Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Showing posts with label Social Work Continuing Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Work Continuing Education. Show all posts

February 15, 2011

Brain Activity Patterns in Anxiety-Prone People Suggest Deficits in Handling Fear


Anxiety as a personality trait appears to be linked to the functioning of two key brain regions involved in fear and its suppression, according to an NIMH-funded study. Differences in how these two regions function and interact may help explain the wide range of symptoms seen in people who have anxiety disorders. The study was published February 10, 2011 in the journal, Neuron. Social Worker Continuing Education
Background
Anxiety disorders are characterized by an excessive, irrational dread of everyday situations. Some people may experience general, chronic anxiety, while others become anxious in response to one or more specific triggers. Many studies have implicated two brain regions in anxiety—the amygdala in fear responses and the ventral prefrontal cortex (vPFC) in suppressing or regulating fear. Questions remain, however, about how trait anxiety—a person's typical anxiety level on any given day—affects amygdala and vPFC functioning.

To explore these questions, Sonia Bishop, Ph.D., of the University of California Berkeley (at the University of Cambridge (UK) at the time of data collection), and colleagues designed a series of experiments to determine how the amygdala and vPFC responded in three types of situations:

Cued fear—a neutral signal or cue is followed by an aversive event. In this study, the cue was an actor in a video placing his hands over his ears and the aversive event was a loud scream. The cue provided a reliable prediction of the aversive event. Cued fear can be compared to the situation-specific type of anxiety experienced by those with a specific phobia, such as a fear of heights.
Contextual fear—a neutral cue and an aversive event occur independently of each other. The cue did not provide a reliable prediction of the aversive event. Contextual fear may be similar to the non-specific anxiety that affects people with generalized anxiety disorder.
Safety—a neutral signal or cue occurs alone without an aversive event. The safety situation served as a comparison for the other two situations.
The researchers assessed the level of trait anxiety of 23 healthy study participants, ages 18 to 41. Each participant underwent a training session that exposed them to the above conditions. Two days after the training session, participants had their brain activity recorded through functional magenetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a noninvasive imaging method, while re-exposed to the cued fear, contextual fear, and safety conditions in the scanner.

Results from the Study
Participants with high trait anxiety showed greater amygdala response to cued fear situations compared to those with low trait anxiety. According to the researchers, this finding suggests that individual differences in amygdala response may contribute to differences in vulnerability to cue-specific anxiety disorders, such as specific phobia.

Participants with low trait anxiety showed increased vPFC activity in response to cued fear and more strongly sustained vPFC activity during contextual fear situations, compared to those with high trait anxiety. Notably, vPFC activity in participants with low trait anxiety occurred before the aversive event had ceased. The researchers suggest that this process—engaging brain areas that help to suppress fear even when the source of fear is still present—may help to protect against chronic anxiety disorders even when stressful life events are ongoing.

Significance
The study's findings support a potential role of the amygdala in vulnerability to anxiety disorders and a potential role of the vPFC in protection against them.

"Individual differences in the functioning of one or both of these brain regions may help account for the variability in symptoms across different anxiety disorders," said Bishop. "A better understanding of these processes may help inform treatment choice and predict treatment response."

This study was supported in part by a Biobehavioral Research Award for Innovative New Scientists (BRAINS) from NIMH. Dr. Bishop was one of 12 researchers to receive this award in 2010.

Reference
Indovina I, Robbins TW, Núñez-Elizalde AO, Dunn BD, Bishop SJ. Fear-Conditioning Mechanisms Associated with Trait Vulnerability to Anxiety in Humans. Neuron. 2011 Feb 10;69(3):563-71.

December 15, 2010

Don't Invite Holiday Stress Into Your Home


(HealthDay News) -- Between hurrying to score the last parking spot at the mall and preparing your home for out-of-town guests, the holiday season can be mentally exhausting.

For women especially, emotions tend to run high as they put pressure on themselves to create picture-perfect gatherings, while holding down jobs and taking care of children.

"During the holidays, our lives become even more stressful as we try to juggle our usual responsibilities with extra holiday preparation and complicated family dynamics," Dr. Eric Marcus, a psychiatrist at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, said in a news release from the hospital.

If your household resembles the idealized 1950s' television-version of a family, all of the craziness will culminate in your clan gathered at the hearth, merrily singing Christmas carols. If your family is closer to normal, some tension and conflict will arise during all that family togetherness.

To minimize stress, Dr. Margaret Altemus, a psychiatrist and director of the Payne Whitney Women's Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, suggests making some time for yourself during the holidays.

Being alone, even for a half hour or so, can help you feel calmer. If your in-laws have parked themselves on your sofa and show no signs of leaving until after New Year's, go out by yourself. Take a walk or get some exercise. Physical activity helps alleviate stress and the sunlight can help lift your mood, Altemus said.

Time for yourself may also mean taking time to be with your friends, who may not push those buttons in the same way your relatives can.

The holidays can also be difficult on those who feel isolated. If you are feeling alone, seek out the support of your community, religious or social services. Getting involved with volunteering can help you feel needed and connected.

When it comes to preparing for the holidays, lower your expectations and remember you will not be able to do all you'd like to do if you had unlimited time, energy and perhaps a household staff. Forget about trying to make handmade gifts for the neighbors, sewing a holiday pageant costume for your child, sending out your greeting cards and learning how to cook a crown roast all in the same week.

Prioritize what is most important for you and your loved ones. Talk with your family about what they value in the celebrations. You may find that your expectations are higher than everyone else's.

For many families, money is tighter than it was in previous years. When buying gifts, don't blow your budget then spend the next several months worried about paying your credit card bill and regretting the purchases.

If you are starting to feel stressed, ask for help. If it's too much to host the gathering this year, ask someone else to take a turn -- they may welcome the chance. If you run out of time to bake, buy dessert or ask guests to bring it.

And take some time to reflect on what the holiday means to you, the psychiatrists suggest. That may mean reminiscing about happy times with loved ones, focusing on religious observances or thinking about your best moments and accomplishments of the past year.
Social Work Continuing Education http://www.aspirace.comThe American Heart Association has advice for coping with stress.

-- Jennifer Thomas
SOURCE: New York-Presbyterian Hospital, news release, December 2009

November 17, 2010

Are There Different Types of Stress?


Stress management can be complicated and confusing because there are different types of stress: acute stress, episodic acute stress, chronic stress, and posttraumatic stress, each with its own characteristics, symptoms, duration, and treatment approaches.

Acute stress is the most common form of stress. It comes from demands and pressures of the recent past and anticipated demands and pressures of the near future. Because it is short-term, acute stress does not have enough time to do the extensive damage associated with long-term stress. Acute stress can crop up in anyone's life, and it is highly treatable and manageable.

Those who suffer acute stress frequently are dealing with episodic acute stress. It is common for people with episodic acute stress to be over-aroused, short-tempered, irritable, anxious, and tense. Interpersonal relationships deteriorate rapidly when others respond with real hostility. Work becomes a very stressful place for them. Often, lifestyle and personality issues are so ingrained and habitual with these individuals that they see nothing wrong with the way they conduct their lives. They blame their woes on other people and external events. Frequently, they see their lifestyles, patterns of interacting with others, and ways of perceiving the world as part and parcel of who and what they are. Without proper coping strategies, episodic acute stress develops into chronic stress.

Chronic stress is the grinding stress that wears people away day after day, year after year. It destroys bodies, minds, and lives. It is the stress of unrelenting demands and pressures for seemingly interminable periods of time. The worst aspect of chronic stress is that people get used to it. They forget it is there. People are immediately aware of acute stress because it is new. Chronic stress is ignored because it is familiar and almost comfortable.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stems from traumatic experiences that become internalized and remain forever painful and present. Individuals experiencing PTSD could exhibit signs of hypervigilance (an easily triggered startle response). People with an exaggerated startle response are easily startled by any number of things (e.g., loud noises, doors slamming, shouting). They usually feel tense or on edge. Along with hypervigilance, people experiencing PTSD symptoms also could be dealing with avoidance issues including staying away from places, events, or objects that are reminders of the experience; feeling emotionally numb; feeling strong guilt, depression, or worry; losing interest in activities that were enjoyable in the past; and having trouble remembering the dangerous event. People experiencing PTSD symptoms wear down to breaking points because physical and mental resources are depleted through long-term attrition. The symptoms of posttraumatic stress are difficult to treat and may require the help of a doctor or mental health professional. mft continuing education, social worker continuing education

November 11, 2010

Have you Thanked a Veteran Today?

Have you Thanked a Veteran Today?
Wednesday, November 10th, 2010
By Kathryn Power, Director CMHS and Military Families Strategic Initiative Lead

When SAMHSA employees and contractors reported for work on Tuesday, November 9, each person found a button on his or her chair asking, “Have you thanked a Veteran today?” Beneath the button was a flyer inviting them to attend a SAMHSA Veterans Day Observance, which featured Korean War Veterans discussing their experiences on the 60th anniversary of that conflict. And on the back of the flyer was a list of SAMHSA employees who responded to our invitation to be listed as U.S. military Veterans, so that we could all take the opportunity to thank them for their service to our country.

Veterans Day, November 11, is the day set aside to honor all men and women who have served honorably in the military during times of both war and peace. Veterans and their families all deserve our thanks, but we also have an obligation to be there to “serve those who served”.

SAMHSA’s third Strategic Initiative , Military Families, strives to facilitate innovative community-based solutions that foster access to evidence-based prevention, treatment, and recovery services for Service Members, Veterans, and their families who are at risk for or experiencing behavioral health problems.

We are proud of all of our initiatives and partnerships that serve these populations. SAMHSA has partnered with the Department of Veterans Affairs to run the Veterans Suicide Prevention Hotline (1-800-273-TALK/8255) and with the National Guard Bureau to pilot test programs in New Mexico and Kansas that expand opportunities in the community to serve National Guard members and their families. In addition to SAMHSA’s initiatives through partnerships, some of SAMHSA’s programs that serve current service members, veterans and their families, include SAMHSA’s Jail Diversion and Trauma Recovery program that prioritizes Veterans,the Access to Recovery program which serves to prevent substance abuse in National Guard communities, and SAMHSA’s new technical assistance center, with the goal of strengthening behavioral health care systems in States, Territories and Tribes. Serving our service members and their families is a top initiative for SAMHSA, so please join me this week in honoring all the men and women who have bravely and honorably served in the U.S. Military.

Have you thanked a Veteran today? And while you’re at it, please take a minute to thank their families, too.

MFT Continuing Education

November 02, 2010

Prescription Drug Dependence, Abuse, and Treatment

Prescription Drug Dependence, Abuse, and TreatmentThis chapter presents information on dependence on and abuse of prescription-type psychotherapeutic drugs that were used nonmedically. Estimates are based on data from the 2002, 2003, and 2004 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health (NSDUHs). The chapter also provides estimates of the prevalence and patterns of the receipt of treatment for problems related to substance use and discusses the need for and receipt of treatment at specialty facilities for problems associated with substance use.

6.1. Background
NSDUH includes a series of questions to assess the prevalence of substance use disorders (i.e., dependence on or abuse of a substance) in the past 12 months. These questions are used to classify persons as dependent on or abusing specific substances based on criteria specified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994). The questions on dependence ask about continued use despite health or emotional problems associated with substance use, unsuccessful attempts to cut down on use, tolerance (e.g., requiring larger amounts of a substance to get desired effects), withdrawal symptoms, reducing other activities in order to use substances, spending a lot of time engaging in activities related to substance use, or using the substance in greater quantities or for a longer time than intended. The questions on abuse ask about problems at work, home, and school; problems with family or friends; physical danger; and trouble with the law due to substance use.

Dependence is considered to be a more severe substance use problem than abuse. Although individuals may meet the criteria specified for both dependence and abuse, persons are classified with abuse of a particular substance only if they are not classified as dependent on that substance. In this chapter, persons meeting the criteria for either dependence or abuse are counted together. It should be noted that the NSDUH questionnaire does not include specific dependence and abuse questions for methamphetamine because the DSM-IV criteria pertain to stimulants as a whole.

6.2. Trends in Dependence or Abuse
The estimated numbers and rates of past year prescription drug dependence or abuse for any psychotherapeutic drug and the specific drug classes did not change significantly from 2002 to 2004 among persons aged 12 or older (Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1). In 2004, approximately 2.0 million persons aged 12 or older met the criteria for dependence or abuse involving any prescription psychotherapeutic drug that was used nonmedically, including 1.4 million for pain relievers, 573,000 for tranquilizers, 470,000 for stimulants, and 128,000 for sedatives.

Figure 6.1 Substance Dependence or Abuse for Nonmedical Use of Prescription Psychotherapeutic Drugs in the Past Year for Persons Aged 12 or Older, by Drug Type: Numbers (in Thousands), 2002-2004
D

a Difference between this estimate and the 2004 estimate is statistically significant at the .05 level.
b Difference between this estimate and the 2004 estimate is statistically significant at the .01 level.
Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

Within separate age groups, few year-to-year changes in the rates of dependence or abuse reached statistical significance. Among youths aged 12 to 17, the rate of pain reliever dependence or abuse increased from 1.0 percent in 2002 to 1.2 percent in 2004 (Figure 6.2). Among young adults aged 18 to 25, dependence or abuse involving this class of drugs increased from 1.1 percent in 2003 to 1.4 percent in 2004, but this change simply restored the rate observed in 2002 (1.4 percent). The apparent decline in the rate of pain reliever dependence or abuse among adults aged 26 or older was not statistically significant. There were no statistically significant changes in the rates of abuse or dependence for specific age groups for other classes of psychotherapeutic drugs that were used nonmedically.

Figure 6.2 Substance Dependence or Abuse for Nonmedical Use of Prescription Pain Relievers in the Past Year, by Age Group: Percentages, 2002-2004
D

a Difference between this estimate and the 2004 estimate is statistically significant at the .05 level.
b Difference between this estimate and the 2004 estimate is statistically significant at the .01 level.
Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

6.3. Demographic Differences in Dependence or Abuse
Data aggregated for 2002, 2003, and 2004 provide sufficient numbers of respondents to permit reliable examination of differences in past year dependence or abuse for any prescription psychotherapeutic drug and the four therapeutic classes of psychotherapeutic drugs according to age, gender, race/ethnicity, and other covariates (Table 6.2). Consistent with the single-year trend data, combined data from the 2002 through 2004 surveys yielded an annual average of 2.0 million persons aged 12 or older who met the criteria for prescription psychotherapeutic drug dependence or abuse in the past year. Annual average numbers of people aged 12 or older who met dependence or abuse criteria for specific classes of psychotherapeutic drugs were 1.4 million for pain relievers, 505,000 for tranquilizers, 424,000 for stimulants, and 147,000 for sedatives.

As shown in Figure 6.3, young adults aged 18 to 25 had the highest rates of past year dependence or abuse involving pain relievers, tranquilizers, and stimulants, the three most frequently reported classes of nonmedically used prescription psychotherapeutic drugs. Youths aged 12 to 17 had the second highest rates of dependence or abuse involving these drugs. Rates of dependence or abuse among adults aged 50 or older were lowest for each of these drug classes.

Overall, rates of past year dependence and abuse were comparable for males and females for any misused prescription psychotherapeutic drug and each of the therapeutic drug classes (Table 6.2). When gender differences are considered for different age groups, however, a different pattern emerges. Among youths aged 12 to 17, the rate of dependence or abuse was higher among females than males for any prescription psychotherapeutic drug (1.8 vs. 1.1 percent, respectively), pain relievers (1.4 vs. 0.8 percent), tranquilizers (0.4 vs. 0.3 percent), and stimulants (0.5 vs. 0.3 percent) (Figure 6.4). For young adults aged 18 to 25, however, males were more likely than females to meet the criteria for past year pain reliever dependence or abuse (1.4 vs. 1.1 percent).

Figure 6.3 Substance Dependence or Abuse for Nonmedical Use of Pain Relievers, Tranquilizers, and Stimulants in the Past Year, by Age Group: Annual Averages Based on 2002-2004
D

Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

Figure 6.4 Substance Dependence or Abuse for Nonmedical Use of Pain Relievers in the Past Year, by Age Group and Gender: Annual Averages Based on 2002-2004
D

Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

Considered by race/ethnicity, the rate of past year dependence or abuse involving any nonmedically used prescription psychotherapeutic drug was higher for American Indians or Alaska Natives (2.0 percent) and whites (0.9 percent) than for blacks (0.5 percent) or Asians (0.5 percent) (Figure 6.5 and Table 6.2). However, whites and Hispanics had similar rates (0.8 percent for Hispanics). Rates also were not significantly different between whites and American Indians or Alaska Natives. Although the rate of dependence or abuse appeared to be high for Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, it was not significantly different from other rates shown in Figure 6.5.

A similar pattern of differences held for pain relievers (0.6 percent for whites and Hispanics, 0.4 percent for blacks, and 0.3 percent for Asians). For pain relievers, the rate of dependence or abuse also was higher among American Indians or Alaska Natives (1.2 percent) than blacks or Asians. Past year dependence or abuse involving tranquilizers was higher among American Indian or Alaska Natives (0.9 percent) than among whites (0.2 percent) or blacks (0.1 percent); the rates for whites and Hispanics (0.2 percent) also were higher than that for blacks.

Figure 6.5 Substance Dependence or Abuse for Nonmedical Use of Any Prescription Psychotherapeutic Drug in the Past Year, by Race/Ethnicity: Annual Averages Based on 2002-2004
D

Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

6.4. Geographic Differences in Dependence or Abuse
Small but statistically significant regional differences were observed in rates of past year dependence or abuse involving some prescription-type psychotherapeutic drugs that were used nonmedically (Table 6.3).1 The rate for past year dependence or abuse involving any prescription psychotherapeutic drug was higher in the West (1.0 percent) and South (0.9 percent) than in the Northeast (0.7 percent) and Midwest (0.7 percent). Regional differences also were found in the rates of dependence on or abuse of pain relievers and tranquilizers. For pain relievers, the rate of past year dependence or abuse was higher in the South (0.7 percent) and West (0.6 percent) than in the Midwest (0.5 percent). For tranquilizers, dependence or abuse was more prevalent in the South (0.3 percent) than in the West (0.2 percent) or Midwest (0.2 percent).

Differences in the rate of past year dependence or abuse were found by census division for any prescription psychotherapeutic drug, pain relievers, tranquilizers, and stimulants (Table 6.3). For any psychotherapeutic drug, the rate of dependence or abuse was lower in the Middle Atlantic (0.6 percent) and West North Central (0.6 percent) Divisions than in the East South Central (1.2 percent), Pacific (1.0 percent), West South Central (1.0 percent), Mountain (0.9 percent), and South Atlantic (0.8 percent) Divisions (Figure 6.6). The rate in the East North Central Division (0.7 percent) was lower than that in the East South Central, West South Central, Mountain, and Pacific Divisions. Although the New England Division appeared to have a high prevalence of dependence or abuse for any psychotherapeutic drug (1.1 percent), only the West North Central Division had a significantly lower rate than that for New England.

Figure 6.6 Substance Dependence or Abuse for Nonmedical Use of Any Prescription Psychotherapeutic Drug in the Past Year, by Census Division: Annual Averages Based on 2002-2004
D

Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

The rank ordering of the census divisions by the rate of past year pain reliever dependence or abuse generally was similar to that for any prescription psychotherapeutic drug. One exception for pain relievers was that the West North Central Division had the lowest rate (0.3 percent), followed by the Middle Atlantic Division (0.4 percent). The rates in those census divisions were lower than those in the East South Central (1.0 percent), New England (0.9 percent), West South Central (0.7 percent), Pacific (0.7 percent), and Mountain (0.6 percent) Divisions.

Past year dependence and abuse varied by county type for any prescription psychotherapeutic drug, pain relievers, and stimulants. For any psychotherapeutic drug, the highest rate of past year dependence or abuse occurred in counties in small metropolitan areas with fewer than 250,000 population (1.2 percent); the lowest rate was found in completely rural counties (0.6 percent). This same pattern held for pain relievers (0.9 and 0.4 percent, respectively). For stimulants, the rate of dependence or abuse was somewhat lower in large metropolitan areas (0.1 percent) than in small metropolitan areas with fewer than 1 million population (0.2 percent) and less urbanized nonmetropolitan counties (0.3 percent).

Further information on geographic differences can be found in Chapter 7, which presents estimates by State.

6.5. Dependence or Abuse among Past Year Users
To some extent, variations in the rates of past year dependence or abuse are driven by differences in the rates of past year use. In this section, the rate of dependence or abuse involving prescription drugs is examined among users of the respective drugs to address questions of the relative propensity of persons in a particular demographic group or users of a particular drug to exhibit dependence or abuse once they have used the drug. The statistics discussed here sometimes are referred to as "conditional rates" because they refer to the rate of dependence or abuse, given use in the same time period.

Overall, aggregate data for 2002, 2003, and 2004 indicate that 13.5 percent of past year nonmedical users of any prescription-type psychotherapeutic drug met the criteria for dependence on or abuse of any such drug (Table 6.4). For the four therapeutic drug classes, the conditional rates of dependence or abuse were 12.7 percent for pain relievers, 10.1 percent for tranquilizers, 14.4 percent for stimulants, and 17.3 percent for sedatives.

Nonmedical users aged 12 to 17 had higher rates of dependence or abuse than those aged 18 to 25 regardless of the drug class (Figure 6.7). For any psychotherapeutic drug, 15.9 percent of youths aged 12 to 17 and 12.7 percent of young adults aged 18 to 25 who were past year users met the criteria for dependence or abuse. For pain relievers, adults aged 26 or older had higher conditional rates of dependence or abuse than young adults (13.3 vs. 10.9 percent). For tranquilizers, the rate for youths (15.3 percent) was higher than that for either young adults (9.2 percent) or adults aged 26 or older (9.7 percent).

Male and female past year nonmedical users of prescription drugs did not differ significantly in the rate of past year dependence on or abuse of those drugs, either overall or for the respective therapeutic drug classes. For example, the conditional rates of pain reliever dependence or abuse were 12.4 percent for males and a comparable 13.2 percent for females.

Figure 6.7 Substance Dependence or Abuse for Nonmedical Use of Prescription Psychotherapeutic Drugs in the Past Year among Past Year Nonmedical Users of Those Drugs, by Drug Type and Age Group: Annual Averages Based on 2002-2004
D

Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

6.6. Dependence or Abuse as a Function of Age at First Use
Table 6.5 presents information on the rates of past year dependence on or abuse of prescription drugs among lifetime nonmedical users aged 18 or older according to the age at which they first used those drugs. Except for sedatives, the risk of dependence or abuse was higher among persons who initiated nonmedical use before age 16 compared with those who were age 16 or older when they first used the respective drugs (Figure 6.8). This same pattern held for lifetime nonmedical users aged 18 to 25 and for those aged 26 or older. For example, 6.6 percent of persons aged 26 or older who were lifetime misusers of pain relievers and who initiated use before age 16 met the criteria for pain reliever dependence or abuse. Among lifetime pain reliever misusers in this age group who initiated use after age 16, only 3.3 percent met the criteria for dependence or abuse. Although this general pattern also was observed for sedatives, the rates of dependence or abuse were not significantly different between persons who initiated nonmedical sedative use before age 16 and those who initiated use at age 16 or older.

Figure 6.8 Past Year Substance Dependence or Abuse for Nonmedical Use of Prescription Psychotherapeutic Drugs among Lifetime Users Aged 18 or Older, by Drug Type and Age at First Use: Annual Averages Based on 2002-2004
D

Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

6.7. Treatment for Any Illicit Drug Use
This section presents findings on treatment received in the past year to stop or reduce the use of any illicit drug or for medical problems associated with misusing these drugs among persons who met the criteria for dependence on or abuse of prescription drugs in the past year. This measure includes treatment received in the past year at any location, such as a hospital (inpatient), rehabilitation facility (outpatient or inpatient), mental health center, emergency room, private doctor's office, prison or jail, or a self-help group, such as Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous. Treatment at a specialty facility in the past year includes only treatment at a hospital (inpatient), a rehabilitation facility (inpatient or outpatient), or a mental health center. Findings for these analyses are shown in Table s 6.6 and 6.7.

In 2002, 2003, and 2004, an annual average of 290,000 persons received treatment for illicit drug use in the past year and met the criteria for dependence on or abuse of prescription psychotherapeutic drugs in the past year. This number includes treatment at any type of facility, both specialty and nonspecialty. Among the therapeutic classes of prescription drugs, those treated included an annual average of 210,000 persons who were dependent on or abusing pain relievers, 106,000 who were dependent on or abusing tranquilizers, 104,000 who were dependent on or abusing stimulants, and 39,000 who were dependent on or abusing sedatives (Table 6.6).2 The percentages receiving treatment for illicit drug use in the past year constituted 14.5 percent of those dependent on or abusing any prescription drug, 14.6 percent for pain relievers, 21.1 percent for tranquilizers, and 24.2 percent for stimulants. Too few persons met the criteria for dependence on or abuse of sedatives to produce estimates with adequate precision (see Appendix B for a discussion of precision requirements).

Rates of past year specialty treatment for any illicit drug among those dependent on or abusing prescription psychotherapeutic drugs in the past year were 12.5 percent for any psychotherapeutic drug, 12.9 percent for pain relievers, 19.3 percent for tranquilizers, and 20.4 percent for stimulants (Table 6.7). Viewing these findings from a different perspective, an estimated 87.5 percent of those meeting the criteria for dependence on or abuse of a prescription psychotherapeutic drug in the past year did not receive specialty treatment for any illicit drug use in that period, and 85.5 percent did not receive any treatment in the past year, either at a specialty or nonspecialty facility.

Receipt of past year specialty treatment among persons dependent on or abusing prescription psychotherapeutic drugs in the past year varied by drug category and age. The rate of treatment for an illicit drug problem was lower for persons aged 12 to 17 who were dependent on or abusing any psychotherapeutic drug (7.9 percent) than for their counterparts who were aged 18 to 25 (12.7 percent) or aged 26 or older (13.9 percent).

6.8. Treatment for Problems Related to Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use
For a subset of persons who received treatment for illicit drugs in the past year, it is possible to identify those whose treatment was specifically for problems resulting from nonmedical use of prescription psychotherapeutic drugs. These data are presented in Table 6.8 and pertain to persons whose last or current treatment in the past year was for one or more prescription psychotherapeutic drugs. Treatment at any type of facility—not necessarily specialty facilities—is included. An annual average of 209,000 persons treated in the past year met the criteria for dependence on or abuse of any prescription psychotherapeutic drug and received their last or current treatment for problems with any psychotherapeutic drug. Similarly, 135,000 persons met the dependence or abuse criteria and received their last or current treatment for pain relievers, 50,000 did so for tranquilizers, 64,000 did so for stimulants, and 34,000 did so for sedatives. Further estimates are not available for those treated for problems with sedatives due to small numbers.

Among those dependent on or abusing any prescription-type psychotherapeutic in the past year, 10.5 percent received treatment in the past year specifically for one or more psychotherapeutic drugs. Comparable rates for other psychotherapeutic drug categories were 9.4 percent for pain relievers, 9.8 percent for tranquilizers, and 15.0 percent for stimulants. As was the case for treatment for any illicit drug in the past year, the percentage of persons who were dependent on or abusing any psychotherapeutic drug and who last received treatment for one or more of these drugs was lower for persons aged 12 to 17 than for those aged 18 to 25 (6.5 vs. 11.6 percent). Persons aged 12 to 17 who were dependent on or abusing stimulants also were less likely than their counterparts aged 18 to 25 to have received treatment for their problems with stimulants during their last or current treatment episode (10.0 vs. 19.0 percent). There were no significant differences by gender.

6.9. Summary
This chapter presented findings for substance dependence, abuse, and treatment in the past year related to the nonmedical use of prescription psychotherapeutic drugs. The chapter also presented data on selected correlates of dependence or abuse, based on combined data from the 2002 through 2004 surveys. In addition, findings were presented for treatment for nonmedical psychotherapeutic drug use based on the combined data.

Trend data indicated that rates of dependence or abuse for nonmedical use of psychotherapeutic drugs among persons aged 12 or older did not change significantly from 2002 to 2004. In 2004, approximately 2.0 million persons aged 12 or older met the criteria for dependence or abuse involving any prescription psychotherapeutic drug that was used nonmedically, including 1.4 million for pain relievers, 573,000 for tranquilizers, 470,000 for stimulants, and 128,000 for sedatives.


The prevalence of dependence or abuse was higher among young adults aged 18 to 25 for pain relievers, tranquilizers, and stimulant compared with the rates in other age groups; these findings were based on combined data from the 2002 through 2004 surveys. Males and females aged 12 or older had comparable rates of dependence or abuse, but gender differences occurred within specific age groups. Among youths aged 12 to 17, females had higher rates of dependence or abuse involving any psychotherapeutic drug, pain relievers, tranquilizers, and stimulants than did males. For young adults aged 18 to 25, however, males were more likely than females to meet the criteria for dependence or abuse involving pain relievers. The rate of dependence or abuse for any prescription psychotherapeutic drug was higher for American Indians or Alaska Natives and whites than for blacks or Asians. Regional differences in rates of dependence or abuse for psychotherapeutic drugs were small, although some differences were significant.


Among persons who used psychotherapeutic drugs nonmedically in the past year, 13.5 percent met the criteria for dependence on or abuse of at least one prescription psychotherapeutic drug. The prevalence of dependence or abuse among past year misusers of any psychotherapeutic drug was higher for youths aged 12 to 17 than for young adults aged 18 to 25.


For any psychotherapeutic drug, pain relievers, tranquilizers, and stimulants, the risk of dependence or abuse for psychotherapeutic drugs was greater for persons aged 18 or older who initiated nonmedical use before age 16 compared with those who initiated use at age 16 or older. For sedatives there was no significant difference in rates of dependence or abuse by age at first use.


An estimated 290,000 persons who met the criteria for past year dependence or abuse for psychotherapeutic drugs received treatment in the past year for use of any illicit drug, and 209,000 received their last or most current past year treatment specifically for a psychotherapeutic drug they were dependent on or abusing. Thus, the large majority of persons aged 12 or older who were dependent on or abusing prescription psychotherapeutic drugs in the past year did not receive illicit drug use treatment in the past year.

November 01, 2010

Mental Health Screenings and Trauma-Related Counseling in Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities

Mental Health Screenings and Trauma-Related Counseling in Substance Abuse Treatment FacilitiesIn Brief •In 2009, more than half (62 percent) of all substance abuse treatment facilities provided brief mental health screenings that could be used to identify clients in need of trauma services; less than half (42 percent) provided full diagnostic mental health assessments


•Facilities that primarily focused on a mix of mental health and substance abuse treatment services were more likely than facilities with other primary focuses to report using trauma counseling "always or often" (30 vs. 16 to 26 percent)


•Facilities that were operated by tribal governments (55 percent) were more likely than facilities that were operated by the Federal Government (37 percent), private for-profit organizations (36 percent), private non-profit organizations (35 percent), or State or local, county, or community governments (32 percent each) to offer domestic violence services



Research shows that the experience of traumatic events and the possible sequelae of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) often co-occur with a substance abuse disorder1 and are present among many substance abuse treatment clients.2 Common types of trauma include being exposed to a natural disaster or violence in combat or noncombat situations and experiencing physical assault or domestic violence. Because of the relationship between substance use and trauma-related mental health problems, it is recommended that substance abuse treatment facilities offer mental health screenings and assessments to determine whether or not a client is suffering from a trauma-related illness3 and/or has been involved in domestic violence.4

This report explores the extent to which mental health screenings, mental health assessments, trauma-related counseling, and domestic violence services are provided in substance abuse treatment facilities. The provision of these services in treatment facilities is captured by the 2009 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS).

Mental Health Screenings and Assessments


Mental health screenings and assessments can be used in treatment facilities to identify clients who have been exposed to one or more traumatic events and who have problematic symptoms associated with such exposure. The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) guidelines for best practice with substance abuse treatment clients differentiate between mental health screenings and mental health assessments. Screenings assist in identifying substance abuse clients that show signs of mental health problems by asking questions that elicit a yes or no response; assessments define the nature of the mental health problem and gather more detailed information that may be used to develop treatment plans for clients with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse problems.5

More than half (62 percent) of the 13,513 treatment facilities that responded to N-SSATS provided brief mental health screenings for clients, but less than half (42 percent) provided full diagnostic mental health assessments. Facilities with a primary focus on mental health services, a mix of mental health and substance abuse treatment services, or general health care were more likely than facilities that primarily focused only on substance abuse treatment services to provide mental health screenings or mental health assessments (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Facilities Providing Mental Health Screenings or Assessments, by Primary Focus of Treatment Facility: 2009

Source: 2009 SAMHSA National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS).

Figure 1 Table. Facilities Providing Mental Health Screenings or Assessments, by Primary Focus of Treatment Facility: 2009 Primary Focus Mental Health Screenings Mental Health Assessments
Substance Abuse Treatment Services 45% 20%
Mental Health Services 94% 89%
Mix of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment Services 90% 76%
General Health Care 85% 75%
Other/Unknown 53% 21%
Source: 2009 SAMHSA National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS).

Treatment facilities that were operated by the Federal Government (68 percent) were more likely than facilities operated by State governments (52 percent); local, county, or community governments (50 percent); private non-profit organizations (43 percent); tribal governments (40 percent); or private for-profit organizations (36 percent) to provide mental health assessments (Figure 2). Additionally, facilities that were operated by the Federal Government (79 percent) were more likely than those operated by other types of governments or organizations to provide mental health screenings.

It is recommended that substance abuse treatment providers screen all clients in substance abuse treatment for exposure to domestic violence in order to identify batterers and survivors. After substance abuse treatment providers identify those clients who have been involved in domestic violence, the provider may then determine what services the clients may need.4 Domestic violence services may include, for example, specialized counseling, medical services, or legal services.

N-SSATS provides information regarding whether or not treatment facilities offer domestic violence services. In 2009, less than half (35 percent) of treatment facilities offered domestic violence services. Facilities that primarily focused on a mix of mental health and substance abuse treatment services (46 percent) or general health care (44 percent) were more likely than those that focused on mental health services (37 percent) or substance abuse treatment services (30 percent) to offer domestic violence services.

Discussion

Mental health problems, specifically those related to trauma and/or domestic violence, often co-occur with substance abuse. Mental health screenings Mental health problems, specifically those related to trauma and/or domestic violence, often co-occur with substance abuse. Mental health screenings and assessments may be used by substance abuse treatment facilities to identify clients who are suffering from mental health problems related to trauma. By first identifying these clients, treatment providers may then develop a comprehensive treatment plan and assist clients with gaining access to trauma-related services. Treatment plans for clients with these co-occurring problems should address their substance abuse and incorporate evidenced-based interventions that aim to reduce the biological, psychological, and behavioral symptoms associated with trauma.6

The data in this report provide a snapshot of the extent to which the treatment system is identifying and providing certain services to clients suffering from co-occurring substance abuse and trauma-related mental health problems. This information may be used to increase public health awareness about substance abuse and trauma-related mental health problems, and inform behavioral health care reform initiatives that increase the treatment system’s capacity to provide needed trauma-related services to substance abuse clients.

End Notes

1 Kessler, R. C., Sonnega, A., Bromet, E., Hughes, M., & Nelson, C. B. (1995). Posttraumatic stress disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 1048-1060.
2 Nanjavits, L. M. (2002). Clinicians’ views on treating posttraumatic stress disorder and substance use disorder. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 79-85.
3 Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1995). Anxiety disorders. In Assessment and treatment of patients with coexisting mental illness and alcohol and other drug abuse (Treatment Improvement Protocol [TIP] Series 9, DHHS Publication No. SMA 95-3061). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services. (Original work published 1994) Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=hssamhsatip&part=A30236
4 Fazzone, P. A., Holton, J. K., & Reed, B. G. (Consensus Panel Co-Chairs); Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1997). Substance abuse treatment and domestic violence (Treatment Improvement Protocol [TIP] Series 25, DHHS Publication No. SMA 97-3163). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=hssamhsatip&part=A46712
5Sacks, S., & Ries, R. K. (Consensus Panel Co-Chairs); Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2005). Substance abuse treatment for persons with co-occurring disorders (Treatment Improvement Protocol [TIP] Series 42, DHHS Publication No. SMA 05-3922). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=hssamhsatip&part=A74073
6 Shalev, A., Bonne, O., & Eth, S. (1996). Treatment of post traumatic stress disorder: A review. Psychosomatic Medicine, 58, 165-182.

April 06, 2010

Bipolar Continuing Education CEU

Family Psychoeducation
Workbook
Chapter 10: Other Clinical Models for Psychoeducational Multifamily Groups
Introduction

As the effectiveness of the Family Psychoeducation approaches to the treatment of schizophrenia has become established, interest has developed in extending these models to other conditions. That has led to the development of several newer approaches designed for consumers with specific diagnoses or for specific situations, such as when a given consumer has no family available or family involvement is complicated by a history of trauma within the family. The design of these newer models has proceeded with the same method as was done in working with people who experience schizophrenia: specific aspects have been designed to ameliorate phenomena that have been shown to influence outcome in previous research. That is, they are rooted in empirical findings, rather than theory, and those findings range over the entire body of psychiatric and psychological research, including both biological and psychosocial studies. Though they do not have the depth of outcome study results that has been shown for the models for people who experience schizophrenia, evidence is accumulating that they are just as effective. The practitioner who sets out to apply these models should review the available literature, since at the time of this writing many of these models were being tested, but results were not yet published.

Included here are brief summaries of descriptions of psychoeducational multifamily group treatment approaches for people with several common diagnoses as well as a model for ameliorating the effects of chronic medical illness on the family. The practitioner interested in applying these newer methods should consult the volumes in which they are described fully and seek training from qualified trainers.

Multifamily Groups for Bipolar Illness

David A. Moltz, M.D.
Margaret Newmark, M.S.W.

The psychoeducational multifamily group model must be significantly modified for people who experience a bipolar disorder. The symptoms, course and family responses have been shown to be different than in schizophrenia, and recent biological research has highlighted major differences in brain function between the disorders. A key finding is that family “expressed emotion” (defined earlier in text as behaviors perceived by the consumer as being critical and/or lacking warmth/support) affects relapse, but there is an even greater biological contribution to relapse than in schizophrenia. For instance, Miklowitz and his colleagues found that family psychoeducation, in the form of single-family behavioral management, reduced relapses markedly, but from nearly 90% to about 50%, as opposed to the 40% to 15% reduction observed for consumers with schizophrenia. Thus, biological and psychosocial factors seem to be more evenly weighted in determining course of illness in bipolar disorder; nevertheless, family psychoeducation remains a powerful treatment in preventing relapse and improving longer-term outcomes.

A Model for Bipolar Disorder

This model, developed by Moltz, Newmark, McFarlane and associates, was first implemented at a public mental health center in the South Bronx of New York City and later at a community mental health center in coastal Maine. It has been effective in both settings. Only one other group has published a report of psychoeducational multifamily group approach. Anderson and associates compared a family process multifamily group to a psychoeducational multifamily group for short-term treatment of hospitalized consumers with affective disorders. One of the few significant differences between the groups was that those attending the psychoeducational group reported greater satisfaction than those attending the process group. Therefore, whether or not the psychoeducational format had measurable clinical advantages, it was more valued by family members. For further information please refer to the references in Chapter 12.

The key elements of this model are the same as in the approach for consumers with schizophrenia. Each is modified in important ways to match the clinical and psychosocial problems encountered in bipolar disorder.

The materials cited in Chapter 12 contain information regarding the use of single family groups for individuals with bipolar disorder.

Joining

Initial joining sessions are held separately for the consumer and the family.
Individual and family sessions have similar structure, since the individual with bipolar illness is usually able to participate fully.
Meetings with the consumer and the other family members are often carried out separately during the acute phase of illness, but usually together if joining occurs after the manic phase is over and family meetings with the consumer are less likely to be emotionally intense.
Content

The content of the joining sessions is modified to reflect the specific impact of bipolar illness on the family. It includes:

Extensive discussion of the history of symptoms and course of illness
Identifying precipitants and prodromal signs
Emphasis on differing attitudes and attributions
Discussion of inter-episode functioning, that is to say, “how is life between episodes?”
Conjoint sessions

After several sessions with the family and the consumer meeting separately, they are seen together for one or more conjoint sessions facilitated by the two practitioners who will be co-facilitating the group. These conjoint sessions allow the family to come together as a unit prior to the multifamily group, while the separate sessions allow each party to express their concerns without constraints and thereby diminishes conflict during the joinings.

Educational workshop

The structure and format of the bipolar workshop are similar to the schizophrenia workshop except that the consumer is included. Content is determined by the specific characteristics of the illness and includes:

Symptoms of manic and depressed episodes, differences from normal highs and lows
The issue of will-power
The question of the “real” personality
The impact of acute episodes on the family
The long term impact of the illness on the family
Theories of etiology of the illness
Short and long-term treatment strategies
Ongoing group meetings

The structure of the multifamily group meetings is essentially the same as the schizophrenia model.

Challenges to group formation and maintenance

Several issues related to specific characteristics of bipolar illness have presented challenges to group formation and process:

Diagnostic ambiguity
Maintaining the group structure
Co-occurring conditions, especially substance abuse in consumer and other family members.
Outcomes

In general, consumers reported that:

they were less angry over time;
they had less debilitating episodes when they did occur;
they were better able to manage symptoms and episodes;
they experienced fewer hospitalizations; and
they were more able to appreciate their family’s experience.
Family members reported:

increased confidence in their ability to cope with the illness;
increased confidence in the consumer’s ability to manage the illness; and
benefits from the program even if the consumer did not attend.
Practitioners reported:

it took about two years to master the techniques;
they learned to see their role more as consultant than therapist;
they better appreciated family’s and consumer’s experience of illness and efforts to cope with it; and
each person’s struggle with illness is different.
Multifamily Group Treatment For Major Depressive Disorder

Gabor Keitner, M.D. Ivan W. Miller, Ph.D.
Laura M. Drury, M.S.W. William H. Norman, Ph.D.
Christine E. Ryan, Ph.D. David A. Solomon, M.D.

To date, the only previous multifamily group treatment for consumers who experience depression has been the model developed by Anderson (1986). This multifamily approach has been used at the University of Pittsburgh for many years, however the only empirical data collected on this model is a comparison of participants’ satisfaction with the group. This study indicated that consumers and families were very satisfied with the treatment and believed that they obtained significant benefits. However, despite the fact that this intervention has been incorporated into several long-term studies of depression, there has been no study of the potential effects of this multifamily treatment on outcome or course of illness in major depression. Such studies are underway now and preliminary results are promising.

Conducting multifamily group treatment for people with depression

Consumers with mood disorders participated in psychoeducational multifamily groups in a 5-year federally-sponsored research study. Consumers with unipolar and bipolar illness were combined in order to ensure a critical mass of consumers and families, and also because we felt that there was a significant overlap in the themes of remission and relapse between unipolar and bipolar forms of mood disorders. In addition, both unipolar and bipolar consumers had a common experience in the depressive phase of the illness and it was assumed that a certain percentage of unipolar consumers may eventually experience an episode of mania.

Much of the following material was drawn from previous descriptions of psychoeducational groups.

Overview of goals and structure

Helping consumers and family members become knowledgeable about the signs and symptoms of depression and mania;
Promoting relationships and increasing understanding of the effects of the illness by sharing information, support and members' perspectives on family interactions;
Consumers and family members gain insights and learn new coping strategies in dealing with different phases of the consumer's illness; and
Consumers and families have a better understanding of how they can work with each other and with mental health professionals to deal with the illness.
Family and group composition

A core feature of this program is that both the consumer and family members attend the sessions. All family members of the household over the age of 12 are expected to attend. A minimum of four families seems to be necessary to insure adequate activity and group discussion. Groups of five to six families, or twelve to fourteen people, are optimal. Groups typically include consumers with both bipolar disorder and others with major depression.

Practitioners

Two co-leaders are needed. The leaders deal with any consumers or family members who become upset during a session. Leaders should be experienced in working with consumers, their families, and also in group process and therapy. They should know about current issues and treatments of major depression and bipolar illness, including the biopsychosocial model of mood disorders.

Clinical procedures

The group leaders (practitioners) should meet before each session to discuss the content of the session and the division of tasks between them. They should also meet immediately after the session to review and assess group members and plan future agendas and strategies. This debriefing is especially important if a crisis occurred during the group session with either a consumer or a family member.

Screening session

This is an individual meeting between the consumer, family member(s) and one of the two co-leaders. It serves to:

Introduce the consumer and family to the therapist;
Provide an opportunity to assess the family's and consumer's knowledge about mood disorders, coping skills and methods of dealing with the illness;
Build an alliance between the therapist consumer, and family; and
Let the therapist assess the appropriateness of the family and the consumer for the psychoeducational group.
Structure of psychoeducation groups

Please refer to the references in Chapter 12 for specific information about the structure of these groups.

Conclusion

The optimal treatment of depression has yet to be defined. Pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, family therapy, and group therapy all play a role for some consumers at some point in the illness. The multifamily group format is a welcome addition to the currently available treatments for depression. The role of the family is significant in determining the course of the depression and its response to treatments.

Multifamily Psychoeducational Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder

Cynthia Berkowitz, M.D.
John Gunderson, M.D.

The development of psychoeducational multifamily treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) is prompted by four factors:

the need for novel psychosocial interventions in this disorder,
the success of psychoeducational multifamily treatment of schizophrenia,
the need for more effective family interventions in this disorder, and
the emergence of a deficit model of BPD.
Dialectical Behavioral Therapy has been developed by Marsha Linehan and colleagues as a disorder specific treatment of BPD, focusing on the diminution of the self-destructive behavior that is the major cause of morbidity in BPD. It is the only psychosocial treatment of this disorder that has been subjected to a controlled outcome study. Linehan has established the effectiveness of this cognitive-behavioral treatment of BPD.

Practitioners who treat individuals with BPD know that the recurrent crises that mark the course of the illness often occur in response to interactions between the individual with BPD and relatives. This pattern strongly suggests that a treatment targeted at altering the family environment could positively influence the course of the disorder. The findings of Young and Gunderson, (1995) suggest that adolescents with BPD saw themselves as being significantly more alienated than did adolescents with other disorders. Their research found that alienation in the family environment is a useful target for intervention and indicates that psychoeducation may be able to diminish feelings of alienation.

Based on studies of the role of expressed emotion (EE) in BPD by Jill Hooley as well as by John Vuchetich, (the latter study in association with development of the current treatment), we hypothesize that EE in the family may be a risk factor for worsening psychosocial functioning in the individual with BPD.

Rationale for psychoeducational multifamily treatment of BPD

The following principles borrow heavily from the previous work of Anderson, Hogarty, Falloon, Leff and McFarlane in the development of psychoeducational treatment but also incorporate emerging concepts of BPD, particularly the functional deficit model.

BPD is characterized by functional deficits of (i) affect and impulse dyscontrol, (ii) intolerance of aloneness and (iii) dichotomous thinking. If individuals with BPD have functional deficits in their ability to cope, it follows that they would benefit from an environment that could help them cope with those deficits.
The functional deficits above may render individuals with BPD handicapped but not disabled. This means that they can be held accountable for their actions but that change for them occurs very slowly and with great difficulty.
BPD is an enduring disorder characterized by recurrent crises. The specific goal of the treatment is to diminish crises rather than to cure the disorder. We hypothesize that stress in the family environment may significantly influence the course of the disorder.
Families can influence the course of illness in that they can either diminish the stresses that cause relapses or inadvertently create them. Families are asked specifically to make the home environment calmer and to reduce the stress the consumer who experiences BPD is subjected to.
Living with an ill relative has stressful consequences for the family. A major goal of the current treatment is to diminish stress within the family.
Family members will want to use education to change their behavior if they believe they can help an ill family member by doing so.
Stress within the family may have at its root alienation between the individual with BPD and the family. Psychoeducational treatment moves parents away from issues of their possible causal role in the occurrence of the illness and away from blaming and criticizing the individual with BPD.
The role of the multifamily group in treatment of BPD

The mechanisms of the multifamily group directly address the particular problems facing the families of individuals with BPD, including the need for:

improved clarity of communication and directness;
diminished hostility; and
diminished over-involvement.
Structure of psychoeducational multifamily group treatment

The same three-stage structure used in the treatment of people with schizophrenia can be applied to people with borderline personality disorder. In this model, family psycoeducational treatment begins with a joining phase followed by an educational workshop. Families then join a multifamily group for an extended period of biweekly treatment. Again, the details of conducting the joining sessions, educational workshop and multifamily group sessions are described in the references listed in Chapter 12.

Treatment outcome

The psychoeducational multifamily group treatment of BPD is currently under study in a project involving two multifamily groups. Each of the families consisted of a mother or two parents with a daughter having BPD. Data is currently available for only eight of the participating families:

66.7 percent felt that the multifamily group helped them to modulate angry feelings
66.7 percent felt less burdened
All participating families felt that the group improved their communication with their daughters (75 percent felt that the improvement was “very great” )
All participating families felt that the treatment improved their knowledge of the disorder
91.6% of parents felt that the treatment had helped them to set limits
All of the participating families felt supported by the group
Conclusion

While the evidence supporting its effectiveness for people who experience borderline personality disorder is preliminary, the data available suggests that consumers are experiencing improved communication and diminished hostility within their families.

Multifamily Behavioral Treatment of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

Barbara Van Noppen, M.S.W.
Gail Steketee, Ph.D.

Education about consumers with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and the reduction of critical responses to behavioral symptoms are important family factors in the course of illness and possibly in treatment outcome for OCD. Clinical investigation of family members’ responses to OCD symptoms and of their impact on the symptoms can lead to the development of family behavioral interventions that may help both the consumer and the family. Multifamily behavioral treatment (MFBT) includes consumers and their significant others in a 20-session intervention (12 weekly and 6 monthly sessions) over a period of 9 months. Preliminary findings revealed efficacy of MFBT comparable to standard individual behavioral therapy. Furthermore, reductions in the symptoms experienced by consumers with obsessive compulsive disorder who completed MFBT have been maintained at one-year follow-up.

Multifamily behavioral treatment (MFBT)

MFBT, compared to single-family behavioral therapy, offers the opportunity for reduction in perceived isolation, enriched opportunities for problem solving and emotional distancing, enabling family members to respond in a less personalized way to the symptoms. A sense of community and social support often develops through the course of the MFBT, as families share stories with one another. There is a lessening in feelings of shame and stigma, which encourages family members to take a larger role in treatment and join with the consumer to combat the symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorder. The presence of other families with similar problems provides an opportunity for consumers and families to learn effective negotiation of agreements and to adopt symptom management strategies modeled by other members of the group. Additional potential benefits of multifamily intervention are reduced therapist burnout and greater cost-effectiveness of treatment.

A recent uncontrolled trial by Van Noppen and colleagues examined the effects of MFBT for 19 consumers and family members treated in 4 groups. Consumers experienced significant reductions in obsessive compulsive symptom severity and similar reduction in scores on a measure of family functioning. Among MFBT consumers, 47% made clinically significant improvements (reliably changed and scoring in the non-clinical range on OCD symptoms) at post-test, and 58% achieved this status at 1-year follow-up. Results from MFBT were comparable to those achieved by individual behavior therapy. Overall, the multifamily intervention was quite effective, although some consumers did not show strong gains and there is clearly room for improvement.

Features and procedures of MFBT

MFBT is similar to methods described by McFarlane and Falloon, but uses interventions specifically aimed at reducing obsessive-compulsive symptoms and changing dysfunctional patterns of communication. This family group treatment incorporates psychoeducation, communication and problem-solving skills training, clarifying boundaries, social learning and in vivo rehearsal of new behaviors. There is also in-group observation of exposure and response prevention with therapist and participant modeling.

4-6 families (no more than 16 total participants is recommended), including consumer and others who have daily contact with the consumer. Co-leaders are optimal; at least one leader should have an advanced degree in social work, psychology or certified counseling and experience in clinical work with individuals, families and groups.
Sessions are 2 hours long and typically meet in the late afternoon or early evening.
The key clinical procedures include:

Each consumer and family has a pre-treatment screening by phone with the therapist(s) to determine appropriateness for the group and readiness for treatment; following this, two intake sessions are scheduled;
At the intake sessions, 1 1/2 hours each, pretreatment forms are completed, symptom severity and family response styles determined, goals of the group and behavioral therapy principles are discussed, and pre-treatment concerns and questions are addressed;
Treatment is comprised of 12 weekly sessions and 6 monthly group follow-up sessions, providing:
education about OCD and reading of self-help material;
education about families and OCD;
in vivo exposure and response prevention plus homework and self-monitoring;
homework discussion with family group feedback and problem-solving; and
behavioral contracting among family members and communication skills training.
Conclusion

MFBT appears to be a good alternative to labor-intensive individual behavioral treatment. Recent research findings suggest that MFBT may especially help consumers who experience obsessive compulsive disorder and have not benefited from standard individual treatment and who are living with family members. MFBT incorporates family members into behavioral treatment by teaching family members and consumers to negotiate contracts. The goal of this treatment is to encourage anxiety reduction for the consumer, to educate and model reasonable interactive responses within families, and to remove family members from the consumer’s compulsions in a supportive manner.
http://www.aspirace.com

March 17, 2010

Creating a Consumer and Family-Oriented Health Care System

Creating a Consumer and Family-Oriented Health Care System

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Washington Business group on Health, with Support from CMHS, Has Released a Publication Focusing on An Environmental Scan of Reforms Impacting Mental Health and Substance Abuse Care.

Part I of the paper discusses environmental trends driving change in mental health and substance abuse delivery system models and practices. Trends discussed are:

Industry consolidation and the growth of managed care;

The absence of a federal regulatory framework;

Interest in health care quality and performance; and

Changing perceptions about mental health and substance abuse.
Part II reviews a wide range of public and private sector initiatives intended to enhance consumer-directed care, inform and educate consumers about health care choices and the changing health care system, and involve consumers and their advocates in the planning and monitoring of emerging health care delivery systems. Initiatives are organized under four topic headings:

Empowering consumers with information;

Performance accountability from the consumer perspective;

The consumer and family movements in mental health; and

A systems approach to health care delivery.
Part III identifies three critical challenges to creating a consumer- directed health care system:

Creating meaningful and useful information for consumers;

Stimulating health system accountability for serving people with chronic illnesses and disabilities; and

Enhancing organized consumer and family involvement in health system planning and monitoring.
It is intended as a strategic planning tool and resource document for consumer advocates and others interested in enhancing consumer involvement in improving health system accountability for mental health and substance abuse services. A glossary of terms and contact information for initiatives cited in the document are included.




Consumer Affairs Bulletin
Volume 2, No. 2 Summer 1997

January 24, 2010

Social Worker Continuing Education CEUs

Crisis Counseling CEUs Click here for all Course Texts

Online Continuing Education for LCSW LCSWS and other Social Work License Renewal

© 2009 by Aspira Continuing Education. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be transmitted or reproduced in any form, or by any means, mechanical or electronic without written permission of Aspira Continuing Education.


1. Define and become familiar with crisis counseling fundamentals
2. Identify various types of crisis counseling
3. Evaluate and identify common crisis reactions and symptomology
4. Access and utilize applicable resources
5. Identify risk factors
Table of Contents:
1. Definitions
2. Crisis Counseling Methods
3. Crisis Hotlines
4. Crisis Reactions
5. Resources
6. References

1. Definitions

Crisis counseling is designed to be brief and generally persists no longer than a few weeks. The emphasis is on a single or recurrent crisis that may produce traumatic symptoms. If a trauma or crisis is not resolved in a timely and/or effective therapeutic manner, the experience can lead to more lasting psychological, social and medical problems. The term “crisis” refers to the manner in which an individual responds to a traumatic or difficult situation. Various events may trigger the crisis response such as developmental hurdles (such as going through puberty), natural disasters, and the death of a loved one.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.