• A-Z
  • Directory
  • myUVM
  • Loading search...

Home – Child Mental Health Blog

New Autism Criteria Unlikely to Cause Many Individuals to Lose Diagnosis

Posted: November 13th, 2012 by David Rettew

Concern has been raised that the proposed DSM5 changes to the criteria for autism may reduce the number of individuals who meet criteria for the diagnosis and are thus entitled to services.  You can see a previous blog posting from April that looks at some of those concerns.  The new criteria reduce the number of domains of impairment from three to two with communication deficits now subsumed under social impairments. 

This new study encompassed three separate samples totaling 4,453 children with established DSM-IV PDD diagnoses as well as 690 individuals with other non-PDD diagnoses such as language disorders and ADHD. Items from the Autism Diagnostic Interview – Revised and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule were mapped onto the new DSM5 criteria to calculate sensitivity and specificity. 

The sensitivity of the new DSM5 criteria was found to be high overall and generally over .9 depending on the informant source and number of symptoms present. Specificity was found to be lower, often around .4 to .6 based on how it was calculated specifically.

The authors concluded that the new criteria will be able to diagnose accurately a wide array of children with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder. Few children with a current DSM-IV Autism Spectrum Disorder would be excluded under these new criteria. While specificity was not as strong, the authors noted that the upcoming definition should improve the ability to distinguish ASDs from other non-spectrum disorders.

This study should be reassuring to some that the new DSM criteria will not “undiagnose” many individuals with current Autistic Spectrum diagnoses. In making these claims, however, these studies somewhat ironically trigger the question of why then major changes to the criteria need to happen in the first place if so few people will be affected. Nevertheless, there is hope that the revised definition will also help those without an ASD diagnosis to receive the most appropriate diagnostic label and thus intervention.

 Reference

Huerta M, et al., Application of DSM-5 Criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder to Three Samples of Children With DSM-IV Diagnoses of Pervasive Developmental Disorders.  Am J Psychiatry 2012:169:1052-1064

New Vermont Program to Increase Access to Child Psychiatrists

Posted: November 8th, 2012 by David Rettew

The Vermont Child Health Improvement Program (VCHIP), in collaboration with the Division of Child Psychiatry at the University of Vermont College of Medicine, Fletcher Allen Health Care, and Vermont Center for Children, Youth and Families (VCCYF), is pioneering a new program to increase access for primary care clinicians to child psychiatrists and improve mental health care in Vermont children and families.

Under the program, primary care practices that choose to participate will be assigned a UVM child psychiatrist who will be available to that practice for phone call and email questions during regular working hours regarding their patients. 

We are in the process of reaching out to the primary care practices to see who would like to participate in the program, at no cost to them.  Once the list is established, each child psychiatrist will be designated for a particular region of the state and the practices therein.   

The program provides for phone and email questions from providers of that practice as well as access to the VCCYF’s Family Wellness Coach who can help clinicians and families identify resources for treatment and health promotion activities.  In addition, all participants get a subscription to THIS BLOG! and will receive notices of other updates related to child mental health issues here in Vermont and elsewhere.

The one area that won’t change, however, is the process for in-person child psychiatry evaluations at the VCCYF.  Our clinic continues to receive many more evaluation requests than we can accommodate quickly and we feel compelled to continue to serve all the families we can on a first-come first-serve basis.

While there is no designated end point for this project, VCHIP relies on government grants to fund important programs such as this.  For those benefiting from the partnership, it would be a wonderful idea to let your elected officials know how important initiatives such as these are for Vermont youth and their families.

For questions or further information, you can contact Eliza Pillard at eliza.pillard@vtmednet.org.

Six Misconceptions About Psychotherapy

Posted: November 8th, 2012 by David Rettew

I thought I would pass along a posting that describes 6 misconceptions about seeing a therapist.  While the origin of the post is from an online psychology degree site,  I thought that the information was interesting and useful for people wondering about getting treatment.   You can see the article here .

Liquid Long-Acting Methylphenidate Preparation Now FDA Approved for ADHD

Posted: October 31st, 2012 by David Rettew

Beginning in January, physicians will have the new option of a liquid long-acting methylphenidate treatment that requires only once-daily dosing.  The medication, made by NextWave Pharmaceuticals (which will be sold to Pfizer), is called Quillivant XR and will be available at a 25mg/5ml (5mg/ml) concentration.

The recommended starting dose for children 6 years old and above will be 20mg and can be increased in 10-20mg increments per week up to a maximum of 60mg per day.  In many ways, this dosing is similar to Concerta.  The side effect profile is comparable to other stimulants. Peak plasma levels occur approximately 5 hours after dosing with effects marketed to last for up to 12 hours.

Short acting liquid methylphenidate has been available for many years.  While these liquid preparations can be useful, some other longer acting stimulants such as Metadate CD and Adderall XR come in capsules that can be opened and sprinkled onto food.  In addition, parents can help children learn how to swallow pills so that these types of preparations are not necessary.  One technique I learned from our Director, Jim Hudziak, was to instruct parents to practice with mini M&Ms (the regular ones might be too big) and let children eat a few M&Ms for each one they swallow whole.  A little practice is often all it takes.

Antipsychotic Medication Survey Coming to Vermont Clinicians

Posted: October 18th, 2012 by David Rettew

Clinicians of all types who write antipsychotic medications prescriptions for children with Medicaid insurance will soon be receiving surveys to complete on each child.

The Agency of Human Services (AHS), including the Department of Vermont Health Access (DVHA), the Drug Utilization Review (DUR) Board of the DVHA, the Department of Mental Health (DMH) and the Department for Children and Families (DCF) has been interested in the use of antipsychotic medications in children and is sponsoring the survey in an effort to understand more fully the prescribing practices related to antipsychotic use for Vermont youth.  The Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Medications Trend Monitoring Group, made up of representatives from different clinical and government backgrounds (including me), has been trying to make recommendations to promote the optimal use of these medications in children and adolescents. 

Data from pharmacy insurance claims have been useful but clearly inadequate in answering basic questions about the reasons that lead to antipsychotic medication prescriptions.  The thirteen question survey can potentially go a long way towards understanding these decisions on a much more meaningful level.  Questions are focused across many areas including the origin of the prescription (such as an inpatient hospitalization), behavioral and diagnostic targets, use of other medications, and employment of nonphrmacological alternatives (such as use and availability of psychotherapy). 

A completed survey by mid-December will be mandatory for medications to be approved. 

While nobody enjoys more paperwork, the committee is hoping that clinicians will see the potential value in these data as a means towards specific and targeted measures that will improve the probability that the right youth are being prescribed the right medications at the right time.

Can Pacifiers Stunt Emotional Growth?

Posted: October 10th, 2012 by David Rettew

The debate about pacifiers as useful aides to soothe crying infants versus developmentally stunting crutches has been with us for decades. This group of researchers from the University of Wisconsin and elsewhere set out to test the possibility that pacifier use was associated with a delay in emotional development. Their hypothesis was that increased pacifier use impeded emotional growth via decreased opportunities for facial mimicry which in other studies has been found to be related to understanding emotional states in others.   

The article covered three different but related studies.  The first study comprised 106 first and second graders from France.  While some control of demographic variables was done, the authors did not control for early behavior. Pacifier use was assessed retrospectively and participants watched images of emotionally changing faces while their own expressions were recorded. A second study was conducted in college students who completed questionnaires regarding pacifier use (yes/no) and empathy, including the dimension of perspective taking.  A third study also utilized college students who reported on pacifier use and completed a scale designed to assess emotional intelligence.

In the first study, pacifier use was related to reduced facial mimicry in boys but not girls. In the second study, reduced perspective taking was found in males who reported past pacifier use. In the third study, reduced emotional intelligence was found for males but not females who used pacifiers in childhood, as was trait anxiety.

The authors concluded that the evidence supported their hypothesis that pacifier use could be detrimental to emotional development in boys.  They further suggested, based on some of their analyses, that this effect of pacifier use was most important when they were used during the day.  The researchers concede that their study design, however, could not determine causality with confidence.

In my view,this article unfortunately falls into the classic trap of many studies that assess an environmental variable and a behavioral outcome and then suggest causality between the two without really an ability to do so.  Without measuring behavior in infancy, it seems quite likely that a third variable, like a more irritable temperament, is likely related BOTH to increased pacifier use and later difficulties with emotional development.  Indeed, it seems quite plausible that the direction of causality is backwards from the direction the authors suggest with emotional difficulties related to increase pacifier use rather than the other way around.  Another pet peeve of mine in this study is that the axes on their graphs do not include zero and so the findings related to pacifier use look much larger than they are. What is puzzling, however, is why such findings then would be found in boys but not girls. 

It may well be advisable not to overdo pacifier use, but overall, I would consider these results to be highly preliminary at best.

Reference:

 Niedenthal PM, et al. Negative relations between pacifier use and emotional competence.  Basic and Applied Social Psychology 34:387-394, 2012.

Adolescent Cannabis Use and Decreased IQ

Posted: October 1st, 2012 by David Rettew

Living somewhere between the worlds of science and politics has been the longstanding debate regarding the negative effects of cannabis abuse.  While there have been some studies linking its use to lower IQ, most have not assessed IQ prior to the onset of substance use.

A recent study published in PNAS will likely spark more debate.  The data come from the well-known Dunedin study from New Zealand (you remember that famous gene by environment interaction study in depression, right?) that has followed approximately 1000 individuals from birth to adulthood.  IQ was assessed prior to the onset of cannabis use and again at age 38. Cannabis use was ascertained by self-report during an interview.

Results showed that heavy cannabis use was associated with reduced IQ.  Specifically, individuals who were regular cannabis users at multiple time points beginning prior to age 18 had lost about 8 IQ points on their score while those who never used has nearly identical scores.  The effect was present after controlling for education.  Stopping frequent cannabis use later in life did not fully restore this effect.

The authors highlighted the adolescent onset of the persistent cannabis use to argue that this period is particularly vulnerable to any neurotoxic effects of substances such as cannabis and urged increased efforts to delay the onset of cannabis use.

While eight points on an IQ test may not sound like much to some, this effect size is impressive and reflects a sizable difference.  At the same time, we can expect that the lack of association between IQ and less intense cannabis use or with adult-onset use will be used by some to argue that moderate amounts of cannabis do not affect intelligence. I guess there is always a way to get data to say what you want it to.

Reference

Meier MH et al.  Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife. PNAS early edition August 2012: 1-8.

Zombification Is Not an Acceptable Medication Outcome

Posted: September 25th, 2012 by David Rettew

As the Halloween season approaches, I have again been reminded of the frequent concern of parents who are considering using medication as part of the treatment plan for their child’s emotional-behavioral problems. 

The dilemma that I and many other clinicians repeatedly hear from parents is that they want their child’s symptoms improved without changing the child’s personality and specifically, they don’t want their child to turn into a “zombie.”

The raising of this concern is completely legitimate and there is surprisingly little data on the personality effects of medications, especially in children.  What is remarkable to me, however, is the implication that while being a zombie is not okay with the parents, it might be okay with me. 

To counter such worries, I now quite specifically say to parents and children that “zombification is not an acceptable outcome to me.”   Very often, this statement brings a smile and a fair amount of relief.

How did we as clinicians find ourselves being perceived as people comfortable with creating little zombies?  Does our field need to accept some responsibility for past actions or has One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest just been shown one too many times?  In all honesty, I have never met or heard of a doctor who would see a dull, listless child and declare that treatment a success.

Regardless of the origin, I have learned that when discussing the possibility of medications that there is real value is saying quite explicitly to parents and to children that I am not interested in continuing medications that cause side effects or that don’t work. 

Those interested in making zombies will have no trouble finding costumes at Halloween.

Let them Cry? Pick them Up? Does it Matter?

Posted: September 18th, 2012 by David Rettew

The practice of letting infants cry it out on their own when they wake up at night versus picking them up and soothing them has been an ageless parenting dilemma, especially since sleep expert Ferber popularized his technique.   While there are many strong opinions on the subject, there is surprisingly little long-term data.  Approximately half of six month old infants have sleeping problems.

A new study in the journal Pediatrics presents data from the Australian Infant Sleep Study that has previously examined developmental outcomes of infant sleep problem interventions at 12 and 24 months.  Nurses were randomized to deliver usual care or to deliver a brief sleep intervention for 8 month old infants.  The two techniques used were “Controlled Comforting” in which the parent responded to the infant at gradually increasing intervals, or “Camping Out” in which the parent sits with the child as the infant tries to self-soothe and slowly removes their presence. A total of 225 of the original sample of 328 infant-parent dyads participated in the follow-up assessment when the child was around 6 years old.  Outcomes were assessed using a variety of questionnaires.  Cortisol levels were also obtained.

As far as results, there were no differences found between the two groups with regards to child behavioral problems, sleep habits at 6 years, child-parent relationship quality, maternal health or high levels of cortisol.  While improved child sleep and maternal mental health was previously found when assessing children initially, these behavioral sleep interventions during infancy resulted neither in improved or worse developmental outcomes at this longer interval.

It is worth noting that the cold turkey approach of letting infants simply cry it out has been replaced with more gradual techniques that are now the recommended practices. 

Parents who feel strongly that they should go comfort their child (but who might have been worried about spoiling them), and parents who have wanted to train their child to sleep independently (but have worried about hurting the parent-child bond), can all take some comfort in these data.

Reference

Price AMH et al.  Five-year follow-up of harms and benefits of behavioral infant sleep intervention: randomized trial.  Pediatrics 2012; 130:  643-651

“Counselors Are on the Scene” – Now What?

Posted: September 11th, 2012 by David Rettew

(Editor’s note:  Primary care clinicians pride themselves on being able to handle medical emergencies, but the best response after an emotional trauma is less well known.  We often hear after such events that “counselors have been called in” but what do they actually do?  On this 9/11 anniversary, Robin Pesci, who directs a local crisis response team for children, offers some valuable insights on this important topic – DCR) 

by Robin Pesci, LICSW

When there has been a tragedy in the community you will frequently hear about grief counseling being available, counselors being at the school for support or of numbers that people can call to get help from mental health professionals.  Support may be brought in for many types of tragedies, a shooting with many victims, the Red Cross might respond to a house fire or natural disaster, or a school may ask for help with a car accident or a death by suicide.  Many people reach out for help and support after a tragedy but some people are hesitant about having contact with mental health professionals because of the stigma around mental health issues and treatment.  

Robin Pesci, LICSW
Director, First Call for Children and Families
HowardCenter – Child, Youth and Family Services

The support provided to the general community during a tragedy is very different than other types of mental health support like ongoing therapy or psychiatry.   Often they are the same people that do therapy (counselors, social workers, or psychologists) who are providing the mental health response in a tragedy but the type of service is different than what you would see in a therapy office.  There is no time spent on diagnosis or treatment goals.  Support is sometimes provided in an informal setting, individually or in groups and may be limited to a couple of contacts.  When responding to a tragedy, general support is offered to a wide range of people, and something called Psychological First Aid is often provided.  Psychological First Aid can take many forms depending on the type of tragedy.  It could involve sitting with someone while they are crying, getting them tissues, water or food if they need it, or helping connect them to their friends and family for support.  It may also be helping support people while they make cards for those most impacted by the tragedy, supporting someone through a funeral, listening to their story of their experience or connecting them to resources in the community for support.  In response to a tragedy many people will be able to process what happened with this level of general support and continue on with their lives, possibly forever changed.  There may be a group of people for whom further support is needed.  In these instances, the mental health counselor assists in identifying those that many need additional support and connecting them to the most appropriate resources.  

Another role for a mental health response in a tragedy is to provide consultation and support to the systems around people in the community.  Schools, businesses and other community organizations often need help and information to provide a supportive environment to their students or staff.  Mental health providers who are trained to respond after a tragedy can be a great resource about how to handle unique aspects to a tragedy.  Mental health providers may also be part of the first responder team working in conjunction with the police or rescue personnel to support people on the scene of a tragedy as it is happening. 

In a tragedy the more help we can offer to each other the more strength we can find in our community and each other. 

Click here for more information about Psychological First Aid.  In Chittenden County Vermont call First Call for Children and Families 802-488-7777 to get support in a tragedy.

Contact Us ©2010 The University of Vermont – Burlington, VT 05405 – (802) 656-3131
Skip to toolbar