Letters from Maine

I suspect that you have heard about or maybe read the recent Associated Press story reporting that four daycare workers in Hamilton, Miss., have been charged with felony child abuse for intentionally scaring the children “who didn’t clean up or act good” by wearing a Halloween mask and yelling in their faces. I can have some sympathy for those among us who choose to spend their days tending a flock of sometimes unruly and mischievous toddlers and preschoolers. But, I think one would be hard pressed to find very many adults who would condone the strategy of these misguided daycare providers. Not surprisingly, the parents of some of these children describe their children as traumatized and having disordered sleep.

The news report of this incident in Mississippi doesn’t tell us if these daycare providers had used this tactic in the past. One wonders whether they had found less dramatic verbal threats just weren’t as effective as they had hoped and so decided to go all out.

How effective is fear in changing behavior? Certainly, we have all experienced situations in which a frightening experience has caused us to avoid places, people, and activities. But, is a fear-focused strategy one that health care providers should include in their quiver as we try to mold patient behavior? As luck would have it, 2 weeks before this news story broke I encountered a global study from 84 countries that sought to answer this question (Affect Sci. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1007/s42761-022-00128-3).

Using the WHO four-point advice about COVID prevention (stay home/avoid shops/use face covering/isolate if exposed) as a model the researchers around the world reviewed the responses of 16,000 individuals. They found that there was no difference in the effectiveness of the message whether it was framed as a negative (“you have so much to lose”) or a positive (“you have so much to gain”). However, investigators observed that the negatively framed presentations generated significantly more anxiety in the respondents. The authors of the paper conclude that if there is no significant difference in the effectiveness, why would we chose a negatively framed presentation that is likely to generate anxiety that we know is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. From a purely public health perspective, it doesn’t make sense and is counterproductive.

I guess if we look back to the old carrot and stick metaphor we shouldn’t be surprised by the findings in this paper. If one’s only goal is to get a group of young preschoolers to behave by scaring the b’geezes out of them with a mask or a threat of bodily punishment, then go for it. Scare tactics will probably work just as well as offering a well-chosen reward system. However, the devil is in the side effects. It’s the same argument that I give to parents who argue that spanking works. Of course it does, but it has a narrow margin for safety and can set up ripples of negative side effects that can destroy healthy parent-child relationships.

The bottom line of this story is the sad truth that somewhere along the line someone failed to effectively train these four daycare workers. But, do we as health care providers need to rethink our training? Have we forgotten our commitment to “First do no harm?” As we craft our messaging have we thought enough about the potential side effects of our attempts at scaring the public into following our suggestions?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I suspect that you have heard about or maybe read the recent Associated Press story reporting that four daycare workers in Hamilton, Miss., have been charged with felony child abuse for intentionally scaring the children “who didn’t clean up or act good” by wearing a Halloween mask and yelling in their faces. I can have some sympathy for those among us who choose to spend their days tending a flock of sometimes unruly and mischievous toddlers and preschoolers. But, I think one would be hard pressed to find very many adults who would condone the strategy of these misguided daycare providers. Not surprisingly, the parents of some of these children describe their children as traumatized and having disordered sleep.

The news report of this incident in Mississippi doesn’t tell us if these daycare providers had used this tactic in the past. One wonders whether they had found less dramatic verbal threats just weren’t as effective as they had hoped and so decided to go all out.

How effective is fear in changing behavior? Certainly, we have all experienced situations in which a frightening experience has caused us to avoid places, people, and activities. But, is a fear-focused strategy one that health care providers should include in their quiver as we try to mold patient behavior? As luck would have it, 2 weeks before this news story broke I encountered a global study from 84 countries that sought to answer this question (Affect Sci. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1007/s42761-022-00128-3).

Using the WHO four-point advice about COVID prevention (stay home/avoid shops/use face covering/isolate if exposed) as a model the researchers around the world reviewed the responses of 16,000 individuals. They found that there was no difference in the effectiveness of the message whether it was framed as a negative (“you have so much to lose”) or a positive (“you have so much to gain”). However, investigators observed that the negatively framed presentations generated significantly more anxiety in the respondents. The authors of the paper conclude that if there is no significant difference in the effectiveness, why would we chose a negatively framed presentation that is likely to generate anxiety that we know is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. From a purely public health perspective, it doesn’t make sense and is counterproductive.

I guess if we look back to the old carrot and stick metaphor we shouldn’t be surprised by the findings in this paper. If one’s only goal is to get a group of young preschoolers to behave by scaring the b’geezes out of them with a mask or a threat of bodily punishment, then go for it. Scare tactics will probably work just as well as offering a well-chosen reward system. However, the devil is in the side effects. It’s the same argument that I give to parents who argue that spanking works. Of course it does, but it has a narrow margin for safety and can set up ripples of negative side effects that can destroy healthy parent-child relationships.

The bottom line of this story is the sad truth that somewhere along the line someone failed to effectively train these four daycare workers. But, do we as health care providers need to rethink our training? Have we forgotten our commitment to “First do no harm?” As we craft our messaging have we thought enough about the potential side effects of our attempts at scaring the public into following our suggestions?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I suspect that you have heard about or maybe read the recent Associated Press story reporting that four daycare workers in Hamilton, Miss., have been charged with felony child abuse for intentionally scaring the children “who didn’t clean up or act good” by wearing a Halloween mask and yelling in their faces. I can have some sympathy for those among us who choose to spend their days tending a flock of sometimes unruly and mischievous toddlers and preschoolers. But, I think one would be hard pressed to find very many adults who would condone the strategy of these misguided daycare providers. Not surprisingly, the parents of some of these children describe their children as traumatized and having disordered sleep.

The news report of this incident in Mississippi doesn’t tell us if these daycare providers had used this tactic in the past. One wonders whether they had found less dramatic verbal threats just weren’t as effective as they had hoped and so decided to go all out.

How effective is fear in changing behavior? Certainly, we have all experienced situations in which a frightening experience has caused us to avoid places, people, and activities. But, is a fear-focused strategy one that health care providers should include in their quiver as we try to mold patient behavior? As luck would have it, 2 weeks before this news story broke I encountered a global study from 84 countries that sought to answer this question (Affect Sci. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1007/s42761-022-00128-3).

Using the WHO four-point advice about COVID prevention (stay home/avoid shops/use face covering/isolate if exposed) as a model the researchers around the world reviewed the responses of 16,000 individuals. They found that there was no difference in the effectiveness of the message whether it was framed as a negative (“you have so much to lose”) or a positive (“you have so much to gain”). However, investigators observed that the negatively framed presentations generated significantly more anxiety in the respondents. The authors of the paper conclude that if there is no significant difference in the effectiveness, why would we chose a negatively framed presentation that is likely to generate anxiety that we know is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. From a purely public health perspective, it doesn’t make sense and is counterproductive.

I guess if we look back to the old carrot and stick metaphor we shouldn’t be surprised by the findings in this paper. If one’s only goal is to get a group of young preschoolers to behave by scaring the b’geezes out of them with a mask or a threat of bodily punishment, then go for it. Scare tactics will probably work just as well as offering a well-chosen reward system. However, the devil is in the side effects. It’s the same argument that I give to parents who argue that spanking works. Of course it does, but it has a narrow margin for safety and can set up ripples of negative side effects that can destroy healthy parent-child relationships.

The bottom line of this story is the sad truth that somewhere along the line someone failed to effectively train these four daycare workers. But, do we as health care providers need to rethink our training? Have we forgotten our commitment to “First do no harm?” As we craft our messaging have we thought enough about the potential side effects of our attempts at scaring the public into following our suggestions?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Let’s pretend for a moment that you receive a call from one of your college roommates who thanks to his family connections has become a venture capitalist in California. His group is considering investing in a start-up that is developing a handheld instrument that it claims will use artificial intelligence to diagnose ear infections far more accurately than the human eye. He wonders if you would like to help him evaluate the company’s proposal and offers you a small percentage of the profits for your efforts should they choose to invest.

Your former roommate has done enough research on his own to understand that otitis media makes up a large chunk of a pediatrician’s workload and that making an accurate diagnosis can often be difficult in a struggling child. He describes his own experience watching a frustrated pediatrician attempting to remove wax from his child’s ear and eventually prescribing antibiotics “to be safe.”

You agree and review the prospectus, which includes a paper from a peer-reviewed journal. What you discover is that the investigators used more than 600 high-resolution images of tympanic membranes taken “during operative myringotomy and tympanostomy tube placement” and the findings at tympanocentesis to train a neural network.

Once trained, the model they developed could differentiate with 95% accuracy between an image of a tympanic membrane that covered a normal middle ear from one that merely contained fluid and from one that contained infected fluid. When these same images were shown to 39 clinicians, more than half of which were pediatricians and included both faculty-level staff and trainees, the average diagnostic accuracy was 65%.

The prospectus includes prediction that this technology could easily be developed into a handheld instrument similar to a traditional otoscope, which could then be linked to the operator’s smartphone, giving the clinician an instant treat or no-treat answer.

Now, remember you have nothing to lose except maybe a friendship. How would you advise your old college roommate?

My advice to your college buddy would be one of caution! Yes, there is a potential big upside because there is a real need for a device that could provide a diagnostic accuracy that this AI model promises. While I suspect that AI will always be more accurate in diagnosis using static images, I bet that most people, clinicians and nonclinicians, could improve their accuracy by linking photos with diagnoses with an hour of practice.

However, evaluating a high-resolution photograph taken through an operative scope inserted into the cerumenless ear canal of a sedated, afrebrile child is several orders of magnitude less difficult than the real-world environment in which the diagnosis of otitis media is usually made.

If the venture capitalists were still interested in getting into the otitis media marketplace, you might suggest they look into companies that have already developed image capture otoscopes. At this point I could only find one on the Internet that was portable and it certainly isn’t small-child friendly. Once we have a tool that can capture images in real-world situations, the next step is to train AI systems to interpret them using the approach these researchers have developed. I bet it can be done. It will be only a matter of time ... and money.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Let’s pretend for a moment that you receive a call from one of your college roommates who thanks to his family connections has become a venture capitalist in California. His group is considering investing in a start-up that is developing a handheld instrument that it claims will use artificial intelligence to diagnose ear infections far more accurately than the human eye. He wonders if you would like to help him evaluate the company’s proposal and offers you a small percentage of the profits for your efforts should they choose to invest.

Your former roommate has done enough research on his own to understand that otitis media makes up a large chunk of a pediatrician’s workload and that making an accurate diagnosis can often be difficult in a struggling child. He describes his own experience watching a frustrated pediatrician attempting to remove wax from his child’s ear and eventually prescribing antibiotics “to be safe.”

You agree and review the prospectus, which includes a paper from a peer-reviewed journal. What you discover is that the investigators used more than 600 high-resolution images of tympanic membranes taken “during operative myringotomy and tympanostomy tube placement” and the findings at tympanocentesis to train a neural network.

Once trained, the model they developed could differentiate with 95% accuracy between an image of a tympanic membrane that covered a normal middle ear from one that merely contained fluid and from one that contained infected fluid. When these same images were shown to 39 clinicians, more than half of which were pediatricians and included both faculty-level staff and trainees, the average diagnostic accuracy was 65%.

The prospectus includes prediction that this technology could easily be developed into a handheld instrument similar to a traditional otoscope, which could then be linked to the operator’s smartphone, giving the clinician an instant treat or no-treat answer.

Now, remember you have nothing to lose except maybe a friendship. How would you advise your old college roommate?

My advice to your college buddy would be one of caution! Yes, there is a potential big upside because there is a real need for a device that could provide a diagnostic accuracy that this AI model promises. While I suspect that AI will always be more accurate in diagnosis using static images, I bet that most people, clinicians and nonclinicians, could improve their accuracy by linking photos with diagnoses with an hour of practice.

However, evaluating a high-resolution photograph taken through an operative scope inserted into the cerumenless ear canal of a sedated, afrebrile child is several orders of magnitude less difficult than the real-world environment in which the diagnosis of otitis media is usually made.

If the venture capitalists were still interested in getting into the otitis media marketplace, you might suggest they look into companies that have already developed image capture otoscopes. At this point I could only find one on the Internet that was portable and it certainly isn’t small-child friendly. Once we have a tool that can capture images in real-world situations, the next step is to train AI systems to interpret them using the approach these researchers have developed. I bet it can be done. It will be only a matter of time ... and money.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Let’s pretend for a moment that you receive a call from one of your college roommates who thanks to his family connections has become a venture capitalist in California. His group is considering investing in a start-up that is developing a handheld instrument that it claims will use artificial intelligence to diagnose ear infections far more accurately than the human eye. He wonders if you would like to help him evaluate the company’s proposal and offers you a small percentage of the profits for your efforts should they choose to invest.

Your former roommate has done enough research on his own to understand that otitis media makes up a large chunk of a pediatrician’s workload and that making an accurate diagnosis can often be difficult in a struggling child. He describes his own experience watching a frustrated pediatrician attempting to remove wax from his child’s ear and eventually prescribing antibiotics “to be safe.”

You agree and review the prospectus, which includes a paper from a peer-reviewed journal. What you discover is that the investigators used more than 600 high-resolution images of tympanic membranes taken “during operative myringotomy and tympanostomy tube placement” and the findings at tympanocentesis to train a neural network.

Once trained, the model they developed could differentiate with 95% accuracy between an image of a tympanic membrane that covered a normal middle ear from one that merely contained fluid and from one that contained infected fluid. When these same images were shown to 39 clinicians, more than half of which were pediatricians and included both faculty-level staff and trainees, the average diagnostic accuracy was 65%.

The prospectus includes prediction that this technology could easily be developed into a handheld instrument similar to a traditional otoscope, which could then be linked to the operator’s smartphone, giving the clinician an instant treat or no-treat answer.

Now, remember you have nothing to lose except maybe a friendship. How would you advise your old college roommate?

My advice to your college buddy would be one of caution! Yes, there is a potential big upside because there is a real need for a device that could provide a diagnostic accuracy that this AI model promises. While I suspect that AI will always be more accurate in diagnosis using static images, I bet that most people, clinicians and nonclinicians, could improve their accuracy by linking photos with diagnoses with an hour of practice.

However, evaluating a high-resolution photograph taken through an operative scope inserted into the cerumenless ear canal of a sedated, afrebrile child is several orders of magnitude less difficult than the real-world environment in which the diagnosis of otitis media is usually made.

If the venture capitalists were still interested in getting into the otitis media marketplace, you might suggest they look into companies that have already developed image capture otoscopes. At this point I could only find one on the Internet that was portable and it certainly isn’t small-child friendly. Once we have a tool that can capture images in real-world situations, the next step is to train AI systems to interpret them using the approach these researchers have developed. I bet it can be done. It will be only a matter of time ... and money.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

We’ve been told for decades that a child who doesn’t start the day with a good breakfast is entering school at a serious disadvantage. The brain needs a good supply of energy to learn optimally. So the standard wisdom goes. Subsidized school breakfast programs have been built around this chestnut. But, is there solid evidence to support the notion that simply adding a morning meal to a child’s schedule will improve his or her school performance? It sounds like common sense, but is it just one of those old grandmother’s nuggets that doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny?

A recent study from Spain suggests that the relationship between breakfast and school performance is not merely related to the nutritional needs of a growing brain. Using data from nearly 4,000 Spanish children aged 4-14 collected in a 2017 national health survey, the investigators found “skipping breakfast and eating breakfast out of the home were linked to greater odds of psychosocial behavioral problems than eating breakfast at home.” And, we already know that, in general, children who misbehave in school don’t thrive academically.

There were also associations between the absence or presence of certain food groups in the morning meal with behavioral problems. But the data lacked the granularity to draw any firm conclusions – although the authors felt that what they consider a healthy Spanish diet may have had a positive influence on behavior.

The findings in this study may simply be another example of the many positive influences that have been associated with family meals and have little to do with what is actually consumed. The association may not have much to do with the family gathering together at a single Norman Rockwell sitting, a reality that I suspect seldom occurs. The apparent positive influence of breakfast may be that it reflects a family’s priorities: that food is important, that sleep is important, and that school is important – so important that scheduling the morning should focus on sending the child off well prepared. The child who is allowed to stay up to an unhealthy hour is likely to be difficult to arouse in the morning for breakfast and getting off to school.

It may be that the child’s behavior problems are so disruptive and taxing for the family that even with their best efforts, the parents can’t find the time and energy to provide a breakfast in the home.

On the other hand, the study doesn’t tell us how many children aren’t offered breakfast at home because their families simply can’t afford it. Obviously, the answer depends on the socioeconomic mix of a given community. In some localities this may represent a sizable percentage of the population.

So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, as I read through the discussion at the end of this paper I felt that the authors were leaning too much toward further research based on the potential associations between behavior and specific food groups their data suggested.

For me, the take-home message from this paper is that our existing efforts to improve academic success with food offered in school should also include strategies that promote eating breakfast at home. For example, the backpack take-home food distribution programs that seem to have been effective could include breakfast-targeted items packaged in a way that encourage families to provide breakfast at home.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

We’ve been told for decades that a child who doesn’t start the day with a good breakfast is entering school at a serious disadvantage. The brain needs a good supply of energy to learn optimally. So the standard wisdom goes. Subsidized school breakfast programs have been built around this chestnut. But, is there solid evidence to support the notion that simply adding a morning meal to a child’s schedule will improve his or her school performance? It sounds like common sense, but is it just one of those old grandmother’s nuggets that doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny?

A recent study from Spain suggests that the relationship between breakfast and school performance is not merely related to the nutritional needs of a growing brain. Using data from nearly 4,000 Spanish children aged 4-14 collected in a 2017 national health survey, the investigators found “skipping breakfast and eating breakfast out of the home were linked to greater odds of psychosocial behavioral problems than eating breakfast at home.” And, we already know that, in general, children who misbehave in school don’t thrive academically.

There were also associations between the absence or presence of certain food groups in the morning meal with behavioral problems. But the data lacked the granularity to draw any firm conclusions – although the authors felt that what they consider a healthy Spanish diet may have had a positive influence on behavior.

The findings in this study may simply be another example of the many positive influences that have been associated with family meals and have little to do with what is actually consumed. The association may not have much to do with the family gathering together at a single Norman Rockwell sitting, a reality that I suspect seldom occurs. The apparent positive influence of breakfast may be that it reflects a family’s priorities: that food is important, that sleep is important, and that school is important – so important that scheduling the morning should focus on sending the child off well prepared. The child who is allowed to stay up to an unhealthy hour is likely to be difficult to arouse in the morning for breakfast and getting off to school.

It may be that the child’s behavior problems are so disruptive and taxing for the family that even with their best efforts, the parents can’t find the time and energy to provide a breakfast in the home.

On the other hand, the study doesn’t tell us how many children aren’t offered breakfast at home because their families simply can’t afford it. Obviously, the answer depends on the socioeconomic mix of a given community. In some localities this may represent a sizable percentage of the population.

So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, as I read through the discussion at the end of this paper I felt that the authors were leaning too much toward further research based on the potential associations between behavior and specific food groups their data suggested.

For me, the take-home message from this paper is that our existing efforts to improve academic success with food offered in school should also include strategies that promote eating breakfast at home. For example, the backpack take-home food distribution programs that seem to have been effective could include breakfast-targeted items packaged in a way that encourage families to provide breakfast at home.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

We’ve been told for decades that a child who doesn’t start the day with a good breakfast is entering school at a serious disadvantage. The brain needs a good supply of energy to learn optimally. So the standard wisdom goes. Subsidized school breakfast programs have been built around this chestnut. But, is there solid evidence to support the notion that simply adding a morning meal to a child’s schedule will improve his or her school performance? It sounds like common sense, but is it just one of those old grandmother’s nuggets that doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny?

A recent study from Spain suggests that the relationship between breakfast and school performance is not merely related to the nutritional needs of a growing brain. Using data from nearly 4,000 Spanish children aged 4-14 collected in a 2017 national health survey, the investigators found “skipping breakfast and eating breakfast out of the home were linked to greater odds of psychosocial behavioral problems than eating breakfast at home.” And, we already know that, in general, children who misbehave in school don’t thrive academically.

There were also associations between the absence or presence of certain food groups in the morning meal with behavioral problems. But the data lacked the granularity to draw any firm conclusions – although the authors felt that what they consider a healthy Spanish diet may have had a positive influence on behavior.

The findings in this study may simply be another example of the many positive influences that have been associated with family meals and have little to do with what is actually consumed. The association may not have much to do with the family gathering together at a single Norman Rockwell sitting, a reality that I suspect seldom occurs. The apparent positive influence of breakfast may be that it reflects a family’s priorities: that food is important, that sleep is important, and that school is important – so important that scheduling the morning should focus on sending the child off well prepared. The child who is allowed to stay up to an unhealthy hour is likely to be difficult to arouse in the morning for breakfast and getting off to school.

It may be that the child’s behavior problems are so disruptive and taxing for the family that even with their best efforts, the parents can’t find the time and energy to provide a breakfast in the home.

On the other hand, the study doesn’t tell us how many children aren’t offered breakfast at home because their families simply can’t afford it. Obviously, the answer depends on the socioeconomic mix of a given community. In some localities this may represent a sizable percentage of the population.

So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, as I read through the discussion at the end of this paper I felt that the authors were leaning too much toward further research based on the potential associations between behavior and specific food groups their data suggested.

For me, the take-home message from this paper is that our existing efforts to improve academic success with food offered in school should also include strategies that promote eating breakfast at home. For example, the backpack take-home food distribution programs that seem to have been effective could include breakfast-targeted items packaged in a way that encourage families to provide breakfast at home.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

At the risk of losing a digit or two I am going to dip my toes into the murky waters of gender-affirming care, sometimes referred to as trans care. Recently, Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, released two statements, one in the Aug. 22, 2022, Wall Street Journal, the other summarized in the Aug. 25, 2022, AAP Daily Briefing, in which she attempts to clarify the academy’s position on gender-affirming care. They were well-worded and heroic attempts to clear the air. I fear these explanations will do little to encourage informed and courteous discussions between those entrenched on either side of a disagreement that is unfortunately being played out on media outlets and state legislatures instead of the offices of primary care physicians and specialists where it belongs.

The current mess is an example of what can happen when there is a paucity of reliable data, a superabundance of emotion, and a system that feeds on instant news and sound bites with little understanding of how science should work.

Some of the turmoil is a response to the notion that in certain situations gender dysphoria may be a condition that can be learned or mimicked from exposure to other gender-dysphoric individuals. Two papers anchor either side of the debate. The first paper was published in 2018 by a then–Brown University health expert who hypothesized the existence of a condition which she labeled “rapid-onset gender dysphoria [ROGD]”. One can imagine that “social contagion” might be considered as one of the potential contributors to this hypothesized condition. Unfortunately, the publication of the paper ignited a firestorm of criticism from a segment of the population that advocates for the transgender community, prompting the university and the online publisher to backpedal and reevaluate the quality of the research on which the paper was based.

One of the concerns voiced at the time of publication was that the research could be used to support the transphobic agenda by some state legislatures hoping to ban gender-affirming care. How large a role the paper played in the current spate of legislation in is unclear. I suspect it has been small. But, one can’t deny the potential exists.

Leaping forward to 2022, the second paper was published in the August issue of Pediatrics, in which the authors attempted to test the ROGD hypothesis and question the inference of social contagion.

The investigators found that in 2017 and 2019 the birth ratios of transgender-diverse (TGD) individuals did not favor assigned female-sex-at-birth (AFAB) individuals. They also discovered that in their sample overall there was a decrease in the percentage of adolescents who self-identified as TGD. Not surprisingly, “bullying victimization and suicidality were higher among TGD youth when compared with their cisgender peers.” The authors concluded that their findings were “incongruent with an ROGD hypothesis that posits social contagion” nor should it be used to restrict access to gender-affirming care.

There you have it. Are we any closer to understanding gender dysphoria and its origins? I don’t think so. The media is somewhat less confused. The NBC News online presence headline on Aug. 3, 2022, reads “‘Social contagion’ isn’t causing more youths to be transgender, study finds.”

My sense is that the general population perceives an increase in the prevalence of gender dysphoria. It is very likely that this perception is primarily a reflection of a more compassionate and educated attitude in a significant portion of the population making it less challenging for gender-dysphoric youth to surface. However, it should not surprise us that some parents and observers are concerned that a percentage of this increased prevalence is the result of social contagion. Nor should it surprise us that some advocates for the trans population feel threatened by this hypothesis.

Neither of these studies really answers the question of whether some cases of gender dysphoria are the result of social contagion. Both were small samples using methodology that has been called into question. The bottom line is that we need more studies and must remain open to considering their results. That’s how science should work.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

At the risk of losing a digit or two I am going to dip my toes into the murky waters of gender-affirming care, sometimes referred to as trans care. Recently, Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, released two statements, one in the Aug. 22, 2022, Wall Street Journal, the other summarized in the Aug. 25, 2022, AAP Daily Briefing, in which she attempts to clarify the academy’s position on gender-affirming care. They were well-worded and heroic attempts to clear the air. I fear these explanations will do little to encourage informed and courteous discussions between those entrenched on either side of a disagreement that is unfortunately being played out on media outlets and state legislatures instead of the offices of primary care physicians and specialists where it belongs.

The current mess is an example of what can happen when there is a paucity of reliable data, a superabundance of emotion, and a system that feeds on instant news and sound bites with little understanding of how science should work.

Some of the turmoil is a response to the notion that in certain situations gender dysphoria may be a condition that can be learned or mimicked from exposure to other gender-dysphoric individuals. Two papers anchor either side of the debate. The first paper was published in 2018 by a then–Brown University health expert who hypothesized the existence of a condition which she labeled “rapid-onset gender dysphoria [ROGD]”. One can imagine that “social contagion” might be considered as one of the potential contributors to this hypothesized condition. Unfortunately, the publication of the paper ignited a firestorm of criticism from a segment of the population that advocates for the transgender community, prompting the university and the online publisher to backpedal and reevaluate the quality of the research on which the paper was based.

One of the concerns voiced at the time of publication was that the research could be used to support the transphobic agenda by some state legislatures hoping to ban gender-affirming care. How large a role the paper played in the current spate of legislation in is unclear. I suspect it has been small. But, one can’t deny the potential exists.

Leaping forward to 2022, the second paper was published in the August issue of Pediatrics, in which the authors attempted to test the ROGD hypothesis and question the inference of social contagion.

The investigators found that in 2017 and 2019 the birth ratios of transgender-diverse (TGD) individuals did not favor assigned female-sex-at-birth (AFAB) individuals. They also discovered that in their sample overall there was a decrease in the percentage of adolescents who self-identified as TGD. Not surprisingly, “bullying victimization and suicidality were higher among TGD youth when compared with their cisgender peers.” The authors concluded that their findings were “incongruent with an ROGD hypothesis that posits social contagion” nor should it be used to restrict access to gender-affirming care.

There you have it. Are we any closer to understanding gender dysphoria and its origins? I don’t think so. The media is somewhat less confused. The NBC News online presence headline on Aug. 3, 2022, reads “‘Social contagion’ isn’t causing more youths to be transgender, study finds.”

My sense is that the general population perceives an increase in the prevalence of gender dysphoria. It is very likely that this perception is primarily a reflection of a more compassionate and educated attitude in a significant portion of the population making it less challenging for gender-dysphoric youth to surface. However, it should not surprise us that some parents and observers are concerned that a percentage of this increased prevalence is the result of social contagion. Nor should it surprise us that some advocates for the trans population feel threatened by this hypothesis.

Neither of these studies really answers the question of whether some cases of gender dysphoria are the result of social contagion. Both were small samples using methodology that has been called into question. The bottom line is that we need more studies and must remain open to considering their results. That’s how science should work.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

At the risk of losing a digit or two I am going to dip my toes into the murky waters of gender-affirming care, sometimes referred to as trans care. Recently, Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, released two statements, one in the Aug. 22, 2022, Wall Street Journal, the other summarized in the Aug. 25, 2022, AAP Daily Briefing, in which she attempts to clarify the academy’s position on gender-affirming care. They were well-worded and heroic attempts to clear the air. I fear these explanations will do little to encourage informed and courteous discussions between those entrenched on either side of a disagreement that is unfortunately being played out on media outlets and state legislatures instead of the offices of primary care physicians and specialists where it belongs.

The current mess is an example of what can happen when there is a paucity of reliable data, a superabundance of emotion, and a system that feeds on instant news and sound bites with little understanding of how science should work.

Some of the turmoil is a response to the notion that in certain situations gender dysphoria may be a condition that can be learned or mimicked from exposure to other gender-dysphoric individuals. Two papers anchor either side of the debate. The first paper was published in 2018 by a then–Brown University health expert who hypothesized the existence of a condition which she labeled “rapid-onset gender dysphoria [ROGD]”. One can imagine that “social contagion” might be considered as one of the potential contributors to this hypothesized condition. Unfortunately, the publication of the paper ignited a firestorm of criticism from a segment of the population that advocates for the transgender community, prompting the university and the online publisher to backpedal and reevaluate the quality of the research on which the paper was based.

One of the concerns voiced at the time of publication was that the research could be used to support the transphobic agenda by some state legislatures hoping to ban gender-affirming care. How large a role the paper played in the current spate of legislation in is unclear. I suspect it has been small. But, one can’t deny the potential exists.

Leaping forward to 2022, the second paper was published in the August issue of Pediatrics, in which the authors attempted to test the ROGD hypothesis and question the inference of social contagion.

The investigators found that in 2017 and 2019 the birth ratios of transgender-diverse (TGD) individuals did not favor assigned female-sex-at-birth (AFAB) individuals. They also discovered that in their sample overall there was a decrease in the percentage of adolescents who self-identified as TGD. Not surprisingly, “bullying victimization and suicidality were higher among TGD youth when compared with their cisgender peers.” The authors concluded that their findings were “incongruent with an ROGD hypothesis that posits social contagion” nor should it be used to restrict access to gender-affirming care.

There you have it. Are we any closer to understanding gender dysphoria and its origins? I don’t think so. The media is somewhat less confused. The NBC News online presence headline on Aug. 3, 2022, reads “‘Social contagion’ isn’t causing more youths to be transgender, study finds.”

My sense is that the general population perceives an increase in the prevalence of gender dysphoria. It is very likely that this perception is primarily a reflection of a more compassionate and educated attitude in a significant portion of the population making it less challenging for gender-dysphoric youth to surface. However, it should not surprise us that some parents and observers are concerned that a percentage of this increased prevalence is the result of social contagion. Nor should it surprise us that some advocates for the trans population feel threatened by this hypothesis.

Neither of these studies really answers the question of whether some cases of gender dysphoria are the result of social contagion. Both were small samples using methodology that has been called into question. The bottom line is that we need more studies and must remain open to considering their results. That’s how science should work.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I’m pretty sure my ancestors came from Europe. And, as far as I know, I have no relatives in Australia. But, I must have some cosmic relationship with the Land Down Under because as I review articles for these columns I have an uncanny attraction to those coming out of Australia. Most of them are about sleep, one of my obsessions, and in general they address simple questions that no one has thought to ask.

My most recent Australia-based nugget appeared in the August edition of Pediatrics.

The researchers in Sidney were seeking to define “growing pains” by embarking on an extensive review of the medical literature. Beginning with thousands of articles, they winnowed these down to 145 studies. They found “there was extremely poor consensus between studies.” The most consistent components were the lower limb, bilaterality, evening onset, a normal physical assessment, and an episodic or recurrent course. However, all of these factors were mentioned in 50% or less of the articles they reviewed. The investigators wisely concluded that clinicians “should be wary of relying on the diagnosis to direct treatment decisions.”

This may seem like one small step for pediatrics. You may have reassured parents that none of your patients ever died of “growing pains” and the condition would eventually resolve. Hopefully, you were correct and that your case rate fatality is zero. But I suspect it wouldn’t take too long to unearth a wealth of malpractices cases in which another pediatrician’s patient died with an illness whose eventual discovery was tragically delayed by a period of false reassurance and diagnosis that the child merely had growing pains.

I can’t remember which of my sage instructors told me to never use “growing pains” as a diagnosis. It may have just been something I stumbled upon as my clinical experience grew. While holding firm to my commitment to never use it as a diagnosis, it became abundantly clear that I was seeing a large group of children (toddlers to early adolescents) who were experiencing lower leg pains in the early evening, often bad enough to wake them.

It took a bit longer to discover that most often these painful episodes occurred in children who were acutely or chronically sleep deprived. Occasionally, the pain would come on days in which the child had been unusually physically active. However, in most cases there was little correlation with lower limb activity.

I will admit that my observations were colored by my growing obsession that sleep deprivation is the root of many evils, including the phenomenon known as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. I was even bold enough to include it in my one of the books I have written (Is My Child Overtired? Simon & Schuster, 2001). Nonetheless, I am still convinced that every investigation of a child with evening leg pains should include a thorough history of the child’s sleep history.

The bottom line is that these Australian researchers have done us a great favor with their research. However, I think they should have made a bolder statement in their conclusion. It is clear to me that “growing pains” should be removed as a diagnosis and no longer be reimbursed by third-party payers.

The void created by that action should spur some research into a better-defined diagnosis of the condition. If you want to use my tack and label it “nocturnal leg pains of childhood” and suggest better sleep hygiene, I will be flattered. But more importantly, take the time to take a good history, do a thorough exam, and then follow up, follow up, follow up, until the problem resolves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I’m pretty sure my ancestors came from Europe. And, as far as I know, I have no relatives in Australia. But, I must have some cosmic relationship with the Land Down Under because as I review articles for these columns I have an uncanny attraction to those coming out of Australia. Most of them are about sleep, one of my obsessions, and in general they address simple questions that no one has thought to ask.

My most recent Australia-based nugget appeared in the August edition of Pediatrics.

The researchers in Sidney were seeking to define “growing pains” by embarking on an extensive review of the medical literature. Beginning with thousands of articles, they winnowed these down to 145 studies. They found “there was extremely poor consensus between studies.” The most consistent components were the lower limb, bilaterality, evening onset, a normal physical assessment, and an episodic or recurrent course. However, all of these factors were mentioned in 50% or less of the articles they reviewed. The investigators wisely concluded that clinicians “should be wary of relying on the diagnosis to direct treatment decisions.”

This may seem like one small step for pediatrics. You may have reassured parents that none of your patients ever died of “growing pains” and the condition would eventually resolve. Hopefully, you were correct and that your case rate fatality is zero. But I suspect it wouldn’t take too long to unearth a wealth of malpractices cases in which another pediatrician’s patient died with an illness whose eventual discovery was tragically delayed by a period of false reassurance and diagnosis that the child merely had growing pains.

I can’t remember which of my sage instructors told me to never use “growing pains” as a diagnosis. It may have just been something I stumbled upon as my clinical experience grew. While holding firm to my commitment to never use it as a diagnosis, it became abundantly clear that I was seeing a large group of children (toddlers to early adolescents) who were experiencing lower leg pains in the early evening, often bad enough to wake them.

It took a bit longer to discover that most often these painful episodes occurred in children who were acutely or chronically sleep deprived. Occasionally, the pain would come on days in which the child had been unusually physically active. However, in most cases there was little correlation with lower limb activity.

I will admit that my observations were colored by my growing obsession that sleep deprivation is the root of many evils, including the phenomenon known as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. I was even bold enough to include it in my one of the books I have written (Is My Child Overtired? Simon & Schuster, 2001). Nonetheless, I am still convinced that every investigation of a child with evening leg pains should include a thorough history of the child’s sleep history.

The bottom line is that these Australian researchers have done us a great favor with their research. However, I think they should have made a bolder statement in their conclusion. It is clear to me that “growing pains” should be removed as a diagnosis and no longer be reimbursed by third-party payers.

The void created by that action should spur some research into a better-defined diagnosis of the condition. If you want to use my tack and label it “nocturnal leg pains of childhood” and suggest better sleep hygiene, I will be flattered. But more importantly, take the time to take a good history, do a thorough exam, and then follow up, follow up, follow up, until the problem resolves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I’m pretty sure my ancestors came from Europe. And, as far as I know, I have no relatives in Australia. But, I must have some cosmic relationship with the Land Down Under because as I review articles for these columns I have an uncanny attraction to those coming out of Australia. Most of them are about sleep, one of my obsessions, and in general they address simple questions that no one has thought to ask.

My most recent Australia-based nugget appeared in the August edition of Pediatrics.

The researchers in Sidney were seeking to define “growing pains” by embarking on an extensive review of the medical literature. Beginning with thousands of articles, they winnowed these down to 145 studies. They found “there was extremely poor consensus between studies.” The most consistent components were the lower limb, bilaterality, evening onset, a normal physical assessment, and an episodic or recurrent course. However, all of these factors were mentioned in 50% or less of the articles they reviewed. The investigators wisely concluded that clinicians “should be wary of relying on the diagnosis to direct treatment decisions.”

This may seem like one small step for pediatrics. You may have reassured parents that none of your patients ever died of “growing pains” and the condition would eventually resolve. Hopefully, you were correct and that your case rate fatality is zero. But I suspect it wouldn’t take too long to unearth a wealth of malpractices cases in which another pediatrician’s patient died with an illness whose eventual discovery was tragically delayed by a period of false reassurance and diagnosis that the child merely had growing pains.

I can’t remember which of my sage instructors told me to never use “growing pains” as a diagnosis. It may have just been something I stumbled upon as my clinical experience grew. While holding firm to my commitment to never use it as a diagnosis, it became abundantly clear that I was seeing a large group of children (toddlers to early adolescents) who were experiencing lower leg pains in the early evening, often bad enough to wake them.

It took a bit longer to discover that most often these painful episodes occurred in children who were acutely or chronically sleep deprived. Occasionally, the pain would come on days in which the child had been unusually physically active. However, in most cases there was little correlation with lower limb activity.

I will admit that my observations were colored by my growing obsession that sleep deprivation is the root of many evils, including the phenomenon known as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. I was even bold enough to include it in my one of the books I have written (Is My Child Overtired? Simon & Schuster, 2001). Nonetheless, I am still convinced that every investigation of a child with evening leg pains should include a thorough history of the child’s sleep history.

The bottom line is that these Australian researchers have done us a great favor with their research. However, I think they should have made a bolder statement in their conclusion. It is clear to me that “growing pains” should be removed as a diagnosis and no longer be reimbursed by third-party payers.

The void created by that action should spur some research into a better-defined diagnosis of the condition. If you want to use my tack and label it “nocturnal leg pains of childhood” and suggest better sleep hygiene, I will be flattered. But more importantly, take the time to take a good history, do a thorough exam, and then follow up, follow up, follow up, until the problem resolves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

“Children’s hospitals saw a more than 25% decline in injury-related emergency room visits during the first year of the pandemic.” There’s a headline that should soothe a nation starved for some good news. It was based on a study published in Pediatrics that reports on data collected in the Pediatric Health Information System between March 2020 and March 2021 using a 3-year period between 2017 and 2020 as a control. How could this not be good news? First, let’s not be too hasty in celebrating the good fortune of all those millions of children spared the pain and anxiety of an emergency department visit.

If you were an administrator of an emergency department attempting to match revenues with expenses, a 25% drop in visits may have hit your bottom line. Office-based pediatricians experienced a similar phenomenon when many parents quickly learned that they could ignore or self-manage minor illnesses and complaints.

A decrease in visits doesn’t necessarily mean that the conditions that drive the traffic flow in your facility have gone away. It may simply be that they are being managed somewhere else. However, it is equally likely that for some reason the pandemic created situations that made the usual illnesses and injuries that flood into emergency departments less likely to occur. And, here, other anecdotal evidence about weight gain and a decline in fitness point to the conclusion that when children are no longer in school, they settle into more sedentary and less injury-generating activities. Injuries from falling off the couch watching television or playing video games alone do occur but certainly with less frequency than the random collisions that are inevitable when scores of classmates are running around on the playground.

So while it may be tempting to view a decline in emergency department visits as a positive statistic, this pandemic should remind us to be careful about how we choose our metrics to measure the health of the community. A decline in injuries in the short term may be masking a more serious erosion in the health of the pediatric population over the long term. At times I worry that as a specialty we are so focused on injury prevention that we lose sight of the fact that being physically active comes with a risk. A risk that we may wish to minimize, but a risk we must accept if we want to encourage the physical activity that we know is so important in the bigger health picture. For example, emergency department visits caused by pedal cycles initially rose 60%, eventually settling into the 25%-30% range leading one to suspect there was a learning or relearning curve.

However, while visits for minor injuries declined 25%, those associated with firearms rose initially 22%, and then 42%, and finally over 35%. These numbers combined with significant increases in visits from suffocation, nonpedal transportation, and suicide intent make it clear that, for most children, being in school is significantly less dangerous than staying at home.

As the pandemic continues to tumble on and we are presented with future questions about whether to keep schools open or closed, I hope the results of this study and others will help school officials and their advisers step back and look beyond the simple metric of case numbers and appreciate that there are benefits to being in school that go far beyond what can be learned in class.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

“Children’s hospitals saw a more than 25% decline in injury-related emergency room visits during the first year of the pandemic.” There’s a headline that should soothe a nation starved for some good news. It was based on a study published in Pediatrics that reports on data collected in the Pediatric Health Information System between March 2020 and March 2021 using a 3-year period between 2017 and 2020 as a control. How could this not be good news? First, let’s not be too hasty in celebrating the good fortune of all those millions of children spared the pain and anxiety of an emergency department visit.

If you were an administrator of an emergency department attempting to match revenues with expenses, a 25% drop in visits may have hit your bottom line. Office-based pediatricians experienced a similar phenomenon when many parents quickly learned that they could ignore or self-manage minor illnesses and complaints.

A decrease in visits doesn’t necessarily mean that the conditions that drive the traffic flow in your facility have gone away. It may simply be that they are being managed somewhere else. However, it is equally likely that for some reason the pandemic created situations that made the usual illnesses and injuries that flood into emergency departments less likely to occur. And, here, other anecdotal evidence about weight gain and a decline in fitness point to the conclusion that when children are no longer in school, they settle into more sedentary and less injury-generating activities. Injuries from falling off the couch watching television or playing video games alone do occur but certainly with less frequency than the random collisions that are inevitable when scores of classmates are running around on the playground.

So while it may be tempting to view a decline in emergency department visits as a positive statistic, this pandemic should remind us to be careful about how we choose our metrics to measure the health of the community. A decline in injuries in the short term may be masking a more serious erosion in the health of the pediatric population over the long term. At times I worry that as a specialty we are so focused on injury prevention that we lose sight of the fact that being physically active comes with a risk. A risk that we may wish to minimize, but a risk we must accept if we want to encourage the physical activity that we know is so important in the bigger health picture. For example, emergency department visits caused by pedal cycles initially rose 60%, eventually settling into the 25%-30% range leading one to suspect there was a learning or relearning curve.

However, while visits for minor injuries declined 25%, those associated with firearms rose initially 22%, and then 42%, and finally over 35%. These numbers combined with significant increases in visits from suffocation, nonpedal transportation, and suicide intent make it clear that, for most children, being in school is significantly less dangerous than staying at home.

As the pandemic continues to tumble on and we are presented with future questions about whether to keep schools open or closed, I hope the results of this study and others will help school officials and their advisers step back and look beyond the simple metric of case numbers and appreciate that there are benefits to being in school that go far beyond what can be learned in class.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

“Children’s hospitals saw a more than 25% decline in injury-related emergency room visits during the first year of the pandemic.” There’s a headline that should soothe a nation starved for some good news. It was based on a study published in Pediatrics that reports on data collected in the Pediatric Health Information System between March 2020 and March 2021 using a 3-year period between 2017 and 2020 as a control. How could this not be good news? First, let’s not be too hasty in celebrating the good fortune of all those millions of children spared the pain and anxiety of an emergency department visit.

If you were an administrator of an emergency department attempting to match revenues with expenses, a 25% drop in visits may have hit your bottom line. Office-based pediatricians experienced a similar phenomenon when many parents quickly learned that they could ignore or self-manage minor illnesses and complaints.

A decrease in visits doesn’t necessarily mean that the conditions that drive the traffic flow in your facility have gone away. It may simply be that they are being managed somewhere else. However, it is equally likely that for some reason the pandemic created situations that made the usual illnesses and injuries that flood into emergency departments less likely to occur. And, here, other anecdotal evidence about weight gain and a decline in fitness point to the conclusion that when children are no longer in school, they settle into more sedentary and less injury-generating activities. Injuries from falling off the couch watching television or playing video games alone do occur but certainly with less frequency than the random collisions that are inevitable when scores of classmates are running around on the playground.

So while it may be tempting to view a decline in emergency department visits as a positive statistic, this pandemic should remind us to be careful about how we choose our metrics to measure the health of the community. A decline in injuries in the short term may be masking a more serious erosion in the health of the pediatric population over the long term. At times I worry that as a specialty we are so focused on injury prevention that we lose sight of the fact that being physically active comes with a risk. A risk that we may wish to minimize, but a risk we must accept if we want to encourage the physical activity that we know is so important in the bigger health picture. For example, emergency department visits caused by pedal cycles initially rose 60%, eventually settling into the 25%-30% range leading one to suspect there was a learning or relearning curve.

However, while visits for minor injuries declined 25%, those associated with firearms rose initially 22%, and then 42%, and finally over 35%. These numbers combined with significant increases in visits from suffocation, nonpedal transportation, and suicide intent make it clear that, for most children, being in school is significantly less dangerous than staying at home.

As the pandemic continues to tumble on and we are presented with future questions about whether to keep schools open or closed, I hope the results of this study and others will help school officials and their advisers step back and look beyond the simple metric of case numbers and appreciate that there are benefits to being in school that go far beyond what can be learned in class.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Tragic, embarrassing, criminal ... Choose your own adjective. The maternal mortality rate in this country is the worst of any developed nation in the world. And the numbers are getting worse with an increase of 14% over the previous year. One-third of these deaths occur weeks or months after the delivery.

In a recent issue of Harvard Public Health, researchers at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health discuss some of the possible remedies for what they describe as a crisis. While some of the solutions they list will require major restructuring of how we deliver health care to mothers, others could take advantage of our current systems by employing a slight shift in emphasis. And here is where those of us on the frontline of care delivery can make a difference.

The researchers point out that “More than 90% of maternal deaths could be prevented if women had access to quality care.” They also observe that most mothers have a single postpartum check with the ob.gyn. facility that delivered the baby and then are often left to navigate the health system because transfer to their primary care and/or mental health professional is haphazard or lacking in follow-up.

As I read through the article it struck me that as pediatricians we could and should be playing a larger role in this critical postpartum period when so many women seem to be falling through the cracks in our health care nonsystem. This is not a great “Ah-ha” moment for which I deserve any credit. In 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that mothers be screened for depression at the 1-, 2-, and 4-month visits using either a validated 10-question screening instrument or a more direct 2-question tool (Pediatrics 2010;126[5]:1032-9). However, a periodic survey of AAP members 3 years later revealed that less than a third of the respondents were screening regularly for postpartum depression. In 2019 the academy reemphasized the important role that pediatric primary care givers can play in the detection and early management of the condition.

The reasons for the disappointing response include the list of usual suspects of inadequate training, workload demands, reimbursement, liability concerns, and the difficulty in finding and establishing effective referral networks. Unfortunately, these factors continue to exist, and many cases have multiplied in the wake of the pandemic.

In some states, educational outreach, funding, and changes in the reimbursement structure have resulted in improved outcomes. Not all of us are fortunate enough to live in a state that has made postpartum depression detection and management a priority. However, simply making it our own professional priority can save lives, ease suffering, and improve postpartum outcomes. Here I am talking about first caring and then inquiring about a mother’s mental health. Asking how much sleep she is getting. And then spending the time to give personalized advice on feeding and sleep schedules. Even, if this means ignoring half of the topics on the recommended health maintenance. It doesn’t take but a few minutes to convince yourself that the baby is healthy, and you know that 90% of them are.

However, a new mother who is sleep deprived and already has one foot on the spiral staircase down into postpartum depression represents an emergency. And, you should have the skills to turn it around. But, you have to care about the problem and make it your own priority – high enough on the list to make a follow-up appointment or call in a week instead of waiting a month or 2 until the next visit.

Unfortunately, even with your best efforts there are some families who need services beyond the scope of your practice. Making the necessary referrals can be frustrating and time consuming but not dropping ball until it lands in the appropriate place may save a life.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Tragic, embarrassing, criminal ... Choose your own adjective. The maternal mortality rate in this country is the worst of any developed nation in the world. And the numbers are getting worse with an increase of 14% over the previous year. One-third of these deaths occur weeks or months after the delivery.

In a recent issue of Harvard Public Health, researchers at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health discuss some of the possible remedies for what they describe as a crisis. While some of the solutions they list will require major restructuring of how we deliver health care to mothers, others could take advantage of our current systems by employing a slight shift in emphasis. And here is where those of us on the frontline of care delivery can make a difference.

The researchers point out that “More than 90% of maternal deaths could be prevented if women had access to quality care.” They also observe that most mothers have a single postpartum check with the ob.gyn. facility that delivered the baby and then are often left to navigate the health system because transfer to their primary care and/or mental health professional is haphazard or lacking in follow-up.

As I read through the article it struck me that as pediatricians we could and should be playing a larger role in this critical postpartum period when so many women seem to be falling through the cracks in our health care nonsystem. This is not a great “Ah-ha” moment for which I deserve any credit. In 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that mothers be screened for depression at the 1-, 2-, and 4-month visits using either a validated 10-question screening instrument or a more direct 2-question tool (Pediatrics 2010;126[5]:1032-9). However, a periodic survey of AAP members 3 years later revealed that less than a third of the respondents were screening regularly for postpartum depression. In 2019 the academy reemphasized the important role that pediatric primary care givers can play in the detection and early management of the condition.

The reasons for the disappointing response include the list of usual suspects of inadequate training, workload demands, reimbursement, liability concerns, and the difficulty in finding and establishing effective referral networks. Unfortunately, these factors continue to exist, and many cases have multiplied in the wake of the pandemic.

In some states, educational outreach, funding, and changes in the reimbursement structure have resulted in improved outcomes. Not all of us are fortunate enough to live in a state that has made postpartum depression detection and management a priority. However, simply making it our own professional priority can save lives, ease suffering, and improve postpartum outcomes. Here I am talking about first caring and then inquiring about a mother’s mental health. Asking how much sleep she is getting. And then spending the time to give personalized advice on feeding and sleep schedules. Even, if this means ignoring half of the topics on the recommended health maintenance. It doesn’t take but a few minutes to convince yourself that the baby is healthy, and you know that 90% of them are.

However, a new mother who is sleep deprived and already has one foot on the spiral staircase down into postpartum depression represents an emergency. And, you should have the skills to turn it around. But, you have to care about the problem and make it your own priority – high enough on the list to make a follow-up appointment or call in a week instead of waiting a month or 2 until the next visit.

Unfortunately, even with your best efforts there are some families who need services beyond the scope of your practice. Making the necessary referrals can be frustrating and time consuming but not dropping ball until it lands in the appropriate place may save a life.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Tragic, embarrassing, criminal ... Choose your own adjective. The maternal mortality rate in this country is the worst of any developed nation in the world. And the numbers are getting worse with an increase of 14% over the previous year. One-third of these deaths occur weeks or months after the delivery.

In a recent issue of Harvard Public Health, researchers at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health discuss some of the possible remedies for what they describe as a crisis. While some of the solutions they list will require major restructuring of how we deliver health care to mothers, others could take advantage of our current systems by employing a slight shift in emphasis. And here is where those of us on the frontline of care delivery can make a difference.

The researchers point out that “More than 90% of maternal deaths could be prevented if women had access to quality care.” They also observe that most mothers have a single postpartum check with the ob.gyn. facility that delivered the baby and then are often left to navigate the health system because transfer to their primary care and/or mental health professional is haphazard or lacking in follow-up.

As I read through the article it struck me that as pediatricians we could and should be playing a larger role in this critical postpartum period when so many women seem to be falling through the cracks in our health care nonsystem. This is not a great “Ah-ha” moment for which I deserve any credit. In 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that mothers be screened for depression at the 1-, 2-, and 4-month visits using either a validated 10-question screening instrument or a more direct 2-question tool (Pediatrics 2010;126[5]:1032-9). However, a periodic survey of AAP members 3 years later revealed that less than a third of the respondents were screening regularly for postpartum depression. In 2019 the academy reemphasized the important role that pediatric primary care givers can play in the detection and early management of the condition.

The reasons for the disappointing response include the list of usual suspects of inadequate training, workload demands, reimbursement, liability concerns, and the difficulty in finding and establishing effective referral networks. Unfortunately, these factors continue to exist, and many cases have multiplied in the wake of the pandemic.

In some states, educational outreach, funding, and changes in the reimbursement structure have resulted in improved outcomes. Not all of us are fortunate enough to live in a state that has made postpartum depression detection and management a priority. However, simply making it our own professional priority can save lives, ease suffering, and improve postpartum outcomes. Here I am talking about first caring and then inquiring about a mother’s mental health. Asking how much sleep she is getting. And then spending the time to give personalized advice on feeding and sleep schedules. Even, if this means ignoring half of the topics on the recommended health maintenance. It doesn’t take but a few minutes to convince yourself that the baby is healthy, and you know that 90% of them are.

However, a new mother who is sleep deprived and already has one foot on the spiral staircase down into postpartum depression represents an emergency. And, you should have the skills to turn it around. But, you have to care about the problem and make it your own priority – high enough on the list to make a follow-up appointment or call in a week instead of waiting a month or 2 until the next visit.

Unfortunately, even with your best efforts there are some families who need services beyond the scope of your practice. Making the necessary referrals can be frustrating and time consuming but not dropping ball until it lands in the appropriate place may save a life.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is built on good intentions. It wants the best for children in the world, and it hopes to support its members in their efforts to achieve this goal. But from time to time, the academy loses sight of reality and makes recommendations that are counterproductive to its stated goals.

The recent release of its new policy “Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk” is another unfortunate example of poorly aimed recommendations. A careful reading of the document reveals it to be a well-researched treatise on breastfeeding and the value of human milk, including a discussion of the numerous impediments to the universal adoption of breastfeeding in our society. However, when a document of this breadth and complexity is released to the public it is never surprising that the messages deserving the most attention are lost in the press coverage. Most of the headlines I saw mentioned pediatricians supporting breastfeeding for a year or 2.

Who was the target audience? If it was pediatricians, most of us don’t need a longer list of the health benefits of breastfeeding. We already believe it is the best nutritional source for human babies and realize that the institutional framework in this country continues to be unfriendly to women who intend to breastfeed.

If the audience is politicians and public health decision-makers, the new policy contains a wealth of supportive evidence. However, most pediatricians I know are too busy or lack the skills and enthusiasm to become political activists. For the rest of population, including parents, the recommendations represent a collection of TMI (too much information).

If the audience is women who are considering breastfeeding I suspect nearly 100% already know pediatricians think it is the preferred way to feed their babies. And, likewise, a longer list won’t convince them to try nursing. Additional evidence may simply make them feel more guilty when they aren’t successful.

Many pregnant women have already been told that breastfeeding can be a challenge and given their situation breast milk alone for the first 6 months may sound like an unreasonable goal. The new recommendation that breastfeeding for a year or 2 is good is not a message they want to hear.

On the other hand, if the target audience is women who will be comforted to hear an official statement that normalizes breastfeeding longer than a year, the new policy statement has hit the nail on the head.

Of course the new policy document is sprinkled with caveats that vaguely hint at the possibility that pediatricians are sensitive human beings who under certain circumstances may be able to compromise when it comes to the duration of breastfeeding and the introduction of formula. But this whiff of reality is certainly not the dominant odor in these new recommendations.

Don’t get me wrong: I think the academy was overdue for a policy revision on breastfeeding. However, it should have been one that was reality based. It should acknowledge that there are institutional and societal biases against breastfeeding, and it should remind pediatricians that they can effect change by discussing these realities honestly with parents, while making it clear that we are there for them and their children regardless of how they feed their baby. Pediatricians believe that breastfeeding is the best but not the only way to feed a baby. We have (or will provide) the skills to assist parents succeed in whatever method they choose and strive to minimize the impediments that are within our power to change.

If the academy had chosen to release a separate statement simply supporting mothers who chose to nurse longer than a year, then that would have been a good idea. However, when presented as part of the larger document, that message dominated in the media and only served to fuel the guilt that many new mothers must endure.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is built on good intentions. It wants the best for children in the world, and it hopes to support its members in their efforts to achieve this goal. But from time to time, the academy loses sight of reality and makes recommendations that are counterproductive to its stated goals.

The recent release of its new policy “Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk” is another unfortunate example of poorly aimed recommendations. A careful reading of the document reveals it to be a well-researched treatise on breastfeeding and the value of human milk, including a discussion of the numerous impediments to the universal adoption of breastfeeding in our society. However, when a document of this breadth and complexity is released to the public it is never surprising that the messages deserving the most attention are lost in the press coverage. Most of the headlines I saw mentioned pediatricians supporting breastfeeding for a year or 2.

Who was the target audience? If it was pediatricians, most of us don’t need a longer list of the health benefits of breastfeeding. We already believe it is the best nutritional source for human babies and realize that the institutional framework in this country continues to be unfriendly to women who intend to breastfeed.

If the audience is politicians and public health decision-makers, the new policy contains a wealth of supportive evidence. However, most pediatricians I know are too busy or lack the skills and enthusiasm to become political activists. For the rest of population, including parents, the recommendations represent a collection of TMI (too much information).

If the audience is women who are considering breastfeeding I suspect nearly 100% already know pediatricians think it is the preferred way to feed their babies. And, likewise, a longer list won’t convince them to try nursing. Additional evidence may simply make them feel more guilty when they aren’t successful.

Many pregnant women have already been told that breastfeeding can be a challenge and given their situation breast milk alone for the first 6 months may sound like an unreasonable goal. The new recommendation that breastfeeding for a year or 2 is good is not a message they want to hear.

On the other hand, if the target audience is women who will be comforted to hear an official statement that normalizes breastfeeding longer than a year, the new policy statement has hit the nail on the head.

Of course the new policy document is sprinkled with caveats that vaguely hint at the possibility that pediatricians are sensitive human beings who under certain circumstances may be able to compromise when it comes to the duration of breastfeeding and the introduction of formula. But this whiff of reality is certainly not the dominant odor in these new recommendations.

Don’t get me wrong: I think the academy was overdue for a policy revision on breastfeeding. However, it should have been one that was reality based. It should acknowledge that there are institutional and societal biases against breastfeeding, and it should remind pediatricians that they can effect change by discussing these realities honestly with parents, while making it clear that we are there for them and their children regardless of how they feed their baby. Pediatricians believe that breastfeeding is the best but not the only way to feed a baby. We have (or will provide) the skills to assist parents succeed in whatever method they choose and strive to minimize the impediments that are within our power to change.

If the academy had chosen to release a separate statement simply supporting mothers who chose to nurse longer than a year, then that would have been a good idea. However, when presented as part of the larger document, that message dominated in the media and only served to fuel the guilt that many new mothers must endure.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is built on good intentions. It wants the best for children in the world, and it hopes to support its members in their efforts to achieve this goal. But from time to time, the academy loses sight of reality and makes recommendations that are counterproductive to its stated goals.

The recent release of its new policy “Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk” is another unfortunate example of poorly aimed recommendations. A careful reading of the document reveals it to be a well-researched treatise on breastfeeding and the value of human milk, including a discussion of the numerous impediments to the universal adoption of breastfeeding in our society. However, when a document of this breadth and complexity is released to the public it is never surprising that the messages deserving the most attention are lost in the press coverage. Most of the headlines I saw mentioned pediatricians supporting breastfeeding for a year or 2.

Who was the target audience? If it was pediatricians, most of us don’t need a longer list of the health benefits of breastfeeding. We already believe it is the best nutritional source for human babies and realize that the institutional framework in this country continues to be unfriendly to women who intend to breastfeed.

If the audience is politicians and public health decision-makers, the new policy contains a wealth of supportive evidence. However, most pediatricians I know are too busy or lack the skills and enthusiasm to become political activists. For the rest of population, including parents, the recommendations represent a collection of TMI (too much information).

If the audience is women who are considering breastfeeding I suspect nearly 100% already know pediatricians think it is the preferred way to feed their babies. And, likewise, a longer list won’t convince them to try nursing. Additional evidence may simply make them feel more guilty when they aren’t successful.

Many pregnant women have already been told that breastfeeding can be a challenge and given their situation breast milk alone for the first 6 months may sound like an unreasonable goal. The new recommendation that breastfeeding for a year or 2 is good is not a message they want to hear.

On the other hand, if the target audience is women who will be comforted to hear an official statement that normalizes breastfeeding longer than a year, the new policy statement has hit the nail on the head.

Of course the new policy document is sprinkled with caveats that vaguely hint at the possibility that pediatricians are sensitive human beings who under certain circumstances may be able to compromise when it comes to the duration of breastfeeding and the introduction of formula. But this whiff of reality is certainly not the dominant odor in these new recommendations.

Don’t get me wrong: I think the academy was overdue for a policy revision on breastfeeding. However, it should have been one that was reality based. It should acknowledge that there are institutional and societal biases against breastfeeding, and it should remind pediatricians that they can effect change by discussing these realities honestly with parents, while making it clear that we are there for them and their children regardless of how they feed their baby. Pediatricians believe that breastfeeding is the best but not the only way to feed a baby. We have (or will provide) the skills to assist parents succeed in whatever method they choose and strive to minimize the impediments that are within our power to change.

If the academy had chosen to release a separate statement simply supporting mothers who chose to nurse longer than a year, then that would have been a good idea. However, when presented as part of the larger document, that message dominated in the media and only served to fuel the guilt that many new mothers must endure.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Concerns about the potential harm resulting from overzealous training regimens and performance schedules for young elite athletes seems to come in cycles much like the Olympics. But, more recently, the media attention has become more intense fueled by the very visible psychological vulnerabilities of some young gymnasts, tennis players, and figure skaters. Accusations of physical and psychological abuse by team physicians and coaches continue to surface with troubling regularity.

A recent article in the Wall St. Journal explores a variety of initiatives aimed at redefining the relationship between youth sports and the physical and mental health of its elite athletes. (Louise Radnofsky, The Wall Street Journal, June 9, 2022).

An example of the new awareness is the recent invitation of Peter Donnelly, PhD, an emeritus professor at the University of Toronto and long-time advocate for regulatory protections for youth athletes, to deliver a paper at a global conference in South Africa devoted to the elimination of child labor. Referring to youth sports, Dr. Donnelly observes “What if McDonalds had the same accident rate? ... There would be huge commissions of inquiry, regulations, and policies.” He suggests that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child might be a mechanism to address the problem.

Writing in the Marquette University Sports Law Review in 2015, Kristin Hoffman, a law student at the time, suggested that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act or state child labor laws could be used to restructure sports like gymnastics or figure skating with tarnished histories. California law prohibits child actors from working more than 5 hours a day on school days and 7 hours on nonschool days but says little about child athletes. On paper, the National Collegiate Athletic Association limits college athletes to 20 hours participation per week but teenagers on club teams are not limited and may sometimes practice 30 hours or more.

Regulation in any form is a tough sell in this country. Coaches, parents, and athletes caught up in the myth that more repetitions and more touches on the ball are always the ticket to success will argue that most elite athletes are self-motivated and don’t view the long hours as a hardship.

Exactly how many are self-driven and how many are being pushed by parents and coaches is unknown. Across the street from us lived a young girl who, despite not having the obvious physical gifts, was clearly committed to excel in sports. She begged her parents to set up lights to allow her to practice well into the evening. She went on to have a good college career as a player and a very successful career as a Division I coach. Now in retirement, she is very open about her mental health history that in large part explains her inner drive and her subsequent troubles.

We need to be realistic in our hope for regulating the current state of youth sports out of its current situation. State laws that put reasonable limits on the hourly commitment to sports much like the California child actor laws feel like a reasonable goal. However, as physicians for these young athletes we must take each child – and we must remind ourselves that they are still children – as an individual.

When faced with patients who are clearly on the elite sport pathway, our goal is to protect their health – both physical and mental. If they are having symptoms of overuse we need to help them find alternative activities that will rest their injuries but still allow them to satisfy their competitive zeal. However, we must be ever alert to the risk that what appears to be unusual self-motivation may be instead a warning that pathologic obsession and compulsion lurk below the surface.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Concerns about the potential harm resulting from overzealous training regimens and performance schedules for young elite athletes seems to come in cycles much like the Olympics. But, more recently, the media attention has become more intense fueled by the very visible psychological vulnerabilities of some young gymnasts, tennis players, and figure skaters. Accusations of physical and psychological abuse by team physicians and coaches continue to surface with troubling regularity.

A recent article in the Wall St. Journal explores a variety of initiatives aimed at redefining the relationship between youth sports and the physical and mental health of its elite athletes. (Louise Radnofsky, The Wall Street Journal, June 9, 2022).

An example of the new awareness is the recent invitation of Peter Donnelly, PhD, an emeritus professor at the University of Toronto and long-time advocate for regulatory protections for youth athletes, to deliver a paper at a global conference in South Africa devoted to the elimination of child labor. Referring to youth sports, Dr. Donnelly observes “What if McDonalds had the same accident rate? ... There would be huge commissions of inquiry, regulations, and policies.” He suggests that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child might be a mechanism to address the problem.

Writing in the Marquette University Sports Law Review in 2015, Kristin Hoffman, a law student at the time, suggested that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act or state child labor laws could be used to restructure sports like gymnastics or figure skating with tarnished histories. California law prohibits child actors from working more than 5 hours a day on school days and 7 hours on nonschool days but says little about child athletes. On paper, the National Collegiate Athletic Association limits college athletes to 20 hours participation per week but teenagers on club teams are not limited and may sometimes practice 30 hours or more.

Regulation in any form is a tough sell in this country. Coaches, parents, and athletes caught up in the myth that more repetitions and more touches on the ball are always the ticket to success will argue that most elite athletes are self-motivated and don’t view the long hours as a hardship.

Exactly how many are self-driven and how many are being pushed by parents and coaches is unknown. Across the street from us lived a young girl who, despite not having the obvious physical gifts, was clearly committed to excel in sports. She begged her parents to set up lights to allow her to practice well into the evening. She went on to have a good college career as a player and a very successful career as a Division I coach. Now in retirement, she is very open about her mental health history that in large part explains her inner drive and her subsequent troubles.

We need to be realistic in our hope for regulating the current state of youth sports out of its current situation. State laws that put reasonable limits on the hourly commitment to sports much like the California child actor laws feel like a reasonable goal. However, as physicians for these young athletes we must take each child – and we must remind ourselves that they are still children – as an individual.

When faced with patients who are clearly on the elite sport pathway, our goal is to protect their health – both physical and mental. If they are having symptoms of overuse we need to help them find alternative activities that will rest their injuries but still allow them to satisfy their competitive zeal. However, we must be ever alert to the risk that what appears to be unusual self-motivation may be instead a warning that pathologic obsession and compulsion lurk below the surface.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Concerns about the potential harm resulting from overzealous training regimens and performance schedules for young elite athletes seems to come in cycles much like the Olympics. But, more recently, the media attention has become more intense fueled by the very visible psychological vulnerabilities of some young gymnasts, tennis players, and figure skaters. Accusations of physical and psychological abuse by team physicians and coaches continue to surface with troubling regularity.

A recent article in the Wall St. Journal explores a variety of initiatives aimed at redefining the relationship between youth sports and the physical and mental health of its elite athletes. (Louise Radnofsky, The Wall Street Journal, June 9, 2022).

An example of the new awareness is the recent invitation of Peter Donnelly, PhD, an emeritus professor at the University of Toronto and long-time advocate for regulatory protections for youth athletes, to deliver a paper at a global conference in South Africa devoted to the elimination of child labor. Referring to youth sports, Dr. Donnelly observes “What if McDonalds had the same accident rate? ... There would be huge commissions of inquiry, regulations, and policies.” He suggests that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child might be a mechanism to address the problem.

Writing in the Marquette University Sports Law Review in 2015, Kristin Hoffman, a law student at the time, suggested that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act or state child labor laws could be used to restructure sports like gymnastics or figure skating with tarnished histories. California law prohibits child actors from working more than 5 hours a day on school days and 7 hours on nonschool days but says little about child athletes. On paper, the National Collegiate Athletic Association limits college athletes to 20 hours participation per week but teenagers on club teams are not limited and may sometimes practice 30 hours or more.

Regulation in any form is a tough sell in this country. Coaches, parents, and athletes caught up in the myth that more repetitions and more touches on the ball are always the ticket to success will argue that most elite athletes are self-motivated and don’t view the long hours as a hardship.

Exactly how many are self-driven and how many are being pushed by parents and coaches is unknown. Across the street from us lived a young girl who, despite not having the obvious physical gifts, was clearly committed to excel in sports. She begged her parents to set up lights to allow her to practice well into the evening. She went on to have a good college career as a player and a very successful career as a Division I coach. Now in retirement, she is very open about her mental health history that in large part explains her inner drive and her subsequent troubles.

We need to be realistic in our hope for regulating the current state of youth sports out of its current situation. State laws that put reasonable limits on the hourly commitment to sports much like the California child actor laws feel like a reasonable goal. However, as physicians for these young athletes we must take each child – and we must remind ourselves that they are still children – as an individual.

When faced with patients who are clearly on the elite sport pathway, our goal is to protect their health – both physical and mental. If they are having symptoms of overuse we need to help them find alternative activities that will rest their injuries but still allow them to satisfy their competitive zeal. However, we must be ever alert to the risk that what appears to be unusual self-motivation may be instead a warning that pathologic obsession and compulsion lurk below the surface.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I can dimly recall watching Queen Elizabeth’s coronation on a very small black and white television screen. Even in monochrome it was a riveting event. Recently, the Queen celebrated her Platinum Jubilee, marking her 70-year reign. Apparently it was a multiday event with all the trappings, floating above an undercurrent of scandal and intrigue. I had better things to do than I did as a 7-year-old entranced by the novelty of a neighbor’s television set.

But, it turns out that I had missed the opportunity to see live and in color a royal meltdown starring the Queen’s great-grandson, 4-year-old Prince Louis. Not to worry. It remains on video archives for our education and pleasure ad infinitum. His performance was no more dramatic than what you have seen numerous times in the checkout line of the grocery store. However, this meltdown was on the world stage in the front row of the royal box and performed in various venues on each day of a 4-day event.

As long as you weren’t his parents, Kate Middleton and Prince William, the meltdown had its moments of hilarity. Louis made full use of his youthful and plastic face, creating a wide variety of taunts and responses to his mother’s praiseworthy and understated attempts at regaining control. Of course, the British press and every armchair parent with a Twitter account had a field day contributing their explanations and advice.

For example, here’s the headline on an international news website that caught my eye: “Royal reveals why Prince Louis was so ‘mischievous’ during the Jubilee”. In the article, a fellow royal and former rugby star who was sitting directly behind the little Prince during one of his performances chalked up the 4-year-old’s behavior to a “sugar high” resulting from the ample supply of sweets available behind the royal box.

Nowhere in the article is there a question of whether the “sugar high” is a science-based phenomenon. In fact, the reporter assumes we all know it exists and writes that “parents across the globe can probably [read: definitely] relate.”

I’m curious: How do you respond when a parent in the office explains the child’s behavior as the result of a “sugar high”? Or when you’re at a cookout and someone makes a comment that makes it obvious that they believe that “sugar highs” are real? Do you immediately pause the conversation and launch into a short but tasteful observation that you know of no scientific studies that sugar can cause a high? Or, figuring that in the face of an overwhelming burden of old wives’ tales it’s not worth mounting a rebuttal, do you pretend you didn’t hear the comment?

Or am I completely off base because your experience has left you convinced that despite the lack of supporting studies the “sugar high” phenomenon exists? Maybe you even include it on your list of explanations and remedies for pediatric misbehaviors. I am ready to listen, but it will take some heavy lifting to convince me.

I suspect your response to offhand comments about “sugar highs” is similar to mine. It depends on the situation. If I think there are obvious and correctable causes for the child’s misbehavior such as sleep deprivation or a mismatch between parental expectation and the child’s tolerance for a stimulating environment I will include in my parenting advice the comment, “Sugar highs probably don’t exist.”

On the other hand, if I’m tired and think my observation will fall on deaf ears I let the conversation drift. I worry that my silence will be interpreted as a confirmation of an old wives’ tale. What I really don’t want to do is perpetuate a myth that may prevent some children from getting the care they need.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I can dimly recall watching Queen Elizabeth’s coronation on a very small black and white television screen. Even in monochrome it was a riveting event. Recently, the Queen celebrated her Platinum Jubilee, marking her 70-year reign. Apparently it was a multiday event with all the trappings, floating above an undercurrent of scandal and intrigue. I had better things to do than I did as a 7-year-old entranced by the novelty of a neighbor’s television set.

But, it turns out that I had missed the opportunity to see live and in color a royal meltdown starring the Queen’s great-grandson, 4-year-old Prince Louis. Not to worry. It remains on video archives for our education and pleasure ad infinitum. His performance was no more dramatic than what you have seen numerous times in the checkout line of the grocery store. However, this meltdown was on the world stage in the front row of the royal box and performed in various venues on each day of a 4-day event.

As long as you weren’t his parents, Kate Middleton and Prince William, the meltdown had its moments of hilarity. Louis made full use of his youthful and plastic face, creating a wide variety of taunts and responses to his mother’s praiseworthy and understated attempts at regaining control. Of course, the British press and every armchair parent with a Twitter account had a field day contributing their explanations and advice.

For example, here’s the headline on an international news website that caught my eye: “Royal reveals why Prince Louis was so ‘mischievous’ during the Jubilee”. In the article, a fellow royal and former rugby star who was sitting directly behind the little Prince during one of his performances chalked up the 4-year-old’s behavior to a “sugar high” resulting from the ample supply of sweets available behind the royal box.

Nowhere in the article is there a question of whether the “sugar high” is a science-based phenomenon. In fact, the reporter assumes we all know it exists and writes that “parents across the globe can probably [read: definitely] relate.”

I’m curious: How do you respond when a parent in the office explains the child’s behavior as the result of a “sugar high”? Or when you’re at a cookout and someone makes a comment that makes it obvious that they believe that “sugar highs” are real? Do you immediately pause the conversation and launch into a short but tasteful observation that you know of no scientific studies that sugar can cause a high? Or, figuring that in the face of an overwhelming burden of old wives’ tales it’s not worth mounting a rebuttal, do you pretend you didn’t hear the comment?

Or am I completely off base because your experience has left you convinced that despite the lack of supporting studies the “sugar high” phenomenon exists? Maybe you even include it on your list of explanations and remedies for pediatric misbehaviors. I am ready to listen, but it will take some heavy lifting to convince me.

I suspect your response to offhand comments about “sugar highs” is similar to mine. It depends on the situation. If I think there are obvious and correctable causes for the child’s misbehavior such as sleep deprivation or a mismatch between parental expectation and the child’s tolerance for a stimulating environment I will include in my parenting advice the comment, “Sugar highs probably don’t exist.”

On the other hand, if I’m tired and think my observation will fall on deaf ears I let the conversation drift. I worry that my silence will be interpreted as a confirmation of an old wives’ tale. What I really don’t want to do is perpetuate a myth that may prevent some children from getting the care they need.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I can dimly recall watching Queen Elizabeth’s coronation on a very small black and white television screen. Even in monochrome it was a riveting event. Recently, the Queen celebrated her Platinum Jubilee, marking her 70-year reign. Apparently it was a multiday event with all the trappings, floating above an undercurrent of scandal and intrigue. I had better things to do than I did as a 7-year-old entranced by the novelty of a neighbor’s television set.

But, it turns out that I had missed the opportunity to see live and in color a royal meltdown starring the Queen’s great-grandson, 4-year-old Prince Louis. Not to worry. It remains on video archives for our education and pleasure ad infinitum. His performance was no more dramatic than what you have seen numerous times in the checkout line of the grocery store. However, this meltdown was on the world stage in the front row of the royal box and performed in various venues on each day of a 4-day event.

As long as you weren’t his parents, Kate Middleton and Prince William, the meltdown had its moments of hilarity. Louis made full use of his youthful and plastic face, creating a wide variety of taunts and responses to his mother’s praiseworthy and understated attempts at regaining control. Of course, the British press and every armchair parent with a Twitter account had a field day contributing their explanations and advice.

For example, here’s the headline on an international news website that caught my eye: “Royal reveals why Prince Louis was so ‘mischievous’ during the Jubilee”. In the article, a fellow royal and former rugby star who was sitting directly behind the little Prince during one of his performances chalked up the 4-year-old’s behavior to a “sugar high” resulting from the ample supply of sweets available behind the royal box.

Nowhere in the article is there a question of whether the “sugar high” is a science-based phenomenon. In fact, the reporter assumes we all know it exists and writes that “parents across the globe can probably [read: definitely] relate.”

I’m curious: How do you respond when a parent in the office explains the child’s behavior as the result of a “sugar high”? Or when you’re at a cookout and someone makes a comment that makes it obvious that they believe that “sugar highs” are real? Do you immediately pause the conversation and launch into a short but tasteful observation that you know of no scientific studies that sugar can cause a high? Or, figuring that in the face of an overwhelming burden of old wives’ tales it’s not worth mounting a rebuttal, do you pretend you didn’t hear the comment?

Or am I completely off base because your experience has left you convinced that despite the lack of supporting studies the “sugar high” phenomenon exists? Maybe you even include it on your list of explanations and remedies for pediatric misbehaviors. I am ready to listen, but it will take some heavy lifting to convince me.

I suspect your response to offhand comments about “sugar highs” is similar to mine. It depends on the situation. If I think there are obvious and correctable causes for the child’s misbehavior such as sleep deprivation or a mismatch between parental expectation and the child’s tolerance for a stimulating environment I will include in my parenting advice the comment, “Sugar highs probably don’t exist.”

On the other hand, if I’m tired and think my observation will fall on deaf ears I let the conversation drift. I worry that my silence will be interpreted as a confirmation of an old wives’ tale. What I really don’t want to do is perpetuate a myth that may prevent some children from getting the care they need.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.