Child Psychiatry Consult

In 2021, state lawmakers introduced a record number of bills that would affect transgender and gender-diverse people. The vast majority were focused on transgender and gender-diverse youth in particular. We’ve seen bills that would take away gender-affirming medical care for minors, ones that would force trans kids to play on sports teams that don’t match their gender identity, and others that would ban trans kids from public facilities like bathrooms that match their gender identities.

These bills aren’t particularly new, but state lawmakers are putting more energy into them than ever. In response, some public figures have started pushing back. Ariana Grande just pledged to match up to 1.5 million dollars in donations to combat anti–trans youth legislative initiatives. However, doctors have been underrepresented in the political discourse.

Sadly, much of the discussion in this area has been driven by wild speculation and emotional rhetoric. It’s rare that we see actual data brought to the table. As clinicians and scientists, we have a responsibility to highlight the data relevant to these legislative debates, and to share them with our representatives. I’m going to break down what we know quantitatively about each of these issues, so that you’ll feel empowered to bring that information to these debates. My hope is that we can move toward evidence-based public policy instead of rhetoric-based public policy, so that we can ensure the best health possible for young people around the country.
 

Bathroom bills

Though they’ve been less of a focus recently, politicians for years have argued that trans people should be forced to use bathrooms and other public facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity. Their central argument is that trans-inclusive public facility policies will result in higher rates of assault. Published peer-review data show this isn’t true. A 2019 study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy examined the impacts of trans-inclusive public facility policies and found they resulted in no increase in assaults among the general (mostly cisgender) population. Another 2019 study in Pediatrics found that trans-inclusive facility policies were associated with lower odds of sexual assault victimization against transgender youth. The myth that trans-inclusive public facilities increase assault risk is simply that: a myth. All existing data indicate that trans-inclusive policies will improve public safety.

Sports bills

One of the hottest debates recently involves whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ sports teams. Those in favor of these bills argue that transgender girls have an innate biological sports advantage over cisgender girls, and if allowed to compete in girls’ sports leagues, they will dominate the events, and cisgender girls will no longer win sports titles. The bills feed into longstanding assumptions – those who were assigned male at birth are strong, and those who were assigned female at birth are weak.

But evidence doesn’t show that trans women dominate female sports leagues. It turns out, there are shockingly few transgender athletes competing in sports leagues around the United States, and even fewer winning major titles. When the Associated Press conducted an investigation asking lawmakers introducing such sports bills to name trans athletes in their states, most couldn’t point to a single one. After Utah state legislators passed a trans sports ban, Governor Spencer Cox vetoed it, pointing out that, of 75,000 high school kids participating in sports in Utah, there was only a single transgender girl (the state legislature overrode the veto anyway).

California has explicitly protected the rights of trans athletes to compete on sports teams that match their gender identity since 2013. There’s still an underrepresentation of trans athletes in sports participation and titles. This is likely because the deck is stacked against these young people in so many other ways that are unrelated to testosterone levels. Trans youth suffer from high rates of harassment, discrimination, and subsequent anxiety and depression that make it difficult to compete in and excel in sports.
 

Medical bills

State legislators have introduced bills around the country that would criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Though such bills are opposed by all major medical organizations (including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association), misinformation continues to spread, and in some instances the bills have become law (though none are currently active due to legal challenges).

Clinicians should be aware that there have been sixteen studies to date, each with unique study designs, that have overall linked gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth to better mental health outcomes. While these interventions do (as with all medications) carry some risks (like delayed bone mineralization with pubertal suppression), the risks must be weighed against potential benefits. Unfortunately, these risks and benefits have not been accurately portrayed in state legislative debates. Politicians have spread a great deal of misinformation about gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, including false assertions that puberty blockers cause infertility and that most transgender adolescents will grow up to identify as cisgender and regret gender-affirming medical interventions.
 

Minority stress

These bills have direct consequences for pediatric patients. For example, trans-inclusive bathroom policies are associated with lower rates of sexual assault. However, there are also important indirect effects to consider. The gender minority stress framework explains the ways in which stigmatizing national discourse drives higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among transgender youth. Under this model, so-called “distal factors” like the recent conversations at the national level that marginalize trans young people, are expected to drive higher rates of adverse mental health outcomes. As transgender youth hear high-profile politicians argue that they’re dangerous to their peers in bathrooms and on sports teams, it’s difficult to imagine their mental health would not worsen. Over time, such “distal factors” also lead to “proximal factors” like internalized transphobia in which youth begin to believe the negative things that are said about them. These dangerous processes can have dramatic negative impacts on self-esteem and emotional development. There is strong precedence that public policies have strong indirect mental health effects on LGBTQ youth.

We’ve entered a dangerous era in which politicians are legislating medical care and other aspects of public policy with the potential to hurt the mental health of our young patients. It’s imperative that clinicians and scientists contact their legislators to make sure they are voting for public policy based on data and fact, not misinformation and political rhetoric. The health of American children depends on it.

Dr. Turban (twitter.com/jack_turban) is a chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University.

In 2021, state lawmakers introduced a record number of bills that would affect transgender and gender-diverse people. The vast majority were focused on transgender and gender-diverse youth in particular. We’ve seen bills that would take away gender-affirming medical care for minors, ones that would force trans kids to play on sports teams that don’t match their gender identity, and others that would ban trans kids from public facilities like bathrooms that match their gender identities.

These bills aren’t particularly new, but state lawmakers are putting more energy into them than ever. In response, some public figures have started pushing back. Ariana Grande just pledged to match up to 1.5 million dollars in donations to combat anti–trans youth legislative initiatives. However, doctors have been underrepresented in the political discourse.

Sadly, much of the discussion in this area has been driven by wild speculation and emotional rhetoric. It’s rare that we see actual data brought to the table. As clinicians and scientists, we have a responsibility to highlight the data relevant to these legislative debates, and to share them with our representatives. I’m going to break down what we know quantitatively about each of these issues, so that you’ll feel empowered to bring that information to these debates. My hope is that we can move toward evidence-based public policy instead of rhetoric-based public policy, so that we can ensure the best health possible for young people around the country.
 

Bathroom bills

Though they’ve been less of a focus recently, politicians for years have argued that trans people should be forced to use bathrooms and other public facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity. Their central argument is that trans-inclusive public facility policies will result in higher rates of assault. Published peer-review data show this isn’t true. A 2019 study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy examined the impacts of trans-inclusive public facility policies and found they resulted in no increase in assaults among the general (mostly cisgender) population. Another 2019 study in Pediatrics found that trans-inclusive facility policies were associated with lower odds of sexual assault victimization against transgender youth. The myth that trans-inclusive public facilities increase assault risk is simply that: a myth. All existing data indicate that trans-inclusive policies will improve public safety.

Sports bills

One of the hottest debates recently involves whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ sports teams. Those in favor of these bills argue that transgender girls have an innate biological sports advantage over cisgender girls, and if allowed to compete in girls’ sports leagues, they will dominate the events, and cisgender girls will no longer win sports titles. The bills feed into longstanding assumptions – those who were assigned male at birth are strong, and those who were assigned female at birth are weak.

But evidence doesn’t show that trans women dominate female sports leagues. It turns out, there are shockingly few transgender athletes competing in sports leagues around the United States, and even fewer winning major titles. When the Associated Press conducted an investigation asking lawmakers introducing such sports bills to name trans athletes in their states, most couldn’t point to a single one. After Utah state legislators passed a trans sports ban, Governor Spencer Cox vetoed it, pointing out that, of 75,000 high school kids participating in sports in Utah, there was only a single transgender girl (the state legislature overrode the veto anyway).

California has explicitly protected the rights of trans athletes to compete on sports teams that match their gender identity since 2013. There’s still an underrepresentation of trans athletes in sports participation and titles. This is likely because the deck is stacked against these young people in so many other ways that are unrelated to testosterone levels. Trans youth suffer from high rates of harassment, discrimination, and subsequent anxiety and depression that make it difficult to compete in and excel in sports.
 

Medical bills

State legislators have introduced bills around the country that would criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Though such bills are opposed by all major medical organizations (including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association), misinformation continues to spread, and in some instances the bills have become law (though none are currently active due to legal challenges).

Clinicians should be aware that there have been sixteen studies to date, each with unique study designs, that have overall linked gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth to better mental health outcomes. While these interventions do (as with all medications) carry some risks (like delayed bone mineralization with pubertal suppression), the risks must be weighed against potential benefits. Unfortunately, these risks and benefits have not been accurately portrayed in state legislative debates. Politicians have spread a great deal of misinformation about gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, including false assertions that puberty blockers cause infertility and that most transgender adolescents will grow up to identify as cisgender and regret gender-affirming medical interventions.
 

Minority stress

These bills have direct consequences for pediatric patients. For example, trans-inclusive bathroom policies are associated with lower rates of sexual assault. However, there are also important indirect effects to consider. The gender minority stress framework explains the ways in which stigmatizing national discourse drives higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among transgender youth. Under this model, so-called “distal factors” like the recent conversations at the national level that marginalize trans young people, are expected to drive higher rates of adverse mental health outcomes. As transgender youth hear high-profile politicians argue that they’re dangerous to their peers in bathrooms and on sports teams, it’s difficult to imagine their mental health would not worsen. Over time, such “distal factors” also lead to “proximal factors” like internalized transphobia in which youth begin to believe the negative things that are said about them. These dangerous processes can have dramatic negative impacts on self-esteem and emotional development. There is strong precedence that public policies have strong indirect mental health effects on LGBTQ youth.

We’ve entered a dangerous era in which politicians are legislating medical care and other aspects of public policy with the potential to hurt the mental health of our young patients. It’s imperative that clinicians and scientists contact their legislators to make sure they are voting for public policy based on data and fact, not misinformation and political rhetoric. The health of American children depends on it.

Dr. Turban (twitter.com/jack_turban) is a chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University.

In 2021, state lawmakers introduced a record number of bills that would affect transgender and gender-diverse people. The vast majority were focused on transgender and gender-diverse youth in particular. We’ve seen bills that would take away gender-affirming medical care for minors, ones that would force trans kids to play on sports teams that don’t match their gender identity, and others that would ban trans kids from public facilities like bathrooms that match their gender identities.

These bills aren’t particularly new, but state lawmakers are putting more energy into them than ever. In response, some public figures have started pushing back. Ariana Grande just pledged to match up to 1.5 million dollars in donations to combat anti–trans youth legislative initiatives. However, doctors have been underrepresented in the political discourse.

Sadly, much of the discussion in this area has been driven by wild speculation and emotional rhetoric. It’s rare that we see actual data brought to the table. As clinicians and scientists, we have a responsibility to highlight the data relevant to these legislative debates, and to share them with our representatives. I’m going to break down what we know quantitatively about each of these issues, so that you’ll feel empowered to bring that information to these debates. My hope is that we can move toward evidence-based public policy instead of rhetoric-based public policy, so that we can ensure the best health possible for young people around the country.
 

Bathroom bills

Though they’ve been less of a focus recently, politicians for years have argued that trans people should be forced to use bathrooms and other public facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity. Their central argument is that trans-inclusive public facility policies will result in higher rates of assault. Published peer-review data show this isn’t true. A 2019 study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy examined the impacts of trans-inclusive public facility policies and found they resulted in no increase in assaults among the general (mostly cisgender) population. Another 2019 study in Pediatrics found that trans-inclusive facility policies were associated with lower odds of sexual assault victimization against transgender youth. The myth that trans-inclusive public facilities increase assault risk is simply that: a myth. All existing data indicate that trans-inclusive policies will improve public safety.

Sports bills

One of the hottest debates recently involves whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ sports teams. Those in favor of these bills argue that transgender girls have an innate biological sports advantage over cisgender girls, and if allowed to compete in girls’ sports leagues, they will dominate the events, and cisgender girls will no longer win sports titles. The bills feed into longstanding assumptions – those who were assigned male at birth are strong, and those who were assigned female at birth are weak.

But evidence doesn’t show that trans women dominate female sports leagues. It turns out, there are shockingly few transgender athletes competing in sports leagues around the United States, and even fewer winning major titles. When the Associated Press conducted an investigation asking lawmakers introducing such sports bills to name trans athletes in their states, most couldn’t point to a single one. After Utah state legislators passed a trans sports ban, Governor Spencer Cox vetoed it, pointing out that, of 75,000 high school kids participating in sports in Utah, there was only a single transgender girl (the state legislature overrode the veto anyway).

California has explicitly protected the rights of trans athletes to compete on sports teams that match their gender identity since 2013. There’s still an underrepresentation of trans athletes in sports participation and titles. This is likely because the deck is stacked against these young people in so many other ways that are unrelated to testosterone levels. Trans youth suffer from high rates of harassment, discrimination, and subsequent anxiety and depression that make it difficult to compete in and excel in sports.
 

Medical bills

State legislators have introduced bills around the country that would criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Though such bills are opposed by all major medical organizations (including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association), misinformation continues to spread, and in some instances the bills have become law (though none are currently active due to legal challenges).

Clinicians should be aware that there have been sixteen studies to date, each with unique study designs, that have overall linked gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth to better mental health outcomes. While these interventions do (as with all medications) carry some risks (like delayed bone mineralization with pubertal suppression), the risks must be weighed against potential benefits. Unfortunately, these risks and benefits have not been accurately portrayed in state legislative debates. Politicians have spread a great deal of misinformation about gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, including false assertions that puberty blockers cause infertility and that most transgender adolescents will grow up to identify as cisgender and regret gender-affirming medical interventions.
 

Minority stress

These bills have direct consequences for pediatric patients. For example, trans-inclusive bathroom policies are associated with lower rates of sexual assault. However, there are also important indirect effects to consider. The gender minority stress framework explains the ways in which stigmatizing national discourse drives higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among transgender youth. Under this model, so-called “distal factors” like the recent conversations at the national level that marginalize trans young people, are expected to drive higher rates of adverse mental health outcomes. As transgender youth hear high-profile politicians argue that they’re dangerous to their peers in bathrooms and on sports teams, it’s difficult to imagine their mental health would not worsen. Over time, such “distal factors” also lead to “proximal factors” like internalized transphobia in which youth begin to believe the negative things that are said about them. These dangerous processes can have dramatic negative impacts on self-esteem and emotional development. There is strong precedence that public policies have strong indirect mental health effects on LGBTQ youth.

We’ve entered a dangerous era in which politicians are legislating medical care and other aspects of public policy with the potential to hurt the mental health of our young patients. It’s imperative that clinicians and scientists contact their legislators to make sure they are voting for public policy based on data and fact, not misinformation and political rhetoric. The health of American children depends on it.

Dr. Turban (twitter.com/jack_turban) is a chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University.

In March, an unprecedented collaboration between the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) resulted in the development of the Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention. The blueprint comprises a consensus summary of expert recommendations, educational resources, and specific and practical strategies for pediatricians and other health care providers to support youth at risk for suicide in pediatric primary care settings. It is ambitious and far-reaching in scope and speaks to the growing understanding that suicide care pathways offer a clear ray of hope toward a shared “zero suicide” goal.

Following the declaration of a national emergency for child and adolescent mental health, the blueprint represents a resource to help us move forward during this national emergency. It offers practically focused suggestions at the clinic site and individual level, in addition to community and school levels, to tackle the deeply concerning and alarming increasing rate of emergency department visits by 30% in the last 2 pandemic years for youth suicide attempts. A reflexive visit for an emergency mental health evaluation in an emergency department after a disclosure of suicidal ideation isn’t always the next best step in a pathway to care, nor a sustainable community solution with the dearth of mental health and crisis resources nationally.

With this new tool, let’s proceed through a case of how one would approach a patient in the office setting with a concerning disclosure.
 

Case

Emily is a 12-year-old girl who presents for a routine well-check in your practice. Her mother shared with you before your examination that she has wondered if Emily may need more support. Since the pandemic, Emily had increasingly spent time using social media and watching television. When you meet with Emily on her own, she says, “I know that life is getting back to normal, and I am supposed to be excited for that, but now I have some anxiety about doing what I used to do. I’ve had some thoughts that it would be better to sleep forever and not wake up ...”

Case discussion

The blueprint recommends universal screening for suicide in all youths aged 12 and over. Not all children, like Emily, will be as open about their inner thoughts. The blueprint provides a link to the ASQ, which comprises questions to ascertain suicide risk and takes 20 seconds to complete with a patient. It is recommended as a first-line screening tool by the NIMH: Suicide Risk Screening Tool. This tool can guide one’s clinical thinking beyond the question of whether or not a child feels “suicidal” after a disclosure such as Emily’s. The blueprint also provides a tip sheet on how to frame these screenings to ensure their thoroughness and interpersonal effectiveness.

Case continued

You go through the ASQ with Emily and she revealed that she has had thoughts about suicide but not currently and without further plans. According to the ASQ, this screening falls into the category of a “non-acute positive screen (potential risk identified),” and now the patient requires a brief suicide safety assessment to determine if an emergency mental health evaluation is needed.

Case discussion

An initial screen (ASQ) should be followed by a Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA). Two common ones are the ASQ-BSSA (created by the same group that created the ASQ) or the C-SSRS (Columbia suicide severity rating scale).

The blueprint suggests adding this level of depth to one’s investigation in a pediatrics office for a divulged concern with suicidal ideation and following the algorithm to ensure safety.

The complete screening process is also described, in detail, in this instructional video: Suicide Risk Screening Training: How to Manage Patients at Risk for Suicide.
 

Case continued

Following the ASQ-BSSA, you determine that a referral to more immediate mental health resources would be most helpful and discuss your concerns with Emily and her family. You connect her via a “warm handoff” to a therapist in the office available from the newly adopted primary care mental health integration model. Emily completes further screening for anxiety and depressive disorders and begins a course of cognitive-behavioral therapy. You feel reassured that the therapist can connect with the consulting psychiatrist in the model who can offer a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation if needed. A referral to the emergency department to complete this screening has been avoided. You also plan for a “caring contact” from the office in a day to check in on Emily and her family and, before they go, provide them with crisis services and resources.

The blueprint represents a thoughtful means to know when emergency department visits are necessary and when other forms of support such as robust safety planning, a connection to other nonemergency services, and “caring contacts” from the office within 24-48 hours are actually of more benefit. “Caring contacts,” in particular, have been lauded as having a significant impact in modifying the course of a patient with suicidal ideation. Data show that differences such as follow-up phone calls by any staff member or even postcards from the clinic over 6-12 months can affect suicide risk.

Beyond outlining suicide care pathways, the blueprint also shares clinical algorithms from the National Network of Child Psychiatry Access Programs (NNCPAP). These algorithms help clinicians assess common issues in pediatrics and reserve referrals to psychiatry and escalations of care to the emergency department for certain high-risk circumstances.

The blueprint seeks to provide a “one-stop-shop” for accessible and usable resources in the clinic workflow for suicide prevention. It is inspiring to see our professional organizations pursuing practical and practice-based solutions to our children’s mental health crisis in unison.
 

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

In March, an unprecedented collaboration between the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) resulted in the development of the Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention. The blueprint comprises a consensus summary of expert recommendations, educational resources, and specific and practical strategies for pediatricians and other health care providers to support youth at risk for suicide in pediatric primary care settings. It is ambitious and far-reaching in scope and speaks to the growing understanding that suicide care pathways offer a clear ray of hope toward a shared “zero suicide” goal.

Following the declaration of a national emergency for child and adolescent mental health, the blueprint represents a resource to help us move forward during this national emergency. It offers practically focused suggestions at the clinic site and individual level, in addition to community and school levels, to tackle the deeply concerning and alarming increasing rate of emergency department visits by 30% in the last 2 pandemic years for youth suicide attempts. A reflexive visit for an emergency mental health evaluation in an emergency department after a disclosure of suicidal ideation isn’t always the next best step in a pathway to care, nor a sustainable community solution with the dearth of mental health and crisis resources nationally.

With this new tool, let’s proceed through a case of how one would approach a patient in the office setting with a concerning disclosure.
 

Case

Emily is a 12-year-old girl who presents for a routine well-check in your practice. Her mother shared with you before your examination that she has wondered if Emily may need more support. Since the pandemic, Emily had increasingly spent time using social media and watching television. When you meet with Emily on her own, she says, “I know that life is getting back to normal, and I am supposed to be excited for that, but now I have some anxiety about doing what I used to do. I’ve had some thoughts that it would be better to sleep forever and not wake up ...”

Case discussion

The blueprint recommends universal screening for suicide in all youths aged 12 and over. Not all children, like Emily, will be as open about their inner thoughts. The blueprint provides a link to the ASQ, which comprises questions to ascertain suicide risk and takes 20 seconds to complete with a patient. It is recommended as a first-line screening tool by the NIMH: Suicide Risk Screening Tool. This tool can guide one’s clinical thinking beyond the question of whether or not a child feels “suicidal” after a disclosure such as Emily’s. The blueprint also provides a tip sheet on how to frame these screenings to ensure their thoroughness and interpersonal effectiveness.

Case continued

You go through the ASQ with Emily and she revealed that she has had thoughts about suicide but not currently and without further plans. According to the ASQ, this screening falls into the category of a “non-acute positive screen (potential risk identified),” and now the patient requires a brief suicide safety assessment to determine if an emergency mental health evaluation is needed.

Case discussion

An initial screen (ASQ) should be followed by a Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA). Two common ones are the ASQ-BSSA (created by the same group that created the ASQ) or the C-SSRS (Columbia suicide severity rating scale).

The blueprint suggests adding this level of depth to one’s investigation in a pediatrics office for a divulged concern with suicidal ideation and following the algorithm to ensure safety.

The complete screening process is also described, in detail, in this instructional video: Suicide Risk Screening Training: How to Manage Patients at Risk for Suicide.
 

Case continued

Following the ASQ-BSSA, you determine that a referral to more immediate mental health resources would be most helpful and discuss your concerns with Emily and her family. You connect her via a “warm handoff” to a therapist in the office available from the newly adopted primary care mental health integration model. Emily completes further screening for anxiety and depressive disorders and begins a course of cognitive-behavioral therapy. You feel reassured that the therapist can connect with the consulting psychiatrist in the model who can offer a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation if needed. A referral to the emergency department to complete this screening has been avoided. You also plan for a “caring contact” from the office in a day to check in on Emily and her family and, before they go, provide them with crisis services and resources.

The blueprint represents a thoughtful means to know when emergency department visits are necessary and when other forms of support such as robust safety planning, a connection to other nonemergency services, and “caring contacts” from the office within 24-48 hours are actually of more benefit. “Caring contacts,” in particular, have been lauded as having a significant impact in modifying the course of a patient with suicidal ideation. Data show that differences such as follow-up phone calls by any staff member or even postcards from the clinic over 6-12 months can affect suicide risk.

Beyond outlining suicide care pathways, the blueprint also shares clinical algorithms from the National Network of Child Psychiatry Access Programs (NNCPAP). These algorithms help clinicians assess common issues in pediatrics and reserve referrals to psychiatry and escalations of care to the emergency department for certain high-risk circumstances.

The blueprint seeks to provide a “one-stop-shop” for accessible and usable resources in the clinic workflow for suicide prevention. It is inspiring to see our professional organizations pursuing practical and practice-based solutions to our children’s mental health crisis in unison.
 

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

In March, an unprecedented collaboration between the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) resulted in the development of the Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention. The blueprint comprises a consensus summary of expert recommendations, educational resources, and specific and practical strategies for pediatricians and other health care providers to support youth at risk for suicide in pediatric primary care settings. It is ambitious and far-reaching in scope and speaks to the growing understanding that suicide care pathways offer a clear ray of hope toward a shared “zero suicide” goal.

Following the declaration of a national emergency for child and adolescent mental health, the blueprint represents a resource to help us move forward during this national emergency. It offers practically focused suggestions at the clinic site and individual level, in addition to community and school levels, to tackle the deeply concerning and alarming increasing rate of emergency department visits by 30% in the last 2 pandemic years for youth suicide attempts. A reflexive visit for an emergency mental health evaluation in an emergency department after a disclosure of suicidal ideation isn’t always the next best step in a pathway to care, nor a sustainable community solution with the dearth of mental health and crisis resources nationally.

With this new tool, let’s proceed through a case of how one would approach a patient in the office setting with a concerning disclosure.
 

Case

Emily is a 12-year-old girl who presents for a routine well-check in your practice. Her mother shared with you before your examination that she has wondered if Emily may need more support. Since the pandemic, Emily had increasingly spent time using social media and watching television. When you meet with Emily on her own, she says, “I know that life is getting back to normal, and I am supposed to be excited for that, but now I have some anxiety about doing what I used to do. I’ve had some thoughts that it would be better to sleep forever and not wake up ...”

Case discussion

The blueprint recommends universal screening for suicide in all youths aged 12 and over. Not all children, like Emily, will be as open about their inner thoughts. The blueprint provides a link to the ASQ, which comprises questions to ascertain suicide risk and takes 20 seconds to complete with a patient. It is recommended as a first-line screening tool by the NIMH: Suicide Risk Screening Tool. This tool can guide one’s clinical thinking beyond the question of whether or not a child feels “suicidal” after a disclosure such as Emily’s. The blueprint also provides a tip sheet on how to frame these screenings to ensure their thoroughness and interpersonal effectiveness.

Case continued

You go through the ASQ with Emily and she revealed that she has had thoughts about suicide but not currently and without further plans. According to the ASQ, this screening falls into the category of a “non-acute positive screen (potential risk identified),” and now the patient requires a brief suicide safety assessment to determine if an emergency mental health evaluation is needed.

Case discussion

An initial screen (ASQ) should be followed by a Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA). Two common ones are the ASQ-BSSA (created by the same group that created the ASQ) or the C-SSRS (Columbia suicide severity rating scale).

The blueprint suggests adding this level of depth to one’s investigation in a pediatrics office for a divulged concern with suicidal ideation and following the algorithm to ensure safety.

The complete screening process is also described, in detail, in this instructional video: Suicide Risk Screening Training: How to Manage Patients at Risk for Suicide.
 

Case continued

Following the ASQ-BSSA, you determine that a referral to more immediate mental health resources would be most helpful and discuss your concerns with Emily and her family. You connect her via a “warm handoff” to a therapist in the office available from the newly adopted primary care mental health integration model. Emily completes further screening for anxiety and depressive disorders and begins a course of cognitive-behavioral therapy. You feel reassured that the therapist can connect with the consulting psychiatrist in the model who can offer a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation if needed. A referral to the emergency department to complete this screening has been avoided. You also plan for a “caring contact” from the office in a day to check in on Emily and her family and, before they go, provide them with crisis services and resources.

The blueprint represents a thoughtful means to know when emergency department visits are necessary and when other forms of support such as robust safety planning, a connection to other nonemergency services, and “caring contacts” from the office within 24-48 hours are actually of more benefit. “Caring contacts,” in particular, have been lauded as having a significant impact in modifying the course of a patient with suicidal ideation. Data show that differences such as follow-up phone calls by any staff member or even postcards from the clinic over 6-12 months can affect suicide risk.

Beyond outlining suicide care pathways, the blueprint also shares clinical algorithms from the National Network of Child Psychiatry Access Programs (NNCPAP). These algorithms help clinicians assess common issues in pediatrics and reserve referrals to psychiatry and escalations of care to the emergency department for certain high-risk circumstances.

The blueprint seeks to provide a “one-stop-shop” for accessible and usable resources in the clinic workflow for suicide prevention. It is inspiring to see our professional organizations pursuing practical and practice-based solutions to our children’s mental health crisis in unison.
 

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

This month’s column is driven by the recent increase of youth in crisis, and COVID-19–related limitations of higher-level services. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among youth¹ and populations who face discrimination are at increased risk.^2,3

A pediatrician colleague recently asked me about how to support patients who may be at risk. With inpatient units and emergency departments over capacity, properly allocating resources to patients with the most acute needs is crucial. When appropriate, providing preventive suicide care in primary care similarly saves lives.
 

Case summary

Cassandra is a 16-year-old Black girl who told a friend on Snapchat that she did not want to be alive. The friend told her parents and Cassandra’s parents brought their daughter to an urgent primary care appointment. Cassandra has had a history of difficulty with large transitions like a family move when she was 13. She spent more time in her room for several months before joining the volleyball team and making new friends. She has always done well academically in school but struggled with insomnia and classwork when her high school shifted to remote learning for the 2020-2021 school year because of the pandemic. This year she attends school in person but is unable to play volleyball because of COVID-19 restrictions. Her parents report that she is again spending more time online in her room. She is passing her classes and doing well in math, but overall, her grades have fallen since the pandemic began. She reports recent difficulties with friends and notes feeling hopeless about a changing climate and race relations in the United States.

Discussion

This case example illustrates some factors pediatricians can consider in determining how to proceed in similar circumstances. What are Cassandra’s immediate risk and treatment needs? In cases like Cassandra’s, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the ABCD (Assess, Build hope, Connect, Develop a safety plan) approach.⁴ Preparing practices to deliver this best possible preventive suicide care is essential.

1. Is this patient at imminent risk of harming herself?

Assess: Screen for suicide risk and assess risk level. Several standardized screening tools exist for gauging a patient’s risk. The Ask Suicide Screening Questionnaire (asQ) is a straightforward screening tool (not to be confused with the ASQ Ages and Stages developmental screening). These questionnaires take only a few minutes and next steps are suggested depending on the score (low, moderate, or high risk) and clinical judgment. What matters most is using a standardized screener to directly ask questions about suicide and then follow up appropriately based on risk.

2. What can be done during the visit to promote a good outcome?

Build hope/reasons for living. Validate that people sometimes feel suicidal when things are difficult, but that the feelings come and go and people go on to live meaningful lives. Tell the patients that you care about keeping them safe when the feelings come up. Motivational interviewing can be helpful to reflect back patient-identified reasons for living. Genuinely tell the patients how much you care about their wellbeing.

3. What can be done outside the visit to promote a good outcome?

Connect: Strengthen connections with protective adults. Make a plan to have the patient connect regularly with parents/trusted adults. She could engage in social action, or connect one-on-one. With more structured social opportunities, she will spend less time online. Medical practices can reach out with postcards and phone calls to show that they care about the patient, an intervention called “Caring Contacts” that has been shown to decrease suicide.

4. Once suicide risk is identified, what are specific tools to use during the visit to keep her safe?

Develop a plan for staying safe: Restrict access to lethal means, develop a safety plan and healthy ways of coping. There is a free 2-hour CALM (Counseling on Access to Lethal Means) training to help providers feel competent in restricting access to lethal means prior to increased risk. This resource provides safety plan templates that help identify triggers, specific ways to stay safe, people to talk to, and suicide prevention resources including lifelines (988) and chat options (text 2 letter state to 741741).

Enacting suicide prevention requires practice readiness and workflow changes. Providers should assess mental health supports in and out of the office, and then rehearse workflow around suicide prevention care. Increasingly, there are embedded case managers or behavioral health providers available. Sometimes local mental health crisis services are the best option. A practice introductory letter to community mental health practitioners can improve later coordination efforts when caring for suicidal youth. Having practice-level support for provider well-being can improve outcomes.
 

Case follow-up

After interviewing the girl separately, and performing a PHQ-A and an asQ, followed by the Brief Suicide Safety Assessment to screen for acuity, the pediatrician felt confident that Cassandra was suffering from moderate depression and had moderate but not imminent risk of suicide. Options to treat her depression were discussed with Cassandra and her parents, and a referral to therapy was made.

The provider knew that depression care is complementary but not sufficient as standalone suicide prevention. The provider used the asQ pathway to determine next steps. He made a safety plan, and referred her to an outpatient mental health clinician with whom the practice had an established relationship for an urgent mental health evaluation. A follow-up primary care appointment was scheduled within 72 hours to re-check safety and ensure that she had an appointment scheduled to start therapy. A nurse contacted the patient and her family regularly to check on her wellbeing. Her parents made a plan with her volleyball coach to organize outdoor off-season conditioning to help with exercise and socializing. The family removed screens prior to bedtime and sleep improved. At a 3-month follow-up, Cassandra had only mild depressive symptoms and the frequency and intensity of her suicidal ideation had decreased.
 

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

References

1. National Institute of Mental Health: Suicide.

2. Hottes TS et al. Am J Public Health. 2016 May;106(5):e1-12.

3. Bridge JA et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(7):697-9.

4. Asarnow JR. SAMHSA Center for Adolescent Suicide and Self-Harm..

This month’s column is driven by the recent increase of youth in crisis, and COVID-19–related limitations of higher-level services. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among youth¹ and populations who face discrimination are at increased risk.^2,3

A pediatrician colleague recently asked me about how to support patients who may be at risk. With inpatient units and emergency departments over capacity, properly allocating resources to patients with the most acute needs is crucial. When appropriate, providing preventive suicide care in primary care similarly saves lives.
 

Case summary

Cassandra is a 16-year-old Black girl who told a friend on Snapchat that she did not want to be alive. The friend told her parents and Cassandra’s parents brought their daughter to an urgent primary care appointment. Cassandra has had a history of difficulty with large transitions like a family move when she was 13. She spent more time in her room for several months before joining the volleyball team and making new friends. She has always done well academically in school but struggled with insomnia and classwork when her high school shifted to remote learning for the 2020-2021 school year because of the pandemic. This year she attends school in person but is unable to play volleyball because of COVID-19 restrictions. Her parents report that she is again spending more time online in her room. She is passing her classes and doing well in math, but overall, her grades have fallen since the pandemic began. She reports recent difficulties with friends and notes feeling hopeless about a changing climate and race relations in the United States.

Discussion

This case example illustrates some factors pediatricians can consider in determining how to proceed in similar circumstances. What are Cassandra’s immediate risk and treatment needs? In cases like Cassandra’s, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the ABCD (Assess, Build hope, Connect, Develop a safety plan) approach.⁴ Preparing practices to deliver this best possible preventive suicide care is essential.

1. Is this patient at imminent risk of harming herself?

Assess: Screen for suicide risk and assess risk level. Several standardized screening tools exist for gauging a patient’s risk. The Ask Suicide Screening Questionnaire (asQ) is a straightforward screening tool (not to be confused with the ASQ Ages and Stages developmental screening). These questionnaires take only a few minutes and next steps are suggested depending on the score (low, moderate, or high risk) and clinical judgment. What matters most is using a standardized screener to directly ask questions about suicide and then follow up appropriately based on risk.

2. What can be done during the visit to promote a good outcome?

Build hope/reasons for living. Validate that people sometimes feel suicidal when things are difficult, but that the feelings come and go and people go on to live meaningful lives. Tell the patients that you care about keeping them safe when the feelings come up. Motivational interviewing can be helpful to reflect back patient-identified reasons for living. Genuinely tell the patients how much you care about their wellbeing.

3. What can be done outside the visit to promote a good outcome?

Connect: Strengthen connections with protective adults. Make a plan to have the patient connect regularly with parents/trusted adults. She could engage in social action, or connect one-on-one. With more structured social opportunities, she will spend less time online. Medical practices can reach out with postcards and phone calls to show that they care about the patient, an intervention called “Caring Contacts” that has been shown to decrease suicide.

4. Once suicide risk is identified, what are specific tools to use during the visit to keep her safe?

Develop a plan for staying safe: Restrict access to lethal means, develop a safety plan and healthy ways of coping. There is a free 2-hour CALM (Counseling on Access to Lethal Means) training to help providers feel competent in restricting access to lethal means prior to increased risk. This resource provides safety plan templates that help identify triggers, specific ways to stay safe, people to talk to, and suicide prevention resources including lifelines (988) and chat options (text 2 letter state to 741741).

Enacting suicide prevention requires practice readiness and workflow changes. Providers should assess mental health supports in and out of the office, and then rehearse workflow around suicide prevention care. Increasingly, there are embedded case managers or behavioral health providers available. Sometimes local mental health crisis services are the best option. A practice introductory letter to community mental health practitioners can improve later coordination efforts when caring for suicidal youth. Having practice-level support for provider well-being can improve outcomes.
 

Case follow-up

After interviewing the girl separately, and performing a PHQ-A and an asQ, followed by the Brief Suicide Safety Assessment to screen for acuity, the pediatrician felt confident that Cassandra was suffering from moderate depression and had moderate but not imminent risk of suicide. Options to treat her depression were discussed with Cassandra and her parents, and a referral to therapy was made.

The provider knew that depression care is complementary but not sufficient as standalone suicide prevention. The provider used the asQ pathway to determine next steps. He made a safety plan, and referred her to an outpatient mental health clinician with whom the practice had an established relationship for an urgent mental health evaluation. A follow-up primary care appointment was scheduled within 72 hours to re-check safety and ensure that she had an appointment scheduled to start therapy. A nurse contacted the patient and her family regularly to check on her wellbeing. Her parents made a plan with her volleyball coach to organize outdoor off-season conditioning to help with exercise and socializing. The family removed screens prior to bedtime and sleep improved. At a 3-month follow-up, Cassandra had only mild depressive symptoms and the frequency and intensity of her suicidal ideation had decreased.
 

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

References

1. National Institute of Mental Health: Suicide.

2. Hottes TS et al. Am J Public Health. 2016 May;106(5):e1-12.

3. Bridge JA et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(7):697-9.

4. Asarnow JR. SAMHSA Center for Adolescent Suicide and Self-Harm..

This month’s column is driven by the recent increase of youth in crisis, and COVID-19–related limitations of higher-level services. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among youth¹ and populations who face discrimination are at increased risk.^2,3

A pediatrician colleague recently asked me about how to support patients who may be at risk. With inpatient units and emergency departments over capacity, properly allocating resources to patients with the most acute needs is crucial. When appropriate, providing preventive suicide care in primary care similarly saves lives.
 

Case summary

Cassandra is a 16-year-old Black girl who told a friend on Snapchat that she did not want to be alive. The friend told her parents and Cassandra’s parents brought their daughter to an urgent primary care appointment. Cassandra has had a history of difficulty with large transitions like a family move when she was 13. She spent more time in her room for several months before joining the volleyball team and making new friends. She has always done well academically in school but struggled with insomnia and classwork when her high school shifted to remote learning for the 2020-2021 school year because of the pandemic. This year she attends school in person but is unable to play volleyball because of COVID-19 restrictions. Her parents report that she is again spending more time online in her room. She is passing her classes and doing well in math, but overall, her grades have fallen since the pandemic began. She reports recent difficulties with friends and notes feeling hopeless about a changing climate and race relations in the United States.

Discussion

This case example illustrates some factors pediatricians can consider in determining how to proceed in similar circumstances. What are Cassandra’s immediate risk and treatment needs? In cases like Cassandra’s, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the ABCD (Assess, Build hope, Connect, Develop a safety plan) approach.⁴ Preparing practices to deliver this best possible preventive suicide care is essential.

1. Is this patient at imminent risk of harming herself?

Assess: Screen for suicide risk and assess risk level. Several standardized screening tools exist for gauging a patient’s risk. The Ask Suicide Screening Questionnaire (asQ) is a straightforward screening tool (not to be confused with the ASQ Ages and Stages developmental screening). These questionnaires take only a few minutes and next steps are suggested depending on the score (low, moderate, or high risk) and clinical judgment. What matters most is using a standardized screener to directly ask questions about suicide and then follow up appropriately based on risk.

2. What can be done during the visit to promote a good outcome?

Build hope/reasons for living. Validate that people sometimes feel suicidal when things are difficult, but that the feelings come and go and people go on to live meaningful lives. Tell the patients that you care about keeping them safe when the feelings come up. Motivational interviewing can be helpful to reflect back patient-identified reasons for living. Genuinely tell the patients how much you care about their wellbeing.

3. What can be done outside the visit to promote a good outcome?

Connect: Strengthen connections with protective adults. Make a plan to have the patient connect regularly with parents/trusted adults. She could engage in social action, or connect one-on-one. With more structured social opportunities, she will spend less time online. Medical practices can reach out with postcards and phone calls to show that they care about the patient, an intervention called “Caring Contacts” that has been shown to decrease suicide.

4. Once suicide risk is identified, what are specific tools to use during the visit to keep her safe?

Develop a plan for staying safe: Restrict access to lethal means, develop a safety plan and healthy ways of coping. There is a free 2-hour CALM (Counseling on Access to Lethal Means) training to help providers feel competent in restricting access to lethal means prior to increased risk. This resource provides safety plan templates that help identify triggers, specific ways to stay safe, people to talk to, and suicide prevention resources including lifelines (988) and chat options (text 2 letter state to 741741).

Enacting suicide prevention requires practice readiness and workflow changes. Providers should assess mental health supports in and out of the office, and then rehearse workflow around suicide prevention care. Increasingly, there are embedded case managers or behavioral health providers available. Sometimes local mental health crisis services are the best option. A practice introductory letter to community mental health practitioners can improve later coordination efforts when caring for suicidal youth. Having practice-level support for provider well-being can improve outcomes.
 

Case follow-up

After interviewing the girl separately, and performing a PHQ-A and an asQ, followed by the Brief Suicide Safety Assessment to screen for acuity, the pediatrician felt confident that Cassandra was suffering from moderate depression and had moderate but not imminent risk of suicide. Options to treat her depression were discussed with Cassandra and her parents, and a referral to therapy was made.

The provider knew that depression care is complementary but not sufficient as standalone suicide prevention. The provider used the asQ pathway to determine next steps. He made a safety plan, and referred her to an outpatient mental health clinician with whom the practice had an established relationship for an urgent mental health evaluation. A follow-up primary care appointment was scheduled within 72 hours to re-check safety and ensure that she had an appointment scheduled to start therapy. A nurse contacted the patient and her family regularly to check on her wellbeing. Her parents made a plan with her volleyball coach to organize outdoor off-season conditioning to help with exercise and socializing. The family removed screens prior to bedtime and sleep improved. At a 3-month follow-up, Cassandra had only mild depressive symptoms and the frequency and intensity of her suicidal ideation had decreased.
 

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

References

1. National Institute of Mental Health: Suicide.

2. Hottes TS et al. Am J Public Health. 2016 May;106(5):e1-12.

3. Bridge JA et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(7):697-9.

4. Asarnow JR. SAMHSA Center for Adolescent Suicide and Self-Harm..

The nation’s Surgeon General, Vice Admiral Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, recently released an advisory report on the current state of youth mental health and recommendations to improve well-being. This action follows a number of emergency declarations that have been made by professional organizations such as the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and other health care groups to raise awareness about the alarming increase of depression, suicide, anxiety, and other mental health problems in youth.

These reports can be helpful in focusing attention and resources for important public health problems. Many still reference the 1999 report from former Surgeon General David Satcher, MD, PhD, which offered a number of eye-opening statistics regarding the prevalence of mental health conditions and the amount of disability associated with them.

Sadly, the present report indicates that many of these indices have grown worse in the past 20 years. For example, the advisory notes that, even before COVID-19, fully half of female high school students reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness (up 40% from 2009). The report then goes on to cite a number of studies documenting even further rises in youth mental health problems associated with the pandemic.

Most of the advisory, however, is devoted to actions that can be taken by different groups, including young people themselves, parents, educators, the government, and even social media and video game companies, to support mental health and well-being. Multiple online resources are provided at the end of each of these sections.

One of the segments is aimed at health care organizations and professionals. While first making a fairly sweeping statement that “our health care system today is not set up optimally to support the mental health and well-being of children and youth,” this part then outlines five broad recommendations that might help improve the fit. These include the following.

• Increase prevention efforts, such as coordination to enrichment programs and referrals for economic and legal supports for families in need.
• Screen routinely for mental health conditions and link those who screen in with appropriate care.
• Identify mental health needs in parents and caregivers such as depression and substance use that can have negative effects on children.
• Increase partnerships between health care groups and community organizations.
• Build multidisciplinary teams that are culturally appropriate and maximally engage children and caretakers in the decision-making process.

The current report is downloadable for free (see reference below) and it is certainly worthwhile for pediatricians to take a look. Dr. Murthy writes, regarding the current state of mental health, that “it would be a tragedy if we beat back one public health crisis only to allow another to grow in its place.”

The report also outlines specific areas where additional research is needed, such as data on racial and sexual minorities and research on innovative and scalable therapies. In addition to the online resources that are provided, the report is backed by over 250 references.

Since its release, the report has generally been well received, and, indeed, there is much to support. The well-known Child Mind Institute in New York tweeted that “this document is a wake-up call for the country and a long-overdue statement of leadership from the federal government.”

Many of the recommendations are admittedly somewhat commons sense, but there are some that are much less so. For example, one recommendation to youth themselves is to serve others – something that may first come across as counterintuitive but can indeed help children and adolescents develop a sense of purpose and self-worth. The call for pediatric health care professionals to screen parents in addition to the patients themselves will likely result in some debate as well. The recommendation to reduce access to lethal means, including the specific naming of firearms, is also a welcome addition. This report also rightly puts a spotlight on the role of societal factors such as racism and poverty in the development of mental health problems and in getting access to quality treatment.

Also worth noting is how much of the advisory examined the role of media in both the problem and the solution. While recognizing that technology, smartphones, and social media are here to stay, a number of suggestions were given to parents, media organizations, journalists, and entertainment companies to reduce the negative impacts these mediums can have. Explicitly recognized in the report is that “there can be tension between what’s best for the technology company and what’s best for the individual user or society.” Also acknowledged was that the link between media of various types and mental health is complex and inconsistent with there being a strong need for additional work in this area when it comes to academic research as well as product development within these companies themselves.

Yet while there is much to like about the advisory, there remain some areas that seem lacking. For example, the text about what causes mental health conditions gets a little dualistic in mentioning biological and environmental factors without much appreciation that these are hardly independent domains. Perhaps more substantially, there was surprisingly little airtime devoted to an enormous issue that underlies so many other challenges related to mental health care – namely an inadequate workforce that gets smaller by the minute. The topic was treated much too superficially with lots of vague calls to “expand” the workforce that lacked substance or detail.

Overall, however, the new Surgeon General’s Advisory is a welcome document that offers updated knowledge of our current challenges and provides practical responses that truly could make a difference. Now all we have to do is put these recommendations into action.

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

Reference

“Protecting Youth Mental Health – The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory,” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2021).

The nation’s Surgeon General, Vice Admiral Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, recently released an advisory report on the current state of youth mental health and recommendations to improve well-being. This action follows a number of emergency declarations that have been made by professional organizations such as the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and other health care groups to raise awareness about the alarming increase of depression, suicide, anxiety, and other mental health problems in youth.

These reports can be helpful in focusing attention and resources for important public health problems. Many still reference the 1999 report from former Surgeon General David Satcher, MD, PhD, which offered a number of eye-opening statistics regarding the prevalence of mental health conditions and the amount of disability associated with them.

Sadly, the present report indicates that many of these indices have grown worse in the past 20 years. For example, the advisory notes that, even before COVID-19, fully half of female high school students reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness (up 40% from 2009). The report then goes on to cite a number of studies documenting even further rises in youth mental health problems associated with the pandemic.

Most of the advisory, however, is devoted to actions that can be taken by different groups, including young people themselves, parents, educators, the government, and even social media and video game companies, to support mental health and well-being. Multiple online resources are provided at the end of each of these sections.

One of the segments is aimed at health care organizations and professionals. While first making a fairly sweeping statement that “our health care system today is not set up optimally to support the mental health and well-being of children and youth,” this part then outlines five broad recommendations that might help improve the fit. These include the following.

• Increase prevention efforts, such as coordination to enrichment programs and referrals for economic and legal supports for families in need.
• Screen routinely for mental health conditions and link those who screen in with appropriate care.
• Identify mental health needs in parents and caregivers such as depression and substance use that can have negative effects on children.
• Increase partnerships between health care groups and community organizations.
• Build multidisciplinary teams that are culturally appropriate and maximally engage children and caretakers in the decision-making process.

The current report is downloadable for free (see reference below) and it is certainly worthwhile for pediatricians to take a look. Dr. Murthy writes, regarding the current state of mental health, that “it would be a tragedy if we beat back one public health crisis only to allow another to grow in its place.”

The report also outlines specific areas where additional research is needed, such as data on racial and sexual minorities and research on innovative and scalable therapies. In addition to the online resources that are provided, the report is backed by over 250 references.

Since its release, the report has generally been well received, and, indeed, there is much to support. The well-known Child Mind Institute in New York tweeted that “this document is a wake-up call for the country and a long-overdue statement of leadership from the federal government.”

Many of the recommendations are admittedly somewhat commons sense, but there are some that are much less so. For example, one recommendation to youth themselves is to serve others – something that may first come across as counterintuitive but can indeed help children and adolescents develop a sense of purpose and self-worth. The call for pediatric health care professionals to screen parents in addition to the patients themselves will likely result in some debate as well. The recommendation to reduce access to lethal means, including the specific naming of firearms, is also a welcome addition. This report also rightly puts a spotlight on the role of societal factors such as racism and poverty in the development of mental health problems and in getting access to quality treatment.

Also worth noting is how much of the advisory examined the role of media in both the problem and the solution. While recognizing that technology, smartphones, and social media are here to stay, a number of suggestions were given to parents, media organizations, journalists, and entertainment companies to reduce the negative impacts these mediums can have. Explicitly recognized in the report is that “there can be tension between what’s best for the technology company and what’s best for the individual user or society.” Also acknowledged was that the link between media of various types and mental health is complex and inconsistent with there being a strong need for additional work in this area when it comes to academic research as well as product development within these companies themselves.

Yet while there is much to like about the advisory, there remain some areas that seem lacking. For example, the text about what causes mental health conditions gets a little dualistic in mentioning biological and environmental factors without much appreciation that these are hardly independent domains. Perhaps more substantially, there was surprisingly little airtime devoted to an enormous issue that underlies so many other challenges related to mental health care – namely an inadequate workforce that gets smaller by the minute. The topic was treated much too superficially with lots of vague calls to “expand” the workforce that lacked substance or detail.

Overall, however, the new Surgeon General’s Advisory is a welcome document that offers updated knowledge of our current challenges and provides practical responses that truly could make a difference. Now all we have to do is put these recommendations into action.

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

Reference

“Protecting Youth Mental Health – The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory,” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2021).

The nation’s Surgeon General, Vice Admiral Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, recently released an advisory report on the current state of youth mental health and recommendations to improve well-being. This action follows a number of emergency declarations that have been made by professional organizations such as the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and other health care groups to raise awareness about the alarming increase of depression, suicide, anxiety, and other mental health problems in youth.

These reports can be helpful in focusing attention and resources for important public health problems. Many still reference the 1999 report from former Surgeon General David Satcher, MD, PhD, which offered a number of eye-opening statistics regarding the prevalence of mental health conditions and the amount of disability associated with them.

Sadly, the present report indicates that many of these indices have grown worse in the past 20 years. For example, the advisory notes that, even before COVID-19, fully half of female high school students reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness (up 40% from 2009). The report then goes on to cite a number of studies documenting even further rises in youth mental health problems associated with the pandemic.

Most of the advisory, however, is devoted to actions that can be taken by different groups, including young people themselves, parents, educators, the government, and even social media and video game companies, to support mental health and well-being. Multiple online resources are provided at the end of each of these sections.

One of the segments is aimed at health care organizations and professionals. While first making a fairly sweeping statement that “our health care system today is not set up optimally to support the mental health and well-being of children and youth,” this part then outlines five broad recommendations that might help improve the fit. These include the following.

• Increase prevention efforts, such as coordination to enrichment programs and referrals for economic and legal supports for families in need.
• Screen routinely for mental health conditions and link those who screen in with appropriate care.
• Identify mental health needs in parents and caregivers such as depression and substance use that can have negative effects on children.
• Increase partnerships between health care groups and community organizations.
• Build multidisciplinary teams that are culturally appropriate and maximally engage children and caretakers in the decision-making process.

The current report is downloadable for free (see reference below) and it is certainly worthwhile for pediatricians to take a look. Dr. Murthy writes, regarding the current state of mental health, that “it would be a tragedy if we beat back one public health crisis only to allow another to grow in its place.”

The report also outlines specific areas where additional research is needed, such as data on racial and sexual minorities and research on innovative and scalable therapies. In addition to the online resources that are provided, the report is backed by over 250 references.

Since its release, the report has generally been well received, and, indeed, there is much to support. The well-known Child Mind Institute in New York tweeted that “this document is a wake-up call for the country and a long-overdue statement of leadership from the federal government.”

Many of the recommendations are admittedly somewhat commons sense, but there are some that are much less so. For example, one recommendation to youth themselves is to serve others – something that may first come across as counterintuitive but can indeed help children and adolescents develop a sense of purpose and self-worth. The call for pediatric health care professionals to screen parents in addition to the patients themselves will likely result in some debate as well. The recommendation to reduce access to lethal means, including the specific naming of firearms, is also a welcome addition. This report also rightly puts a spotlight on the role of societal factors such as racism and poverty in the development of mental health problems and in getting access to quality treatment.

Also worth noting is how much of the advisory examined the role of media in both the problem and the solution. While recognizing that technology, smartphones, and social media are here to stay, a number of suggestions were given to parents, media organizations, journalists, and entertainment companies to reduce the negative impacts these mediums can have. Explicitly recognized in the report is that “there can be tension between what’s best for the technology company and what’s best for the individual user or society.” Also acknowledged was that the link between media of various types and mental health is complex and inconsistent with there being a strong need for additional work in this area when it comes to academic research as well as product development within these companies themselves.

Yet while there is much to like about the advisory, there remain some areas that seem lacking. For example, the text about what causes mental health conditions gets a little dualistic in mentioning biological and environmental factors without much appreciation that these are hardly independent domains. Perhaps more substantially, there was surprisingly little airtime devoted to an enormous issue that underlies so many other challenges related to mental health care – namely an inadequate workforce that gets smaller by the minute. The topic was treated much too superficially with lots of vague calls to “expand” the workforce that lacked substance or detail.

Overall, however, the new Surgeon General’s Advisory is a welcome document that offers updated knowledge of our current challenges and provides practical responses that truly could make a difference. Now all we have to do is put these recommendations into action.

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

Reference

“Protecting Youth Mental Health – The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory,” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2021).

It’s well known that levels of anxiety and depression in youth are on the rise. While some of this increase may be because of other things, such as a lowering of the threshold for what counts as clinically relevant symptoms and decreased stigma when it comes to seeking out mental health services, there seems little debate that the number of children and adolescents who are actually struggling with their mental health is taking a sharp turn for the worse.

What is much less certain are the causes behind this surge. The answer to this important question will likely defy a clear answer from a definitive study. In its place then are a number of different theories that have been circulated and discussed. Each comes with some evidence to support the hypothesis, but none seems able to make a truly compelling argument as the single driving force behind this trend. This column briefly describes and examines some of the factors that may be contributing to the rise in anxiety and depression while providing some explanation for why each factor is unlikely to be the sole culprit.

Some of the biggest suggested causes for the rise in child and adolescent mental health problems include the following:

• COVID. Multiple studies have documented increases in mood and anxiety associated with the pandemic, which in turn, may be because of a number of factors such as social isolation, loss of family members, family financial stressors, and many other contributors.¹ Yet, while it certainly makes sense that COVID is a powerful instigator of mood and anxiety problems, there is good evidence that the upward tic in emotional-behavioral problems began well before the COVID pandemic.²
• Smartphones. In 2017, psychologist Jean Twenge penned a provocative essay in the Atlantic with the title “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?” and the basic answer was yes.³ The foundation for this conclusion was the tracking between the rise in mood and anxiety problems and the meteoric rise of smartphone use in youth. None of these associations, however, can be proven as casual, and more experimental data on the link between smartphone usage and mental health have been inconsistent.
• Bullying. The toxic effect of bullying and, in particular, online or “cyberbullying” has frequently been brought up as a potential cause. Yet while the negative effects of bullying have been well documented, there is evidence that overall bullying has actually decreased over recent years.⁴

These three factors have arguably been the most discussed, but a few others also probably deserve mention.

• Helicopter parenting. Critics of this common and increasingly popular approach to parenting are concerned that all the parental hovering and stepping in convey the message that the world is a very dangerous place while depriving children of opportunities to gain the exposure and competence they need to succeed. The critique is certainly logical and even has been supported in some studies but lacks the needed evidence for a more definitive conclusion.⁵
• Medications. Of course there will be stories blaming the mental health treatment itself, rather than the reasons people seek treatment, for this disturbing trend. And while it is always important to consider that medications can be part of the problem rather than the solution, the majority of evidence points overall to a lack of treatment rather than too much. A recent important study, for example, found that the peak of suicidal thoughts and behaviors occurred a month before medications were started, rather than after.⁶
• Cannabis. While there seems to be a lot of geographic variability with regard to whether or not the number of youth using cannabis is increasing or not, it’s clear that the product now being consumed is considerably stronger than what was used in decades past. This high-potency cannabis now being used has been shown to increase the risk for later mental health problems including psychosis and suicidal behavior.⁷ Unfortunately, these risks are not being heard as a powerful industry fights to increase their market share.

Putting all this together, it seems likely that a tidy and simple explanation for the alarming increase in youth mental health problems will be hard to pin down. It’s also worth pointing out that many of the above factors could work in a synergistic manner. For example, helicopter parenting may be keeping kids more confined to their rooms where they interact more and more on their phones and are exposed to higher amounts of online bullying, all of which has been magnified recently with the COVID pandemic. Obviously, understanding the causes behind this surge is much more than an academic exercise as the amount of stress and suffering rises and treatment resources get overwhelmed. In the meantime, addressing all of the above factors in both primary and specialty care is worthwhile in an effort to reverse this worrying and wide-ranging pattern.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and medical director of Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore. He is the author of the 2021 book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.” You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

References

1. Hawes MT et al. Psychol Med. 2021;13:1-9.

2. Twenge JM et al. J Abnorm Psych. 2019;128(3):185-99.

3. Twenge JM. Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation? The Atlantic. 2017:September.

4. Rettew DC. Bullying: An update. Child Psych Clin North Am. 2021; in press.

5. Van Der Bruggen CO et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008;49(12):1257-69.

6. Lagerberg T et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and suicidal behaviour: A population-based cohort study. Neuropsychopharmacology 2021 Sep 24.

7. Gobbi G et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(4):426-34.

It’s well known that levels of anxiety and depression in youth are on the rise. While some of this increase may be because of other things, such as a lowering of the threshold for what counts as clinically relevant symptoms and decreased stigma when it comes to seeking out mental health services, there seems little debate that the number of children and adolescents who are actually struggling with their mental health is taking a sharp turn for the worse.

What is much less certain are the causes behind this surge. The answer to this important question will likely defy a clear answer from a definitive study. In its place then are a number of different theories that have been circulated and discussed. Each comes with some evidence to support the hypothesis, but none seems able to make a truly compelling argument as the single driving force behind this trend. This column briefly describes and examines some of the factors that may be contributing to the rise in anxiety and depression while providing some explanation for why each factor is unlikely to be the sole culprit.

Some of the biggest suggested causes for the rise in child and adolescent mental health problems include the following:

• COVID. Multiple studies have documented increases in mood and anxiety associated with the pandemic, which in turn, may be because of a number of factors such as social isolation, loss of family members, family financial stressors, and many other contributors.¹ Yet, while it certainly makes sense that COVID is a powerful instigator of mood and anxiety problems, there is good evidence that the upward tic in emotional-behavioral problems began well before the COVID pandemic.²
• Smartphones. In 2017, psychologist Jean Twenge penned a provocative essay in the Atlantic with the title “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?” and the basic answer was yes.³ The foundation for this conclusion was the tracking between the rise in mood and anxiety problems and the meteoric rise of smartphone use in youth. None of these associations, however, can be proven as casual, and more experimental data on the link between smartphone usage and mental health have been inconsistent.
• Bullying. The toxic effect of bullying and, in particular, online or “cyberbullying” has frequently been brought up as a potential cause. Yet while the negative effects of bullying have been well documented, there is evidence that overall bullying has actually decreased over recent years.⁴

These three factors have arguably been the most discussed, but a few others also probably deserve mention.

• Helicopter parenting. Critics of this common and increasingly popular approach to parenting are concerned that all the parental hovering and stepping in convey the message that the world is a very dangerous place while depriving children of opportunities to gain the exposure and competence they need to succeed. The critique is certainly logical and even has been supported in some studies but lacks the needed evidence for a more definitive conclusion.⁵
• Medications. Of course there will be stories blaming the mental health treatment itself, rather than the reasons people seek treatment, for this disturbing trend. And while it is always important to consider that medications can be part of the problem rather than the solution, the majority of evidence points overall to a lack of treatment rather than too much. A recent important study, for example, found that the peak of suicidal thoughts and behaviors occurred a month before medications were started, rather than after.⁶
• Cannabis. While there seems to be a lot of geographic variability with regard to whether or not the number of youth using cannabis is increasing or not, it’s clear that the product now being consumed is considerably stronger than what was used in decades past. This high-potency cannabis now being used has been shown to increase the risk for later mental health problems including psychosis and suicidal behavior.⁷ Unfortunately, these risks are not being heard as a powerful industry fights to increase their market share.

Putting all this together, it seems likely that a tidy and simple explanation for the alarming increase in youth mental health problems will be hard to pin down. It’s also worth pointing out that many of the above factors could work in a synergistic manner. For example, helicopter parenting may be keeping kids more confined to their rooms where they interact more and more on their phones and are exposed to higher amounts of online bullying, all of which has been magnified recently with the COVID pandemic. Obviously, understanding the causes behind this surge is much more than an academic exercise as the amount of stress and suffering rises and treatment resources get overwhelmed. In the meantime, addressing all of the above factors in both primary and specialty care is worthwhile in an effort to reverse this worrying and wide-ranging pattern.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and medical director of Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore. He is the author of the 2021 book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.” You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

References

1. Hawes MT et al. Psychol Med. 2021;13:1-9.

2. Twenge JM et al. J Abnorm Psych. 2019;128(3):185-99.

3. Twenge JM. Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation? The Atlantic. 2017:September.

4. Rettew DC. Bullying: An update. Child Psych Clin North Am. 2021; in press.

5. Van Der Bruggen CO et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008;49(12):1257-69.

6. Lagerberg T et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and suicidal behaviour: A population-based cohort study. Neuropsychopharmacology 2021 Sep 24.

7. Gobbi G et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(4):426-34.

It’s well known that levels of anxiety and depression in youth are on the rise. While some of this increase may be because of other things, such as a lowering of the threshold for what counts as clinically relevant symptoms and decreased stigma when it comes to seeking out mental health services, there seems little debate that the number of children and adolescents who are actually struggling with their mental health is taking a sharp turn for the worse.

What is much less certain are the causes behind this surge. The answer to this important question will likely defy a clear answer from a definitive study. In its place then are a number of different theories that have been circulated and discussed. Each comes with some evidence to support the hypothesis, but none seems able to make a truly compelling argument as the single driving force behind this trend. This column briefly describes and examines some of the factors that may be contributing to the rise in anxiety and depression while providing some explanation for why each factor is unlikely to be the sole culprit.

Some of the biggest suggested causes for the rise in child and adolescent mental health problems include the following:

• COVID. Multiple studies have documented increases in mood and anxiety associated with the pandemic, which in turn, may be because of a number of factors such as social isolation, loss of family members, family financial stressors, and many other contributors.¹ Yet, while it certainly makes sense that COVID is a powerful instigator of mood and anxiety problems, there is good evidence that the upward tic in emotional-behavioral problems began well before the COVID pandemic.²
• Smartphones. In 2017, psychologist Jean Twenge penned a provocative essay in the Atlantic with the title “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?” and the basic answer was yes.³ The foundation for this conclusion was the tracking between the rise in mood and anxiety problems and the meteoric rise of smartphone use in youth. None of these associations, however, can be proven as casual, and more experimental data on the link between smartphone usage and mental health have been inconsistent.
• Bullying. The toxic effect of bullying and, in particular, online or “cyberbullying” has frequently been brought up as a potential cause. Yet while the negative effects of bullying have been well documented, there is evidence that overall bullying has actually decreased over recent years.⁴

These three factors have arguably been the most discussed, but a few others also probably deserve mention.

• Helicopter parenting. Critics of this common and increasingly popular approach to parenting are concerned that all the parental hovering and stepping in convey the message that the world is a very dangerous place while depriving children of opportunities to gain the exposure and competence they need to succeed. The critique is certainly logical and even has been supported in some studies but lacks the needed evidence for a more definitive conclusion.⁵
• Medications. Of course there will be stories blaming the mental health treatment itself, rather than the reasons people seek treatment, for this disturbing trend. And while it is always important to consider that medications can be part of the problem rather than the solution, the majority of evidence points overall to a lack of treatment rather than too much. A recent important study, for example, found that the peak of suicidal thoughts and behaviors occurred a month before medications were started, rather than after.⁶
• Cannabis. While there seems to be a lot of geographic variability with regard to whether or not the number of youth using cannabis is increasing or not, it’s clear that the product now being consumed is considerably stronger than what was used in decades past. This high-potency cannabis now being used has been shown to increase the risk for later mental health problems including psychosis and suicidal behavior.⁷ Unfortunately, these risks are not being heard as a powerful industry fights to increase their market share.

Putting all this together, it seems likely that a tidy and simple explanation for the alarming increase in youth mental health problems will be hard to pin down. It’s also worth pointing out that many of the above factors could work in a synergistic manner. For example, helicopter parenting may be keeping kids more confined to their rooms where they interact more and more on their phones and are exposed to higher amounts of online bullying, all of which has been magnified recently with the COVID pandemic. Obviously, understanding the causes behind this surge is much more than an academic exercise as the amount of stress and suffering rises and treatment resources get overwhelmed. In the meantime, addressing all of the above factors in both primary and specialty care is worthwhile in an effort to reverse this worrying and wide-ranging pattern.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and medical director of Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore. He is the author of the 2021 book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.” You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

References

1. Hawes MT et al. Psychol Med. 2021;13:1-9.

2. Twenge JM et al. J Abnorm Psych. 2019;128(3):185-99.

3. Twenge JM. Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation? The Atlantic. 2017:September.

4. Rettew DC. Bullying: An update. Child Psych Clin North Am. 2021; in press.

5. Van Der Bruggen CO et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008;49(12):1257-69.

6. Lagerberg T et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and suicidal behaviour: A population-based cohort study. Neuropsychopharmacology 2021 Sep 24.

7. Gobbi G et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(4):426-34.

If you haven’t noticed yet, there has been an explosion of new online companies specializing in slicing off some little sliver of health care and leaving traditional medicine to take care of the rest of the patient. Lately, many of these startups involve mental health care, traditionally a difficult area to make profitable unless one caters just to the wealthy. Many pediatricians have been unsure exactly what to make of these new efforts. Are these the rescuers we’ve been waiting for to fill what seems like an enormous and growing unmet need? Are they just another means to extract money from desperate people and leave the real work to someone else? Something in-between? This article outlines some points to consider when evaluating this new frontier.

Case vignette

A 12-year-old girl presents with her parents for an annual exam. She has been struggling with her mood and anxiety over the past 2 years along with occasional superficial cutting. You have started treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and have recommended that she see a mental health professional but the parents report that one attempt with a therapist was a poor fit and nobody in the area seems to be accepting new patients. The parents state that they saw an advertisement on TV for a company that offers online psychotherapy by video appointments or text. They think this might be an option to pursue but are a little skeptical of the whole idea. They look for your opinion on this topic.

Most of these companies operate by having subscribers pay a monthly fee for different levels of services such as videoconference therapy sessions, supportive text messages, or even some psychopharmacological care. Many also offer the ability to switch rapidly between clinicians if you don’t like the one you have.

These arrangements sound great as the world grows increasingly comfortable with online communication and the mental health needs of children and adolescents increase with the seemingly endless COVID pandemic. Further, research generally finds that online mental health treatment is just as effective as services delivered in person, although the data on therapy by text are less robust.

Nevertheless, a lot of skepticism remains about online mental health treatment, particularly among those involved in more traditionally delivered mental health care. Some of the concerns that often get brought up include the following:
 

• Cost. Most of these online groups, especially the big national companies, don’t interact directly with insurance companies, leaving a lot of out-of-pocket expenses or the need for families to work things out directly with their insurance provider.
• Care fragmentation. In many ways, the online mental health care surge seems at odds with the growing “integrated care” movement that is trying to embed more behavioral care within primary care practices. From this lens, outsourcing someone’s mental health treatment to a therapist across the country that the patient has never actually met seems like a step in the wrong direction. Further, concerns arise about how much these folks will know about local resources in the community.
• The corporate model in mental health care. While being able to shop for a therapist like you would for a pillow sounds great on the surface, there are many times where a patient may need to be supportively confronted by their therapist or told no when asking about things like certain medications. The “customer is always right” principle often falls short when it comes to good mental health treatment.
• Depth and type of treatment. It is probably fair to say that most online therapy could be described as supportive psychotherapy. This type of therapy can be quite helpful for many but may lack the depth or specific techniques that some people need. For youth, some of the most effective types of psychotherapy, like cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), can be harder to find, and implement, online.
• Emergencies. While many online companies claim to offer round-the-clock support for paying customers, they can quickly punt to “call your doctor” or even “call 911” if there is any real mental health crisis.

Balancing these potential benefits and pitfalls of online therapy, here are a few questions your patients may want to consider before signing onto a long-term contract with an online therapy company.

• Would the online clinician have any knowledge of my community? In some cases, this may not matter that much, while for others it could be quite important.
• What happens in an emergency? Would the regular online therapist be available to help through a crisis or would things revert back to local resources?
• What about privacy and collaboration? Effective communication between a patient’s primary care clinician and their therapist can be crucial to good care, and asking the patient always to be the intermediary can be fraught with difficulty.
• How long is the contract? Just like those gym memberships, these companies bank on individuals who sign up but then don’t really use the service.
• What kind of training do the therapists at the site have? Is it possible to receive specific types of therapy, like CBT or parent training? Otherwise, pediatricians might be quite likely to hear back from the family wondering about medications after therapy “isn’t helping.”

Overall, mental health treatment delivered by telehealth is here to stay whether we like it or not. For some families, it is likely to provide new access to services not easily obtainable locally, while for others it could end up being a costly and ineffective enterprise. For families who use these services, a key challenge for pediatricians that may be important to overcome is finding a way for these clinicians to integrate into the overall medical team rather than being a detached island unto themselves.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood” (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021). Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

If you haven’t noticed yet, there has been an explosion of new online companies specializing in slicing off some little sliver of health care and leaving traditional medicine to take care of the rest of the patient. Lately, many of these startups involve mental health care, traditionally a difficult area to make profitable unless one caters just to the wealthy. Many pediatricians have been unsure exactly what to make of these new efforts. Are these the rescuers we’ve been waiting for to fill what seems like an enormous and growing unmet need? Are they just another means to extract money from desperate people and leave the real work to someone else? Something in-between? This article outlines some points to consider when evaluating this new frontier.

Case vignette

A 12-year-old girl presents with her parents for an annual exam. She has been struggling with her mood and anxiety over the past 2 years along with occasional superficial cutting. You have started treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and have recommended that she see a mental health professional but the parents report that one attempt with a therapist was a poor fit and nobody in the area seems to be accepting new patients. The parents state that they saw an advertisement on TV for a company that offers online psychotherapy by video appointments or text. They think this might be an option to pursue but are a little skeptical of the whole idea. They look for your opinion on this topic.

Most of these companies operate by having subscribers pay a monthly fee for different levels of services such as videoconference therapy sessions, supportive text messages, or even some psychopharmacological care. Many also offer the ability to switch rapidly between clinicians if you don’t like the one you have.

These arrangements sound great as the world grows increasingly comfortable with online communication and the mental health needs of children and adolescents increase with the seemingly endless COVID pandemic. Further, research generally finds that online mental health treatment is just as effective as services delivered in person, although the data on therapy by text are less robust.

Nevertheless, a lot of skepticism remains about online mental health treatment, particularly among those involved in more traditionally delivered mental health care. Some of the concerns that often get brought up include the following:
 

• Cost. Most of these online groups, especially the big national companies, don’t interact directly with insurance companies, leaving a lot of out-of-pocket expenses or the need for families to work things out directly with their insurance provider.
• Care fragmentation. In many ways, the online mental health care surge seems at odds with the growing “integrated care” movement that is trying to embed more behavioral care within primary care practices. From this lens, outsourcing someone’s mental health treatment to a therapist across the country that the patient has never actually met seems like a step in the wrong direction. Further, concerns arise about how much these folks will know about local resources in the community.
• The corporate model in mental health care. While being able to shop for a therapist like you would for a pillow sounds great on the surface, there are many times where a patient may need to be supportively confronted by their therapist or told no when asking about things like certain medications. The “customer is always right” principle often falls short when it comes to good mental health treatment.
• Depth and type of treatment. It is probably fair to say that most online therapy could be described as supportive psychotherapy. This type of therapy can be quite helpful for many but may lack the depth or specific techniques that some people need. For youth, some of the most effective types of psychotherapy, like cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), can be harder to find, and implement, online.
• Emergencies. While many online companies claim to offer round-the-clock support for paying customers, they can quickly punt to “call your doctor” or even “call 911” if there is any real mental health crisis.

Balancing these potential benefits and pitfalls of online therapy, here are a few questions your patients may want to consider before signing onto a long-term contract with an online therapy company.

• Would the online clinician have any knowledge of my community? In some cases, this may not matter that much, while for others it could be quite important.
• What happens in an emergency? Would the regular online therapist be available to help through a crisis or would things revert back to local resources?
• What about privacy and collaboration? Effective communication between a patient’s primary care clinician and their therapist can be crucial to good care, and asking the patient always to be the intermediary can be fraught with difficulty.
• How long is the contract? Just like those gym memberships, these companies bank on individuals who sign up but then don’t really use the service.
• What kind of training do the therapists at the site have? Is it possible to receive specific types of therapy, like CBT or parent training? Otherwise, pediatricians might be quite likely to hear back from the family wondering about medications after therapy “isn’t helping.”

Overall, mental health treatment delivered by telehealth is here to stay whether we like it or not. For some families, it is likely to provide new access to services not easily obtainable locally, while for others it could end up being a costly and ineffective enterprise. For families who use these services, a key challenge for pediatricians that may be important to overcome is finding a way for these clinicians to integrate into the overall medical team rather than being a detached island unto themselves.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood” (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021). Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

If you haven’t noticed yet, there has been an explosion of new online companies specializing in slicing off some little sliver of health care and leaving traditional medicine to take care of the rest of the patient. Lately, many of these startups involve mental health care, traditionally a difficult area to make profitable unless one caters just to the wealthy. Many pediatricians have been unsure exactly what to make of these new efforts. Are these the rescuers we’ve been waiting for to fill what seems like an enormous and growing unmet need? Are they just another means to extract money from desperate people and leave the real work to someone else? Something in-between? This article outlines some points to consider when evaluating this new frontier.

Case vignette

A 12-year-old girl presents with her parents for an annual exam. She has been struggling with her mood and anxiety over the past 2 years along with occasional superficial cutting. You have started treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and have recommended that she see a mental health professional but the parents report that one attempt with a therapist was a poor fit and nobody in the area seems to be accepting new patients. The parents state that they saw an advertisement on TV for a company that offers online psychotherapy by video appointments or text. They think this might be an option to pursue but are a little skeptical of the whole idea. They look for your opinion on this topic.

Most of these companies operate by having subscribers pay a monthly fee for different levels of services such as videoconference therapy sessions, supportive text messages, or even some psychopharmacological care. Many also offer the ability to switch rapidly between clinicians if you don’t like the one you have.

These arrangements sound great as the world grows increasingly comfortable with online communication and the mental health needs of children and adolescents increase with the seemingly endless COVID pandemic. Further, research generally finds that online mental health treatment is just as effective as services delivered in person, although the data on therapy by text are less robust.

Nevertheless, a lot of skepticism remains about online mental health treatment, particularly among those involved in more traditionally delivered mental health care. Some of the concerns that often get brought up include the following:
 

• Cost. Most of these online groups, especially the big national companies, don’t interact directly with insurance companies, leaving a lot of out-of-pocket expenses or the need for families to work things out directly with their insurance provider.
• Care fragmentation. In many ways, the online mental health care surge seems at odds with the growing “integrated care” movement that is trying to embed more behavioral care within primary care practices. From this lens, outsourcing someone’s mental health treatment to a therapist across the country that the patient has never actually met seems like a step in the wrong direction. Further, concerns arise about how much these folks will know about local resources in the community.
• The corporate model in mental health care. While being able to shop for a therapist like you would for a pillow sounds great on the surface, there are many times where a patient may need to be supportively confronted by their therapist or told no when asking about things like certain medications. The “customer is always right” principle often falls short when it comes to good mental health treatment.
• Depth and type of treatment. It is probably fair to say that most online therapy could be described as supportive psychotherapy. This type of therapy can be quite helpful for many but may lack the depth or specific techniques that some people need. For youth, some of the most effective types of psychotherapy, like cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), can be harder to find, and implement, online.
• Emergencies. While many online companies claim to offer round-the-clock support for paying customers, they can quickly punt to “call your doctor” or even “call 911” if there is any real mental health crisis.

Balancing these potential benefits and pitfalls of online therapy, here are a few questions your patients may want to consider before signing onto a long-term contract with an online therapy company.

• Would the online clinician have any knowledge of my community? In some cases, this may not matter that much, while for others it could be quite important.
• What happens in an emergency? Would the regular online therapist be available to help through a crisis or would things revert back to local resources?
• What about privacy and collaboration? Effective communication between a patient’s primary care clinician and their therapist can be crucial to good care, and asking the patient always to be the intermediary can be fraught with difficulty.
• How long is the contract? Just like those gym memberships, these companies bank on individuals who sign up but then don’t really use the service.
• What kind of training do the therapists at the site have? Is it possible to receive specific types of therapy, like CBT or parent training? Otherwise, pediatricians might be quite likely to hear back from the family wondering about medications after therapy “isn’t helping.”

Overall, mental health treatment delivered by telehealth is here to stay whether we like it or not. For some families, it is likely to provide new access to services not easily obtainable locally, while for others it could end up being a costly and ineffective enterprise. For families who use these services, a key challenge for pediatricians that may be important to overcome is finding a way for these clinicians to integrate into the overall medical team rather than being a detached island unto themselves.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood” (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021). Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Case vignette: Laura is a 14-year-old biological girl who presents to your office for a routine well-child visit. She is doing well medically but notes that over the past 3 months she has been having increasing thoughts of suicide and has self-harmed via cutting on her wrists with a blade removed from a shaving razor. You contemplate what the most salient questions are in order to determine the best disposition for your patient.

The case vignette above may sound like one that you have heard before, and if not, you undoubtedly will encounter such a situation moving forward. The rate of suicidal ideation amongst youth ages 10-24 has increased by 57.4% between 2007 and 2018.¹ Furthermore, suicide is the second leading cause of death in those aged 10 through young adulthood.² According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 18.8% of high school students seriously considered attempting suicide, 15.7% made a plan about how they would attempt suicide, and 8.9% actually attempted suicide, with 2.5% having a suicide attempt that resulted in an injury, poisoning, or overdose that had to be treated by a doctor or nurse during the 12 months before the survey.³ Children often present first to their primary care provider, and they may be the first individual who the child shares their suicidal or self-harm thoughts with. It may be useful to have a standardized approach, while using your own clinical judgment, to determine best next steps. Given the significant recent surge in children presenting to the emergency department for psychiatric needs and that environment having its own limitations (for example, long wait times, nontherapeutic space, etc.), a simple screen and brief assessment may lead to being able to maintain a patient safely outside of the hospital.
 

Screen all appropriate patients for suicide

There are, at minimum, three validated screening tools that can be used as to determine what the best next step should be. They include the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), and the PHQ-9 (modified for adolescents). We can highlight one of the screening tools here as noted below, but the choice of screener may be based on facility and/or clinician preference.

The Ask Suicide-Screening Questions

The ASQ, developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, include the following four binary questions plus a fifth acuity question, as follows:

1. In the past few weeks, have you wished you were dead?

2. In the past few weeks, have you felt that you or your family would be better off if you were dead?

3. In the past week, have you been having thoughts about killing yourself?

4. Have you ever tried to kill yourself?

a. If yes, how?

b. When?

The following acuity question is to be asked if any of the above are answered “yes”:

5. Are you having thoughts of killing yourself right now?

a. If yes, please describe.
 

Assess the level of risk

Once you have screened a patient, you need to assess the level of risk to help determine the level of care required. Returning to our original case vignette, does the patient warrant outpatient management, crisis evaluation, or an emergency psychiatric evaluation? You may have already decided that the patient needs an emergency mental health evaluation from a local crisis clinician evaluation and/or the emergency department. However, you may also find that the screen did not elicit imminent concern, but it does warrant a brief assessment to further elucidate the level of risk and proper disposition. One such instrument that may be helpful is the Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA) – also developed by the NIMH as a tool linked to the ASQ. There are clear and specific instructions in the BSSA with suggestions on how to ask questions. Important components to the BSSA include:

• A focus on a more thorough clinical history – including frequency of suicidal ideation, suicide plan, past behavior, associated symptoms, and social support/stressors
• Collateral information (e.g., further details from those who know the patient such as family/friends).
• Safety planning.
• Determining disposition.

The BSSA may suggest that a crisis/psychiatric evaluation is warranted or suggest that a safety plan with a mental health referral will likely be sufficient.
 

Triage and safety planning

A safety plan should be created if you determine that a patient can be safely maintained as an outpatient based on your screening, assessment, and triaging. Traditional safety plans come in many different forms and can be found online (Example of a Safety Plan Template). However, most safety plans include some version of the following:

• Increased supervision: 24/7 supervision with doors open/unlocked.
• Reduced access: medications (prescription and OTC) locked away; sharps and firearms secured.
• Adaptive coping strategies (e.g., relaxation techniques such as drawing or listening to music).
• Reliable persons for support (e.g., parent, therapist, school counselor).
• Outpatient mental health provider follow-up and/or referral.
• Provision of local crisis and national hotline contact information.
• Use of a safety plan phone app completed with patient.

Envision a safety plan as a living document that evolves, grows, and changes with your patient/family – one that can be easily reviewed/updated at each visit.
 

Returning to our case vignette

Laura returns to your office for a follow-up after a 10-day stay at a hospital-diversion program or inpatient psychiatric unit. The decision is made to use the primary care NIMH ASQ/BSSA algorithm, and you determine the patient to not be at imminent risk following the screen and assessment. Laura is triaged as appropriate for outpatient care, you collaborate to update the safety plan, regular follow-ups are scheduled, and a mental health referral has been placed. Thus, there are tools to assist with screening, assessing, and triaging pediatric patients with suicidal ideation that provide the patient with appropriate care and treatment and may help alleviate the need to have a patient present to the emergency department.

Dr. Abdul-Karim is a child psychiatrist at the University of Vermont University Children’s Hospital in Burlington.

Additional resources

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has developed information that can be provided to families about suicide safety precautions that can be taken at home, which can be found here: Facts for Families. Suicide Safety: Precautions at Home.

Screening tools listed above can be found here:

ASQ Toolkit.

C-SSRS.

PHQ-9 Modified for Adolescents (PHQ-A).

References

1. Curtin SC. National Center for Health Statistics. “State Suicide Rates Among Adolescents and Young Adults Aged 10-24: United States, 2000-2018” National Vital Statistics Reports..

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. “Underlying Cause of Death 2018-2019” CDC WONDER Online Database. Accessed 2021 Jul 31, 6:57:39 p.m.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1991-2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data.

Case vignette: Laura is a 14-year-old biological girl who presents to your office for a routine well-child visit. She is doing well medically but notes that over the past 3 months she has been having increasing thoughts of suicide and has self-harmed via cutting on her wrists with a blade removed from a shaving razor. You contemplate what the most salient questions are in order to determine the best disposition for your patient.

The case vignette above may sound like one that you have heard before, and if not, you undoubtedly will encounter such a situation moving forward. The rate of suicidal ideation amongst youth ages 10-24 has increased by 57.4% between 2007 and 2018.¹ Furthermore, suicide is the second leading cause of death in those aged 10 through young adulthood.² According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 18.8% of high school students seriously considered attempting suicide, 15.7% made a plan about how they would attempt suicide, and 8.9% actually attempted suicide, with 2.5% having a suicide attempt that resulted in an injury, poisoning, or overdose that had to be treated by a doctor or nurse during the 12 months before the survey.³ Children often present first to their primary care provider, and they may be the first individual who the child shares their suicidal or self-harm thoughts with. It may be useful to have a standardized approach, while using your own clinical judgment, to determine best next steps. Given the significant recent surge in children presenting to the emergency department for psychiatric needs and that environment having its own limitations (for example, long wait times, nontherapeutic space, etc.), a simple screen and brief assessment may lead to being able to maintain a patient safely outside of the hospital.
 

Screen all appropriate patients for suicide

There are, at minimum, three validated screening tools that can be used as to determine what the best next step should be. They include the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), and the PHQ-9 (modified for adolescents). We can highlight one of the screening tools here as noted below, but the choice of screener may be based on facility and/or clinician preference.

The Ask Suicide-Screening Questions

The ASQ, developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, include the following four binary questions plus a fifth acuity question, as follows:

1. In the past few weeks, have you wished you were dead?

2. In the past few weeks, have you felt that you or your family would be better off if you were dead?

3. In the past week, have you been having thoughts about killing yourself?

4. Have you ever tried to kill yourself?

a. If yes, how?

b. When?

The following acuity question is to be asked if any of the above are answered “yes”:

5. Are you having thoughts of killing yourself right now?

a. If yes, please describe.
 

Assess the level of risk

Once you have screened a patient, you need to assess the level of risk to help determine the level of care required. Returning to our original case vignette, does the patient warrant outpatient management, crisis evaluation, or an emergency psychiatric evaluation? You may have already decided that the patient needs an emergency mental health evaluation from a local crisis clinician evaluation and/or the emergency department. However, you may also find that the screen did not elicit imminent concern, but it does warrant a brief assessment to further elucidate the level of risk and proper disposition. One such instrument that may be helpful is the Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA) – also developed by the NIMH as a tool linked to the ASQ. There are clear and specific instructions in the BSSA with suggestions on how to ask questions. Important components to the BSSA include:

• A focus on a more thorough clinical history – including frequency of suicidal ideation, suicide plan, past behavior, associated symptoms, and social support/stressors
• Collateral information (e.g., further details from those who know the patient such as family/friends).
• Safety planning.
• Determining disposition.

The BSSA may suggest that a crisis/psychiatric evaluation is warranted or suggest that a safety plan with a mental health referral will likely be sufficient.
 

Triage and safety planning

A safety plan should be created if you determine that a patient can be safely maintained as an outpatient based on your screening, assessment, and triaging. Traditional safety plans come in many different forms and can be found online (Example of a Safety Plan Template). However, most safety plans include some version of the following:

• Increased supervision: 24/7 supervision with doors open/unlocked.
• Reduced access: medications (prescription and OTC) locked away; sharps and firearms secured.
• Adaptive coping strategies (e.g., relaxation techniques such as drawing or listening to music).
• Reliable persons for support (e.g., parent, therapist, school counselor).
• Outpatient mental health provider follow-up and/or referral.
• Provision of local crisis and national hotline contact information.
• Use of a safety plan phone app completed with patient.

Envision a safety plan as a living document that evolves, grows, and changes with your patient/family – one that can be easily reviewed/updated at each visit.
 

Returning to our case vignette

Laura returns to your office for a follow-up after a 10-day stay at a hospital-diversion program or inpatient psychiatric unit. The decision is made to use the primary care NIMH ASQ/BSSA algorithm, and you determine the patient to not be at imminent risk following the screen and assessment. Laura is triaged as appropriate for outpatient care, you collaborate to update the safety plan, regular follow-ups are scheduled, and a mental health referral has been placed. Thus, there are tools to assist with screening, assessing, and triaging pediatric patients with suicidal ideation that provide the patient with appropriate care and treatment and may help alleviate the need to have a patient present to the emergency department.

Dr. Abdul-Karim is a child psychiatrist at the University of Vermont University Children’s Hospital in Burlington.

Additional resources

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has developed information that can be provided to families about suicide safety precautions that can be taken at home, which can be found here: Facts for Families. Suicide Safety: Precautions at Home.

Screening tools listed above can be found here:

ASQ Toolkit.

C-SSRS.

PHQ-9 Modified for Adolescents (PHQ-A).

References

1. Curtin SC. National Center for Health Statistics. “State Suicide Rates Among Adolescents and Young Adults Aged 10-24: United States, 2000-2018” National Vital Statistics Reports..

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. “Underlying Cause of Death 2018-2019” CDC WONDER Online Database. Accessed 2021 Jul 31, 6:57:39 p.m.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1991-2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data.

Case vignette: Laura is a 14-year-old biological girl who presents to your office for a routine well-child visit. She is doing well medically but notes that over the past 3 months she has been having increasing thoughts of suicide and has self-harmed via cutting on her wrists with a blade removed from a shaving razor. You contemplate what the most salient questions are in order to determine the best disposition for your patient.

The case vignette above may sound like one that you have heard before, and if not, you undoubtedly will encounter such a situation moving forward. The rate of suicidal ideation amongst youth ages 10-24 has increased by 57.4% between 2007 and 2018.¹ Furthermore, suicide is the second leading cause of death in those aged 10 through young adulthood.² According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 18.8% of high school students seriously considered attempting suicide, 15.7% made a plan about how they would attempt suicide, and 8.9% actually attempted suicide, with 2.5% having a suicide attempt that resulted in an injury, poisoning, or overdose that had to be treated by a doctor or nurse during the 12 months before the survey.³ Children often present first to their primary care provider, and they may be the first individual who the child shares their suicidal or self-harm thoughts with. It may be useful to have a standardized approach, while using your own clinical judgment, to determine best next steps. Given the significant recent surge in children presenting to the emergency department for psychiatric needs and that environment having its own limitations (for example, long wait times, nontherapeutic space, etc.), a simple screen and brief assessment may lead to being able to maintain a patient safely outside of the hospital.
 

Screen all appropriate patients for suicide

There are, at minimum, three validated screening tools that can be used as to determine what the best next step should be. They include the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), and the PHQ-9 (modified for adolescents). We can highlight one of the screening tools here as noted below, but the choice of screener may be based on facility and/or clinician preference.

The Ask Suicide-Screening Questions

The ASQ, developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, include the following four binary questions plus a fifth acuity question, as follows:

1. In the past few weeks, have you wished you were dead?

2. In the past few weeks, have you felt that you or your family would be better off if you were dead?

3. In the past week, have you been having thoughts about killing yourself?

4. Have you ever tried to kill yourself?

a. If yes, how?

b. When?

The following acuity question is to be asked if any of the above are answered “yes”:

5. Are you having thoughts of killing yourself right now?

a. If yes, please describe.
 

Assess the level of risk

Once you have screened a patient, you need to assess the level of risk to help determine the level of care required. Returning to our original case vignette, does the patient warrant outpatient management, crisis evaluation, or an emergency psychiatric evaluation? You may have already decided that the patient needs an emergency mental health evaluation from a local crisis clinician evaluation and/or the emergency department. However, you may also find that the screen did not elicit imminent concern, but it does warrant a brief assessment to further elucidate the level of risk and proper disposition. One such instrument that may be helpful is the Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA) – also developed by the NIMH as a tool linked to the ASQ. There are clear and specific instructions in the BSSA with suggestions on how to ask questions. Important components to the BSSA include:

• A focus on a more thorough clinical history – including frequency of suicidal ideation, suicide plan, past behavior, associated symptoms, and social support/stressors
• Collateral information (e.g., further details from those who know the patient such as family/friends).
• Safety planning.
• Determining disposition.

The BSSA may suggest that a crisis/psychiatric evaluation is warranted or suggest that a safety plan with a mental health referral will likely be sufficient.
 

Triage and safety planning

A safety plan should be created if you determine that a patient can be safely maintained as an outpatient based on your screening, assessment, and triaging. Traditional safety plans come in many different forms and can be found online (Example of a Safety Plan Template). However, most safety plans include some version of the following:

• Increased supervision: 24/7 supervision with doors open/unlocked.
• Reduced access: medications (prescription and OTC) locked away; sharps and firearms secured.
• Adaptive coping strategies (e.g., relaxation techniques such as drawing or listening to music).
• Reliable persons for support (e.g., parent, therapist, school counselor).
• Outpatient mental health provider follow-up and/or referral.
• Provision of local crisis and national hotline contact information.
• Use of a safety plan phone app completed with patient.

Envision a safety plan as a living document that evolves, grows, and changes with your patient/family – one that can be easily reviewed/updated at each visit.
 

Returning to our case vignette

Laura returns to your office for a follow-up after a 10-day stay at a hospital-diversion program or inpatient psychiatric unit. The decision is made to use the primary care NIMH ASQ/BSSA algorithm, and you determine the patient to not be at imminent risk following the screen and assessment. Laura is triaged as appropriate for outpatient care, you collaborate to update the safety plan, regular follow-ups are scheduled, and a mental health referral has been placed. Thus, there are tools to assist with screening, assessing, and triaging pediatric patients with suicidal ideation that provide the patient with appropriate care and treatment and may help alleviate the need to have a patient present to the emergency department.

Dr. Abdul-Karim is a child psychiatrist at the University of Vermont University Children’s Hospital in Burlington.

Additional resources

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has developed information that can be provided to families about suicide safety precautions that can be taken at home, which can be found here: Facts for Families. Suicide Safety: Precautions at Home.

Screening tools listed above can be found here:

ASQ Toolkit.

C-SSRS.

PHQ-9 Modified for Adolescents (PHQ-A).

References

1. Curtin SC. National Center for Health Statistics. “State Suicide Rates Among Adolescents and Young Adults Aged 10-24: United States, 2000-2018” National Vital Statistics Reports..

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. “Underlying Cause of Death 2018-2019” CDC WONDER Online Database. Accessed 2021 Jul 31, 6:57:39 p.m.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1991-2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data.

All over the country, high numbers of youth experiencing a mental health crisis are presenting to emergency departments, where they are assessed to need an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization but then wait for days and sometimes weeks with nowhere to go. In Colorado, one of the largest children’s hospitals in the state declared their own state of emergency to call attention to the problem after facing a 72% increase in volume for mental health emergency visits.¹ This problem is hardly new, but the COVID pandemic has appeared to take the problem to new heights. In Massachusetts, the “boarding” of youth awaiting psychiatric hospitalization has more than doubled since the pandemic, according to a recent report from National Public Radio.² Like many public health problems, there is evidence that the burden falls disproportionately on groups that have faced health inequities in the past.³

What is causing this? The proximal cause is fairly simple: Acute mental health problems in youth are rising while the supply of intensive services is dropping. The number of available inpatient psychiatric beds has steadily been falling over the years even prior to the COVID pandemic, which then took more capacity offline because of staffing shortages and requirements for additional distance between patients (such as eliminating double-occupancy rooms). Meanwhile, levels of anxiety, depression, and suicidality have been rising in youth for reasons still not adequately understood.

The stories of these youth and their families waiting for stabilization and treatment are heartbreaking, and nobody disagrees with the idea that a child being confined to a small ED room for days is not good care. What is debated, however, is how best to fix this problem both in the short and long term. In the eyes of many, the ultimate solution is clear: more inpatient beds. This may indeed be required for some areas, but a closer look at how an entire mental health system operates often reveals both more complex problems and some alternative potential solutions. For example, hospital staff will often acknowledge that they have patients ready for discharge but who need more intensive step-down services like a residential treatment or partial hospital program to be able to do so safely. You can’t have hospital admissions if you don’t have hospital discharges, so without good step-down options patients back up and the regular flow is disrupted. Upstream of the crisis that sends many youth to EDs is another opportunity area, as these tipping points are often seen coming by others, including their pediatricians, but referrals to clinicians or programs that might bring improvement and prevent the need for an ED evaluation are also in short supply.

In the short term, efforts are being directed by some EDs to make the physical space more therapeutic for individuals experiencing mental health problems and to offer more actual treatment when people are there. This can take the form of having a secure space in which to move around, or being offered some supportive psychotherapy sessions and possible medication changes while in the ED. It can also involve simple things like the availability of books, video games, and toys to help pass the time. Such efforts are greatly needed, and many feel that the notion of mental health emergencies somehow being outside the “lane” of emergency medicine training and practice should have been retired long ago.

Medium-term solutions can involve the standing up of more intensive mental health programs that are below the level of inpatient hospitalizations, such as intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization programs, or improved mobile response services that go beyond triage and actually bring supports and techniques directly to families in need. As mentioned, these levels of services can provide both a step-down option that facilitates a hospital discharge and a measure that can prevent the need for some hospitalizations in the first place.

Looking over the long term, health care systems and governments need to evaluate the degree to which more hospital or residential beds may still be needed, despite our best efforts to improve flow and prevent mental health crises from originating. This can often be a contentious topic, however, and securing public dollars to support more beds is often quite difficult even where there seems to be a clear need.

Hovering over nearly all potential solutions, of course, is the challenge of finding the mental health workforce to implement any new programs and initiatives without stealing from services already in place. This dilemma speaks to ongoing issues of parity between resources devoted to mental health versus physical health care. Some mental health care organizations are currently trying to recruit new workers with bonuses or new incentives, but longer-term fixes are likely to require a hard look at the degree to which our actual commitment to mental health care matches the political rhetoric.

Discussions of how to solve the problem of ED boarding can easily deteriorate into a lot of finger pointing of what somebody else should be doing. The truth is, however, that there are many actions that can be taken by those in very different roles.

While many of these steps require efforts from mental health organizations, emergency departments, government agencies, and hospitals, there are things that can be done within the purview of the primary care clinician. First, look for opportunities to increase your collaboration with mental health professionals through initiatives such as integrated care programs. The Health Resources and Services Administration is now using funds from the American Rescue Plan Act to strengthen integrated care programs across the country and new opportunities may well be available soon to get additional mental health supports to primary care offices. Second, get involved and advocate for the mental health of your patients by communicating with other groups to make other potential solutions a reality.

Children and adolescents waiting for days to get the mental health care they need and deserve is an unacceptable situation that we can and must overcome. Quick fixes will be hard to find, but with some collaborative effort, forward thinking, and, yes, financial investments, we can find solutions that reflect the principle of mental health being a foundation for all health.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

References

1. Tabachnik S. Colorado health leaders declare youth mental health state of emergency: “Our kids have run out of resilience.” Denver Post. 2021 May 25. 

2. Bebinger M. Kids in mental health crisis can languish for days inside ERs. National Public Radio. 2021 Jun 23.

3. Nash KA et al. Pediatrics. 2021:147:5. e2020030692.

All over the country, high numbers of youth experiencing a mental health crisis are presenting to emergency departments, where they are assessed to need an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization but then wait for days and sometimes weeks with nowhere to go. In Colorado, one of the largest children’s hospitals in the state declared their own state of emergency to call attention to the problem after facing a 72% increase in volume for mental health emergency visits.¹ This problem is hardly new, but the COVID pandemic has appeared to take the problem to new heights. In Massachusetts, the “boarding” of youth awaiting psychiatric hospitalization has more than doubled since the pandemic, according to a recent report from National Public Radio.² Like many public health problems, there is evidence that the burden falls disproportionately on groups that have faced health inequities in the past.³

What is causing this? The proximal cause is fairly simple: Acute mental health problems in youth are rising while the supply of intensive services is dropping. The number of available inpatient psychiatric beds has steadily been falling over the years even prior to the COVID pandemic, which then took more capacity offline because of staffing shortages and requirements for additional distance between patients (such as eliminating double-occupancy rooms). Meanwhile, levels of anxiety, depression, and suicidality have been rising in youth for reasons still not adequately understood.

The stories of these youth and their families waiting for stabilization and treatment are heartbreaking, and nobody disagrees with the idea that a child being confined to a small ED room for days is not good care. What is debated, however, is how best to fix this problem both in the short and long term. In the eyes of many, the ultimate solution is clear: more inpatient beds. This may indeed be required for some areas, but a closer look at how an entire mental health system operates often reveals both more complex problems and some alternative potential solutions. For example, hospital staff will often acknowledge that they have patients ready for discharge but who need more intensive step-down services like a residential treatment or partial hospital program to be able to do so safely. You can’t have hospital admissions if you don’t have hospital discharges, so without good step-down options patients back up and the regular flow is disrupted. Upstream of the crisis that sends many youth to EDs is another opportunity area, as these tipping points are often seen coming by others, including their pediatricians, but referrals to clinicians or programs that might bring improvement and prevent the need for an ED evaluation are also in short supply.

In the short term, efforts are being directed by some EDs to make the physical space more therapeutic for individuals experiencing mental health problems and to offer more actual treatment when people are there. This can take the form of having a secure space in which to move around, or being offered some supportive psychotherapy sessions and possible medication changes while in the ED. It can also involve simple things like the availability of books, video games, and toys to help pass the time. Such efforts are greatly needed, and many feel that the notion of mental health emergencies somehow being outside the “lane” of emergency medicine training and practice should have been retired long ago.

Medium-term solutions can involve the standing up of more intensive mental health programs that are below the level of inpatient hospitalizations, such as intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization programs, or improved mobile response services that go beyond triage and actually bring supports and techniques directly to families in need. As mentioned, these levels of services can provide both a step-down option that facilitates a hospital discharge and a measure that can prevent the need for some hospitalizations in the first place.

Looking over the long term, health care systems and governments need to evaluate the degree to which more hospital or residential beds may still be needed, despite our best efforts to improve flow and prevent mental health crises from originating. This can often be a contentious topic, however, and securing public dollars to support more beds is often quite difficult even where there seems to be a clear need.

Hovering over nearly all potential solutions, of course, is the challenge of finding the mental health workforce to implement any new programs and initiatives without stealing from services already in place. This dilemma speaks to ongoing issues of parity between resources devoted to mental health versus physical health care. Some mental health care organizations are currently trying to recruit new workers with bonuses or new incentives, but longer-term fixes are likely to require a hard look at the degree to which our actual commitment to mental health care matches the political rhetoric.

Discussions of how to solve the problem of ED boarding can easily deteriorate into a lot of finger pointing of what somebody else should be doing. The truth is, however, that there are many actions that can be taken by those in very different roles.

While many of these steps require efforts from mental health organizations, emergency departments, government agencies, and hospitals, there are things that can be done within the purview of the primary care clinician. First, look for opportunities to increase your collaboration with mental health professionals through initiatives such as integrated care programs. The Health Resources and Services Administration is now using funds from the American Rescue Plan Act to strengthen integrated care programs across the country and new opportunities may well be available soon to get additional mental health supports to primary care offices. Second, get involved and advocate for the mental health of your patients by communicating with other groups to make other potential solutions a reality.

Children and adolescents waiting for days to get the mental health care they need and deserve is an unacceptable situation that we can and must overcome. Quick fixes will be hard to find, but with some collaborative effort, forward thinking, and, yes, financial investments, we can find solutions that reflect the principle of mental health being a foundation for all health.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

References

1. Tabachnik S. Colorado health leaders declare youth mental health state of emergency: “Our kids have run out of resilience.” Denver Post. 2021 May 25. 

2. Bebinger M. Kids in mental health crisis can languish for days inside ERs. National Public Radio. 2021 Jun 23.

3. Nash KA et al. Pediatrics. 2021:147:5. e2020030692.

All over the country, high numbers of youth experiencing a mental health crisis are presenting to emergency departments, where they are assessed to need an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization but then wait for days and sometimes weeks with nowhere to go. In Colorado, one of the largest children’s hospitals in the state declared their own state of emergency to call attention to the problem after facing a 72% increase in volume for mental health emergency visits.¹ This problem is hardly new, but the COVID pandemic has appeared to take the problem to new heights. In Massachusetts, the “boarding” of youth awaiting psychiatric hospitalization has more than doubled since the pandemic, according to a recent report from National Public Radio.² Like many public health problems, there is evidence that the burden falls disproportionately on groups that have faced health inequities in the past.³

What is causing this? The proximal cause is fairly simple: Acute mental health problems in youth are rising while the supply of intensive services is dropping. The number of available inpatient psychiatric beds has steadily been falling over the years even prior to the COVID pandemic, which then took more capacity offline because of staffing shortages and requirements for additional distance between patients (such as eliminating double-occupancy rooms). Meanwhile, levels of anxiety, depression, and suicidality have been rising in youth for reasons still not adequately understood.

The stories of these youth and their families waiting for stabilization and treatment are heartbreaking, and nobody disagrees with the idea that a child being confined to a small ED room for days is not good care. What is debated, however, is how best to fix this problem both in the short and long term. In the eyes of many, the ultimate solution is clear: more inpatient beds. This may indeed be required for some areas, but a closer look at how an entire mental health system operates often reveals both more complex problems and some alternative potential solutions. For example, hospital staff will often acknowledge that they have patients ready for discharge but who need more intensive step-down services like a residential treatment or partial hospital program to be able to do so safely. You can’t have hospital admissions if you don’t have hospital discharges, so without good step-down options patients back up and the regular flow is disrupted. Upstream of the crisis that sends many youth to EDs is another opportunity area, as these tipping points are often seen coming by others, including their pediatricians, but referrals to clinicians or programs that might bring improvement and prevent the need for an ED evaluation are also in short supply.

In the short term, efforts are being directed by some EDs to make the physical space more therapeutic for individuals experiencing mental health problems and to offer more actual treatment when people are there. This can take the form of having a secure space in which to move around, or being offered some supportive psychotherapy sessions and possible medication changes while in the ED. It can also involve simple things like the availability of books, video games, and toys to help pass the time. Such efforts are greatly needed, and many feel that the notion of mental health emergencies somehow being outside the “lane” of emergency medicine training and practice should have been retired long ago.

Medium-term solutions can involve the standing up of more intensive mental health programs that are below the level of inpatient hospitalizations, such as intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization programs, or improved mobile response services that go beyond triage and actually bring supports and techniques directly to families in need. As mentioned, these levels of services can provide both a step-down option that facilitates a hospital discharge and a measure that can prevent the need for some hospitalizations in the first place.

Looking over the long term, health care systems and governments need to evaluate the degree to which more hospital or residential beds may still be needed, despite our best efforts to improve flow and prevent mental health crises from originating. This can often be a contentious topic, however, and securing public dollars to support more beds is often quite difficult even where there seems to be a clear need.

Hovering over nearly all potential solutions, of course, is the challenge of finding the mental health workforce to implement any new programs and initiatives without stealing from services already in place. This dilemma speaks to ongoing issues of parity between resources devoted to mental health versus physical health care. Some mental health care organizations are currently trying to recruit new workers with bonuses or new incentives, but longer-term fixes are likely to require a hard look at the degree to which our actual commitment to mental health care matches the political rhetoric.

Discussions of how to solve the problem of ED boarding can easily deteriorate into a lot of finger pointing of what somebody else should be doing. The truth is, however, that there are many actions that can be taken by those in very different roles.

While many of these steps require efforts from mental health organizations, emergency departments, government agencies, and hospitals, there are things that can be done within the purview of the primary care clinician. First, look for opportunities to increase your collaboration with mental health professionals through initiatives such as integrated care programs. The Health Resources and Services Administration is now using funds from the American Rescue Plan Act to strengthen integrated care programs across the country and new opportunities may well be available soon to get additional mental health supports to primary care offices. Second, get involved and advocate for the mental health of your patients by communicating with other groups to make other potential solutions a reality.

Children and adolescents waiting for days to get the mental health care they need and deserve is an unacceptable situation that we can and must overcome. Quick fixes will be hard to find, but with some collaborative effort, forward thinking, and, yes, financial investments, we can find solutions that reflect the principle of mental health being a foundation for all health.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

References

1. Tabachnik S. Colorado health leaders declare youth mental health state of emergency: “Our kids have run out of resilience.” Denver Post. 2021 May 25. 

2. Bebinger M. Kids in mental health crisis can languish for days inside ERs. National Public Radio. 2021 Jun 23.

3. Nash KA et al. Pediatrics. 2021:147:5. e2020030692.

Charlie is a 15-year-old male whose medical history includes overweight and autism spectrum disorder. While his autism symptoms are stable and he is doing fairly well in school, your sense is that he is underperforming and unhappy. His screening for anxiety and depression is not outstanding and you wonder whether to leave well enough alone.

Historically, pediatrician queries about media use happen in a minority of visits,¹ overcrowded by the multitude of screening and acute care needs, let alone the pressures of electronic health record prompts, billing, and documentation. Yet the COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized what was already getting louder: screen life is becoming a ubiquitous, increasing, and normative function of child development. Digital well-being exhibits bidirectional interactions with most of the core indicators of child health: sleep, nutrition, safety, mood, relationships, and many other aspects of physical and mental health.¹

The pandemic unveiled the blessings and curses of digital life by shifting many into remote work and school situations where screen time became both necessary and uncontrollable. Reeling with changes in employment, health, finances, and more, families struggled to forge a new screen-life balance that could bridge academic, professional, and recreational use.

Research has wavered in producing a verdict on the effects of screen time, in part because of limitations in methodology and follow-up time^,2 and exacerbated by the quickly changing nature of screen use. Screen time may put youth at risk for obesity and behavior problems,³ but the latter may be mediated in part by loss of sleep because of late-night digital activity.⁴ While survey data at the population level show little link between screen time and well-being impairments^,5 zooming in on individuals may tell a different story. Twenge and Campbell show light use of digital media (compared with nonuse) is associated with greater well-being while heavy use is associated with lower well-being and a higher risk for depression and suicidal behavior – especially in girls.^6,7 Largely cross-sectional data show a small detriment to psychological well-being associated with digital technology, though this may be bidirectional and does not clearly differentiate types of technology.²

Recent neuroscience suggests that, compared with active play, sedentary screen time after school reduced impulse control and increased brain activity in regions associated with craving.⁸ This may explain some of the link between screen time and obesity. Brain imaging of preschoolers showed that greater screen time correlated with lower reading readiness as well as less integrity of white-matter tracts involved in language and executive function,⁹ whereas nurturing home reading practices were protective for language development and white matter integrity.¹⁰

Returning to the care of Charlie, providers may benefit from taking time to reflect on their own digital environment. What does the patient-side view of your office look like? Many offices use telephone reminders and patient portals, fill prescriptions electronically, and have waiting rooms with WiFi or devices for children’s use. Office visits share space with providers’ desktops, laptops, and smartphones, with EMRs guiding the visit. EMRs may come home for evening documentation. How does this affect provider digital well-being? How do you start the conversation with families about digital well-being?

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends media screening be incorporated into routine pediatric care, with several tools available to support this. Adapting the HEADSSS model for psychosocial check-ins, Clark and colleagues propose an additional “S” to capture screen time.¹¹ Their model queries which apps and social media are used, quantity of use, effects on self-confidence, and whether cyberbullying or sexting are occurring. Smartphones themselves provide an eye-opening and accessible dataset, with built-in features (for example, Screen Time for iOS) tracking not just daily duration of use, but also how frequently the phone is picked up and which apps get more use. Screening may be followed by motivational coaching, emphasizing nonjudgment, curiosity, empathy, and flexibility — for patient and provider.¹²

In Charlie’s case, screening reveals heavy use of social Internet games that connect him with like-minded peers. While he describes an inclusiveness and level of socialization that he has not found outside the home, the quantity of use is interfering with sleep, schoolwork, and physical activity.

Significant problematic Internet use may lead to intervention or referral – addictive behaviors and mental health symptoms may warrant connection with mental health providers. Cyberbullying or unsafe behaviors may additionally benefit from parental and school-based support. There is early and limited evidence that psychological and educational interventions may be of benefit for problematic Internet use.¹³

When digital life is not so dramatically affecting well-being, providers may begin by working with families on a media use plan. The AAP offers its own website to support this. Other well-researched and well-designed sites include Digital Wellness Lab For Parents, with developmentally staged information and plentiful research, and Common Sense Media, which reviews apps, movies, and more; plus they have a knowledge/advice section under “Parents Need to Know.” Keep in mind that digital media can also support youth in managing psychiatric problems, e.g., a digital intervention promoting positive psychology practices looked very helpful for young people with psychosis.¹⁴

For Charlie, a health coaching approach is adopted. Using Gabrielli’s TECH parenting rubric,¹⁵ Charlie’s parents are coached to make space to talk about and coview media and apps, as well as creating a Family Media Use Plan for everyone – parents included. Alongside setting limits on screen time; health promotion activities like exercise, reading, and schoolwork are also rewarded with extra screen time. When Charlie returns 3 months later, the family reports that, in recognition of their collective digital overload, they preserved dinnertime and after 10 p.m. as screen-free downtime. While they still have concerns about Charlie’s gaming and social life, his sleep is somewhat improved and family tension is lower.

Attention to digital well-being stands to benefit provider and patient alike, and over time may gain from the scaffolding of handouts, standardized assessments, and health coaching providers that may be in place to support other important domains like sleep hygiene, food security, and parenting.

Dr. Rosenfeld is assistant professor, University of Vermont, Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, Burlington. He has no relevant disclosures.

References

1. Chassiakos YR et al. Pediatrics. 2016;138(5)e20162593.

2. Orben A. Soc Psychiatry Psych Epi. 2020;55(4):407.

3. Fang K et al. Child Care Health Dev. 2019;45(5):744-53.

4. Janssen X et al. Sleep Med Rev. 2020;49:101226.

5. George MJ et al. J Ped. 2020;219:180.

6. Twenge JM and Campbell WK. Psychiatry Q. 2019;90(2):311-31.

7. Twenge JM and Martin GN. J Adolesc. 2020;79:91.

8. Efraim M et al. Brain Imaging Behav. 2021;15(1):177-89.

9. Hutton JS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(1):e193869.

10. Hutton JS et al. Acta Paediatr. 2020;109(7):1376-86.

11. Clark DL et al. Pediatrics. 2018;141(6).

12. Jericho M and Elliot A. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020;25(3):662.

13. Malinauskas R and Malinauskine V. J Behav Addict. 2019;8(4):613.

14. Lim MH et al. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epi. 2020;55(7):877-89.

15. Gabrielli J et al. Pediatrics. 2018;142(1)e20173718.

Charlie is a 15-year-old male whose medical history includes overweight and autism spectrum disorder. While his autism symptoms are stable and he is doing fairly well in school, your sense is that he is underperforming and unhappy. His screening for anxiety and depression is not outstanding and you wonder whether to leave well enough alone.

Historically, pediatrician queries about media use happen in a minority of visits,¹ overcrowded by the multitude of screening and acute care needs, let alone the pressures of electronic health record prompts, billing, and documentation. Yet the COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized what was already getting louder: screen life is becoming a ubiquitous, increasing, and normative function of child development. Digital well-being exhibits bidirectional interactions with most of the core indicators of child health: sleep, nutrition, safety, mood, relationships, and many other aspects of physical and mental health.¹

The pandemic unveiled the blessings and curses of digital life by shifting many into remote work and school situations where screen time became both necessary and uncontrollable. Reeling with changes in employment, health, finances, and more, families struggled to forge a new screen-life balance that could bridge academic, professional, and recreational use.

Research has wavered in producing a verdict on the effects of screen time, in part because of limitations in methodology and follow-up time^,2 and exacerbated by the quickly changing nature of screen use. Screen time may put youth at risk for obesity and behavior problems,³ but the latter may be mediated in part by loss of sleep because of late-night digital activity.⁴ While survey data at the population level show little link between screen time and well-being impairments^,5 zooming in on individuals may tell a different story. Twenge and Campbell show light use of digital media (compared with nonuse) is associated with greater well-being while heavy use is associated with lower well-being and a higher risk for depression and suicidal behavior – especially in girls.^6,7 Largely cross-sectional data show a small detriment to psychological well-being associated with digital technology, though this may be bidirectional and does not clearly differentiate types of technology.²

Recent neuroscience suggests that, compared with active play, sedentary screen time after school reduced impulse control and increased brain activity in regions associated with craving.⁸ This may explain some of the link between screen time and obesity. Brain imaging of preschoolers showed that greater screen time correlated with lower reading readiness as well as less integrity of white-matter tracts involved in language and executive function,⁹ whereas nurturing home reading practices were protective for language development and white matter integrity.¹⁰

Returning to the care of Charlie, providers may benefit from taking time to reflect on their own digital environment. What does the patient-side view of your office look like? Many offices use telephone reminders and patient portals, fill prescriptions electronically, and have waiting rooms with WiFi or devices for children’s use. Office visits share space with providers’ desktops, laptops, and smartphones, with EMRs guiding the visit. EMRs may come home for evening documentation. How does this affect provider digital well-being? How do you start the conversation with families about digital well-being?

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends media screening be incorporated into routine pediatric care, with several tools available to support this. Adapting the HEADSSS model for psychosocial check-ins, Clark and colleagues propose an additional “S” to capture screen time.¹¹ Their model queries which apps and social media are used, quantity of use, effects on self-confidence, and whether cyberbullying or sexting are occurring. Smartphones themselves provide an eye-opening and accessible dataset, with built-in features (for example, Screen Time for iOS) tracking not just daily duration of use, but also how frequently the phone is picked up and which apps get more use. Screening may be followed by motivational coaching, emphasizing nonjudgment, curiosity, empathy, and flexibility — for patient and provider.¹²

In Charlie’s case, screening reveals heavy use of social Internet games that connect him with like-minded peers. While he describes an inclusiveness and level of socialization that he has not found outside the home, the quantity of use is interfering with sleep, schoolwork, and physical activity.

Significant problematic Internet use may lead to intervention or referral – addictive behaviors and mental health symptoms may warrant connection with mental health providers. Cyberbullying or unsafe behaviors may additionally benefit from parental and school-based support. There is early and limited evidence that psychological and educational interventions may be of benefit for problematic Internet use.¹³

When digital life is not so dramatically affecting well-being, providers may begin by working with families on a media use plan. The AAP offers its own website to support this. Other well-researched and well-designed sites include Digital Wellness Lab For Parents, with developmentally staged information and plentiful research, and Common Sense Media, which reviews apps, movies, and more; plus they have a knowledge/advice section under “Parents Need to Know.” Keep in mind that digital media can also support youth in managing psychiatric problems, e.g., a digital intervention promoting positive psychology practices looked very helpful for young people with psychosis.¹⁴

For Charlie, a health coaching approach is adopted. Using Gabrielli’s TECH parenting rubric,¹⁵ Charlie’s parents are coached to make space to talk about and coview media and apps, as well as creating a Family Media Use Plan for everyone – parents included. Alongside setting limits on screen time; health promotion activities like exercise, reading, and schoolwork are also rewarded with extra screen time. When Charlie returns 3 months later, the family reports that, in recognition of their collective digital overload, they preserved dinnertime and after 10 p.m. as screen-free downtime. While they still have concerns about Charlie’s gaming and social life, his sleep is somewhat improved and family tension is lower.

Attention to digital well-being stands to benefit provider and patient alike, and over time may gain from the scaffolding of handouts, standardized assessments, and health coaching providers that may be in place to support other important domains like sleep hygiene, food security, and parenting.

Dr. Rosenfeld is assistant professor, University of Vermont, Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, Burlington. He has no relevant disclosures.

References

1. Chassiakos YR et al. Pediatrics. 2016;138(5)e20162593.

2. Orben A. Soc Psychiatry Psych Epi. 2020;55(4):407.

3. Fang K et al. Child Care Health Dev. 2019;45(5):744-53.

4. Janssen X et al. Sleep Med Rev. 2020;49:101226.

5. George MJ et al. J Ped. 2020;219:180.

6. Twenge JM and Campbell WK. Psychiatry Q. 2019;90(2):311-31.

7. Twenge JM and Martin GN. J Adolesc. 2020;79:91.

8. Efraim M et al. Brain Imaging Behav. 2021;15(1):177-89.

9. Hutton JS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(1):e193869.

10. Hutton JS et al. Acta Paediatr. 2020;109(7):1376-86.

11. Clark DL et al. Pediatrics. 2018;141(6).

12. Jericho M and Elliot A. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020;25(3):662.

13. Malinauskas R and Malinauskine V. J Behav Addict. 2019;8(4):613.

14. Lim MH et al. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epi. 2020;55(7):877-89.

15. Gabrielli J et al. Pediatrics. 2018;142(1)e20173718.

Charlie is a 15-year-old male whose medical history includes overweight and autism spectrum disorder. While his autism symptoms are stable and he is doing fairly well in school, your sense is that he is underperforming and unhappy. His screening for anxiety and depression is not outstanding and you wonder whether to leave well enough alone.

Historically, pediatrician queries about media use happen in a minority of visits,¹ overcrowded by the multitude of screening and acute care needs, let alone the pressures of electronic health record prompts, billing, and documentation. Yet the COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized what was already getting louder: screen life is becoming a ubiquitous, increasing, and normative function of child development. Digital well-being exhibits bidirectional interactions with most of the core indicators of child health: sleep, nutrition, safety, mood, relationships, and many other aspects of physical and mental health.¹

The pandemic unveiled the blessings and curses of digital life by shifting many into remote work and school situations where screen time became both necessary and uncontrollable. Reeling with changes in employment, health, finances, and more, families struggled to forge a new screen-life balance that could bridge academic, professional, and recreational use.

Research has wavered in producing a verdict on the effects of screen time, in part because of limitations in methodology and follow-up time^,2 and exacerbated by the quickly changing nature of screen use. Screen time may put youth at risk for obesity and behavior problems,³ but the latter may be mediated in part by loss of sleep because of late-night digital activity.⁴ While survey data at the population level show little link between screen time and well-being impairments^,5 zooming in on individuals may tell a different story. Twenge and Campbell show light use of digital media (compared with nonuse) is associated with greater well-being while heavy use is associated with lower well-being and a higher risk for depression and suicidal behavior – especially in girls.^6,7 Largely cross-sectional data show a small detriment to psychological well-being associated with digital technology, though this may be bidirectional and does not clearly differentiate types of technology.²

Recent neuroscience suggests that, compared with active play, sedentary screen time after school reduced impulse control and increased brain activity in regions associated with craving.⁸ This may explain some of the link between screen time and obesity. Brain imaging of preschoolers showed that greater screen time correlated with lower reading readiness as well as less integrity of white-matter tracts involved in language and executive function,⁹ whereas nurturing home reading practices were protective for language development and white matter integrity.¹⁰

Returning to the care of Charlie, providers may benefit from taking time to reflect on their own digital environment. What does the patient-side view of your office look like? Many offices use telephone reminders and patient portals, fill prescriptions electronically, and have waiting rooms with WiFi or devices for children’s use. Office visits share space with providers’ desktops, laptops, and smartphones, with EMRs guiding the visit. EMRs may come home for evening documentation. How does this affect provider digital well-being? How do you start the conversation with families about digital well-being?

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends media screening be incorporated into routine pediatric care, with several tools available to support this. Adapting the HEADSSS model for psychosocial check-ins, Clark and colleagues propose an additional “S” to capture screen time.¹¹ Their model queries which apps and social media are used, quantity of use, effects on self-confidence, and whether cyberbullying or sexting are occurring. Smartphones themselves provide an eye-opening and accessible dataset, with built-in features (for example, Screen Time for iOS) tracking not just daily duration of use, but also how frequently the phone is picked up and which apps get more use. Screening may be followed by motivational coaching, emphasizing nonjudgment, curiosity, empathy, and flexibility — for patient and provider.¹²

In Charlie’s case, screening reveals heavy use of social Internet games that connect him with like-minded peers. While he describes an inclusiveness and level of socialization that he has not found outside the home, the quantity of use is interfering with sleep, schoolwork, and physical activity.

Significant problematic Internet use may lead to intervention or referral – addictive behaviors and mental health symptoms may warrant connection with mental health providers. Cyberbullying or unsafe behaviors may additionally benefit from parental and school-based support. There is early and limited evidence that psychological and educational interventions may be of benefit for problematic Internet use.¹³

When digital life is not so dramatically affecting well-being, providers may begin by working with families on a media use plan. The AAP offers its own website to support this. Other well-researched and well-designed sites include Digital Wellness Lab For Parents, with developmentally staged information and plentiful research, and Common Sense Media, which reviews apps, movies, and more; plus they have a knowledge/advice section under “Parents Need to Know.” Keep in mind that digital media can also support youth in managing psychiatric problems, e.g., a digital intervention promoting positive psychology practices looked very helpful for young people with psychosis.¹⁴

For Charlie, a health coaching approach is adopted. Using Gabrielli’s TECH parenting rubric,¹⁵ Charlie’s parents are coached to make space to talk about and coview media and apps, as well as creating a Family Media Use Plan for everyone – parents included. Alongside setting limits on screen time; health promotion activities like exercise, reading, and schoolwork are also rewarded with extra screen time. When Charlie returns 3 months later, the family reports that, in recognition of their collective digital overload, they preserved dinnertime and after 10 p.m. as screen-free downtime. While they still have concerns about Charlie’s gaming and social life, his sleep is somewhat improved and family tension is lower.

Attention to digital well-being stands to benefit provider and patient alike, and over time may gain from the scaffolding of handouts, standardized assessments, and health coaching providers that may be in place to support other important domains like sleep hygiene, food security, and parenting.

Dr. Rosenfeld is assistant professor, University of Vermont, Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, Burlington. He has no relevant disclosures.

References

1. Chassiakos YR et al. Pediatrics. 2016;138(5)e20162593.

2. Orben A. Soc Psychiatry Psych Epi. 2020;55(4):407.

3. Fang K et al. Child Care Health Dev. 2019;45(5):744-53.

4. Janssen X et al. Sleep Med Rev. 2020;49:101226.

5. George MJ et al. J Ped. 2020;219:180.

6. Twenge JM and Campbell WK. Psychiatry Q. 2019;90(2):311-31.

7. Twenge JM and Martin GN. J Adolesc. 2020;79:91.

8. Efraim M et al. Brain Imaging Behav. 2021;15(1):177-89.

9. Hutton JS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(1):e193869.

10. Hutton JS et al. Acta Paediatr. 2020;109(7):1376-86.

11. Clark DL et al. Pediatrics. 2018;141(6).

12. Jericho M and Elliot A. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020;25(3):662.

13. Malinauskas R and Malinauskine V. J Behav Addict. 2019;8(4):613.

14. Lim MH et al. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epi. 2020;55(7):877-89.

15. Gabrielli J et al. Pediatrics. 2018;142(1)e20173718.

The past year presented unprecedented challenges for many. In addition, mental health services have also been stretched to capacity. Anecdotally, some hospitals and emergency departments note that more youth have been presenting in mental health crises, and the severity of symptoms has also been higher. Safety planning is important, including working with patients to identify skills they can use in distress. Even those who do not experience suicidal thoughts may struggle with dysregulation or may use coping strategies that may not be the healthiest in the long term.

Within my practice, I see some families who are still waiting for an available therapist, or some may not wish to participate in therapy despite its being recommended. For these families, supporting them in using strategies that they may be willing and able to use in the moment to help them get through the moment of crisis can been helpful:
 

Case example (identifying details have been changed)

Emily is a 17-year-old girl who has a history of generalized anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. She has had multiple medication trials and a course of cognitive behavioral therapy when younger, with significant improvement in symptoms. She returns to clinic because of increased anxiety related to stressors of the pandemic. She wishes to not return to therapy because of feeling that she received maximal benefit and that further sessions would not be fruitful. However, she struggles with identifying what skills she can use, and her anxiety heightens significantly to near-panic and hyperventilating with even cursory exploration of triggers for her symptoms. Medications are also discussed during this appointment, and it is noted that it may take some time to see therapeutic effect. Of note, she reports no acute safety concerns. She has engaged in skin picking. No reported substance use. As she hyperventilates, she was asked to identify items in the room matching the colors of the rainbow in order. She was able to quickly do this, and then was asked to do it again. Afterward, she noted feeling much less anxious because it distracted her from her thoughts.

Distress tolerance skills can be very helpful to navigate getting through a crisis. When under stress, some may be more likely to engage in behaviors that are not helpful in the long term such as using avoidance; procrastinating; consuming tobacco, alcohol, or other substances; spending too much time on screens; or engaging in self-harm behaviors. While some of these activities may be okay in moderation, others are always harmful. At times, when encouraging patients to use skills with which they may be more familiar, e.g., deep breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, the response may be, “these don’t work!” It can be important to distinguish that the function of these skills is not to make someone feel good or to eliminate the stressor, but to “take some of the edge off” so they are less likely to slide into problematic behaviors. It can be beneficial to have multiple tools at one’s disposal because not all skills will always be effective or available.

TIPP skills (temperature, intense exercise, paced breathing, progressive muscle relaxation) are distress tolerance skills from dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT),¹ which was initially developed to treat individuals with borderline personality disorder. More recently, the therapy modality has been applied to individuals who may struggle with emotion regulation for a variety of reasons. TIPP skills work quickly (within seconds to minutes) with the aim to decrease physiological arousal. They do not require a lot of thinking, and many are portable or easy to use. Given the speed of effect, these skills can also be used in lieu of p.r.n. medications or patients can be counseled about trying these instead of turning to substance use. The effect is brief (5-20 minutes), although this may lower the affective temperature sufficiently for someone to get through the intense moment or to be able to then utilize other skills that may require more cognitive reserves.
 

T – Temperature

Holding one’s breath and placing one’s face in cold water (above 50°) for 10-20 seconds to stimulate the diving response and decrease heart rate. Patients can repeat this up to 3 times. Alternatively, cold compresses or gel eye masks can be used.

I – Intense exercise

Aerobic exercise for 10-20 minutes. This can include running, jumping jacks, dancing to loud music in a way that feels intense. The parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) is activated for approximately 20 minutes after cessation of intense exercise.

P – Paced breathing

Decreasing rate of breathing, with each inhalation/exhalation cycle lasting 10-12 seconds and the exhale being longer than the inhale also activates the PNS.

P – Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR)

Sequentially tensing and relaxing muscles from head to toes. Having at least 5-10 minutes to perform this exercise is preferred.² Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia offerssample PMR recordings.

Body scans can also be helpful. This practice differs from PMR in that it is a mindfulness practice noting body sensations without trying to change them. The University of Vermont offers some sample exercises.³

These skills were described to Emily. She noted that dunking her face in cold water was effective and it was reassuring knowing she had a tool to help her anxiety. She started to push herself to go outside to exercise. We additionally incorporated other distraction techniques such as identifying items from colors of the rainbow that were around her. She appreciated that she could even do this discreetly while at school. At times she had to do a couple of rounds, but this could help stop her repetitive thoughts so she could use other skills.

Helping patients identify skills that can help in the moment can help them feel supported and gain traction in other areas.
 

Dr. Strange is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont Medical Center and University of Vermont Robert Larner College of Medicine, both in Burlington. She works with children and adolescents. She has no relevant financial disclosures

References

1. Rathus JH, Miller AL. DBT® Skills manual for adolescents. 2015. Guilford Press.

2. Guided Relaxation Exercises, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

3. Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families: Staying Close While Keeping Your Distance.
 

The past year presented unprecedented challenges for many. In addition, mental health services have also been stretched to capacity. Anecdotally, some hospitals and emergency departments note that more youth have been presenting in mental health crises, and the severity of symptoms has also been higher. Safety planning is important, including working with patients to identify skills they can use in distress. Even those who do not experience suicidal thoughts may struggle with dysregulation or may use coping strategies that may not be the healthiest in the long term.

Within my practice, I see some families who are still waiting for an available therapist, or some may not wish to participate in therapy despite its being recommended. For these families, supporting them in using strategies that they may be willing and able to use in the moment to help them get through the moment of crisis can been helpful:
 

Case example (identifying details have been changed)

Emily is a 17-year-old girl who has a history of generalized anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. She has had multiple medication trials and a course of cognitive behavioral therapy when younger, with significant improvement in symptoms. She returns to clinic because of increased anxiety related to stressors of the pandemic. She wishes to not return to therapy because of feeling that she received maximal benefit and that further sessions would not be fruitful. However, she struggles with identifying what skills she can use, and her anxiety heightens significantly to near-panic and hyperventilating with even cursory exploration of triggers for her symptoms. Medications are also discussed during this appointment, and it is noted that it may take some time to see therapeutic effect. Of note, she reports no acute safety concerns. She has engaged in skin picking. No reported substance use. As she hyperventilates, she was asked to identify items in the room matching the colors of the rainbow in order. She was able to quickly do this, and then was asked to do it again. Afterward, she noted feeling much less anxious because it distracted her from her thoughts.

Distress tolerance skills can be very helpful to navigate getting through a crisis. When under stress, some may be more likely to engage in behaviors that are not helpful in the long term such as using avoidance; procrastinating; consuming tobacco, alcohol, or other substances; spending too much time on screens; or engaging in self-harm behaviors. While some of these activities may be okay in moderation, others are always harmful. At times, when encouraging patients to use skills with which they may be more familiar, e.g., deep breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, the response may be, “these don’t work!” It can be important to distinguish that the function of these skills is not to make someone feel good or to eliminate the stressor, but to “take some of the edge off” so they are less likely to slide into problematic behaviors. It can be beneficial to have multiple tools at one’s disposal because not all skills will always be effective or available.

TIPP skills (temperature, intense exercise, paced breathing, progressive muscle relaxation) are distress tolerance skills from dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT),¹ which was initially developed to treat individuals with borderline personality disorder. More recently, the therapy modality has been applied to individuals who may struggle with emotion regulation for a variety of reasons. TIPP skills work quickly (within seconds to minutes) with the aim to decrease physiological arousal. They do not require a lot of thinking, and many are portable or easy to use. Given the speed of effect, these skills can also be used in lieu of p.r.n. medications or patients can be counseled about trying these instead of turning to substance use. The effect is brief (5-20 minutes), although this may lower the affective temperature sufficiently for someone to get through the intense moment or to be able to then utilize other skills that may require more cognitive reserves.
 

T – Temperature

Holding one’s breath and placing one’s face in cold water (above 50°) for 10-20 seconds to stimulate the diving response and decrease heart rate. Patients can repeat this up to 3 times. Alternatively, cold compresses or gel eye masks can be used.

I – Intense exercise

Aerobic exercise for 10-20 minutes. This can include running, jumping jacks, dancing to loud music in a way that feels intense. The parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) is activated for approximately 20 minutes after cessation of intense exercise.

P – Paced breathing

Decreasing rate of breathing, with each inhalation/exhalation cycle lasting 10-12 seconds and the exhale being longer than the inhale also activates the PNS.

P – Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR)

Sequentially tensing and relaxing muscles from head to toes. Having at least 5-10 minutes to perform this exercise is preferred.² Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia offerssample PMR recordings.

Body scans can also be helpful. This practice differs from PMR in that it is a mindfulness practice noting body sensations without trying to change them. The University of Vermont offers some sample exercises.³

These skills were described to Emily. She noted that dunking her face in cold water was effective and it was reassuring knowing she had a tool to help her anxiety. She started to push herself to go outside to exercise. We additionally incorporated other distraction techniques such as identifying items from colors of the rainbow that were around her. She appreciated that she could even do this discreetly while at school. At times she had to do a couple of rounds, but this could help stop her repetitive thoughts so she could use other skills.

Helping patients identify skills that can help in the moment can help them feel supported and gain traction in other areas.
 

Dr. Strange is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont Medical Center and University of Vermont Robert Larner College of Medicine, both in Burlington. She works with children and adolescents. She has no relevant financial disclosures

References

1. Rathus JH, Miller AL. DBT® Skills manual for adolescents. 2015. Guilford Press.

2. Guided Relaxation Exercises, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

3. Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families: Staying Close While Keeping Your Distance.
 

The past year presented unprecedented challenges for many. In addition, mental health services have also been stretched to capacity. Anecdotally, some hospitals and emergency departments note that more youth have been presenting in mental health crises, and the severity of symptoms has also been higher. Safety planning is important, including working with patients to identify skills they can use in distress. Even those who do not experience suicidal thoughts may struggle with dysregulation or may use coping strategies that may not be the healthiest in the long term.

Within my practice, I see some families who are still waiting for an available therapist, or some may not wish to participate in therapy despite its being recommended. For these families, supporting them in using strategies that they may be willing and able to use in the moment to help them get through the moment of crisis can been helpful:
 

Case example (identifying details have been changed)

Emily is a 17-year-old girl who has a history of generalized anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. She has had multiple medication trials and a course of cognitive behavioral therapy when younger, with significant improvement in symptoms. She returns to clinic because of increased anxiety related to stressors of the pandemic. She wishes to not return to therapy because of feeling that she received maximal benefit and that further sessions would not be fruitful. However, she struggles with identifying what skills she can use, and her anxiety heightens significantly to near-panic and hyperventilating with even cursory exploration of triggers for her symptoms. Medications are also discussed during this appointment, and it is noted that it may take some time to see therapeutic effect. Of note, she reports no acute safety concerns. She has engaged in skin picking. No reported substance use. As she hyperventilates, she was asked to identify items in the room matching the colors of the rainbow in order. She was able to quickly do this, and then was asked to do it again. Afterward, she noted feeling much less anxious because it distracted her from her thoughts.

Distress tolerance skills can be very helpful to navigate getting through a crisis. When under stress, some may be more likely to engage in behaviors that are not helpful in the long term such as using avoidance; procrastinating; consuming tobacco, alcohol, or other substances; spending too much time on screens; or engaging in self-harm behaviors. While some of these activities may be okay in moderation, others are always harmful. At times, when encouraging patients to use skills with which they may be more familiar, e.g., deep breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, the response may be, “these don’t work!” It can be important to distinguish that the function of these skills is not to make someone feel good or to eliminate the stressor, but to “take some of the edge off” so they are less likely to slide into problematic behaviors. It can be beneficial to have multiple tools at one’s disposal because not all skills will always be effective or available.

TIPP skills (temperature, intense exercise, paced breathing, progressive muscle relaxation) are distress tolerance skills from dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT),¹ which was initially developed to treat individuals with borderline personality disorder. More recently, the therapy modality has been applied to individuals who may struggle with emotion regulation for a variety of reasons. TIPP skills work quickly (within seconds to minutes) with the aim to decrease physiological arousal. They do not require a lot of thinking, and many are portable or easy to use. Given the speed of effect, these skills can also be used in lieu of p.r.n. medications or patients can be counseled about trying these instead of turning to substance use. The effect is brief (5-20 minutes), although this may lower the affective temperature sufficiently for someone to get through the intense moment or to be able to then utilize other skills that may require more cognitive reserves.
 

T – Temperature

Holding one’s breath and placing one’s face in cold water (above 50°) for 10-20 seconds to stimulate the diving response and decrease heart rate. Patients can repeat this up to 3 times. Alternatively, cold compresses or gel eye masks can be used.

I – Intense exercise

Aerobic exercise for 10-20 minutes. This can include running, jumping jacks, dancing to loud music in a way that feels intense. The parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) is activated for approximately 20 minutes after cessation of intense exercise.

P – Paced breathing

Decreasing rate of breathing, with each inhalation/exhalation cycle lasting 10-12 seconds and the exhale being longer than the inhale also activates the PNS.

P – Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR)

Sequentially tensing and relaxing muscles from head to toes. Having at least 5-10 minutes to perform this exercise is preferred.² Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia offerssample PMR recordings.

Body scans can also be helpful. This practice differs from PMR in that it is a mindfulness practice noting body sensations without trying to change them. The University of Vermont offers some sample exercises.³

These skills were described to Emily. She noted that dunking her face in cold water was effective and it was reassuring knowing she had a tool to help her anxiety. She started to push herself to go outside to exercise. We additionally incorporated other distraction techniques such as identifying items from colors of the rainbow that were around her. She appreciated that she could even do this discreetly while at school. At times she had to do a couple of rounds, but this could help stop her repetitive thoughts so she could use other skills.

Helping patients identify skills that can help in the moment can help them feel supported and gain traction in other areas.
 

Dr. Strange is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont Medical Center and University of Vermont Robert Larner College of Medicine, both in Burlington. She works with children and adolescents. She has no relevant financial disclosures

References

1. Rathus JH, Miller AL. DBT® Skills manual for adolescents. 2015. Guilford Press.

2. Guided Relaxation Exercises, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

3. Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families: Staying Close While Keeping Your Distance.