point, or 47%, reduction (P < .01) in Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale scores with DBS at last follow-up, with no significant difference between RCTs and non-RCTs.

Two-thirds (66%) of patients fully responded to the DBS at last follow-up, the authors found.

DBS for treatment-resistant OCD also had a “strong” effect on comorbid depression, with 47% of patients considered “full responders” relative to their preoperative (baseline) depression status and an additional 16% considered partial responders (with a 30%-49% reduction in pre/post-treatment depressive symptoms).

“The demonstrated effects of DBS in this report are even more impressive when one considers that these patients have failed numerous behavioral and pharmacological therapies,” said study investigator Eric Storch, PhD, professor and vice chair for the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Baylor.

The rate of hardware-related complications was roughly 8% and infection rate was about 4% – in line with other data.

This study “offers hope for patients with severe symptoms of OCD whose disorder did not respond to a range of conventional therapies,” Dr. Goodman said.
 

The bigger story

Dr. Sheth said the challenges in getting appropriate OCD patients access to DBS are multifactorial.

“Psychiatrists and general practitioners and even patients are not aware of it, and insurance company policies are often out of date and ignorant of recent data such as those in this study,” Dr. Sheth explained.

“Hopefully, improved awareness in the future will reverse these trends and lead to increased access for patients in need of this therapy,” Dr. Sheth said.

Access to DBS for OCD is clearly the “bigger story” here, Brian Kopell, MD, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

This meta-analysis “confirms what all of us that do this with some regularity know – that DBS for OCD can be extremely helpful in patients who are refractory to standard OCD therapies,” said Dr. Kopell, department of neurosurgery and director, Center for Neuromodulation, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Yet, there is a dramatic difference in getting reimbursement for DBS in a case of dystonia vs. OCD.

In the United States, DBS has humanitarian device exemption for use in both dystonia and OCD, Dr. Kopell noted.

“Yet because dystonia is a movement disorder, I can get DBS for dystonia paid for by most private insurance – no big deal,” Dr. Kopell said.

“But OCD, because it’s deemed a psychiatric disorder, is treated like the redheaded stepchild and it’s monumentally hard to get insurance to pay for it – and if you can’t pay for it, you can’t do it. Simple as that,” he added.

The study was supported by the McNair Foundation and the Dana Foundation. Dr. Storch is a consultant for Biohaven and owns stock in nView. Dr. Sheth is a consultant for Boston Scientific, NeuroPace, Abbott, and Zimmer Biomet. Dr. Kopell reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is safe and effective for individuals with severe obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) that has been resistant to conventional therapy, a meta-analytic review confirms.

“DBS is a viable option for treatment-resistant OCD that can be expected to produce significant clinical benefit in about two out of three cases,” study investigator Wayne Goodman, MD, chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in a statement.

50% reduction in symptoms

The analysis included 34 studies conducted from 2005 to 2021, including 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 25 non-RCTs, involving 352 patients with treatment-resistant OCD.

Both RCTs and non-RCTs had a predominantly low risk of bias.

The results show an average 14.3-point, or 47%, reduction (P < .01) in Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale scores with DBS at last follow-up, with no significant difference between RCTs and non-RCTs.

Two-thirds (66%) of patients fully responded to the DBS at last follow-up, the authors found.

DBS for treatment-resistant OCD also had a “strong” effect on comorbid depression, with 47% of patients considered “full responders” relative to their preoperative (baseline) depression status and an additional 16% considered partial responders (with a 30%-49% reduction in pre/post-treatment depressive symptoms).

“The demonstrated effects of DBS in this report are even more impressive when one considers that these patients have failed numerous behavioral and pharmacological therapies,” said study investigator Eric Storch, PhD, professor and vice chair for the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Baylor.

The rate of hardware-related complications was roughly 8% and infection rate was about 4% – in line with other data.

This study “offers hope for patients with severe symptoms of OCD whose disorder did not respond to a range of conventional therapies,” Dr. Goodman said.
 

The bigger story

Dr. Sheth said the challenges in getting appropriate OCD patients access to DBS are multifactorial.

“Psychiatrists and general practitioners and even patients are not aware of it, and insurance company policies are often out of date and ignorant of recent data such as those in this study,” Dr. Sheth explained.

“Hopefully, improved awareness in the future will reverse these trends and lead to increased access for patients in need of this therapy,” Dr. Sheth said.

Access to DBS for OCD is clearly the “bigger story” here, Brian Kopell, MD, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

This meta-analysis “confirms what all of us that do this with some regularity know – that DBS for OCD can be extremely helpful in patients who are refractory to standard OCD therapies,” said Dr. Kopell, department of neurosurgery and director, Center for Neuromodulation, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Yet, there is a dramatic difference in getting reimbursement for DBS in a case of dystonia vs. OCD.

In the United States, DBS has humanitarian device exemption for use in both dystonia and OCD, Dr. Kopell noted.

“Yet because dystonia is a movement disorder, I can get DBS for dystonia paid for by most private insurance – no big deal,” Dr. Kopell said.

“But OCD, because it’s deemed a psychiatric disorder, is treated like the redheaded stepchild and it’s monumentally hard to get insurance to pay for it – and if you can’t pay for it, you can’t do it. Simple as that,” he added.

The study was supported by the McNair Foundation and the Dana Foundation. Dr. Storch is a consultant for Biohaven and owns stock in nView. Dr. Sheth is a consultant for Boston Scientific, NeuroPace, Abbott, and Zimmer Biomet. Dr. Kopell reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is safe and effective for individuals with severe obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) that has been resistant to conventional therapy, a meta-analytic review confirms.

“DBS is a viable option for treatment-resistant OCD that can be expected to produce significant clinical benefit in about two out of three cases,” study investigator Wayne Goodman, MD, chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in a statement.

50% reduction in symptoms

The analysis included 34 studies conducted from 2005 to 2021, including 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 25 non-RCTs, involving 352 patients with treatment-resistant OCD.

Both RCTs and non-RCTs had a predominantly low risk of bias.

The results show an average 14.3-point, or 47%, reduction (P < .01) in Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale scores with DBS at last follow-up, with no significant difference between RCTs and non-RCTs.

Two-thirds (66%) of patients fully responded to the DBS at last follow-up, the authors found.

DBS for treatment-resistant OCD also had a “strong” effect on comorbid depression, with 47% of patients considered “full responders” relative to their preoperative (baseline) depression status and an additional 16% considered partial responders (with a 30%-49% reduction in pre/post-treatment depressive symptoms).

“The demonstrated effects of DBS in this report are even more impressive when one considers that these patients have failed numerous behavioral and pharmacological therapies,” said study investigator Eric Storch, PhD, professor and vice chair for the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Baylor.

The rate of hardware-related complications was roughly 8% and infection rate was about 4% – in line with other data.

This study “offers hope for patients with severe symptoms of OCD whose disorder did not respond to a range of conventional therapies,” Dr. Goodman said.
 

The bigger story

Dr. Sheth said the challenges in getting appropriate OCD patients access to DBS are multifactorial.

“Psychiatrists and general practitioners and even patients are not aware of it, and insurance company policies are often out of date and ignorant of recent data such as those in this study,” Dr. Sheth explained.

“Hopefully, improved awareness in the future will reverse these trends and lead to increased access for patients in need of this therapy,” Dr. Sheth said.

Access to DBS for OCD is clearly the “bigger story” here, Brian Kopell, MD, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

This meta-analysis “confirms what all of us that do this with some regularity know – that DBS for OCD can be extremely helpful in patients who are refractory to standard OCD therapies,” said Dr. Kopell, department of neurosurgery and director, Center for Neuromodulation, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Yet, there is a dramatic difference in getting reimbursement for DBS in a case of dystonia vs. OCD.

In the United States, DBS has humanitarian device exemption for use in both dystonia and OCD, Dr. Kopell noted.

“Yet because dystonia is a movement disorder, I can get DBS for dystonia paid for by most private insurance – no big deal,” Dr. Kopell said.

“But OCD, because it’s deemed a psychiatric disorder, is treated like the redheaded stepchild and it’s monumentally hard to get insurance to pay for it – and if you can’t pay for it, you can’t do it. Simple as that,” he added.

The study was supported by the McNair Foundation and the Dana Foundation. Dr. Storch is a consultant for Biohaven and owns stock in nView. Dr. Sheth is a consultant for Boston Scientific, NeuroPace, Abbott, and Zimmer Biomet. Dr. Kopell reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is typically a severe, chronic illness in which patients have recurrent, unwanted thoughts, urges, and compulsions.¹ It causes significant morbidity and lost potential over time, and is the world’s 10th-most disabling disorder in terms of lost income and decreased quality of life, and the fifth-most disabling mental health condition.² Patients with OCD (and their clinicians) are often desperate for an efficacious treatment, but we must ensure that those who are not helped by traditional psychotherapeutic and/or pharmacologic treatments are appropriate for safe neurosurgical intervention.

Pros and cons of neurosurgical therapies

Most patients with OCD are effectively treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, clomipramine, or second-generation antipsychotics. However, up to 5% of individuals with OCD will have symptoms refractory to these traditional therapies.³ These cases require more aggressive forms of therapy, including radiofrequency ablation surgeries and deep brain stimulation (DBS). The efficacy of both therapies is similar at 40% to 60%.^4,5 While these treatments can be life-changing for patients fortunate to receive them, they are not without issue.

Only a limited number of institutions offer these neurosurgical techniques, and for many patients, those locations may be inaccessible. Patients may not experience relief simply due to where they live, difficult logistics, and the high cost requisite to receive care. If fortunate enough to live near a participating institution or have the means to travel to one, the patient and clinician must then choose the best option based on the nuances of the patient’s situation.

Ablation techniques, such as gamma knife or magnetic resonance–guided ultrasound, are simpler and more cost-effective. A drawback of this approach, however, is that it is irreversible. Lesioned structures are irreparable, as are the adverse effects of the surgery, which, while rare, may include a persistent minimally conscious state or necrotic cysts.⁴ A benefit of this approach is that there is no need for lengthy follow-up as seen with DBS.

DBS is more complicated. In addition to having to undergo an open neurosurgical procedure, these patients require long-term follow-up and monitoring. A positive aspect is the device can be turned off or removed. However, the amount of follow-up and adjustments is significant. These patients need access to clinicians skilled in DBS device management.

Finally, we must consider the chronically ill patient’s perspective after successful treatment. While the patient’s symptoms may improve, their lives and identities likely developed around their symptoms. Bosanac et al⁶ describe this reality well in a case study in which a patient with OCD was “burdened with normality” after successful DBS treatment. He was finally able to work, build meaningful relationships, and approach previously unattainable social milestones. This was an overwhelming experience for him, and he and his family needed guidance into the world in which most of us find comfort.

As ablation techniques, DBS, and other cutting-edge therapies for OCD come to the forefront of modern care, clinicians must remember to keep patient safety first. Verify follow-up care before committing patients to invasive and irreversible treatments. While general access is currently poor, participating institutions should consider advertising and communicating that there is an accessible network available for these chronically ill individuals.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is typically a severe, chronic illness in which patients have recurrent, unwanted thoughts, urges, and compulsions.¹ It causes significant morbidity and lost potential over time, and is the world’s 10th-most disabling disorder in terms of lost income and decreased quality of life, and the fifth-most disabling mental health condition.² Patients with OCD (and their clinicians) are often desperate for an efficacious treatment, but we must ensure that those who are not helped by traditional psychotherapeutic and/or pharmacologic treatments are appropriate for safe neurosurgical intervention.

Pros and cons of neurosurgical therapies

Most patients with OCD are effectively treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, clomipramine, or second-generation antipsychotics. However, up to 5% of individuals with OCD will have symptoms refractory to these traditional therapies.³ These cases require more aggressive forms of therapy, including radiofrequency ablation surgeries and deep brain stimulation (DBS). The efficacy of both therapies is similar at 40% to 60%.^4,5 While these treatments can be life-changing for patients fortunate to receive them, they are not without issue.

Only a limited number of institutions offer these neurosurgical techniques, and for many patients, those locations may be inaccessible. Patients may not experience relief simply due to where they live, difficult logistics, and the high cost requisite to receive care. If fortunate enough to live near a participating institution or have the means to travel to one, the patient and clinician must then choose the best option based on the nuances of the patient’s situation.

Ablation techniques, such as gamma knife or magnetic resonance–guided ultrasound, are simpler and more cost-effective. A drawback of this approach, however, is that it is irreversible. Lesioned structures are irreparable, as are the adverse effects of the surgery, which, while rare, may include a persistent minimally conscious state or necrotic cysts.⁴ A benefit of this approach is that there is no need for lengthy follow-up as seen with DBS.

DBS is more complicated. In addition to having to undergo an open neurosurgical procedure, these patients require long-term follow-up and monitoring. A positive aspect is the device can be turned off or removed. However, the amount of follow-up and adjustments is significant. These patients need access to clinicians skilled in DBS device management.

Finally, we must consider the chronically ill patient’s perspective after successful treatment. While the patient’s symptoms may improve, their lives and identities likely developed around their symptoms. Bosanac et al⁶ describe this reality well in a case study in which a patient with OCD was “burdened with normality” after successful DBS treatment. He was finally able to work, build meaningful relationships, and approach previously unattainable social milestones. This was an overwhelming experience for him, and he and his family needed guidance into the world in which most of us find comfort.

As ablation techniques, DBS, and other cutting-edge therapies for OCD come to the forefront of modern care, clinicians must remember to keep patient safety first. Verify follow-up care before committing patients to invasive and irreversible treatments. While general access is currently poor, participating institutions should consider advertising and communicating that there is an accessible network available for these chronically ill individuals.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is typically a severe, chronic illness in which patients have recurrent, unwanted thoughts, urges, and compulsions.¹ It causes significant morbidity and lost potential over time, and is the world’s 10th-most disabling disorder in terms of lost income and decreased quality of life, and the fifth-most disabling mental health condition.² Patients with OCD (and their clinicians) are often desperate for an efficacious treatment, but we must ensure that those who are not helped by traditional psychotherapeutic and/or pharmacologic treatments are appropriate for safe neurosurgical intervention.

Pros and cons of neurosurgical therapies

Most patients with OCD are effectively treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, clomipramine, or second-generation antipsychotics. However, up to 5% of individuals with OCD will have symptoms refractory to these traditional therapies.³ These cases require more aggressive forms of therapy, including radiofrequency ablation surgeries and deep brain stimulation (DBS). The efficacy of both therapies is similar at 40% to 60%.^4,5 While these treatments can be life-changing for patients fortunate to receive them, they are not without issue.

Only a limited number of institutions offer these neurosurgical techniques, and for many patients, those locations may be inaccessible. Patients may not experience relief simply due to where they live, difficult logistics, and the high cost requisite to receive care. If fortunate enough to live near a participating institution or have the means to travel to one, the patient and clinician must then choose the best option based on the nuances of the patient’s situation.

Ablation techniques, such as gamma knife or magnetic resonance–guided ultrasound, are simpler and more cost-effective. A drawback of this approach, however, is that it is irreversible. Lesioned structures are irreparable, as are the adverse effects of the surgery, which, while rare, may include a persistent minimally conscious state or necrotic cysts.⁴ A benefit of this approach is that there is no need for lengthy follow-up as seen with DBS.

DBS is more complicated. In addition to having to undergo an open neurosurgical procedure, these patients require long-term follow-up and monitoring. A positive aspect is the device can be turned off or removed. However, the amount of follow-up and adjustments is significant. These patients need access to clinicians skilled in DBS device management.

Finally, we must consider the chronically ill patient’s perspective after successful treatment. While the patient’s symptoms may improve, their lives and identities likely developed around their symptoms. Bosanac et al⁶ describe this reality well in a case study in which a patient with OCD was “burdened with normality” after successful DBS treatment. He was finally able to work, build meaningful relationships, and approach previously unattainable social milestones. This was an overwhelming experience for him, and he and his family needed guidance into the world in which most of us find comfort.

As ablation techniques, DBS, and other cutting-edge therapies for OCD come to the forefront of modern care, clinicians must remember to keep patient safety first. Verify follow-up care before committing patients to invasive and irreversible treatments. While general access is currently poor, participating institutions should consider advertising and communicating that there is an accessible network available for these chronically ill individuals.

“Doomscrolling” or “doomsurfing” the news is fairly common and raises the risk for poor mental as well as poor physical health, new research suggests.

The past 2 years have been filled with worrisome global events, from the pandemic to the war in Ukraine, large-scale protests, mass shootings, and devastating wildfires. The 24-hour media coverage of these events can take a toll on “news addicts” who have an excessive urge to constantly check the news, researchers note.

Results from an online survey of more than 1,000 adults showed that nearly 17% showed signs of “severely problematic” news consumption.

These “doomscrollers” or “doomsurfers” scored high on all five problematic news consumption dimensions: being absorbed in news content, being consumed by thoughts about the news, attempting to alleviate feelings of threat by consuming more news, losing control over news consumption, and having news consumption interfere in daily life.

“We anticipated that a sizable portion of our sample would show signs of problematic news consumption. However, we were surprised to find that 17% of study participants suffer from the most severe level of problematic news consumption,” lead author Bryan McLaughlin, PhD, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, told this news organization. “This is certainly concerning and suggests the problem may be more widespread than we expected,” he said.

Simon Parmley

Emotionally invested

The researchers assessed data from an online survey of 1,100 adults (mean age, 40.5 years; 51% women) in the United States who were recruited in August 2021.

Among those surveyed, 27.3% reported “moderately problematic” news consumption, 27.5% reported minimally problematic news consumption, and 28.7% reported no problematic news consumption.

Perhaps not surprisingly, respondents with higher levels of problematic news consumption were significantly more likely to experience mental and physical ill-being than those with lower levels, even after accounting for demographics, personality traits, and overall news use, the researchers note.

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of those with severe levels of problematic news consumption reported experiencing mental ill-being “quite a bit” or “very much” – whereas frequent symptoms were only reported by 8% of all other study participants.

In addition, 61% of adults with severe problematic news consumption reported experiencing physical ill-being “quite a bit” or “very much,” compared with only 6.1% for all other study participants.

Dr. McLaughlin noted that one way to combat this problem is to help individuals develop a healthier relationship with the news – and mindfulness training may be one way to accomplish that.

“We have some preliminary evidence that individuals with high levels of mindfulness are much less susceptible to developing higher levels of problematic news consumption,” he said.

“Given this, mindfulness-based training could potentially help problematic news consumers follow the news without becoming so emotionally invested in it. We hope to examine the effectiveness of a mindfulness intervention in our future research,” he added.
 

Increased distress

Commenting on the study, Steven R. Thorp, PhD, ABPP, a professor at California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University, San Diego, said that he and his colleagues have noticed an increase in clients reporting distress about news consumption.

The survey by Dr. McLaughlin and colleagues “appears to be representative and has sufficient statistical power to address the issues,” said Dr. Thorp, who was not involved with the research.

“However, as the researchers note, it is a cross-sectional and correlational survey. So it’s possible that, as implied, people who ‘doomscroll’ are more likely to have physical and mental health problems that interfere with their functioning,” he added.

It is also possible that individuals with physical and mental health problems are more likely to be isolated and have restricted activities, thus leading to greater news consumption, Dr. Thorp noted. Alternatively, there could be an independent link between health and news consumption.

Most news is “sensational and not representative,” Dr. Thorp pointed out.

For example, “we are far more likely to hear about deaths from terrorist attacks or plane crashes than from heart attacks, though deaths from heart attacks are far more common,” he said.

“News also tends to be negative, rather than uplifting, and most news is not directly relevant to a person’s day-to-day functioning. Thus, for most people, the consumption of news may have more downsides than upsides,” Dr. Thorp added.

Still, many people want to stay informed about national and international events. So rather than following a “cold turkey” or abstinence model of stopping all news consumption, individuals could consider a “harm reduction” model of reducing time spent consuming news, Dr. Thorp noted.

Another thing to consider is the news source. “Some outlets and social media sites are designed to instill outrage, fear, or anger and to increase polarization, while others have been shown to provide balanced and less sensational coverage,” Dr. Thorp said.

“I also think it’s a good idea for providers to regularly ask about news consumption, along with learning about other daily activities that may enhance or diminish mental and physical health,” he added.

The research had no specific funding. Dr. McLaughlin and Dr. Thorp have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Doomscrolling” or “doomsurfing” the news is fairly common and raises the risk for poor mental as well as poor physical health, new research suggests.

The past 2 years have been filled with worrisome global events, from the pandemic to the war in Ukraine, large-scale protests, mass shootings, and devastating wildfires. The 24-hour media coverage of these events can take a toll on “news addicts” who have an excessive urge to constantly check the news, researchers note.

Results from an online survey of more than 1,000 adults showed that nearly 17% showed signs of “severely problematic” news consumption.

These “doomscrollers” or “doomsurfers” scored high on all five problematic news consumption dimensions: being absorbed in news content, being consumed by thoughts about the news, attempting to alleviate feelings of threat by consuming more news, losing control over news consumption, and having news consumption interfere in daily life.

“We anticipated that a sizable portion of our sample would show signs of problematic news consumption. However, we were surprised to find that 17% of study participants suffer from the most severe level of problematic news consumption,” lead author Bryan McLaughlin, PhD, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, told this news organization. “This is certainly concerning and suggests the problem may be more widespread than we expected,” he said.

Simon Parmley

Emotionally invested

The researchers assessed data from an online survey of 1,100 adults (mean age, 40.5 years; 51% women) in the United States who were recruited in August 2021.

Among those surveyed, 27.3% reported “moderately problematic” news consumption, 27.5% reported minimally problematic news consumption, and 28.7% reported no problematic news consumption.

Perhaps not surprisingly, respondents with higher levels of problematic news consumption were significantly more likely to experience mental and physical ill-being than those with lower levels, even after accounting for demographics, personality traits, and overall news use, the researchers note.

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of those with severe levels of problematic news consumption reported experiencing mental ill-being “quite a bit” or “very much” – whereas frequent symptoms were only reported by 8% of all other study participants.

In addition, 61% of adults with severe problematic news consumption reported experiencing physical ill-being “quite a bit” or “very much,” compared with only 6.1% for all other study participants.

Dr. McLaughlin noted that one way to combat this problem is to help individuals develop a healthier relationship with the news – and mindfulness training may be one way to accomplish that.

“We have some preliminary evidence that individuals with high levels of mindfulness are much less susceptible to developing higher levels of problematic news consumption,” he said.

“Given this, mindfulness-based training could potentially help problematic news consumers follow the news without becoming so emotionally invested in it. We hope to examine the effectiveness of a mindfulness intervention in our future research,” he added.
 

Increased distress

Commenting on the study, Steven R. Thorp, PhD, ABPP, a professor at California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University, San Diego, said that he and his colleagues have noticed an increase in clients reporting distress about news consumption.

The survey by Dr. McLaughlin and colleagues “appears to be representative and has sufficient statistical power to address the issues,” said Dr. Thorp, who was not involved with the research.

“However, as the researchers note, it is a cross-sectional and correlational survey. So it’s possible that, as implied, people who ‘doomscroll’ are more likely to have physical and mental health problems that interfere with their functioning,” he added.

It is also possible that individuals with physical and mental health problems are more likely to be isolated and have restricted activities, thus leading to greater news consumption, Dr. Thorp noted. Alternatively, there could be an independent link between health and news consumption.

Most news is “sensational and not representative,” Dr. Thorp pointed out.

For example, “we are far more likely to hear about deaths from terrorist attacks or plane crashes than from heart attacks, though deaths from heart attacks are far more common,” he said.

“News also tends to be negative, rather than uplifting, and most news is not directly relevant to a person’s day-to-day functioning. Thus, for most people, the consumption of news may have more downsides than upsides,” Dr. Thorp added.

Still, many people want to stay informed about national and international events. So rather than following a “cold turkey” or abstinence model of stopping all news consumption, individuals could consider a “harm reduction” model of reducing time spent consuming news, Dr. Thorp noted.

Another thing to consider is the news source. “Some outlets and social media sites are designed to instill outrage, fear, or anger and to increase polarization, while others have been shown to provide balanced and less sensational coverage,” Dr. Thorp said.

“I also think it’s a good idea for providers to regularly ask about news consumption, along with learning about other daily activities that may enhance or diminish mental and physical health,” he added.

The research had no specific funding. Dr. McLaughlin and Dr. Thorp have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Doomscrolling” or “doomsurfing” the news is fairly common and raises the risk for poor mental as well as poor physical health, new research suggests.

The past 2 years have been filled with worrisome global events, from the pandemic to the war in Ukraine, large-scale protests, mass shootings, and devastating wildfires. The 24-hour media coverage of these events can take a toll on “news addicts” who have an excessive urge to constantly check the news, researchers note.

Results from an online survey of more than 1,000 adults showed that nearly 17% showed signs of “severely problematic” news consumption.

These “doomscrollers” or “doomsurfers” scored high on all five problematic news consumption dimensions: being absorbed in news content, being consumed by thoughts about the news, attempting to alleviate feelings of threat by consuming more news, losing control over news consumption, and having news consumption interfere in daily life.

“We anticipated that a sizable portion of our sample would show signs of problematic news consumption. However, we were surprised to find that 17% of study participants suffer from the most severe level of problematic news consumption,” lead author Bryan McLaughlin, PhD, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, told this news organization. “This is certainly concerning and suggests the problem may be more widespread than we expected,” he said.

Simon Parmley

Emotionally invested

The researchers assessed data from an online survey of 1,100 adults (mean age, 40.5 years; 51% women) in the United States who were recruited in August 2021.

Among those surveyed, 27.3% reported “moderately problematic” news consumption, 27.5% reported minimally problematic news consumption, and 28.7% reported no problematic news consumption.

Perhaps not surprisingly, respondents with higher levels of problematic news consumption were significantly more likely to experience mental and physical ill-being than those with lower levels, even after accounting for demographics, personality traits, and overall news use, the researchers note.

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of those with severe levels of problematic news consumption reported experiencing mental ill-being “quite a bit” or “very much” – whereas frequent symptoms were only reported by 8% of all other study participants.

In addition, 61% of adults with severe problematic news consumption reported experiencing physical ill-being “quite a bit” or “very much,” compared with only 6.1% for all other study participants.

Dr. McLaughlin noted that one way to combat this problem is to help individuals develop a healthier relationship with the news – and mindfulness training may be one way to accomplish that.

“We have some preliminary evidence that individuals with high levels of mindfulness are much less susceptible to developing higher levels of problematic news consumption,” he said.

“Given this, mindfulness-based training could potentially help problematic news consumers follow the news without becoming so emotionally invested in it. We hope to examine the effectiveness of a mindfulness intervention in our future research,” he added.
 

Increased distress

Commenting on the study, Steven R. Thorp, PhD, ABPP, a professor at California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University, San Diego, said that he and his colleagues have noticed an increase in clients reporting distress about news consumption.

The survey by Dr. McLaughlin and colleagues “appears to be representative and has sufficient statistical power to address the issues,” said Dr. Thorp, who was not involved with the research.

“However, as the researchers note, it is a cross-sectional and correlational survey. So it’s possible that, as implied, people who ‘doomscroll’ are more likely to have physical and mental health problems that interfere with their functioning,” he added.

It is also possible that individuals with physical and mental health problems are more likely to be isolated and have restricted activities, thus leading to greater news consumption, Dr. Thorp noted. Alternatively, there could be an independent link between health and news consumption.

Most news is “sensational and not representative,” Dr. Thorp pointed out.

For example, “we are far more likely to hear about deaths from terrorist attacks or plane crashes than from heart attacks, though deaths from heart attacks are far more common,” he said.

“News also tends to be negative, rather than uplifting, and most news is not directly relevant to a person’s day-to-day functioning. Thus, for most people, the consumption of news may have more downsides than upsides,” Dr. Thorp added.

Still, many people want to stay informed about national and international events. So rather than following a “cold turkey” or abstinence model of stopping all news consumption, individuals could consider a “harm reduction” model of reducing time spent consuming news, Dr. Thorp noted.

Another thing to consider is the news source. “Some outlets and social media sites are designed to instill outrage, fear, or anger and to increase polarization, while others have been shown to provide balanced and less sensational coverage,” Dr. Thorp said.

“I also think it’s a good idea for providers to regularly ask about news consumption, along with learning about other daily activities that may enhance or diminish mental and physical health,” he added.

The research had no specific funding. Dr. McLaughlin and Dr. Thorp have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

For younger generations, TikTok is a go-to site for those who like short and catchy video clips. As a social media platform that allows concise video sharing, TikTok has over 1 billion monthly global users. Because of its platform size, a plethora of resources, and influence on media discourse, TikTok is the place for content creators to share visual media. Its cursory, condensed content delivery with videos capped at 1-minute focuses on high-yield information and rapid identification of fundamental points that are both engaging and entertaining.

Currently, on TikTok, 40 billion views are associated with the hashtag #mentalhealth. Content creators and regular users are employing this platform to share their own experiences, opinions, and strategies to overcome their struggles. While it is understandable for creators to share their personal stories that may be abusive, traumatic, or violent, they may not be prepared for their video to “go viral.”

Like any other social media platform, hateful speech such as racism, sexism, or xenophobia can accumulate on TikTok, which may cause more self-harm than self-help. Oversharing about personal strategies may lead to misconceived advice for TikTok viewers, while watching these TikTok videos can have negative mental health effects, even though there are no malicious intentions behind the creators who post these videos.

Hence, public health should pay more attention to the potential health-related implications this platform can create, as the quality of the information and the qualifications of the creators are mostly unrevealed. The concerns include undisclosed conflicts of interest, unchecked spread of misinformation, difficulty identifying source credibility, and excessive false information that viewers must filter through.^1,2

Individual TikTok users may follow accounts and interpret these content creators as therapists and the content they see as therapy. They may also believe that a close relationship with the content creator exists when it does not. Specifically, these relationships may be defined as parasocial relationships, which are one-sided relationships where one person (the TikTok viewer) extends emotional energy, interest, and time, and the other party (the content creator) is completely unaware of the other’s existence.³ Additionally, Americans who are uninsured/underinsured may turn to this diluted version of therapy to compensate for the one-on-one or group therapy they need.

While TikTok may seem like a dangerous platform to browse through or post on, its growing influence cannot be underestimated. With 41% of TikTok users between the ages of 16 and 24, this is an ideal platform to disseminate public health information pertaining to this age group (for example, safe sex practices, substance abuse, and mental health issues).⁴ Because younger generations have incorporated social media into their daily lives, the medical community can harness TikTok’s potential to disseminate accurate information to potential patients for targeted medical education.

For example, Jake Goodman, MD, MBA, and Melissa Shepard, MD, each have more than a million TikTok followers and are notable psychiatrists who post a variety of content ranging from recognizing signs of depression to reducing stigma around mental health. Similarly, Justin Puder, PhD, is a licensed psychologist who advocates for ways to overcome mental health issues. By creating diverse content with appealing strategies, spreading accurate medical knowledge, and answering common medical questions for the public, these ‘mental health influencers’ educate potential patients to create patient-centered interactions.

Given the ever-changing digital media landscape, an emphasis must be placed on understanding how adolescents respond to social media in maladaptive or adaptive ways by pointing out the common strengths and weaknesses adolescents share. While there are many pros and cons to social media platforms, it is undeniable that these platforms – such as TikTok – are here to stay. It is crucial for members of the medical community to recognize the outlets that younger generations use to express themselves and to exploit these media channels therapeutically.
 

Ms. Wong is a fourth-year medical student at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, N.Y. Dr. Chua is a psychiatrist with the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia.

References

1. Gottlieb M and Dyer S. Information and Disinformation: Social Media in the COVID-19 Crisis. Acad Emerg Med. 2020 Jul;27(7):640-1. doi: 10.1111/acem.14036.

2. De Veirman M et al. Front Psychol. 2019;10:2685. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02685.

3. Bennett N-K et al. “Parasocial Relationships: The Nature of Celebrity Fascinations.” National Register of Health Service Psychologists. https://www.findapsychologist.org/parasocial-relationships-the-nature-of-celebrity-fascinations/.

4. Eghtesadi M and Florea A. Can J Public Health. 2020 Jun;111(3):389-91. doi: 10.17269/s41997-020-00343-0.

For younger generations, TikTok is a go-to site for those who like short and catchy video clips. As a social media platform that allows concise video sharing, TikTok has over 1 billion monthly global users. Because of its platform size, a plethora of resources, and influence on media discourse, TikTok is the place for content creators to share visual media. Its cursory, condensed content delivery with videos capped at 1-minute focuses on high-yield information and rapid identification of fundamental points that are both engaging and entertaining.

Currently, on TikTok, 40 billion views are associated with the hashtag #mentalhealth. Content creators and regular users are employing this platform to share their own experiences, opinions, and strategies to overcome their struggles. While it is understandable for creators to share their personal stories that may be abusive, traumatic, or violent, they may not be prepared for their video to “go viral.”

Like any other social media platform, hateful speech such as racism, sexism, or xenophobia can accumulate on TikTok, which may cause more self-harm than self-help. Oversharing about personal strategies may lead to misconceived advice for TikTok viewers, while watching these TikTok videos can have negative mental health effects, even though there are no malicious intentions behind the creators who post these videos.

Hence, public health should pay more attention to the potential health-related implications this platform can create, as the quality of the information and the qualifications of the creators are mostly unrevealed. The concerns include undisclosed conflicts of interest, unchecked spread of misinformation, difficulty identifying source credibility, and excessive false information that viewers must filter through.^1,2

Individual TikTok users may follow accounts and interpret these content creators as therapists and the content they see as therapy. They may also believe that a close relationship with the content creator exists when it does not. Specifically, these relationships may be defined as parasocial relationships, which are one-sided relationships where one person (the TikTok viewer) extends emotional energy, interest, and time, and the other party (the content creator) is completely unaware of the other’s existence.³ Additionally, Americans who are uninsured/underinsured may turn to this diluted version of therapy to compensate for the one-on-one or group therapy they need.

While TikTok may seem like a dangerous platform to browse through or post on, its growing influence cannot be underestimated. With 41% of TikTok users between the ages of 16 and 24, this is an ideal platform to disseminate public health information pertaining to this age group (for example, safe sex practices, substance abuse, and mental health issues).⁴ Because younger generations have incorporated social media into their daily lives, the medical community can harness TikTok’s potential to disseminate accurate information to potential patients for targeted medical education.

For example, Jake Goodman, MD, MBA, and Melissa Shepard, MD, each have more than a million TikTok followers and are notable psychiatrists who post a variety of content ranging from recognizing signs of depression to reducing stigma around mental health. Similarly, Justin Puder, PhD, is a licensed psychologist who advocates for ways to overcome mental health issues. By creating diverse content with appealing strategies, spreading accurate medical knowledge, and answering common medical questions for the public, these ‘mental health influencers’ educate potential patients to create patient-centered interactions.

Given the ever-changing digital media landscape, an emphasis must be placed on understanding how adolescents respond to social media in maladaptive or adaptive ways by pointing out the common strengths and weaknesses adolescents share. While there are many pros and cons to social media platforms, it is undeniable that these platforms – such as TikTok – are here to stay. It is crucial for members of the medical community to recognize the outlets that younger generations use to express themselves and to exploit these media channels therapeutically.
 

Ms. Wong is a fourth-year medical student at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, N.Y. Dr. Chua is a psychiatrist with the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia.

References

1. Gottlieb M and Dyer S. Information and Disinformation: Social Media in the COVID-19 Crisis. Acad Emerg Med. 2020 Jul;27(7):640-1. doi: 10.1111/acem.14036.

2. De Veirman M et al. Front Psychol. 2019;10:2685. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02685.

3. Bennett N-K et al. “Parasocial Relationships: The Nature of Celebrity Fascinations.” National Register of Health Service Psychologists. https://www.findapsychologist.org/parasocial-relationships-the-nature-of-celebrity-fascinations/.

4. Eghtesadi M and Florea A. Can J Public Health. 2020 Jun;111(3):389-91. doi: 10.17269/s41997-020-00343-0.

For younger generations, TikTok is a go-to site for those who like short and catchy video clips. As a social media platform that allows concise video sharing, TikTok has over 1 billion monthly global users. Because of its platform size, a plethora of resources, and influence on media discourse, TikTok is the place for content creators to share visual media. Its cursory, condensed content delivery with videos capped at 1-minute focuses on high-yield information and rapid identification of fundamental points that are both engaging and entertaining.

Currently, on TikTok, 40 billion views are associated with the hashtag #mentalhealth. Content creators and regular users are employing this platform to share their own experiences, opinions, and strategies to overcome their struggles. While it is understandable for creators to share their personal stories that may be abusive, traumatic, or violent, they may not be prepared for their video to “go viral.”

Like any other social media platform, hateful speech such as racism, sexism, or xenophobia can accumulate on TikTok, which may cause more self-harm than self-help. Oversharing about personal strategies may lead to misconceived advice for TikTok viewers, while watching these TikTok videos can have negative mental health effects, even though there are no malicious intentions behind the creators who post these videos.

Hence, public health should pay more attention to the potential health-related implications this platform can create, as the quality of the information and the qualifications of the creators are mostly unrevealed. The concerns include undisclosed conflicts of interest, unchecked spread of misinformation, difficulty identifying source credibility, and excessive false information that viewers must filter through.^1,2

Individual TikTok users may follow accounts and interpret these content creators as therapists and the content they see as therapy. They may also believe that a close relationship with the content creator exists when it does not. Specifically, these relationships may be defined as parasocial relationships, which are one-sided relationships where one person (the TikTok viewer) extends emotional energy, interest, and time, and the other party (the content creator) is completely unaware of the other’s existence.³ Additionally, Americans who are uninsured/underinsured may turn to this diluted version of therapy to compensate for the one-on-one or group therapy they need.

While TikTok may seem like a dangerous platform to browse through or post on, its growing influence cannot be underestimated. With 41% of TikTok users between the ages of 16 and 24, this is an ideal platform to disseminate public health information pertaining to this age group (for example, safe sex practices, substance abuse, and mental health issues).⁴ Because younger generations have incorporated social media into their daily lives, the medical community can harness TikTok’s potential to disseminate accurate information to potential patients for targeted medical education.

For example, Jake Goodman, MD, MBA, and Melissa Shepard, MD, each have more than a million TikTok followers and are notable psychiatrists who post a variety of content ranging from recognizing signs of depression to reducing stigma around mental health. Similarly, Justin Puder, PhD, is a licensed psychologist who advocates for ways to overcome mental health issues. By creating diverse content with appealing strategies, spreading accurate medical knowledge, and answering common medical questions for the public, these ‘mental health influencers’ educate potential patients to create patient-centered interactions.

Given the ever-changing digital media landscape, an emphasis must be placed on understanding how adolescents respond to social media in maladaptive or adaptive ways by pointing out the common strengths and weaknesses adolescents share. While there are many pros and cons to social media platforms, it is undeniable that these platforms – such as TikTok – are here to stay. It is crucial for members of the medical community to recognize the outlets that younger generations use to express themselves and to exploit these media channels therapeutically.
 

Ms. Wong is a fourth-year medical student at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, N.Y. Dr. Chua is a psychiatrist with the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia.

References

1. Gottlieb M and Dyer S. Information and Disinformation: Social Media in the COVID-19 Crisis. Acad Emerg Med. 2020 Jul;27(7):640-1. doi: 10.1111/acem.14036.

2. De Veirman M et al. Front Psychol. 2019;10:2685. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02685.

3. Bennett N-K et al. “Parasocial Relationships: The Nature of Celebrity Fascinations.” National Register of Health Service Psychologists. https://www.findapsychologist.org/parasocial-relationships-the-nature-of-celebrity-fascinations/.

4. Eghtesadi M and Florea A. Can J Public Health. 2020 Jun;111(3):389-91. doi: 10.17269/s41997-020-00343-0.

INDIANAPOLIS – Despite the common prevalence of skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania (hair pulling), no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments exist for either condition.

And while both body-focused repetitive behavior disorders affect a greater proportion of females than males, “we have no current information that is useful about what hormonal influences may or may not play in terms of picking and pulling behaviors,” Jon E. Grant, MD, JD, MPH, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “On a cognitive level, affected children and adolescents often have impaired inhibitory control but they are often 1-2 standard deviations above average IQ. They have Type A personalities [and are] very driven young kids. They also do not tolerate any down time or boredom. They need to be doing something all the time.”

According to the DSM-5, the diagnostic criteria for skin picking includes recurrent skin picking that results in skin lesions and is not attributable to another medical condition or substance. It also involves repeated attempts to decrease or stop the behavior and causes clinically significant distress or impairment.

“The other medical condition that we are interested in is the misuse of or dependence upon amphetamines or other prescription-based or illicit stimulants,” Dr. Grant said. “I saw a young man who was using about 600 mg of Ritalin a day, and he was picking all over the place. He did not have a primary skin disorder.”

The lifetime prevalence of skin picking disorder ranges between 1.4% and 5.4% of the general population. However, about 63% of people in a community sample endorsed some form of skin picking, and in a study of 105 college students, almost 40% said they picked their skin and had noticeable tissue damage as a result.

“Skin picking is not the same as self-injury,” Dr. Grant said. “It is also not simply an anxiety disorder. Anxiety will make people who pick worse, so people will say that they pick when they’re under stress. I can give them benzodiazepines and they’re still going to pick.”

Animal and human studies demonstrate that skin picking and hair pulling primarily affect females. “You will encounter young boys that pick and pull, but it largely affects females, and it tends to start around puberty,” he said. “Picking can have an onset after the age of 30, which is quite uncommon.”

From a cognitive standpoint, pathological skin pickers demonstrate impaired inhibitory control, impaired stop signal reaction time, increased rates of negative urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to negative emotions), and increased rates of positive urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to exciting or pleasurable emotions).

Trichotillomania

The lifetime prevalence of trichotillomania ranges between 0.6% and 3.9%. The onset is typically from ages 10-13 years, and the mean duration of illness is 22 years.

The DSM-5 criteria for trichotillomania are similar to that of skin-picking disorder, “although we don’t really worry about the substance use issue with people who pull their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “It doesn’t seem to have a correlation.” In addition, sometimes, children “will worsen pulling or picking when they have co-occurring ADHD and they’ve been started on a stimulant, even at a typical dose. For kids who have those issues, we prefer to try nonstimulant options for their ADHD such as bupropion or atomoxetine.”

Individuals with trichotillomania also tend to have low self-esteem and increased social anxiety, he added, and about one-third report low or very low quality of life. “When you notice alopecia, particularly in young girls who often have longer hair, up to 20% will eat their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “We don’t know why. It’s not related to vitamin deficiencies; it’s not a pica type of iron deficiency. There seems to be a shame piece about eating one’s own hair, but it’s important to assess that. Ask about constipation or overflow incontinence because they can get a bezoar, which can rupture” and can be fatal.

Skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania co-occur in up to 20% of cases. “When they do it tends to be a more difficult problem,” he said. These patients often come for mental health care because of depression, and most, he added, say “I don’t think I would be depressed if I wasn’t covered with excoriations or missing most of my hair.”
 

Treatment for both conditions

According to Dr. Grant, the treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is a specific psychotherapy known as “habit reversal therapy,” which involves helping the patient gain better self-control. The drawback is that it’s difficult to find someone trained in habit reversal therapy, “who know anything about skin picking and hair pulling,” he said. “That has been a huge challenge in the field.”

In his experience, the medical treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is N-acetylcysteine, an over-the-counter amino acid and antioxidant, which has been shown to be helpful at a dose of 2,400 mg per day. “Patients report to me that some of the excoriations clear up a little quicker as they’re taking it,” Dr. Grant said.

There may also be a role for antipsychotic therapy, he said, “but because of the associated weight gain with most antipsychotics we prefer not to use them.”

The opioid antagonist naltrexone has been shown to be effective in the subset of patients with skin-picking or hair-pulling disorders whose parents have a substance use disorder, Dr. Grant said. “The thought is that there’s something addictive about this behavior in some kids. These kids will look forward to picking and find it rewarding and exciting.”

Dr. Grant reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

INDIANAPOLIS – Despite the common prevalence of skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania (hair pulling), no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments exist for either condition.

And while both body-focused repetitive behavior disorders affect a greater proportion of females than males, “we have no current information that is useful about what hormonal influences may or may not play in terms of picking and pulling behaviors,” Jon E. Grant, MD, JD, MPH, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “On a cognitive level, affected children and adolescents often have impaired inhibitory control but they are often 1-2 standard deviations above average IQ. They have Type A personalities [and are] very driven young kids. They also do not tolerate any down time or boredom. They need to be doing something all the time.”

According to the DSM-5, the diagnostic criteria for skin picking includes recurrent skin picking that results in skin lesions and is not attributable to another medical condition or substance. It also involves repeated attempts to decrease or stop the behavior and causes clinically significant distress or impairment.

“The other medical condition that we are interested in is the misuse of or dependence upon amphetamines or other prescription-based or illicit stimulants,” Dr. Grant said. “I saw a young man who was using about 600 mg of Ritalin a day, and he was picking all over the place. He did not have a primary skin disorder.”

The lifetime prevalence of skin picking disorder ranges between 1.4% and 5.4% of the general population. However, about 63% of people in a community sample endorsed some form of skin picking, and in a study of 105 college students, almost 40% said they picked their skin and had noticeable tissue damage as a result.

“Skin picking is not the same as self-injury,” Dr. Grant said. “It is also not simply an anxiety disorder. Anxiety will make people who pick worse, so people will say that they pick when they’re under stress. I can give them benzodiazepines and they’re still going to pick.”

Animal and human studies demonstrate that skin picking and hair pulling primarily affect females. “You will encounter young boys that pick and pull, but it largely affects females, and it tends to start around puberty,” he said. “Picking can have an onset after the age of 30, which is quite uncommon.”

From a cognitive standpoint, pathological skin pickers demonstrate impaired inhibitory control, impaired stop signal reaction time, increased rates of negative urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to negative emotions), and increased rates of positive urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to exciting or pleasurable emotions).

Trichotillomania

The lifetime prevalence of trichotillomania ranges between 0.6% and 3.9%. The onset is typically from ages 10-13 years, and the mean duration of illness is 22 years.

The DSM-5 criteria for trichotillomania are similar to that of skin-picking disorder, “although we don’t really worry about the substance use issue with people who pull their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “It doesn’t seem to have a correlation.” In addition, sometimes, children “will worsen pulling or picking when they have co-occurring ADHD and they’ve been started on a stimulant, even at a typical dose. For kids who have those issues, we prefer to try nonstimulant options for their ADHD such as bupropion or atomoxetine.”

Individuals with trichotillomania also tend to have low self-esteem and increased social anxiety, he added, and about one-third report low or very low quality of life. “When you notice alopecia, particularly in young girls who often have longer hair, up to 20% will eat their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “We don’t know why. It’s not related to vitamin deficiencies; it’s not a pica type of iron deficiency. There seems to be a shame piece about eating one’s own hair, but it’s important to assess that. Ask about constipation or overflow incontinence because they can get a bezoar, which can rupture” and can be fatal.

Skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania co-occur in up to 20% of cases. “When they do it tends to be a more difficult problem,” he said. These patients often come for mental health care because of depression, and most, he added, say “I don’t think I would be depressed if I wasn’t covered with excoriations or missing most of my hair.”
 

Treatment for both conditions

According to Dr. Grant, the treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is a specific psychotherapy known as “habit reversal therapy,” which involves helping the patient gain better self-control. The drawback is that it’s difficult to find someone trained in habit reversal therapy, “who know anything about skin picking and hair pulling,” he said. “That has been a huge challenge in the field.”

In his experience, the medical treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is N-acetylcysteine, an over-the-counter amino acid and antioxidant, which has been shown to be helpful at a dose of 2,400 mg per day. “Patients report to me that some of the excoriations clear up a little quicker as they’re taking it,” Dr. Grant said.

There may also be a role for antipsychotic therapy, he said, “but because of the associated weight gain with most antipsychotics we prefer not to use them.”

The opioid antagonist naltrexone has been shown to be effective in the subset of patients with skin-picking or hair-pulling disorders whose parents have a substance use disorder, Dr. Grant said. “The thought is that there’s something addictive about this behavior in some kids. These kids will look forward to picking and find it rewarding and exciting.”

Dr. Grant reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

INDIANAPOLIS – Despite the common prevalence of skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania (hair pulling), no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments exist for either condition.

And while both body-focused repetitive behavior disorders affect a greater proportion of females than males, “we have no current information that is useful about what hormonal influences may or may not play in terms of picking and pulling behaviors,” Jon E. Grant, MD, JD, MPH, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “On a cognitive level, affected children and adolescents often have impaired inhibitory control but they are often 1-2 standard deviations above average IQ. They have Type A personalities [and are] very driven young kids. They also do not tolerate any down time or boredom. They need to be doing something all the time.”

According to the DSM-5, the diagnostic criteria for skin picking includes recurrent skin picking that results in skin lesions and is not attributable to another medical condition or substance. It also involves repeated attempts to decrease or stop the behavior and causes clinically significant distress or impairment.

“The other medical condition that we are interested in is the misuse of or dependence upon amphetamines or other prescription-based or illicit stimulants,” Dr. Grant said. “I saw a young man who was using about 600 mg of Ritalin a day, and he was picking all over the place. He did not have a primary skin disorder.”

The lifetime prevalence of skin picking disorder ranges between 1.4% and 5.4% of the general population. However, about 63% of people in a community sample endorsed some form of skin picking, and in a study of 105 college students, almost 40% said they picked their skin and had noticeable tissue damage as a result.

“Skin picking is not the same as self-injury,” Dr. Grant said. “It is also not simply an anxiety disorder. Anxiety will make people who pick worse, so people will say that they pick when they’re under stress. I can give them benzodiazepines and they’re still going to pick.”

Animal and human studies demonstrate that skin picking and hair pulling primarily affect females. “You will encounter young boys that pick and pull, but it largely affects females, and it tends to start around puberty,” he said. “Picking can have an onset after the age of 30, which is quite uncommon.”

From a cognitive standpoint, pathological skin pickers demonstrate impaired inhibitory control, impaired stop signal reaction time, increased rates of negative urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to negative emotions), and increased rates of positive urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to exciting or pleasurable emotions).

Trichotillomania

The lifetime prevalence of trichotillomania ranges between 0.6% and 3.9%. The onset is typically from ages 10-13 years, and the mean duration of illness is 22 years.

The DSM-5 criteria for trichotillomania are similar to that of skin-picking disorder, “although we don’t really worry about the substance use issue with people who pull their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “It doesn’t seem to have a correlation.” In addition, sometimes, children “will worsen pulling or picking when they have co-occurring ADHD and they’ve been started on a stimulant, even at a typical dose. For kids who have those issues, we prefer to try nonstimulant options for their ADHD such as bupropion or atomoxetine.”

Individuals with trichotillomania also tend to have low self-esteem and increased social anxiety, he added, and about one-third report low or very low quality of life. “When you notice alopecia, particularly in young girls who often have longer hair, up to 20% will eat their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “We don’t know why. It’s not related to vitamin deficiencies; it’s not a pica type of iron deficiency. There seems to be a shame piece about eating one’s own hair, but it’s important to assess that. Ask about constipation or overflow incontinence because they can get a bezoar, which can rupture” and can be fatal.

Skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania co-occur in up to 20% of cases. “When they do it tends to be a more difficult problem,” he said. These patients often come for mental health care because of depression, and most, he added, say “I don’t think I would be depressed if I wasn’t covered with excoriations or missing most of my hair.”
 

Treatment for both conditions

According to Dr. Grant, the treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is a specific psychotherapy known as “habit reversal therapy,” which involves helping the patient gain better self-control. The drawback is that it’s difficult to find someone trained in habit reversal therapy, “who know anything about skin picking and hair pulling,” he said. “That has been a huge challenge in the field.”

In his experience, the medical treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is N-acetylcysteine, an over-the-counter amino acid and antioxidant, which has been shown to be helpful at a dose of 2,400 mg per day. “Patients report to me that some of the excoriations clear up a little quicker as they’re taking it,” Dr. Grant said.

There may also be a role for antipsychotic therapy, he said, “but because of the associated weight gain with most antipsychotics we prefer not to use them.”

The opioid antagonist naltrexone has been shown to be effective in the subset of patients with skin-picking or hair-pulling disorders whose parents have a substance use disorder, Dr. Grant said. “The thought is that there’s something addictive about this behavior in some kids. These kids will look forward to picking and find it rewarding and exciting.”

Dr. Grant reported having no relevant financial disclosures.