I am sitting in the comfort of a rustling train as it bumpingly floats its way through the winter-white Nova Scotia countryside,  heading back home after four days of work in a rural part of a neighbouring province.

I am reading yesterday’s Globe and Mail.  The lead editorial headlines: “Those who read well at 15 succeed”.  And, the story is about a Canadian study reported by the OECD that young people who can read well at age 15 tend to do well in life and that young people who can not, do not.  It also reports the truly amazing finding (here I am being fascitious) that those youth who study do better than those who do not!

What insights! What revelations! What a surprise!  Teenagers who read well and study hard do well?  This is news?

Well, the news here is that reading ability is a good proxy measure for many problems.  We have known for a long time that the inability to read at grade level in grade three is predicitive of poor educational, social and vocational outcomes.  Seems that is also the case at age 15.  Reading is a complex skill.  Reading difficulties can be the result of psychosocial adversity, mental disorder, learning disability, or combinations of many factors.  Whatever the reason, reading ability is a “marker” that can be used to identify young people who may need help in sorting out what the problem is and then they can be given  personal assistance in addressing the problem so that they can become successsful.

So why are we not doing this?  Why are we not assessing reading levels in grade three and at age 15 in every single school in this country and using that assessment to identify young people and develop personal interventions that can help them be as good as they can be?  Why are we wasting large amounts of money on building self-esteem and other similar programs when the issue is not self-esteem?  Why are so hesitant to put our money and our efforts into those areas that are likely to bring the best results, particulary for those who need it?

From what I have seen, one reason may be that it is difficult and costly to provide the assessment and intervention services that young people who are having difficulty need.  So it is easier and perhaps cheaper to provide programs for the many that do very little, than interventions for the minority that may do a lot.

There is also a highly discriminatory ideology at play – not manifest but latent.  We do not want to “label” those who need help so we do not identify them and we do not provide them with what they need for success.  You see, “labelling” would hurt their self-esteem and would thus be unfair.  Instead we shunt them aside in favour of “helping” everyone (including mostly those who do not need any extra help).  This of course is more “fair” to those who need help as it denies them what they really need and sets them solidly on the road to poor outcomes. “Oh well, at least they were not labeled and their self-esteem did not suffer as a result”.

Is this fair?   Is this the right thing to do?  Not in my book.

–Stan

Today I was teaching in a primary health care workshop.  Helping a variety of health care providers become comfortable with mental health competencies that could be used by family doctors, nurse practitioners, nurses, social workers and other to provide mental health care to those that need it.

During the discussion about anxiety, we chatted about the way that anxiety makes us feel.  Many of the examples that people gave included the phenomenon of withdrawal, that is, avoidance of the situations in which we feel anxious.  That is surely true, and is one way that anxiety causes great difficulty for people.  This is one way in which anxiety leads to what we call functional impairment: the inability to do what you want or need to do because of the mental disorder.
But, there is another way that anxiety shows itself.  That is through a

ggression.  Yes, sometimes anxiety can lead to lashing out at others.  Have you ever been worried about someone who is late for dinner or late in meeting you at a movie?  What about the parent who is worried about where their child is late at night when it is an hour past the time that they were supposed to be home?  What often happens when your friend shows up or the child slinks into the house?

Right.  You got it.  Instead of being hugging and warm it is often the opposite that occurs.  You get angry and act annoyed.  The parent yells at their child.  Yelling is verbal aggression.  The anxiety has resulted not in avoidance but in attack!

That this happens should not be a surprise.  Remember that anxiety leads to the fight or flight response.  Avoidance is part of the flight and anger is part of the flight.  Yet another way that anxiety can make lives more difficult for people.

Anxiety: Fight or Flight

We often forget how much of a problem overwhelming anxiety can be.  Panic attacks, social anxiety, generalized anxiety and obsessive compulsive disorder all have the potential to be quite disabling.  They can also all be treated and both avoidant behavior and attacking behaviors can be controlled.  In the next couple of months we will be posting a lot of new information on this website, much of it about anxiety.  Stay tuned!

–Stan

Last week, there appears an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about suicide deaths due to jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/inmarin/detail?&entry_id=55733.  According the Chronicle, last year there were 31 deaths, the year before that there were 34.  Over 1,300 people have died by suicide from jumping from the bridge since it was built.

And what is the essence of the story?  Apparently the Marin County Coroners Office wants to recommend suicide prevention barriers and this is controversial.  And guess what – more studies are apparently recommended.

Now, readers of this blog know how committed I am to research.  You also know that I am committed to action.  Will putting up an appropriate barrier decrease the rate of successful suicides by jumping from the bridge?  Highly likely.  Is this a good thing.  For sure.  So why is it not being done.  Who knows?

I remember the hard work that went into getting barriers erected on the Bloor St. Viaduct in Toronto.  There the effort was lead by a young man with lived experience of mental illness.  I know of the hard work that went into getting a barrier erected on the MacDonald Bridge in Halifax.  There the effort was lead by a mother who had lost her son to suicide from the bridge.

It the courageous activity of people like those Toronto and Halifax citizens that seems to be necessary before authorities can act.  I am so proud to know and support those leaders and I thank them for everything that they have done and continue to do in this regard.  What I don’t get is this.  Why is it so hard to do the right thing when it comes to mental health action?

Recently, my research team published a scientific commentary in the Canadian Medical Association Journal dealing with an important mental health concern.  We conducted an assessment of the information dealing with psychological debriefing in schools and found that there was no substantive evidence to support the use of that kind of intervention following traumatic events.  We also found that the best available evidence in studies of adults showed that these type of interventions were not helpful, and indeed in some studies turned out to be harmful (see: Psychological debriefing in schools, www.cmaj.ca Online publication, January 4, 2010)…

Yet, these interventions have been very popular and used so frequently that they have become commonplace.  Who has not heard the news on the radio that grief counselors have been dispatched to a school after a traumatic event?

This raises a very important issue.  That is, before we start wide-scale mental health interventions we need to be pretty sure that they work and we need to be really sure that they do not cause harm.  If we put programs into place that do not work we are creating a false sense of security and using scare resources; money and people, to no good end.  Furthermore, because of our investment in such programs we may be less interested in considering other options – options that may actually work.  In other words, what seems like a good idea may not be a good idea and if that gets codified or ingrained in an organization or institution it may have more negative than positive consequences.

So, what is to be done?  First, when we do get solid substantive evidence that what we are doing does not really work, is not cost effective, could be done better in a different way or may cause harm – we should stop doing whatever that is that we are doing.  Sounds simple but it is not so easy.  Usually because there has been a big investment in the initial program and there may even be a big industry and local champions pushing for its continuation.  Second, before putting in a program we should demand solid substantive evidence that the program really works and that it causes no harm. Third, if we decide to put programs in without the kind of evidence we need to have, we better make sure that we also provide the kind of independent and unbiased research that is needed to help us determine if the program works or not, if it is cost effective and it does not lead to harm!

We have to do the right thing, not just do something.

–Stan

Since it is Christmas and since gift giving is “top of mind” (regardless of your religion – this is a time of year that gift giving is celebrated – OK, not the retail kind, the REAL kind), I thought about what gift I as a mental health professional would like to receive.  And guess what – a number came to mind.

First, I would like to see a Canada and the global society be a place in which people living with mental illness had exactly the same rights, equalities and access to care as people with illnesses that are not disorders of the brain have.  When we can speak of diabetes and colitis and arthritis and schizophrenia all in the same breath and with the same considered and supportive perspective then we will have gone a long way to decreasing stigma and barriers to mental health care.

Second, I would like to see us beginning to talk about finding a cure for various mental illnesses, much as we speak about finding a cure for breast cancer or finding a cure for prostate cancer.  We have finally developed and are rapidly developing our understanding of the brain and its functions – in health and in disease.  And we are getting closer to understanding the social and enviromental impacts that effect brain function and how those may contribute to the development or perpetuation of mental disorders.  So its time we set our sights on a cure for schizophrenia, a cure for major depressive disorder, a cure for bipolar disorder and so on.  We may not find a cure in the next five or ten years, but by gosh the search will take us a long way forward.

Third, I would like to see our mental health community supported and enhanced by coming together of various components instead of those components pulling us apart.  Sometimes I think that if we spent one half of the time and effort that we seem to put into supporting pet ideologies or convincing others of our “truths” in common purpose, we would be so much further ahead.  One foundation that we really need to build our community on is scientific literacy.  We need to use science to advance our cause.  We need to use the best scientific methods and the knowledge that they bring to us to inform our directions.  We need to embrace the science and not rail against it.  Building on this foundation we can work together to ensure that all the interests and different voices of individuals and groups are expressed, heard and included.  A house has many rooms, but if its foundation is not strong it will collapse, regardless of how pretty it may look.

So those are my three Christmas gift wishes.  The best of this gift reminding season to you and yours.  Regardless of your religious beliefs or other defining features.  Be well.

-Stan

It’s hardly a day goes by that we don’t read about depression and its impact on people and the economy and the toll it takes with suicide. We also read about how wonderful treatments are and how it is important to get help as soon as possible. All the above is true and for sure if I, or one of my loved ones, or one of my friends, was depressed I would certainly opt for immediate treatment with an antidepressant medication and an evidence based psychotherapy, delivered by competent health care providers.

But, and this is a big but – the evidence shows that good as our treatments are, they are not as good as they should be. The medications really help a lot but they do not help everyone. The psychotherapies help a lot but they do not help everyone. Combining the treatments helps more people but even this does not help everyone. So what do we need to do?

Well, it’s all well and good to make our systems of care more accessible and to train more health care providers to be able to treat depression but wait a minute. Shouldn’t we be spending a whole lot of time and effort on making our treatments better? Shouldn’t we be making sure that when we offer a treatment to someone the chances of it working the first time are as close to 100 percent as we can get? What would you prefer – a one day wait time for a treatment that works 50 percent of the time or a one week wait time for treatment that works 90 percent of the time? And while we are at it – why not a one day wait time for a treatment that works 100 percent of the time.

So we need to invest in treatment research. We can have all the health care providers and all the clinics and all the nice posters on the walls of schools and neat anti-stigma ads on the television and radio and on and on and on – but, if we do not get better at treatment, how much further are we really ahead? Do you know how many high powered (meaning really good scientific studies) have been done in Canada in the last five years on the treatment of some of the most common mental disorders that begin in adolescence. One? Five? Nine? Maybe none? Do you have any idea how much money is being spent on finding out how to better treat young people that have psychosis or depression or obsessive compulsive disorder compared to treatments for other medical illnesses or even compared how much is spent on posters that tell youth about problems? Don’t you think you should have some idea?

We need to invest in a major way in learning better ways to treat mental disorders in this country. We are not doing that in Canada. It is time we started to. Improving access to care is a good idea. Improving access to care that actually works is an even better idea.

-Stan

Some of us think we have a problem in our suicide research and in our suicide prevention approaches.  Actually there may be many problems with those (stay tuned for future blogs) but one of the concerns is the meaning of the statistics when it comes to the definition of “suicide attempt”.

A suicide attempt can be defined as a purposeful self-injury with the intent to die.  A self-harm attempt on the other hand can be defined as a purposeful self-injury without the intent to die.  Self-harm can be the result of many different factors, including but not limited to: difficulties with problem solving, difficulties with impulse control, copycat phenomenon,  social or situational control, etc.  Increasingly, research is showing that young people who self-injure may be substantially different from those who attempt suicide.  So what does this mean?

Hospitals that use the ICD system (and that is all of them) tend to code self-injury as a suicide attempt.  Even DSM at the time of this writing, does not allow for differentiation of self-injury from suicide attempt.  Could it be that many of our statistics about suicide attempts are incorrect?  Could it be that “truths” that we think we know – such as more females attempt suicide than males – may not be accurate but may be an artifact of not separating out self-harm attempts from suicide attempts?

And what about suicide prevention programs?  Does a decrease in reported incidents of self-harm equal a decrease in real suicidal behaviour – that is suicide attempts?  That does not mean that we should not try to bring down self-harm attempts, but it may mean that the methods useful for one outcome may not be useful at all for another outcome.

Actually, I think its time that we started to think more critically about what we mean when we use the words “suicide attempt”.  Is it really a suicide attempt or is it a self-harm event?  It is an important distinction.  Both are important targets for interventions – public health type and clinical type.  We need to separate them out in our statistics and we need to separate them out in our programs.  Then we can get a better handle on what is actually happening and what we can do about it.

-Stan

Today’s Los Angeles Times carried a front page local story regarding youth suicide in Palo Alto: “Palo Alto campus searches for healing after suicides”.   Although details are sketchy and of course incomplete, the story points out that there has been a cluster of suicides involving students from the same school campus over a short period of time, occurring in the same place and under similar circumstances.  As expected, such tragic events have caused substantive community consternation.

Youth suicide is a very emotional issue.  It cuts to the very core of our families and our communities.  It leaves scars in parents, siblings, grandparents, other family members, friends and many others.  It elicits strong responses from individuals or from communities.  Some of those responses are of grief – private and shared with only a few.  Some of those responses are very public – it is not clear what motivates them or how these differ from the private responses.  Some of these responses may be helpful – such as support and counseling from family and friends.  Some of these responses may be harmful – such as bringing in grief counselors and creating community emotional contagion in the wake of a suicide.  Some of these responses may be neither helpful nor harmful – but may be costly.  So, what can be done?

Here the evidence is not fully in yet and each situation begs careful assessment and considered planning before anything is started.  What is not helpful is putting into place those things we know do not work.  What is likely not helpful is grief contagion.  This can be created by mass grief counseling and enthusiastic and well meaning initiatives to “do something”.  What may be useful is identifying young people who know the victims and addressing their mental health needs and emotional concerns.  What may be useful is for the newspapers and television and radio stations to stop running front page stories and prime time news about youth suicide.  This does not mean that we do not talk about it.  This does not mean that we avoid the topic.  Not at all!  This means that we address this tragic and emotionally issue rationally and responsibly.

-Stan

September 22, 2009

Recent events in the National Basketball Association (NBA) involving two high profile players, Delonte West and Michael Beasley have highlighted the issue of mental health in the NBA.  And, this is an important step forward, not only for the NBA in specific but for professional sports in general.

Professional athletes are no less likely to suffer from mental disorders than the general population.  We can expect that approximately 10 to 15 percent of professional athletes will have significant and substantial mental health problems, including mental disorders.  The most common mental disorders will be: depression, anxiety disorders and substance abuse.  A few may have bipolar illness or other psychotic conditions.

These disorders will affect them in both their personal and professional lives.  Athletes living with mental disorders can expect to have the same challenges that people who are not athletes but who are living with mental disorders have.  These include but are not limited to personal problems and decreased job performance.  One important difference however is that professional athletes are very high profile.  Their lives are often lived in a public arena.  When they have problems these are difficulties are known to the many, not only to the few. 

When mental disorders in professional athletes lead them to experience personal and professional difficulties these can be publicly addressed in positive or in negative ways.  One positive way may be for their employers (professional sports teams) or their associations (players associations, professional leagues such as the NBA , the NHL and others) to publicly acknowledge these difficulties – much as they now do with physical illnesses or injuries.  Another way may be for the players themselves to be open about their problems and to discuss them much as they discuss any physical injuries or other similar issues.  Another way may be for the sports media to become more knowledgeable about mental health problems and mental illnesses and to write their stories from a position of understanding.

Mental disorders affect everyone – including professional athletes. How they, their employers and the media handle these issues may have an important impact on how society in general and youth in particular understand mental illness.  Its time for professional sports to get “on side” – so to speak.

-Stan

Recent reports from the BBC highlight the complexities of helping people with psychotic illnesses – specifically schizophrenia, live symptom free and positive lives. 

The first story “NHS ‘failed’ over cannibal killer” presents an all too common media response to the extremely rare and thus somehow newsworthy bizarre homicide involving a person suffering from a mental disorder and the problems encountered in better understanding and assisting such individuals from people working within the mental health system.  While better training and more careful assessment procedures are in and of themselves important, it is hard to see what such news stories accomplish – except to perpetuate the stigma against people living with a mental illness and those who treat them.

The other story “Embracing the dark voices within” describes the approach (one that is unencumbered by evidence) of a person described as psychologist Rufus May.  What I can glean from this story is that the so called treatment involves getting in touch with your psychosis (voices) in the absence of medication.  Oh dear – here we go again.  This is nothing new and we have seen the chaos and destruction of lives and families that such idiotic ideologies have created in the past.  Those of us old enough to remember the psychoanalytic schools of living through the psychosis or the negative impacts of community circles or the strange world views expressed by the popular “philosopher” R.D. Laing in his books: Bird of Paradise and Politics of Experience or the sad “treatment” described in the novel “I Never Promised You A Rose Garden” shudder when we see history repeating itself.

Schizophrenia is a highly complex and disabling brain disorder often striking in the teen years.  We have good evidence on how to provide treatment – evidence based on solid science and many years of improvements and the integration of biological, psychological, social, vocational and civic engagement strategies to promote recovery.  Regressing into the darkness of the uninformed past is not news – just as the rare and bizarre homicide is not news.  Neither serves the better understanding of mental illness and its optimal treatment. 

I would really like to see some stories about how young people have coped with and overcome their disability.  I would really like to see some stories about how families have struggled with the adversities wrought by the illness – and have come out on top.  I would really like to see some stories about the human relationship between care providers and those living with the illness – the relationships that have gone on for years and have provided the basis for recovery and success.  Now, who can we find to write those stories for the BBC?

-Stan