Tag Archives: Mental Health

PTSD: Military and Civilians

Posted by on July 1, 2013 Comments Off on PTSD: Military and Civilians

As I was surfing my car’s radio dial for some music–not much luck at the time–I heard a DJ defending his decision to discuss PTSD in the military. I guess some other listeners had been unsuccessful in finding music but found a serious discussion of trauma and war on a music show unacceptable.

What used to be called “shell shock” or “battle fatigue,” has the medical diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It is the kind of thing that got General George Patton in trouble, when he slapped a soldier suffering from it.

In many areas of brain disorder (ADHD, bi-polar, OCD, and PTSD), we can now provide a medical diagnosis rather than a moral diagnosis. Suffering from one of these disorders is no more evidence of moral shortcomings than diabetes, heart disease, or cancer–just different organs involved.

PTSD results from a shock or trauma–perhaps war is the most common and severe emotional trauma. I regret to note that having a volunteer army has resulted in the unintended consequence of making troops expendable to the civilian population. Now, we think nothing of sending them into combat with minimal reason or provocation, as they are volunteers, while we are in no way inconvenienced by doing so–no rationing, no higher war taxes, zilch.

As a result, we have decade-long wars (2 at last count in recent years) that cannot help but create PTSD along with other casualties of confict. And, of course, we need to make sure those needs are met along with the amputations and prostheses that the civilian population associates with war. The Veterans Administration (VA) maintains a National PTSD Center, and I have no idea how good the programs are, but they can be found by consulting the VA PTSD Locator

A related point, however, is that civilians as well as military are subject to the traumas that trigger PTSD. As the National Institute for Mental Health notes:

PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such as mugging, rape, torture, being kidnapped or held captive, child abuse, car accidents, train wrecks, plane crashes, bombings, or natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes.

While our primary concern may be with the direct effects (psychological and emotional) of PTSD, just this week an Emory University study of identical twin Vietnam War veterans found that risk of heart attacks was more than doubled in those with a history of PTSD.

Mental illness or brain disorders of any type require considerable investment of resources, professional and financial, to address. As a society we have dragged behind on this–mental health parity laws at the state level commonly had loopholes for high financial impact. There is a federal law in place, but it is not clear how effective it is. Change is occurring, but slowly.

Just within the past week, we learned that the California Department of Managed Health Care had imposed the second largest fine ever on Kaiser Permanente for failure to provide long term mental health care.

This country was founded by emptying Europe’s jails, and has been populated by escapees from prisons and hospitals around the world, along with other immigrants. As a nation, we have our share of people with “issues.” Some of the benefit has come from their creativity and willingness to challenge frontiers; however, in the 21st Century we need to help those folks adjust to what passes for civilization. Our veterans deserve it, but so do a lot of civilians, too. Let’s work to see they receive the necessary services–having mentally stable neighbors and colleagues improves life for all of us.

How researchers confuse the public

Posted by on May 20, 2013 Comments Off on How researchers confuse the public

A nursing professor once told me how a graduate student came to her all excited. There was a population cohort dying from an epidemic of cardiac disease that had been ignored in the literature: women above age 85.

Now, while we can chuckle together about the naivete of the observation, consider it for a moment from the graduate student’s perspective:

1. Clearly the phenomenon was real as a high percentage of women over age 85 may well be dying of cardiac disease.
2. The red flag of gender bias stood out–it was women who were being victimized by this scourge.
3. A literature search turned up no one acknowledging the problem.

What was missing was the larger context: the twin facts that no one lives forever, and everyone eventually dies of something.

Sometimes more experienced researchers fail to provide the needed context. The following study came to my attention this week. Truth be known, I have not read the entire study, just the abstract and the accounts of those who have, so I will admit up front that this discussion may be unfair to the researchers.

The Canadian study is The long arm of parental addictions: The association with adult children’s depression in a population-based study.

It came to my attention in Trouble Coping with Parental Addiction

I am going to quote the abstract in full:

Parental addictions have been associated with adult children’s depression in several clinical and population-based studies. However, these studies have not examined if gender differences exist nor have they controlled for a range of potential explanatory factors. Using a regionally representative sample of 6268 adults from the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey (response rate=83%), we investigated the association between parental addictions and adulthood depression controlling for four clusters of variables: adverse childhood experiences, adult health behaviors, adult socioeconomic status and other stressors. After controlling for all factors, adults exposed to parental addiction had 69% higher odds of depression compared to their peers with non-addicted parents (OR=1.69; 95% CI, 1.25–2.28). The relationship between parental addictions and depression did not vary by gender. These findings underscore the intergenerational consequences of drug and alcohol addiction and reinforce the need to develop interventions that support healthy childhood development.

The authors suggest that previous studies have not directly looked at gender differences of children of addicted parents. If so, then that is a clear contribution to the literature. But, the abstract and the descriptive article that I cited above go further: there is the clear implication that beyond a correlation or “relationship,” depression is the consequence of parental addiction.

Let’s consider two scenarios:

First, parents engage in substance abuse. The substance abuse causes them to act out, to neglect their children’s physical and emotional needs. The children grow up insecure and prone to depression. That is the clear implication of the abstract.

Second, a small but measurable percentage of the population inherit a tendency to mental illnesses (bi-polar, uni-polar depression, anxiety disorder, etc.) They self-medicate with both legal and illegal substances. They have children, whom they raise while self-medicating. A high percentage of their children inherit the tendency to mental illness, including uni-polar depression, and depressive cycles of bi-polar, showing a higher tendency toward those illnesses in the general population.

I find the second scenario more compelling. Indeed, attributing the problems of children to their parents because children follow their parents temporally is to my mind a classic case of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc logical fallacy in which one concludes that events following another event were caused by the previous event due to their proximity.

Runny noses do not cause colds, nor does “catching a chill,” whatever that means. Scientific studies are confusing enough to the general public, particularly through the filter of news media that do not look past the headline. We need researchers to be more cautious and guarded in their conclusions.

When we read that President Harry Truman wanted some “one-handed economists,” we can be sure that the economists were doing their job in informing him. We need the same of healthcare researchers.

Are we doing ourselves in faster than we think?

Posted by on May 6, 2013 Comments Off on Are we doing ourselves in faster than we think?

We know that our health is adversely affected by obesity, a sedentary lifestyle and fat consumption, not to mention tobacco and lack of access to healthcare. These factors are holding down what should otherwise be continued gains in life expectancy. They also adversely affect those who survive: the strains of obesity on the skeletal structure, emphysema from tobacco consumption, chronic heart disease, cancer that takes over lives, etc.

Recent studies indicate that not only are we experiencing indirect and long-term impacts on our lives and health, but the rate of suicide is increasing, surpassing deaths by motor vehicles in 2009. What adverse lifestyles are not doing to us in the long-term, we are doing directly to ourselves in the now.

The recent CDC study Suicide Among Adults Aged 35–64 Years — United States, 1999–2010 showed that the largest increase in the suicide rate was among whites between ages 45 and 64, in contrast to the common concern about teen and geriatric suicide.

In general, the suicide rate is related to stressors and the availability of means. The following chart, with data from the National Vital Statistics system, is from that CDC study:

Suicide by Sex and Means 1999-2010

Noteworthy are the increased use of firearms, which account for about half of all suicides among men, and suffocation (euphemism for hanging). The study lists the rates of suicide by state as well as the rate of increase from 1999 to 2010. I wondered about the ownership of firearms in those states.

I found that the study, “Association of suicide rates, gun ownership, conservatism and individual suicide risk,” was published online in the journal Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology in February.

The title a bit provocative, but if the availability of firearms reflects the political views of a population, and if the availability of firearms is related to the suicide rate, then it is possible to find statistical correlations among the three, without implying that a particular political view is suicidal or causes suicide any more than suicide causes a political view.

The study by researchers at the University of California, Riverside presented the following map of suicide rates by state:

Suicide_2000_2006

The map seems to show higher rates in states where one might expect more gun ownership, but, being a data person, I did a little experiment of my own.

I ran a couple of regressions, down and dirty, not up to publishable, academic standards. I used MS Excel, probably acceptable for this purpose but not a tool I would use for a publishable regression analysis.

My data sets were gun ownership from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for 2001 and Median Income from the US Census Bureau for 2006. First, regressing gun ownership by state on income found that income was a significant factor, inversely related to gun ownership, and explaining 35 percent of the unexplained variation. This is not surprising as rural states are generally poorer and are more likely to have traditions of gun ownership for protection as well as for hunting.

It also meant that the cross correlation of income and firearms ownership might cloud the findings when I looked at the suicide rate from the latest CDC report and its separate relationships to the two factors. Those figures were for only 39 states, so that is how I handled it. My informal findings were that gun ownership rates were strongly correlated with the suicide rate, p=.00025 with R squared =.308, accounting for 30.8% of the unexplained variation. Income was inversely related to suicide and was much weaker, with p=.045 and R squared = .104.

Now, you might say, “Oh, suicide is related to economic factors. With recent economic challenges, of course suicide is rising.” You would be correct. Researchers from Rutgers have provided a graph of the relationship between suicide and unemployment.

Suicide and Unemployment
Source: Social Fact: The Great Depressions?

That is not, however, the public health issue, as there will always be stressors causing suicide. We need to find a way to block access to guns in the same way that we block access to bridges for suicidal people. Of course, there are a lot more guns than bridges. In the United States we ban automatic weapons from private ownership, so the issue is not whether the right to bear arms can be restricted: the entire debate is how extensive those restrictions should or should not be. The data on suicide suggests that greater restrictions on access would have a positive public health impact.

Violence Prevention and Mental Health

Posted by on January 24, 2013 Comments Off on Violence Prevention and Mental Health

The White House plan to reduce gun violence has substantial mental health provisions:

Children and Young Adults

  1. Project AWARE (Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education) directed at students in schools
    • Mental health “first aid” training for teachers
    • Referral services for students
  2. Support individuals 16 to 25 outside of and beyond school
  3. School-based violence prevention, including mental health services for trauma and anxiety
  4. Train 5,000 mental health professionals to serve in the schools
  5. Initiate a national conversation to address stigma associated with mental illness

Ensure Mental Health Coverage

  1. Issue final regulations on private health insurance coverage of mental health treatment
  2. Ensure that Medicaid programs are meeting mental health parity requirements

In addition:

  • The $150 million Comprehensive School Safety program will help finance new school resource officers (police) or mental health professionals (psychologists, social workers, counselors).
  • The hiring decisions will be with local school districts.

My Take (this is a blog, isn’t it?)

  1. The problem of obtaining adequate mental health coverage for anyone is a major challenge because:
    1. There is neither a test nor a cure for mental illness, which means that diagnosis is expensive and difficult, and management is expensive and difficult
    2. Mental illness resembles a chronic illness with transitory remission, so there is a temptation to halt treatment during remission and hoard resources to deal with crises.
    3. Nearly all families and individuals, save the super wealthy (think $1 million in annual income), have insufficient resources to address the full spectrum of mental illness symptoms, some of which require residential treatment for long period to be optimally addressed
  2. Large segments of the population continue to provide moral diagnoses rather than accepting a medical diagnosis of mental illness
    1. Depressed people are seen as lazy and unmotivated; bipolar people are seen as lacking discipline
    2. The symptoms are largely invisible and intermittent–mental illness is only partially and rarely someone walking down he street talking to imaginary people.
    3. Consequently, a large part of the public is unwilling to finance the treatment of those seen as slackers.

    Bottom line: the Administration is to be commended for first steps, but any reasonable approach will require billions not millions of dollars