Recently there was a report of an extraordinary example of political interference in mental health treatment. A political interference based not on knowledge but as far as I can tell, based on stigma or perhaps with a bit of so called “law and order” pandering to the uninformed.

The story unfolds in this way. A person who is in secure treatment for a murder committed when he was psychotic applied to have supervised outdoor walks. The mental health treatment team supported that application and it was permitted by the Criminal Code Review Board who are charged with the responsibility for such decisions. Without these walks (remember that they would be supervised – that is, the person who as far as I know has improved with treatment would be accompanied by two trained mental health staff during short outings) the person would have to languish indoors all summer.

Upon hearing about this decision, the Minister of Justice in Manitoba – Andrew Swan, overturned the board’s decision, ordering that no supervised walks could be allowed! Why? According to Swan it was “contrary to the interests of public safety”.

What hogwash. Since when did Minister Swan get his credentials in mental health? And what possessed him to overturn a duly constituted and credible evaluative process? Could it be stigma against the mentally ill? Could it be the lowest form of political pandering to ignorance and fear? What kind of a message does this send to people living with mental illness? What message does this send to their families? What message does this send to society in general?

Shame on Minister Swan. This is something we could have expected in medieval times, not in 2010 in Canada.

–Stan

Just had a chance to read a report put out by well meaning people on the topic of suicide prevention in youth. In that report the author kept repeating about the many community and school-based programs that have been proven to prevent youth suicide. While I wish that this was true, it is simply not the case. So I am going to write a few blogs about how we know if a program actually prevents youth suicide or not. The first issue is what does the program measure as an outcome?

If a program intends to prevent suicide it must measure suicide. No other measure can be substituted. To my knowledge, there is no data available on this key outcome variable in reports about these community and school-based programs. Instead, we read that some programs increase knowledge about suicide or even decrease the incidence of self-harm behaviors over a short period of time. These are what we call proxy measures and these do not predict changes in suicide rates. We have many examples of interventions that change proxy measures and yet have no impact on the key outcome measure. You can not determine the depth of a well by measuring the length of the pump handle!

Unfortunately, too many people use these proxy measures as “proof” of suicide prevention and go about putting these programs into place. This is a big problem. Not only do we not know if these programs decrease suicide or not, but we do not know if they do any harm! Some early research showed that well intended school interventions actually increased suicide rates! And, guess what, the decrease in suicide rates begin well before suicide prevention programs were put into place and occurred in locations where these programs never existed!

“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”. “It is not enough to do something. It is imperative that we do the right thing”. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Remember all these cautions?” Could be that they apply to so called suicide prevention programs also?

–Stan

The G(irls) 20 Summit delegates, Globe and Mail article, resonates with me. There is no doubt that the equality of women should be a joyous and wonderful thing celebrated by all women everywhere! But what is this meeting of delegates missing? Focusing entirely on women fails to address women’s equality and health. What? That’s crazy! Women and girls are facing inequality resulting in health disparities—shouldn’t we then focus on women? No, actually we shouldn’t.

Focusing exclusively on women is bad for the health of men and women. It fails to provide the necessary variety of perspectives about how gender interactions are contributing to inequality and how this could be addressed in a comprehensive manner.

There are negative consequences of societal gender expectations on all members of society. This includes the people, too often forgotten (at least in North America) who don’t fall into this fabricated gender binary. What about people who are not male or female? What does that mean? You know, people who identify as something other than male or female, including (but not limited to) gender queer people, transmales, transfemales, and intersex people. These groups of people are often ignored completely and face oppression to an exponential degree in comparison to women.

Imagine this. You’re suffering with mental illness and searching for your identity in a society that doesn’t represent you on the washroom label. You’re unsure of your gender identity because examples of others like you are lacking and your existence is denied in innumerable ways. How do you then go about treating your mental health issues (in a society poorly structured to deal with mental illness in the first place) or for that matter any of your other health issues that largely fly under the radar of most mainstream doctors?

Many trans people face a complex web of health issues (mental, sexual and physical health). This is further complicated by the lack of research pertaining to trans people and plausible solutions to the issues they face. A potential starting point for society to tackle this challenge is by backing trans-supportive organizations to take the lead on an international initiative with money and resources. Taking trans initiatives international has potential to provide insights about how other cultures treat trans people and how to improve our society.

But most importantly, we should be tackling the problematic gender expectations and we should be doing it in an all-encompassing/collaborative manner. That is, if we want to address inequalities and related health disparities successfully. Or we could continue attempting to separate inseparable social issues (gender inequality vis à vis males) and members of society (female, male, or gender queer) to create an illusionary solution for the illusionary “separate” issue.

–Holly Huntley

When I read the piece in the Globe and Mail about the G(irls) 20 Summit delegates, I was impressed. Kudos to Belinda Stronach and her Foundation for this innovative and necessary initiative.

Unlike the ongoing boondoggle involving fake lakes and public toilets well out of the reach of the public and denial of reproductive rights enjoyed by Canadian women to women in other countries, the Stronach initiative strikes the right notes.

Domestic violence, rape, the need for gender equality, the need for high quality easily accessible education, maternal health and well-being (including family planning) where all issues identified by the young delegates profiled in the Globe article.  Of course these are all issues that are too familiar with here in Canada as well – not to the same degree as in low and middle income countries but certainly in kind.  Guess what.  These are mental health issues as well.

Empowering girls and women and ensuring gender equality in all social, civil and economic undertakings are interventions that will spill over into mental health promotion and prevention of negative social and health outcomes.  This is an excellent way to address the social determinants of mental health – everywhere.

We have to do a much better job in this area globally and at home!  The mental health of nations must be built in part on national policies that promote and ensure the well-being of girls and women.  This is a task that we all must participate in.  I for one would like to see very piece of federal, provincial and territorial legislation reviewed to ensure that it promotes this agenda.  Sure we need mental health policies, programs and plans.  But we need a pro-gender equality framework that informs everything we do.

–Stan

There was a tragic story in the Halifax newspaper, the Chronicle Herald this week: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1185324.html. The story was both new and unfortunately very old at the same time. The gist of the story was that a young man who had killed a woman a number of months ago was found not criminally responsible because, as the story states: “the teen was psychotic when he killed a woman in February”.

Although there are few details of what happened in the paper, it seems as if the young man had been experiencing psychotic symptoms for some time prior to the event. Apparently, “his family had been trying to get him psychiatric help”.

What a shame. How tragic. How sad. How ironic, that Nova Scotia has one of the nation’s best first onset psychosis programs. What happened? What is the back story?

The Province of Nova Scotia spends about 3.5% of its annually recurring health care budget on mental health, and a fraction of that on child and youth mental health services. This is in spite of the knowledge that about 3/4th of all mental disorders arise prior to the age of 25 years and increasing realization that early intervention and effective treatment may prevent substantial long and short term negative outcomes and yes, maybe in this case would have prevented such a tragic outcome.

I for one am getting sick and tired of reading these stories and writing these blogs. I have decided to run for federal office in Halifax in part to make mental health a national health agenda item. This tragic case should not have happened. Why is it taking so long to do so little that can help so many so much?

–Stan

We have known for a long time that the majority of mental disorders begin before age 25. We have also known for a long time that early onset mental disorders are a risk for many poor short and long term outcomes – indeed that is why we recommend early identification and early effective treatment. So that we can try and prevent poor outcomes and enhance good outcomes.

So a recent study, just published has found that for each person (on average) who has an early onset mental disorder it costs her/him over ten thousand dollars per year when they are an adult – that is correct: PER YEAR. This is compared to what their siblings make. ! OUCH!

So, as you know, I am a strong advocate of early identification and early effective treatment for mental disorders. It is simply not right that we do not meet the mental health needs of children and youth at the time that they need the help most – right after they get sick! We know that not providing care early leads to a host of poor outcomes for the person and for our society. Now we have additional information – this is the personal cost – over ten thousand dollars per year! Think of the effect that has on life and wellbeing. Think of what negative spiral effect that could have – poverty, use of food banks, etc. Think of the loss of tax revenue and the impact of lower incomes on the lives of their families and the wellbeing of their children. Not only is this not economically unacceptable, it is simply not fair.

Hey governments. Hey society. Hey banks and wealthy corporations. Hey citizens. It is time we made the investments early on. We can not afford not to do that!

–Stan

The Province of Nova Scotia spends about 3.8 percent of its health care budget on mental health services. Well below the minimum recommended by the World Health Organization.  A small proportion of this goes to child and youth mental health.  As the week long series in the Chronicle Herald (March 8 to March 12) pointed out – the entire provincial mental health system is very broken.  In my opinion, we have to tear it down and start again.  If we had a blank slate there is no way that we would build a mental health system in the way we currently have it.

So, where do we start.  Tearing and building will take a bit of creative thought and a bit of time, not to mention some very difficult slogging to move out of current rigidities and the control of vested interests.  What should we do now?

Well, I wrote about three ideas on this http://thechronicleherald.ca/Letters/1172666.html and the first was focusing on child and youth mental health.

Most mental disorders begin before age 25 years.  Most of these are life-long.  Most of these respond quite well to the evidence based treatments that we have.  Early intervention with effective care has the potential to decrease short term morbidity and improve long term outcomes.  The most effective way to decrease suicide rates is to identify and treat mental disorders.  And the list goes on and on.

Yet we persist in back end investment.  Lets stop this foolishness now.  Of course we need to provide better care and services for post-youth and vulnerable populations (such as refugees, first nations, the economically and socially disadvantaged, etc), but we need to really ramp up our investment at the front end.  So while we work on transforming the entire system we should immediately increase our investment in providing the best evidence based care with the best human resources we can allocate to children, youth and their families.  And we should do it now!

–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

Arguably, the area of mental health is the newest domain of health in using independent, empirically valid and scientific approaches to determining what works, for whom, at what financial cost and with what potential harm.  Perhaps because of this “newness” we seem to spend a lot of unproductive time arguing or discussing what we should be doing and frequently confusing opinion with evidence and often not understanding that all evidence is not equal.

The Health Development Agency of the National Health Service (United Kingdom), in a 2004 critical review of youth suicide prevention programs provided the following four criteria to be used in the application of all mental health programs:

1 – Apply good and effective interventions
2 – Avoid ineffective interventions
3 – Eliminate harmful interventions
4 – Facilitate public accountability

These seem pretty reasonable to me.

The problem we seem to have is making sure we do each of these things.  This is especially a difficulty when our pet theories or personal perspectives do not stand up to independent, substantive and appropriate scrutiny.  Yet these are the things that we need to do.

So here is a suggestion.  Before implementing any mental health program can those people charged with doing that simply tic off each of these four criteria.  Have you clearly and with the proper and most substantive type of evidence demonstrated that the interventions are good and effective?  Are you using programs or other interventions that have none or inadequate evidence of effectiveness?  Are you sure that your programs or other interventions do not cause harm?  Have you been open with the public about the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and safety of all the programs and other interventions that you have in place?

If not, why not?

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