Child Psychiatry Consult

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, and Children’s Hospital Association declared a national emergency in child and adolescent mental health. Additionally, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory highlighting increased prevalence of mental health challenges in youth, impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and recommendations to address this crisis.

Richards_Misty_CALIF_web.jpg

The pandemic required youth to isolate from peers and community supports, navigate remote learning environments, and cope with grief and loss; some 140,000 children in the United States experienced the death of a caregiver due to COVID-19.¹ Virtually every system that supports children was affected. Whereas schools have historically been a main provider of child and adolescent mental health services, delivery of many school-based mental health programs was disrupted by school closures and staffing challenges. Subgroups of children (for example, those with intellectual and developmental disabilities) were particularly affected by these disruptions to daily life, and their use of emergency services increased.² Surges in psychiatric emergency department visits among children led to increased boarding, reflecting unleveraged opportunities for early intervention. Families faced changes in child care, economic uncertainty, educational responsibilities, and increased rates of domestic violence.³ Communities of color were disproportionately affected in every way, from disease mortality to learning loss and increased school dropout rates.

Meaningful improvement in children’s mental health will require remodeling broken systems to ensure that children are supported early, effectively, and equitably. To address gaps in the system, we must leverage school-based mental health programs, bolster access to and support of primary care providers, and embrace new, innovative models.
 

School-based mental health programs

Schools may be an ideal setting for universal mental health screening and opportunities for training, leadership, and whole school interventions. There is promising evidence that school-based interventions can decrease the incidence of suicide attempts and increase help-seeking behavior in students.⁴ There has long been interest in mental health screening in schools, though it has not been widely implemented given the significant resources required to both facilitate screening and effectively serve students who need additional support. Mobile apps may be one solution to scalability of both screening and interventions, but these initiatives should only be implemented within a stakeholder-engaged, family-centered multi-tiered model of behavioral support.

Other school-based initiatives include providing advice and training to teachers and school counselors and increasing access to specialized mental health professionals, including school psychologists, social workers, nurses, and behavior support workers, as well as community-based mental health providers. The 2021 American Rescue Plan Act included $170 billion for school funding, which many schools used to hire mental health workers. The Student Mental Health Helpline Act, if passed, will create helplines to support teachers as they help students address mental health issues.⁵ Educators can be trained to identify mental health needs, addressing mild symptoms themselves and referring students requiring more specialized services. Specific training programs for educators include Classroom Well-Being Information and Strategies for Educators (WISE), Youth Mental Health First Aid, and other resources funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In addition to educators, other non–mental health professions interfacing with youth, including other youth, parents, clergy, coaches, and other community members, can be empowered with additional behavioral health knowledge and skills.
 

Increasing capacity in primary care

A number of programs are designed to improve knowledge and skills in children’s mental health among primary care providers, such as pediatricians. In Project ECHO, a “hub” of specialists, typically at an academic medical center, provides didactic lectures and case presentations for primary care “spokes” using teleconferencing.⁶ The REACH Institute uses interactive group learning followed by ongoing coaching and case-based training.

Collaborative care models known as Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) engage child and adolescent psychiatrists to support primary care management of psychiatric disorders. Consultations may be direct or indirect, and involve technology or in-person care. Available in most states, these models increase access to mental health care, expand the capacity of the existing workforce, and decrease stigma and inconvenience for patients. Collaborative care models have been shown to lead to improved patient and family satisfaction, reduced utilization of emergency room and inpatient hospitalizations, and improved clinical outcomes. Off-site integrated care models may additionally serve larger and more geographically dispersed populations, minimize changes to existing infrastructure, reduce travel costs for clinicians, and decrease isolation of specialists. These programs are feasible, desirable, and sustainable. There is currently no cost to patients for their primary care providers’ participation in these models, as they are supported by the state, local, or insurance payer sources in addition to federal funding. Financially sustainable models are essential to ensure equitable access to these services in the future.
 

New service models

For adolescents and young adults, integrated youth service hubs such as those that have emerged in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and more recently in the United States may be particularly appealing. These hubs emphasize rapid access to care and early intervention, youth and family engagement, youth-friendly settings and services, evidence-informed approaches, and partnerships and collaboration.⁷ In addition to mental health, these “one-stop shops” offer physical health, vocational supports, and case management to support basic needs. They address a particular system gap by providing services for transition-age youth rather than cutting off at age 18, as many children’s mental health services do.

Emerging solutions to the high utilization of emergency departments for pediatric mental health needs include utilization of pediatric Crisis Stabilization Units (CSUs). CSUs are community-based, short-term outpatient units that provide immediate care to children and families experiencing a mental health crisis. The goal of CSUs is to quickly stabilize the individual – often within 72 hours – and refer that individual to available community resources. This model may also reduce police involvement in mental health crises, which may be particularly important for racialized populations.
 

Conclusion

The thoughtful implementation and stable funding of evidence-based models can help schools, the health care system, and communities more effectively support children’s mental health in the post–COVID-19 pandemic era. Only with sufficient investments in the mental health system and other systems designed to support children and families, as well as careful consideration of unintended consequences on equity-deserving populations, will we see an end to this crisis.

Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences; program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship; and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.

References

1. Hillis SD et al. COVID-19–Associated orphanhood and caregiver death in the United States. Pediatrics. 2021;148:e2021053760.

2. Edgcomb JB et al. Mental health‐related emergency department visits among children during the early COVID‐19 pandemic. Psychiatr Res Clin Pract. 2022;4:4-11.

3. Pereda N, Díaz-Faes DA. Family violence against children in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic: A review of current perspectives and risk factors. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health. 2020;4:40.

4. Gijzen MWM et al. Effectiveness of school-based preventive programs in suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2022;298:408-420.

5. Newman M: H.R.5235 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Student Mental Health Helpline Act of 2021 [Internet] 2021; [cited 2023 Jan 11] Available from: http://www.congress.gov.

6. Raney L et al. Digitally driven integrated primary care and behavioral health: How technology can expand access to effective treatment. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2017;19:86.

7. Settipani CA et al. Key attributes of integrated community-based youth service hubs for mental health: A scoping review. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2019;13:52.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, and Children’s Hospital Association declared a national emergency in child and adolescent mental health. Additionally, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory highlighting increased prevalence of mental health challenges in youth, impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and recommendations to address this crisis.

Richards_Misty_CALIF_web.jpg

The pandemic required youth to isolate from peers and community supports, navigate remote learning environments, and cope with grief and loss; some 140,000 children in the United States experienced the death of a caregiver due to COVID-19.¹ Virtually every system that supports children was affected. Whereas schools have historically been a main provider of child and adolescent mental health services, delivery of many school-based mental health programs was disrupted by school closures and staffing challenges. Subgroups of children (for example, those with intellectual and developmental disabilities) were particularly affected by these disruptions to daily life, and their use of emergency services increased.² Surges in psychiatric emergency department visits among children led to increased boarding, reflecting unleveraged opportunities for early intervention. Families faced changes in child care, economic uncertainty, educational responsibilities, and increased rates of domestic violence.³ Communities of color were disproportionately affected in every way, from disease mortality to learning loss and increased school dropout rates.

Meaningful improvement in children’s mental health will require remodeling broken systems to ensure that children are supported early, effectively, and equitably. To address gaps in the system, we must leverage school-based mental health programs, bolster access to and support of primary care providers, and embrace new, innovative models.
 

School-based mental health programs

Schools may be an ideal setting for universal mental health screening and opportunities for training, leadership, and whole school interventions. There is promising evidence that school-based interventions can decrease the incidence of suicide attempts and increase help-seeking behavior in students.⁴ There has long been interest in mental health screening in schools, though it has not been widely implemented given the significant resources required to both facilitate screening and effectively serve students who need additional support. Mobile apps may be one solution to scalability of both screening and interventions, but these initiatives should only be implemented within a stakeholder-engaged, family-centered multi-tiered model of behavioral support.

Other school-based initiatives include providing advice and training to teachers and school counselors and increasing access to specialized mental health professionals, including school psychologists, social workers, nurses, and behavior support workers, as well as community-based mental health providers. The 2021 American Rescue Plan Act included $170 billion for school funding, which many schools used to hire mental health workers. The Student Mental Health Helpline Act, if passed, will create helplines to support teachers as they help students address mental health issues.⁵ Educators can be trained to identify mental health needs, addressing mild symptoms themselves and referring students requiring more specialized services. Specific training programs for educators include Classroom Well-Being Information and Strategies for Educators (WISE), Youth Mental Health First Aid, and other resources funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In addition to educators, other non–mental health professions interfacing with youth, including other youth, parents, clergy, coaches, and other community members, can be empowered with additional behavioral health knowledge and skills.
 

Increasing capacity in primary care

A number of programs are designed to improve knowledge and skills in children’s mental health among primary care providers, such as pediatricians. In Project ECHO, a “hub” of specialists, typically at an academic medical center, provides didactic lectures and case presentations for primary care “spokes” using teleconferencing.⁶ The REACH Institute uses interactive group learning followed by ongoing coaching and case-based training.

Collaborative care models known as Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) engage child and adolescent psychiatrists to support primary care management of psychiatric disorders. Consultations may be direct or indirect, and involve technology or in-person care. Available in most states, these models increase access to mental health care, expand the capacity of the existing workforce, and decrease stigma and inconvenience for patients. Collaborative care models have been shown to lead to improved patient and family satisfaction, reduced utilization of emergency room and inpatient hospitalizations, and improved clinical outcomes. Off-site integrated care models may additionally serve larger and more geographically dispersed populations, minimize changes to existing infrastructure, reduce travel costs for clinicians, and decrease isolation of specialists. These programs are feasible, desirable, and sustainable. There is currently no cost to patients for their primary care providers’ participation in these models, as they are supported by the state, local, or insurance payer sources in addition to federal funding. Financially sustainable models are essential to ensure equitable access to these services in the future.
 

New service models

For adolescents and young adults, integrated youth service hubs such as those that have emerged in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and more recently in the United States may be particularly appealing. These hubs emphasize rapid access to care and early intervention, youth and family engagement, youth-friendly settings and services, evidence-informed approaches, and partnerships and collaboration.⁷ In addition to mental health, these “one-stop shops” offer physical health, vocational supports, and case management to support basic needs. They address a particular system gap by providing services for transition-age youth rather than cutting off at age 18, as many children’s mental health services do.

Emerging solutions to the high utilization of emergency departments for pediatric mental health needs include utilization of pediatric Crisis Stabilization Units (CSUs). CSUs are community-based, short-term outpatient units that provide immediate care to children and families experiencing a mental health crisis. The goal of CSUs is to quickly stabilize the individual – often within 72 hours – and refer that individual to available community resources. This model may also reduce police involvement in mental health crises, which may be particularly important for racialized populations.
 

Conclusion

The thoughtful implementation and stable funding of evidence-based models can help schools, the health care system, and communities more effectively support children’s mental health in the post–COVID-19 pandemic era. Only with sufficient investments in the mental health system and other systems designed to support children and families, as well as careful consideration of unintended consequences on equity-deserving populations, will we see an end to this crisis.

Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences; program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship; and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.

References

1. Hillis SD et al. COVID-19–Associated orphanhood and caregiver death in the United States. Pediatrics. 2021;148:e2021053760.

2. Edgcomb JB et al. Mental health‐related emergency department visits among children during the early COVID‐19 pandemic. Psychiatr Res Clin Pract. 2022;4:4-11.

3. Pereda N, Díaz-Faes DA. Family violence against children in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic: A review of current perspectives and risk factors. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health. 2020;4:40.

4. Gijzen MWM et al. Effectiveness of school-based preventive programs in suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2022;298:408-420.

5. Newman M: H.R.5235 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Student Mental Health Helpline Act of 2021 [Internet] 2021; [cited 2023 Jan 11] Available from: http://www.congress.gov.

6. Raney L et al. Digitally driven integrated primary care and behavioral health: How technology can expand access to effective treatment. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2017;19:86.

7. Settipani CA et al. Key attributes of integrated community-based youth service hubs for mental health: A scoping review. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2019;13:52.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, and Children’s Hospital Association declared a national emergency in child and adolescent mental health. Additionally, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory highlighting increased prevalence of mental health challenges in youth, impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and recommendations to address this crisis.

Richards_Misty_CALIF_web.jpg

The pandemic required youth to isolate from peers and community supports, navigate remote learning environments, and cope with grief and loss; some 140,000 children in the United States experienced the death of a caregiver due to COVID-19.¹ Virtually every system that supports children was affected. Whereas schools have historically been a main provider of child and adolescent mental health services, delivery of many school-based mental health programs was disrupted by school closures and staffing challenges. Subgroups of children (for example, those with intellectual and developmental disabilities) were particularly affected by these disruptions to daily life, and their use of emergency services increased.² Surges in psychiatric emergency department visits among children led to increased boarding, reflecting unleveraged opportunities for early intervention. Families faced changes in child care, economic uncertainty, educational responsibilities, and increased rates of domestic violence.³ Communities of color were disproportionately affected in every way, from disease mortality to learning loss and increased school dropout rates.

Meaningful improvement in children’s mental health will require remodeling broken systems to ensure that children are supported early, effectively, and equitably. To address gaps in the system, we must leverage school-based mental health programs, bolster access to and support of primary care providers, and embrace new, innovative models.
 

School-based mental health programs

Schools may be an ideal setting for universal mental health screening and opportunities for training, leadership, and whole school interventions. There is promising evidence that school-based interventions can decrease the incidence of suicide attempts and increase help-seeking behavior in students.⁴ There has long been interest in mental health screening in schools, though it has not been widely implemented given the significant resources required to both facilitate screening and effectively serve students who need additional support. Mobile apps may be one solution to scalability of both screening and interventions, but these initiatives should only be implemented within a stakeholder-engaged, family-centered multi-tiered model of behavioral support.

Other school-based initiatives include providing advice and training to teachers and school counselors and increasing access to specialized mental health professionals, including school psychologists, social workers, nurses, and behavior support workers, as well as community-based mental health providers. The 2021 American Rescue Plan Act included $170 billion for school funding, which many schools used to hire mental health workers. The Student Mental Health Helpline Act, if passed, will create helplines to support teachers as they help students address mental health issues.⁵ Educators can be trained to identify mental health needs, addressing mild symptoms themselves and referring students requiring more specialized services. Specific training programs for educators include Classroom Well-Being Information and Strategies for Educators (WISE), Youth Mental Health First Aid, and other resources funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In addition to educators, other non–mental health professions interfacing with youth, including other youth, parents, clergy, coaches, and other community members, can be empowered with additional behavioral health knowledge and skills.
 

Increasing capacity in primary care

A number of programs are designed to improve knowledge and skills in children’s mental health among primary care providers, such as pediatricians. In Project ECHO, a “hub” of specialists, typically at an academic medical center, provides didactic lectures and case presentations for primary care “spokes” using teleconferencing.⁶ The REACH Institute uses interactive group learning followed by ongoing coaching and case-based training.

Collaborative care models known as Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) engage child and adolescent psychiatrists to support primary care management of psychiatric disorders. Consultations may be direct or indirect, and involve technology or in-person care. Available in most states, these models increase access to mental health care, expand the capacity of the existing workforce, and decrease stigma and inconvenience for patients. Collaborative care models have been shown to lead to improved patient and family satisfaction, reduced utilization of emergency room and inpatient hospitalizations, and improved clinical outcomes. Off-site integrated care models may additionally serve larger and more geographically dispersed populations, minimize changes to existing infrastructure, reduce travel costs for clinicians, and decrease isolation of specialists. These programs are feasible, desirable, and sustainable. There is currently no cost to patients for their primary care providers’ participation in these models, as they are supported by the state, local, or insurance payer sources in addition to federal funding. Financially sustainable models are essential to ensure equitable access to these services in the future.
 

New service models

For adolescents and young adults, integrated youth service hubs such as those that have emerged in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and more recently in the United States may be particularly appealing. These hubs emphasize rapid access to care and early intervention, youth and family engagement, youth-friendly settings and services, evidence-informed approaches, and partnerships and collaboration.⁷ In addition to mental health, these “one-stop shops” offer physical health, vocational supports, and case management to support basic needs. They address a particular system gap by providing services for transition-age youth rather than cutting off at age 18, as many children’s mental health services do.

Emerging solutions to the high utilization of emergency departments for pediatric mental health needs include utilization of pediatric Crisis Stabilization Units (CSUs). CSUs are community-based, short-term outpatient units that provide immediate care to children and families experiencing a mental health crisis. The goal of CSUs is to quickly stabilize the individual – often within 72 hours – and refer that individual to available community resources. This model may also reduce police involvement in mental health crises, which may be particularly important for racialized populations.
 

Conclusion

The thoughtful implementation and stable funding of evidence-based models can help schools, the health care system, and communities more effectively support children’s mental health in the post–COVID-19 pandemic era. Only with sufficient investments in the mental health system and other systems designed to support children and families, as well as careful consideration of unintended consequences on equity-deserving populations, will we see an end to this crisis.

Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences; program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship; and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.

References

1. Hillis SD et al. COVID-19–Associated orphanhood and caregiver death in the United States. Pediatrics. 2021;148:e2021053760.

2. Edgcomb JB et al. Mental health‐related emergency department visits among children during the early COVID‐19 pandemic. Psychiatr Res Clin Pract. 2022;4:4-11.

3. Pereda N, Díaz-Faes DA. Family violence against children in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic: A review of current perspectives and risk factors. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health. 2020;4:40.

4. Gijzen MWM et al. Effectiveness of school-based preventive programs in suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2022;298:408-420.

5. Newman M: H.R.5235 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Student Mental Health Helpline Act of 2021 [Internet] 2021; [cited 2023 Jan 11] Available from: http://www.congress.gov.

6. Raney L et al. Digitally driven integrated primary care and behavioral health: How technology can expand access to effective treatment. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2017;19:86.

7. Settipani CA et al. Key attributes of integrated community-based youth service hubs for mental health: A scoping review. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2019;13:52.

Matt was diagnosed with ADHD combined type when he was 6 years old. Given his age, the family was reluctant to try medications, but after a couple years of parenting classes and reward charts, the parents requested a stimulant. He had significant improvement in focus and impulsivity but also reduced appetite. Now at age 13, irritability and depressive symptoms have been increasing for 9 months. Skeptical of adding another medication, his parents ask whether nutrition might be an alternative tool to treat his symptoms?

While few would argue with the foundational importance of nutrition for healthy childhood development, how to apply nutrition to mental health care becomes a much more nebulous pursuit. What a healthy diet even consists of seems to be a moving target over decades and years. Trendy research, supplements, and dietary approaches proliferate alongside appealing theories of action. In the end, weighing which intervention is effective for which disorder and at what cost becomes murky.

Yet several fundamental principles seem clear and consistent over time and across studies.

Rosenfeld_Andrew_Vt_web.jpg

Starting early

There is reliable evidence that in the perinatal environment, nutrition sets the stage for many aspects of healthy development. These effects are likely mediated variously through the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, the trillions of gut bacteria that make up the microbiome, gene-environment interactions, and more. Maternal malnutrition and stress prenatally puts infants at risk for not only poor birth outcomes but also psychiatric challenges throughout childhood, such as ADHD, anxiety, depression, and autism.¹

Intervening in the perinatal period has long-term benefits. A first step includes assessing food security, beginning with consistent access to nutritious food. It is important to inquire about the role of food and nutrition in the family’s history and culture, as well as identifying resources to support access to affordable nutrition. This can be paired with parenting interventions, such as family meals without screens. This may require scaffolding positive conversations in high-conflict family settings (see The Family Dinner Project).
 

Healthy diets promote mental health

If food security is achieved, what is next? Clinicians can inquire about the who, what, where, when, and why of nutrition to learn about a family’s eating habits.² While randomized controlled data is very limited, both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies show that healthy diets in youth correlate with mental health – more healthy foods reducing internalizing and externalizing disorders, and more typical Western diets increasing the risk. On average, dietary interventions include higher levels of fruits and vegetables, fish, and nuts, and lower levels of processed foods.² There is not evidence that restrictive diets or fasting is appropriate or safe for youth. Additionally, involving children in getting, growing, or preparing food with gradually increasing autonomy fosters self-confidence and skill development.

In those struggling with restrictive eating disorders, food is medicine – helping those with restrictive diets to develop more balanced and adequate intake for metabolic needs. Outside of diagnosable eating disorders, weight or body mass index is less of a goal or marker when it comes to mental health. Instead, look for participation in enjoyable activities, opportunities to move and rest, and a body image that supports self-care and self-confidence (see the National Institutes of Health’s We Can! Program). Creating dissonance with cultural ideals of appearance centered on thinness can prevent future eating disorders.³

Nutraceutical options

Outside of eating disorders, specific foods and plants with health or medicinal properties – variously called nutraceuticals, phytoceuticals, or micronutrients – have emerging evidence in mental health. A 2022 expert academic consensus panel reviewed the literature to create clinical guidelines in this area.⁴ For major depression, adding omega-3 fatty acids to standard antidepressant treatment or standalone St. John’s wort have adequate evidence to recommend, while adjunctive probiotics, zinc, saffron, and curcumin have sufficient though less robust evidence. S-adenosyl methionine, vitamin D, and methyfolate showed only weak evidence for depression, while vitamin C, magnesium, creatine, N-acetylcysteine, folate, and monotherapy omega-3s do not have sufficient evidence to be recommended. For ADHD there was weak support for vitamin D, but no clear evidence for omega-3s, zinc, gingko, or acetyl L-carnitine. For anxiety, there is moderate evidence for ashwagandha and lavender in adults. A child psychiatry review suggests also trying chamomile for generalized anxiety based on the evidence in young adults, and underscores some data for N-acetylcysteine for OCD in particular.⁵

Many of these nutraceuticals exhibit small or moderate effects in a limited number of trials, with generally much less data for youth, compared with adults. While the same could be said for many on- and off-label uses of psychiatric medications for kids, clinicians would be wise to consider these highly specific nutritional interventions as items on the menu of treatment options rather than stand-alone treatments.
 

Revisitng the case study

Reflecting on Matt’s care, his pediatrician first assessed his dietary patterns, noting late-night eating and caffeine use with minimal hydration or fiber across the day. Recommendations for keeping fruit and vegetable snacks easily accessible as well as carrying a water flask are well received. They also discuss adding omega-3 fatty acids and probiotics with his morning stimulant while he awaits a referral for cognitive-behavioral therapy in order to address his depressive symptoms and minimize medication needs.

Beyond addressing food security and balanced family meals, specific interventions may be appropriate as initial treatment adjuncts for mild and some moderate mental illness. For more intense moderate to severe illness, nutritional psychiatry may be considered in combination with treatments with stronger evidence. At a community level, clinicians can help advocate for universal school meal programs to address food security, and so-called salad bar interventions to increase fruit/vegetable uptake among school-age children.

Dr. Rosenfeld is associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at University of Vermont and the Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, both in Burlington. He has no disclosures.

References

1 Vohr BR et al. Pediatrics. 2017;139:S38-49.

2. Hosker DK et al. Child Adol Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2019;28(2):171-93.

3. Stice E et al. Int J Eat Disord. 2013;46(5):478-85.

4. Sarris J et al. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2022;23(6):424-55.

5. Simkin DR et al. Child Adolesc Psychiatric Clin N Am. 2023;32:193-216.

Matt was diagnosed with ADHD combined type when he was 6 years old. Given his age, the family was reluctant to try medications, but after a couple years of parenting classes and reward charts, the parents requested a stimulant. He had significant improvement in focus and impulsivity but also reduced appetite. Now at age 13, irritability and depressive symptoms have been increasing for 9 months. Skeptical of adding another medication, his parents ask whether nutrition might be an alternative tool to treat his symptoms?

While few would argue with the foundational importance of nutrition for healthy childhood development, how to apply nutrition to mental health care becomes a much more nebulous pursuit. What a healthy diet even consists of seems to be a moving target over decades and years. Trendy research, supplements, and dietary approaches proliferate alongside appealing theories of action. In the end, weighing which intervention is effective for which disorder and at what cost becomes murky.

Yet several fundamental principles seem clear and consistent over time and across studies.

Rosenfeld_Andrew_Vt_web.jpg

Starting early

There is reliable evidence that in the perinatal environment, nutrition sets the stage for many aspects of healthy development. These effects are likely mediated variously through the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, the trillions of gut bacteria that make up the microbiome, gene-environment interactions, and more. Maternal malnutrition and stress prenatally puts infants at risk for not only poor birth outcomes but also psychiatric challenges throughout childhood, such as ADHD, anxiety, depression, and autism.¹

Intervening in the perinatal period has long-term benefits. A first step includes assessing food security, beginning with consistent access to nutritious food. It is important to inquire about the role of food and nutrition in the family’s history and culture, as well as identifying resources to support access to affordable nutrition. This can be paired with parenting interventions, such as family meals without screens. This may require scaffolding positive conversations in high-conflict family settings (see The Family Dinner Project).
 

Healthy diets promote mental health

If food security is achieved, what is next? Clinicians can inquire about the who, what, where, when, and why of nutrition to learn about a family’s eating habits.² While randomized controlled data is very limited, both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies show that healthy diets in youth correlate with mental health – more healthy foods reducing internalizing and externalizing disorders, and more typical Western diets increasing the risk. On average, dietary interventions include higher levels of fruits and vegetables, fish, and nuts, and lower levels of processed foods.² There is not evidence that restrictive diets or fasting is appropriate or safe for youth. Additionally, involving children in getting, growing, or preparing food with gradually increasing autonomy fosters self-confidence and skill development.

In those struggling with restrictive eating disorders, food is medicine – helping those with restrictive diets to develop more balanced and adequate intake for metabolic needs. Outside of diagnosable eating disorders, weight or body mass index is less of a goal or marker when it comes to mental health. Instead, look for participation in enjoyable activities, opportunities to move and rest, and a body image that supports self-care and self-confidence (see the National Institutes of Health’s We Can! Program). Creating dissonance with cultural ideals of appearance centered on thinness can prevent future eating disorders.³

Nutraceutical options

Outside of eating disorders, specific foods and plants with health or medicinal properties – variously called nutraceuticals, phytoceuticals, or micronutrients – have emerging evidence in mental health. A 2022 expert academic consensus panel reviewed the literature to create clinical guidelines in this area.⁴ For major depression, adding omega-3 fatty acids to standard antidepressant treatment or standalone St. John’s wort have adequate evidence to recommend, while adjunctive probiotics, zinc, saffron, and curcumin have sufficient though less robust evidence. S-adenosyl methionine, vitamin D, and methyfolate showed only weak evidence for depression, while vitamin C, magnesium, creatine, N-acetylcysteine, folate, and monotherapy omega-3s do not have sufficient evidence to be recommended. For ADHD there was weak support for vitamin D, but no clear evidence for omega-3s, zinc, gingko, or acetyl L-carnitine. For anxiety, there is moderate evidence for ashwagandha and lavender in adults. A child psychiatry review suggests also trying chamomile for generalized anxiety based on the evidence in young adults, and underscores some data for N-acetylcysteine for OCD in particular.⁵

Many of these nutraceuticals exhibit small or moderate effects in a limited number of trials, with generally much less data for youth, compared with adults. While the same could be said for many on- and off-label uses of psychiatric medications for kids, clinicians would be wise to consider these highly specific nutritional interventions as items on the menu of treatment options rather than stand-alone treatments.
 

Revisitng the case study

Reflecting on Matt’s care, his pediatrician first assessed his dietary patterns, noting late-night eating and caffeine use with minimal hydration or fiber across the day. Recommendations for keeping fruit and vegetable snacks easily accessible as well as carrying a water flask are well received. They also discuss adding omega-3 fatty acids and probiotics with his morning stimulant while he awaits a referral for cognitive-behavioral therapy in order to address his depressive symptoms and minimize medication needs.

Beyond addressing food security and balanced family meals, specific interventions may be appropriate as initial treatment adjuncts for mild and some moderate mental illness. For more intense moderate to severe illness, nutritional psychiatry may be considered in combination with treatments with stronger evidence. At a community level, clinicians can help advocate for universal school meal programs to address food security, and so-called salad bar interventions to increase fruit/vegetable uptake among school-age children.

Dr. Rosenfeld is associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at University of Vermont and the Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, both in Burlington. He has no disclosures.

References

1 Vohr BR et al. Pediatrics. 2017;139:S38-49.

2. Hosker DK et al. Child Adol Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2019;28(2):171-93.

3. Stice E et al. Int J Eat Disord. 2013;46(5):478-85.

4. Sarris J et al. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2022;23(6):424-55.

5. Simkin DR et al. Child Adolesc Psychiatric Clin N Am. 2023;32:193-216.

Matt was diagnosed with ADHD combined type when he was 6 years old. Given his age, the family was reluctant to try medications, but after a couple years of parenting classes and reward charts, the parents requested a stimulant. He had significant improvement in focus and impulsivity but also reduced appetite. Now at age 13, irritability and depressive symptoms have been increasing for 9 months. Skeptical of adding another medication, his parents ask whether nutrition might be an alternative tool to treat his symptoms?

While few would argue with the foundational importance of nutrition for healthy childhood development, how to apply nutrition to mental health care becomes a much more nebulous pursuit. What a healthy diet even consists of seems to be a moving target over decades and years. Trendy research, supplements, and dietary approaches proliferate alongside appealing theories of action. In the end, weighing which intervention is effective for which disorder and at what cost becomes murky.

Yet several fundamental principles seem clear and consistent over time and across studies.

Rosenfeld_Andrew_Vt_web.jpg

Starting early

There is reliable evidence that in the perinatal environment, nutrition sets the stage for many aspects of healthy development. These effects are likely mediated variously through the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, the trillions of gut bacteria that make up the microbiome, gene-environment interactions, and more. Maternal malnutrition and stress prenatally puts infants at risk for not only poor birth outcomes but also psychiatric challenges throughout childhood, such as ADHD, anxiety, depression, and autism.¹

Intervening in the perinatal period has long-term benefits. A first step includes assessing food security, beginning with consistent access to nutritious food. It is important to inquire about the role of food and nutrition in the family’s history and culture, as well as identifying resources to support access to affordable nutrition. This can be paired with parenting interventions, such as family meals without screens. This may require scaffolding positive conversations in high-conflict family settings (see The Family Dinner Project).
 

Healthy diets promote mental health

If food security is achieved, what is next? Clinicians can inquire about the who, what, where, when, and why of nutrition to learn about a family’s eating habits.² While randomized controlled data is very limited, both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies show that healthy diets in youth correlate with mental health – more healthy foods reducing internalizing and externalizing disorders, and more typical Western diets increasing the risk. On average, dietary interventions include higher levels of fruits and vegetables, fish, and nuts, and lower levels of processed foods.² There is not evidence that restrictive diets or fasting is appropriate or safe for youth. Additionally, involving children in getting, growing, or preparing food with gradually increasing autonomy fosters self-confidence and skill development.

In those struggling with restrictive eating disorders, food is medicine – helping those with restrictive diets to develop more balanced and adequate intake for metabolic needs. Outside of diagnosable eating disorders, weight or body mass index is less of a goal or marker when it comes to mental health. Instead, look for participation in enjoyable activities, opportunities to move and rest, and a body image that supports self-care and self-confidence (see the National Institutes of Health’s We Can! Program). Creating dissonance with cultural ideals of appearance centered on thinness can prevent future eating disorders.³

Nutraceutical options

Outside of eating disorders, specific foods and plants with health or medicinal properties – variously called nutraceuticals, phytoceuticals, or micronutrients – have emerging evidence in mental health. A 2022 expert academic consensus panel reviewed the literature to create clinical guidelines in this area.⁴ For major depression, adding omega-3 fatty acids to standard antidepressant treatment or standalone St. John’s wort have adequate evidence to recommend, while adjunctive probiotics, zinc, saffron, and curcumin have sufficient though less robust evidence. S-adenosyl methionine, vitamin D, and methyfolate showed only weak evidence for depression, while vitamin C, magnesium, creatine, N-acetylcysteine, folate, and monotherapy omega-3s do not have sufficient evidence to be recommended. For ADHD there was weak support for vitamin D, but no clear evidence for omega-3s, zinc, gingko, or acetyl L-carnitine. For anxiety, there is moderate evidence for ashwagandha and lavender in adults. A child psychiatry review suggests also trying chamomile for generalized anxiety based on the evidence in young adults, and underscores some data for N-acetylcysteine for OCD in particular.⁵

Many of these nutraceuticals exhibit small or moderate effects in a limited number of trials, with generally much less data for youth, compared with adults. While the same could be said for many on- and off-label uses of psychiatric medications for kids, clinicians would be wise to consider these highly specific nutritional interventions as items on the menu of treatment options rather than stand-alone treatments.
 

Revisitng the case study

Reflecting on Matt’s care, his pediatrician first assessed his dietary patterns, noting late-night eating and caffeine use with minimal hydration or fiber across the day. Recommendations for keeping fruit and vegetable snacks easily accessible as well as carrying a water flask are well received. They also discuss adding omega-3 fatty acids and probiotics with his morning stimulant while he awaits a referral for cognitive-behavioral therapy in order to address his depressive symptoms and minimize medication needs.

Beyond addressing food security and balanced family meals, specific interventions may be appropriate as initial treatment adjuncts for mild and some moderate mental illness. For more intense moderate to severe illness, nutritional psychiatry may be considered in combination with treatments with stronger evidence. At a community level, clinicians can help advocate for universal school meal programs to address food security, and so-called salad bar interventions to increase fruit/vegetable uptake among school-age children.

Dr. Rosenfeld is associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at University of Vermont and the Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, both in Burlington. He has no disclosures.

References

1 Vohr BR et al. Pediatrics. 2017;139:S38-49.

2. Hosker DK et al. Child Adol Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2019;28(2):171-93.

3. Stice E et al. Int J Eat Disord. 2013;46(5):478-85.

4. Sarris J et al. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2022;23(6):424-55.

5. Simkin DR et al. Child Adolesc Psychiatric Clin N Am. 2023;32:193-216.

Over the past few years, there has been rampant misinformation regarding gender-affirming care for transgender youth. In particular, there has been confusion regarding how care is administered, and what types of care are considered at various stages of development. This primer will help you understand the developmental approach to supporting transgender youth.

Gender-affirming care is a broad term that can encapsulate many different domains: social, legal, medical, and surgical affirmation. While people generally think of medical and surgical aspects of gender-affirming care, other domains can be just as important. For example, a 2020 publication in The Lancet Public Health found that access to gender-congruent government identification documents was associated with lower odds of severe psychological distress and suicidality.¹ 

Turban_Jack_CALIF_web.jpg

Considerations for prepubertal children

The youngest developmental stage at which a young person may seek care regarding gender diversity is the prepubertal childhood stage. Guidelines set forth by The Endocrine Society and The World Professional Association for Transgender Health make it clear that no medical or surgical interventions are considered at this developmental stage.^2,3 However, some young people may choose to pursue a “social transition.” Though this may sound like one thing, social transition can mean very different things for different people. It may include any combination of adopting a new name, pronouns, hairstyle, clothing, etc. Young people may also choose to pursue these various aspects of social transition in all settings, or sometimes only in some settings (for example, only at home if they don’t yet feel comfortable doing so at school). Research so far shows that prepubertal children who are allowed to socially transition have levels of anxiety and depression nearly indistinguishable from their cisgender peers.⁴ While some in the past have raised the question of whether a social transition increases a child’s degree of gender incongruence and thus their likelihood to “persist” in a transgender identity, research has suggested this is not the case, and that gender identity does not meaningfully differ before and after a social transition.⁵ It’s worth noting, that “desistance” of a young person’s transgender identity is generally not considered an ethical goal and that gender identity conversion efforts (that is, attempts to force transgender people to be cisgender) have been labeled unethical by the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.

Sadly, transgender children are victims of bullying at high rates in their schools and communities. Creating safe and affirming school and community environments can be some of the highest yield ways in which providers can support the mental health of gender-diverse youth at this stage. Gender Spectrum is an excellent nonprofit that provides resources to help families and communities with some of these nonmedical supports.

 

Early adolescence and pubertal suppression

The earliest gender-affirming medical intervention that may be considered is pubertal suppression. Pubertal suppression is achieved with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. This class of medications is Food and Drug Administration approved in pediatrics for precocious puberty – a condition in which young people enter puberty much earlier than expected (sometimes as early as age 3). For that condition, the rationale is to delay puberty until the patient reaches a more developmentally normative age for puberty to begin. The rationale for pubertal suppression for adolescent gender dysphoria is somewhat similar – these medications allow for the temporary pausing of puberty, which can be particularly helpful for adolescents who are having severe negative psychological reactions to the ways in which their bodies are developing. The major advantage here is that pubertal suppression can be reversed (if the medication is stopped, endogenous puberty will proceed), whereas puberty itself cannot be easily reversed (resulting in adult transgender people needing surgery and other interventions later in life, if these changes can be fully undone at all). As with all medications, puberty blockers do carry known side effects, including falling behind on bone density (sex hormones are needed to mineralize bones). Because of this, it is generally recommended that adolescents have their bone density monitored during treatment, pursue avenues to improve bone health (for example, exercise), and either stop the puberty blocker to undergo endogenous puberty or start gender-affirming hormones (estrogen or testosterone) by around age 16. 

It is also important to note that, under current guidelines, an adolescent must first undergo a comprehensive biopsychosocial mental health evaluation prior to starting pubertal suppression to ensure the clinical team has a comprehensive understanding of the adolescent’s mental health, that all potential gender supports that are needed are put into place, and that the adolescent and their guardians have a strong understanding of the medical intervention, its risks, side effects, and potential benefits. In addition, consent must be provided by parents or legal guardians, whereas adolescents themselves provide assent. Several studies have linked access to pubertal suppression, when indicated for gender dysphoria, to improved mental health outcomes (for example, van der Miesen and colleagues, Turban and colleagues, de Vries and colleagues, and Costa and colleagues).^6-9

 

Later adolescence and gender-affirming hormones

Later in adolescence, transgender youth may be candidates for gender-affirming hormone treatment (for example, estrogen or testosterone) to induce pubertal changes that align with their gender identities. Once again, under current guidelines, a comprehensive mental health biopsychosocial evaluation must be conducted prior to initiation of these treatments. Part of this evaluation includes fertility counseling and consideration of fertility preservation (for example, oocyte or semen cryopreservation), given the potential for these medications to impact fertility. It also involves discussion of several of the physiologic changes from these medications that can be irreversible (for example, voice changes from testosterone are particularly difficult to reverse in the future). Tables of the physical changes from these medications, when they begin after starting, and when they generally reach their maximum are available in the Endocrine Society guidelines.² The past endocrine society guidelines recommended not initiating gender-affirming hormones until age 16. The most recent guidelines note that there may be instances in which providers may consider starting them as early as age 13 (for example, to reduce risk of falling behind on bone density, or if a patient is having psychological distress related to their peers going through puberty while they are still in a prepubertal state). The latest World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care removed specific age cutoffs, highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary team of mental health and hormone prescribing providers working together to understand the best course of action for a particular patient. As with pubertal suppression, several studies have linked access to gender-affirming hormones to improve mental health for adolescents with gender dysphoria (for example, Turban and colleagues, Chen and colleagues, de Vries and colleagues, Allen and colleagues, and Tordoff and colleagues).^10-14

Gender-affirming surgeries

The vast majority of gender-affirming surgeries are not considered until adulthood. The most notable exception to this is masculinizing top surgery for trans masculine and nonbinary adolescents. As with all surgeries, this is a major decision, and requires agreement from a mental health provider, a medical provider, and the surgeon. Early research suggests such surgeries result in improved chest dysphoria and that regret rates appear to be low.^15,16 While the latest World Professional Association for Transgender Health similarly removed strict age cutoffs for gender-affirming surgery, again noting the importance of individualized care, I suspect most will read this change in the context of the Endocrine Society guidelines and past WPATH guidelines that noted gender-affirming genital surgeries are not offered until adulthood (a rare exception perhaps being someone pursuing a gender-affirming vaginoplasty at say age 17 in the summer prior to college to avoid needing to take off from school for surgical recovery). Gender-affirming genital surgeries are generally much more involved surgeries with prolonged recovery times. 

Given the substantial proportion of young people who openly identify as transgender,¹⁷ and the proliferation of misinformation, political rhetoric, and legislation that can impact gender-affirming care for adolescents with gender dysphoria,¹⁸ it is essential that providers have accurate, up-to-date information on what this care entails and how it is provided.

Dr. Turban is director of the gender psychiatry program at the University of California, San Francisco, where he is an assistant professor of child & adolescent psychiatry and affiliate faculty at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. He is on Twitter @jack_turban.
 

References

1. Malta M et al. Lancet Public Health. 2020 Apr;5(4):e178-9.

2. Hembree WC et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Nov 1;102(11):3869-903.

3. Coleman E et al. Int J Transgend Health. 2022 Sep 6;23(Suppl 1):S1-259.

4. Durwood L et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017 Feb;56(2):116-23.e2.

5. Rae JR et al. Psychol Sci. 2019 May;30(5):669-81.

6. van der Miesen AIR et al. J Adolesc Health. 2020 Jun;66(6):699-704.

7. Turban JL et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Feb;145(2):e20191725.

8. de Vries ALC et al. J Sex Med. 2011 Aug;8(8):2276-83.

9. Costa R et al. J Sex Med. 2015 Nov;12(11):2206-14.

10. Turban JL et al. PLoS One. 2022 Jan 12;17(1):e0261039.

11. Chen D et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:240-50.

12. de Vries ALC et al. Pediatrics. 2014 Oct;134(4):696-70.

13. Allen LR et al. Clin Pract Pediatr Psychol. 2019. doi: 10.1037/cpp0000288.

14. Tordoff DM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Feb 1;5(2):e220978.

15. Olson-Kennedy J et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(5):431-6.

16. Tang A et al. Ann Plast Surg. 2022 May;88(4 Suppl):S325-31

17. Johns MM et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Jan 25;68(3):67-71.

18. Turban JL et al. JAMA. 2021;325(22):2251-2.

Over the past few years, there has been rampant misinformation regarding gender-affirming care for transgender youth. In particular, there has been confusion regarding how care is administered, and what types of care are considered at various stages of development. This primer will help you understand the developmental approach to supporting transgender youth.

Gender-affirming care is a broad term that can encapsulate many different domains: social, legal, medical, and surgical affirmation. While people generally think of medical and surgical aspects of gender-affirming care, other domains can be just as important. For example, a 2020 publication in The Lancet Public Health found that access to gender-congruent government identification documents was associated with lower odds of severe psychological distress and suicidality.¹ 

Turban_Jack_CALIF_web.jpg

Considerations for prepubertal children

The youngest developmental stage at which a young person may seek care regarding gender diversity is the prepubertal childhood stage. Guidelines set forth by The Endocrine Society and The World Professional Association for Transgender Health make it clear that no medical or surgical interventions are considered at this developmental stage.^2,3 However, some young people may choose to pursue a “social transition.” Though this may sound like one thing, social transition can mean very different things for different people. It may include any combination of adopting a new name, pronouns, hairstyle, clothing, etc. Young people may also choose to pursue these various aspects of social transition in all settings, or sometimes only in some settings (for example, only at home if they don’t yet feel comfortable doing so at school). Research so far shows that prepubertal children who are allowed to socially transition have levels of anxiety and depression nearly indistinguishable from their cisgender peers.⁴ While some in the past have raised the question of whether a social transition increases a child’s degree of gender incongruence and thus their likelihood to “persist” in a transgender identity, research has suggested this is not the case, and that gender identity does not meaningfully differ before and after a social transition.⁵ It’s worth noting, that “desistance” of a young person’s transgender identity is generally not considered an ethical goal and that gender identity conversion efforts (that is, attempts to force transgender people to be cisgender) have been labeled unethical by the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.

Sadly, transgender children are victims of bullying at high rates in their schools and communities. Creating safe and affirming school and community environments can be some of the highest yield ways in which providers can support the mental health of gender-diverse youth at this stage. Gender Spectrum is an excellent nonprofit that provides resources to help families and communities with some of these nonmedical supports.

 

Early adolescence and pubertal suppression

The earliest gender-affirming medical intervention that may be considered is pubertal suppression. Pubertal suppression is achieved with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. This class of medications is Food and Drug Administration approved in pediatrics for precocious puberty – a condition in which young people enter puberty much earlier than expected (sometimes as early as age 3). For that condition, the rationale is to delay puberty until the patient reaches a more developmentally normative age for puberty to begin. The rationale for pubertal suppression for adolescent gender dysphoria is somewhat similar – these medications allow for the temporary pausing of puberty, which can be particularly helpful for adolescents who are having severe negative psychological reactions to the ways in which their bodies are developing. The major advantage here is that pubertal suppression can be reversed (if the medication is stopped, endogenous puberty will proceed), whereas puberty itself cannot be easily reversed (resulting in adult transgender people needing surgery and other interventions later in life, if these changes can be fully undone at all). As with all medications, puberty blockers do carry known side effects, including falling behind on bone density (sex hormones are needed to mineralize bones). Because of this, it is generally recommended that adolescents have their bone density monitored during treatment, pursue avenues to improve bone health (for example, exercise), and either stop the puberty blocker to undergo endogenous puberty or start gender-affirming hormones (estrogen or testosterone) by around age 16. 

It is also important to note that, under current guidelines, an adolescent must first undergo a comprehensive biopsychosocial mental health evaluation prior to starting pubertal suppression to ensure the clinical team has a comprehensive understanding of the adolescent’s mental health, that all potential gender supports that are needed are put into place, and that the adolescent and their guardians have a strong understanding of the medical intervention, its risks, side effects, and potential benefits. In addition, consent must be provided by parents or legal guardians, whereas adolescents themselves provide assent. Several studies have linked access to pubertal suppression, when indicated for gender dysphoria, to improved mental health outcomes (for example, van der Miesen and colleagues, Turban and colleagues, de Vries and colleagues, and Costa and colleagues).^6-9

 

Later adolescence and gender-affirming hormones

Later in adolescence, transgender youth may be candidates for gender-affirming hormone treatment (for example, estrogen or testosterone) to induce pubertal changes that align with their gender identities. Once again, under current guidelines, a comprehensive mental health biopsychosocial evaluation must be conducted prior to initiation of these treatments. Part of this evaluation includes fertility counseling and consideration of fertility preservation (for example, oocyte or semen cryopreservation), given the potential for these medications to impact fertility. It also involves discussion of several of the physiologic changes from these medications that can be irreversible (for example, voice changes from testosterone are particularly difficult to reverse in the future). Tables of the physical changes from these medications, when they begin after starting, and when they generally reach their maximum are available in the Endocrine Society guidelines.² The past endocrine society guidelines recommended not initiating gender-affirming hormones until age 16. The most recent guidelines note that there may be instances in which providers may consider starting them as early as age 13 (for example, to reduce risk of falling behind on bone density, or if a patient is having psychological distress related to their peers going through puberty while they are still in a prepubertal state). The latest World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care removed specific age cutoffs, highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary team of mental health and hormone prescribing providers working together to understand the best course of action for a particular patient. As with pubertal suppression, several studies have linked access to gender-affirming hormones to improve mental health for adolescents with gender dysphoria (for example, Turban and colleagues, Chen and colleagues, de Vries and colleagues, Allen and colleagues, and Tordoff and colleagues).^10-14

Gender-affirming surgeries

The vast majority of gender-affirming surgeries are not considered until adulthood. The most notable exception to this is masculinizing top surgery for trans masculine and nonbinary adolescents. As with all surgeries, this is a major decision, and requires agreement from a mental health provider, a medical provider, and the surgeon. Early research suggests such surgeries result in improved chest dysphoria and that regret rates appear to be low.^15,16 While the latest World Professional Association for Transgender Health similarly removed strict age cutoffs for gender-affirming surgery, again noting the importance of individualized care, I suspect most will read this change in the context of the Endocrine Society guidelines and past WPATH guidelines that noted gender-affirming genital surgeries are not offered until adulthood (a rare exception perhaps being someone pursuing a gender-affirming vaginoplasty at say age 17 in the summer prior to college to avoid needing to take off from school for surgical recovery). Gender-affirming genital surgeries are generally much more involved surgeries with prolonged recovery times. 

Given the substantial proportion of young people who openly identify as transgender,¹⁷ and the proliferation of misinformation, political rhetoric, and legislation that can impact gender-affirming care for adolescents with gender dysphoria,¹⁸ it is essential that providers have accurate, up-to-date information on what this care entails and how it is provided.

Dr. Turban is director of the gender psychiatry program at the University of California, San Francisco, where he is an assistant professor of child & adolescent psychiatry and affiliate faculty at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. He is on Twitter @jack_turban.
 

References

1. Malta M et al. Lancet Public Health. 2020 Apr;5(4):e178-9.

2. Hembree WC et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Nov 1;102(11):3869-903.

3. Coleman E et al. Int J Transgend Health. 2022 Sep 6;23(Suppl 1):S1-259.

4. Durwood L et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017 Feb;56(2):116-23.e2.

5. Rae JR et al. Psychol Sci. 2019 May;30(5):669-81.

6. van der Miesen AIR et al. J Adolesc Health. 2020 Jun;66(6):699-704.

7. Turban JL et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Feb;145(2):e20191725.

8. de Vries ALC et al. J Sex Med. 2011 Aug;8(8):2276-83.

9. Costa R et al. J Sex Med. 2015 Nov;12(11):2206-14.

10. Turban JL et al. PLoS One. 2022 Jan 12;17(1):e0261039.

11. Chen D et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:240-50.

12. de Vries ALC et al. Pediatrics. 2014 Oct;134(4):696-70.

13. Allen LR et al. Clin Pract Pediatr Psychol. 2019. doi: 10.1037/cpp0000288.

14. Tordoff DM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Feb 1;5(2):e220978.

15. Olson-Kennedy J et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(5):431-6.

16. Tang A et al. Ann Plast Surg. 2022 May;88(4 Suppl):S325-31

17. Johns MM et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Jan 25;68(3):67-71.

18. Turban JL et al. JAMA. 2021;325(22):2251-2.

Over the past few years, there has been rampant misinformation regarding gender-affirming care for transgender youth. In particular, there has been confusion regarding how care is administered, and what types of care are considered at various stages of development. This primer will help you understand the developmental approach to supporting transgender youth.

Gender-affirming care is a broad term that can encapsulate many different domains: social, legal, medical, and surgical affirmation. While people generally think of medical and surgical aspects of gender-affirming care, other domains can be just as important. For example, a 2020 publication in The Lancet Public Health found that access to gender-congruent government identification documents was associated with lower odds of severe psychological distress and suicidality.¹ 

Turban_Jack_CALIF_web.jpg

Considerations for prepubertal children

The youngest developmental stage at which a young person may seek care regarding gender diversity is the prepubertal childhood stage. Guidelines set forth by The Endocrine Society and The World Professional Association for Transgender Health make it clear that no medical or surgical interventions are considered at this developmental stage.^2,3 However, some young people may choose to pursue a “social transition.” Though this may sound like one thing, social transition can mean very different things for different people. It may include any combination of adopting a new name, pronouns, hairstyle, clothing, etc. Young people may also choose to pursue these various aspects of social transition in all settings, or sometimes only in some settings (for example, only at home if they don’t yet feel comfortable doing so at school). Research so far shows that prepubertal children who are allowed to socially transition have levels of anxiety and depression nearly indistinguishable from their cisgender peers.⁴ While some in the past have raised the question of whether a social transition increases a child’s degree of gender incongruence and thus their likelihood to “persist” in a transgender identity, research has suggested this is not the case, and that gender identity does not meaningfully differ before and after a social transition.⁵ It’s worth noting, that “desistance” of a young person’s transgender identity is generally not considered an ethical goal and that gender identity conversion efforts (that is, attempts to force transgender people to be cisgender) have been labeled unethical by the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.

Sadly, transgender children are victims of bullying at high rates in their schools and communities. Creating safe and affirming school and community environments can be some of the highest yield ways in which providers can support the mental health of gender-diverse youth at this stage. Gender Spectrum is an excellent nonprofit that provides resources to help families and communities with some of these nonmedical supports.

 

Early adolescence and pubertal suppression

The earliest gender-affirming medical intervention that may be considered is pubertal suppression. Pubertal suppression is achieved with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. This class of medications is Food and Drug Administration approved in pediatrics for precocious puberty – a condition in which young people enter puberty much earlier than expected (sometimes as early as age 3). For that condition, the rationale is to delay puberty until the patient reaches a more developmentally normative age for puberty to begin. The rationale for pubertal suppression for adolescent gender dysphoria is somewhat similar – these medications allow for the temporary pausing of puberty, which can be particularly helpful for adolescents who are having severe negative psychological reactions to the ways in which their bodies are developing. The major advantage here is that pubertal suppression can be reversed (if the medication is stopped, endogenous puberty will proceed), whereas puberty itself cannot be easily reversed (resulting in adult transgender people needing surgery and other interventions later in life, if these changes can be fully undone at all). As with all medications, puberty blockers do carry known side effects, including falling behind on bone density (sex hormones are needed to mineralize bones). Because of this, it is generally recommended that adolescents have their bone density monitored during treatment, pursue avenues to improve bone health (for example, exercise), and either stop the puberty blocker to undergo endogenous puberty or start gender-affirming hormones (estrogen or testosterone) by around age 16. 

It is also important to note that, under current guidelines, an adolescent must first undergo a comprehensive biopsychosocial mental health evaluation prior to starting pubertal suppression to ensure the clinical team has a comprehensive understanding of the adolescent’s mental health, that all potential gender supports that are needed are put into place, and that the adolescent and their guardians have a strong understanding of the medical intervention, its risks, side effects, and potential benefits. In addition, consent must be provided by parents or legal guardians, whereas adolescents themselves provide assent. Several studies have linked access to pubertal suppression, when indicated for gender dysphoria, to improved mental health outcomes (for example, van der Miesen and colleagues, Turban and colleagues, de Vries and colleagues, and Costa and colleagues).^6-9

 

Later adolescence and gender-affirming hormones

Later in adolescence, transgender youth may be candidates for gender-affirming hormone treatment (for example, estrogen or testosterone) to induce pubertal changes that align with their gender identities. Once again, under current guidelines, a comprehensive mental health biopsychosocial evaluation must be conducted prior to initiation of these treatments. Part of this evaluation includes fertility counseling and consideration of fertility preservation (for example, oocyte or semen cryopreservation), given the potential for these medications to impact fertility. It also involves discussion of several of the physiologic changes from these medications that can be irreversible (for example, voice changes from testosterone are particularly difficult to reverse in the future). Tables of the physical changes from these medications, when they begin after starting, and when they generally reach their maximum are available in the Endocrine Society guidelines.² The past endocrine society guidelines recommended not initiating gender-affirming hormones until age 16. The most recent guidelines note that there may be instances in which providers may consider starting them as early as age 13 (for example, to reduce risk of falling behind on bone density, or if a patient is having psychological distress related to their peers going through puberty while they are still in a prepubertal state). The latest World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care removed specific age cutoffs, highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary team of mental health and hormone prescribing providers working together to understand the best course of action for a particular patient. As with pubertal suppression, several studies have linked access to gender-affirming hormones to improve mental health for adolescents with gender dysphoria (for example, Turban and colleagues, Chen and colleagues, de Vries and colleagues, Allen and colleagues, and Tordoff and colleagues).^10-14

Gender-affirming surgeries

The vast majority of gender-affirming surgeries are not considered until adulthood. The most notable exception to this is masculinizing top surgery for trans masculine and nonbinary adolescents. As with all surgeries, this is a major decision, and requires agreement from a mental health provider, a medical provider, and the surgeon. Early research suggests such surgeries result in improved chest dysphoria and that regret rates appear to be low.^15,16 While the latest World Professional Association for Transgender Health similarly removed strict age cutoffs for gender-affirming surgery, again noting the importance of individualized care, I suspect most will read this change in the context of the Endocrine Society guidelines and past WPATH guidelines that noted gender-affirming genital surgeries are not offered until adulthood (a rare exception perhaps being someone pursuing a gender-affirming vaginoplasty at say age 17 in the summer prior to college to avoid needing to take off from school for surgical recovery). Gender-affirming genital surgeries are generally much more involved surgeries with prolonged recovery times. 

Given the substantial proportion of young people who openly identify as transgender,¹⁷ and the proliferation of misinformation, political rhetoric, and legislation that can impact gender-affirming care for adolescents with gender dysphoria,¹⁸ it is essential that providers have accurate, up-to-date information on what this care entails and how it is provided.

Dr. Turban is director of the gender psychiatry program at the University of California, San Francisco, where he is an assistant professor of child & adolescent psychiatry and affiliate faculty at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. He is on Twitter @jack_turban.
 

References

1. Malta M et al. Lancet Public Health. 2020 Apr;5(4):e178-9.

2. Hembree WC et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Nov 1;102(11):3869-903.

3. Coleman E et al. Int J Transgend Health. 2022 Sep 6;23(Suppl 1):S1-259.

4. Durwood L et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017 Feb;56(2):116-23.e2.

5. Rae JR et al. Psychol Sci. 2019 May;30(5):669-81.

6. van der Miesen AIR et al. J Adolesc Health. 2020 Jun;66(6):699-704.

7. Turban JL et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Feb;145(2):e20191725.

8. de Vries ALC et al. J Sex Med. 2011 Aug;8(8):2276-83.

9. Costa R et al. J Sex Med. 2015 Nov;12(11):2206-14.

10. Turban JL et al. PLoS One. 2022 Jan 12;17(1):e0261039.

11. Chen D et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:240-50.

12. de Vries ALC et al. Pediatrics. 2014 Oct;134(4):696-70.

13. Allen LR et al. Clin Pract Pediatr Psychol. 2019. doi: 10.1037/cpp0000288.

14. Tordoff DM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Feb 1;5(2):e220978.

15. Olson-Kennedy J et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(5):431-6.

16. Tang A et al. Ann Plast Surg. 2022 May;88(4 Suppl):S325-31

17. Johns MM et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Jan 25;68(3):67-71.

18. Turban JL et al. JAMA. 2021;325(22):2251-2.

That mantra echoed through my postgraduate medical training, and is shared with patients to encourage reaching out for help. But providers are often in the exam room alone with patients whom they are, legitimately, very worried about.

Spottswood_Margaret_VT_web.jpg

Dr. Rettew’s column last month detailed the systems that are changing (slowly!) to better facilitate interface between mental health and primary care. There are increasingly supports available at a clinic level, and also a state level. Regardless of where your practice is in the process of integration, there are some key resources available now that can be used by child psychiatrists and pediatricians alike. This moment in time seems like a great opportunity to review a few favorites.
 

Who you gonna call?

Child Psychiatry Access Programs, sometimes called Psychiatry Access Lines, are almost everywhere!¹ If you haven’t called one yet, click on your state and call! You will have immediate access to mental health resources that are curated and available in your state, child psychiatry expertise, and a way to connect families in need with targeted treatments. A long-term side effect of CPAP utilization may include improved system coordination on behalf of kids.

What about screening?

The AAP has an excellent mental health minute on screening.² Pediatricians screen thoughtfully for psychosocial and medical concerns. Primary and secondary screenings for mental health are becoming ubiquitous in practices as a first step toward diagnosis and treatment. Primary, or initial, screening can catch concerns in your patient population. These include common tools like the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ, ages 2-17), or the Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC-14, ages 4-17). Subscale scores help point care toward the right direction.

Once we know there is a mental health problem through screening or interview, secondary mental health screening and rating scales help find a specific diagnosis. Some basics include the PHQ-A for depression (ages 11-17), the GAD-7 for general anxiety (ages 11+), the SCARED for specific anxiety (ages 8-18), and the Vanderbilt (ages 6+) or SNAP-IV (ages 5+) parent/teacher scales for ADHD/ODD/CD/anxiety/depressive symptoms. The CY-BOCS symptom checklist (ages 6-17) is excellent to determine the extent of OCD symptoms. The asQ (ages 10+) and Columbia (C-SSRS, ages 11+) are must-use screeners to help prevent suicide. Screeners and rating scales are found on many CPAP websites, such as New York’s.³ A site full of these can seem overwhelming, but once you get comfortable with a few favorites, expanding your repertoire little by little makes providing care a lot easier!
 

Treating to target?

When you are fairly certain of the diagnosis, you can feel more confident to treat. Diagnoses can be tools; find the best fit one, and in a few years with more information, a different tool might be a better fit.

Some favorite treatment resources include the CPAP guidebook from your state (for example, Washington’s⁴ and Virginia’s⁵), and the AACAP parent medication guides.⁶ They detail evidence-based treatments including medications, and can help us professionals and high health care–literacy families. The medication tracking form found at the back of each guide is especially key. Another great book is the DSM 5 Pocket Guide for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.⁷ Some screeners can be repeated to see if treatment is working, as the AIMS model suggests “treat to target”⁸ specific symptoms until they improve.
 

How to provide help with few resources?

There is knowing what your patient needs, like a specific therapy, and then there is the challenge of connecting the patient with help. Getting a family started on a first step of treatment while they are on a waiting list can be transformative. One example is treatment for oppositional defiant disorder (ODD); parents can start with the first step, “special time,”⁹ even before a therapist is available. Or, if a family is struggling with OCD, they can start an Exposure Therapy with Response Prevention (ERP) workbook¹⁰ or look at the iocdf.org website before seeing a specialized therapist. We all know how unsatisfactory a wait-list is as a treatment plan; it is so empowering to start the family with first steps.

What about connections for us providers?

Leveraging your own relationship with patients who have mental health challenges can be powerful, and staying connected with others is vital to maintaining your own emotional well-being. Having a therapist, being active in your medical chapters, gardening, and connecting your practice to local mental health providers and schools can be rejuvenating. Improving the systems around us prevents burnout and keeps us connected.

And finally ...

So, join the movement to help our fields work better together; walk out of that exam room and listen to your worry about your patients and the systems that support them. Reach out for help, toward child psychiatry access lines, the AAP, AACAP, and other collective agents of change. Share what is making your lives and your patients’ lives easier so we can amplify these together. Let’s worry together, and make things better.

Dr. Margaret Spottswood is a child psychiatrist practicing in an integrated care clinic at the Community Health Centers of Burlington, Vt., a Federally Qualified Health Center. She is also the medical director of the Vermont Child Psychiatry Access Program and a clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

References

1. National Network of Child Psychiatry Access Programs. Child Psychiatry Access Programs in the United States. https://www.nncpap.orgmap. 2023 Mar 14.

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Screening Tools: Pediatric Mental Health Minute Series. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/mental-health-minute/screening-tools.

3. New York ProjectTEACH. Child Clinical Rating Scales. https://projectteachny.org/child-rating-scales.

4. Hilt H, Barclay R. Seattle Children’s Primary Care Principles for Child Mental Health. https://www.seattlechildrens.org/globalassets/documents/healthcare-professionals/pal/wa/wa-pal-care-guide.pdf.

5. Virginia Mental Health Access Program. VMAP Guidebook. https://vmap.org/guidebook.

6. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Parents’ Medication Guides. https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Family_Resources/Parents_Medication_Guides.aspx.

7. Hilt RJ, Nussbaum AM. DSM-5 Pocket Guide to Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2015.

8. Advanced Integration Mental Health Solutions. Measurement-Based Treatment to Target. https://aims.uw.edu/resource-library/measurement-based-treatment-target.

9. Vermont Child Psychiatry Access Program. Caregiver Guide: Special Time With Children. https://www.chcb.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Special-Time-with-Children-for-Caregivers.pdf.

10. Reuter T. Standing Up to OCD Workbook for Kids. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2019.

That mantra echoed through my postgraduate medical training, and is shared with patients to encourage reaching out for help. But providers are often in the exam room alone with patients whom they are, legitimately, very worried about.

Spottswood_Margaret_VT_web.jpg

Dr. Rettew’s column last month detailed the systems that are changing (slowly!) to better facilitate interface between mental health and primary care. There are increasingly supports available at a clinic level, and also a state level. Regardless of where your practice is in the process of integration, there are some key resources available now that can be used by child psychiatrists and pediatricians alike. This moment in time seems like a great opportunity to review a few favorites.
 

Who you gonna call?

Child Psychiatry Access Programs, sometimes called Psychiatry Access Lines, are almost everywhere!¹ If you haven’t called one yet, click on your state and call! You will have immediate access to mental health resources that are curated and available in your state, child psychiatry expertise, and a way to connect families in need with targeted treatments. A long-term side effect of CPAP utilization may include improved system coordination on behalf of kids.

What about screening?

The AAP has an excellent mental health minute on screening.² Pediatricians screen thoughtfully for psychosocial and medical concerns. Primary and secondary screenings for mental health are becoming ubiquitous in practices as a first step toward diagnosis and treatment. Primary, or initial, screening can catch concerns in your patient population. These include common tools like the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ, ages 2-17), or the Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC-14, ages 4-17). Subscale scores help point care toward the right direction.

Once we know there is a mental health problem through screening or interview, secondary mental health screening and rating scales help find a specific diagnosis. Some basics include the PHQ-A for depression (ages 11-17), the GAD-7 for general anxiety (ages 11+), the SCARED for specific anxiety (ages 8-18), and the Vanderbilt (ages 6+) or SNAP-IV (ages 5+) parent/teacher scales for ADHD/ODD/CD/anxiety/depressive symptoms. The CY-BOCS symptom checklist (ages 6-17) is excellent to determine the extent of OCD symptoms. The asQ (ages 10+) and Columbia (C-SSRS, ages 11+) are must-use screeners to help prevent suicide. Screeners and rating scales are found on many CPAP websites, such as New York’s.³ A site full of these can seem overwhelming, but once you get comfortable with a few favorites, expanding your repertoire little by little makes providing care a lot easier!
 

Treating to target?

When you are fairly certain of the diagnosis, you can feel more confident to treat. Diagnoses can be tools; find the best fit one, and in a few years with more information, a different tool might be a better fit.

Some favorite treatment resources include the CPAP guidebook from your state (for example, Washington’s⁴ and Virginia’s⁵), and the AACAP parent medication guides.⁶ They detail evidence-based treatments including medications, and can help us professionals and high health care–literacy families. The medication tracking form found at the back of each guide is especially key. Another great book is the DSM 5 Pocket Guide for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.⁷ Some screeners can be repeated to see if treatment is working, as the AIMS model suggests “treat to target”⁸ specific symptoms until they improve.
 

How to provide help with few resources?

There is knowing what your patient needs, like a specific therapy, and then there is the challenge of connecting the patient with help. Getting a family started on a first step of treatment while they are on a waiting list can be transformative. One example is treatment for oppositional defiant disorder (ODD); parents can start with the first step, “special time,”⁹ even before a therapist is available. Or, if a family is struggling with OCD, they can start an Exposure Therapy with Response Prevention (ERP) workbook¹⁰ or look at the iocdf.org website before seeing a specialized therapist. We all know how unsatisfactory a wait-list is as a treatment plan; it is so empowering to start the family with first steps.

What about connections for us providers?

Leveraging your own relationship with patients who have mental health challenges can be powerful, and staying connected with others is vital to maintaining your own emotional well-being. Having a therapist, being active in your medical chapters, gardening, and connecting your practice to local mental health providers and schools can be rejuvenating. Improving the systems around us prevents burnout and keeps us connected.

And finally ...

So, join the movement to help our fields work better together; walk out of that exam room and listen to your worry about your patients and the systems that support them. Reach out for help, toward child psychiatry access lines, the AAP, AACAP, and other collective agents of change. Share what is making your lives and your patients’ lives easier so we can amplify these together. Let’s worry together, and make things better.

Dr. Margaret Spottswood is a child psychiatrist practicing in an integrated care clinic at the Community Health Centers of Burlington, Vt., a Federally Qualified Health Center. She is also the medical director of the Vermont Child Psychiatry Access Program and a clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

References

1. National Network of Child Psychiatry Access Programs. Child Psychiatry Access Programs in the United States. https://www.nncpap.orgmap. 2023 Mar 14.

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Screening Tools: Pediatric Mental Health Minute Series. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/mental-health-minute/screening-tools.

3. New York ProjectTEACH. Child Clinical Rating Scales. https://projectteachny.org/child-rating-scales.

4. Hilt H, Barclay R. Seattle Children’s Primary Care Principles for Child Mental Health. https://www.seattlechildrens.org/globalassets/documents/healthcare-professionals/pal/wa/wa-pal-care-guide.pdf.

5. Virginia Mental Health Access Program. VMAP Guidebook. https://vmap.org/guidebook.

6. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Parents’ Medication Guides. https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Family_Resources/Parents_Medication_Guides.aspx.

7. Hilt RJ, Nussbaum AM. DSM-5 Pocket Guide to Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2015.

8. Advanced Integration Mental Health Solutions. Measurement-Based Treatment to Target. https://aims.uw.edu/resource-library/measurement-based-treatment-target.

9. Vermont Child Psychiatry Access Program. Caregiver Guide: Special Time With Children. https://www.chcb.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Special-Time-with-Children-for-Caregivers.pdf.

10. Reuter T. Standing Up to OCD Workbook for Kids. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2019.

That mantra echoed through my postgraduate medical training, and is shared with patients to encourage reaching out for help. But providers are often in the exam room alone with patients whom they are, legitimately, very worried about.

Spottswood_Margaret_VT_web.jpg

Dr. Rettew’s column last month detailed the systems that are changing (slowly!) to better facilitate interface between mental health and primary care. There are increasingly supports available at a clinic level, and also a state level. Regardless of where your practice is in the process of integration, there are some key resources available now that can be used by child psychiatrists and pediatricians alike. This moment in time seems like a great opportunity to review a few favorites.
 

Who you gonna call?

Child Psychiatry Access Programs, sometimes called Psychiatry Access Lines, are almost everywhere!¹ If you haven’t called one yet, click on your state and call! You will have immediate access to mental health resources that are curated and available in your state, child psychiatry expertise, and a way to connect families in need with targeted treatments. A long-term side effect of CPAP utilization may include improved system coordination on behalf of kids.

What about screening?

The AAP has an excellent mental health minute on screening.² Pediatricians screen thoughtfully for psychosocial and medical concerns. Primary and secondary screenings for mental health are becoming ubiquitous in practices as a first step toward diagnosis and treatment. Primary, or initial, screening can catch concerns in your patient population. These include common tools like the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ, ages 2-17), or the Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC-14, ages 4-17). Subscale scores help point care toward the right direction.

Once we know there is a mental health problem through screening or interview, secondary mental health screening and rating scales help find a specific diagnosis. Some basics include the PHQ-A for depression (ages 11-17), the GAD-7 for general anxiety (ages 11+), the SCARED for specific anxiety (ages 8-18), and the Vanderbilt (ages 6+) or SNAP-IV (ages 5+) parent/teacher scales for ADHD/ODD/CD/anxiety/depressive symptoms. The CY-BOCS symptom checklist (ages 6-17) is excellent to determine the extent of OCD symptoms. The asQ (ages 10+) and Columbia (C-SSRS, ages 11+) are must-use screeners to help prevent suicide. Screeners and rating scales are found on many CPAP websites, such as New York’s.³ A site full of these can seem overwhelming, but once you get comfortable with a few favorites, expanding your repertoire little by little makes providing care a lot easier!
 

Treating to target?

When you are fairly certain of the diagnosis, you can feel more confident to treat. Diagnoses can be tools; find the best fit one, and in a few years with more information, a different tool might be a better fit.

Some favorite treatment resources include the CPAP guidebook from your state (for example, Washington’s⁴ and Virginia’s⁵), and the AACAP parent medication guides.⁶ They detail evidence-based treatments including medications, and can help us professionals and high health care–literacy families. The medication tracking form found at the back of each guide is especially key. Another great book is the DSM 5 Pocket Guide for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.⁷ Some screeners can be repeated to see if treatment is working, as the AIMS model suggests “treat to target”⁸ specific symptoms until they improve.
 

How to provide help with few resources?

There is knowing what your patient needs, like a specific therapy, and then there is the challenge of connecting the patient with help. Getting a family started on a first step of treatment while they are on a waiting list can be transformative. One example is treatment for oppositional defiant disorder (ODD); parents can start with the first step, “special time,”⁹ even before a therapist is available. Or, if a family is struggling with OCD, they can start an Exposure Therapy with Response Prevention (ERP) workbook¹⁰ or look at the iocdf.org website before seeing a specialized therapist. We all know how unsatisfactory a wait-list is as a treatment plan; it is so empowering to start the family with first steps.

What about connections for us providers?

Leveraging your own relationship with patients who have mental health challenges can be powerful, and staying connected with others is vital to maintaining your own emotional well-being. Having a therapist, being active in your medical chapters, gardening, and connecting your practice to local mental health providers and schools can be rejuvenating. Improving the systems around us prevents burnout and keeps us connected.

And finally ...

So, join the movement to help our fields work better together; walk out of that exam room and listen to your worry about your patients and the systems that support them. Reach out for help, toward child psychiatry access lines, the AAP, AACAP, and other collective agents of change. Share what is making your lives and your patients’ lives easier so we can amplify these together. Let’s worry together, and make things better.

Dr. Margaret Spottswood is a child psychiatrist practicing in an integrated care clinic at the Community Health Centers of Burlington, Vt., a Federally Qualified Health Center. She is also the medical director of the Vermont Child Psychiatry Access Program and a clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

References

1. National Network of Child Psychiatry Access Programs. Child Psychiatry Access Programs in the United States. https://www.nncpap.orgmap. 2023 Mar 14.

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Screening Tools: Pediatric Mental Health Minute Series. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/mental-health-minute/screening-tools.

3. New York ProjectTEACH. Child Clinical Rating Scales. https://projectteachny.org/child-rating-scales.

4. Hilt H, Barclay R. Seattle Children’s Primary Care Principles for Child Mental Health. https://www.seattlechildrens.org/globalassets/documents/healthcare-professionals/pal/wa/wa-pal-care-guide.pdf.

5. Virginia Mental Health Access Program. VMAP Guidebook. https://vmap.org/guidebook.

6. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Parents’ Medication Guides. https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Family_Resources/Parents_Medication_Guides.aspx.

7. Hilt RJ, Nussbaum AM. DSM-5 Pocket Guide to Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2015.

8. Advanced Integration Mental Health Solutions. Measurement-Based Treatment to Target. https://aims.uw.edu/resource-library/measurement-based-treatment-target.

9. Vermont Child Psychiatry Access Program. Caregiver Guide: Special Time With Children. https://www.chcb.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Special-Time-with-Children-for-Caregivers.pdf.

10. Reuter T. Standing Up to OCD Workbook for Kids. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2019.

In case anybody hasn’t noticed, the good ole days are long gone in which pediatric patients with mental health challenges could be simply referred out to be promptly assessed and treated by specialists. Due to a shortage of psychiatrists coupled with large increases in the number of youth presenting with emotional-behavioral difficulties, primary care clinicians are now called upon to fill in much of this gap, with professional organizations like the AAP articulating that mental health treatment, within reason, is squarely in the primary care clinician’s “lane” and scope of treatment.¹

Rettew_David_C_OREGON_2023_web.jpg

To meet this need, new models of integrated or collaborative care between primary care and mental health clinicians have been attempted and tested. While these initiatives have certainly been a welcome advance to many pediatricians, the large numbers of different models and initiatives out there have made for a rather confusing landscape that many busy primary care clinicians have found difficult to navigate.

In an attempt to offer some guidance on the subject, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry recently published a clinical update on pediatric collaborative care.² The report is rich with resources and ideas. One of the main points of the document is that there are different levels of integration that exist. Kind of like the situation with recycling and household waste reduction, it is possible to make valuable improvements at any level of participation, although evidence suggests that more extensive efforts offer the most benefits. At one end of the spectrum, psychiatrists and primary care clinicians maintain separate practices and medical records and occasionally discuss mutual patients. Middle levels may include “colocation” with mental health and primary care professionals sharing a building and/or being part of the same overall system but continuing to work mainly independently. At the highest levels of integration, there is a coordinated and collaborative team that supports an intentional system of care with consistent communication about individual patients and general workflows. These approaches vary in the amount that the following four core areas of integrated care are incorporated.

• Direct service. Many integrated care initiatives heavily rely on the services of an on-site mental health care manager or behavioral health consultant who can provide a number of important functions such as overseeing of the integrated care program, conducting brief therapy with youth and parents, overseeing mental health screenings at the clinic, and providing general mental health promotion guidance.
• Care coordination. Helping patients and families find needed mental health, social services, and educational resources is a key component of integrated care. This task can fall to the practice’s behavioral health consultant, if there is one, but more general care coordinators can also be trained for this important role. The University of Washington’s Center for Advancing Integrated Mental Health Solutions has some published guidelines in this area.³
• Consultation. More advanced integrated care models often have established relationships to specific child psychiatric clinicians who are able to meet with the primary care team to discuss cases and general approaches to various problems. Alternatively, a number of states have implemented what are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs that give primary care clinicians a phone number to an organization (often affiliated with an academic medical center) that can provide quick and even immediate access to a child psychiatry provider for specific questions. Recent federal grants have led to many if not most states now having one of these programs in place, and a website listing these programs and their contact information is available.⁴
• Education. As mental health training was traditionally not part of a typical pediatrics residency, there have been a number of strategies introduced to help primary care clinicians increase their proficiency and comfort level when it comes to assessing and treating emotional-behavioral problems. These include specific conferences, online programs, and case-based training through mechanisms like the ECHO program.^5,6 The AAP itself has released a number of toolkits and training materials related to mental health care that are available.⁷

The report also outlines some obstacles that continue to get in the way of more extensive integrative care efforts. Chief among them are financial concerns, including how to pay for what often are traditionally nonbillable efforts, particularly those that involve the communication of two expensive health care professionals. Some improvements have been made, however, such as the creation of some relatively new codes (such as 99451 and 99452) that can be submitted by both a primary care and mental health professional when there is a consultation that occurs that does not involve an actual face-to-face encounter.

One area that, in my view, has not received the level of attention it deserves when it comes to integrated care is the degree to which these programs have the potential not only to improve the care of children and adolescents already struggling with mental health challenges but also to serve as a powerful prevention tool to lower the risk of being diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder in the future and generally to improve levels of well-being. Thus far, however, research on various integrated programs has shown promising results that indicate that overall care for patients with mental health challenges improves.⁸ Further, when it comes to costs, there is some evidence to suggest that some of the biggest financial gains associated with integrated care has to do with reduced nonpsychiatric medical expenses of patients.⁹ This, then, suggests that practices that participate in capitated or accountable care organization structures could particularly benefit both clinically and financially from these collaborations.

If your practice has been challenged with the level of mental health care you are now expected to provide and has been contemplating even some small moves toward integrated care, now may the time to put those thoughts into action.

References

1. Foy JM et al. American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement. Mental health competencies for pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2019;144(5):e20192757.

2. AACAP Committee on Collaborative and Integrated Care and AACAP Committee on Quality Issues. Clinical update: Collaborative mental health care for children and adolescents in pediatric primary care. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023;62(2):91-119.

3. Behavioral health care managers. AIMS Center, University of Washington. Accessed May 5, 2023. Available at https://aims.uw.edu/online-bhcm-modules.

4. National Network of Child Psychiatry Access Programs. Accessed May 5, 2023. Available at https://www.nncpap.org/.

5. Project Echo Programs. Accessed May 5, 2023. https://hsc.unm.edu/echo.

6. Project TEACH. Accessed May 5, 2023. https://projectteachny.org.

7. Earls MF et al. Addressing mental health concerns in pediatrics: A practical resource toolkit for clinicians, 2nd edition. Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2021.

8. Asarnow JR et al. Integrated medical-behavioral care compared with usual primary care for child and adolescent behavioral health: A meta analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(10):929-37.

9. Unutzer J et al. Long-term costs effects of collaborative care for late-life depression. Am J Manag Care. 2008.14(2):95-100.
 

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

In case anybody hasn’t noticed, the good ole days are long gone in which pediatric patients with mental health challenges could be simply referred out to be promptly assessed and treated by specialists. Due to a shortage of psychiatrists coupled with large increases in the number of youth presenting with emotional-behavioral difficulties, primary care clinicians are now called upon to fill in much of this gap, with professional organizations like the AAP articulating that mental health treatment, within reason, is squarely in the primary care clinician’s “lane” and scope of treatment.¹

Rettew_David_C_OREGON_2023_web.jpg

To meet this need, new models of integrated or collaborative care between primary care and mental health clinicians have been attempted and tested. While these initiatives have certainly been a welcome advance to many pediatricians, the large numbers of different models and initiatives out there have made for a rather confusing landscape that many busy primary care clinicians have found difficult to navigate.

In an attempt to offer some guidance on the subject, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry recently published a clinical update on pediatric collaborative care.² The report is rich with resources and ideas. One of the main points of the document is that there are different levels of integration that exist. Kind of like the situation with recycling and household waste reduction, it is possible to make valuable improvements at any level of participation, although evidence suggests that more extensive efforts offer the most benefits. At one end of the spectrum, psychiatrists and primary care clinicians maintain separate practices and medical records and occasionally discuss mutual patients. Middle levels may include “colocation” with mental health and primary care professionals sharing a building and/or being part of the same overall system but continuing to work mainly independently. At the highest levels of integration, there is a coordinated and collaborative team that supports an intentional system of care with consistent communication about individual patients and general workflows. These approaches vary in the amount that the following four core areas of integrated care are incorporated.

• Direct service. Many integrated care initiatives heavily rely on the services of an on-site mental health care manager or behavioral health consultant who can provide a number of important functions such as overseeing of the integrated care program, conducting brief therapy with youth and parents, overseeing mental health screenings at the clinic, and providing general mental health promotion guidance.
• Care coordination. Helping patients and families find needed mental health, social services, and educational resources is a key component of integrated care. This task can fall to the practice’s behavioral health consultant, if there is one, but more general care coordinators can also be trained for this important role. The University of Washington’s Center for Advancing Integrated Mental Health Solutions has some published guidelines in this area.³
• Consultation. More advanced integrated care models often have established relationships to specific child psychiatric clinicians who are able to meet with the primary care team to discuss cases and general approaches to various problems. Alternatively, a number of states have implemented what are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs that give primary care clinicians a phone number to an organization (often affiliated with an academic medical center) that can provide quick and even immediate access to a child psychiatry provider for specific questions. Recent federal grants have led to many if not most states now having one of these programs in place, and a website listing these programs and their contact information is available.⁴
• Education. As mental health training was traditionally not part of a typical pediatrics residency, there have been a number of strategies introduced to help primary care clinicians increase their proficiency and comfort level when it comes to assessing and treating emotional-behavioral problems. These include specific conferences, online programs, and case-based training through mechanisms like the ECHO program.^5,6 The AAP itself has released a number of toolkits and training materials related to mental health care that are available.⁷

The report also outlines some obstacles that continue to get in the way of more extensive integrative care efforts. Chief among them are financial concerns, including how to pay for what often are traditionally nonbillable efforts, particularly those that involve the communication of two expensive health care professionals. Some improvements have been made, however, such as the creation of some relatively new codes (such as 99451 and 99452) that can be submitted by both a primary care and mental health professional when there is a consultation that occurs that does not involve an actual face-to-face encounter.

One area that, in my view, has not received the level of attention it deserves when it comes to integrated care is the degree to which these programs have the potential not only to improve the care of children and adolescents already struggling with mental health challenges but also to serve as a powerful prevention tool to lower the risk of being diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder in the future and generally to improve levels of well-being. Thus far, however, research on various integrated programs has shown promising results that indicate that overall care for patients with mental health challenges improves.⁸ Further, when it comes to costs, there is some evidence to suggest that some of the biggest financial gains associated with integrated care has to do with reduced nonpsychiatric medical expenses of patients.⁹ This, then, suggests that practices that participate in capitated or accountable care organization structures could particularly benefit both clinically and financially from these collaborations.

If your practice has been challenged with the level of mental health care you are now expected to provide and has been contemplating even some small moves toward integrated care, now may the time to put those thoughts into action.

References

1. Foy JM et al. American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement. Mental health competencies for pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2019;144(5):e20192757.

2. AACAP Committee on Collaborative and Integrated Care and AACAP Committee on Quality Issues. Clinical update: Collaborative mental health care for children and adolescents in pediatric primary care. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023;62(2):91-119.

3. Behavioral health care managers. AIMS Center, University of Washington. Accessed May 5, 2023. Available at https://aims.uw.edu/online-bhcm-modules.

4. National Network of Child Psychiatry Access Programs. Accessed May 5, 2023. Available at https://www.nncpap.org/.

5. Project Echo Programs. Accessed May 5, 2023. https://hsc.unm.edu/echo.

6. Project TEACH. Accessed May 5, 2023. https://projectteachny.org.

7. Earls MF et al. Addressing mental health concerns in pediatrics: A practical resource toolkit for clinicians, 2nd edition. Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2021.

8. Asarnow JR et al. Integrated medical-behavioral care compared with usual primary care for child and adolescent behavioral health: A meta analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(10):929-37.

9. Unutzer J et al. Long-term costs effects of collaborative care for late-life depression. Am J Manag Care. 2008.14(2):95-100.
 

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

In case anybody hasn’t noticed, the good ole days are long gone in which pediatric patients with mental health challenges could be simply referred out to be promptly assessed and treated by specialists. Due to a shortage of psychiatrists coupled with large increases in the number of youth presenting with emotional-behavioral difficulties, primary care clinicians are now called upon to fill in much of this gap, with professional organizations like the AAP articulating that mental health treatment, within reason, is squarely in the primary care clinician’s “lane” and scope of treatment.¹

Rettew_David_C_OREGON_2023_web.jpg

To meet this need, new models of integrated or collaborative care between primary care and mental health clinicians have been attempted and tested. While these initiatives have certainly been a welcome advance to many pediatricians, the large numbers of different models and initiatives out there have made for a rather confusing landscape that many busy primary care clinicians have found difficult to navigate.

In an attempt to offer some guidance on the subject, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry recently published a clinical update on pediatric collaborative care.² The report is rich with resources and ideas. One of the main points of the document is that there are different levels of integration that exist. Kind of like the situation with recycling and household waste reduction, it is possible to make valuable improvements at any level of participation, although evidence suggests that more extensive efforts offer the most benefits. At one end of the spectrum, psychiatrists and primary care clinicians maintain separate practices and medical records and occasionally discuss mutual patients. Middle levels may include “colocation” with mental health and primary care professionals sharing a building and/or being part of the same overall system but continuing to work mainly independently. At the highest levels of integration, there is a coordinated and collaborative team that supports an intentional system of care with consistent communication about individual patients and general workflows. These approaches vary in the amount that the following four core areas of integrated care are incorporated.

• Direct service. Many integrated care initiatives heavily rely on the services of an on-site mental health care manager or behavioral health consultant who can provide a number of important functions such as overseeing of the integrated care program, conducting brief therapy with youth and parents, overseeing mental health screenings at the clinic, and providing general mental health promotion guidance.
• Care coordination. Helping patients and families find needed mental health, social services, and educational resources is a key component of integrated care. This task can fall to the practice’s behavioral health consultant, if there is one, but more general care coordinators can also be trained for this important role. The University of Washington’s Center for Advancing Integrated Mental Health Solutions has some published guidelines in this area.³
• Consultation. More advanced integrated care models often have established relationships to specific child psychiatric clinicians who are able to meet with the primary care team to discuss cases and general approaches to various problems. Alternatively, a number of states have implemented what are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs that give primary care clinicians a phone number to an organization (often affiliated with an academic medical center) that can provide quick and even immediate access to a child psychiatry provider for specific questions. Recent federal grants have led to many if not most states now having one of these programs in place, and a website listing these programs and their contact information is available.⁴
• Education. As mental health training was traditionally not part of a typical pediatrics residency, there have been a number of strategies introduced to help primary care clinicians increase their proficiency and comfort level when it comes to assessing and treating emotional-behavioral problems. These include specific conferences, online programs, and case-based training through mechanisms like the ECHO program.^5,6 The AAP itself has released a number of toolkits and training materials related to mental health care that are available.⁷

The report also outlines some obstacles that continue to get in the way of more extensive integrative care efforts. Chief among them are financial concerns, including how to pay for what often are traditionally nonbillable efforts, particularly those that involve the communication of two expensive health care professionals. Some improvements have been made, however, such as the creation of some relatively new codes (such as 99451 and 99452) that can be submitted by both a primary care and mental health professional when there is a consultation that occurs that does not involve an actual face-to-face encounter.

One area that, in my view, has not received the level of attention it deserves when it comes to integrated care is the degree to which these programs have the potential not only to improve the care of children and adolescents already struggling with mental health challenges but also to serve as a powerful prevention tool to lower the risk of being diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder in the future and generally to improve levels of well-being. Thus far, however, research on various integrated programs has shown promising results that indicate that overall care for patients with mental health challenges improves.⁸ Further, when it comes to costs, there is some evidence to suggest that some of the biggest financial gains associated with integrated care has to do with reduced nonpsychiatric medical expenses of patients.⁹ This, then, suggests that practices that participate in capitated or accountable care organization structures could particularly benefit both clinically and financially from these collaborations.

If your practice has been challenged with the level of mental health care you are now expected to provide and has been contemplating even some small moves toward integrated care, now may the time to put those thoughts into action.

References

1. Foy JM et al. American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement. Mental health competencies for pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2019;144(5):e20192757.

2. AACAP Committee on Collaborative and Integrated Care and AACAP Committee on Quality Issues. Clinical update: Collaborative mental health care for children and adolescents in pediatric primary care. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023;62(2):91-119.

3. Behavioral health care managers. AIMS Center, University of Washington. Accessed May 5, 2023. Available at https://aims.uw.edu/online-bhcm-modules.

4. National Network of Child Psychiatry Access Programs. Accessed May 5, 2023. Available at https://www.nncpap.org/.

5. Project Echo Programs. Accessed May 5, 2023. https://hsc.unm.edu/echo.

6. Project TEACH. Accessed May 5, 2023. https://projectteachny.org.

7. Earls MF et al. Addressing mental health concerns in pediatrics: A practical resource toolkit for clinicians, 2nd edition. Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2021.

8. Asarnow JR et al. Integrated medical-behavioral care compared with usual primary care for child and adolescent behavioral health: A meta analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(10):929-37.

9. Unutzer J et al. Long-term costs effects of collaborative care for late-life depression. Am J Manag Care. 2008.14(2):95-100.
 

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

Case: “Where’s my mommy?”

A 13-year-old girl “D” appeared lifeless in her hospital bed, swallowed by tubes, gauze, and crisp white sheets. She seemed fragile next to the giant machines beeping all around her, as they churned and groaned to keep her alive. She was in the pediatric intensive care unit, a place she had only seen once or twice on TV. Her sleeping mother lay next to her in an uncomfortable-looking recliner chair, curled up in a ball. She abruptly woke up when I walked into the room, doing her best to wipe away 5 days’ worth of worry and sadness from her exhausted face. She saw “Child Psychiatrist” written on my hospital badge, desperately searching my face for answers or a sign of hope.

Her daughter – a straight-A middle school student who loved Taylor Swift and soccer – had overdosed on Tylenol after discovering that she did not make the cheerleading team. I reported that her daughter’s liver enzymes were finally trending down and that she would likely not require a liver transplant. She would survive. As tears welled up in this mother’s eyes, I heard a faint whisper from across the room. “Where’s my mommy?” D was awake and frantically searching the room for her mother, someone who could soothe her in this living nightmare. As the two embraced, I felt tears well up in my eyes as I couldn’t help but think of my own 3-year-old daughter at home. How could I protect her from the sadness and despair that this little girl was feeling? How can we collectively protect every little girl from wanting to end their life?

Richards_Misty_CALIF_web.jpg

CDC data: Teen girls need help now

The latest biennial Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior Survey, administered in the fall of 2021, resulted in alarming data showing that mental health has worsened for all adolescents, but especially for girls. The survey was administered to more than 17,000 students in 152 public and private schools throughout the United States, showing that “America’s teen girls are engulfed in a growing wave of sadness, violence, and trauma.”¹ In particular, rates of sadness, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and mental health crisis ED visits among girls are the highest reported in a decade. Nearly 60% of girls felt persistent sadness or hopelessness during the past year, double the rate of boys. More than 25% of girls made a suicide plan; this percentage increased 60% over the past 10 years. Alarmingly, ED visits for suicide attempts for girls increased more than 50% in the past 2 years alone.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, experts were sounding the alarm on the growing rates of anxiety and depression in U.S. youth. The pandemic-driven isolation, lack of social connection, and missing of major milestones did not help the situation and only deepened the cracks in a faulty mental health care system. Further, civil unrest and social upheaval in the United States felt – and continues to feel – chaotic and unpredictable. For teens, the current cultural climate represents their not-too-distant future as adults, causing worry and anxiety.

In addition to securing their futures through performance in school and extracurricular activities, teenagers are forming their identities. Establishing a personal identity is a difficult task for all teens, though teenage girls face uniquely difficult challenges in our current society. In particular, teenage girls are expected to conform their behaviors to fit societal expectations that may clash with their desires and self-conceptualization. This conflict is further complicated by heightened beauty standards, online hate and competition, academic pressure, and self-doubt. CDC data show that girls experience sexual harassment and cyberbullying at roughly twice the rate of their male counterparts. Girls also experience higher levels of sexual violence and bullying. Alarmingly, 14% of girls reported being forced to have sex at some point in their lives. The sad truth is that, for every 10 teenage girls you know, at least one of them, and probably more, has likely been raped.
 

A call to action for providers

As providers, what can we do about these alarming statistics? It’s easy to become overwhelmed by data on a national level. However, regardless of our current clinical practice situation, we cannot lose sight of the humanity behind these numbers. Five extra minutes of truly listening to our patients, normalizing conversations about mental health, and looking for mental health warning signs (that is, increased isolation, declining function in school, maladaptive coping skills such as self-injurious behavior or substance use) can mean the difference between life and death.

As pediatric providers, formally screening for suicide risk is critical. Specifically, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all youth aged 12 years or older be screened for suicide risk.² In addition to asking families to reduce access to lethal means, it is important to utilize suicide-specific screeners to prevent suicide attempts and deaths in the pediatric community. Pediatric providers must feel prepared to counsel patients and families on suicide prevention and, if this skill set is underdeveloped, appropriate referrals and support must be provided.

At the same time, it is important to note the larger context. This national tragedy has been long-standing and further accelerated by the social isolation and stress of the pandemic. Madigan and colleagues recently showed that the lack of a social outlet resulting from COVID-19 caused an increase in screen time among all children.³ As a result, many teen girls turned to social media to recreate these social connections online.⁴ This dependence on social media for validation has contributed to increased rates of depression by intensifying unrealistic body standards, comparisons, and competition among peers.⁵ However, recent pediatric partnership programs have improved mental health access, reduced ED visits, and increased primary care physician’s comfort with managing mental health concerns.⁶ These programs are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) and utilize a collaborative care model through which primary care clinicians consult with child and adolescent psychiatrists. CPAPs, while not the entire solution, offer a major step in the right direction toward tackling this mental health crisis in a sustainable, collaborative, and effective way.

As students return to in-person learning, connectedness at school is a powerful protective factor against depression and anxiety. We must infuse resources and support into our schools and teachers, as they stand on the front lines for our children. Specifically, bolstering schools with school counselors and appropriate mental health support staff will help rescue teachers from burnout while also explicitly identifying mental health care as a priority. Finally, modeling positive behavior for families and identifying safe adults at school can help at-risk youth feel more connected. To achieve meaningful improvement in children’s mental health, it is crucial to collaboratively remodel broken systems to ensure that all children are supported early, effectively, and equitably.

Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship, and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior in Los Angeles.
 

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. YRBSS Data Summary & Trends. 2023 Feb 13. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/yrbs_data_summary_and_trends.htm

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Screening for Suicide Risk in Clinical Practice. 2023 Feb 22. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/blueprint-for-youth-suicide-prevention/strategies-for-clinical-settings-for-youth-suicide-prevention/screening-for-suicide-risk-in-clinical-practice/

3. Madigan S et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176(12):1188-98. doi: 10.1001/JAMAPEDIATRICS.2022.4116

4. Pew Research Center. Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022. 2022 Aug 10. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/

5. Hunt MG et al. J Social Clin Psychology. 2018;37(10):751-68. doi: 10.1521/JSCP.2018.37.10.751

6. Godoy L et al. J Pediatr Health Care. 2022 Dec 16. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2022.11.009.

Case: “Where’s my mommy?”

A 13-year-old girl “D” appeared lifeless in her hospital bed, swallowed by tubes, gauze, and crisp white sheets. She seemed fragile next to the giant machines beeping all around her, as they churned and groaned to keep her alive. She was in the pediatric intensive care unit, a place she had only seen once or twice on TV. Her sleeping mother lay next to her in an uncomfortable-looking recliner chair, curled up in a ball. She abruptly woke up when I walked into the room, doing her best to wipe away 5 days’ worth of worry and sadness from her exhausted face. She saw “Child Psychiatrist” written on my hospital badge, desperately searching my face for answers or a sign of hope.

Her daughter – a straight-A middle school student who loved Taylor Swift and soccer – had overdosed on Tylenol after discovering that she did not make the cheerleading team. I reported that her daughter’s liver enzymes were finally trending down and that she would likely not require a liver transplant. She would survive. As tears welled up in this mother’s eyes, I heard a faint whisper from across the room. “Where’s my mommy?” D was awake and frantically searching the room for her mother, someone who could soothe her in this living nightmare. As the two embraced, I felt tears well up in my eyes as I couldn’t help but think of my own 3-year-old daughter at home. How could I protect her from the sadness and despair that this little girl was feeling? How can we collectively protect every little girl from wanting to end their life?

Richards_Misty_CALIF_web.jpg

CDC data: Teen girls need help now

The latest biennial Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior Survey, administered in the fall of 2021, resulted in alarming data showing that mental health has worsened for all adolescents, but especially for girls. The survey was administered to more than 17,000 students in 152 public and private schools throughout the United States, showing that “America’s teen girls are engulfed in a growing wave of sadness, violence, and trauma.”¹ In particular, rates of sadness, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and mental health crisis ED visits among girls are the highest reported in a decade. Nearly 60% of girls felt persistent sadness or hopelessness during the past year, double the rate of boys. More than 25% of girls made a suicide plan; this percentage increased 60% over the past 10 years. Alarmingly, ED visits for suicide attempts for girls increased more than 50% in the past 2 years alone.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, experts were sounding the alarm on the growing rates of anxiety and depression in U.S. youth. The pandemic-driven isolation, lack of social connection, and missing of major milestones did not help the situation and only deepened the cracks in a faulty mental health care system. Further, civil unrest and social upheaval in the United States felt – and continues to feel – chaotic and unpredictable. For teens, the current cultural climate represents their not-too-distant future as adults, causing worry and anxiety.

In addition to securing their futures through performance in school and extracurricular activities, teenagers are forming their identities. Establishing a personal identity is a difficult task for all teens, though teenage girls face uniquely difficult challenges in our current society. In particular, teenage girls are expected to conform their behaviors to fit societal expectations that may clash with their desires and self-conceptualization. This conflict is further complicated by heightened beauty standards, online hate and competition, academic pressure, and self-doubt. CDC data show that girls experience sexual harassment and cyberbullying at roughly twice the rate of their male counterparts. Girls also experience higher levels of sexual violence and bullying. Alarmingly, 14% of girls reported being forced to have sex at some point in their lives. The sad truth is that, for every 10 teenage girls you know, at least one of them, and probably more, has likely been raped.
 

A call to action for providers

As providers, what can we do about these alarming statistics? It’s easy to become overwhelmed by data on a national level. However, regardless of our current clinical practice situation, we cannot lose sight of the humanity behind these numbers. Five extra minutes of truly listening to our patients, normalizing conversations about mental health, and looking for mental health warning signs (that is, increased isolation, declining function in school, maladaptive coping skills such as self-injurious behavior or substance use) can mean the difference between life and death.

As pediatric providers, formally screening for suicide risk is critical. Specifically, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all youth aged 12 years or older be screened for suicide risk.² In addition to asking families to reduce access to lethal means, it is important to utilize suicide-specific screeners to prevent suicide attempts and deaths in the pediatric community. Pediatric providers must feel prepared to counsel patients and families on suicide prevention and, if this skill set is underdeveloped, appropriate referrals and support must be provided.

At the same time, it is important to note the larger context. This national tragedy has been long-standing and further accelerated by the social isolation and stress of the pandemic. Madigan and colleagues recently showed that the lack of a social outlet resulting from COVID-19 caused an increase in screen time among all children.³ As a result, many teen girls turned to social media to recreate these social connections online.⁴ This dependence on social media for validation has contributed to increased rates of depression by intensifying unrealistic body standards, comparisons, and competition among peers.⁵ However, recent pediatric partnership programs have improved mental health access, reduced ED visits, and increased primary care physician’s comfort with managing mental health concerns.⁶ These programs are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) and utilize a collaborative care model through which primary care clinicians consult with child and adolescent psychiatrists. CPAPs, while not the entire solution, offer a major step in the right direction toward tackling this mental health crisis in a sustainable, collaborative, and effective way.

As students return to in-person learning, connectedness at school is a powerful protective factor against depression and anxiety. We must infuse resources and support into our schools and teachers, as they stand on the front lines for our children. Specifically, bolstering schools with school counselors and appropriate mental health support staff will help rescue teachers from burnout while also explicitly identifying mental health care as a priority. Finally, modeling positive behavior for families and identifying safe adults at school can help at-risk youth feel more connected. To achieve meaningful improvement in children’s mental health, it is crucial to collaboratively remodel broken systems to ensure that all children are supported early, effectively, and equitably.

Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship, and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior in Los Angeles.
 

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. YRBSS Data Summary & Trends. 2023 Feb 13. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/yrbs_data_summary_and_trends.htm

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Screening for Suicide Risk in Clinical Practice. 2023 Feb 22. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/blueprint-for-youth-suicide-prevention/strategies-for-clinical-settings-for-youth-suicide-prevention/screening-for-suicide-risk-in-clinical-practice/

3. Madigan S et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176(12):1188-98. doi: 10.1001/JAMAPEDIATRICS.2022.4116

4. Pew Research Center. Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022. 2022 Aug 10. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/

5. Hunt MG et al. J Social Clin Psychology. 2018;37(10):751-68. doi: 10.1521/JSCP.2018.37.10.751

6. Godoy L et al. J Pediatr Health Care. 2022 Dec 16. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2022.11.009.

Case: “Where’s my mommy?”

A 13-year-old girl “D” appeared lifeless in her hospital bed, swallowed by tubes, gauze, and crisp white sheets. She seemed fragile next to the giant machines beeping all around her, as they churned and groaned to keep her alive. She was in the pediatric intensive care unit, a place she had only seen once or twice on TV. Her sleeping mother lay next to her in an uncomfortable-looking recliner chair, curled up in a ball. She abruptly woke up when I walked into the room, doing her best to wipe away 5 days’ worth of worry and sadness from her exhausted face. She saw “Child Psychiatrist” written on my hospital badge, desperately searching my face for answers or a sign of hope.

Her daughter – a straight-A middle school student who loved Taylor Swift and soccer – had overdosed on Tylenol after discovering that she did not make the cheerleading team. I reported that her daughter’s liver enzymes were finally trending down and that she would likely not require a liver transplant. She would survive. As tears welled up in this mother’s eyes, I heard a faint whisper from across the room. “Where’s my mommy?” D was awake and frantically searching the room for her mother, someone who could soothe her in this living nightmare. As the two embraced, I felt tears well up in my eyes as I couldn’t help but think of my own 3-year-old daughter at home. How could I protect her from the sadness and despair that this little girl was feeling? How can we collectively protect every little girl from wanting to end their life?

Richards_Misty_CALIF_web.jpg

CDC data: Teen girls need help now

The latest biennial Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior Survey, administered in the fall of 2021, resulted in alarming data showing that mental health has worsened for all adolescents, but especially for girls. The survey was administered to more than 17,000 students in 152 public and private schools throughout the United States, showing that “America’s teen girls are engulfed in a growing wave of sadness, violence, and trauma.”¹ In particular, rates of sadness, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and mental health crisis ED visits among girls are the highest reported in a decade. Nearly 60% of girls felt persistent sadness or hopelessness during the past year, double the rate of boys. More than 25% of girls made a suicide plan; this percentage increased 60% over the past 10 years. Alarmingly, ED visits for suicide attempts for girls increased more than 50% in the past 2 years alone.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, experts were sounding the alarm on the growing rates of anxiety and depression in U.S. youth. The pandemic-driven isolation, lack of social connection, and missing of major milestones did not help the situation and only deepened the cracks in a faulty mental health care system. Further, civil unrest and social upheaval in the United States felt – and continues to feel – chaotic and unpredictable. For teens, the current cultural climate represents their not-too-distant future as adults, causing worry and anxiety.

In addition to securing their futures through performance in school and extracurricular activities, teenagers are forming their identities. Establishing a personal identity is a difficult task for all teens, though teenage girls face uniquely difficult challenges in our current society. In particular, teenage girls are expected to conform their behaviors to fit societal expectations that may clash with their desires and self-conceptualization. This conflict is further complicated by heightened beauty standards, online hate and competition, academic pressure, and self-doubt. CDC data show that girls experience sexual harassment and cyberbullying at roughly twice the rate of their male counterparts. Girls also experience higher levels of sexual violence and bullying. Alarmingly, 14% of girls reported being forced to have sex at some point in their lives. The sad truth is that, for every 10 teenage girls you know, at least one of them, and probably more, has likely been raped.
 

A call to action for providers

As providers, what can we do about these alarming statistics? It’s easy to become overwhelmed by data on a national level. However, regardless of our current clinical practice situation, we cannot lose sight of the humanity behind these numbers. Five extra minutes of truly listening to our patients, normalizing conversations about mental health, and looking for mental health warning signs (that is, increased isolation, declining function in school, maladaptive coping skills such as self-injurious behavior or substance use) can mean the difference between life and death.

As pediatric providers, formally screening for suicide risk is critical. Specifically, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all youth aged 12 years or older be screened for suicide risk.² In addition to asking families to reduce access to lethal means, it is important to utilize suicide-specific screeners to prevent suicide attempts and deaths in the pediatric community. Pediatric providers must feel prepared to counsel patients and families on suicide prevention and, if this skill set is underdeveloped, appropriate referrals and support must be provided.

At the same time, it is important to note the larger context. This national tragedy has been long-standing and further accelerated by the social isolation and stress of the pandemic. Madigan and colleagues recently showed that the lack of a social outlet resulting from COVID-19 caused an increase in screen time among all children.³ As a result, many teen girls turned to social media to recreate these social connections online.⁴ This dependence on social media for validation has contributed to increased rates of depression by intensifying unrealistic body standards, comparisons, and competition among peers.⁵ However, recent pediatric partnership programs have improved mental health access, reduced ED visits, and increased primary care physician’s comfort with managing mental health concerns.⁶ These programs are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) and utilize a collaborative care model through which primary care clinicians consult with child and adolescent psychiatrists. CPAPs, while not the entire solution, offer a major step in the right direction toward tackling this mental health crisis in a sustainable, collaborative, and effective way.

As students return to in-person learning, connectedness at school is a powerful protective factor against depression and anxiety. We must infuse resources and support into our schools and teachers, as they stand on the front lines for our children. Specifically, bolstering schools with school counselors and appropriate mental health support staff will help rescue teachers from burnout while also explicitly identifying mental health care as a priority. Finally, modeling positive behavior for families and identifying safe adults at school can help at-risk youth feel more connected. To achieve meaningful improvement in children’s mental health, it is crucial to collaboratively remodel broken systems to ensure that all children are supported early, effectively, and equitably.

Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship, and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior in Los Angeles.
 

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. YRBSS Data Summary & Trends. 2023 Feb 13. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/yrbs_data_summary_and_trends.htm

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Screening for Suicide Risk in Clinical Practice. 2023 Feb 22. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/blueprint-for-youth-suicide-prevention/strategies-for-clinical-settings-for-youth-suicide-prevention/screening-for-suicide-risk-in-clinical-practice/

3. Madigan S et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176(12):1188-98. doi: 10.1001/JAMAPEDIATRICS.2022.4116

4. Pew Research Center. Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022. 2022 Aug 10. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/

5. Hunt MG et al. J Social Clin Psychology. 2018;37(10):751-68. doi: 10.1521/JSCP.2018.37.10.751

6. Godoy L et al. J Pediatr Health Care. 2022 Dec 16. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2022.11.009.

I am a psychiatrist now but had another life teaching English in public high school for 17 years. My teaching life, in which I was an openly gay teacher, spanned 2001-2018 and was divided between two urban California schools – in Berkeley and San Leandro. I came out by responding honestly to student questions about whether I had a girlfriend, and what I did over the weekend. At Berkeley High my openness wasn’t an issue at all. The school had a vibrant Gay Straight Alliance/GSA for years, there were many openly gay staff and many openly gay students. No students felt the need to come out to me in search of a gay mentor.

Two years later, I began teaching in San Leandro, 20 miles away, and it was a lesson in how even the San Francisco Bay Area, an LGBTQ+ bastion, could harbor homophobia. When I was hired in 2003, San Leandro High had one openly gay teacher, Q. I quickly realized how much braver his coming out was compared with mine in Berkeley.

Nguyen_Duy_CA_web.jpg

In San Leandro, gay slurs were heard nonstop in the hallways, no students were out, and by the end of my first year Q had quit, confiding in me that he couldn’t handle the homophobic harassment from students anymore. There was no GSA. A few years ago, two lesbians had held hands during lunch and inspired the wrath of a group of parents who advocated for their expulsion. In response, a teacher tried to introduce gay sensitivity training into his class and the same group of parents tried to get him fired. He was reprimanded by the principal, he countersued in a case that went all the way to the California Supreme Court, and won. Comparing these two local high schools reinforced to me how visibility really matters in creating a childhood experience that is nurturing versus traumatizing.¹

Two Chinese girls in love

N and T were two Chinese girls who grew up in San Leandro. They went to the same elementary school and had crushes on each other since then. In their junior year, they joined our first student GSA, becoming president and vice-president. They were out. And, of course, they must’ve known that their families, who would not have been supportive, would become aware. I remember sitting at an outdoor concert when I got a text from N warning me her father had found out and blamed me for having corrupted her. He planned on coming to school to demand I be fired. And such was the unrelenting pressure that N and T faced every time they went home from school and sat at their dinner tables. Eventually, they broke up. They didn’t do so tearfully, but more wearily.

This story illustrates how difficult it is for love between two LGBTQ+ teens to be nurtured. Love in youth can already be volatile because of the lack of emotional regulation and experience. The questioning of identity and the threat of family disintegration at a time when these teens do not have the economic means to protect themselves makes love dangerous. It is no wonder that gay teens are at increased risk for homelessness.²

The family incident that led to the girls’ breakup reveals how culture affects homophobic pressure. N resisted her parents’ disapproval for months, but she capitulated when her father had a heart attack and blamed it on her. “And it’s true,” N confided. “After my parents found out, they were continually stressed. I could see it affect their health. And it breaks my heart to see my dad in the hospital.”

For N, she had not capitulated from fear, but perhaps because of filial piety, or one’s obligation to protect one’s parent. It was a choice between two heartbreaks. Double minorities, like N and T, face a double threat and often can find no safe place. One of my patients who is gay and Black put it best: “It’s like being beaten up at school only to come home to another beating.” This double threat is evidenced by the higher suicide risk of ethnicities who are LGBTQ+ relative to their white counterparts.³

The confusion of a gay athlete

R was a star point guard, a senior who had secured an athletic scholarship, and was recognized as the best athlete in our county. A popular boy, he flaunted his physique and flirted with all the girls. And then when he was enrolled in my class, he began flirting with all the boys, too. There was gossip that R was bisexual. Then one day, not unexpectedly, he came out to me as gay. He admitted he only flirted with girls for his reputation.

By this time many students had come out to me but he flirted with me with his revelation. I corrected him and warned him unequivocally that it was inappropriate but I was worried because I knew he had placed his trust in me. I also knew he came from a homophobic family that was violent – his father had attacked him physically at a school game and our coaches had to pull him off.

Instinctively, I felt I had to have a witness so I confided in another teacher and documented the situation meticulously. Then, one day, just as I feared, he went too far. He stayed after class and said he wanted to show me something on his phone. And that something turned out to be a picture of himself naked. I immediately confiscated the phone and reported it to the administration. This was not how I wanted him to come out: His family notified by the police that he had sexually harassed his teacher, expulsion pending, and scholarship inevitably revoked. Fortunately, we did find a resolution that restored R’s future.

Let’s examine the circumstances that could’ve informed his transgressive behavior. If we consider sexual harassment a form of bullying, R’s history of having a father who publicly bullied him – and may have bullied others in front of him – is a known risk factor.⁴ It is also common knowledge that organized team sports were and still are a bastion of homophobia and that gay athletes had to accept a culture of explicit homophobia.⁵

So, it is not hard to understand the constant public pressures that R faced in addition to those from his family. Let’s also consider that appropriate sexual behaviors are not something we are born with, but something that is learned. Of course, inappropriate sexual behavior also happens in the heterosexual world. But heterosexual sexual behavior often has more accepted paths of trial and error. Children experiment with these behaviors and are corrected by adults and older peers as they mature.

However, for homosexual behaviors, there is not usually the fine-tuning about what is appropriate.
 

Summary

An educational environment where LGBTQ+ persons are highly visible and accepted is a more nurturing environment for LGBTQ teens than one that is not. Specific subcultures within the LGBTQ population involving race, culture, gender, and athletics modulate the experience of coming out and the nature of homophobic oppression.

Dr. Nguyen is a first-year psychiatry resident at the University of San Francisco School of Medicine at Fresno.

References

1. Kosciw JG et al. The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. J Sch Violence. 2013;12(1):45-63.

2. Center for American Progress. Gay and Transgender Youth Homelessness by the Numbers. June 21, 2010).

3. O’Donnell S et al. Increased risk of suicide attempts among Black and Latino lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):1055-9.

4. Farrington D and Baldry A. Individual risk factors for school bullying. J Aggress Confl Peace Res. 2010 Jan;2(1):4-16.

5. Anderson E. Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic environment Gend Soc. 2002 Dec:16(6):860-77.

I am a psychiatrist now but had another life teaching English in public high school for 17 years. My teaching life, in which I was an openly gay teacher, spanned 2001-2018 and was divided between two urban California schools – in Berkeley and San Leandro. I came out by responding honestly to student questions about whether I had a girlfriend, and what I did over the weekend. At Berkeley High my openness wasn’t an issue at all. The school had a vibrant Gay Straight Alliance/GSA for years, there were many openly gay staff and many openly gay students. No students felt the need to come out to me in search of a gay mentor.

Two years later, I began teaching in San Leandro, 20 miles away, and it was a lesson in how even the San Francisco Bay Area, an LGBTQ+ bastion, could harbor homophobia. When I was hired in 2003, San Leandro High had one openly gay teacher, Q. I quickly realized how much braver his coming out was compared with mine in Berkeley.

Nguyen_Duy_CA_web.jpg

In San Leandro, gay slurs were heard nonstop in the hallways, no students were out, and by the end of my first year Q had quit, confiding in me that he couldn’t handle the homophobic harassment from students anymore. There was no GSA. A few years ago, two lesbians had held hands during lunch and inspired the wrath of a group of parents who advocated for their expulsion. In response, a teacher tried to introduce gay sensitivity training into his class and the same group of parents tried to get him fired. He was reprimanded by the principal, he countersued in a case that went all the way to the California Supreme Court, and won. Comparing these two local high schools reinforced to me how visibility really matters in creating a childhood experience that is nurturing versus traumatizing.¹

Two Chinese girls in love

N and T were two Chinese girls who grew up in San Leandro. They went to the same elementary school and had crushes on each other since then. In their junior year, they joined our first student GSA, becoming president and vice-president. They were out. And, of course, they must’ve known that their families, who would not have been supportive, would become aware. I remember sitting at an outdoor concert when I got a text from N warning me her father had found out and blamed me for having corrupted her. He planned on coming to school to demand I be fired. And such was the unrelenting pressure that N and T faced every time they went home from school and sat at their dinner tables. Eventually, they broke up. They didn’t do so tearfully, but more wearily.

This story illustrates how difficult it is for love between two LGBTQ+ teens to be nurtured. Love in youth can already be volatile because of the lack of emotional regulation and experience. The questioning of identity and the threat of family disintegration at a time when these teens do not have the economic means to protect themselves makes love dangerous. It is no wonder that gay teens are at increased risk for homelessness.²

The family incident that led to the girls’ breakup reveals how culture affects homophobic pressure. N resisted her parents’ disapproval for months, but she capitulated when her father had a heart attack and blamed it on her. “And it’s true,” N confided. “After my parents found out, they were continually stressed. I could see it affect their health. And it breaks my heart to see my dad in the hospital.”

For N, she had not capitulated from fear, but perhaps because of filial piety, or one’s obligation to protect one’s parent. It was a choice between two heartbreaks. Double minorities, like N and T, face a double threat and often can find no safe place. One of my patients who is gay and Black put it best: “It’s like being beaten up at school only to come home to another beating.” This double threat is evidenced by the higher suicide risk of ethnicities who are LGBTQ+ relative to their white counterparts.³

The confusion of a gay athlete

R was a star point guard, a senior who had secured an athletic scholarship, and was recognized as the best athlete in our county. A popular boy, he flaunted his physique and flirted with all the girls. And then when he was enrolled in my class, he began flirting with all the boys, too. There was gossip that R was bisexual. Then one day, not unexpectedly, he came out to me as gay. He admitted he only flirted with girls for his reputation.

By this time many students had come out to me but he flirted with me with his revelation. I corrected him and warned him unequivocally that it was inappropriate but I was worried because I knew he had placed his trust in me. I also knew he came from a homophobic family that was violent – his father had attacked him physically at a school game and our coaches had to pull him off.

Instinctively, I felt I had to have a witness so I confided in another teacher and documented the situation meticulously. Then, one day, just as I feared, he went too far. He stayed after class and said he wanted to show me something on his phone. And that something turned out to be a picture of himself naked. I immediately confiscated the phone and reported it to the administration. This was not how I wanted him to come out: His family notified by the police that he had sexually harassed his teacher, expulsion pending, and scholarship inevitably revoked. Fortunately, we did find a resolution that restored R’s future.

Let’s examine the circumstances that could’ve informed his transgressive behavior. If we consider sexual harassment a form of bullying, R’s history of having a father who publicly bullied him – and may have bullied others in front of him – is a known risk factor.⁴ It is also common knowledge that organized team sports were and still are a bastion of homophobia and that gay athletes had to accept a culture of explicit homophobia.⁵

So, it is not hard to understand the constant public pressures that R faced in addition to those from his family. Let’s also consider that appropriate sexual behaviors are not something we are born with, but something that is learned. Of course, inappropriate sexual behavior also happens in the heterosexual world. But heterosexual sexual behavior often has more accepted paths of trial and error. Children experiment with these behaviors and are corrected by adults and older peers as they mature.

However, for homosexual behaviors, there is not usually the fine-tuning about what is appropriate.
 

Summary

An educational environment where LGBTQ+ persons are highly visible and accepted is a more nurturing environment for LGBTQ teens than one that is not. Specific subcultures within the LGBTQ population involving race, culture, gender, and athletics modulate the experience of coming out and the nature of homophobic oppression.

Dr. Nguyen is a first-year psychiatry resident at the University of San Francisco School of Medicine at Fresno.

References

1. Kosciw JG et al. The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. J Sch Violence. 2013;12(1):45-63.

2. Center for American Progress. Gay and Transgender Youth Homelessness by the Numbers. June 21, 2010).

3. O’Donnell S et al. Increased risk of suicide attempts among Black and Latino lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):1055-9.

4. Farrington D and Baldry A. Individual risk factors for school bullying. J Aggress Confl Peace Res. 2010 Jan;2(1):4-16.

5. Anderson E. Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic environment Gend Soc. 2002 Dec:16(6):860-77.

I am a psychiatrist now but had another life teaching English in public high school for 17 years. My teaching life, in which I was an openly gay teacher, spanned 2001-2018 and was divided between two urban California schools – in Berkeley and San Leandro. I came out by responding honestly to student questions about whether I had a girlfriend, and what I did over the weekend. At Berkeley High my openness wasn’t an issue at all. The school had a vibrant Gay Straight Alliance/GSA for years, there were many openly gay staff and many openly gay students. No students felt the need to come out to me in search of a gay mentor.

Two years later, I began teaching in San Leandro, 20 miles away, and it was a lesson in how even the San Francisco Bay Area, an LGBTQ+ bastion, could harbor homophobia. When I was hired in 2003, San Leandro High had one openly gay teacher, Q. I quickly realized how much braver his coming out was compared with mine in Berkeley.

Nguyen_Duy_CA_web.jpg

In San Leandro, gay slurs were heard nonstop in the hallways, no students were out, and by the end of my first year Q had quit, confiding in me that he couldn’t handle the homophobic harassment from students anymore. There was no GSA. A few years ago, two lesbians had held hands during lunch and inspired the wrath of a group of parents who advocated for their expulsion. In response, a teacher tried to introduce gay sensitivity training into his class and the same group of parents tried to get him fired. He was reprimanded by the principal, he countersued in a case that went all the way to the California Supreme Court, and won. Comparing these two local high schools reinforced to me how visibility really matters in creating a childhood experience that is nurturing versus traumatizing.¹

Two Chinese girls in love

N and T were two Chinese girls who grew up in San Leandro. They went to the same elementary school and had crushes on each other since then. In their junior year, they joined our first student GSA, becoming president and vice-president. They were out. And, of course, they must’ve known that their families, who would not have been supportive, would become aware. I remember sitting at an outdoor concert when I got a text from N warning me her father had found out and blamed me for having corrupted her. He planned on coming to school to demand I be fired. And such was the unrelenting pressure that N and T faced every time they went home from school and sat at their dinner tables. Eventually, they broke up. They didn’t do so tearfully, but more wearily.

This story illustrates how difficult it is for love between two LGBTQ+ teens to be nurtured. Love in youth can already be volatile because of the lack of emotional regulation and experience. The questioning of identity and the threat of family disintegration at a time when these teens do not have the economic means to protect themselves makes love dangerous. It is no wonder that gay teens are at increased risk for homelessness.²

The family incident that led to the girls’ breakup reveals how culture affects homophobic pressure. N resisted her parents’ disapproval for months, but she capitulated when her father had a heart attack and blamed it on her. “And it’s true,” N confided. “After my parents found out, they were continually stressed. I could see it affect their health. And it breaks my heart to see my dad in the hospital.”

For N, she had not capitulated from fear, but perhaps because of filial piety, or one’s obligation to protect one’s parent. It was a choice between two heartbreaks. Double minorities, like N and T, face a double threat and often can find no safe place. One of my patients who is gay and Black put it best: “It’s like being beaten up at school only to come home to another beating.” This double threat is evidenced by the higher suicide risk of ethnicities who are LGBTQ+ relative to their white counterparts.³

The confusion of a gay athlete

R was a star point guard, a senior who had secured an athletic scholarship, and was recognized as the best athlete in our county. A popular boy, he flaunted his physique and flirted with all the girls. And then when he was enrolled in my class, he began flirting with all the boys, too. There was gossip that R was bisexual. Then one day, not unexpectedly, he came out to me as gay. He admitted he only flirted with girls for his reputation.

By this time many students had come out to me but he flirted with me with his revelation. I corrected him and warned him unequivocally that it was inappropriate but I was worried because I knew he had placed his trust in me. I also knew he came from a homophobic family that was violent – his father had attacked him physically at a school game and our coaches had to pull him off.

Instinctively, I felt I had to have a witness so I confided in another teacher and documented the situation meticulously. Then, one day, just as I feared, he went too far. He stayed after class and said he wanted to show me something on his phone. And that something turned out to be a picture of himself naked. I immediately confiscated the phone and reported it to the administration. This was not how I wanted him to come out: His family notified by the police that he had sexually harassed his teacher, expulsion pending, and scholarship inevitably revoked. Fortunately, we did find a resolution that restored R’s future.

Let’s examine the circumstances that could’ve informed his transgressive behavior. If we consider sexual harassment a form of bullying, R’s history of having a father who publicly bullied him – and may have bullied others in front of him – is a known risk factor.⁴ It is also common knowledge that organized team sports were and still are a bastion of homophobia and that gay athletes had to accept a culture of explicit homophobia.⁵

So, it is not hard to understand the constant public pressures that R faced in addition to those from his family. Let’s also consider that appropriate sexual behaviors are not something we are born with, but something that is learned. Of course, inappropriate sexual behavior also happens in the heterosexual world. But heterosexual sexual behavior often has more accepted paths of trial and error. Children experiment with these behaviors and are corrected by adults and older peers as they mature.

However, for homosexual behaviors, there is not usually the fine-tuning about what is appropriate.
 

Summary

An educational environment where LGBTQ+ persons are highly visible and accepted is a more nurturing environment for LGBTQ teens than one that is not. Specific subcultures within the LGBTQ population involving race, culture, gender, and athletics modulate the experience of coming out and the nature of homophobic oppression.

Dr. Nguyen is a first-year psychiatry resident at the University of San Francisco School of Medicine at Fresno.

References

1. Kosciw JG et al. The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. J Sch Violence. 2013;12(1):45-63.

2. Center for American Progress. Gay and Transgender Youth Homelessness by the Numbers. June 21, 2010).

3. O’Donnell S et al. Increased risk of suicide attempts among Black and Latino lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):1055-9.

4. Farrington D and Baldry A. Individual risk factors for school bullying. J Aggress Confl Peace Res. 2010 Jan;2(1):4-16.

5. Anderson E. Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic environment Gend Soc. 2002 Dec:16(6):860-77.

The recent debate about how best to address the growing epidemic of obesity in children and adolescents has pitted different professional organizations against each other. While there is little controversy that both obesity and eating disorders represent important public health concerns, each deserving of clinical attention, how best to address one without worsening the other has been the crux of the discussion.

Rettew_David_C_VT_new_web.jpg

Sparking the dispute was a recent publication from the American Academy of Pediatrics that outlines the scope of the obesity problem and makes specific recommendations for assessment and treatment.¹ The ambitious 100-page document, with 801 citations, puts new emphasis on the medical and psychological costs associated with obesity and advocates that pediatric primary care clinicians be more assertive in its treatment. While the guidelines certainly don’t urge the use of medications or surgery options as first-line treatment, the new recommendations do put them on the table as options.

In response, the Academy of Eating Disorders issued a public statement outlining several concerns regarding these guidelines that centered around a lack of a detailed plan to screen and address eating disorders; concerns that pediatricians don’t have the level of training and “skills” to conduct these conversations with patients and families with enough sensitivity; and worries about the premature use of antiobesity medications and surgeries in this population.²

It is fair to say that the critique was sharply worded, invoking physicians’ Hippocratic oath, criticizing their training, and suggesting that the guidelines could be biased by pharmaceutical industry influence (of note, the authors of the guidelines reported no ties to any pharmaceutical company). The AED urged that the guidelines be “revised” after consultation with other groups, including them.

Not unexpectedly, this response, especially coming from a group whose leadership and members are primarily nonphysicians, triggered its own sharp rebukes, including a recent commentary that counter-accused some of the eating disorder clinicians of being more concerned with their pet diets than actual health improvements.³

After everyone takes some deep breaths, it’s worth looking to see if there is some middle ground to explore here. The AAP document, to my reading, shows some important acknowledgments of the stigma associated with being overweight, even coming from pediatricians themselves. One passage reads, “Pediatricians and other PHCPs [primary health care providers] have been – and remain – a source of weight bias. They first need to uncover and address their own attitudes regarding children with obesity. Understanding weight stigma and bias, and learning how to reduce it in the clinical setting, sets the stage for productive discussions and improved relationships between families and pediatricians or other PHCPs.”

The guidelines also include some suggestions for how to talk to youth and families about obesity in less stigmatizing ways and offer a fairly lengthy summary of motivational interviewing techniques as they might apply to obesity discussions and lifestyle change. There is also a section on the interface between obesity and eating disorders with suggestions for further reading on their assessment and management.⁴

Indeed, research has looked specifically at how to minimize the triggering of eating disorders when addressing weight problems, a concern that has been raised by pediatricians themselves as documented in a qualitative study that also invoked the “do no harm” principle.⁵ One study asked more than 2,000 teens about how various conversations about weight affected their behavior.⁶ A main finding from that study was that conversations that focused on healthy eating rather than weight per se were less likely to be associated with unhealthy weight control behaviors. This message was emphasized in a publication that came from the AAP itself; it addresses the interaction between eating disorders and obesity.⁷ Strangely, however, the suggestion to try to minimize the focus on weight in discussions with patients isn’t well emphasized in the publication.

Overall, though, the AAP guidelines offer a well-informed and balanced approach to helping overweight youth. Pediatricians and other pediatric primary care clinicians are frequently called upon to engage in extremely sensitive and difficult discussions with patients and families on a wide variety of topics and most do so quite skillfully, especially when given the proper time and tools. While it is an area in which many of us, including mental health professionals, could do better, it’s no surprise that the AED’s disparaging of pediatricians’ communication competence came off as insulting. Similarly, productive dialogue would be likely enhanced if both sides avoided unfounded speculation about bias and motive and worked from a good faith perspective that all of us are engaged in this important discussion because of a desire to improve the lives of kids.

From my reading, it is quite a stretch to conclude that this document is urging a hasty and financially driven descent into GLP-1 analogues and bariatric surgery. That said, this wouldn’t be the first time a professional organization issues detailed, thoughtful, and nuanced care guidelines only to have them “condensed” within the practical confines of a busy office practice. Leaders would do well to remember that there remains much work to do to empower clinicians to be able to follow these guidelines as intended.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

References

1. Hampl SE et al. Pediatrics. 2023;151(2):e2022060640.

2. Academy of Eating Disorders. Jan. 26, 2023. Accessed February 2, 2023. Available at The Academy for Eating Disorders Releases a Statement on the Recent American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guideline for Weight-Related Care: First, Do No Harm (newswise.com).

3. Freedhoff Y. MDedge Pediatrics 2023. Available at https://www.mdedge.com/pediatrics/article/260894/obesity/weight-bias-affects-views-kids-obesity-recommendations?channel=52.

4. Hornberger LL, Lane MA et al. Pediatrics. 2021;147(1):e202004027989.

5. Loth KA, Lebow J et al. Global Pediatric Health. 2021;8:1-9.

6. Berge JM et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2013;167(8):746-53.

7. Golden NH et al. Pediatrics. 2016;138(3):e20161649.

The recent debate about how best to address the growing epidemic of obesity in children and adolescents has pitted different professional organizations against each other. While there is little controversy that both obesity and eating disorders represent important public health concerns, each deserving of clinical attention, how best to address one without worsening the other has been the crux of the discussion.

Rettew_David_C_VT_new_web.jpg

Sparking the dispute was a recent publication from the American Academy of Pediatrics that outlines the scope of the obesity problem and makes specific recommendations for assessment and treatment.¹ The ambitious 100-page document, with 801 citations, puts new emphasis on the medical and psychological costs associated with obesity and advocates that pediatric primary care clinicians be more assertive in its treatment. While the guidelines certainly don’t urge the use of medications or surgery options as first-line treatment, the new recommendations do put them on the table as options.

In response, the Academy of Eating Disorders issued a public statement outlining several concerns regarding these guidelines that centered around a lack of a detailed plan to screen and address eating disorders; concerns that pediatricians don’t have the level of training and “skills” to conduct these conversations with patients and families with enough sensitivity; and worries about the premature use of antiobesity medications and surgeries in this population.²

It is fair to say that the critique was sharply worded, invoking physicians’ Hippocratic oath, criticizing their training, and suggesting that the guidelines could be biased by pharmaceutical industry influence (of note, the authors of the guidelines reported no ties to any pharmaceutical company). The AED urged that the guidelines be “revised” after consultation with other groups, including them.

Not unexpectedly, this response, especially coming from a group whose leadership and members are primarily nonphysicians, triggered its own sharp rebukes, including a recent commentary that counter-accused some of the eating disorder clinicians of being more concerned with their pet diets than actual health improvements.³

After everyone takes some deep breaths, it’s worth looking to see if there is some middle ground to explore here. The AAP document, to my reading, shows some important acknowledgments of the stigma associated with being overweight, even coming from pediatricians themselves. One passage reads, “Pediatricians and other PHCPs [primary health care providers] have been – and remain – a source of weight bias. They first need to uncover and address their own attitudes regarding children with obesity. Understanding weight stigma and bias, and learning how to reduce it in the clinical setting, sets the stage for productive discussions and improved relationships between families and pediatricians or other PHCPs.”

The guidelines also include some suggestions for how to talk to youth and families about obesity in less stigmatizing ways and offer a fairly lengthy summary of motivational interviewing techniques as they might apply to obesity discussions and lifestyle change. There is also a section on the interface between obesity and eating disorders with suggestions for further reading on their assessment and management.⁴

Indeed, research has looked specifically at how to minimize the triggering of eating disorders when addressing weight problems, a concern that has been raised by pediatricians themselves as documented in a qualitative study that also invoked the “do no harm” principle.⁵ One study asked more than 2,000 teens about how various conversations about weight affected their behavior.⁶ A main finding from that study was that conversations that focused on healthy eating rather than weight per se were less likely to be associated with unhealthy weight control behaviors. This message was emphasized in a publication that came from the AAP itself; it addresses the interaction between eating disorders and obesity.⁷ Strangely, however, the suggestion to try to minimize the focus on weight in discussions with patients isn’t well emphasized in the publication.

Overall, though, the AAP guidelines offer a well-informed and balanced approach to helping overweight youth. Pediatricians and other pediatric primary care clinicians are frequently called upon to engage in extremely sensitive and difficult discussions with patients and families on a wide variety of topics and most do so quite skillfully, especially when given the proper time and tools. While it is an area in which many of us, including mental health professionals, could do better, it’s no surprise that the AED’s disparaging of pediatricians’ communication competence came off as insulting. Similarly, productive dialogue would be likely enhanced if both sides avoided unfounded speculation about bias and motive and worked from a good faith perspective that all of us are engaged in this important discussion because of a desire to improve the lives of kids.

From my reading, it is quite a stretch to conclude that this document is urging a hasty and financially driven descent into GLP-1 analogues and bariatric surgery. That said, this wouldn’t be the first time a professional organization issues detailed, thoughtful, and nuanced care guidelines only to have them “condensed” within the practical confines of a busy office practice. Leaders would do well to remember that there remains much work to do to empower clinicians to be able to follow these guidelines as intended.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

References

1. Hampl SE et al. Pediatrics. 2023;151(2):e2022060640.

2. Academy of Eating Disorders. Jan. 26, 2023. Accessed February 2, 2023. Available at The Academy for Eating Disorders Releases a Statement on the Recent American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guideline for Weight-Related Care: First, Do No Harm (newswise.com).

3. Freedhoff Y. MDedge Pediatrics 2023. Available at https://www.mdedge.com/pediatrics/article/260894/obesity/weight-bias-affects-views-kids-obesity-recommendations?channel=52.

4. Hornberger LL, Lane MA et al. Pediatrics. 2021;147(1):e202004027989.

5. Loth KA, Lebow J et al. Global Pediatric Health. 2021;8:1-9.

6. Berge JM et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2013;167(8):746-53.

7. Golden NH et al. Pediatrics. 2016;138(3):e20161649.

The recent debate about how best to address the growing epidemic of obesity in children and adolescents has pitted different professional organizations against each other. While there is little controversy that both obesity and eating disorders represent important public health concerns, each deserving of clinical attention, how best to address one without worsening the other has been the crux of the discussion.

Rettew_David_C_VT_new_web.jpg

Sparking the dispute was a recent publication from the American Academy of Pediatrics that outlines the scope of the obesity problem and makes specific recommendations for assessment and treatment.¹ The ambitious 100-page document, with 801 citations, puts new emphasis on the medical and psychological costs associated with obesity and advocates that pediatric primary care clinicians be more assertive in its treatment. While the guidelines certainly don’t urge the use of medications or surgery options as first-line treatment, the new recommendations do put them on the table as options.

In response, the Academy of Eating Disorders issued a public statement outlining several concerns regarding these guidelines that centered around a lack of a detailed plan to screen and address eating disorders; concerns that pediatricians don’t have the level of training and “skills” to conduct these conversations with patients and families with enough sensitivity; and worries about the premature use of antiobesity medications and surgeries in this population.²

It is fair to say that the critique was sharply worded, invoking physicians’ Hippocratic oath, criticizing their training, and suggesting that the guidelines could be biased by pharmaceutical industry influence (of note, the authors of the guidelines reported no ties to any pharmaceutical company). The AED urged that the guidelines be “revised” after consultation with other groups, including them.

Not unexpectedly, this response, especially coming from a group whose leadership and members are primarily nonphysicians, triggered its own sharp rebukes, including a recent commentary that counter-accused some of the eating disorder clinicians of being more concerned with their pet diets than actual health improvements.³

After everyone takes some deep breaths, it’s worth looking to see if there is some middle ground to explore here. The AAP document, to my reading, shows some important acknowledgments of the stigma associated with being overweight, even coming from pediatricians themselves. One passage reads, “Pediatricians and other PHCPs [primary health care providers] have been – and remain – a source of weight bias. They first need to uncover and address their own attitudes regarding children with obesity. Understanding weight stigma and bias, and learning how to reduce it in the clinical setting, sets the stage for productive discussions and improved relationships between families and pediatricians or other PHCPs.”

The guidelines also include some suggestions for how to talk to youth and families about obesity in less stigmatizing ways and offer a fairly lengthy summary of motivational interviewing techniques as they might apply to obesity discussions and lifestyle change. There is also a section on the interface between obesity and eating disorders with suggestions for further reading on their assessment and management.⁴

Indeed, research has looked specifically at how to minimize the triggering of eating disorders when addressing weight problems, a concern that has been raised by pediatricians themselves as documented in a qualitative study that also invoked the “do no harm” principle.⁵ One study asked more than 2,000 teens about how various conversations about weight affected their behavior.⁶ A main finding from that study was that conversations that focused on healthy eating rather than weight per se were less likely to be associated with unhealthy weight control behaviors. This message was emphasized in a publication that came from the AAP itself; it addresses the interaction between eating disorders and obesity.⁷ Strangely, however, the suggestion to try to minimize the focus on weight in discussions with patients isn’t well emphasized in the publication.

Overall, though, the AAP guidelines offer a well-informed and balanced approach to helping overweight youth. Pediatricians and other pediatric primary care clinicians are frequently called upon to engage in extremely sensitive and difficult discussions with patients and families on a wide variety of topics and most do so quite skillfully, especially when given the proper time and tools. While it is an area in which many of us, including mental health professionals, could do better, it’s no surprise that the AED’s disparaging of pediatricians’ communication competence came off as insulting. Similarly, productive dialogue would be likely enhanced if both sides avoided unfounded speculation about bias and motive and worked from a good faith perspective that all of us are engaged in this important discussion because of a desire to improve the lives of kids.

From my reading, it is quite a stretch to conclude that this document is urging a hasty and financially driven descent into GLP-1 analogues and bariatric surgery. That said, this wouldn’t be the first time a professional organization issues detailed, thoughtful, and nuanced care guidelines only to have them “condensed” within the practical confines of a busy office practice. Leaders would do well to remember that there remains much work to do to empower clinicians to be able to follow these guidelines as intended.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

References

1. Hampl SE et al. Pediatrics. 2023;151(2):e2022060640.

2. Academy of Eating Disorders. Jan. 26, 2023. Accessed February 2, 2023. Available at The Academy for Eating Disorders Releases a Statement on the Recent American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guideline for Weight-Related Care: First, Do No Harm (newswise.com).

3. Freedhoff Y. MDedge Pediatrics 2023. Available at https://www.mdedge.com/pediatrics/article/260894/obesity/weight-bias-affects-views-kids-obesity-recommendations?channel=52.

4. Hornberger LL, Lane MA et al. Pediatrics. 2021;147(1):e202004027989.

5. Loth KA, Lebow J et al. Global Pediatric Health. 2021;8:1-9.

6. Berge JM et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2013;167(8):746-53.

7. Golden NH et al. Pediatrics. 2016;138(3):e20161649.

The assessment and diagnosis of bipolar disorder in youth has a complicated and controversial history. I recall from my child and adolescent fellowship training that there was a thinly veiled faculty argument about the diagnosis itself with strong opinions on each side. To revisit this quandary, I reviewed the most up-to-date literature and outlined a case-based approach to the initial screening assessment. Certainly, the assessment by a child and adolescent psychiatrist would be the standard for diagnosis, but we do know that the pediatrician’s office may be the first setting for a child and parent to present with mood symptoms and concerns about bipolar disorder. What can you do to address this adolescent, Carrie, and her mother’s concerns?

Pawlowski_Sara_VT_web.jpg

Case

Carrie is a 17-year-old girl who has struggled through her childhood and adolescence with anxious and depressive symptoms which have ebbed and flowed with major life stressors, including her parent’s divorce. She has tried cognitive-behavioral therapy and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, but the SSRI seemed to cause feelings of anxiousness and agitation, so she stopped it within weeks.

Her mother presents to you concerned that Carrie has had a more persistently irritable mood toward her, often just wanting to be with her friends or otherwise isolate in her room when home to study.

Most concerning to her mother is that Carrie, as a straight A student, has also developed a pattern of staying up all night to study for tests and then “crashes” and sleeps through the weekend, avoiding her mother and only brightening with her friends.

To complicate matters, Carrie’s biological father had type 1 bipolar disorder and an addiction. Her mother comes to you with an initially nonparticipatory Carrie in tow and says: “My former husband began his manic episodes with a lack of sleep and Carrie is so irritable towards me. I feel like I am walking on eggshells all the time. Could this be bipolar disorder?”
 

Case discussion

First, it’s always useful to frame a visit stating that you will spend some time with the patient and some time with both the patient and parent. Emphasizing confidentiality about issues such as drug use, which can be comorbid with mood symptoms and go undetected in high-achieving students such as Carrie, is also important. Further emphasizing that information will not be reflexively shared with the parent unless the child presents a danger to herself or others is also paramount to receive an honest report of symptoms.

Second, there are many signs and symptoms of bipolar disorder that naturally overlap with other conditions such as distractibility with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or irritability in either a unipolar depression or disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.1 You are looking for an episodic (not chronic) course of symptoms with episodes that last over 5 days for hypomania and over the course of weeks for mania all while meeting all the classic criteria for bipolar disorder.

Note that the broadening of diagnostic criteria has been thought to contribute to an inflated sense of prevalence. The actual expert estimate of prevalence is around 0.8%-1.8% in pediatric populations, although there is a large published range depending on whether the criteria are modified or not.2 Use of the unmodified criteria from the DSM-5 is the recommended approach. Bipolar disorder is exceedingly rare in prepubertal children, and it would be more common for prodromal symptoms such as Carrie’s to emerge and escalate over the teenage years, culminating in a clearer diagnosis in the later teens or 20s.3

In my screening questions, I find the idea of an “infatiguable state” is the most pathognomonic one in considering mania in bipolar disorder.4 Carrie’s “crashing” after nights of studying shows that she clearly fatigues. Patients with bipolar disorder within episodes of hypomania or mania have a seismic shift in perceived energy and a matching lack of ability to sleep that can affect their thought processes, speech, and decision-making. At first blush, Carrie’s history does not indicate current symptoms of bipolar disorder.3
 

Case, continued

When you meet with Carrie alone she shares that she has been experimenting with prescribed stimulants from her older college-aged brother in order to study and ace her tests. She is also experimenting with alcohol and marijuana with her friends. You provide her the CRAFFT tool to deepen your screening of this issue.5

With her mother, you administer the Parent General Behavior Inventory6 and the and the Child Mania Rating Scale7. From these scales, you note that the irritability is more specific to Carrie’s family than pan-present in school and with friends. Her lack of sleep occurs at high-pressure and discreet times.

At this point, you reassure Carrie and her mother that Carrie does not present with symptoms of bipolar disorder but that certainly you will continue screening assessments over time, as they are a good means to track symptoms. You also recommend that Carrie consider mood tracking so she can develop insights into her mood and its relationship to sleep and other events as she prepares for college.8
 

Case discussion, continued

The strongest risk factor for bipolar disorder in youth is family history (specifically a parent) with bipolar disorder).9 If there is the chance to explore the parent’s illness with open-ended questions, you will want to hear about the parent’s age of symptom onset, course of treatment, any hospitalizations, and stabilizing medications because this has prognostic power for your patient. It is important to ensure that the parent indeed has a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and that it is not just being used colloquially to characterize an adult who has labile moods from hour to hour or day to day. This would give undue anticipatory anxiety to a youth about their risk, which is up to 8- to 10-fold greater with a parent with bipolar disorder.9

Even with a strong family history, we do not often see bipolar disorder emerge in prepubertal children.10,11 There may be still concerning prodromal symptoms in which a diagnosis of unipolar depression with more irritable features and mood lability seems more commonly complicated by substance use, as with Carrie.

Activation with an SSRI, as in Carrie’s case, even if not resulting in full mania or hypomania, can also be a soft sign of the serotonergic sensitivity present in bipolar disorder. However, if there are not additional symptoms of bipolar disorder and you are concerned based on family history alone, you do not want to withhold antidepressant treatment because fear of risk. You would want to consider a “dose low and go slow” titration process with more frequent monitoring.

A diagnostic interview with a child and adolescent psychiatrist and administration of scales such as the Young Mania Rating Scale and the Modified Child Depression Rating Scale are the standard means to assess for bipolar symptoms.12 Considering the dearth of child psychiatrists nationally, it would be useful to improve one’s screening in primary care so as to not inadvertently “refer out” all patients for whom mood dysregulation is a concern.

There is also a more expanded tool that includes several scales integrated with clinical information (parent’s age of mood disorder onset, child’s age) which can culminate in a risk score.13

Lastly, I provide my patients with a handout of the Young Mania Rating Scale to take home as a reference and to complete before our next visit.14

You can repeat scales to monitor for more striking bipolar disorder signs and symptoms that emerge over the course of one’s longitudinal treatment of a pediatric patient. This can be an ongoing, episodic assessment since the emergence of bipolar disorder has been shown to range from the teenage years and beyond into the 20s and sometimes 30s.
 

Case, continued

Carrie presents to you again while in her first semester of college at the age of 19. She is taking a leave of absence after she began experimenting with cocaine at college and had a manic episode characterized by a lack of sleep without fatigue, persistent unabating energy, rapid and pressured speech, and ultimately, concern from her college friends. She was admitted to a psychiatric unit and stabilized on a second-generation antipsychotic, risperidone, which has solid evidence for mania, but she and you are now concerned about longer-term metabolic effects.15,16

You discuss monitoring her lipid profile and hemoglobin A1c, in addition to weight gain and waist circumference. She has connected with a therapist and psychiatrist through the college counseling center and hopes to return next semester with a fresh start and commitment to sobriety and social rhythms therapy known to be helpful for patients with bipolar disorder.17

While it is challenging to manage a chronic illness at her age, she feels hopeful that she can make better choices for her overall health with your support and the support of her family and mental health team.

Dr. Pawlowski is a child and adolescent consulting psychiatrist. She is a division chief at the University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, where she focuses on primary care mental health integration within primary care pediatrics, internal medicine, and family medicine.
 

References

1. Bipolar Disord. 2016 Jan 9 doi: 10.1111/bdi.12358.

2. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2021 Jun 25. doi: 10.1186/s40345-021-00225-5.

3. Am J Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 11. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18040461.

4. DSM-5 Changes: Implications for Child Serious Emotional Disturbance. Rockville, Md.: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2016.

5. The CRAFFT tool.

6. General Behavior Inventory. Parent Version (P-GBI) Short Form – H/B (Revised Version, 2008).

7. Child Mania Rating Scale, Parent Version (CMRS-P).

8. https://www.moodtracker.com.

9. J Clin Psychiatry. 2000 Sep. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v61n0906.

10. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2020 Apr 20. doi: 10.1186/s40345-020-00185-2.

11. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2021 Jun 25. doi: 10.1186/s40345-021-00225-5.

12. Bipolar Disord. 2017 Sep 25. doi: 10.1111/bdi.12556.

13. www.cabsresearch.pitt.edu/bpriskcalculator/.

14. Parent Version of the Young Mania Rating Scale (PYMRS).

15. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012 Jan 2. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.1508.

16. The Carlat Child Psychiatry Report. “Bipolar Disorder” Newburyport, Mass.: Carlat Publishing, 2012.

17. https://www.ipsrt.org/.

The assessment and diagnosis of bipolar disorder in youth has a complicated and controversial history. I recall from my child and adolescent fellowship training that there was a thinly veiled faculty argument about the diagnosis itself with strong opinions on each side. To revisit this quandary, I reviewed the most up-to-date literature and outlined a case-based approach to the initial screening assessment. Certainly, the assessment by a child and adolescent psychiatrist would be the standard for diagnosis, but we do know that the pediatrician’s office may be the first setting for a child and parent to present with mood symptoms and concerns about bipolar disorder. What can you do to address this adolescent, Carrie, and her mother’s concerns?

Pawlowski_Sara_VT_web.jpg

Case

Carrie is a 17-year-old girl who has struggled through her childhood and adolescence with anxious and depressive symptoms which have ebbed and flowed with major life stressors, including her parent’s divorce. She has tried cognitive-behavioral therapy and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, but the SSRI seemed to cause feelings of anxiousness and agitation, so she stopped it within weeks.

Her mother presents to you concerned that Carrie has had a more persistently irritable mood toward her, often just wanting to be with her friends or otherwise isolate in her room when home to study.

Most concerning to her mother is that Carrie, as a straight A student, has also developed a pattern of staying up all night to study for tests and then “crashes” and sleeps through the weekend, avoiding her mother and only brightening with her friends.

To complicate matters, Carrie’s biological father had type 1 bipolar disorder and an addiction. Her mother comes to you with an initially nonparticipatory Carrie in tow and says: “My former husband began his manic episodes with a lack of sleep and Carrie is so irritable towards me. I feel like I am walking on eggshells all the time. Could this be bipolar disorder?”
 

Case discussion

First, it’s always useful to frame a visit stating that you will spend some time with the patient and some time with both the patient and parent. Emphasizing confidentiality about issues such as drug use, which can be comorbid with mood symptoms and go undetected in high-achieving students such as Carrie, is also important. Further emphasizing that information will not be reflexively shared with the parent unless the child presents a danger to herself or others is also paramount to receive an honest report of symptoms.

Second, there are many signs and symptoms of bipolar disorder that naturally overlap with other conditions such as distractibility with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or irritability in either a unipolar depression or disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.1 You are looking for an episodic (not chronic) course of symptoms with episodes that last over 5 days for hypomania and over the course of weeks for mania all while meeting all the classic criteria for bipolar disorder.

Note that the broadening of diagnostic criteria has been thought to contribute to an inflated sense of prevalence. The actual expert estimate of prevalence is around 0.8%-1.8% in pediatric populations, although there is a large published range depending on whether the criteria are modified or not.2 Use of the unmodified criteria from the DSM-5 is the recommended approach. Bipolar disorder is exceedingly rare in prepubertal children, and it would be more common for prodromal symptoms such as Carrie’s to emerge and escalate over the teenage years, culminating in a clearer diagnosis in the later teens or 20s.3

In my screening questions, I find the idea of an “infatiguable state” is the most pathognomonic one in considering mania in bipolar disorder.4 Carrie’s “crashing” after nights of studying shows that she clearly fatigues. Patients with bipolar disorder within episodes of hypomania or mania have a seismic shift in perceived energy and a matching lack of ability to sleep that can affect their thought processes, speech, and decision-making. At first blush, Carrie’s history does not indicate current symptoms of bipolar disorder.3
 

Case, continued

When you meet with Carrie alone she shares that she has been experimenting with prescribed stimulants from her older college-aged brother in order to study and ace her tests. She is also experimenting with alcohol and marijuana with her friends. You provide her the CRAFFT tool to deepen your screening of this issue.5

With her mother, you administer the Parent General Behavior Inventory6 and the and the Child Mania Rating Scale7. From these scales, you note that the irritability is more specific to Carrie’s family than pan-present in school and with friends. Her lack of sleep occurs at high-pressure and discreet times.

At this point, you reassure Carrie and her mother that Carrie does not present with symptoms of bipolar disorder but that certainly you will continue screening assessments over time, as they are a good means to track symptoms. You also recommend that Carrie consider mood tracking so she can develop insights into her mood and its relationship to sleep and other events as she prepares for college.8
 

Case discussion, continued

The strongest risk factor for bipolar disorder in youth is family history (specifically a parent) with bipolar disorder).9 If there is the chance to explore the parent’s illness with open-ended questions, you will want to hear about the parent’s age of symptom onset, course of treatment, any hospitalizations, and stabilizing medications because this has prognostic power for your patient. It is important to ensure that the parent indeed has a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and that it is not just being used colloquially to characterize an adult who has labile moods from hour to hour or day to day. This would give undue anticipatory anxiety to a youth about their risk, which is up to 8- to 10-fold greater with a parent with bipolar disorder.9

Even with a strong family history, we do not often see bipolar disorder emerge in prepubertal children.10,11 There may be still concerning prodromal symptoms in which a diagnosis of unipolar depression with more irritable features and mood lability seems more commonly complicated by substance use, as with Carrie.

Activation with an SSRI, as in Carrie’s case, even if not resulting in full mania or hypomania, can also be a soft sign of the serotonergic sensitivity present in bipolar disorder. However, if there are not additional symptoms of bipolar disorder and you are concerned based on family history alone, you do not want to withhold antidepressant treatment because fear of risk. You would want to consider a “dose low and go slow” titration process with more frequent monitoring.

A diagnostic interview with a child and adolescent psychiatrist and administration of scales such as the Young Mania Rating Scale and the Modified Child Depression Rating Scale are the standard means to assess for bipolar symptoms.12 Considering the dearth of child psychiatrists nationally, it would be useful to improve one’s screening in primary care so as to not inadvertently “refer out” all patients for whom mood dysregulation is a concern.

There is also a more expanded tool that includes several scales integrated with clinical information (parent’s age of mood disorder onset, child’s age) which can culminate in a risk score.13

Lastly, I provide my patients with a handout of the Young Mania Rating Scale to take home as a reference and to complete before our next visit.14

You can repeat scales to monitor for more striking bipolar disorder signs and symptoms that emerge over the course of one’s longitudinal treatment of a pediatric patient. This can be an ongoing, episodic assessment since the emergence of bipolar disorder has been shown to range from the teenage years and beyond into the 20s and sometimes 30s.
 

Case, continued

Carrie presents to you again while in her first semester of college at the age of 19. She is taking a leave of absence after she began experimenting with cocaine at college and had a manic episode characterized by a lack of sleep without fatigue, persistent unabating energy, rapid and pressured speech, and ultimately, concern from her college friends. She was admitted to a psychiatric unit and stabilized on a second-generation antipsychotic, risperidone, which has solid evidence for mania, but she and you are now concerned about longer-term metabolic effects.15,16

You discuss monitoring her lipid profile and hemoglobin A1c, in addition to weight gain and waist circumference. She has connected with a therapist and psychiatrist through the college counseling center and hopes to return next semester with a fresh start and commitment to sobriety and social rhythms therapy known to be helpful for patients with bipolar disorder.17

While it is challenging to manage a chronic illness at her age, she feels hopeful that she can make better choices for her overall health with your support and the support of her family and mental health team.

Dr. Pawlowski is a child and adolescent consulting psychiatrist. She is a division chief at the University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, where she focuses on primary care mental health integration within primary care pediatrics, internal medicine, and family medicine.
 

References

1. Bipolar Disord. 2016 Jan 9 doi: 10.1111/bdi.12358.

2. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2021 Jun 25. doi: 10.1186/s40345-021-00225-5.

3. Am J Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 11. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18040461.

4. DSM-5 Changes: Implications for Child Serious Emotional Disturbance. Rockville, Md.: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2016.

5. The CRAFFT tool.

6. General Behavior Inventory. Parent Version (P-GBI) Short Form – H/B (Revised Version, 2008).

7. Child Mania Rating Scale, Parent Version (CMRS-P).

8. https://www.moodtracker.com.

9. J Clin Psychiatry. 2000 Sep. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v61n0906.

10. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2020 Apr 20. doi: 10.1186/s40345-020-00185-2.

11. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2021 Jun 25. doi: 10.1186/s40345-021-00225-5.

12. Bipolar Disord. 2017 Sep 25. doi: 10.1111/bdi.12556.

13. www.cabsresearch.pitt.edu/bpriskcalculator/.

14. Parent Version of the Young Mania Rating Scale (PYMRS).

15. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012 Jan 2. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.1508.

16. The Carlat Child Psychiatry Report. “Bipolar Disorder” Newburyport, Mass.: Carlat Publishing, 2012.

17. https://www.ipsrt.org/.

The assessment and diagnosis of bipolar disorder in youth has a complicated and controversial history. I recall from my child and adolescent fellowship training that there was a thinly veiled faculty argument about the diagnosis itself with strong opinions on each side. To revisit this quandary, I reviewed the most up-to-date literature and outlined a case-based approach to the initial screening assessment. Certainly, the assessment by a child and adolescent psychiatrist would be the standard for diagnosis, but we do know that the pediatrician’s office may be the first setting for a child and parent to present with mood symptoms and concerns about bipolar disorder. What can you do to address this adolescent, Carrie, and her mother’s concerns?

Pawlowski_Sara_VT_web.jpg

Case

Carrie is a 17-year-old girl who has struggled through her childhood and adolescence with anxious and depressive symptoms which have ebbed and flowed with major life stressors, including her parent’s divorce. She has tried cognitive-behavioral therapy and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, but the SSRI seemed to cause feelings of anxiousness and agitation, so she stopped it within weeks.

Her mother presents to you concerned that Carrie has had a more persistently irritable mood toward her, often just wanting to be with her friends or otherwise isolate in her room when home to study.

Most concerning to her mother is that Carrie, as a straight A student, has also developed a pattern of staying up all night to study for tests and then “crashes” and sleeps through the weekend, avoiding her mother and only brightening with her friends.

To complicate matters, Carrie’s biological father had type 1 bipolar disorder and an addiction. Her mother comes to you with an initially nonparticipatory Carrie in tow and says: “My former husband began his manic episodes with a lack of sleep and Carrie is so irritable towards me. I feel like I am walking on eggshells all the time. Could this be bipolar disorder?”
 

Case discussion

First, it’s always useful to frame a visit stating that you will spend some time with the patient and some time with both the patient and parent. Emphasizing confidentiality about issues such as drug use, which can be comorbid with mood symptoms and go undetected in high-achieving students such as Carrie, is also important. Further emphasizing that information will not be reflexively shared with the parent unless the child presents a danger to herself or others is also paramount to receive an honest report of symptoms.

Second, there are many signs and symptoms of bipolar disorder that naturally overlap with other conditions such as distractibility with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or irritability in either a unipolar depression or disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.1 You are looking for an episodic (not chronic) course of symptoms with episodes that last over 5 days for hypomania and over the course of weeks for mania all while meeting all the classic criteria for bipolar disorder.

Note that the broadening of diagnostic criteria has been thought to contribute to an inflated sense of prevalence. The actual expert estimate of prevalence is around 0.8%-1.8% in pediatric populations, although there is a large published range depending on whether the criteria are modified or not.2 Use of the unmodified criteria from the DSM-5 is the recommended approach. Bipolar disorder is exceedingly rare in prepubertal children, and it would be more common for prodromal symptoms such as Carrie’s to emerge and escalate over the teenage years, culminating in a clearer diagnosis in the later teens or 20s.3

In my screening questions, I find the idea of an “infatiguable state” is the most pathognomonic one in considering mania in bipolar disorder.4 Carrie’s “crashing” after nights of studying shows that she clearly fatigues. Patients with bipolar disorder within episodes of hypomania or mania have a seismic shift in perceived energy and a matching lack of ability to sleep that can affect their thought processes, speech, and decision-making. At first blush, Carrie’s history does not indicate current symptoms of bipolar disorder.3
 

Case, continued

When you meet with Carrie alone she shares that she has been experimenting with prescribed stimulants from her older college-aged brother in order to study and ace her tests. She is also experimenting with alcohol and marijuana with her friends. You provide her the CRAFFT tool to deepen your screening of this issue.5

With her mother, you administer the Parent General Behavior Inventory6 and the and the Child Mania Rating Scale7. From these scales, you note that the irritability is more specific to Carrie’s family than pan-present in school and with friends. Her lack of sleep occurs at high-pressure and discreet times.

At this point, you reassure Carrie and her mother that Carrie does not present with symptoms of bipolar disorder but that certainly you will continue screening assessments over time, as they are a good means to track symptoms. You also recommend that Carrie consider mood tracking so she can develop insights into her mood and its relationship to sleep and other events as she prepares for college.8
 

Case discussion, continued

The strongest risk factor for bipolar disorder in youth is family history (specifically a parent) with bipolar disorder).9 If there is the chance to explore the parent’s illness with open-ended questions, you will want to hear about the parent’s age of symptom onset, course of treatment, any hospitalizations, and stabilizing medications because this has prognostic power for your patient. It is important to ensure that the parent indeed has a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and that it is not just being used colloquially to characterize an adult who has labile moods from hour to hour or day to day. This would give undue anticipatory anxiety to a youth about their risk, which is up to 8- to 10-fold greater with a parent with bipolar disorder.9

Even with a strong family history, we do not often see bipolar disorder emerge in prepubertal children.10,11 There may be still concerning prodromal symptoms in which a diagnosis of unipolar depression with more irritable features and mood lability seems more commonly complicated by substance use, as with Carrie.

Activation with an SSRI, as in Carrie’s case, even if not resulting in full mania or hypomania, can also be a soft sign of the serotonergic sensitivity present in bipolar disorder. However, if there are not additional symptoms of bipolar disorder and you are concerned based on family history alone, you do not want to withhold antidepressant treatment because fear of risk. You would want to consider a “dose low and go slow” titration process with more frequent monitoring.

A diagnostic interview with a child and adolescent psychiatrist and administration of scales such as the Young Mania Rating Scale and the Modified Child Depression Rating Scale are the standard means to assess for bipolar symptoms.12 Considering the dearth of child psychiatrists nationally, it would be useful to improve one’s screening in primary care so as to not inadvertently “refer out” all patients for whom mood dysregulation is a concern.

There is also a more expanded tool that includes several scales integrated with clinical information (parent’s age of mood disorder onset, child’s age) which can culminate in a risk score.13

Lastly, I provide my patients with a handout of the Young Mania Rating Scale to take home as a reference and to complete before our next visit.14

You can repeat scales to monitor for more striking bipolar disorder signs and symptoms that emerge over the course of one’s longitudinal treatment of a pediatric patient. This can be an ongoing, episodic assessment since the emergence of bipolar disorder has been shown to range from the teenage years and beyond into the 20s and sometimes 30s.
 

Case, continued

Carrie presents to you again while in her first semester of college at the age of 19. She is taking a leave of absence after she began experimenting with cocaine at college and had a manic episode characterized by a lack of sleep without fatigue, persistent unabating energy, rapid and pressured speech, and ultimately, concern from her college friends. She was admitted to a psychiatric unit and stabilized on a second-generation antipsychotic, risperidone, which has solid evidence for mania, but she and you are now concerned about longer-term metabolic effects.15,16

You discuss monitoring her lipid profile and hemoglobin A1c, in addition to weight gain and waist circumference. She has connected with a therapist and psychiatrist through the college counseling center and hopes to return next semester with a fresh start and commitment to sobriety and social rhythms therapy known to be helpful for patients with bipolar disorder.17

While it is challenging to manage a chronic illness at her age, she feels hopeful that she can make better choices for her overall health with your support and the support of her family and mental health team.

Dr. Pawlowski is a child and adolescent consulting psychiatrist. She is a division chief at the University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, where she focuses on primary care mental health integration within primary care pediatrics, internal medicine, and family medicine.
 

References

1. Bipolar Disord. 2016 Jan 9 doi: 10.1111/bdi.12358.

2. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2021 Jun 25. doi: 10.1186/s40345-021-00225-5.

3. Am J Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 11. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18040461.

4. DSM-5 Changes: Implications for Child Serious Emotional Disturbance. Rockville, Md.: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2016.

5. The CRAFFT tool.

6. General Behavior Inventory. Parent Version (P-GBI) Short Form – H/B (Revised Version, 2008).

7. Child Mania Rating Scale, Parent Version (CMRS-P).

8. https://www.moodtracker.com.

9. J Clin Psychiatry. 2000 Sep. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v61n0906.

10. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2020 Apr 20. doi: 10.1186/s40345-020-00185-2.

11. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2021 Jun 25. doi: 10.1186/s40345-021-00225-5.

12. Bipolar Disord. 2017 Sep 25. doi: 10.1111/bdi.12556.

13. www.cabsresearch.pitt.edu/bpriskcalculator/.

14. Parent Version of the Young Mania Rating Scale (PYMRS).

15. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012 Jan 2. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.1508.

16. The Carlat Child Psychiatry Report. “Bipolar Disorder” Newburyport, Mass.: Carlat Publishing, 2012.

17. https://www.ipsrt.org/.

Recently the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued a formal recommendation that adolescents and children as young as 8 should be screened for anxiety.¹ The advice was based on a review of the research that concluded that anxiety disorders were common in youth (prevalence around 8%), screening was not overly burdensome or dangerous, and treatments were available and effective.

While pediatricians fully appreciate how common clinically significant anxiety is and its impact on the lives of youth, the reception for the recommendations have been mixed. Some are concerned that it could lead to the overprescribing of medications. Arguably, the biggest pushback, however, relates to the question of what to do when a child screens positive in a time when finding an available child and adolescent psychiatrist or other type of pediatric mental health professional can feel next to impossible. The hope of this article is to fill in some of those gaps.

Rettew_David_C_VT_new_web.jpg

Screening for anxiety disorders

The recommendations suggest using a rating scale as part of the screen but doesn’t dictate which one. A common instrument that has been employed is the Screen for Child Anxiety and Related Disorders, which is a freely available 41-item instrument that has versions for youth self-report and parent-report. A shorter 7-item rating scale, the General Anxiety Disorder–7, and the even shorter GAD-2 (the first two questions of the GAD-7), are also popular but focus, as the name applies, on general anxiety disorder and not related conditions such as social or separation anxiety that can have some different symptoms. These instruments can be given to patients and families in the waiting room or administered with the help of a nurse, physician, or embedded mental health professional. The recommendations do not include specific guidance on how often the screening should be done but repeated screenings are likely important at some interval.

Confirming the diagnosis

Of course, a screening isn’t a formal diagnosis. The American Academy of Pediatrics has expressed the view that the initial diagnosis and treatment for anxiety disorders is well within a pediatrician’s scope of practice, which means further steps are likely required beyond a referral. Fortunately, going from a positive screen to an initial diagnosis does not have to overly laborious and can focus on reviewing the DSM-5 criteria for key anxiety disorders while also ensuring that there isn’t a nonpsychiatric cause driving the symptoms, such as the often cited but rarely seen pheochromocytoma. More common rule-outs include medication-induced anxiety or substance use, excessive caffeine intake, and cardiac arrhythmias. Assessing for current and past trauma or specific causes of the anxiety such as bullying are also important.

It is important to note that it is the rule rather than the exception that youth with clinical levels of anxiety will frequently endorse a number of criteria that span multiple diagnoses including generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and separation anxiety disorder.² Spending a lot of effort to narrow things down to a single anxiety diagnosis often is unnecessary, as both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments don’t change all that much between individual diagnoses.
 

Explaining the diagnosis

In general, I’m a strong proponent of trying to explain any behavioral diagnoses that you make to kids in a way that is accurate but nonstigmatizing. When it comes to anxiety, one parallel I often draw is to our immune system, which most youth understand at least in basic terms. Both our immune system and our anxiety networks are natural and important; as a species, we wouldn’t have lasted long without them. Both are built to assess and respond to threats. Problems can arise, however, if the response is too strong relative to the threat or the response is activated when it doesn’t need to be. Treatment is directed not at ridding ourselves of anxiety but at helping regulate it so it works for us and not against us. Spending a few minutes going through a discussion like this can be very helpful, and perhaps more so than some dry summary of DSM-5 criteria.

Starting treatment

It is important to note that best practice recommendations when it comes to the treatment of anxiety disorder in youth do not suggest medications as the only type of treatment and often urge clinicians to try nonpharmacological interventions first.³ A specific type of psychotherapy called cognitive-behavioral therapy has the strongest scientific support as an effective treatment for anxiety but other modalities, including parenting guidance, can be helpful as well. Consequently, a referral to a good psychotherapist is paramount. For many kids, the key to overcoming anxiety is exposure: which means confronting anxiety slowly, with support, and with specific skills.

If there is a traumatic source of the anxiety, addressing that as much as possible is obviously critical and could involve working with the family or school. For some kids, this may involve frightening things they are seeing online or through other media. Finally, some health promotion activities such as exercise or mindfulness can also be quite useful.

Despite the fact that SSRIs are referred to as antidepressants, there is increasing appreciation that these medications are useful for anxiety, perhaps even more so than for mood. While only one medication, duloxetine, has Food and Drug Administration approval to treat anxiety in children as young as 7, there is good evidence to support the use of many of the most common SSRIs in treating clinical anxiety. Buspirone, beta-blockers, and antihistamine medications like hydroxyzine also can have their place in treatment, while benzodiazepines and antipsychotic medications are generally best avoided for anxious youth, especially in the primary care setting. A short but helpful medication guide with regard to pediatric anxiety has been published by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.⁴

Conclusions

Clinical levels of anxiety in children and adolescents are both common and quite treatable, which has prompted new recommendations that primary care clinicians screen for them starting at age 8. While this recommendation may at first seem like yet one more task to fit in, following the guidance can be accomplished with the help of short screening tools and a managed multimodal approach to treatment.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;328(14):1438-44.

2. Strawn JR. Curr Psychiatry. 2012;11(9):16-21.

3. Walter HJ et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(10):1107-24.

4. Anxiety Disorders: Parents’ Medication Guide Workgroup. “Anxiety disorders: Parents’ medication guide.” Washington D.C.: American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 2020.

Recently the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued a formal recommendation that adolescents and children as young as 8 should be screened for anxiety.¹ The advice was based on a review of the research that concluded that anxiety disorders were common in youth (prevalence around 8%), screening was not overly burdensome or dangerous, and treatments were available and effective.

While pediatricians fully appreciate how common clinically significant anxiety is and its impact on the lives of youth, the reception for the recommendations have been mixed. Some are concerned that it could lead to the overprescribing of medications. Arguably, the biggest pushback, however, relates to the question of what to do when a child screens positive in a time when finding an available child and adolescent psychiatrist or other type of pediatric mental health professional can feel next to impossible. The hope of this article is to fill in some of those gaps.

Rettew_David_C_VT_new_web.jpg

Screening for anxiety disorders

The recommendations suggest using a rating scale as part of the screen but doesn’t dictate which one. A common instrument that has been employed is the Screen for Child Anxiety and Related Disorders, which is a freely available 41-item instrument that has versions for youth self-report and parent-report. A shorter 7-item rating scale, the General Anxiety Disorder–7, and the even shorter GAD-2 (the first two questions of the GAD-7), are also popular but focus, as the name applies, on general anxiety disorder and not related conditions such as social or separation anxiety that can have some different symptoms. These instruments can be given to patients and families in the waiting room or administered with the help of a nurse, physician, or embedded mental health professional. The recommendations do not include specific guidance on how often the screening should be done but repeated screenings are likely important at some interval.

Confirming the diagnosis

Of course, a screening isn’t a formal diagnosis. The American Academy of Pediatrics has expressed the view that the initial diagnosis and treatment for anxiety disorders is well within a pediatrician’s scope of practice, which means further steps are likely required beyond a referral. Fortunately, going from a positive screen to an initial diagnosis does not have to overly laborious and can focus on reviewing the DSM-5 criteria for key anxiety disorders while also ensuring that there isn’t a nonpsychiatric cause driving the symptoms, such as the often cited but rarely seen pheochromocytoma. More common rule-outs include medication-induced anxiety or substance use, excessive caffeine intake, and cardiac arrhythmias. Assessing for current and past trauma or specific causes of the anxiety such as bullying are also important.

It is important to note that it is the rule rather than the exception that youth with clinical levels of anxiety will frequently endorse a number of criteria that span multiple diagnoses including generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and separation anxiety disorder.² Spending a lot of effort to narrow things down to a single anxiety diagnosis often is unnecessary, as both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments don’t change all that much between individual diagnoses.
 

Explaining the diagnosis

In general, I’m a strong proponent of trying to explain any behavioral diagnoses that you make to kids in a way that is accurate but nonstigmatizing. When it comes to anxiety, one parallel I often draw is to our immune system, which most youth understand at least in basic terms. Both our immune system and our anxiety networks are natural and important; as a species, we wouldn’t have lasted long without them. Both are built to assess and respond to threats. Problems can arise, however, if the response is too strong relative to the threat or the response is activated when it doesn’t need to be. Treatment is directed not at ridding ourselves of anxiety but at helping regulate it so it works for us and not against us. Spending a few minutes going through a discussion like this can be very helpful, and perhaps more so than some dry summary of DSM-5 criteria.

Starting treatment

It is important to note that best practice recommendations when it comes to the treatment of anxiety disorder in youth do not suggest medications as the only type of treatment and often urge clinicians to try nonpharmacological interventions first.³ A specific type of psychotherapy called cognitive-behavioral therapy has the strongest scientific support as an effective treatment for anxiety but other modalities, including parenting guidance, can be helpful as well. Consequently, a referral to a good psychotherapist is paramount. For many kids, the key to overcoming anxiety is exposure: which means confronting anxiety slowly, with support, and with specific skills.

If there is a traumatic source of the anxiety, addressing that as much as possible is obviously critical and could involve working with the family or school. For some kids, this may involve frightening things they are seeing online or through other media. Finally, some health promotion activities such as exercise or mindfulness can also be quite useful.

Despite the fact that SSRIs are referred to as antidepressants, there is increasing appreciation that these medications are useful for anxiety, perhaps even more so than for mood. While only one medication, duloxetine, has Food and Drug Administration approval to treat anxiety in children as young as 7, there is good evidence to support the use of many of the most common SSRIs in treating clinical anxiety. Buspirone, beta-blockers, and antihistamine medications like hydroxyzine also can have their place in treatment, while benzodiazepines and antipsychotic medications are generally best avoided for anxious youth, especially in the primary care setting. A short but helpful medication guide with regard to pediatric anxiety has been published by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.⁴

Conclusions

Clinical levels of anxiety in children and adolescents are both common and quite treatable, which has prompted new recommendations that primary care clinicians screen for them starting at age 8. While this recommendation may at first seem like yet one more task to fit in, following the guidance can be accomplished with the help of short screening tools and a managed multimodal approach to treatment.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;328(14):1438-44.

2. Strawn JR. Curr Psychiatry. 2012;11(9):16-21.

3. Walter HJ et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(10):1107-24.

4. Anxiety Disorders: Parents’ Medication Guide Workgroup. “Anxiety disorders: Parents’ medication guide.” Washington D.C.: American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 2020.

Recently the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued a formal recommendation that adolescents and children as young as 8 should be screened for anxiety.¹ The advice was based on a review of the research that concluded that anxiety disorders were common in youth (prevalence around 8%), screening was not overly burdensome or dangerous, and treatments were available and effective.

While pediatricians fully appreciate how common clinically significant anxiety is and its impact on the lives of youth, the reception for the recommendations have been mixed. Some are concerned that it could lead to the overprescribing of medications. Arguably, the biggest pushback, however, relates to the question of what to do when a child screens positive in a time when finding an available child and adolescent psychiatrist or other type of pediatric mental health professional can feel next to impossible. The hope of this article is to fill in some of those gaps.

Rettew_David_C_VT_new_web.jpg

Screening for anxiety disorders

The recommendations suggest using a rating scale as part of the screen but doesn’t dictate which one. A common instrument that has been employed is the Screen for Child Anxiety and Related Disorders, which is a freely available 41-item instrument that has versions for youth self-report and parent-report. A shorter 7-item rating scale, the General Anxiety Disorder–7, and the even shorter GAD-2 (the first two questions of the GAD-7), are also popular but focus, as the name applies, on general anxiety disorder and not related conditions such as social or separation anxiety that can have some different symptoms. These instruments can be given to patients and families in the waiting room or administered with the help of a nurse, physician, or embedded mental health professional. The recommendations do not include specific guidance on how often the screening should be done but repeated screenings are likely important at some interval.

Confirming the diagnosis

Of course, a screening isn’t a formal diagnosis. The American Academy of Pediatrics has expressed the view that the initial diagnosis and treatment for anxiety disorders is well within a pediatrician’s scope of practice, which means further steps are likely required beyond a referral. Fortunately, going from a positive screen to an initial diagnosis does not have to overly laborious and can focus on reviewing the DSM-5 criteria for key anxiety disorders while also ensuring that there isn’t a nonpsychiatric cause driving the symptoms, such as the often cited but rarely seen pheochromocytoma. More common rule-outs include medication-induced anxiety or substance use, excessive caffeine intake, and cardiac arrhythmias. Assessing for current and past trauma or specific causes of the anxiety such as bullying are also important.

It is important to note that it is the rule rather than the exception that youth with clinical levels of anxiety will frequently endorse a number of criteria that span multiple diagnoses including generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and separation anxiety disorder.² Spending a lot of effort to narrow things down to a single anxiety diagnosis often is unnecessary, as both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments don’t change all that much between individual diagnoses.
 

Explaining the diagnosis

In general, I’m a strong proponent of trying to explain any behavioral diagnoses that you make to kids in a way that is accurate but nonstigmatizing. When it comes to anxiety, one parallel I often draw is to our immune system, which most youth understand at least in basic terms. Both our immune system and our anxiety networks are natural and important; as a species, we wouldn’t have lasted long without them. Both are built to assess and respond to threats. Problems can arise, however, if the response is too strong relative to the threat or the response is activated when it doesn’t need to be. Treatment is directed not at ridding ourselves of anxiety but at helping regulate it so it works for us and not against us. Spending a few minutes going through a discussion like this can be very helpful, and perhaps more so than some dry summary of DSM-5 criteria.

Starting treatment

It is important to note that best practice recommendations when it comes to the treatment of anxiety disorder in youth do not suggest medications as the only type of treatment and often urge clinicians to try nonpharmacological interventions first.³ A specific type of psychotherapy called cognitive-behavioral therapy has the strongest scientific support as an effective treatment for anxiety but other modalities, including parenting guidance, can be helpful as well. Consequently, a referral to a good psychotherapist is paramount. For many kids, the key to overcoming anxiety is exposure: which means confronting anxiety slowly, with support, and with specific skills.

If there is a traumatic source of the anxiety, addressing that as much as possible is obviously critical and could involve working with the family or school. For some kids, this may involve frightening things they are seeing online or through other media. Finally, some health promotion activities such as exercise or mindfulness can also be quite useful.

Despite the fact that SSRIs are referred to as antidepressants, there is increasing appreciation that these medications are useful for anxiety, perhaps even more so than for mood. While only one medication, duloxetine, has Food and Drug Administration approval to treat anxiety in children as young as 7, there is good evidence to support the use of many of the most common SSRIs in treating clinical anxiety. Buspirone, beta-blockers, and antihistamine medications like hydroxyzine also can have their place in treatment, while benzodiazepines and antipsychotic medications are generally best avoided for anxious youth, especially in the primary care setting. A short but helpful medication guide with regard to pediatric anxiety has been published by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.⁴

Conclusions

Clinical levels of anxiety in children and adolescents are both common and quite treatable, which has prompted new recommendations that primary care clinicians screen for them starting at age 8. While this recommendation may at first seem like yet one more task to fit in, following the guidance can be accomplished with the help of short screening tools and a managed multimodal approach to treatment.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;328(14):1438-44.

2. Strawn JR. Curr Psychiatry. 2012;11(9):16-21.

3. Walter HJ et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(10):1107-24.

4. Anxiety Disorders: Parents’ Medication Guide Workgroup. “Anxiety disorders: Parents’ medication guide.” Washington D.C.: American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 2020.