PTSD

The plant-based psychoactive compound ibogaine, combined with magnesium to protect the heart, is linked to improvement in severe psychiatric symptoms including depression, anxiety, and functioning in veterans with traumatic brain injury (TBI), early results from a small study showed.

“The most unique findings we observed are the improvements in disability and cognition. At the start of the study, participants had mild to moderate levels of disability. However, a month after treatment, their average disability rating indicated no disability and cognitive testing indicated improvements in concentration and memory,” study investigator Nolan Williams, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, California, told this news organization.

Also noteworthy were improvements across all participants in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety — effects that lasted for at least 1 month after treatment, he said.

“These results are remarkable and exceeded our expectations. There is no drug today that can broadly relieve functional and neuropsychiatric symptoms of TBI as we observed with ibogaine,” Dr. Williams added.

The study was published online on January 5, 2024, in Nature Medicine.
 

‘The Storm Lifted’

Ibogaine is derived from the root bark of the Tabernanthe iboga shrub and related plants and is traditionally used in African spiritual and healing ceremonies.

It is known to interact with multiple neurotransmitter systems and has been studied primarily as a treatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). Some studies of ibogaine for SUDs have also noted improvements in self-reported measures of mood.

In the United States, ibogaine is classified as a Schedule I substance, but legal ibogaine treatments are offered in clinics in Canada and Mexico.

Dr. Williams noted that a handful of US veterans who went to Mexico for ibogaine treatment anecdotally reported improvements a variety of aspects of their lives.

The goal of the current study was to characterize those improvements with structured clinical and neurobiological assessments.

Participants included 30 US Special Operations Forces veterans (SOVs) with predominantly mild TBI from combat/blast exposures and psychiatric symptoms and functional limitations. All of them had independently scheduled themselves for treatment with magnesium and ibogaine at a clinic in Mexico.

Before treatment, the veterans had an average disability rating of 30.2 on the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0, equivalent to mild to moderate disability. One month after ibogaine treatment, that rating improved to 5.1, indicating no disability, the researchers reported.

One month after treatment, participants also experienced average reductions of 88% in PTSD symptoms, 87% in depression symptoms, and 81% in anxiety symptoms relative to before treatment.

Neuropsychological testing revealed improved concentration, information processing, memory, and impulsivity. There was also a substantial reduction in suicidal ideation.

“Before the treatment, I was living life in a blizzard with zero visibility and a cold, hopeless, listless feeling. After ibogaine, the storm lifted,” Sean, a 51-year-old veteran from Arizona with six combat deployments who participated in the study, said in a Stanford news release.

There were no serious side effects of ibogaine, and no instances of heart problems associated with the treatment.

Although the study findings are promising, additional research is needed to address some clear limitations, the researchers noted.

“Most importantly, the study was not controlled and so the relative contribution of any therapeutic benefits from non-ibogaine elements of the experience, such as complementary treatments, group activities, coaching, international travel, expectancy, or other nonspecific effects, cannot be determined,” they wrote.

In addition, follow-up was limited to 1 month, and longer-term data are needed to determine durability of the effects.

“We plan to study this compound further, as well as launch future studies to continue to understand how this drug can be used to treat TBI and possibly as a broader neuro-rehab drug. We will work towards a US-based set of trials to confirm efficacy with a multisite design,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Promising, but Very Preliminary

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the Clinical TBI Research Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, said the results are “promising, but very preliminary.”

Dr. Diaz-Arrastia noted that this was an open-label, nonrandomized study, early phase 2a study with “highly subjective outcome measures and the likelihood of it being a placebo effect is very high.”

Nonetheless, “there is a lot of interest in these ‘psychedelic’ alkaloids, and ibogaine is a good candidate for further study,” Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said.

Also providing perspective, Alan K. Davis, PhD, director of the Center for Psychedelic Drug Research and Education, Ohio State University, Columbus, said “mounting evidence supports the importance of studying this treatment in rigorous clinical trials in the US.”

Dr. Davis and colleagues recently observed that treatment with two naturally occurring psychedelics — ibogaine and 5-MeO-DMT — was associated with reduced depressive and anxiety symptoms in trauma-exposed SOVs, as previously reported by this news organization.

This new study “basically is a replication of what we’ve already published on this topic, and we published data from much larger samples and longer follow up,” said Dr. Davis.

Dr. Davis said it’s “important for the public to know that there are important and serious risks associated with ibogaine therapy, including the possibility of cardiac problems and death. These risks are compounded when people are in clinics or settings where proper screening and medical oversight are not completed.”

“Furthermore, the long-term effectiveness of this treatment is not well established. It may only help in the short term for most people. For many, ongoing clinical aftercare therapy and other forms of treatment may be needed,” Dr. Davis noted.

The study was independently funded by philanthropic gifts from Steve and Genevieve Jurvetson and another anonymous donor. Williams is an inventor on a patent application related to the safety of MISTIC administration as described in the paper and a separate patent related to the use of ibogaine to treat disorders associated with brain aging. Dr. Davis is a board member at Source Resource Foundation and a lead trainer at Fluence. Dr. Diaz-Arrastia has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The plant-based psychoactive compound ibogaine, combined with magnesium to protect the heart, is linked to improvement in severe psychiatric symptoms including depression, anxiety, and functioning in veterans with traumatic brain injury (TBI), early results from a small study showed.

“The most unique findings we observed are the improvements in disability and cognition. At the start of the study, participants had mild to moderate levels of disability. However, a month after treatment, their average disability rating indicated no disability and cognitive testing indicated improvements in concentration and memory,” study investigator Nolan Williams, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, California, told this news organization.

Also noteworthy were improvements across all participants in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety — effects that lasted for at least 1 month after treatment, he said.

“These results are remarkable and exceeded our expectations. There is no drug today that can broadly relieve functional and neuropsychiatric symptoms of TBI as we observed with ibogaine,” Dr. Williams added.

The study was published online on January 5, 2024, in Nature Medicine.
 

‘The Storm Lifted’

Ibogaine is derived from the root bark of the Tabernanthe iboga shrub and related plants and is traditionally used in African spiritual and healing ceremonies.

It is known to interact with multiple neurotransmitter systems and has been studied primarily as a treatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). Some studies of ibogaine for SUDs have also noted improvements in self-reported measures of mood.

In the United States, ibogaine is classified as a Schedule I substance, but legal ibogaine treatments are offered in clinics in Canada and Mexico.

Dr. Williams noted that a handful of US veterans who went to Mexico for ibogaine treatment anecdotally reported improvements a variety of aspects of their lives.

The goal of the current study was to characterize those improvements with structured clinical and neurobiological assessments.

Participants included 30 US Special Operations Forces veterans (SOVs) with predominantly mild TBI from combat/blast exposures and psychiatric symptoms and functional limitations. All of them had independently scheduled themselves for treatment with magnesium and ibogaine at a clinic in Mexico.

Before treatment, the veterans had an average disability rating of 30.2 on the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0, equivalent to mild to moderate disability. One month after ibogaine treatment, that rating improved to 5.1, indicating no disability, the researchers reported.

One month after treatment, participants also experienced average reductions of 88% in PTSD symptoms, 87% in depression symptoms, and 81% in anxiety symptoms relative to before treatment.

Neuropsychological testing revealed improved concentration, information processing, memory, and impulsivity. There was also a substantial reduction in suicidal ideation.

“Before the treatment, I was living life in a blizzard with zero visibility and a cold, hopeless, listless feeling. After ibogaine, the storm lifted,” Sean, a 51-year-old veteran from Arizona with six combat deployments who participated in the study, said in a Stanford news release.

There were no serious side effects of ibogaine, and no instances of heart problems associated with the treatment.

Although the study findings are promising, additional research is needed to address some clear limitations, the researchers noted.

“Most importantly, the study was not controlled and so the relative contribution of any therapeutic benefits from non-ibogaine elements of the experience, such as complementary treatments, group activities, coaching, international travel, expectancy, or other nonspecific effects, cannot be determined,” they wrote.

In addition, follow-up was limited to 1 month, and longer-term data are needed to determine durability of the effects.

“We plan to study this compound further, as well as launch future studies to continue to understand how this drug can be used to treat TBI and possibly as a broader neuro-rehab drug. We will work towards a US-based set of trials to confirm efficacy with a multisite design,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Promising, but Very Preliminary

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the Clinical TBI Research Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, said the results are “promising, but very preliminary.”

Dr. Diaz-Arrastia noted that this was an open-label, nonrandomized study, early phase 2a study with “highly subjective outcome measures and the likelihood of it being a placebo effect is very high.”

Nonetheless, “there is a lot of interest in these ‘psychedelic’ alkaloids, and ibogaine is a good candidate for further study,” Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said.

Also providing perspective, Alan K. Davis, PhD, director of the Center for Psychedelic Drug Research and Education, Ohio State University, Columbus, said “mounting evidence supports the importance of studying this treatment in rigorous clinical trials in the US.”

Dr. Davis and colleagues recently observed that treatment with two naturally occurring psychedelics — ibogaine and 5-MeO-DMT — was associated with reduced depressive and anxiety symptoms in trauma-exposed SOVs, as previously reported by this news organization.

This new study “basically is a replication of what we’ve already published on this topic, and we published data from much larger samples and longer follow up,” said Dr. Davis.

Dr. Davis said it’s “important for the public to know that there are important and serious risks associated with ibogaine therapy, including the possibility of cardiac problems and death. These risks are compounded when people are in clinics or settings where proper screening and medical oversight are not completed.”

“Furthermore, the long-term effectiveness of this treatment is not well established. It may only help in the short term for most people. For many, ongoing clinical aftercare therapy and other forms of treatment may be needed,” Dr. Davis noted.

The study was independently funded by philanthropic gifts from Steve and Genevieve Jurvetson and another anonymous donor. Williams is an inventor on a patent application related to the safety of MISTIC administration as described in the paper and a separate patent related to the use of ibogaine to treat disorders associated with brain aging. Dr. Davis is a board member at Source Resource Foundation and a lead trainer at Fluence. Dr. Diaz-Arrastia has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The plant-based psychoactive compound ibogaine, combined with magnesium to protect the heart, is linked to improvement in severe psychiatric symptoms including depression, anxiety, and functioning in veterans with traumatic brain injury (TBI), early results from a small study showed.

“The most unique findings we observed are the improvements in disability and cognition. At the start of the study, participants had mild to moderate levels of disability. However, a month after treatment, their average disability rating indicated no disability and cognitive testing indicated improvements in concentration and memory,” study investigator Nolan Williams, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, California, told this news organization.

Also noteworthy were improvements across all participants in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety — effects that lasted for at least 1 month after treatment, he said.

“These results are remarkable and exceeded our expectations. There is no drug today that can broadly relieve functional and neuropsychiatric symptoms of TBI as we observed with ibogaine,” Dr. Williams added.

The study was published online on January 5, 2024, in Nature Medicine.
 

‘The Storm Lifted’

Ibogaine is derived from the root bark of the Tabernanthe iboga shrub and related plants and is traditionally used in African spiritual and healing ceremonies.

It is known to interact with multiple neurotransmitter systems and has been studied primarily as a treatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). Some studies of ibogaine for SUDs have also noted improvements in self-reported measures of mood.

In the United States, ibogaine is classified as a Schedule I substance, but legal ibogaine treatments are offered in clinics in Canada and Mexico.

Dr. Williams noted that a handful of US veterans who went to Mexico for ibogaine treatment anecdotally reported improvements a variety of aspects of their lives.

The goal of the current study was to characterize those improvements with structured clinical and neurobiological assessments.

Participants included 30 US Special Operations Forces veterans (SOVs) with predominantly mild TBI from combat/blast exposures and psychiatric symptoms and functional limitations. All of them had independently scheduled themselves for treatment with magnesium and ibogaine at a clinic in Mexico.

Before treatment, the veterans had an average disability rating of 30.2 on the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0, equivalent to mild to moderate disability. One month after ibogaine treatment, that rating improved to 5.1, indicating no disability, the researchers reported.

One month after treatment, participants also experienced average reductions of 88% in PTSD symptoms, 87% in depression symptoms, and 81% in anxiety symptoms relative to before treatment.

Neuropsychological testing revealed improved concentration, information processing, memory, and impulsivity. There was also a substantial reduction in suicidal ideation.

“Before the treatment, I was living life in a blizzard with zero visibility and a cold, hopeless, listless feeling. After ibogaine, the storm lifted,” Sean, a 51-year-old veteran from Arizona with six combat deployments who participated in the study, said in a Stanford news release.

There were no serious side effects of ibogaine, and no instances of heart problems associated with the treatment.

Although the study findings are promising, additional research is needed to address some clear limitations, the researchers noted.

“Most importantly, the study was not controlled and so the relative contribution of any therapeutic benefits from non-ibogaine elements of the experience, such as complementary treatments, group activities, coaching, international travel, expectancy, or other nonspecific effects, cannot be determined,” they wrote.

In addition, follow-up was limited to 1 month, and longer-term data are needed to determine durability of the effects.

“We plan to study this compound further, as well as launch future studies to continue to understand how this drug can be used to treat TBI and possibly as a broader neuro-rehab drug. We will work towards a US-based set of trials to confirm efficacy with a multisite design,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Promising, but Very Preliminary

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the Clinical TBI Research Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, said the results are “promising, but very preliminary.”

Dr. Diaz-Arrastia noted that this was an open-label, nonrandomized study, early phase 2a study with “highly subjective outcome measures and the likelihood of it being a placebo effect is very high.”

Nonetheless, “there is a lot of interest in these ‘psychedelic’ alkaloids, and ibogaine is a good candidate for further study,” Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said.

Also providing perspective, Alan K. Davis, PhD, director of the Center for Psychedelic Drug Research and Education, Ohio State University, Columbus, said “mounting evidence supports the importance of studying this treatment in rigorous clinical trials in the US.”

Dr. Davis and colleagues recently observed that treatment with two naturally occurring psychedelics — ibogaine and 5-MeO-DMT — was associated with reduced depressive and anxiety symptoms in trauma-exposed SOVs, as previously reported by this news organization.

This new study “basically is a replication of what we’ve already published on this topic, and we published data from much larger samples and longer follow up,” said Dr. Davis.

Dr. Davis said it’s “important for the public to know that there are important and serious risks associated with ibogaine therapy, including the possibility of cardiac problems and death. These risks are compounded when people are in clinics or settings where proper screening and medical oversight are not completed.”

“Furthermore, the long-term effectiveness of this treatment is not well established. It may only help in the short term for most people. For many, ongoing clinical aftercare therapy and other forms of treatment may be needed,” Dr. Davis noted.

The study was independently funded by philanthropic gifts from Steve and Genevieve Jurvetson and another anonymous donor. Williams is an inventor on a patent application related to the safety of MISTIC administration as described in the paper and a separate patent related to the use of ibogaine to treat disorders associated with brain aging. Dr. Davis is a board member at Source Resource Foundation and a lead trainer at Fluence. Dr. Diaz-Arrastia has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The past year has been a challenging time for many, both at the local level and globally, with divisive undercurrents across many communities. Many times, the end of the year is an opportunity for reflection. As I reflect on the state of perinatal psychiatry in the new year, I see several evolving issues that I’d like to share in this first column of 2024.

In 2023, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published new recommendations meant to enhance the well-being of pregnant and postpartum women and families. A main message from discussion papers borne out of these recommendations was that as a field, we should be doing more than identifying perinatal illness. We should be screening women at risk for postpartum psychiatric illness and see that those suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have access to care and “wrap-around services” from clinicians with varying expertise.

Cohen_Lee_S_BOSTON_web.jpg

Screening is a primary way we identify patients at risk for psychiatric illness and also those who are suffering at the time of a screen. One problem I see in the near future is our disparate collection and management of data. When we look closely across health care systems, it’s not clear how screening data are captured, let alone managed. What is being done in one hospital system may be very different from what is being done elsewhere. Some clinicians are adopting digital platforms to identify those with postpartum depression, while others are practicing as they always have, either through a paper screening process or with queries as part of a clinical encounter.

Given this amalgam of methods for collecting and storing information, there does not appear to be a systematic way clinicians and researchers are recording whether women are meeting criteria for significant depressive symptoms or frank postpartum psychiatric illness. It is clear a more cohesive method for collection and management is needed to optimize the likelihood that next steps can be taken to get patients the care they need.

However, screening is only one part of the story. Certainly, in our own center, one of our greatest interests, both clinically and on the research side, is what happens after screening. Through our center’s initiation of the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression (STEPS for PPD) project funded by the Marriott Foundation, we are evaluating the outcomes of women who are screened at 6 weeks postpartum with significant depressive symptoms, and who are then given an opportunity to engage with a perinatal social worker who can assist with direct psychotherapy, arranging for referrals, and navigating care for a new mother.

What we are learning as we enroll women through the initial stages of STEPS for PPD is that screening and identifying women who likely suffer from PPD simply is not enough. In fact, once identified with a depression screening tool, women who are suffering from postpartum depression can be very challenging to engage clinically. What I am learning decades after starting to work with perinatal patients is that even with a screening system and effective tools for treatment of PPD, optimizing engagement with these depressed women seems a critical and understudied step on the road to optimizing positive clinical outcomes.

A recent study published in the Journal of Women’s Health explored gaps in care for perinatal depression and found that patients without a history of psychiatric illness prior to pregnancy were less likely to be screened for depression and 80% less likely to receive care if they developed depression compared with women with a previous history of psychiatric illness (J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2023 Oct;32[10]:1111-9).

That history may help women navigate to care, while women for whom psychiatric illness is a new experience may be less likely to engage, be referred for care, and receive appropriate treatment. The study indicates that, as a field, we must strive to ensure universal screening for depression in perinatal populations.

While we have always been particularly interested in populations of patients at highest risk for PPD, helping women at risk for PPD in the general population without a history of psychiatric illness is a large public health issue and will be an even larger undertaking. As women’s mental health is gaining more appropriate focus, both at the local level and even in the recent White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, the focus has been on screening and developing new treatments.

We are not lacking in pharmacologic agents nor nonpharmacologic options as treatments for women experiencing PPD. Newer alternative treatments are being explored, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and even psychedelics as a potential therapy for PPD. But perhaps what we’ve learned in 2023 and as we move into a new year, is that the problem of tackling PPD is not only about having the right tools, but is about helping women navigate to the care that they need.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought with it an explosion of telehealth options that have enhanced the odds women can find support during such a challenging time; as society has returned to some semblance of normal, nearly all support groups for postpartum women have remained online.

When we set up Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at the beginning of the pandemic, I was struck by the community of colleagues at various stages of their careers dedicated to mitigating the suffering associated with perinatal psychiatric illness. As I’ve often said, it takes a village to care for these patients. We need help from colleagues with varying expertise — from lactation consultants, psychiatrists, psychologists, obstetricians, nurse practitioners, support group leaders, and a host of others — who can help reach these women.

At the end of the day, helping depressed women find resources is a challenge that we have not met in this country. We should be excited that we have so many treatment options to offer patients — whether it be a new first-in-class medication, TMS, or digital apps to ensure patients are receiving effective treatment. But there should also be a focus on reaching women who still need treatment, particularly in underserved communities where resources are sparse or nonexistent. Identifying the path to reaching these women where they are and getting them well should be a top priority in 2024.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

The past year has been a challenging time for many, both at the local level and globally, with divisive undercurrents across many communities. Many times, the end of the year is an opportunity for reflection. As I reflect on the state of perinatal psychiatry in the new year, I see several evolving issues that I’d like to share in this first column of 2024.

In 2023, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published new recommendations meant to enhance the well-being of pregnant and postpartum women and families. A main message from discussion papers borne out of these recommendations was that as a field, we should be doing more than identifying perinatal illness. We should be screening women at risk for postpartum psychiatric illness and see that those suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have access to care and “wrap-around services” from clinicians with varying expertise.

Cohen_Lee_S_BOSTON_web.jpg

Screening is a primary way we identify patients at risk for psychiatric illness and also those who are suffering at the time of a screen. One problem I see in the near future is our disparate collection and management of data. When we look closely across health care systems, it’s not clear how screening data are captured, let alone managed. What is being done in one hospital system may be very different from what is being done elsewhere. Some clinicians are adopting digital platforms to identify those with postpartum depression, while others are practicing as they always have, either through a paper screening process or with queries as part of a clinical encounter.

Given this amalgam of methods for collecting and storing information, there does not appear to be a systematic way clinicians and researchers are recording whether women are meeting criteria for significant depressive symptoms or frank postpartum psychiatric illness. It is clear a more cohesive method for collection and management is needed to optimize the likelihood that next steps can be taken to get patients the care they need.

However, screening is only one part of the story. Certainly, in our own center, one of our greatest interests, both clinically and on the research side, is what happens after screening. Through our center’s initiation of the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression (STEPS for PPD) project funded by the Marriott Foundation, we are evaluating the outcomes of women who are screened at 6 weeks postpartum with significant depressive symptoms, and who are then given an opportunity to engage with a perinatal social worker who can assist with direct psychotherapy, arranging for referrals, and navigating care for a new mother.

What we are learning as we enroll women through the initial stages of STEPS for PPD is that screening and identifying women who likely suffer from PPD simply is not enough. In fact, once identified with a depression screening tool, women who are suffering from postpartum depression can be very challenging to engage clinically. What I am learning decades after starting to work with perinatal patients is that even with a screening system and effective tools for treatment of PPD, optimizing engagement with these depressed women seems a critical and understudied step on the road to optimizing positive clinical outcomes.

A recent study published in the Journal of Women’s Health explored gaps in care for perinatal depression and found that patients without a history of psychiatric illness prior to pregnancy were less likely to be screened for depression and 80% less likely to receive care if they developed depression compared with women with a previous history of psychiatric illness (J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2023 Oct;32[10]:1111-9).

That history may help women navigate to care, while women for whom psychiatric illness is a new experience may be less likely to engage, be referred for care, and receive appropriate treatment. The study indicates that, as a field, we must strive to ensure universal screening for depression in perinatal populations.

While we have always been particularly interested in populations of patients at highest risk for PPD, helping women at risk for PPD in the general population without a history of psychiatric illness is a large public health issue and will be an even larger undertaking. As women’s mental health is gaining more appropriate focus, both at the local level and even in the recent White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, the focus has been on screening and developing new treatments.

We are not lacking in pharmacologic agents nor nonpharmacologic options as treatments for women experiencing PPD. Newer alternative treatments are being explored, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and even psychedelics as a potential therapy for PPD. But perhaps what we’ve learned in 2023 and as we move into a new year, is that the problem of tackling PPD is not only about having the right tools, but is about helping women navigate to the care that they need.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought with it an explosion of telehealth options that have enhanced the odds women can find support during such a challenging time; as society has returned to some semblance of normal, nearly all support groups for postpartum women have remained online.

When we set up Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at the beginning of the pandemic, I was struck by the community of colleagues at various stages of their careers dedicated to mitigating the suffering associated with perinatal psychiatric illness. As I’ve often said, it takes a village to care for these patients. We need help from colleagues with varying expertise — from lactation consultants, psychiatrists, psychologists, obstetricians, nurse practitioners, support group leaders, and a host of others — who can help reach these women.

At the end of the day, helping depressed women find resources is a challenge that we have not met in this country. We should be excited that we have so many treatment options to offer patients — whether it be a new first-in-class medication, TMS, or digital apps to ensure patients are receiving effective treatment. But there should also be a focus on reaching women who still need treatment, particularly in underserved communities where resources are sparse or nonexistent. Identifying the path to reaching these women where they are and getting them well should be a top priority in 2024.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

The past year has been a challenging time for many, both at the local level and globally, with divisive undercurrents across many communities. Many times, the end of the year is an opportunity for reflection. As I reflect on the state of perinatal psychiatry in the new year, I see several evolving issues that I’d like to share in this first column of 2024.

In 2023, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published new recommendations meant to enhance the well-being of pregnant and postpartum women and families. A main message from discussion papers borne out of these recommendations was that as a field, we should be doing more than identifying perinatal illness. We should be screening women at risk for postpartum psychiatric illness and see that those suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have access to care and “wrap-around services” from clinicians with varying expertise.

Cohen_Lee_S_BOSTON_web.jpg

Screening is a primary way we identify patients at risk for psychiatric illness and also those who are suffering at the time of a screen. One problem I see in the near future is our disparate collection and management of data. When we look closely across health care systems, it’s not clear how screening data are captured, let alone managed. What is being done in one hospital system may be very different from what is being done elsewhere. Some clinicians are adopting digital platforms to identify those with postpartum depression, while others are practicing as they always have, either through a paper screening process or with queries as part of a clinical encounter.

Given this amalgam of methods for collecting and storing information, there does not appear to be a systematic way clinicians and researchers are recording whether women are meeting criteria for significant depressive symptoms or frank postpartum psychiatric illness. It is clear a more cohesive method for collection and management is needed to optimize the likelihood that next steps can be taken to get patients the care they need.

However, screening is only one part of the story. Certainly, in our own center, one of our greatest interests, both clinically and on the research side, is what happens after screening. Through our center’s initiation of the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression (STEPS for PPD) project funded by the Marriott Foundation, we are evaluating the outcomes of women who are screened at 6 weeks postpartum with significant depressive symptoms, and who are then given an opportunity to engage with a perinatal social worker who can assist with direct psychotherapy, arranging for referrals, and navigating care for a new mother.

What we are learning as we enroll women through the initial stages of STEPS for PPD is that screening and identifying women who likely suffer from PPD simply is not enough. In fact, once identified with a depression screening tool, women who are suffering from postpartum depression can be very challenging to engage clinically. What I am learning decades after starting to work with perinatal patients is that even with a screening system and effective tools for treatment of PPD, optimizing engagement with these depressed women seems a critical and understudied step on the road to optimizing positive clinical outcomes.

A recent study published in the Journal of Women’s Health explored gaps in care for perinatal depression and found that patients without a history of psychiatric illness prior to pregnancy were less likely to be screened for depression and 80% less likely to receive care if they developed depression compared with women with a previous history of psychiatric illness (J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2023 Oct;32[10]:1111-9).

That history may help women navigate to care, while women for whom psychiatric illness is a new experience may be less likely to engage, be referred for care, and receive appropriate treatment. The study indicates that, as a field, we must strive to ensure universal screening for depression in perinatal populations.

While we have always been particularly interested in populations of patients at highest risk for PPD, helping women at risk for PPD in the general population without a history of psychiatric illness is a large public health issue and will be an even larger undertaking. As women’s mental health is gaining more appropriate focus, both at the local level and even in the recent White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, the focus has been on screening and developing new treatments.

We are not lacking in pharmacologic agents nor nonpharmacologic options as treatments for women experiencing PPD. Newer alternative treatments are being explored, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and even psychedelics as a potential therapy for PPD. But perhaps what we’ve learned in 2023 and as we move into a new year, is that the problem of tackling PPD is not only about having the right tools, but is about helping women navigate to the care that they need.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought with it an explosion of telehealth options that have enhanced the odds women can find support during such a challenging time; as society has returned to some semblance of normal, nearly all support groups for postpartum women have remained online.

When we set up Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at the beginning of the pandemic, I was struck by the community of colleagues at various stages of their careers dedicated to mitigating the suffering associated with perinatal psychiatric illness. As I’ve often said, it takes a village to care for these patients. We need help from colleagues with varying expertise — from lactation consultants, psychiatrists, psychologists, obstetricians, nurse practitioners, support group leaders, and a host of others — who can help reach these women.

At the end of the day, helping depressed women find resources is a challenge that we have not met in this country. We should be excited that we have so many treatment options to offer patients — whether it be a new first-in-class medication, TMS, or digital apps to ensure patients are receiving effective treatment. But there should also be a focus on reaching women who still need treatment, particularly in underserved communities where resources are sparse or nonexistent. Identifying the path to reaching these women where they are and getting them well should be a top priority in 2024.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

More than one in three women worldwide (at least 40 million women) annually experience lasting health problems in the months or years following childbirth, according to a new study published in The Lancet Global Health.

Those problems include pain during sexual intercourse (35%), low back pain (32%), urinary incontinence (8% to 31%), anxiety (9% to 24%), anal incontinence (19%), depression (11% to 17%), fear of childbirth (6% to 15%), perineal pain (11%), and secondary infertility (11%).

Other problems included pelvic organ prolapse, posttraumatic stress disorder, thyroid dysfunction, mastitis, HIV seroconversion (when the body begins to produce detectable levels of HIV antibodies), nerve injury, and psychosis. 

The study says most women see a doctor 6  to 12 weeks after birth and then rarely talk to doctors about these nagging health problems. Many of the problems don’t show up until 6 or more weeks after birth.

“To comprehensively address these conditions, broader and more comprehensive health service opportunities are needed, which should extend beyond 6 weeks postpartum and embrace multidisciplinary models of care,” the study says. “This approach can ensure that these conditions are promptly identified and given the attention that they deserve.”

The study is part of a series organized by the United Nation’s Special Program on Human Reproduction, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The authors said most of the data came from high-income nations. There was little data from low-income and middle-income countries except for postpartum depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

“Many postpartum conditions cause considerable suffering in women’s daily life long after birth, both emotionally and physically, and yet they are largely underappreciated, underrecognized, and underreported,” Pascale Allotey, MD, director of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research at WHO, said in a statement.

“Throughout their lives, and beyond motherhood, women need access to a range of services from health-care providers who listen to their concerns and meet their needs — so they not only survive childbirth but can enjoy good health and quality of life.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

More than one in three women worldwide (at least 40 million women) annually experience lasting health problems in the months or years following childbirth, according to a new study published in The Lancet Global Health.

Those problems include pain during sexual intercourse (35%), low back pain (32%), urinary incontinence (8% to 31%), anxiety (9% to 24%), anal incontinence (19%), depression (11% to 17%), fear of childbirth (6% to 15%), perineal pain (11%), and secondary infertility (11%).

Other problems included pelvic organ prolapse, posttraumatic stress disorder, thyroid dysfunction, mastitis, HIV seroconversion (when the body begins to produce detectable levels of HIV antibodies), nerve injury, and psychosis. 

The study says most women see a doctor 6  to 12 weeks after birth and then rarely talk to doctors about these nagging health problems. Many of the problems don’t show up until 6 or more weeks after birth.

“To comprehensively address these conditions, broader and more comprehensive health service opportunities are needed, which should extend beyond 6 weeks postpartum and embrace multidisciplinary models of care,” the study says. “This approach can ensure that these conditions are promptly identified and given the attention that they deserve.”

The study is part of a series organized by the United Nation’s Special Program on Human Reproduction, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The authors said most of the data came from high-income nations. There was little data from low-income and middle-income countries except for postpartum depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

“Many postpartum conditions cause considerable suffering in women’s daily life long after birth, both emotionally and physically, and yet they are largely underappreciated, underrecognized, and underreported,” Pascale Allotey, MD, director of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research at WHO, said in a statement.

“Throughout their lives, and beyond motherhood, women need access to a range of services from health-care providers who listen to their concerns and meet their needs — so they not only survive childbirth but can enjoy good health and quality of life.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

More than one in three women worldwide (at least 40 million women) annually experience lasting health problems in the months or years following childbirth, according to a new study published in The Lancet Global Health.

Those problems include pain during sexual intercourse (35%), low back pain (32%), urinary incontinence (8% to 31%), anxiety (9% to 24%), anal incontinence (19%), depression (11% to 17%), fear of childbirth (6% to 15%), perineal pain (11%), and secondary infertility (11%).

Other problems included pelvic organ prolapse, posttraumatic stress disorder, thyroid dysfunction, mastitis, HIV seroconversion (when the body begins to produce detectable levels of HIV antibodies), nerve injury, and psychosis. 

The study says most women see a doctor 6  to 12 weeks after birth and then rarely talk to doctors about these nagging health problems. Many of the problems don’t show up until 6 or more weeks after birth.

“To comprehensively address these conditions, broader and more comprehensive health service opportunities are needed, which should extend beyond 6 weeks postpartum and embrace multidisciplinary models of care,” the study says. “This approach can ensure that these conditions are promptly identified and given the attention that they deserve.”

The study is part of a series organized by the United Nation’s Special Program on Human Reproduction, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The authors said most of the data came from high-income nations. There was little data from low-income and middle-income countries except for postpartum depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

“Many postpartum conditions cause considerable suffering in women’s daily life long after birth, both emotionally and physically, and yet they are largely underappreciated, underrecognized, and underreported,” Pascale Allotey, MD, director of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research at WHO, said in a statement.

“Throughout their lives, and beyond motherhood, women need access to a range of services from health-care providers who listen to their concerns and meet their needs — so they not only survive childbirth but can enjoy good health and quality of life.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The current conflict in Israel and Gaza has evoked more questions than answers, existentially and professionally, for mental health professionals.

In the realm of clinical psychology and psychiatry, our primary duty and commitment is (and should be) to the well-being of our patients. Yet, as we find ourselves in an era marked by escalating geopolitical conflict, such as the Israel-Hamas war, probably more aptly titled the Israeli-Hamas-Hezbollah-Houthi war (a clarification that elucidates a later point), clinicians are increasingly confronted with ethical dilemmas that extend far beyond what is outlined in our code of ethics.

Feldman_Cassondra_FLA_web.jpg

These challenges are not only impacting us on a personal level but are also spilling over into our professional lives, creating a divisive and non-collegial environment within the healthcare community. We commit to “do no harm” when delivering care and yet we are doing harm to one another as colleagues.

We are no strangers to the complexities of human behavior and the intricate tapestry of emotions that are involved with our professional work. However, the current geopolitical landscape has added an extra layer of difficulty to our already taxing professional lives. We are, after all, human first with unconscious drives that govern how we negotiate cognitive dissonance and our need for the illusion of absolute justice as Yuval Noah Harari explains in a recent podcast.

Humans are notoriously bad at holding the multiplicity of experience in mind and various (often competing narratives) that impede the capacity for nuanced thinking. We would like to believe we are better and more capable than the average person in doing so, but divisiveness in our profession has become disturbingly pronounced, making it essential for us to carve out reflective space, more than ever.
 

The personal and professional divide

Geopolitical conflicts like the current war have a unique capacity to ignite strong emotions and deeply held convictions. It’s not hard to quickly become embroiled in passionate and engaged debate.

While discussion and discourse are healthy, these are bleeding into professional spheres, creating rifts within our clinical communities and contributing to a culture where not everyone feels safe. Look at any professional listserv in medicine or psychology and you will find the evidence. It should be an immediate call to action that we need to be fostering a different type of environment.

The impact of divisiveness is profound, hindering opportunities for collaboration, mentorship, and the free exchange of ideas among clinicians. It may lead to misunderstandings, mistrust, and an erosion of the support systems we rely on, ultimately diverting energy away from the pursuit of providing quality patient-care.
 

Balancing obligations and limits

Because of the inherent power differential that accompanies being in a provider role (physician and psychologist alike), we have a social and moral responsibility to be mindful of what we share – for the sake of humanity. There is an implicit assumption that a provider’s guidance should be adhered to and respected. In other words, words carry tremendous weight and deeply matter, and people in the general public ascribe significant meaning to messages put out by professionals.

When providers steer from their lanes of professional expertise to provide the general public with opinions or recommendations on nonmedical topics, problematic precedents can be set. We may be doing people a disservice.

Unfortunately, I have heard several anecdotes about clinicians who spend their patient’s time in session pushing their own ideological agendas. The patient-provider relationship is founded on principles of trust, empathy, and collaboration, with the primary goal of improving overall well-being and addressing a specific presenting problem. Of course, issues emerge that need to be addressed outside of the initial scope of treatment, an inherent part of the process. However, a grave concern emerges when clinicians initiate dialogue that is not meaningful to a patient, disclose and discuss their personal ideologies, or put pressure on patients to explain their beliefs in an attempt to change the patients’ minds.

Clinicians pushing their own agenda during patient sessions is antithetical to the objectives of psychotherapy and compromises the therapeutic alliance by diverting the focus of care in a way that serves the clinician rather than the client. It is quite the opposite of the patient-centered care that we strive for in training and practice.

Even within one’s theoretical professional scope of competence, I have seen the impact of emotions running high during this conflict, and have witnessed trained professionals making light of, or even mocking, hostages and their behavior upon release. These are care providers who could elucidate the complexities of captor-captive dynamics and the impact of trauma for the general public, yet they are contributing to dangerous perceptions and divisiveness.

I have also seen providers justify sexual violence, diminishing survivor and witness testimony due to ideological differences and strong personal beliefs. This is harmful to those impacted and does a disservice to our profession at large. In a helping profession we should strive to support and advocate for anyone who has been maltreated or experienced any form of victimization, violence, or abuse. This should be a professional standard.

As clinicians, we have an ethical obligation to uphold the well-being, autonomy, and dignity of our patients — and humanity. It is crucial to recognize the limits of our expertise and the ethical concerns that can arise in light of geopolitical conflict. How can we balance our duty to provide psychological support while also being cautious about delving into the realms of political analysis, foreign policy, or international relations?

The pitfalls of well-intentioned speaking out

In the age of social media and instant communication, a critical aspect to consider is the role of speaking out. The point I made above, in naming all partaking in the current conflict, speaks to this issue.

As providers and programs, we must be mindful of the inadvertent harm that can arise from making brief, underdeveloped, uninformed, or emotionally charged statements. Expressing opinions without a solid understanding of the historical, cultural, and political nuances of a conflict can contribute to misinformation and further polarization.

Anecdotally, there appears to be some significant degree of bias emerging within professional fields (e.g., psychology, medicine) and an innate calling for providers to “weigh in” as the war continues. Obviously, physicians and psychologists are trained to provide care and to be humanistic and empathic, but the majority do not have expertise in geopolitics or a nuanced awareness of the complexities of the conflict in the Middle East.

While hearts may be in the right place, issuing statements on complicated humanitarian/political situations can inadvertently have unintended and harmful consequences (in terms of antisemitism and islamophobia, increased incidence of hate crimes, and colleagues not feeling safe within professional societies or member organizations).

Unsophisticated, overly simplistic, and reductionistic statements that do not adequately convey nuance will not reflect the range of experience reflected by providers in the field (or the patients we treat). It is essential for clinicians and institutions putting out public statements to engage in deep reflection and utilize discernment. We must recognize that our words carry weight, given our position of influence as treatment providers. To minimize harm, we should seek to provide information that is fair, vetted, and balanced, and encourage open, respectful dialogue rather than asserting definitive positions.

Ultimately, as providers we must strive to seek unity and inclusivity amidst the current challenges. It is important for us to embody a spirit of collaboration during a time demarcated by deep fragmentation.

By acknowledging our limitations, promoting informed discussion, and avoiding the pitfalls of uninformed advocacy, we can contribute to a more compassionate and understanding world, even in the face of the most divisive geopolitical conflicts. We have an obligation to uphold when it comes to ourselves as professionals, and we need to foster healthy, respectful dialogue while maintaining an awareness of our blind spots.

Dr. Feldman is a licensed clinical psychologist in private practice in Miami. She is an adjunct professor in the College of Psychology at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where she teaches clinical psychology doctoral students. She is an affiliate of Baptist West Kendall Hospital/FIU Family Medicine Residency Program and serves as president on the board of directors of The Southeast Florida Association for Psychoanalytic Psychology. The opinions expressed by Dr. Feldman are her own and do not represent the institutions with which she is affiliated. She has no disclosures.

The current conflict in Israel and Gaza has evoked more questions than answers, existentially and professionally, for mental health professionals.

In the realm of clinical psychology and psychiatry, our primary duty and commitment is (and should be) to the well-being of our patients. Yet, as we find ourselves in an era marked by escalating geopolitical conflict, such as the Israel-Hamas war, probably more aptly titled the Israeli-Hamas-Hezbollah-Houthi war (a clarification that elucidates a later point), clinicians are increasingly confronted with ethical dilemmas that extend far beyond what is outlined in our code of ethics.

Feldman_Cassondra_FLA_web.jpg

These challenges are not only impacting us on a personal level but are also spilling over into our professional lives, creating a divisive and non-collegial environment within the healthcare community. We commit to “do no harm” when delivering care and yet we are doing harm to one another as colleagues.

We are no strangers to the complexities of human behavior and the intricate tapestry of emotions that are involved with our professional work. However, the current geopolitical landscape has added an extra layer of difficulty to our already taxing professional lives. We are, after all, human first with unconscious drives that govern how we negotiate cognitive dissonance and our need for the illusion of absolute justice as Yuval Noah Harari explains in a recent podcast.

Humans are notoriously bad at holding the multiplicity of experience in mind and various (often competing narratives) that impede the capacity for nuanced thinking. We would like to believe we are better and more capable than the average person in doing so, but divisiveness in our profession has become disturbingly pronounced, making it essential for us to carve out reflective space, more than ever.
 

The personal and professional divide

Geopolitical conflicts like the current war have a unique capacity to ignite strong emotions and deeply held convictions. It’s not hard to quickly become embroiled in passionate and engaged debate.

While discussion and discourse are healthy, these are bleeding into professional spheres, creating rifts within our clinical communities and contributing to a culture where not everyone feels safe. Look at any professional listserv in medicine or psychology and you will find the evidence. It should be an immediate call to action that we need to be fostering a different type of environment.

The impact of divisiveness is profound, hindering opportunities for collaboration, mentorship, and the free exchange of ideas among clinicians. It may lead to misunderstandings, mistrust, and an erosion of the support systems we rely on, ultimately diverting energy away from the pursuit of providing quality patient-care.
 

Balancing obligations and limits

Because of the inherent power differential that accompanies being in a provider role (physician and psychologist alike), we have a social and moral responsibility to be mindful of what we share – for the sake of humanity. There is an implicit assumption that a provider’s guidance should be adhered to and respected. In other words, words carry tremendous weight and deeply matter, and people in the general public ascribe significant meaning to messages put out by professionals.

When providers steer from their lanes of professional expertise to provide the general public with opinions or recommendations on nonmedical topics, problematic precedents can be set. We may be doing people a disservice.

Unfortunately, I have heard several anecdotes about clinicians who spend their patient’s time in session pushing their own ideological agendas. The patient-provider relationship is founded on principles of trust, empathy, and collaboration, with the primary goal of improving overall well-being and addressing a specific presenting problem. Of course, issues emerge that need to be addressed outside of the initial scope of treatment, an inherent part of the process. However, a grave concern emerges when clinicians initiate dialogue that is not meaningful to a patient, disclose and discuss their personal ideologies, or put pressure on patients to explain their beliefs in an attempt to change the patients’ minds.

Clinicians pushing their own agenda during patient sessions is antithetical to the objectives of psychotherapy and compromises the therapeutic alliance by diverting the focus of care in a way that serves the clinician rather than the client. It is quite the opposite of the patient-centered care that we strive for in training and practice.

Even within one’s theoretical professional scope of competence, I have seen the impact of emotions running high during this conflict, and have witnessed trained professionals making light of, or even mocking, hostages and their behavior upon release. These are care providers who could elucidate the complexities of captor-captive dynamics and the impact of trauma for the general public, yet they are contributing to dangerous perceptions and divisiveness.

I have also seen providers justify sexual violence, diminishing survivor and witness testimony due to ideological differences and strong personal beliefs. This is harmful to those impacted and does a disservice to our profession at large. In a helping profession we should strive to support and advocate for anyone who has been maltreated or experienced any form of victimization, violence, or abuse. This should be a professional standard.

As clinicians, we have an ethical obligation to uphold the well-being, autonomy, and dignity of our patients — and humanity. It is crucial to recognize the limits of our expertise and the ethical concerns that can arise in light of geopolitical conflict. How can we balance our duty to provide psychological support while also being cautious about delving into the realms of political analysis, foreign policy, or international relations?

The pitfalls of well-intentioned speaking out

In the age of social media and instant communication, a critical aspect to consider is the role of speaking out. The point I made above, in naming all partaking in the current conflict, speaks to this issue.

As providers and programs, we must be mindful of the inadvertent harm that can arise from making brief, underdeveloped, uninformed, or emotionally charged statements. Expressing opinions without a solid understanding of the historical, cultural, and political nuances of a conflict can contribute to misinformation and further polarization.

Anecdotally, there appears to be some significant degree of bias emerging within professional fields (e.g., psychology, medicine) and an innate calling for providers to “weigh in” as the war continues. Obviously, physicians and psychologists are trained to provide care and to be humanistic and empathic, but the majority do not have expertise in geopolitics or a nuanced awareness of the complexities of the conflict in the Middle East.

While hearts may be in the right place, issuing statements on complicated humanitarian/political situations can inadvertently have unintended and harmful consequences (in terms of antisemitism and islamophobia, increased incidence of hate crimes, and colleagues not feeling safe within professional societies or member organizations).

Unsophisticated, overly simplistic, and reductionistic statements that do not adequately convey nuance will not reflect the range of experience reflected by providers in the field (or the patients we treat). It is essential for clinicians and institutions putting out public statements to engage in deep reflection and utilize discernment. We must recognize that our words carry weight, given our position of influence as treatment providers. To minimize harm, we should seek to provide information that is fair, vetted, and balanced, and encourage open, respectful dialogue rather than asserting definitive positions.

Ultimately, as providers we must strive to seek unity and inclusivity amidst the current challenges. It is important for us to embody a spirit of collaboration during a time demarcated by deep fragmentation.

By acknowledging our limitations, promoting informed discussion, and avoiding the pitfalls of uninformed advocacy, we can contribute to a more compassionate and understanding world, even in the face of the most divisive geopolitical conflicts. We have an obligation to uphold when it comes to ourselves as professionals, and we need to foster healthy, respectful dialogue while maintaining an awareness of our blind spots.

Dr. Feldman is a licensed clinical psychologist in private practice in Miami. She is an adjunct professor in the College of Psychology at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where she teaches clinical psychology doctoral students. She is an affiliate of Baptist West Kendall Hospital/FIU Family Medicine Residency Program and serves as president on the board of directors of The Southeast Florida Association for Psychoanalytic Psychology. The opinions expressed by Dr. Feldman are her own and do not represent the institutions with which she is affiliated. She has no disclosures.

The current conflict in Israel and Gaza has evoked more questions than answers, existentially and professionally, for mental health professionals.

In the realm of clinical psychology and psychiatry, our primary duty and commitment is (and should be) to the well-being of our patients. Yet, as we find ourselves in an era marked by escalating geopolitical conflict, such as the Israel-Hamas war, probably more aptly titled the Israeli-Hamas-Hezbollah-Houthi war (a clarification that elucidates a later point), clinicians are increasingly confronted with ethical dilemmas that extend far beyond what is outlined in our code of ethics.

Feldman_Cassondra_FLA_web.jpg

These challenges are not only impacting us on a personal level but are also spilling over into our professional lives, creating a divisive and non-collegial environment within the healthcare community. We commit to “do no harm” when delivering care and yet we are doing harm to one another as colleagues.

We are no strangers to the complexities of human behavior and the intricate tapestry of emotions that are involved with our professional work. However, the current geopolitical landscape has added an extra layer of difficulty to our already taxing professional lives. We are, after all, human first with unconscious drives that govern how we negotiate cognitive dissonance and our need for the illusion of absolute justice as Yuval Noah Harari explains in a recent podcast.

Humans are notoriously bad at holding the multiplicity of experience in mind and various (often competing narratives) that impede the capacity for nuanced thinking. We would like to believe we are better and more capable than the average person in doing so, but divisiveness in our profession has become disturbingly pronounced, making it essential for us to carve out reflective space, more than ever.
 

The personal and professional divide

Geopolitical conflicts like the current war have a unique capacity to ignite strong emotions and deeply held convictions. It’s not hard to quickly become embroiled in passionate and engaged debate.

While discussion and discourse are healthy, these are bleeding into professional spheres, creating rifts within our clinical communities and contributing to a culture where not everyone feels safe. Look at any professional listserv in medicine or psychology and you will find the evidence. It should be an immediate call to action that we need to be fostering a different type of environment.

The impact of divisiveness is profound, hindering opportunities for collaboration, mentorship, and the free exchange of ideas among clinicians. It may lead to misunderstandings, mistrust, and an erosion of the support systems we rely on, ultimately diverting energy away from the pursuit of providing quality patient-care.
 

Balancing obligations and limits

Because of the inherent power differential that accompanies being in a provider role (physician and psychologist alike), we have a social and moral responsibility to be mindful of what we share – for the sake of humanity. There is an implicit assumption that a provider’s guidance should be adhered to and respected. In other words, words carry tremendous weight and deeply matter, and people in the general public ascribe significant meaning to messages put out by professionals.

When providers steer from their lanes of professional expertise to provide the general public with opinions or recommendations on nonmedical topics, problematic precedents can be set. We may be doing people a disservice.

Unfortunately, I have heard several anecdotes about clinicians who spend their patient’s time in session pushing their own ideological agendas. The patient-provider relationship is founded on principles of trust, empathy, and collaboration, with the primary goal of improving overall well-being and addressing a specific presenting problem. Of course, issues emerge that need to be addressed outside of the initial scope of treatment, an inherent part of the process. However, a grave concern emerges when clinicians initiate dialogue that is not meaningful to a patient, disclose and discuss their personal ideologies, or put pressure on patients to explain their beliefs in an attempt to change the patients’ minds.

Clinicians pushing their own agenda during patient sessions is antithetical to the objectives of psychotherapy and compromises the therapeutic alliance by diverting the focus of care in a way that serves the clinician rather than the client. It is quite the opposite of the patient-centered care that we strive for in training and practice.

Even within one’s theoretical professional scope of competence, I have seen the impact of emotions running high during this conflict, and have witnessed trained professionals making light of, or even mocking, hostages and their behavior upon release. These are care providers who could elucidate the complexities of captor-captive dynamics and the impact of trauma for the general public, yet they are contributing to dangerous perceptions and divisiveness.

I have also seen providers justify sexual violence, diminishing survivor and witness testimony due to ideological differences and strong personal beliefs. This is harmful to those impacted and does a disservice to our profession at large. In a helping profession we should strive to support and advocate for anyone who has been maltreated or experienced any form of victimization, violence, or abuse. This should be a professional standard.

As clinicians, we have an ethical obligation to uphold the well-being, autonomy, and dignity of our patients — and humanity. It is crucial to recognize the limits of our expertise and the ethical concerns that can arise in light of geopolitical conflict. How can we balance our duty to provide psychological support while also being cautious about delving into the realms of political analysis, foreign policy, or international relations?

The pitfalls of well-intentioned speaking out

In the age of social media and instant communication, a critical aspect to consider is the role of speaking out. The point I made above, in naming all partaking in the current conflict, speaks to this issue.

As providers and programs, we must be mindful of the inadvertent harm that can arise from making brief, underdeveloped, uninformed, or emotionally charged statements. Expressing opinions without a solid understanding of the historical, cultural, and political nuances of a conflict can contribute to misinformation and further polarization.

Anecdotally, there appears to be some significant degree of bias emerging within professional fields (e.g., psychology, medicine) and an innate calling for providers to “weigh in” as the war continues. Obviously, physicians and psychologists are trained to provide care and to be humanistic and empathic, but the majority do not have expertise in geopolitics or a nuanced awareness of the complexities of the conflict in the Middle East.

While hearts may be in the right place, issuing statements on complicated humanitarian/political situations can inadvertently have unintended and harmful consequences (in terms of antisemitism and islamophobia, increased incidence of hate crimes, and colleagues not feeling safe within professional societies or member organizations).

Unsophisticated, overly simplistic, and reductionistic statements that do not adequately convey nuance will not reflect the range of experience reflected by providers in the field (or the patients we treat). It is essential for clinicians and institutions putting out public statements to engage in deep reflection and utilize discernment. We must recognize that our words carry weight, given our position of influence as treatment providers. To minimize harm, we should seek to provide information that is fair, vetted, and balanced, and encourage open, respectful dialogue rather than asserting definitive positions.

Ultimately, as providers we must strive to seek unity and inclusivity amidst the current challenges. It is important for us to embody a spirit of collaboration during a time demarcated by deep fragmentation.

By acknowledging our limitations, promoting informed discussion, and avoiding the pitfalls of uninformed advocacy, we can contribute to a more compassionate and understanding world, even in the face of the most divisive geopolitical conflicts. We have an obligation to uphold when it comes to ourselves as professionals, and we need to foster healthy, respectful dialogue while maintaining an awareness of our blind spots.

Dr. Feldman is a licensed clinical psychologist in private practice in Miami. She is an adjunct professor in the College of Psychology at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where she teaches clinical psychology doctoral students. She is an affiliate of Baptist West Kendall Hospital/FIU Family Medicine Residency Program and serves as president on the board of directors of The Southeast Florida Association for Psychoanalytic Psychology. The opinions expressed by Dr. Feldman are her own and do not represent the institutions with which she is affiliated. She has no disclosures.

Some call the drug “ecstasy” or “molly.” Researchers are calling it a potential tool to help treat loneliness.

As public health experts sound the alarm on a rising loneliness epidemic in the United States and across the globe, early research is finding that MDMA could increase social connectedness and reduce defensiveness in some people — effects that some say could, in combination with therapy, help combat loneliness. 

In the latest study, MDMA “led to a robust increase in feelings of connection” among people socializing in a controlled setting. Participants were dosed with either MDMA or a placebo and asked to chat with a stranger. Afterward, those who took MDMA said their companion was more responsive and attentive, and that they had plenty in common. The drug also “increased participants’ ratings of liking their partners, feeling connected and finding the conversation enjoyable and meaningful.” 

The study was small — just 18 participants — but its results “have implications for MDMA-assisted therapy,” the authors wrote. “This feeling of connectedness could help patients feel safe and trusting, thereby facilitating deeper emotional exploration.” 

MDMA “really does seem to make people want to interact more with other people,” says Harriet de Wit, PhD, a neuropharmacologist at the University of Chicago and one of the study’s authors. The results echo those of earlier research using psychedelics like LSD or psilocybin. 

It’s important to note that any intervention involving MDMA or psychedelics would be a drug-assisted therapy — that is, used in conjunction with the appropriate therapy and in a therapeutic setting. MDMA-assisted therapy has already drawn popular and scientific attention, as it recently cleared clinical trials for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and may be nearing approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

According to Friederike Holze, PhD, psychopharmacologist at the University of Basel, in Switzerland, “there could be a place” for MDMA and psychedelics in treating chronic loneliness, but only under professional supervision. 

There would have to be clear guidelines too, says Joshua Woolley, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco. 

MDMA and psychedelics “induce this plastic state, a state where people can change. They feel open, they feel like things are possible,” Dr. Woolley says. Then, with therapy, “you can help them change.”

Loneliness Can Impact Our Health

On top of the mental health ramifications, the physiologic effects of loneliness could have grave consequences over time. In observational studies, loneliness has been linked to higher risks for cancer and heart disease, and shorter lifespan. One third  of Americans over 45 say they are chronically lonely. 

Chronic loneliness changes how we think and behave, research shows. It makes us fear contact with others and see them in a more negative light, as more threatening and less trustworthy. Lonely people prefer to stand farther apart  from strangers and avoid touch. 

This is where MDMA-assisted therapies could potentially help, by easing these defensive tendencies, according to Dr. Woolley.

MDMA, Psychedelics, and Social Behavior

MDMA, or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, is a hybrid  between a stimulant and a psychedelic. In Dr. de Wit’s earlier experiments, volunteers given MDMA engaged more in communal activities, chatting, and playing games. They used more positive words during social encounters than those who had received a placebo. And after MDMA, people felt less rejected if they were slighted in Cyberball  — a virtual ball-tossing game commonly used to measure the effects of social exclusion.

MDMA has been shown to reduce people’s response to other’s negative emotions, diminishing activation of the amygdala (the brain’s fear center) while looking at pictures of angry faces. 

This could be helpful. “If you perceive a person’s natural expression as being a little bit angry, if that disappears, then you might be more inclined to interact,” de Wit says. 

However, there may be downsides, too. If a drug makes people more trusting and willing to connect, they could be taken advantage of. This is why, Dr. Woolley says, “psychedelics have been used in cults.” 

MDMA may also make the experience of touch more pleasant. In a series of experiments in 2019, researchers gently stroked volunteers ’ arms with a goat-hair brush, mimicking the comforting gestures one may receive from a loved one. At the same time, the scientists monitored the volunteers’ facial muscles. People on MDMA perceived gentle touch as more pleasant than those on placebo, and their smile muscles activated more.

MDMA and psychedelics boost social behaviors in animals, too — suggesting that their effects on relationships have a biological basis. Rats on MDMA are more likely to lie next to each other, and mice become more resilient to social stress. Even octopuses become more outgoing after a dose of MDMA, choosing to spend more time with other octopuses instead of a new toy. Classic psychedelics show similar effects — LSD, for example, makes mice more social. 

Psychedelics can induce a sense of a “dissolution of the self-other boundary,” Dr. Woolley says. People who take them often say it’s “helped them feel more connected to themselves and other people.” LSD, first synthesized in 1938, may help increase empathy in some people. 

Psilocybin, a compound found in over 200 species of mushrooms and used for centuries in Mesoamerican rituals, also seems to boost empathy, with effects persisting for at least seven days. In Cyberball, the online ball-throwing game, people who took psilocybin felt less socially rejected, an outcome reflected in their brain activation patterns in one study — the areas responsible for social-pain processing appeared to dim after a dose. 

Making It Legal and Putting It to Use

In 2020, Oregon became the first state to establish a regulatory framework for psilocybin for therapeutic use, and  Colorado  followed suit in 2022. Such therapeutic applications of psilocybin could help fight loneliness as well, Dr. Woolley believes, because a “ common symptom of depression is that people feel socially withdrawn and lack motivation, ” he says. As mentioned above, MDMA-assisted therapy is also nearing FDA approval for PTSD. 

What remain unclear are the exact mechanisms at play. 

“MDMA releases oxytocin, and it does that through serotonin receptors,” Dr. de Wit says. Serotonin activates 5-HT1A receptors in the hypothalamus, releasing oxytocin into the bloodstream. In Dr. de Wit’s recent experiments, the more people felt connected after taking MDMA, the more oxytocin was found circulating in their bodies. (Another drug, methamphetamine, also upped the levels of oxytocin but did not increase feelings of connectedness.) 

“It’s likely that both something in the serotonin system independent of oxytocin, and oxytocin itself, contribute,” Dr. de Wit says. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter responsible for motivation, appears to increase as well. 

The empathy-boosting effects of LSD also seem to be at least partly driven by oxytocin, experiments published in 2021 revealed. Studies in mice, meanwhile, suggest that glutamate, a chemical messenger in the brain, may be behind some of LSD’s prosocial effects. 

Scientists are fairly certain which receptors these drugs bind to and which neurotransmitters they affect. “How that gets translated into these higher-order things like empathy and feeling connected to the world, we don’t totally understand,” Dr. Woolley says.

Challenges and the Future

Although MDMA and psychedelics are largely considered safe when taken in a legal, medically controlled setting, there is reason to be cautious.

“They have relatively low impact on the body, like heart rate increase or blood pressure increase. But they might leave some disturbing psychological effects,” says Dr. Holze. Scientists routinely screen experiment volunteers for their risk for psychiatric disorders. 

Although risk for addiction is low with both MDMA and psychedelics, there is always some risk for misuse. MDMA “ can produce feelings of well-being, and then people might use it repeatedly, ” Dr. de Wit says. “ That doesn ’ t seem to be a problem for really a lot of people, but it could easily happen. ”  

Still, possibilities remain for MDMA in the fight against loneliness. 

“[People] feel open, they feel like things are possible, they feel like they’re unstuck,” Dr. Woolley says. “You can harness that in psychotherapy.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Some call the drug “ecstasy” or “molly.” Researchers are calling it a potential tool to help treat loneliness.

As public health experts sound the alarm on a rising loneliness epidemic in the United States and across the globe, early research is finding that MDMA could increase social connectedness and reduce defensiveness in some people — effects that some say could, in combination with therapy, help combat loneliness. 

In the latest study, MDMA “led to a robust increase in feelings of connection” among people socializing in a controlled setting. Participants were dosed with either MDMA or a placebo and asked to chat with a stranger. Afterward, those who took MDMA said their companion was more responsive and attentive, and that they had plenty in common. The drug also “increased participants’ ratings of liking their partners, feeling connected and finding the conversation enjoyable and meaningful.” 

The study was small — just 18 participants — but its results “have implications for MDMA-assisted therapy,” the authors wrote. “This feeling of connectedness could help patients feel safe and trusting, thereby facilitating deeper emotional exploration.” 

MDMA “really does seem to make people want to interact more with other people,” says Harriet de Wit, PhD, a neuropharmacologist at the University of Chicago and one of the study’s authors. The results echo those of earlier research using psychedelics like LSD or psilocybin. 

It’s important to note that any intervention involving MDMA or psychedelics would be a drug-assisted therapy — that is, used in conjunction with the appropriate therapy and in a therapeutic setting. MDMA-assisted therapy has already drawn popular and scientific attention, as it recently cleared clinical trials for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and may be nearing approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

According to Friederike Holze, PhD, psychopharmacologist at the University of Basel, in Switzerland, “there could be a place” for MDMA and psychedelics in treating chronic loneliness, but only under professional supervision. 

There would have to be clear guidelines too, says Joshua Woolley, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco. 

MDMA and psychedelics “induce this plastic state, a state where people can change. They feel open, they feel like things are possible,” Dr. Woolley says. Then, with therapy, “you can help them change.”

Loneliness Can Impact Our Health

On top of the mental health ramifications, the physiologic effects of loneliness could have grave consequences over time. In observational studies, loneliness has been linked to higher risks for cancer and heart disease, and shorter lifespan. One third  of Americans over 45 say they are chronically lonely. 

Chronic loneliness changes how we think and behave, research shows. It makes us fear contact with others and see them in a more negative light, as more threatening and less trustworthy. Lonely people prefer to stand farther apart  from strangers and avoid touch. 

This is where MDMA-assisted therapies could potentially help, by easing these defensive tendencies, according to Dr. Woolley.

MDMA, Psychedelics, and Social Behavior

MDMA, or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, is a hybrid  between a stimulant and a psychedelic. In Dr. de Wit’s earlier experiments, volunteers given MDMA engaged more in communal activities, chatting, and playing games. They used more positive words during social encounters than those who had received a placebo. And after MDMA, people felt less rejected if they were slighted in Cyberball  — a virtual ball-tossing game commonly used to measure the effects of social exclusion.

MDMA has been shown to reduce people’s response to other’s negative emotions, diminishing activation of the amygdala (the brain’s fear center) while looking at pictures of angry faces. 

This could be helpful. “If you perceive a person’s natural expression as being a little bit angry, if that disappears, then you might be more inclined to interact,” de Wit says. 

However, there may be downsides, too. If a drug makes people more trusting and willing to connect, they could be taken advantage of. This is why, Dr. Woolley says, “psychedelics have been used in cults.” 

MDMA may also make the experience of touch more pleasant. In a series of experiments in 2019, researchers gently stroked volunteers ’ arms with a goat-hair brush, mimicking the comforting gestures one may receive from a loved one. At the same time, the scientists monitored the volunteers’ facial muscles. People on MDMA perceived gentle touch as more pleasant than those on placebo, and their smile muscles activated more.

MDMA and psychedelics boost social behaviors in animals, too — suggesting that their effects on relationships have a biological basis. Rats on MDMA are more likely to lie next to each other, and mice become more resilient to social stress. Even octopuses become more outgoing after a dose of MDMA, choosing to spend more time with other octopuses instead of a new toy. Classic psychedelics show similar effects — LSD, for example, makes mice more social. 

Psychedelics can induce a sense of a “dissolution of the self-other boundary,” Dr. Woolley says. People who take them often say it’s “helped them feel more connected to themselves and other people.” LSD, first synthesized in 1938, may help increase empathy in some people. 

Psilocybin, a compound found in over 200 species of mushrooms and used for centuries in Mesoamerican rituals, also seems to boost empathy, with effects persisting for at least seven days. In Cyberball, the online ball-throwing game, people who took psilocybin felt less socially rejected, an outcome reflected in their brain activation patterns in one study — the areas responsible for social-pain processing appeared to dim after a dose. 

Making It Legal and Putting It to Use

In 2020, Oregon became the first state to establish a regulatory framework for psilocybin for therapeutic use, and  Colorado  followed suit in 2022. Such therapeutic applications of psilocybin could help fight loneliness as well, Dr. Woolley believes, because a “ common symptom of depression is that people feel socially withdrawn and lack motivation, ” he says. As mentioned above, MDMA-assisted therapy is also nearing FDA approval for PTSD. 

What remain unclear are the exact mechanisms at play. 

“MDMA releases oxytocin, and it does that through serotonin receptors,” Dr. de Wit says. Serotonin activates 5-HT1A receptors in the hypothalamus, releasing oxytocin into the bloodstream. In Dr. de Wit’s recent experiments, the more people felt connected after taking MDMA, the more oxytocin was found circulating in their bodies. (Another drug, methamphetamine, also upped the levels of oxytocin but did not increase feelings of connectedness.) 

“It’s likely that both something in the serotonin system independent of oxytocin, and oxytocin itself, contribute,” Dr. de Wit says. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter responsible for motivation, appears to increase as well. 

The empathy-boosting effects of LSD also seem to be at least partly driven by oxytocin, experiments published in 2021 revealed. Studies in mice, meanwhile, suggest that glutamate, a chemical messenger in the brain, may be behind some of LSD’s prosocial effects. 

Scientists are fairly certain which receptors these drugs bind to and which neurotransmitters they affect. “How that gets translated into these higher-order things like empathy and feeling connected to the world, we don’t totally understand,” Dr. Woolley says.

Challenges and the Future

Although MDMA and psychedelics are largely considered safe when taken in a legal, medically controlled setting, there is reason to be cautious.

“They have relatively low impact on the body, like heart rate increase or blood pressure increase. But they might leave some disturbing psychological effects,” says Dr. Holze. Scientists routinely screen experiment volunteers for their risk for psychiatric disorders. 

Although risk for addiction is low with both MDMA and psychedelics, there is always some risk for misuse. MDMA “ can produce feelings of well-being, and then people might use it repeatedly, ” Dr. de Wit says. “ That doesn ’ t seem to be a problem for really a lot of people, but it could easily happen. ”  

Still, possibilities remain for MDMA in the fight against loneliness. 

“[People] feel open, they feel like things are possible, they feel like they’re unstuck,” Dr. Woolley says. “You can harness that in psychotherapy.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Some call the drug “ecstasy” or “molly.” Researchers are calling it a potential tool to help treat loneliness.

As public health experts sound the alarm on a rising loneliness epidemic in the United States and across the globe, early research is finding that MDMA could increase social connectedness and reduce defensiveness in some people — effects that some say could, in combination with therapy, help combat loneliness. 

In the latest study, MDMA “led to a robust increase in feelings of connection” among people socializing in a controlled setting. Participants were dosed with either MDMA or a placebo and asked to chat with a stranger. Afterward, those who took MDMA said their companion was more responsive and attentive, and that they had plenty in common. The drug also “increased participants’ ratings of liking their partners, feeling connected and finding the conversation enjoyable and meaningful.” 

The study was small — just 18 participants — but its results “have implications for MDMA-assisted therapy,” the authors wrote. “This feeling of connectedness could help patients feel safe and trusting, thereby facilitating deeper emotional exploration.” 

MDMA “really does seem to make people want to interact more with other people,” says Harriet de Wit, PhD, a neuropharmacologist at the University of Chicago and one of the study’s authors. The results echo those of earlier research using psychedelics like LSD or psilocybin. 

It’s important to note that any intervention involving MDMA or psychedelics would be a drug-assisted therapy — that is, used in conjunction with the appropriate therapy and in a therapeutic setting. MDMA-assisted therapy has already drawn popular and scientific attention, as it recently cleared clinical trials for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and may be nearing approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

According to Friederike Holze, PhD, psychopharmacologist at the University of Basel, in Switzerland, “there could be a place” for MDMA and psychedelics in treating chronic loneliness, but only under professional supervision. 

There would have to be clear guidelines too, says Joshua Woolley, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco. 

MDMA and psychedelics “induce this plastic state, a state where people can change. They feel open, they feel like things are possible,” Dr. Woolley says. Then, with therapy, “you can help them change.”

Loneliness Can Impact Our Health

On top of the mental health ramifications, the physiologic effects of loneliness could have grave consequences over time. In observational studies, loneliness has been linked to higher risks for cancer and heart disease, and shorter lifespan. One third  of Americans over 45 say they are chronically lonely. 

Chronic loneliness changes how we think and behave, research shows. It makes us fear contact with others and see them in a more negative light, as more threatening and less trustworthy. Lonely people prefer to stand farther apart  from strangers and avoid touch. 

This is where MDMA-assisted therapies could potentially help, by easing these defensive tendencies, according to Dr. Woolley.

MDMA, Psychedelics, and Social Behavior

MDMA, or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, is a hybrid  between a stimulant and a psychedelic. In Dr. de Wit’s earlier experiments, volunteers given MDMA engaged more in communal activities, chatting, and playing games. They used more positive words during social encounters than those who had received a placebo. And after MDMA, people felt less rejected if they were slighted in Cyberball  — a virtual ball-tossing game commonly used to measure the effects of social exclusion.

MDMA has been shown to reduce people’s response to other’s negative emotions, diminishing activation of the amygdala (the brain’s fear center) while looking at pictures of angry faces. 

This could be helpful. “If you perceive a person’s natural expression as being a little bit angry, if that disappears, then you might be more inclined to interact,” de Wit says. 

However, there may be downsides, too. If a drug makes people more trusting and willing to connect, they could be taken advantage of. This is why, Dr. Woolley says, “psychedelics have been used in cults.” 

MDMA may also make the experience of touch more pleasant. In a series of experiments in 2019, researchers gently stroked volunteers ’ arms with a goat-hair brush, mimicking the comforting gestures one may receive from a loved one. At the same time, the scientists monitored the volunteers’ facial muscles. People on MDMA perceived gentle touch as more pleasant than those on placebo, and their smile muscles activated more.

MDMA and psychedelics boost social behaviors in animals, too — suggesting that their effects on relationships have a biological basis. Rats on MDMA are more likely to lie next to each other, and mice become more resilient to social stress. Even octopuses become more outgoing after a dose of MDMA, choosing to spend more time with other octopuses instead of a new toy. Classic psychedelics show similar effects — LSD, for example, makes mice more social. 

Psychedelics can induce a sense of a “dissolution of the self-other boundary,” Dr. Woolley says. People who take them often say it’s “helped them feel more connected to themselves and other people.” LSD, first synthesized in 1938, may help increase empathy in some people. 

Psilocybin, a compound found in over 200 species of mushrooms and used for centuries in Mesoamerican rituals, also seems to boost empathy, with effects persisting for at least seven days. In Cyberball, the online ball-throwing game, people who took psilocybin felt less socially rejected, an outcome reflected in their brain activation patterns in one study — the areas responsible for social-pain processing appeared to dim after a dose. 

Making It Legal and Putting It to Use

In 2020, Oregon became the first state to establish a regulatory framework for psilocybin for therapeutic use, and  Colorado  followed suit in 2022. Such therapeutic applications of psilocybin could help fight loneliness as well, Dr. Woolley believes, because a “ common symptom of depression is that people feel socially withdrawn and lack motivation, ” he says. As mentioned above, MDMA-assisted therapy is also nearing FDA approval for PTSD. 

What remain unclear are the exact mechanisms at play. 

“MDMA releases oxytocin, and it does that through serotonin receptors,” Dr. de Wit says. Serotonin activates 5-HT1A receptors in the hypothalamus, releasing oxytocin into the bloodstream. In Dr. de Wit’s recent experiments, the more people felt connected after taking MDMA, the more oxytocin was found circulating in their bodies. (Another drug, methamphetamine, also upped the levels of oxytocin but did not increase feelings of connectedness.) 

“It’s likely that both something in the serotonin system independent of oxytocin, and oxytocin itself, contribute,” Dr. de Wit says. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter responsible for motivation, appears to increase as well. 

The empathy-boosting effects of LSD also seem to be at least partly driven by oxytocin, experiments published in 2021 revealed. Studies in mice, meanwhile, suggest that glutamate, a chemical messenger in the brain, may be behind some of LSD’s prosocial effects. 

Scientists are fairly certain which receptors these drugs bind to and which neurotransmitters they affect. “How that gets translated into these higher-order things like empathy and feeling connected to the world, we don’t totally understand,” Dr. Woolley says.

Challenges and the Future

Although MDMA and psychedelics are largely considered safe when taken in a legal, medically controlled setting, there is reason to be cautious.

“They have relatively low impact on the body, like heart rate increase or blood pressure increase. But they might leave some disturbing psychological effects,” says Dr. Holze. Scientists routinely screen experiment volunteers for their risk for psychiatric disorders. 

Although risk for addiction is low with both MDMA and psychedelics, there is always some risk for misuse. MDMA “ can produce feelings of well-being, and then people might use it repeatedly, ” Dr. de Wit says. “ That doesn ’ t seem to be a problem for really a lot of people, but it could easily happen. ”  

Still, possibilities remain for MDMA in the fight against loneliness. 

“[People] feel open, they feel like things are possible, they feel like they’re unstuck,” Dr. Woolley says. “You can harness that in psychotherapy.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Our psychiatric research, which found a high incidence of undiagnosed mental illness in mass shooters, was recently awarded the esteemed Psychodynamic Psychiatry Journal Prize for best paper published in the last 2 years (2022-2023). The editors noted our integrity in using quantitative data to argue against the common, careless assumption that mass shooters are not mentally ill.

Some of the mass shooters we studied were motivated by religious or political ideologies that were considered forms of terrorism. Given the current tragically violent landscape both at home and in Israel/Palestine, the “desire for destruction” is vital to understand.

Although there have been a limited number of psychiatric studies of perpetrators of mass shootings, our team took the first step to lay the groundwork by conducting a systematic, quantitative study. Our psychiatric research team’s research findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology and then in greater detail in Psychodynamic Psychiatry,^1,2 which provided important context to the complicated backgrounds of these mass shooters who suffer from abuse, marginalization, and severe undiagnosed brain illness.³

Cerfolio_Nina_E_NY_web.jpg

The Mother Jones database of 115 mass shootings from 1982 to 2019 was used to study retrospectively 55 shooters in the United States. We developed a uniform, comprehensive, 62-item questionnaire to compile the data collection from multiple sources and record our psychiatric assessments of the assailants, using DSM-5 criteria. After developing this detailed psychiatric assessment questionnaire, psychiatric researchers evaluated the weight and quality of clinical evidence by (1) interviewing forensic psychiatrists who had assessed the assailant following the crime, and/or (2) reviewing court records of psychiatric evaluations conducted during the postcrime judicial proceedings to determine the prevalence of psychiatric illness. Rather than accepting diagnoses from forensic psychiatrists and/or court records, our team independently reviewed the clinical data gathered from multiple sources to apply the DSM-5 criteria to diagnose mental illness.

In most incidents in the database, the perpetrator died either during or shortly after the crime. We examined every case (n=35) in which the assailant survived, and criminal proceedings were instituted.

Of the 35 cases in which the assailant survived and criminal proceedings were instituted, there was insufficient information to make a diagnosis in 3 cases. Of the remaining 32 cases in which we had sufficient information, we determined that 87.5% had the following psychiatric diagnosis: 18 assailants (56%) had schizophrenia, while 10 assailants (31%) had other psychiatric diagnoses: 3 had bipolar I disorder, 2 had delusional disorders (persecutory), 2 had personality disorders (1 paranoid, 1 borderline), 2 had substance-related disorders without other psychiatric diagnosis, and 1 had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Out of the 32 surviving assailants for whom we have sufficient evidence, 87.5% of perpetrators of mass shootings were diagnosed with major psychiatric illness, and none were treated appropriately with medication at the time of the crime. Four assailants (12.5%) had no psychiatric diagnosis that we could discern. Of the 18 surviving assailants with schizophrenia, no assailant was on antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia prior to the crime. Of the 10 surviving assailants with other psychiatric illnesses, no assailant was on antipsychotic and/or appropriate medication.

In addition, we found that the clinical misdiagnosis of early-onset schizophrenia was associated with the worsening of many of these assailants’ psychotic symptoms. Many of our adolescent shooters prior to the massacre had been misdiagnosed with attention-deficit disorder (ADD), major depression disorder (MDD), or autism spectrum disorder.

Though the vast majority of those suffering from psychiatric illnesses who are appropriately treated are not violent, there is a growing body of scientific research that indicates a strong association of untreated brain illness with those who commit mass shootings.^4,5,6 This research demonstrates that such untreated illness combined with access to firearms poses a lethal threat to society.

Glick_Ira_D_CALIF_web.jpg

Most of the assailants also experienced profound estrangement, not only from families and friends, but most importantly from themselves. Being marginalized rendered them more vulnerable to their untreated psychiatric illness and to radicalization online, which fostered their violence. While there are complex reasons that a person is not diagnosed, there remains a vital need to decrease the stigma of mental illness to enable those with psychiatric illness to be more respected, less marginalized, and encouraged to receive effective psychiatric treatments.

Dr. Cerfolio is author of “Psychoanalytic and Spiritual Perspectives on Terrorism: Desire for Destruction.” She is clinical assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Glick is Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

References

1. Glick ID, et al. Domestic Mass Shooters: The Association With Unmedicated and Untreated Psychiatric Illness. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2021 Jul-Aug;41(4):366-369. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001417.

2. Cerfolio NE, et al. A Retrospective Observational Study of Psychosocial Determinants and Psychiatric Diagnoses of Mass Shooters in the United States. Psychodyn Psychiatry. 2022 Fall;50(3):1-16. doi: 10.1521/pdps.2022.50.5.001.

3. Cerfolio NE. The Parkland gunman, a horrific crime, and mental illness. The New York Times. 2022 Oct 14. www.nytimes.com/2022/10/14/opinion/letters/jan-6-panel-trump.html#link-5e2ccc1.

4. Corner E, et al. Mental Health Disorders and the Terrorist: A Research Note Probing Selection Effects and Disorder Prevalence. Stud Confl Terror. 2016 Jan;39(6):560–568. doi: 10.1080/1057610X.2015.1120099.

5. Gruenewald J, et al. Distinguishing “Loner” Attacks from Other Domestic Extremist Violence. Criminol Public Policy. 2013 Feb;12(1):65–91. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12008.

6. Lankford A. Detecting mental health problems and suicidal motives among terrorists and mass shooters. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2016 Dec;26(5):315-321. doi: 10.1002/cbm.2020.

Our psychiatric research, which found a high incidence of undiagnosed mental illness in mass shooters, was recently awarded the esteemed Psychodynamic Psychiatry Journal Prize for best paper published in the last 2 years (2022-2023). The editors noted our integrity in using quantitative data to argue against the common, careless assumption that mass shooters are not mentally ill.

Some of the mass shooters we studied were motivated by religious or political ideologies that were considered forms of terrorism. Given the current tragically violent landscape both at home and in Israel/Palestine, the “desire for destruction” is vital to understand.

Although there have been a limited number of psychiatric studies of perpetrators of mass shootings, our team took the first step to lay the groundwork by conducting a systematic, quantitative study. Our psychiatric research team’s research findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology and then in greater detail in Psychodynamic Psychiatry,^1,2 which provided important context to the complicated backgrounds of these mass shooters who suffer from abuse, marginalization, and severe undiagnosed brain illness.³

Cerfolio_Nina_E_NY_web.jpg

The Mother Jones database of 115 mass shootings from 1982 to 2019 was used to study retrospectively 55 shooters in the United States. We developed a uniform, comprehensive, 62-item questionnaire to compile the data collection from multiple sources and record our psychiatric assessments of the assailants, using DSM-5 criteria. After developing this detailed psychiatric assessment questionnaire, psychiatric researchers evaluated the weight and quality of clinical evidence by (1) interviewing forensic psychiatrists who had assessed the assailant following the crime, and/or (2) reviewing court records of psychiatric evaluations conducted during the postcrime judicial proceedings to determine the prevalence of psychiatric illness. Rather than accepting diagnoses from forensic psychiatrists and/or court records, our team independently reviewed the clinical data gathered from multiple sources to apply the DSM-5 criteria to diagnose mental illness.

In most incidents in the database, the perpetrator died either during or shortly after the crime. We examined every case (n=35) in which the assailant survived, and criminal proceedings were instituted.

Of the 35 cases in which the assailant survived and criminal proceedings were instituted, there was insufficient information to make a diagnosis in 3 cases. Of the remaining 32 cases in which we had sufficient information, we determined that 87.5% had the following psychiatric diagnosis: 18 assailants (56%) had schizophrenia, while 10 assailants (31%) had other psychiatric diagnoses: 3 had bipolar I disorder, 2 had delusional disorders (persecutory), 2 had personality disorders (1 paranoid, 1 borderline), 2 had substance-related disorders without other psychiatric diagnosis, and 1 had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Out of the 32 surviving assailants for whom we have sufficient evidence, 87.5% of perpetrators of mass shootings were diagnosed with major psychiatric illness, and none were treated appropriately with medication at the time of the crime. Four assailants (12.5%) had no psychiatric diagnosis that we could discern. Of the 18 surviving assailants with schizophrenia, no assailant was on antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia prior to the crime. Of the 10 surviving assailants with other psychiatric illnesses, no assailant was on antipsychotic and/or appropriate medication.

In addition, we found that the clinical misdiagnosis of early-onset schizophrenia was associated with the worsening of many of these assailants’ psychotic symptoms. Many of our adolescent shooters prior to the massacre had been misdiagnosed with attention-deficit disorder (ADD), major depression disorder (MDD), or autism spectrum disorder.

Though the vast majority of those suffering from psychiatric illnesses who are appropriately treated are not violent, there is a growing body of scientific research that indicates a strong association of untreated brain illness with those who commit mass shootings.^4,5,6 This research demonstrates that such untreated illness combined with access to firearms poses a lethal threat to society.

Glick_Ira_D_CALIF_web.jpg

Most of the assailants also experienced profound estrangement, not only from families and friends, but most importantly from themselves. Being marginalized rendered them more vulnerable to their untreated psychiatric illness and to radicalization online, which fostered their violence. While there are complex reasons that a person is not diagnosed, there remains a vital need to decrease the stigma of mental illness to enable those with psychiatric illness to be more respected, less marginalized, and encouraged to receive effective psychiatric treatments.

Dr. Cerfolio is author of “Psychoanalytic and Spiritual Perspectives on Terrorism: Desire for Destruction.” She is clinical assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Glick is Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

References

1. Glick ID, et al. Domestic Mass Shooters: The Association With Unmedicated and Untreated Psychiatric Illness. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2021 Jul-Aug;41(4):366-369. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001417.

2. Cerfolio NE, et al. A Retrospective Observational Study of Psychosocial Determinants and Psychiatric Diagnoses of Mass Shooters in the United States. Psychodyn Psychiatry. 2022 Fall;50(3):1-16. doi: 10.1521/pdps.2022.50.5.001.

3. Cerfolio NE. The Parkland gunman, a horrific crime, and mental illness. The New York Times. 2022 Oct 14. www.nytimes.com/2022/10/14/opinion/letters/jan-6-panel-trump.html#link-5e2ccc1.

4. Corner E, et al. Mental Health Disorders and the Terrorist: A Research Note Probing Selection Effects and Disorder Prevalence. Stud Confl Terror. 2016 Jan;39(6):560–568. doi: 10.1080/1057610X.2015.1120099.

5. Gruenewald J, et al. Distinguishing “Loner” Attacks from Other Domestic Extremist Violence. Criminol Public Policy. 2013 Feb;12(1):65–91. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12008.

6. Lankford A. Detecting mental health problems and suicidal motives among terrorists and mass shooters. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2016 Dec;26(5):315-321. doi: 10.1002/cbm.2020.

Our psychiatric research, which found a high incidence of undiagnosed mental illness in mass shooters, was recently awarded the esteemed Psychodynamic Psychiatry Journal Prize for best paper published in the last 2 years (2022-2023). The editors noted our integrity in using quantitative data to argue against the common, careless assumption that mass shooters are not mentally ill.

Some of the mass shooters we studied were motivated by religious or political ideologies that were considered forms of terrorism. Given the current tragically violent landscape both at home and in Israel/Palestine, the “desire for destruction” is vital to understand.

Although there have been a limited number of psychiatric studies of perpetrators of mass shootings, our team took the first step to lay the groundwork by conducting a systematic, quantitative study. Our psychiatric research team’s research findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology and then in greater detail in Psychodynamic Psychiatry,^1,2 which provided important context to the complicated backgrounds of these mass shooters who suffer from abuse, marginalization, and severe undiagnosed brain illness.³

Cerfolio_Nina_E_NY_web.jpg

The Mother Jones database of 115 mass shootings from 1982 to 2019 was used to study retrospectively 55 shooters in the United States. We developed a uniform, comprehensive, 62-item questionnaire to compile the data collection from multiple sources and record our psychiatric assessments of the assailants, using DSM-5 criteria. After developing this detailed psychiatric assessment questionnaire, psychiatric researchers evaluated the weight and quality of clinical evidence by (1) interviewing forensic psychiatrists who had assessed the assailant following the crime, and/or (2) reviewing court records of psychiatric evaluations conducted during the postcrime judicial proceedings to determine the prevalence of psychiatric illness. Rather than accepting diagnoses from forensic psychiatrists and/or court records, our team independently reviewed the clinical data gathered from multiple sources to apply the DSM-5 criteria to diagnose mental illness.

In most incidents in the database, the perpetrator died either during or shortly after the crime. We examined every case (n=35) in which the assailant survived, and criminal proceedings were instituted.

Of the 35 cases in which the assailant survived and criminal proceedings were instituted, there was insufficient information to make a diagnosis in 3 cases. Of the remaining 32 cases in which we had sufficient information, we determined that 87.5% had the following psychiatric diagnosis: 18 assailants (56%) had schizophrenia, while 10 assailants (31%) had other psychiatric diagnoses: 3 had bipolar I disorder, 2 had delusional disorders (persecutory), 2 had personality disorders (1 paranoid, 1 borderline), 2 had substance-related disorders without other psychiatric diagnosis, and 1 had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Out of the 32 surviving assailants for whom we have sufficient evidence, 87.5% of perpetrators of mass shootings were diagnosed with major psychiatric illness, and none were treated appropriately with medication at the time of the crime. Four assailants (12.5%) had no psychiatric diagnosis that we could discern. Of the 18 surviving assailants with schizophrenia, no assailant was on antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia prior to the crime. Of the 10 surviving assailants with other psychiatric illnesses, no assailant was on antipsychotic and/or appropriate medication.

In addition, we found that the clinical misdiagnosis of early-onset schizophrenia was associated with the worsening of many of these assailants’ psychotic symptoms. Many of our adolescent shooters prior to the massacre had been misdiagnosed with attention-deficit disorder (ADD), major depression disorder (MDD), or autism spectrum disorder.

Though the vast majority of those suffering from psychiatric illnesses who are appropriately treated are not violent, there is a growing body of scientific research that indicates a strong association of untreated brain illness with those who commit mass shootings.^4,5,6 This research demonstrates that such untreated illness combined with access to firearms poses a lethal threat to society.

Glick_Ira_D_CALIF_web.jpg

Most of the assailants also experienced profound estrangement, not only from families and friends, but most importantly from themselves. Being marginalized rendered them more vulnerable to their untreated psychiatric illness and to radicalization online, which fostered their violence. While there are complex reasons that a person is not diagnosed, there remains a vital need to decrease the stigma of mental illness to enable those with psychiatric illness to be more respected, less marginalized, and encouraged to receive effective psychiatric treatments.

Dr. Cerfolio is author of “Psychoanalytic and Spiritual Perspectives on Terrorism: Desire for Destruction.” She is clinical assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Glick is Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

References

1. Glick ID, et al. Domestic Mass Shooters: The Association With Unmedicated and Untreated Psychiatric Illness. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2021 Jul-Aug;41(4):366-369. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001417.

2. Cerfolio NE, et al. A Retrospective Observational Study of Psychosocial Determinants and Psychiatric Diagnoses of Mass Shooters in the United States. Psychodyn Psychiatry. 2022 Fall;50(3):1-16. doi: 10.1521/pdps.2022.50.5.001.

3. Cerfolio NE. The Parkland gunman, a horrific crime, and mental illness. The New York Times. 2022 Oct 14. www.nytimes.com/2022/10/14/opinion/letters/jan-6-panel-trump.html#link-5e2ccc1.

4. Corner E, et al. Mental Health Disorders and the Terrorist: A Research Note Probing Selection Effects and Disorder Prevalence. Stud Confl Terror. 2016 Jan;39(6):560–568. doi: 10.1080/1057610X.2015.1120099.

5. Gruenewald J, et al. Distinguishing “Loner” Attacks from Other Domestic Extremist Violence. Criminol Public Policy. 2013 Feb;12(1):65–91. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12008.

6. Lankford A. Detecting mental health problems and suicidal motives among terrorists and mass shooters. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2016 Dec;26(5):315-321. doi: 10.1002/cbm.2020.

Childbirth-related posttraumatic stress disorder (CB-PTSD) is a form of PTSD that can develop related to trauma surrounding the events of giving birth. It affects approximately 5% of women after any birth, which is similar to the rate of PTSD after experiencing a natural disaster.¹ Up to 17% of women may have posttraumatic symptoms in the postpartum period.¹ Despite the high prevalence of CB-PTSD, many psychiatric clinicians have not incorporated screening for and management of CB-PTSD into their practice.

This is partly because childbirth has been conceptualized as a “stressful but positive life event.”² Historically, childbirth was not recognized as a traumatic event; for example, in DSM-III-R, the criteria for trauma in PTSD required an event outside the range of usual human experience, and childbirth was implicitly excluded as being too common to be traumatic. In the past decade, this clinical phenomenon has been more formally recognized and studied.²

CP02212055_t1.png

CB-PTSD presents with symptoms similar to those of other forms of PTSD, with some nuances, as outlined in Table 1.³ Avoidance can be the predominant symptom; this can affect mothers’ engagement in postnatal care and is a major risk factor for postpartum depression.³

Many risk factors in the peripartum period can impact the development of CB-PTSD (Table 2³). The most significant risk factor is whether the patient views the delivery of their baby as a subjectively negative experience, regardless of the presence or lack of peripartum complications.¹ However, parents of infants who require treatment in a neonatal intensive care unit and women who require emergency medical treatment following delivery are at higher risk.

CP02212055_t2.png

Screening and treatment

Ideally, every woman should be screened for CB-PTSD by their psychiatrist or obstetrician during a postpartum visit at least 1 month after delivery. In particular, high-risk populations and women with subjectively negative birth experiences should be screened, as well as women with postpartum depression that may have been precipitated or perpetuated by a traumatic experience. The City Birth Trauma Scale is a free 31-item self-report scale that can be used for such screening. It addresses both general and birth-related symptoms and is validated in multiple languages.⁴

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and prazosin may be helpful for symptomatic treatment of CB-PTSD. Ongoing research studying the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing for CB-PTSD has yielded promising results but is limited in its generalizability.

Many women who develop CB-PTSD choose to get pregnant again. Psychiatrists can apply the principles of trauma-informed care and collaborate with obstetric and pediatric physicians to reduce the risk of retraumatization. It is critical to identify at-risk women and educate and prepare them for their next delivery experience. By focusing on communication, informed consent, and emotional support, we can do our best to prevent the recurrence of CB-PTSD.

Childbirth-related posttraumatic stress disorder (CB-PTSD) is a form of PTSD that can develop related to trauma surrounding the events of giving birth. It affects approximately 5% of women after any birth, which is similar to the rate of PTSD after experiencing a natural disaster.¹ Up to 17% of women may have posttraumatic symptoms in the postpartum period.¹ Despite the high prevalence of CB-PTSD, many psychiatric clinicians have not incorporated screening for and management of CB-PTSD into their practice.

This is partly because childbirth has been conceptualized as a “stressful but positive life event.”² Historically, childbirth was not recognized as a traumatic event; for example, in DSM-III-R, the criteria for trauma in PTSD required an event outside the range of usual human experience, and childbirth was implicitly excluded as being too common to be traumatic. In the past decade, this clinical phenomenon has been more formally recognized and studied.²

CP02212055_t1.png

CB-PTSD presents with symptoms similar to those of other forms of PTSD, with some nuances, as outlined in Table 1.³ Avoidance can be the predominant symptom; this can affect mothers’ engagement in postnatal care and is a major risk factor for postpartum depression.³

Many risk factors in the peripartum period can impact the development of CB-PTSD (Table 2³). The most significant risk factor is whether the patient views the delivery of their baby as a subjectively negative experience, regardless of the presence or lack of peripartum complications.¹ However, parents of infants who require treatment in a neonatal intensive care unit and women who require emergency medical treatment following delivery are at higher risk.

CP02212055_t2.png

Screening and treatment

Ideally, every woman should be screened for CB-PTSD by their psychiatrist or obstetrician during a postpartum visit at least 1 month after delivery. In particular, high-risk populations and women with subjectively negative birth experiences should be screened, as well as women with postpartum depression that may have been precipitated or perpetuated by a traumatic experience. The City Birth Trauma Scale is a free 31-item self-report scale that can be used for such screening. It addresses both general and birth-related symptoms and is validated in multiple languages.⁴

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and prazosin may be helpful for symptomatic treatment of CB-PTSD. Ongoing research studying the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing for CB-PTSD has yielded promising results but is limited in its generalizability.

Many women who develop CB-PTSD choose to get pregnant again. Psychiatrists can apply the principles of trauma-informed care and collaborate with obstetric and pediatric physicians to reduce the risk of retraumatization. It is critical to identify at-risk women and educate and prepare them for their next delivery experience. By focusing on communication, informed consent, and emotional support, we can do our best to prevent the recurrence of CB-PTSD.

Childbirth-related posttraumatic stress disorder (CB-PTSD) is a form of PTSD that can develop related to trauma surrounding the events of giving birth. It affects approximately 5% of women after any birth, which is similar to the rate of PTSD after experiencing a natural disaster.¹ Up to 17% of women may have posttraumatic symptoms in the postpartum period.¹ Despite the high prevalence of CB-PTSD, many psychiatric clinicians have not incorporated screening for and management of CB-PTSD into their practice.

This is partly because childbirth has been conceptualized as a “stressful but positive life event.”² Historically, childbirth was not recognized as a traumatic event; for example, in DSM-III-R, the criteria for trauma in PTSD required an event outside the range of usual human experience, and childbirth was implicitly excluded as being too common to be traumatic. In the past decade, this clinical phenomenon has been more formally recognized and studied.²

CP02212055_t1.png

CB-PTSD presents with symptoms similar to those of other forms of PTSD, with some nuances, as outlined in Table 1.³ Avoidance can be the predominant symptom; this can affect mothers’ engagement in postnatal care and is a major risk factor for postpartum depression.³

Many risk factors in the peripartum period can impact the development of CB-PTSD (Table 2³). The most significant risk factor is whether the patient views the delivery of their baby as a subjectively negative experience, regardless of the presence or lack of peripartum complications.¹ However, parents of infants who require treatment in a neonatal intensive care unit and women who require emergency medical treatment following delivery are at higher risk.

CP02212055_t2.png

Screening and treatment

Ideally, every woman should be screened for CB-PTSD by their psychiatrist or obstetrician during a postpartum visit at least 1 month after delivery. In particular, high-risk populations and women with subjectively negative birth experiences should be screened, as well as women with postpartum depression that may have been precipitated or perpetuated by a traumatic experience. The City Birth Trauma Scale is a free 31-item self-report scale that can be used for such screening. It addresses both general and birth-related symptoms and is validated in multiple languages.⁴

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and prazosin may be helpful for symptomatic treatment of CB-PTSD. Ongoing research studying the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing for CB-PTSD has yielded promising results but is limited in its generalizability.

Many women who develop CB-PTSD choose to get pregnant again. Psychiatrists can apply the principles of trauma-informed care and collaborate with obstetric and pediatric physicians to reduce the risk of retraumatization. It is critical to identify at-risk women and educate and prepare them for their next delivery experience. By focusing on communication, informed consent, and emotional support, we can do our best to prevent the recurrence of CB-PTSD.

TOPLINE:

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are associated with poorer cardiovascular and neurocognitive health among midlife women, particularly those who are APOEε4 carriers, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of 274 women (mean age, 59 years) participating in the MsBrain study of menopause and brain health.
• As part of the study, the women completed the PTSD Checklist–Civilian Version and underwent physical and neuropsychological testing, as well as carotid artery ultrasonography and brain MRI.
• Outcomes of interest were associations of PTSD symptoms with carotid intima media thickness (IMT), brain white matter hyperintensity volume (WMHV), and cognition, assessed in linear regression models.
• Interactions by APOEε4 were assessed; covariates included age, race/ethnicity, education, and CVD risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher PTSD symptoms were associated with greater carotid IMT (P = .03); associations of PTSD symptoms with neurocognitive outcomes varied significantly by APOEε4 status.
• Among APOEε4 carriers, PTSD symptoms were associated with greater whole-brain WMHV (P = .009), periventricular WMHV (P = .02), deep WMHV (P = .01), and frontal WMHV (P = .04) in multivariable models.
• APOEε4 carriers with PTSD symptoms also had poorer cognition, specifically attention and working memory (P = .02), semantic fluency (P = .01), perceptual speed (P = .002) and processing speed (P = .002), in multivariable models.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study sheds important insight on the implications of PTSD symptoms to women’s cardiovascular and neurocognitive health. Our findings indicate that the APOEε4 genotype may identify a group of women with PTSD symptoms at particular risk for poor neurocognitive health,” the authors wrote.

Thurston_Rebecca_PA_web.jpg

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rebecca Thurston, PhD, of the department of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

No diagnostic clinical interviews were conducted, and PTSD treatment was not assessed. All participants identified as cisgender, and most were non-Hispanic Black or White. The study was observational and cross-sectional, precluding assertions about directionality or causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the University of Pittsburgh Small Molecule Biomarker Core. Dr. Thurston reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Hello Therapeutics, Vira Health, and Happify Health outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are associated with poorer cardiovascular and neurocognitive health among midlife women, particularly those who are APOEε4 carriers, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of 274 women (mean age, 59 years) participating in the MsBrain study of menopause and brain health.
• As part of the study, the women completed the PTSD Checklist–Civilian Version and underwent physical and neuropsychological testing, as well as carotid artery ultrasonography and brain MRI.
• Outcomes of interest were associations of PTSD symptoms with carotid intima media thickness (IMT), brain white matter hyperintensity volume (WMHV), and cognition, assessed in linear regression models.
• Interactions by APOEε4 were assessed; covariates included age, race/ethnicity, education, and CVD risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher PTSD symptoms were associated with greater carotid IMT (P = .03); associations of PTSD symptoms with neurocognitive outcomes varied significantly by APOEε4 status.
• Among APOEε4 carriers, PTSD symptoms were associated with greater whole-brain WMHV (P = .009), periventricular WMHV (P = .02), deep WMHV (P = .01), and frontal WMHV (P = .04) in multivariable models.
• APOEε4 carriers with PTSD symptoms also had poorer cognition, specifically attention and working memory (P = .02), semantic fluency (P = .01), perceptual speed (P = .002) and processing speed (P = .002), in multivariable models.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study sheds important insight on the implications of PTSD symptoms to women’s cardiovascular and neurocognitive health. Our findings indicate that the APOEε4 genotype may identify a group of women with PTSD symptoms at particular risk for poor neurocognitive health,” the authors wrote.

Thurston_Rebecca_PA_web.jpg

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rebecca Thurston, PhD, of the department of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

No diagnostic clinical interviews were conducted, and PTSD treatment was not assessed. All participants identified as cisgender, and most were non-Hispanic Black or White. The study was observational and cross-sectional, precluding assertions about directionality or causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the University of Pittsburgh Small Molecule Biomarker Core. Dr. Thurston reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Hello Therapeutics, Vira Health, and Happify Health outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are associated with poorer cardiovascular and neurocognitive health among midlife women, particularly those who are APOEε4 carriers, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of 274 women (mean age, 59 years) participating in the MsBrain study of menopause and brain health.
• As part of the study, the women completed the PTSD Checklist–Civilian Version and underwent physical and neuropsychological testing, as well as carotid artery ultrasonography and brain MRI.
• Outcomes of interest were associations of PTSD symptoms with carotid intima media thickness (IMT), brain white matter hyperintensity volume (WMHV), and cognition, assessed in linear regression models.
• Interactions by APOEε4 were assessed; covariates included age, race/ethnicity, education, and CVD risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher PTSD symptoms were associated with greater carotid IMT (P = .03); associations of PTSD symptoms with neurocognitive outcomes varied significantly by APOEε4 status.
• Among APOEε4 carriers, PTSD symptoms were associated with greater whole-brain WMHV (P = .009), periventricular WMHV (P = .02), deep WMHV (P = .01), and frontal WMHV (P = .04) in multivariable models.
• APOEε4 carriers with PTSD symptoms also had poorer cognition, specifically attention and working memory (P = .02), semantic fluency (P = .01), perceptual speed (P = .002) and processing speed (P = .002), in multivariable models.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study sheds important insight on the implications of PTSD symptoms to women’s cardiovascular and neurocognitive health. Our findings indicate that the APOEε4 genotype may identify a group of women with PTSD symptoms at particular risk for poor neurocognitive health,” the authors wrote.

Thurston_Rebecca_PA_web.jpg

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rebecca Thurston, PhD, of the department of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

No diagnostic clinical interviews were conducted, and PTSD treatment was not assessed. All participants identified as cisgender, and most were non-Hispanic Black or White. The study was observational and cross-sectional, precluding assertions about directionality or causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the University of Pittsburgh Small Molecule Biomarker Core. Dr. Thurston reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Hello Therapeutics, Vira Health, and Happify Health outside the submitted work.

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

Since 1983, when I was a child and fled as a boat refugee from Vietnam with my mother, the international plight of displaced people has only worsened. From 1997 to 2022, the number of forcibly displaced people has more than tripled, growing from 34 million to more than 108 million.¹

Displaced people are designated as refugees only when they cross international borders and meet the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) definition as “persons outside their countries of origin who are in need of international protection because of a serious threat to their life, physical integrity, or freedom in their country of origin as a result of persecution, armed conflict, violence, or serious public disorder.”² There is a separate mandate by the United Nations for the aid of Palestinian refugees under the United Nations General Assembly’s United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).³ Of the displaced in 2022, more than 36 million were recognized as refugees under UNHCR and UNRWA mandates.¹ Of these, almost 50% were children, at 17.5 million.⁴ To make matters worse, worldwide children represent less than one-third of the population.⁴ Since 2022, the increase in refugeeism is mostly driven by Ukraine and Syria, though also significantly Afghanistan, Venezuela, Sudan, Myanmar, Congo, Somalia, and Central African Republic.⁴ Refugeeism is a growing problem that disproportionately impacts children through sheer number, and one suspects, given their greater overall vulnerabilities compared with adults, physical and mental health consequences.
 

Traumas of refugees compared with non-refugee immigrants

In terms of mental health, refugees are distinct from non-refugee immigrants in that they likely experience more severe psychosocial adversities from greater poverty, greater risk of family separation, and uncertainty of the asylum process.^5-8

Nguyen_Duy_CA_web.jpg

From my own experience, this stems from the urgent nature of the refugee’s displacement, where they are often fleeing an immediate danger. My family had fled persecution from Communist forces and the social economic collapse that rendered Vietnam, for a time, one of the poorest in the world.⁹ Or, as my mother observed, “We had to leave because even doctors were starving.”

Refugees often have little preparation, have little legal protection since they are often criminalized, and are forced to endure dangerous conditions where they are vulnerable to smugglers and criminals who exploit their unprotected status. Once they arrive in their new country, they often do not have other family as social supports or resources. They themselves become the anchor for future legal and orderly immigration of their remaining family, given that they can extend their refugee status to those left behind.¹⁰ These non-refugee immigrants, unlike their refugee counterparts, are often flown to their new homes with more preparation, protecting them from dangerous conditions, and have the benefit of family who provide them with resources. As such, refugees tend to experience more traumatic life events than non-refugee immigrants. This was true in my family where those of us who initially escaped became the anchors to legally, and more safely, immigrate most of our family in Vietnam. We became their resources, likely making their acclimation smoother.
 

The mental health of refugee children and their caregivers

It is important to understand the stressors affecting the caregivers of children, since effective treatment of their mental health conditions can also benefit the children as well.¹¹ In fact, among the greatest protective factors for refugee children is the presence of an adult caregiver, suggesting that the child’s mental health is dependent on the caregivers.

Those children who are separated show much worse mental health sequalae.¹² As such, an understanding of the caregiver’s stressors is important. For example, when we were escaping Vietnam, my mom would protect me from our hardships by talking about our goals in America, minimizing our dangers by saying that we would be rewarded with things like a hamburger with its seemingly impossible amount of meat. Physically, my mother would always sleep with her arms around me and a knife hidden in order to ward off any attackers at night. When I was starving in the hull of a boat, having not eaten for days, my mother begged for food and gave me what she could get. And post-escape, my family focused on work and applied for aid for shelter and food, while encouraging us to invest in education, likely preventing involvement in criminal activities or gangs. Though overall, my family shielded me from the worst consequences, they also passed on their fears. One of my uncles had been killed by the police when he tried to escape, and so my family passed down a deep suspicion of authorities, whether they were the police or school principals. My mother had vivid memories of Communist re-education camps, which likely gave her a lasting fear that a Communist would find out our identities in America and re-capture us.
 

The mental health risk of refugees

Given that refugees tend to experience greater amounts of traumatic life events and a vast array of stressors sustained across years and even decades before, during, and after migration, it is no wonder they have much higher rates of mental health conditions, most predominantly PTSD and affective disorders.^13,14 They are at particular risk of developing psychoses because they are more likely to experience a range of physical, psychological, and psychosocial problems associated with adversities such as violence, discrimination, economic stress, and social isolation.¹³ For example, the period leading up to my escape consisted of decades of prolonged war: the French-Indochina from 1945 to 1954, then the Vietnam War from 1955 to 1975) as well as the persecution and re-education camps afterward. What my family had to endure created a period of fear and loss into which I was born into in 1976. That year, my family had lost its fortune due to the Communist government seizing of our home and business, plunging us from a comfortable middle- to upper-class life to poverty. There was also widespread fear of systematic rape by the Communist victors. So my family endured great stress and the loss of a way of life leading up to our escape.

For the refugees, the escape itself is often a dangerous journey where, given its emergent nature, they are often exposed to the elements. We know about the current situation in Ukraine and Gaza, where children are fleeing from bombs and bullets. In my situation, we endured weeks of starvation crammed in the hull of boat as we forged through the Indian Ocean to the Philippines. One of my aunts, on a separate trip, perished because her boat had capsized, like so many others. Though impossible to verify, it has been estimated that up to 70% of Vietnamese refugees died during their escape.¹⁵ After the boat, my mother and I still had to brave Malaysian jungles and prisons, and then refugee camps for a year before we reached safety at an American Embassy in the Philippines. After we gained sponsorship to America, the traumas did not abate, but were only replaced by those of culture shock, poverty, and alienation. Taken by themselves, significant traumas exist in each phase of a refugee child’s escape, whether before, during, or after. These traumas are likely compounded since they are continuously layered and sustained across years, even decades. They affect not only the children, but their parents, and sometimes even a whole nation of people.
 

Summary

In recent decades, refugeeism has been a growing problem that disproportionately affects children. Refugee children and their families experience a variety of traumas, often sustained across years and even decades, because of armed conflict, persecution, or social upheavals. It is known that refugees are at greater risk for PTSD and affective and psychotic disorders, presumably due to increased traumatic life events before, during, and after their migration. The writer uses his own experience as a child refugee from Vietnam to elucidate the stressors evident in various phases of forced displacement.

Dr. Nguyen is a second year resident at UCSF Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously.

References

1. UNHCR. Global Trends. Forced displacement in 2016. Geneva, Switzerland: The UN Refugee Agency, 2022. https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends.

2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The refugee concept under international law. Global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.  https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5aa290937.pdf. Published March 8, 2018.

3. United Nations. (2023, November 11). The Question of Palestine. Un.org. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-general-assembly-renews-unrwa-mandate-press-release/

4. UNICEF. (2023, November 11). Child displacement. Data.unicef.org. https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-migration-and-displacement/displacement

5. Kinzie JD. Immigrants and refugees: The psychiatric perspective. Transcult Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;43(4):577-91. doi: 10.1177/1363461506070782.

6. Eaton W and Harrison G. Ethnic disadvantage and schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 2000:(407):38-43. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.00007.x.

7. Gilliver SC et al. Recent research on the mental health of immigrants to Sweden: a literature review. Eur J Public Health. 2014 Aug:24 Suppl 1:72-9. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cku101.

8. Rapp MA et al. When local poverty is more important than your income: Mental health in minorities in inner cities. World Psychiatry. 2015 Jun;14(2):249-50. doi: 10.1002/wps.20221.

9. Cima, Ronald, ed. Vietnam: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1987.

10. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (2023, November 12). Refugees. Uscis.gov. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/refugees

11. Fazel M and Betancourt TS. (2018). Preventive mental health interventions for refugee children and adolescents in high-income settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-32. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5.

12. Fazel M et al. Mental health of displaced and refugee children resettled in high-income countries: risk and protective factors. Lancet. 2012 Jan 21;379(9812):266-82. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60051-2.

13. Dapunt J et al. Refugees and psychosis: A review of the literature. Transl Psychiatry. 2017 Jun 13;7(6):e1149. doi: 10.1038/tp.2017.119.

14. Fazel M et al. Prevalence of serious mental disorder in 7,000 refugees resettled in western countries: a systematic review. Lancet. 2005 Apr;365(9467):1309-14. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)61027-6.

15. Rummel R. Statistics of Vietnamese Democide, in his Statistics of Democide. 1997. Table 6.1B,lines 730, 749-51.

Since 1983, when I was a child and fled as a boat refugee from Vietnam with my mother, the international plight of displaced people has only worsened. From 1997 to 2022, the number of forcibly displaced people has more than tripled, growing from 34 million to more than 108 million.¹

Displaced people are designated as refugees only when they cross international borders and meet the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) definition as “persons outside their countries of origin who are in need of international protection because of a serious threat to their life, physical integrity, or freedom in their country of origin as a result of persecution, armed conflict, violence, or serious public disorder.”² There is a separate mandate by the United Nations for the aid of Palestinian refugees under the United Nations General Assembly’s United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).³ Of the displaced in 2022, more than 36 million were recognized as refugees under UNHCR and UNRWA mandates.¹ Of these, almost 50% were children, at 17.5 million.⁴ To make matters worse, worldwide children represent less than one-third of the population.⁴ Since 2022, the increase in refugeeism is mostly driven by Ukraine and Syria, though also significantly Afghanistan, Venezuela, Sudan, Myanmar, Congo, Somalia, and Central African Republic.⁴ Refugeeism is a growing problem that disproportionately impacts children through sheer number, and one suspects, given their greater overall vulnerabilities compared with adults, physical and mental health consequences.
 

Traumas of refugees compared with non-refugee immigrants

In terms of mental health, refugees are distinct from non-refugee immigrants in that they likely experience more severe psychosocial adversities from greater poverty, greater risk of family separation, and uncertainty of the asylum process.^5-8

Nguyen_Duy_CA_web.jpg

From my own experience, this stems from the urgent nature of the refugee’s displacement, where they are often fleeing an immediate danger. My family had fled persecution from Communist forces and the social economic collapse that rendered Vietnam, for a time, one of the poorest in the world.⁹ Or, as my mother observed, “We had to leave because even doctors were starving.”

Refugees often have little preparation, have little legal protection since they are often criminalized, and are forced to endure dangerous conditions where they are vulnerable to smugglers and criminals who exploit their unprotected status. Once they arrive in their new country, they often do not have other family as social supports or resources. They themselves become the anchor for future legal and orderly immigration of their remaining family, given that they can extend their refugee status to those left behind.¹⁰ These non-refugee immigrants, unlike their refugee counterparts, are often flown to their new homes with more preparation, protecting them from dangerous conditions, and have the benefit of family who provide them with resources. As such, refugees tend to experience more traumatic life events than non-refugee immigrants. This was true in my family where those of us who initially escaped became the anchors to legally, and more safely, immigrate most of our family in Vietnam. We became their resources, likely making their acclimation smoother.
 

The mental health of refugee children and their caregivers

It is important to understand the stressors affecting the caregivers of children, since effective treatment of their mental health conditions can also benefit the children as well.¹¹ In fact, among the greatest protective factors for refugee children is the presence of an adult caregiver, suggesting that the child’s mental health is dependent on the caregivers.

Those children who are separated show much worse mental health sequalae.¹² As such, an understanding of the caregiver’s stressors is important. For example, when we were escaping Vietnam, my mom would protect me from our hardships by talking about our goals in America, minimizing our dangers by saying that we would be rewarded with things like a hamburger with its seemingly impossible amount of meat. Physically, my mother would always sleep with her arms around me and a knife hidden in order to ward off any attackers at night. When I was starving in the hull of a boat, having not eaten for days, my mother begged for food and gave me what she could get. And post-escape, my family focused on work and applied for aid for shelter and food, while encouraging us to invest in education, likely preventing involvement in criminal activities or gangs. Though overall, my family shielded me from the worst consequences, they also passed on their fears. One of my uncles had been killed by the police when he tried to escape, and so my family passed down a deep suspicion of authorities, whether they were the police or school principals. My mother had vivid memories of Communist re-education camps, which likely gave her a lasting fear that a Communist would find out our identities in America and re-capture us.
 

The mental health risk of refugees

Given that refugees tend to experience greater amounts of traumatic life events and a vast array of stressors sustained across years and even decades before, during, and after migration, it is no wonder they have much higher rates of mental health conditions, most predominantly PTSD and affective disorders.^13,14 They are at particular risk of developing psychoses because they are more likely to experience a range of physical, psychological, and psychosocial problems associated with adversities such as violence, discrimination, economic stress, and social isolation.¹³ For example, the period leading up to my escape consisted of decades of prolonged war: the French-Indochina from 1945 to 1954, then the Vietnam War from 1955 to 1975) as well as the persecution and re-education camps afterward. What my family had to endure created a period of fear and loss into which I was born into in 1976. That year, my family had lost its fortune due to the Communist government seizing of our home and business, plunging us from a comfortable middle- to upper-class life to poverty. There was also widespread fear of systematic rape by the Communist victors. So my family endured great stress and the loss of a way of life leading up to our escape.

For the refugees, the escape itself is often a dangerous journey where, given its emergent nature, they are often exposed to the elements. We know about the current situation in Ukraine and Gaza, where children are fleeing from bombs and bullets. In my situation, we endured weeks of starvation crammed in the hull of boat as we forged through the Indian Ocean to the Philippines. One of my aunts, on a separate trip, perished because her boat had capsized, like so many others. Though impossible to verify, it has been estimated that up to 70% of Vietnamese refugees died during their escape.¹⁵ After the boat, my mother and I still had to brave Malaysian jungles and prisons, and then refugee camps for a year before we reached safety at an American Embassy in the Philippines. After we gained sponsorship to America, the traumas did not abate, but were only replaced by those of culture shock, poverty, and alienation. Taken by themselves, significant traumas exist in each phase of a refugee child’s escape, whether before, during, or after. These traumas are likely compounded since they are continuously layered and sustained across years, even decades. They affect not only the children, but their parents, and sometimes even a whole nation of people.
 

Summary

In recent decades, refugeeism has been a growing problem that disproportionately affects children. Refugee children and their families experience a variety of traumas, often sustained across years and even decades, because of armed conflict, persecution, or social upheavals. It is known that refugees are at greater risk for PTSD and affective and psychotic disorders, presumably due to increased traumatic life events before, during, and after their migration. The writer uses his own experience as a child refugee from Vietnam to elucidate the stressors evident in various phases of forced displacement.

Dr. Nguyen is a second year resident at UCSF Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously.

References

1. UNHCR. Global Trends. Forced displacement in 2016. Geneva, Switzerland: The UN Refugee Agency, 2022. https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends.

2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The refugee concept under international law. Global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.  https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5aa290937.pdf. Published March 8, 2018.

3. United Nations. (2023, November 11). The Question of Palestine. Un.org. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-general-assembly-renews-unrwa-mandate-press-release/

4. UNICEF. (2023, November 11). Child displacement. Data.unicef.org. https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-migration-and-displacement/displacement

5. Kinzie JD. Immigrants and refugees: The psychiatric perspective. Transcult Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;43(4):577-91. doi: 10.1177/1363461506070782.

6. Eaton W and Harrison G. Ethnic disadvantage and schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 2000:(407):38-43. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.00007.x.

7. Gilliver SC et al. Recent research on the mental health of immigrants to Sweden: a literature review. Eur J Public Health. 2014 Aug:24 Suppl 1:72-9. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cku101.

8. Rapp MA et al. When local poverty is more important than your income: Mental health in minorities in inner cities. World Psychiatry. 2015 Jun;14(2):249-50. doi: 10.1002/wps.20221.

9. Cima, Ronald, ed. Vietnam: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1987.

10. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (2023, November 12). Refugees. Uscis.gov. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/refugees

11. Fazel M and Betancourt TS. (2018). Preventive mental health interventions for refugee children and adolescents in high-income settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-32. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5.

12. Fazel M et al. Mental health of displaced and refugee children resettled in high-income countries: risk and protective factors. Lancet. 2012 Jan 21;379(9812):266-82. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60051-2.

13. Dapunt J et al. Refugees and psychosis: A review of the literature. Transl Psychiatry. 2017 Jun 13;7(6):e1149. doi: 10.1038/tp.2017.119.

14. Fazel M et al. Prevalence of serious mental disorder in 7,000 refugees resettled in western countries: a systematic review. Lancet. 2005 Apr;365(9467):1309-14. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)61027-6.

15. Rummel R. Statistics of Vietnamese Democide, in his Statistics of Democide. 1997. Table 6.1B,lines 730, 749-51.

Since 1983, when I was a child and fled as a boat refugee from Vietnam with my mother, the international plight of displaced people has only worsened. From 1997 to 2022, the number of forcibly displaced people has more than tripled, growing from 34 million to more than 108 million.¹

Displaced people are designated as refugees only when they cross international borders and meet the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) definition as “persons outside their countries of origin who are in need of international protection because of a serious threat to their life, physical integrity, or freedom in their country of origin as a result of persecution, armed conflict, violence, or serious public disorder.”² There is a separate mandate by the United Nations for the aid of Palestinian refugees under the United Nations General Assembly’s United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).³ Of the displaced in 2022, more than 36 million were recognized as refugees under UNHCR and UNRWA mandates.¹ Of these, almost 50% were children, at 17.5 million.⁴ To make matters worse, worldwide children represent less than one-third of the population.⁴ Since 2022, the increase in refugeeism is mostly driven by Ukraine and Syria, though also significantly Afghanistan, Venezuela, Sudan, Myanmar, Congo, Somalia, and Central African Republic.⁴ Refugeeism is a growing problem that disproportionately impacts children through sheer number, and one suspects, given their greater overall vulnerabilities compared with adults, physical and mental health consequences.
 

Traumas of refugees compared with non-refugee immigrants

In terms of mental health, refugees are distinct from non-refugee immigrants in that they likely experience more severe psychosocial adversities from greater poverty, greater risk of family separation, and uncertainty of the asylum process.^5-8

Nguyen_Duy_CA_web.jpg

From my own experience, this stems from the urgent nature of the refugee’s displacement, where they are often fleeing an immediate danger. My family had fled persecution from Communist forces and the social economic collapse that rendered Vietnam, for a time, one of the poorest in the world.⁹ Or, as my mother observed, “We had to leave because even doctors were starving.”

Refugees often have little preparation, have little legal protection since they are often criminalized, and are forced to endure dangerous conditions where they are vulnerable to smugglers and criminals who exploit their unprotected status. Once they arrive in their new country, they often do not have other family as social supports or resources. They themselves become the anchor for future legal and orderly immigration of their remaining family, given that they can extend their refugee status to those left behind.¹⁰ These non-refugee immigrants, unlike their refugee counterparts, are often flown to their new homes with more preparation, protecting them from dangerous conditions, and have the benefit of family who provide them with resources. As such, refugees tend to experience more traumatic life events than non-refugee immigrants. This was true in my family where those of us who initially escaped became the anchors to legally, and more safely, immigrate most of our family in Vietnam. We became their resources, likely making their acclimation smoother.
 

The mental health of refugee children and their caregivers

It is important to understand the stressors affecting the caregivers of children, since effective treatment of their mental health conditions can also benefit the children as well.¹¹ In fact, among the greatest protective factors for refugee children is the presence of an adult caregiver, suggesting that the child’s mental health is dependent on the caregivers.

Those children who are separated show much worse mental health sequalae.¹² As such, an understanding of the caregiver’s stressors is important. For example, when we were escaping Vietnam, my mom would protect me from our hardships by talking about our goals in America, minimizing our dangers by saying that we would be rewarded with things like a hamburger with its seemingly impossible amount of meat. Physically, my mother would always sleep with her arms around me and a knife hidden in order to ward off any attackers at night. When I was starving in the hull of a boat, having not eaten for days, my mother begged for food and gave me what she could get. And post-escape, my family focused on work and applied for aid for shelter and food, while encouraging us to invest in education, likely preventing involvement in criminal activities or gangs. Though overall, my family shielded me from the worst consequences, they also passed on their fears. One of my uncles had been killed by the police when he tried to escape, and so my family passed down a deep suspicion of authorities, whether they were the police or school principals. My mother had vivid memories of Communist re-education camps, which likely gave her a lasting fear that a Communist would find out our identities in America and re-capture us.
 

The mental health risk of refugees

Given that refugees tend to experience greater amounts of traumatic life events and a vast array of stressors sustained across years and even decades before, during, and after migration, it is no wonder they have much higher rates of mental health conditions, most predominantly PTSD and affective disorders.^13,14 They are at particular risk of developing psychoses because they are more likely to experience a range of physical, psychological, and psychosocial problems associated with adversities such as violence, discrimination, economic stress, and social isolation.¹³ For example, the period leading up to my escape consisted of decades of prolonged war: the French-Indochina from 1945 to 1954, then the Vietnam War from 1955 to 1975) as well as the persecution and re-education camps afterward. What my family had to endure created a period of fear and loss into which I was born into in 1976. That year, my family had lost its fortune due to the Communist government seizing of our home and business, plunging us from a comfortable middle- to upper-class life to poverty. There was also widespread fear of systematic rape by the Communist victors. So my family endured great stress and the loss of a way of life leading up to our escape.

For the refugees, the escape itself is often a dangerous journey where, given its emergent nature, they are often exposed to the elements. We know about the current situation in Ukraine and Gaza, where children are fleeing from bombs and bullets. In my situation, we endured weeks of starvation crammed in the hull of boat as we forged through the Indian Ocean to the Philippines. One of my aunts, on a separate trip, perished because her boat had capsized, like so many others. Though impossible to verify, it has been estimated that up to 70% of Vietnamese refugees died during their escape.¹⁵ After the boat, my mother and I still had to brave Malaysian jungles and prisons, and then refugee camps for a year before we reached safety at an American Embassy in the Philippines. After we gained sponsorship to America, the traumas did not abate, but were only replaced by those of culture shock, poverty, and alienation. Taken by themselves, significant traumas exist in each phase of a refugee child’s escape, whether before, during, or after. These traumas are likely compounded since they are continuously layered and sustained across years, even decades. They affect not only the children, but their parents, and sometimes even a whole nation of people.
 

Summary

In recent decades, refugeeism has been a growing problem that disproportionately affects children. Refugee children and their families experience a variety of traumas, often sustained across years and even decades, because of armed conflict, persecution, or social upheavals. It is known that refugees are at greater risk for PTSD and affective and psychotic disorders, presumably due to increased traumatic life events before, during, and after their migration. The writer uses his own experience as a child refugee from Vietnam to elucidate the stressors evident in various phases of forced displacement.

Dr. Nguyen is a second year resident at UCSF Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously.

References

1. UNHCR. Global Trends. Forced displacement in 2016. Geneva, Switzerland: The UN Refugee Agency, 2022. https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends.

2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The refugee concept under international law. Global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.  https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5aa290937.pdf. Published March 8, 2018.

3. United Nations. (2023, November 11). The Question of Palestine. Un.org. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-general-assembly-renews-unrwa-mandate-press-release/

4. UNICEF. (2023, November 11). Child displacement. Data.unicef.org. https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-migration-and-displacement/displacement

5. Kinzie JD. Immigrants and refugees: The psychiatric perspective. Transcult Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;43(4):577-91. doi: 10.1177/1363461506070782.

6. Eaton W and Harrison G. Ethnic disadvantage and schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 2000:(407):38-43. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.00007.x.

7. Gilliver SC et al. Recent research on the mental health of immigrants to Sweden: a literature review. Eur J Public Health. 2014 Aug:24 Suppl 1:72-9. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cku101.

8. Rapp MA et al. When local poverty is more important than your income: Mental health in minorities in inner cities. World Psychiatry. 2015 Jun;14(2):249-50. doi: 10.1002/wps.20221.

9. Cima, Ronald, ed. Vietnam: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1987.

10. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (2023, November 12). Refugees. Uscis.gov. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/refugees

11. Fazel M and Betancourt TS. (2018). Preventive mental health interventions for refugee children and adolescents in high-income settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-32. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5.

12. Fazel M et al. Mental health of displaced and refugee children resettled in high-income countries: risk and protective factors. Lancet. 2012 Jan 21;379(9812):266-82. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60051-2.

13. Dapunt J et al. Refugees and psychosis: A review of the literature. Transl Psychiatry. 2017 Jun 13;7(6):e1149. doi: 10.1038/tp.2017.119.

14. Fazel M et al. Prevalence of serious mental disorder in 7,000 refugees resettled in western countries: a systematic review. Lancet. 2005 Apr;365(9467):1309-14. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)61027-6.

15. Rummel R. Statistics of Vietnamese Democide, in his Statistics of Democide. 1997. Table 6.1B,lines 730, 749-51.