Depression and Mood Disorders
The Prevalence of Major Depression and Mood Disorders in Suicide
Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General, states that "major depressive disorders account for about 20 to 35 percent of all deaths by suicide" (p. 244). This estimate is based on a review of psychological autopsies conducted by Angst, Angst, and Stassen (1999). This brief review is intended to address this prevalence estimate. It is important to note that this estimate refers only to the prevalence of major depressive disorder among those who commit suicide, not any other mood disorders (e.g., bipolar I & II, dysthymia, adjustment disorder with depressed mood). Prevalence estimates that include other mood disorders in addition to major depression are much higher.
Major depression in suicide
The lower bound of the 20-35% estimate of the prevalence of major depression in suicide is loosely based on one psychological autopsy study; a study where the reliability of the diagnoses are somewhat questionable. This study (Rich, Young & Fowler, 1986) of 204 subjects identified 15% of suicides as having major depressive disorder. However, an additional 30% were reported as having "atypical depression," defined in this study as having a depressive syndrome that followed the onset of substance use. If this ambiguously defined group were to be considered major depression, the estimate climbs to 45%. A number of other studies suggest that the prevalence of major depression in suicide is somewhat over 30%. The four other available psychological autopsy studies that include samples of suicides from the full age range and reliable diagnoses based on structured interviews (Arato, Demeter, Rihmer & Somogyi, 1988; Dorpat & Ripley, 1960; Foster, Gillespie, McClelland & Patterson, 1999; Henriksson et al., 1993) obtained prevalence estimates of major depression ranging from 30-34% of suicides. In addition, several psychological autopsy studies examining more specific subsamples (e.g., the elderly, adolescents, women) find even higher prevalence estimates. In three psychological autopsy studies of adolescents (Brent et al. 1988; Brent et al., 1999; Shaffer et al., 1996) 41%, 43%, and 32% of adolescent suicides were determined to have had major depression prior to death. Two studies of young adults (Lesage et al. 1994; Runeson, 1989) found a prevalence of 40% and 41%, respectively. A study of 104 women by Asgard (1990) found a 35% rate of major depression. One study of 54 older adults over age 65 found a prevalence of 54%. In summary, the available data suggest that the 20-35% estimate for the prevalence of major depressive disorder in completed suicide is probably somewhat conservative and that a 30-40% prevalence estimate is probably more accurate. This estimate includes both secondary and primary depression. Many of these individuals would also be comorbid with other disorders, especially substance abuse.
Mood disorders in suicide
Prevalence estimates for all mood disorders in suicide (including MDD, Bipolar I & II, dysthymia, and adjustment disorder with depressed mood) are much higher than for major depression alone. These rates are probably closer to 60%, although as noted below, this estimate varies because of inconsistency of the criteria used to define a "mood disorder" across investigations. Four studies examining the full age range of suicides estimate that 36%, 48%, and 66%, and 70% of suicides have some sort of "depressive disorder" or "depression" (Foster et al., 1999; Rich et al., 1986, Henriksson et al., 1993, Barraclough, Bunch, Nelson, & Sainsbury, 1974). Three studies of adolescents found prevalence estimates for "mood disorders" or "affective disorders" of 61%, 63%, and 67% respectively (Shaffer et al., 1996; Brent et al. 1988; Marttunen et al., 1992). Two studies of young adults (Lesage et al., 1994; Runeson, 1989) found estimates of 60% and 64%. A study of 104 women by Asgard (1990) found a 59% rate of "mood disorders." In a review of psychological autopsy studies that examined patterns of psychiatric diagnosis across age groups, Conwell and Brent (1995) concluded that depressive disorders increased with age. Overall estimates for the rates of mood disorders range from 36% to 70% with great interstudy variability. This variability is probably partly a combination of unreliable methods of diagnosis and different definitions of what constitutes a "mood disorder." Despite this variability, a number of studies have found a pattern for increasing mood disorders with aging.
April 05, 2010
April 02, 2010
Stressful Life Events
Stressful Life Events
The most common psychological and social stressors in adult life include the breakup of intimate romantic relationships, death of a family member or friend, economic hardships, racism and discrimination, poor physical health, and accidental and intentional assaults on physical safety (Holmes & Rahe, 1967; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Kreiger et al., 1993). Although some stressors are so powerful that they would evoke significant emotional distress in most otherwise mentally healthy people, the majority of stressful life events do not invariably trigger mental disorders. Rather, they are more likely to spawn mental disorders in people who are vulnerable biologically, socially, and/or psychologically (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Brown & Harris, 1989; Kendler et al., 1995). Understanding variability among individuals to a stressful life event is a major challenge to research. Groups at greater statistical risk include women, young and unmarried people, African Americans, and individuals with lower socioeconomic status (Ulbrich et al., 1989; McLeod & Kessler, 1990; Turner et al., 1995; Miranda & Green, 1999).
Divorce is a common example. Approximately one-half of all marriages now end in divorce, and about 30 to 40 percent of those undergoing divorce report a significant increase in symptoms of depression and anxiety (Brown & Harris, 1989). Vulnerability to depression and anxiety is greater among those with a personal history of mental disorders earlier in life and is lessened by strong social support. For many, divorce conveys additional economic adversities and the stress of single parenting. Single mothers face twice the risk of depression as do married mothers (Brown & Moran, 1997).
The death of a child or spouse during early or midadult life is much less common than divorce but generally is of greater potency in provoking emotional distress (Kim & Jacobs, 1995). Rates of diagnosable mental disorders during periods of grief are attenuated by the convention not to diagnose depression during the first 2 months of bereavement (Clayton & Darvish, 1979). In fact, people are generally unlikely to seek professional treatment during bereavement unless the severity of the emotional and behavioral disturbance is incapacitating.
A majority of Americans never will confront the stress of surviving a severe, life-threatening accident or physical assault (e.g., mugging, robbery, rape); however, some segments of the population, particularly urban youths and young adults, have exposure rates as high as 25 to 30 percent (Helzer et al., 1987; Breslau et al., 1991). Life-threatening trauma frequently provokes emotional and behavioral reactions that jeopardize mental health. In the most fully developed form, this syndrome is called post-traumatic stress disorder (DSM-IV), which is described later in this chapter. Women are twice as likely as men to develop post-traumatic stress disorder following exposure to life-threatening trauma (Breslau et al., 1998.)
More familiar to many Americans is the chronic strain that poor physical health and relationship problems place on day-to-day well-being. Relationship problems include unsatisfactory intimate relationships; conflicted relationships with parents, siblings, and children; and “falling-out” with coworkers, friends, and neighbors. In mid-adult life, the stress of caretaking for elderly parents also becomes more common.
Relationship problems at least double the risk of developing a mental disorder, although they are less immediately threatening or potentially cataclysmic than divorce or the death of a spouse or child (Brown & Harris, 1989). Finally, cumulative adversity appears to be more potent than stressful events in isolation as a predictor of psychological distress and mental disorders (Turner & Lloyd, 1995).
Past Trauma and Child Sexual Abuse
Severe trauma in childhood may have enduring effects into adulthood (Browne & Finkelhor, 1986). Past trauma includes sexual and physical abuse, and parental death, divorce, psychopathology, and substance abuse (reviewed in Turner & Lloyd, 1995).
Child sexual abuse is one of the most common stressors, with effects that persist into adulthood. It disproportionately affects females. Although definitions are still evolving, child sexual abuse is often defined as forcible touching of breasts or genitals or forcible intercourse (including anal, oral, or vaginal sex) before the age of 16 or 18 (Goodman et al., 1997). Epidemiology studies of adults in varying segments of the community have found that 15 to 33 percent of females and 13 to 16 percent of males were sexually abused in childhood (Polusny & Follette, 1995). A recent, large epidemiological study of adults in the general community found a lower prevalence (12.8 percent for females and 4.3 percent for males); however, the definition of sexual abuse was more restricted than in past studies (MacMillan et al., 1997). Sexual abuse in childhood has a mean age of onset estimated at 7 to 9 years of age (Polusny & Follette, 1995). In over 25 percent of cases of child sexual abuse, the offense was committed by a parent or parent substitute (Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996).
The long-term consequences of past childhood sexual abuse are profound, yet vary in expression. They range from depression and anxiety to problems with social functioning and adult interpersonal relationships (Polusny & Follette, 1995). Post-traumatic stress disorder is a common sequela, found in 33 to 86 percent of adult survivors of child sexual abuse (Polusny & Follette, 1995). In a recent review, Weiss et al. (1999) found that sexual abuse was a specific risk factor for adult-onset depression and twice as many women as men reported a history of abuse. Other long-term effects include self-destructive behavior, social isolation, poor sexual adjustment, substance abuse, and increased risk of revictimization (Browne & Finkelhor, 1986; Briere, 1992).
Very few treatments specifically for adult survivors of childhood abuse have been studied in randomized controlled trials (IOM, 1998). Group therapy and Interpersonal Transaction group therapy were found to be more effective for female survivors than an experimental control condition that offered a less appropriate intervention (Alexander et al., 1989, 1991). In the practice setting, most psychosocial and pharmacological treatments are tailored to the primary diagnosis, which, as noted above, varies widely and may not attend to the special needs of those also reporting abuse history.
Domestic Violence
Domestic violence is a serious and startlingly common public health problem with mental health consequences for victims, who are overwhelmingly female, and for children who witness the violence. Domestic violence (also known as intimate partner violence) features a pattern of physical and sexual abuse, psychological abuse with verbal intimidation, and/or social isolation or deprivation. Estimates are that 8 to 17 percent of women are victimized annually in the United States (Wilt & Olsen, 1996). Pinpointing the prevalence is hindered by variations in the way domestic violence is defined and by problems in detection and underreporting. Women are often fearful that their reporting of domestic violence will precipitate retaliation by the batterer, a fear that is not unwarranted (Sisley et al., 1999).
Victims of domestic violence are at increased risk for mental health problems and disorders as well as physical injury and death. Domestic violence is considered one of the foremost causes of serious injury to women ages 15 to 44, accounting for about 30 percent of all acute injuries to women seen in emergency departments (Wilt & Olsen, 1996). According to the U.S. Department of Justice, females were victims in about 75 percent of the almost 2,000 homicides between intimates in 1996 (cited in Sisley et al., 1999). The mental health consequences of domestic violence include depression, anxiety disorders (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder), suicide, eating disorders, and substance abuse (IOM, 1998; Eisenstat & Bancroft, 1999). Children who witness domestic violence may suffer acute and long-term emotional disturbances, including nightmares, depression, learning difficulties, and aggressive behavior. Children also become at risk for subsequent use of violence against their dating partners and wives (el-Bayoumi et al., 1998; NRC, 1998; Sisley et al., 1999).
Mental health interventions for victims, children, and batterers are highly important. Individual counseling and peer support groups are the interventions most frequently used by battered women. However, there is a lack of carefully controlled, methodologically robust studies of interventions and their outcomes, according to a report by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (IOM, 1998). A research agenda for violence against women was developed (IOM, 1996) and has served as an impetus for an ongoing research program sponsored by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services. Clearly, there is an urgent need for development and rigorous evaluation of prevention programs to safeguard against intimate partner violence and its impact on children.
Interventions for Stressful Life Events
Stressful life events, even for those at the peak of mental health, erode quality of life and place people at risk for symptoms and signs of mental disorders. There is an ever-expanding list of formal and informal interventions to aid individuals coping with adversity. Sources of informal interventions include family and friends, education, community services, self-help groups, social support networks, religious and spiritual endeavors, complementary healers, and physical activities. As valuable as these activities may be for promoting mental health, they have received less research attention than have interventions for mental disorders. Nevertheless, there are selected interventions to help people cope with stressors, such as bereavement programs and programs for caregivers (see Chapter 5) as well as couples therapy and physical activity.
Couples therapy is the umbrella term applied to interventions that aid couples in distress. The best studied interventions are behavioral couples therapy, cognitive-behavioral couples therapy, and emotion-focused couples therapy. A recent review article evaluated the body of evidence on the effectiveness of couples therapy and programs to prevent marital discord (Christensen & Heavey, 1999). The review found that about 65 percent of couples in therapy did improve, whereas 35 percent of control couples also improved. Couples therapy ameliorates relationship distress and appears to alleviate depression. The gains from couples therapy generally last through 6 months, but there are few long-term assessments (Christensen & Heavey, 1999). Similarly, interventions to prevent marital discord yield short-term improvements in marital adjustment and stability, but there is insufficient study of long-term outcomes. The prevention programs receiving the most study are the Couple Communication Program, Relationship Enhancement, and the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (Christensen & Heavey, 1999). Greater research is needed to overcome gaps in knowledge and to extend findings to a broader array of programs, to diverse populations of couples, and to a wider set of outcomes, including effects on children.
Physical activities are a means to enhance somatic health as well as to deal with stress. A recent Surgeon General’s Report on Physical Activity and Health evaluated the evidence for physical activities serving to enhance mental health (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 1996). Aerobic physical activities, such as brisk walking and running, were found to improve mental health for people who report symptoms of anxiety and depression and for those who are diagnosed with some forms of depression. The mental health benefits of physical activity for individuals in relatively good physical and mental health were not as evident, but the studies did not have sufficient rigor from which to draw unequivocal conclusions (DHHS, 1996).
Prevention of Mental Disorders
A promising development in prevention of a specific mental disorder in adults occurred with the publication of results from the San Francisco Depression Research Project (Munoz et al., 1995). This study investigated 150 primary care patients who did not meet diagnostic criteria for depression and who were being seen in a public clinic for other problems. They were randomized to either psychoeducation—an 8-week cognitive behavioral course to help them control and manage moods—or to a control condition. One year later, those who received psychoeducation were found to have developed significantly fewer depression symptoms than members of the control group. This trial is noteworthy in two major respects: it was a randomized controlled trial and its participants were low-income individuals, with high representation of all major minority groups. Low-income individuals are considered a high-risk population because of studies documenting their higher prevalence of mental disorders. This study demonstrated in a methodologically rigorous fashion that depression may be preventable in some cases. It serves as a model for extending the concept of prevention to many mental disorders. Prevention research is vitally important and needs to be enhanced.
The most common psychological and social stressors in adult life include the breakup of intimate romantic relationships, death of a family member or friend, economic hardships, racism and discrimination, poor physical health, and accidental and intentional assaults on physical safety (Holmes & Rahe, 1967; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Kreiger et al., 1993). Although some stressors are so powerful that they would evoke significant emotional distress in most otherwise mentally healthy people, the majority of stressful life events do not invariably trigger mental disorders. Rather, they are more likely to spawn mental disorders in people who are vulnerable biologically, socially, and/or psychologically (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Brown & Harris, 1989; Kendler et al., 1995). Understanding variability among individuals to a stressful life event is a major challenge to research. Groups at greater statistical risk include women, young and unmarried people, African Americans, and individuals with lower socioeconomic status (Ulbrich et al., 1989; McLeod & Kessler, 1990; Turner et al., 1995; Miranda & Green, 1999).
Divorce is a common example. Approximately one-half of all marriages now end in divorce, and about 30 to 40 percent of those undergoing divorce report a significant increase in symptoms of depression and anxiety (Brown & Harris, 1989). Vulnerability to depression and anxiety is greater among those with a personal history of mental disorders earlier in life and is lessened by strong social support. For many, divorce conveys additional economic adversities and the stress of single parenting. Single mothers face twice the risk of depression as do married mothers (Brown & Moran, 1997).
The death of a child or spouse during early or midadult life is much less common than divorce but generally is of greater potency in provoking emotional distress (Kim & Jacobs, 1995). Rates of diagnosable mental disorders during periods of grief are attenuated by the convention not to diagnose depression during the first 2 months of bereavement (Clayton & Darvish, 1979). In fact, people are generally unlikely to seek professional treatment during bereavement unless the severity of the emotional and behavioral disturbance is incapacitating.
A majority of Americans never will confront the stress of surviving a severe, life-threatening accident or physical assault (e.g., mugging, robbery, rape); however, some segments of the population, particularly urban youths and young adults, have exposure rates as high as 25 to 30 percent (Helzer et al., 1987; Breslau et al., 1991). Life-threatening trauma frequently provokes emotional and behavioral reactions that jeopardize mental health. In the most fully developed form, this syndrome is called post-traumatic stress disorder (DSM-IV), which is described later in this chapter. Women are twice as likely as men to develop post-traumatic stress disorder following exposure to life-threatening trauma (Breslau et al., 1998.)
More familiar to many Americans is the chronic strain that poor physical health and relationship problems place on day-to-day well-being. Relationship problems include unsatisfactory intimate relationships; conflicted relationships with parents, siblings, and children; and “falling-out” with coworkers, friends, and neighbors. In mid-adult life, the stress of caretaking for elderly parents also becomes more common.
Relationship problems at least double the risk of developing a mental disorder, although they are less immediately threatening or potentially cataclysmic than divorce or the death of a spouse or child (Brown & Harris, 1989). Finally, cumulative adversity appears to be more potent than stressful events in isolation as a predictor of psychological distress and mental disorders (Turner & Lloyd, 1995).
Past Trauma and Child Sexual Abuse
Severe trauma in childhood may have enduring effects into adulthood (Browne & Finkelhor, 1986). Past trauma includes sexual and physical abuse, and parental death, divorce, psychopathology, and substance abuse (reviewed in Turner & Lloyd, 1995).
Child sexual abuse is one of the most common stressors, with effects that persist into adulthood. It disproportionately affects females. Although definitions are still evolving, child sexual abuse is often defined as forcible touching of breasts or genitals or forcible intercourse (including anal, oral, or vaginal sex) before the age of 16 or 18 (Goodman et al., 1997). Epidemiology studies of adults in varying segments of the community have found that 15 to 33 percent of females and 13 to 16 percent of males were sexually abused in childhood (Polusny & Follette, 1995). A recent, large epidemiological study of adults in the general community found a lower prevalence (12.8 percent for females and 4.3 percent for males); however, the definition of sexual abuse was more restricted than in past studies (MacMillan et al., 1997). Sexual abuse in childhood has a mean age of onset estimated at 7 to 9 years of age (Polusny & Follette, 1995). In over 25 percent of cases of child sexual abuse, the offense was committed by a parent or parent substitute (Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996).
The long-term consequences of past childhood sexual abuse are profound, yet vary in expression. They range from depression and anxiety to problems with social functioning and adult interpersonal relationships (Polusny & Follette, 1995). Post-traumatic stress disorder is a common sequela, found in 33 to 86 percent of adult survivors of child sexual abuse (Polusny & Follette, 1995). In a recent review, Weiss et al. (1999) found that sexual abuse was a specific risk factor for adult-onset depression and twice as many women as men reported a history of abuse. Other long-term effects include self-destructive behavior, social isolation, poor sexual adjustment, substance abuse, and increased risk of revictimization (Browne & Finkelhor, 1986; Briere, 1992).
Very few treatments specifically for adult survivors of childhood abuse have been studied in randomized controlled trials (IOM, 1998). Group therapy and Interpersonal Transaction group therapy were found to be more effective for female survivors than an experimental control condition that offered a less appropriate intervention (Alexander et al., 1989, 1991). In the practice setting, most psychosocial and pharmacological treatments are tailored to the primary diagnosis, which, as noted above, varies widely and may not attend to the special needs of those also reporting abuse history.
Domestic Violence
Domestic violence is a serious and startlingly common public health problem with mental health consequences for victims, who are overwhelmingly female, and for children who witness the violence. Domestic violence (also known as intimate partner violence) features a pattern of physical and sexual abuse, psychological abuse with verbal intimidation, and/or social isolation or deprivation. Estimates are that 8 to 17 percent of women are victimized annually in the United States (Wilt & Olsen, 1996). Pinpointing the prevalence is hindered by variations in the way domestic violence is defined and by problems in detection and underreporting. Women are often fearful that their reporting of domestic violence will precipitate retaliation by the batterer, a fear that is not unwarranted (Sisley et al., 1999).
Victims of domestic violence are at increased risk for mental health problems and disorders as well as physical injury and death. Domestic violence is considered one of the foremost causes of serious injury to women ages 15 to 44, accounting for about 30 percent of all acute injuries to women seen in emergency departments (Wilt & Olsen, 1996). According to the U.S. Department of Justice, females were victims in about 75 percent of the almost 2,000 homicides between intimates in 1996 (cited in Sisley et al., 1999). The mental health consequences of domestic violence include depression, anxiety disorders (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder), suicide, eating disorders, and substance abuse (IOM, 1998; Eisenstat & Bancroft, 1999). Children who witness domestic violence may suffer acute and long-term emotional disturbances, including nightmares, depression, learning difficulties, and aggressive behavior. Children also become at risk for subsequent use of violence against their dating partners and wives (el-Bayoumi et al., 1998; NRC, 1998; Sisley et al., 1999).
Mental health interventions for victims, children, and batterers are highly important. Individual counseling and peer support groups are the interventions most frequently used by battered women. However, there is a lack of carefully controlled, methodologically robust studies of interventions and their outcomes, according to a report by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (IOM, 1998). A research agenda for violence against women was developed (IOM, 1996) and has served as an impetus for an ongoing research program sponsored by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services. Clearly, there is an urgent need for development and rigorous evaluation of prevention programs to safeguard against intimate partner violence and its impact on children.
Interventions for Stressful Life Events
Stressful life events, even for those at the peak of mental health, erode quality of life and place people at risk for symptoms and signs of mental disorders. There is an ever-expanding list of formal and informal interventions to aid individuals coping with adversity. Sources of informal interventions include family and friends, education, community services, self-help groups, social support networks, religious and spiritual endeavors, complementary healers, and physical activities. As valuable as these activities may be for promoting mental health, they have received less research attention than have interventions for mental disorders. Nevertheless, there are selected interventions to help people cope with stressors, such as bereavement programs and programs for caregivers (see Chapter 5) as well as couples therapy and physical activity.
Couples therapy is the umbrella term applied to interventions that aid couples in distress. The best studied interventions are behavioral couples therapy, cognitive-behavioral couples therapy, and emotion-focused couples therapy. A recent review article evaluated the body of evidence on the effectiveness of couples therapy and programs to prevent marital discord (Christensen & Heavey, 1999). The review found that about 65 percent of couples in therapy did improve, whereas 35 percent of control couples also improved. Couples therapy ameliorates relationship distress and appears to alleviate depression. The gains from couples therapy generally last through 6 months, but there are few long-term assessments (Christensen & Heavey, 1999). Similarly, interventions to prevent marital discord yield short-term improvements in marital adjustment and stability, but there is insufficient study of long-term outcomes. The prevention programs receiving the most study are the Couple Communication Program, Relationship Enhancement, and the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (Christensen & Heavey, 1999). Greater research is needed to overcome gaps in knowledge and to extend findings to a broader array of programs, to diverse populations of couples, and to a wider set of outcomes, including effects on children.
Physical activities are a means to enhance somatic health as well as to deal with stress. A recent Surgeon General’s Report on Physical Activity and Health evaluated the evidence for physical activities serving to enhance mental health (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 1996). Aerobic physical activities, such as brisk walking and running, were found to improve mental health for people who report symptoms of anxiety and depression and for those who are diagnosed with some forms of depression. The mental health benefits of physical activity for individuals in relatively good physical and mental health were not as evident, but the studies did not have sufficient rigor from which to draw unequivocal conclusions (DHHS, 1996).
Prevention of Mental Disorders
A promising development in prevention of a specific mental disorder in adults occurred with the publication of results from the San Francisco Depression Research Project (Munoz et al., 1995). This study investigated 150 primary care patients who did not meet diagnostic criteria for depression and who were being seen in a public clinic for other problems. They were randomized to either psychoeducation—an 8-week cognitive behavioral course to help them control and manage moods—or to a control condition. One year later, those who received psychoeducation were found to have developed significantly fewer depression symptoms than members of the control group. This trial is noteworthy in two major respects: it was a randomized controlled trial and its participants were low-income individuals, with high representation of all major minority groups. Low-income individuals are considered a high-risk population because of studies documenting their higher prevalence of mental disorders. This study demonstrated in a methodologically rigorous fashion that depression may be preventable in some cases. It serves as a model for extending the concept of prevention to many mental disorders. Prevention research is vitally important and needs to be enhanced.
March 31, 2010
Prevention Initiatives and Priority Programs Development Branch
Prevention Initiatives and Priority Programs Development Branch
The Prevention Initiatives and Priority Programs Development Branch is part of the Division of Prevention, Traumatic Stress, and Special Programs at the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS). CMHS is leading the effort to transform mental health systems and the way mental health services are perceived, accessed, delivered, and financed. A major way that the Prevention Initiatives and Priority Programs Development Branch (PIPPDB) supports transformation is through their grants and other programs that promote mental health for children, youth, and families and prevent mental and behavioral disorders for those who are at-risk.
PIPPDB currently has projects that focus on:
Youth Violence Prevention
The interdepartmental Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative (SS/HS) is designed to prevent school violence and foster the healthy development of children. The SS/HS Initiative is an unprecedented collaborative grant program supported by three federal agencies – the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, and Justice. The SS/HS Initiative seeks to develop real-world knowledge about what works best to promote safe and healthy environments in which America’s children can learn and develop. It is a unique Federal program designed to prevent violence and substance abuse in our Nation’s youth, schools, and communities.
Complementing SS/HS is PIPPDB’s Youth Violence Prevention Program that provides support for grantees to form and expand on community collaborations dedicated to the prevention of youth violence, substance abuse, suicide, and other mental health and behavioral problems.
Targeted Capacity Expansion grants for the Prevention Early Intervention Grant Program aim to develop mental health prevention and early intervention services targeted to infants, toddlers, preschool, and school-age children, and/or adolescents in both mental health settings and other settings that serve this population.
PIPPDB has also developed the 15+ Make Time to Listen, Take Time to Talk campaign based on the premise that parents who talk with their children about what is happening in their lives are better able to guide their children and this can be instrumental in building a healthier and safer environment for children. The initiative has been adapted to address the prevention of bullying and the climate of fear created by bullying through a national education and dissemination project.
Suicide Prevention
Recent reports by the Institute of Medicine and the World Health Organization have revealed the magnitude and impact of suicide, citing it as the cause of death for 30,000 Americans annually and over one million people worldwide. These reports, as well as the President’s New Freedom Commission Report and the Surgeon General’s National Strategy for Suicide Prevention, call for aggressive efforts to reduce the loss of life and suffering related to suicide.
The Branch supports several key initiatives designed to improve public and professional awareness of suicide as a preventable public health problem and to enhance the capabilities of the systems that promote prevention and recovery, including:
Cooperative Agreements for State-Sponsored Youth Suicide Prevention and Early Intervention Program. Three-year grants to support States and tribes in developing and implementing statewide or tribal youth suicide prevention and early intervention strategies, grounded in public/private collaboration.
Campus Suicide Prevention Grants. Three-year grants to institutions of higher education to enhance services for students with mental and behavioral health problems that can lead to school failure, depression, substance abuse, and suicide attempts.
Cooperative Agreement for the Suicide Prevention Resource Center (SPRC). Funds the continuation of a Federal Suicide Technical Assistance Center to provide guidance to State, tribal, and local grantees in the implementation of the suicide prevention strategy; create standards for data collection; and collect, evaluate, and disseminate data related to specific suicide prevention programs.
Networking and Certifying Suicide Prevention Hotlines. This grant provides funding to manage a toll-free national suicide prevention hotline network utilizing a life affirming number which routes calls from anywhere in the United States to a network of local crisis centers that can link callers to local emergency, mental health and social service resources.
Linking Adolescents at Risk to Mental Health Services Grant Program. This initiative is one of SAMHSA's Service-to-Science Grants programs. The purpose of the Adolescents at Risk program is to evaluate voluntary school-based programs that focus on identification and referral of high school youth who are at risk for suicide or suicide attempts. Eligible applicants are local educational agencies or nonprofit entities in conjunction with local educational agencies.
Collectively, these initiatives will further awareness of suicide, will promote suicide prevention and intervention efforts, and will reduce the numbers of lives lost and disrupted by suicide.
The Prevention Initiatives and Priority Programs Development Branch is part of the Division of Prevention, Traumatic Stress, and Special Programs at the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS). CMHS is leading the effort to transform mental health systems and the way mental health services are perceived, accessed, delivered, and financed. A major way that the Prevention Initiatives and Priority Programs Development Branch (PIPPDB) supports transformation is through their grants and other programs that promote mental health for children, youth, and families and prevent mental and behavioral disorders for those who are at-risk.
PIPPDB currently has projects that focus on:
Youth Violence Prevention
The interdepartmental Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative (SS/HS) is designed to prevent school violence and foster the healthy development of children. The SS/HS Initiative is an unprecedented collaborative grant program supported by three federal agencies – the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, and Justice. The SS/HS Initiative seeks to develop real-world knowledge about what works best to promote safe and healthy environments in which America’s children can learn and develop. It is a unique Federal program designed to prevent violence and substance abuse in our Nation’s youth, schools, and communities.
Complementing SS/HS is PIPPDB’s Youth Violence Prevention Program that provides support for grantees to form and expand on community collaborations dedicated to the prevention of youth violence, substance abuse, suicide, and other mental health and behavioral problems.
Targeted Capacity Expansion grants for the Prevention Early Intervention Grant Program aim to develop mental health prevention and early intervention services targeted to infants, toddlers, preschool, and school-age children, and/or adolescents in both mental health settings and other settings that serve this population.
PIPPDB has also developed the 15+ Make Time to Listen, Take Time to Talk campaign based on the premise that parents who talk with their children about what is happening in their lives are better able to guide their children and this can be instrumental in building a healthier and safer environment for children. The initiative has been adapted to address the prevention of bullying and the climate of fear created by bullying through a national education and dissemination project.
Suicide Prevention
Recent reports by the Institute of Medicine and the World Health Organization have revealed the magnitude and impact of suicide, citing it as the cause of death for 30,000 Americans annually and over one million people worldwide. These reports, as well as the President’s New Freedom Commission Report and the Surgeon General’s National Strategy for Suicide Prevention, call for aggressive efforts to reduce the loss of life and suffering related to suicide.
The Branch supports several key initiatives designed to improve public and professional awareness of suicide as a preventable public health problem and to enhance the capabilities of the systems that promote prevention and recovery, including:
Cooperative Agreements for State-Sponsored Youth Suicide Prevention and Early Intervention Program. Three-year grants to support States and tribes in developing and implementing statewide or tribal youth suicide prevention and early intervention strategies, grounded in public/private collaboration.
Campus Suicide Prevention Grants. Three-year grants to institutions of higher education to enhance services for students with mental and behavioral health problems that can lead to school failure, depression, substance abuse, and suicide attempts.
Cooperative Agreement for the Suicide Prevention Resource Center (SPRC). Funds the continuation of a Federal Suicide Technical Assistance Center to provide guidance to State, tribal, and local grantees in the implementation of the suicide prevention strategy; create standards for data collection; and collect, evaluate, and disseminate data related to specific suicide prevention programs.
Networking and Certifying Suicide Prevention Hotlines. This grant provides funding to manage a toll-free national suicide prevention hotline network utilizing a life affirming number which routes calls from anywhere in the United States to a network of local crisis centers that can link callers to local emergency, mental health and social service resources.
Linking Adolescents at Risk to Mental Health Services Grant Program. This initiative is one of SAMHSA's Service-to-Science Grants programs. The purpose of the Adolescents at Risk program is to evaluate voluntary school-based programs that focus on identification and referral of high school youth who are at risk for suicide or suicide attempts. Eligible applicants are local educational agencies or nonprofit entities in conjunction with local educational agencies.
Collectively, these initiatives will further awareness of suicide, will promote suicide prevention and intervention efforts, and will reduce the numbers of lives lost and disrupted by suicide.
March 30, 2010
Mental Health News
When I need help, where can I go?
For information about resources available in your community, contact your local mental health center or one of the local affiliates of national self-help organizations. These agencies can provide you with information on services designed to meet the needs of those suffering from mental disorders such as depression, schizophrenia, panic disorder, and other anxiety conditions. In addition, they will have information regarding services designed for specific cultural groups, children, the elderly, HIV-infected individuals, and refugees.
I don't have adequate personal finances, medical insurance, or hospitalization coverage – where would I get the money to pay for the service I may need?
In publicly funded mental health centers, such as those funded by state, city or county governments, the cost of many services is calculated according to what you can afford to pay. So, if you have no money, or very little, services are still provided. This is called a sliding-scale or sliding-fee basis of payment. Many employers make assistance programs available to their employees, often without charge. These programs – usually called Employee Assistance Programs – are designed to provide mental health services, including individual psychotherapy, family counseling, and assistance with problems of drug and alcohol abuse.
Are there other places to go for help?
Yes, there are alternatives. Many mental health programs operate independently. These include local clinics, family service agencies, mental health self-help groups, private psychiatric hospitals, private clinics, and private practitioners. If you go to a private clinic or practitioner, you will pay the full cost of the services, less the amount paid by your insurer or some other payment source. There are also many self-help organizations that operate drop-in centers and sponsor gatherings for group discussions to deal with problems associated with bereavement, suicide, depression, anxiety, phobias, panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, drugs, alcohol, eating disorders (bulimia, anorexia nervosa, obesity), spouse and child abuse, sexual abuse, rape, and coping with the problems of aging parents – to name a few. In addition, there are private practitioners who specialize in treating one or more of these problems. You may contact local chapters of self-help organizations to learn about various services available in your community.
I don't like to bother other people with my problems. Wouldn't it be better just to wait and work things out by myself?
That's like having a toothache and not going to the dentist. The results are the same – you keep on hurting and the problem will probably get worse.
Suppose I decide to go ahead and visit a mental health center. What goes on in one of those places?
A specially trained staff member will talk with you about the things that are worrying you.
Talk? I can talk to a friend for free – why pay someone?
You're quite right. If you have a wise and understanding friend who is willing to listen to your problems, you may not need professional help at all. But often that's not enough. You may need a professionally trained person to help you uncover what's really bothering you. Your friend probably does not have the skills to do this.
How can just talking make problems disappear?
When you're talking to someone who has professional training and has helped many others with problems similar to yours, that person is able to see the patterns in your life that have led to your unhappiness. In therapy, the job is to help you recognize those patterns – and you may try to change them. There may be times, however, when you will need a combination of "talk" therapy and medication.
Are psychiatrists the only ones who can help?
No. A therapist does not have to be a psychiatrist. A number of psychologists, social workers, nurses, mental health counselors, and others have been specially trained and licensed to work effectively with people's mental and emotional difficulties. However, only a psychiatrist is a medical doctor and therefore qualified to prescribe medication.
Since I work all day, it would be hard to go to a center during regular working hours. Are centers open at night or on weekends?
Often centers offer night or weekend appointments. Just contact the center for an appointment, which may be set up for a time that is convenient for both you and the center.
And how about doctors in private practice – do they sometimes see their patients after working hours?
Many doctors have evening hours to accommodate their patients. Some even see patients very early in the morning before they go to work.
I feel that I would be helped by going to a mental health center. Actually, I think my spouse could be helped too. But the idea of going to a "mental health center" would seem threatening to my spouse. Could I just pretend that it's something else?
No indeed. It's better to talk your spouse into it than to lie. Don't jeopardize trust by being deceptive. However, you may want to discuss it first with the center. Marital or family therapy is available when a problem exists that involves more than one family member.
If I go to a mental health center, what kind of treatment will I get?
There are many kinds of treatment. A professional at the center will work with you in determining the best form for your needs. Depending on the nature of the illness being treated, psychotherapy and/or treatment with medication may be recommended. Sometimes, joining a group of people who have similar problems is best; at other times, talking individually to a therapist is the answer.
Does taking therapy for mental and emotional problems always work?
Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. It primarily depends on you and the therapist. It is important to share your concerns in a serious, sincere, and open manner. Only if you are completely honest and open can you expect to receive the best support and advice.
What if I really try, but I still can't feel comfortable with the therapist?
There should be a "fit" between your personality and that of the therapist. Someone else – or some other method – may be more suitable for you. You can ask your therapist for a referral to another mental health professional, or, if you prefer, you can call one of the mental health associations for the names of other therapists in your area.
What if I am receiving medication and don't think it is helping?
If there is little or no change in your symptoms after five to six weeks, a different medication may be tried. Some people respond better to one medication than another. Some people also are helped by combining treatment with medications and another form of therapy.
Does a mental health center provide services for children?
Yes. Children's services are an important part of any center's program. Children usually respond very well to short-term help if they are not suffering from a severe disorder. Families often are asked to participate and are consulted if the child is found to have a serious disorder – such as autism, childhood depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or anorexia nervosa or bulimia – and long-term treatment is needed.
I have an elderly parent who has trouble remembering even close members of the family. He is physically still quite active and has wandered off a number of times. Could someone help with this?
A staff person at a center can advise you about ways you can best care for your parent. You may be referred to a special agency or organization that provides services designed especially to meet the needs of elderly people. The department of public welfare in your county can give you addresses and telephone numbers for both your county and state agencies on aging. These agencies provide information on services and programs for the elderly.
I have a friend who says she could use some professional help, but she is worried about keeping it confidential.
She needn't worry. Confidentiality is basic to therapy, and the patient has the right to control access to information about her treatment. Professional association guidelines plus federal and state laws underscore the importance of confidentiality in therapist-client relationships and govern the release of records. Some insurance companies require certain information from the therapist as a condition for payment, but that information can be released only if the patient gives written permission. If your friend wants to know exactly who gets information and what kind of information is released, she should ask her insurance provider and discuss it in detail with the therapist.
I have a relative with a severe mental problem. Should I urge this person to go to the hospital?
A person who is mentally ill should be in a hospital only if it is absolutely necessary. In general, most mental health professionals believe that persons with mental illness should live in the community and be treated there. That's why mental health centers and community support and rehabilitation programs stress the importance of having many different services available: day, night, and weekend care, and outpatient treatment through regular visits to an office or clinic.
Do emergency cases wind up as long-term patients in mental hospitals?
Generally no. Mental hospitals are used today for short-term crisis intervention when there are no other community services available or when a person needs extra care to stabilize a drug treatment regimen. Also they serve the small percentage of patients who need long-term, structured, supervised care and treatment in a protective setting.
I have heard people use the term "involuntary commitment." What does this mean?
In an emergency (for example, where a person is considered a danger to self or others), it is possible for someone to be admitted to a hospital for a short period against his or her will. The exact procedures that must be followed vary from one area to another, according to state and local laws. At the end of the emergency commitment period, the state must either release the individual, obtain his or her voluntary consent to extend commitment, or file with the court an extended commitment petition to continue to detain the person involuntarily. Most states require an emergency commitment hearing to be held within two to four days after hospital admission to justify continued involuntary confinement.
Whom can I call if I feel that my rights have been violated or if I want to report suspected violation of rights, abuse, or neglect?
Federal law provides that each state have a Protection and Advocacy (P&A) System. These agencies, partially funded by the Center for Mental Health Services, investigate reports of abuse and neglect in public or private mental health or treatment facilities for current residents or those admitted or discharged during the past 90 days. For the name of the P&A agency in your state, contact the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems.
For information about resources available in your community, contact your local mental health center or one of the local affiliates of national self-help organizations. These agencies can provide you with information on services designed to meet the needs of those suffering from mental disorders such as depression, schizophrenia, panic disorder, and other anxiety conditions. In addition, they will have information regarding services designed for specific cultural groups, children, the elderly, HIV-infected individuals, and refugees.
I don't have adequate personal finances, medical insurance, or hospitalization coverage – where would I get the money to pay for the service I may need?
In publicly funded mental health centers, such as those funded by state, city or county governments, the cost of many services is calculated according to what you can afford to pay. So, if you have no money, or very little, services are still provided. This is called a sliding-scale or sliding-fee basis of payment. Many employers make assistance programs available to their employees, often without charge. These programs – usually called Employee Assistance Programs – are designed to provide mental health services, including individual psychotherapy, family counseling, and assistance with problems of drug and alcohol abuse.
Are there other places to go for help?
Yes, there are alternatives. Many mental health programs operate independently. These include local clinics, family service agencies, mental health self-help groups, private psychiatric hospitals, private clinics, and private practitioners. If you go to a private clinic or practitioner, you will pay the full cost of the services, less the amount paid by your insurer or some other payment source. There are also many self-help organizations that operate drop-in centers and sponsor gatherings for group discussions to deal with problems associated with bereavement, suicide, depression, anxiety, phobias, panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, drugs, alcohol, eating disorders (bulimia, anorexia nervosa, obesity), spouse and child abuse, sexual abuse, rape, and coping with the problems of aging parents – to name a few. In addition, there are private practitioners who specialize in treating one or more of these problems. You may contact local chapters of self-help organizations to learn about various services available in your community.
I don't like to bother other people with my problems. Wouldn't it be better just to wait and work things out by myself?
That's like having a toothache and not going to the dentist. The results are the same – you keep on hurting and the problem will probably get worse.
Suppose I decide to go ahead and visit a mental health center. What goes on in one of those places?
A specially trained staff member will talk with you about the things that are worrying you.
Talk? I can talk to a friend for free – why pay someone?
You're quite right. If you have a wise and understanding friend who is willing to listen to your problems, you may not need professional help at all. But often that's not enough. You may need a professionally trained person to help you uncover what's really bothering you. Your friend probably does not have the skills to do this.
How can just talking make problems disappear?
When you're talking to someone who has professional training and has helped many others with problems similar to yours, that person is able to see the patterns in your life that have led to your unhappiness. In therapy, the job is to help you recognize those patterns – and you may try to change them. There may be times, however, when you will need a combination of "talk" therapy and medication.
Are psychiatrists the only ones who can help?
No. A therapist does not have to be a psychiatrist. A number of psychologists, social workers, nurses, mental health counselors, and others have been specially trained and licensed to work effectively with people's mental and emotional difficulties. However, only a psychiatrist is a medical doctor and therefore qualified to prescribe medication.
Since I work all day, it would be hard to go to a center during regular working hours. Are centers open at night or on weekends?
Often centers offer night or weekend appointments. Just contact the center for an appointment, which may be set up for a time that is convenient for both you and the center.
And how about doctors in private practice – do they sometimes see their patients after working hours?
Many doctors have evening hours to accommodate their patients. Some even see patients very early in the morning before they go to work.
I feel that I would be helped by going to a mental health center. Actually, I think my spouse could be helped too. But the idea of going to a "mental health center" would seem threatening to my spouse. Could I just pretend that it's something else?
No indeed. It's better to talk your spouse into it than to lie. Don't jeopardize trust by being deceptive. However, you may want to discuss it first with the center. Marital or family therapy is available when a problem exists that involves more than one family member.
If I go to a mental health center, what kind of treatment will I get?
There are many kinds of treatment. A professional at the center will work with you in determining the best form for your needs. Depending on the nature of the illness being treated, psychotherapy and/or treatment with medication may be recommended. Sometimes, joining a group of people who have similar problems is best; at other times, talking individually to a therapist is the answer.
Does taking therapy for mental and emotional problems always work?
Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. It primarily depends on you and the therapist. It is important to share your concerns in a serious, sincere, and open manner. Only if you are completely honest and open can you expect to receive the best support and advice.
What if I really try, but I still can't feel comfortable with the therapist?
There should be a "fit" between your personality and that of the therapist. Someone else – or some other method – may be more suitable for you. You can ask your therapist for a referral to another mental health professional, or, if you prefer, you can call one of the mental health associations for the names of other therapists in your area.
What if I am receiving medication and don't think it is helping?
If there is little or no change in your symptoms after five to six weeks, a different medication may be tried. Some people respond better to one medication than another. Some people also are helped by combining treatment with medications and another form of therapy.
Does a mental health center provide services for children?
Yes. Children's services are an important part of any center's program. Children usually respond very well to short-term help if they are not suffering from a severe disorder. Families often are asked to participate and are consulted if the child is found to have a serious disorder – such as autism, childhood depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or anorexia nervosa or bulimia – and long-term treatment is needed.
I have an elderly parent who has trouble remembering even close members of the family. He is physically still quite active and has wandered off a number of times. Could someone help with this?
A staff person at a center can advise you about ways you can best care for your parent. You may be referred to a special agency or organization that provides services designed especially to meet the needs of elderly people. The department of public welfare in your county can give you addresses and telephone numbers for both your county and state agencies on aging. These agencies provide information on services and programs for the elderly.
I have a friend who says she could use some professional help, but she is worried about keeping it confidential.
She needn't worry. Confidentiality is basic to therapy, and the patient has the right to control access to information about her treatment. Professional association guidelines plus federal and state laws underscore the importance of confidentiality in therapist-client relationships and govern the release of records. Some insurance companies require certain information from the therapist as a condition for payment, but that information can be released only if the patient gives written permission. If your friend wants to know exactly who gets information and what kind of information is released, she should ask her insurance provider and discuss it in detail with the therapist.
I have a relative with a severe mental problem. Should I urge this person to go to the hospital?
A person who is mentally ill should be in a hospital only if it is absolutely necessary. In general, most mental health professionals believe that persons with mental illness should live in the community and be treated there. That's why mental health centers and community support and rehabilitation programs stress the importance of having many different services available: day, night, and weekend care, and outpatient treatment through regular visits to an office or clinic.
Do emergency cases wind up as long-term patients in mental hospitals?
Generally no. Mental hospitals are used today for short-term crisis intervention when there are no other community services available or when a person needs extra care to stabilize a drug treatment regimen. Also they serve the small percentage of patients who need long-term, structured, supervised care and treatment in a protective setting.
I have heard people use the term "involuntary commitment." What does this mean?
In an emergency (for example, where a person is considered a danger to self or others), it is possible for someone to be admitted to a hospital for a short period against his or her will. The exact procedures that must be followed vary from one area to another, according to state and local laws. At the end of the emergency commitment period, the state must either release the individual, obtain his or her voluntary consent to extend commitment, or file with the court an extended commitment petition to continue to detain the person involuntarily. Most states require an emergency commitment hearing to be held within two to four days after hospital admission to justify continued involuntary confinement.
Whom can I call if I feel that my rights have been violated or if I want to report suspected violation of rights, abuse, or neglect?
Federal law provides that each state have a Protection and Advocacy (P&A) System. These agencies, partially funded by the Center for Mental Health Services, investigate reports of abuse and neglect in public or private mental health or treatment facilities for current residents or those admitted or discharged during the past 90 days. For the name of the P&A agency in your state, contact the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems.
March 28, 2010
A guide to mental health concerns for victims of violent crime
A guide to mental health concerns for victims of violent crime
As a survivor of violent crime, you may face a wide range of emotional and physical struggles, along with some difficult questions that often surface: Why did this happen to me? How will I ever heal from this? Why can’t I connect with others the way I did before? When will I start to feel “normal” again? While the answers may be different for each individual, there are some striking similarities in how trauma affects nearly all victims. Understanding the nature and impact of violent trauma can be essential to the healing process. This brochure is intended as a guide to help you along the path to healing and to avoid some of the common pitfalls along the way.
What is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)?
PTSD is a mental health condition that can be caused by experiencing or observing virtually any kind of deep emotional trauma, especially one that is unexpected. Millions of people in the United States suffer from PTSD, resulting from many different types of trauma—from enduring years of domestic violence to a single violent attack that lasts but a few seconds. PTSD is characterized by both emotional and physical suffering; many afflicted by it find themselves unintentionally revisiting their trauma through flashbacks or nightmares. PTSD can make you feel isolated, disconnected, and “different” from other people—and it can even begin to affect the most routine activities of everyday life. PTSD is a potentially serious condition that should not be taken lightly.
Why is substance abuse common following a traumatic event?
Since violent trauma can bring about so many changes, questions, and uncertainties, many survivors turn to alcohol and illicit drugs in an attempt to get some relief from their almost round-the-clock emotional turmoil and suffering. Substance abuse and mental health problems often accompany violent trauma. All survivors of trauma manage their experiences in different ways. Substance abuse, however, is not only an ineffective tool in healing from trauma, but it also can present a host of additional problems that make the healing process even more difficult.
What can I do if I am experiencing PTSD or if substance abuse becomes a problem for me?
According to a recent study conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the most effective way to combat trauma, substance abuse, and mental health problems is through an integrated, holistic approach, taking into account how each individual problem affects the others. To begin, it can help to share your experiences and concerns with a service provider (e.g. counselor, physician, victim witness coordinator) who can assist in developing a plan to address all of your struggles comprehensively. Psychologists and counselors with experience treating trauma survivors can be very helpful in working through PTSD, and there are prescription drugs available to help ease PTSD symptoms.
PTSD can make you feel isolated, disconnected, and “different” from other people—and it can even begin to affect the most routine activities of everyday life.
What can I do to begin the healing process?
There are some positive steps that you can take right away to begin healing. Here are some suggestions:
Recognize your loss.
Establish safety for yourself.
Respect the way you feel and your right to feel that way.
Talk about your feelings with those you trust.
Connect with other survivors of violence, many of whom experience similar difficulties.
Do not be afraid to seek professional help.
Try to recognize triggers that may take you back to the memory and fear of your trauma.
Try to be patient and avoid making rash decisions—it can take time to figure out where you are, where you want to be, and how to get there.
Take care of yourself—exercise, eat right, and take a deep breath when you feel tense.
Try to turn your negative experience into something positive—volunteer, donate, or do something else to constructively channel your energy and emotions.
Do not abandon hope—believe that healing can and will take place.
Where can I go for help?
The healing process takes time, and many questions, hurdles and frustrations may surface along the way.
Contact Information
SAMHSA’s Mental Health Services Locator
www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/databases
SAMHSA’s National Mental Health
Information Center
1-800-789-2647
1-866-889-2647 (tdd)
As a survivor of violent crime, you may face a wide range of emotional and physical struggles, along with some difficult questions that often surface: Why did this happen to me? How will I ever heal from this? Why can’t I connect with others the way I did before? When will I start to feel “normal” again? While the answers may be different for each individual, there are some striking similarities in how trauma affects nearly all victims. Understanding the nature and impact of violent trauma can be essential to the healing process. This brochure is intended as a guide to help you along the path to healing and to avoid some of the common pitfalls along the way.
What is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)?
PTSD is a mental health condition that can be caused by experiencing or observing virtually any kind of deep emotional trauma, especially one that is unexpected. Millions of people in the United States suffer from PTSD, resulting from many different types of trauma—from enduring years of domestic violence to a single violent attack that lasts but a few seconds. PTSD is characterized by both emotional and physical suffering; many afflicted by it find themselves unintentionally revisiting their trauma through flashbacks or nightmares. PTSD can make you feel isolated, disconnected, and “different” from other people—and it can even begin to affect the most routine activities of everyday life. PTSD is a potentially serious condition that should not be taken lightly.
Why is substance abuse common following a traumatic event?
Since violent trauma can bring about so many changes, questions, and uncertainties, many survivors turn to alcohol and illicit drugs in an attempt to get some relief from their almost round-the-clock emotional turmoil and suffering. Substance abuse and mental health problems often accompany violent trauma. All survivors of trauma manage their experiences in different ways. Substance abuse, however, is not only an ineffective tool in healing from trauma, but it also can present a host of additional problems that make the healing process even more difficult.
What can I do if I am experiencing PTSD or if substance abuse becomes a problem for me?
According to a recent study conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the most effective way to combat trauma, substance abuse, and mental health problems is through an integrated, holistic approach, taking into account how each individual problem affects the others. To begin, it can help to share your experiences and concerns with a service provider (e.g. counselor, physician, victim witness coordinator) who can assist in developing a plan to address all of your struggles comprehensively. Psychologists and counselors with experience treating trauma survivors can be very helpful in working through PTSD, and there are prescription drugs available to help ease PTSD symptoms.
PTSD can make you feel isolated, disconnected, and “different” from other people—and it can even begin to affect the most routine activities of everyday life.
What can I do to begin the healing process?
There are some positive steps that you can take right away to begin healing. Here are some suggestions:
Recognize your loss.
Establish safety for yourself.
Respect the way you feel and your right to feel that way.
Talk about your feelings with those you trust.
Connect with other survivors of violence, many of whom experience similar difficulties.
Do not be afraid to seek professional help.
Try to recognize triggers that may take you back to the memory and fear of your trauma.
Try to be patient and avoid making rash decisions—it can take time to figure out where you are, where you want to be, and how to get there.
Take care of yourself—exercise, eat right, and take a deep breath when you feel tense.
Try to turn your negative experience into something positive—volunteer, donate, or do something else to constructively channel your energy and emotions.
Do not abandon hope—believe that healing can and will take place.
Where can I go for help?
The healing process takes time, and many questions, hurdles and frustrations may surface along the way.
Contact Information
SAMHSA’s Mental Health Services Locator
www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/databases
SAMHSA’s National Mental Health
Information Center
1-800-789-2647
1-866-889-2647 (tdd)
March 24, 2010
Autism
What is autism?
Autism, also called autistic disorder, appears in early childhood, usually before age 3 (National Institutes of Health, 2001). Autism prevents children and adolescents from interacting normally with other people and affects almost every aspect of their social and psychological development.
Back to Top
What are the signs of autism?
Autism has a wide variety of characteristics ranging in intensity from mild to severe. One child with autism does not behave like another child with the same diagnosis. Children and adolescents with autism typically:
Have difficulty communicating with others.
Exhibit repetitious behaviors, such as rocking back and forth, head banging, or touching or twirling objects.
Have a limited range of interests and activities.
May become upset by a small change in their environment or daily routine.
In addition to these characteristics, some children with autism experience hypersensitivity to hearing, touch, smell, or taste. Symptoms of autism can be seen in early infancy, but the condition also may appear after months of normal development. In most cases, however, it is not possible to identify a specific event that triggers the disorder.
Back to Top
How common is autism?
Studies estimate that as many as 12 in every 10,000 children have autism or a related condition (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999). Autism is three times more common in boys than in girls (National Institutes of Health, 2001).
Back to Top
What causes autism?
Researchers are unsure about what causes autism. Several studies suggest that autism might be caused by a combination of biological or environmental factors, or both, including viral exposure before birth, a problem with the immune system, or genetics. Many recently published scientific investigations have examined the possible connection between autism and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. At this time, though, the available data do not appear to support a causal link.
Studies of families and twins suggest a genetic basis for the disorder. It is important for scientists to find the genes responsible for autism, if any, because this knowledge would give physicians new tools to diagnose the disorder and help scientists develop gene-based therapies.
Some studies have found that the brains of people with autism may function differently from those that are considered "normal." Research suggests that an abnormal slowing down of brain development before birth may cause autism. Studies also are looking at how autism-related problems in brain development may affect behavior later in childhood. For example, some researchers are investigating the ways in which infants with autism process information and how the disorder may lead to poor development of social skills, knowledge, and awareness.
Chemicals in the brain also may play a role in autism. As a normal brain develops, the level of serotonin, a chemical found in the brain, declines. In some children with autism, however, serotonin levels do not decline. Researchers are investigating whether this happens only to children with autism or whether other factors are involved.
Back to Top
What help is available for families?
Since brain development can be influenced during early childhood, the treatment of autism has a greater chance of success when initiated as early as possible. In addition, when children with autism are treated early, the cost of long-term care may be reduced. Services and treatments that may benefit children and adolescents with autism and their families include:
Training in communication, social, learning, and self-help skills.
Programs in which other children help to teach children with autism.
Parent training.
Medications to reduce symptoms related to self-injury, seizures, digestive difficulties, and attention problems.
When services are started soon after a child is diagnosed with autism, the child's language, social, and academic skills and abilities may be greatly improved. On the other hand, some children and adolescents do not respond well to treatment or may experience negative side effects from autism medications. Recent data suggest that some of the newer antipsychotic drugs may have fewer side effects than conventional drugs, but more studies are needed before experts can determine any possible safety advantages over traditional treatments.
Back to Top
What can parents do?
Parents or other caregivers concerned about a child who shows symptoms of autism should:
Talk with a health care provider about their concerns. He or she can help to determine whether the symptoms are caused by autism, a related disorder, or another condition. If necessary, the health care provider can refer the family to a mental health expert who specializes in treating persons with autism.
Get accurate information from libraries, hotlines, or other sources.
Ask questions about treatments and services.
Talk to other families in their communities who are coping with autism.
Find family network organizations.
People who are not satisfied with the mental health care they receive should discuss their concerns with the provider, ask for information, and/or seek help from other sources.
This is one of many fact sheets in a series on children's mental health disorders. All the fact sheets listed below are written in an easy-to-read style. Families, caretakers, and media professionals may find them helpful when researching particular mental health disorders. To obtain free copies, call 1-800-789-2647 or visit http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/child.
Autism, also called autistic disorder, appears in early childhood, usually before age 3 (National Institutes of Health, 2001). Autism prevents children and adolescents from interacting normally with other people and affects almost every aspect of their social and psychological development.
Back to Top
What are the signs of autism?
Autism has a wide variety of characteristics ranging in intensity from mild to severe. One child with autism does not behave like another child with the same diagnosis. Children and adolescents with autism typically:
Have difficulty communicating with others.
Exhibit repetitious behaviors, such as rocking back and forth, head banging, or touching or twirling objects.
Have a limited range of interests and activities.
May become upset by a small change in their environment or daily routine.
In addition to these characteristics, some children with autism experience hypersensitivity to hearing, touch, smell, or taste. Symptoms of autism can be seen in early infancy, but the condition also may appear after months of normal development. In most cases, however, it is not possible to identify a specific event that triggers the disorder.
Back to Top
How common is autism?
Studies estimate that as many as 12 in every 10,000 children have autism or a related condition (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999). Autism is three times more common in boys than in girls (National Institutes of Health, 2001).
Back to Top
What causes autism?
Researchers are unsure about what causes autism. Several studies suggest that autism might be caused by a combination of biological or environmental factors, or both, including viral exposure before birth, a problem with the immune system, or genetics. Many recently published scientific investigations have examined the possible connection between autism and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. At this time, though, the available data do not appear to support a causal link.
Studies of families and twins suggest a genetic basis for the disorder. It is important for scientists to find the genes responsible for autism, if any, because this knowledge would give physicians new tools to diagnose the disorder and help scientists develop gene-based therapies.
Some studies have found that the brains of people with autism may function differently from those that are considered "normal." Research suggests that an abnormal slowing down of brain development before birth may cause autism. Studies also are looking at how autism-related problems in brain development may affect behavior later in childhood. For example, some researchers are investigating the ways in which infants with autism process information and how the disorder may lead to poor development of social skills, knowledge, and awareness.
Chemicals in the brain also may play a role in autism. As a normal brain develops, the level of serotonin, a chemical found in the brain, declines. In some children with autism, however, serotonin levels do not decline. Researchers are investigating whether this happens only to children with autism or whether other factors are involved.
Back to Top
What help is available for families?
Since brain development can be influenced during early childhood, the treatment of autism has a greater chance of success when initiated as early as possible. In addition, when children with autism are treated early, the cost of long-term care may be reduced. Services and treatments that may benefit children and adolescents with autism and their families include:
Training in communication, social, learning, and self-help skills.
Programs in which other children help to teach children with autism.
Parent training.
Medications to reduce symptoms related to self-injury, seizures, digestive difficulties, and attention problems.
When services are started soon after a child is diagnosed with autism, the child's language, social, and academic skills and abilities may be greatly improved. On the other hand, some children and adolescents do not respond well to treatment or may experience negative side effects from autism medications. Recent data suggest that some of the newer antipsychotic drugs may have fewer side effects than conventional drugs, but more studies are needed before experts can determine any possible safety advantages over traditional treatments.
Back to Top
What can parents do?
Parents or other caregivers concerned about a child who shows symptoms of autism should:
Talk with a health care provider about their concerns. He or she can help to determine whether the symptoms are caused by autism, a related disorder, or another condition. If necessary, the health care provider can refer the family to a mental health expert who specializes in treating persons with autism.
Get accurate information from libraries, hotlines, or other sources.
Ask questions about treatments and services.
Talk to other families in their communities who are coping with autism.
Find family network organizations.
People who are not satisfied with the mental health care they receive should discuss their concerns with the provider, ask for information, and/or seek help from other sources.
This is one of many fact sheets in a series on children's mental health disorders. All the fact sheets listed below are written in an easy-to-read style. Families, caretakers, and media professionals may find them helpful when researching particular mental health disorders. To obtain free copies, call 1-800-789-2647 or visit http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/child.
March 22, 2010
Health Service Disparities: Access, Quality, and Diversity
Online CEUs
Health Service Disparities: Access, Quality, and Diversity
CHAIR: Spero M. Manson, Ph.D., University of Colorado.
ACCESS, BARRIERS, and QUALITY
Pathways into, through, and out of service systems are issues of critical importance when addressing access to care, adequacy or appropriateness of care, as well as quality. This panel addressed these issues examining the impact of race, ethnicity, and cultural attitudes.
David T. Takeuchi, Ph.D.,
Indiana University
Dr. Takeuchi discussed the importance of race as a separate and independent factor in children's mental health status, as well as access to and quality of care. Over the past two decades, it has been common to advocate for a more universal approach to resolving the disparities found among racial groups. Despite one's position regarding whether race has or has not declined in significance in American society, an advocacy for policies that attempt to reduce socio-economic status (SES) differentials is seen as a more effective public policy strategy to gain acceptance among all racial groups and, equally important, policy makers.
While this approach is popular and well meaning, it tends to ignore an evolving body of research that finds race to have a strong effect on mental health variables, independent of SES. For example, a recent study assessing health outcomes for 50 states found a strong association between racial composition and health. The greater the minority composition, the poorer the child health profiles. When race was included in analytical models, income and equality did not have a significant association with child health outcomes. Another significant variable linked to improved child health outcomes was the willingness of states to fund social welfare programs. These analyses suggest that simply focusing on income inequality will not resolve racism and its consequences. Racism is a continuous problem and creates a social environment characterized by alienation, frustration, powerlessness, stress and demoralization, all of which can have pernicious consequences on mental health. There are programs that are trying to make health systems more equitable through education, and attempting to reduce stereotypes and prejudice by providing information about different racial groups. Research indicates, however, that individuals who have preexisting racist beliefs may actually have these beliefs reinforced through such educational programs.
In order to address ethnic and racial inequities in children's mental healthcare, racism must be viewed in a broader context, focusing on institutional racism and the racial hierarchy of society and its systems, including healthcare. It is unclear how to do this, but two examples to consider would be Native Americans' building casinos to address economic inequity; and Native Hawaiians' current effort to achieve sovereignty. These are two natural situations in which it can be seen how health outcomes will be influenced.
Margarita AlegrÃa, Ph.D.,
University of Puerto Rico
Dr. AlegrÃa discussed challenges in advancing equity in mental healthcare for children of color. She presented three arguments for increased focus on racial and ethnic differences. First, race, ethnicity and culture of children play a major role in shaping the care provided to them by health institutions. Racial, ethnic and cultural differences influence the expression and identification of the need for services. Studies have shown ethnic and racial differences in youths' self-reports of problem behaviors, caregivers' value judgments of what is normative behavior, and caregiver expectations of the child. Ethnic and racial bias in who gets identified, referred and treated within certain institutions has also been documented. For example, African American youth are more frequently referred for conduct problems to corrections rather than psychiatric hospitals, even with lower or equal measures of aggressive behavior. Quality of care is also impacted. For example, ADHD is less often treated by medications in minority groups than in white populations. There is also increased probability of misdiagnoses among minority individuals, affecting subsequent care.
Second, there are challenges in identifying the mechanisms by which ethnicity, race, and culture account for disparities in behavioral and emotional problems and service delivery. Understanding these mechanisms has important implications for how to intervene correctly. Factors that mediate such challenges may be related to lack of early detection by providers and parents; untrained and culturally insensitive providers; and lack of parent and provider knowledge of efficacious treatments. For example, Latino youths have the highest rate of suicide, yet they are less likely to be identified by their caregivers as having problems. Disparities in services may be due to different barriers such as insurance status and settings where mental healthcare is delivered. Minority children tend to receive mental health services through the juvenile justice and welfare systems more often than through schools or special settings.
Third, efforts to address racial and ethnic disparities in mental health and service delivery are constrained by profound socio-environmental, institutional, and market forces. For example, managed care, by targeting medical necessity, may be constrained in obtaining the complexity of funding streams that are necessary to service minority children in the schools, juvenile justice settings or welfare agencies. Expansion of Medicaid eligibility for near poor families may not prove sufficient to increase mental health service usage, if it is not tied to increased provider availability and provider payment incentives to treat minority populations within depressed inner-city communities. Thus, a critical analysis of how residential, institutional, and market policies may create disparities is needed, and more importantly, how these policies are implemented in ways that result in disparities. There is a need to address these disparities by moving beyond the healthcare sector, examining neighborhoods where minority children live (areas of economic disadvantage, concentration of violence in certain areas), addressing the institutions with which minority children interact (i.e., the referral bias in the various systems), and addressing the role of managed care and the lack of culturally competent providers in the various systems.
Suggestions to address these disparities include: (1) Ensure that efforts focus not only on equalizing access to treatment, but also on equalizing outcomes of care; (2) Aggressively monitor institutional progress towards an equitable and compassionate system of mental healthcare for children of color; and (3) Move beyond policy interventions in the healthcare system to more socio-educational approaches, where government agencies are not agents of control but agents of support.
Kenneth B. Wells, M.D., M.P.H.,
UCLA/RAND
Dr. Wells presented new preliminary data from three national surveys on access to specialty mental healthcare. The findings demonstrated high levels of unmet need for specialty care for children and adolescents and substantial ethnic disparities in access to such care. Detailed findings will be presented in a forthcoming article. Dr. Wells also drew attention to key issues in formulating public policy to address unmet need for child services. One set of issues relates to children in the public sector, where differences within and across states in implementation of policies to cover uninsured children result in children with varying degrees of vulnerability to unmet need for mental healthcare. Policies that guarantee coverage for uninsured children across diverse populations and geographic areas are needed to address this problem. Another set of issues applies to the private sector, where there has been much debate about the feasibility of implementing parity for mental health and physical health services for both children and adults; yet prior studies suggest that children have more to gain from parity, as they tend to be high utilizers if they use services and more quickly reach plan limits on coverage (Sturm, 1997). Thus achieving parity of coverage in the private sector may be especially important for addressing the unmet need for child mental health services. Yet, Dr. Wells indicated that the meaning of parity is changing under managed care, as the defined benefit does not necessarily directly correspond to the level of care provided under management policies (Burnam and Escarce,1999). Finally, Dr. Wells provided an example of the promise of quality improvement for mental disorders for adults, Partners in Care; in that study, depressed primary care patients from clinics using quality improvement programs had better one-year clinical outcomes and retention in employment than similar patients in clinics without quality improvement programs (Wells, et. al., 2000). These kinds of studies should be developed for children and adolescents with major mental disorders, as we develop practice-based solutions across public and private sectors to address unmet mental healthcare needs of diverse child and adolescent populations.
Suggestions for future research include: (1) Develop access and mental health quality of care indicators for children and adolescents; (2) Profile unmet need for under- and uninsured subgroups in particular areas, in light of disparity in coverage and implementation across federal and state programs; and (3) Monitor access and quality of care for children and adolescents nationally. Suggestions for policy changes include: (1) For the uninsured, replace existing programs or fill the diverse gaps in federal and state policies; (2) For the privately insured, start with parity of mental health coverage with medical conditions, and enforce tougher mandates for implementation. In addition, the management and quality under parity needs to be evaluated; and (3) For the publicly insured, implement quality improvement, and reduce delays and the financial barriers to mental healthcare.
REACHING OUT TO AND ENGAGING FAMILIES
This panel discussed the challenges affecting access to and coordination of mental healthcare for children and families, including the lack of availability of non-traditional services. One critical question addressed how to better engage families in evidence-based services and treatments.
Barbara J. Friesen, Ph.D.,
Portland State University
Dr. Friesen argued that effective mental health services require cultural competence, full family participation and appropriate services and supports. Family support and participation can provide benefits, including reduced need for inpatient treatment, shorter length of inpatient stay, better service coordination, increased likelihood that a child will return home following out-of-home placement, and increased caregiver satisfaction. When families were involved in the child welfare system, they were more likely to follow through with treatment and the caseworkers were more likely to provide appropriate care.
There are several significant barriers to family participation and effective treatment for children's psychiatric disorders. First, stigma attached to mental disorders results in families feeling at fault for their child's mental illness. Low-income families are most likely to receive disrespect from healthcare providers. Second, family and service providers lack information. Third, gaps in services are a major problem. Even when a family is armed with information about exactly what they are looking for, very often they cannot find it. Other practical, tangible barriers include cost; many families have gone bankrupt trying to care for their children. The most damaging policy is one in which parents need to give up custody in order to get services for their children. Distance can also be a barrier to care. Sometimes families must travel long distances to receive appropriate care for their child.
Suggestions for engaging families include: (1) Develop anti-stigma campaigns to educate the public and healthcare providers; (2) Train services providers in effective, family-centered treatment approaches; (3) Support family members and family organizations who can improve access to services through a variety of outreach and support roles; and (4) Evaluate these practices.
C. Veree’ Jenkins,
Family Involvement Coordinator, Family HOPE, West Palm Beach, Florida
Ms. Jenkins described her family's experience overcoming the ravages of the mental illness of her son, Joel. She called it the story of "J.O.E.L.: Joy Overcoming Everything Logical." She emphasized the importance of faith in dealing with a child's mental illness. Joel had a journey through mental illness, substance abuse, the juvenile justice system and early fatherhood. All along the way, no one ever asked the family their faith and what they believed in, said Ms. Jenkins. In a substance abuse treatment program, Joel had his bible taken from him, told it was a crutch preventing him from overcoming his substance abuse problems. But, Ms. Jenkins said, you need faith in God to make it through these systems; you put faith in the hands of the therapist managing your care and sometimes are let down. Finally, Joel went to the church where he found ‘wrap-around faith’ where they provided mentoring, counseling services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, helped him get a job, and get rid of his guns and provided other assistance. Ms. Jenkins encouraged consideration of faith-based organizations, which can provide safe havens, camps, music, art, and all sorts of activities that can be very helpful to a family in need. Joel is now drug, alcohol and cigarette free. He is a law-abiding citizen, married, a good parent, employed and owns his home. A recent graduate of the McCollough Seminary, he is Assistant Youth Pastor of his church. As a family, Joel, Ms. Jenkins and her husband work together to share their faith and hope with others.
Lynn Pedraza, Ed.S.,
Family Member
Ms. Pedraza described how her family, which includes biological, foster and adoptive children, encountered many challenges trying to navigate the multiple systems often involved in the care and treatment of children with mental disorders. So much of the mental health world operates from a deficit perspective requiring families to prove their needs, rather than strengths, to get services. Workers have coerced parents and threatened to take children away when families try to fight for appropriate services. Suggestions to engage families include: (1) Put mental health at the forefront of health policy decisions and research efforts; (2) Research should focus on the human side of mental health, the connections to others, trust, pleasure, joy and respect. In other words, examine what caring looks like and what happens when this caring is incorporated into mental health services; and (3) Researchers need to become involved with families and their children long enough and deeply enough to really understand the multiple factors that affect children and their families. Researchers need to listen to families.
DISCUSSANTS
Brenda Souto,
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill
Ms. Souto described her experiences as a parent of a child with several disorders. She has been her son's case manager for 20 years and has had good experiences with psychiatrists and psychologists in Maryland, a parity-enforced state. Trying to find good services was another problem. She cited a report, Families on the Brink, that NAMI released a year ago, summarizing the stigmatization of families who often are blamed for no-fault brain disorders. She said the most unfortunate result of the lack of access to mental healthcare is when the family is forced to relinquish custody of their ill child to the state in order to get needed mental health services.
Carl Bell, M.D.,
Community Mental Health Council, Chicago
Dr. Bell described the insufficient infrastructure in the community health system. Back in 1980, President Jimmy Carter pushed for a plan to increase the infrastructure. But the plan never came into being because Carter lost the presidency. Dr. Bell encouraged conference participants to make sure they take action to ensure the agenda moves forward. He is particularly interested in African Americans. In order to fix the problems of African Americans within these various systems, African Americans must be involved in the conversations. The black community trusts the community centers but not the universities. Black people are concerned about who is testing their children and why. Partnerships between community-based organizations and the universities is one way to make technical expertise available to train community-based staff. Such efforts are underway at Dr. Bell's agency and the University of Illinois in Chicago, but they are costly. Few community agencies have the resources needed to train their staff in evidence-based interventions. Community-based organizations need to receive funding to assist them in training their staff and such support is necessary to help infuse evidence-based interventions into community-based services.
Michael M. Faenza, MSSW,
National Mental Health Association
Mr. Faenza noted that this session's presentations demonstrate children's mental health as a social justice issue. The disparities in access and treatment highlight the social injustice issues that come into play in children's services. He highlighted challenges in diagnosing mental disorders in children, and a need for more research in diagnosis and treatment. Because so much negative public attention is focused on overprescription of psychotropic medications and overdiagnosis in young children, particular sensitivity around such issues is needed to prevent the damage that such publicity could do. The prevalence of mental disorders and substance abuse disorders in the juvenile justice system suggests a starting point for change in operative services systems for children.
Phillipa Hambrick,
Family Member
Ms. Hambrick described her experiences as a grandmother and mother, providing family care to four grandchildren in need of mental health services for ADHD and major depression. She had difficulty getting services for these children, due to distance or because the children were put on a waiting list for services. The children eventually received services through the school system and through youth and family services. But such services must be expanded and made more comprehensive, she said. If she were to move, her children would lose the services because they would be in a different jurisdiction.
Health Service Disparities: Access, Quality, and Diversity
CHAIR: Spero M. Manson, Ph.D., University of Colorado.
ACCESS, BARRIERS, and QUALITY
Pathways into, through, and out of service systems are issues of critical importance when addressing access to care, adequacy or appropriateness of care, as well as quality. This panel addressed these issues examining the impact of race, ethnicity, and cultural attitudes.
David T. Takeuchi, Ph.D.,
Indiana University
Dr. Takeuchi discussed the importance of race as a separate and independent factor in children's mental health status, as well as access to and quality of care. Over the past two decades, it has been common to advocate for a more universal approach to resolving the disparities found among racial groups. Despite one's position regarding whether race has or has not declined in significance in American society, an advocacy for policies that attempt to reduce socio-economic status (SES) differentials is seen as a more effective public policy strategy to gain acceptance among all racial groups and, equally important, policy makers.
While this approach is popular and well meaning, it tends to ignore an evolving body of research that finds race to have a strong effect on mental health variables, independent of SES. For example, a recent study assessing health outcomes for 50 states found a strong association between racial composition and health. The greater the minority composition, the poorer the child health profiles. When race was included in analytical models, income and equality did not have a significant association with child health outcomes. Another significant variable linked to improved child health outcomes was the willingness of states to fund social welfare programs. These analyses suggest that simply focusing on income inequality will not resolve racism and its consequences. Racism is a continuous problem and creates a social environment characterized by alienation, frustration, powerlessness, stress and demoralization, all of which can have pernicious consequences on mental health. There are programs that are trying to make health systems more equitable through education, and attempting to reduce stereotypes and prejudice by providing information about different racial groups. Research indicates, however, that individuals who have preexisting racist beliefs may actually have these beliefs reinforced through such educational programs.
In order to address ethnic and racial inequities in children's mental healthcare, racism must be viewed in a broader context, focusing on institutional racism and the racial hierarchy of society and its systems, including healthcare. It is unclear how to do this, but two examples to consider would be Native Americans' building casinos to address economic inequity; and Native Hawaiians' current effort to achieve sovereignty. These are two natural situations in which it can be seen how health outcomes will be influenced.
Margarita AlegrÃa, Ph.D.,
University of Puerto Rico
Dr. AlegrÃa discussed challenges in advancing equity in mental healthcare for children of color. She presented three arguments for increased focus on racial and ethnic differences. First, race, ethnicity and culture of children play a major role in shaping the care provided to them by health institutions. Racial, ethnic and cultural differences influence the expression and identification of the need for services. Studies have shown ethnic and racial differences in youths' self-reports of problem behaviors, caregivers' value judgments of what is normative behavior, and caregiver expectations of the child. Ethnic and racial bias in who gets identified, referred and treated within certain institutions has also been documented. For example, African American youth are more frequently referred for conduct problems to corrections rather than psychiatric hospitals, even with lower or equal measures of aggressive behavior. Quality of care is also impacted. For example, ADHD is less often treated by medications in minority groups than in white populations. There is also increased probability of misdiagnoses among minority individuals, affecting subsequent care.
Second, there are challenges in identifying the mechanisms by which ethnicity, race, and culture account for disparities in behavioral and emotional problems and service delivery. Understanding these mechanisms has important implications for how to intervene correctly. Factors that mediate such challenges may be related to lack of early detection by providers and parents; untrained and culturally insensitive providers; and lack of parent and provider knowledge of efficacious treatments. For example, Latino youths have the highest rate of suicide, yet they are less likely to be identified by their caregivers as having problems. Disparities in services may be due to different barriers such as insurance status and settings where mental healthcare is delivered. Minority children tend to receive mental health services through the juvenile justice and welfare systems more often than through schools or special settings.
Third, efforts to address racial and ethnic disparities in mental health and service delivery are constrained by profound socio-environmental, institutional, and market forces. For example, managed care, by targeting medical necessity, may be constrained in obtaining the complexity of funding streams that are necessary to service minority children in the schools, juvenile justice settings or welfare agencies. Expansion of Medicaid eligibility for near poor families may not prove sufficient to increase mental health service usage, if it is not tied to increased provider availability and provider payment incentives to treat minority populations within depressed inner-city communities. Thus, a critical analysis of how residential, institutional, and market policies may create disparities is needed, and more importantly, how these policies are implemented in ways that result in disparities. There is a need to address these disparities by moving beyond the healthcare sector, examining neighborhoods where minority children live (areas of economic disadvantage, concentration of violence in certain areas), addressing the institutions with which minority children interact (i.e., the referral bias in the various systems), and addressing the role of managed care and the lack of culturally competent providers in the various systems.
Suggestions to address these disparities include: (1) Ensure that efforts focus not only on equalizing access to treatment, but also on equalizing outcomes of care; (2) Aggressively monitor institutional progress towards an equitable and compassionate system of mental healthcare for children of color; and (3) Move beyond policy interventions in the healthcare system to more socio-educational approaches, where government agencies are not agents of control but agents of support.
Kenneth B. Wells, M.D., M.P.H.,
UCLA/RAND
Dr. Wells presented new preliminary data from three national surveys on access to specialty mental healthcare. The findings demonstrated high levels of unmet need for specialty care for children and adolescents and substantial ethnic disparities in access to such care. Detailed findings will be presented in a forthcoming article. Dr. Wells also drew attention to key issues in formulating public policy to address unmet need for child services. One set of issues relates to children in the public sector, where differences within and across states in implementation of policies to cover uninsured children result in children with varying degrees of vulnerability to unmet need for mental healthcare. Policies that guarantee coverage for uninsured children across diverse populations and geographic areas are needed to address this problem. Another set of issues applies to the private sector, where there has been much debate about the feasibility of implementing parity for mental health and physical health services for both children and adults; yet prior studies suggest that children have more to gain from parity, as they tend to be high utilizers if they use services and more quickly reach plan limits on coverage (Sturm, 1997). Thus achieving parity of coverage in the private sector may be especially important for addressing the unmet need for child mental health services. Yet, Dr. Wells indicated that the meaning of parity is changing under managed care, as the defined benefit does not necessarily directly correspond to the level of care provided under management policies (Burnam and Escarce,1999). Finally, Dr. Wells provided an example of the promise of quality improvement for mental disorders for adults, Partners in Care; in that study, depressed primary care patients from clinics using quality improvement programs had better one-year clinical outcomes and retention in employment than similar patients in clinics without quality improvement programs (Wells, et. al., 2000). These kinds of studies should be developed for children and adolescents with major mental disorders, as we develop practice-based solutions across public and private sectors to address unmet mental healthcare needs of diverse child and adolescent populations.
Suggestions for future research include: (1) Develop access and mental health quality of care indicators for children and adolescents; (2) Profile unmet need for under- and uninsured subgroups in particular areas, in light of disparity in coverage and implementation across federal and state programs; and (3) Monitor access and quality of care for children and adolescents nationally. Suggestions for policy changes include: (1) For the uninsured, replace existing programs or fill the diverse gaps in federal and state policies; (2) For the privately insured, start with parity of mental health coverage with medical conditions, and enforce tougher mandates for implementation. In addition, the management and quality under parity needs to be evaluated; and (3) For the publicly insured, implement quality improvement, and reduce delays and the financial barriers to mental healthcare.
REACHING OUT TO AND ENGAGING FAMILIES
This panel discussed the challenges affecting access to and coordination of mental healthcare for children and families, including the lack of availability of non-traditional services. One critical question addressed how to better engage families in evidence-based services and treatments.
Barbara J. Friesen, Ph.D.,
Portland State University
Dr. Friesen argued that effective mental health services require cultural competence, full family participation and appropriate services and supports. Family support and participation can provide benefits, including reduced need for inpatient treatment, shorter length of inpatient stay, better service coordination, increased likelihood that a child will return home following out-of-home placement, and increased caregiver satisfaction. When families were involved in the child welfare system, they were more likely to follow through with treatment and the caseworkers were more likely to provide appropriate care.
There are several significant barriers to family participation and effective treatment for children's psychiatric disorders. First, stigma attached to mental disorders results in families feeling at fault for their child's mental illness. Low-income families are most likely to receive disrespect from healthcare providers. Second, family and service providers lack information. Third, gaps in services are a major problem. Even when a family is armed with information about exactly what they are looking for, very often they cannot find it. Other practical, tangible barriers include cost; many families have gone bankrupt trying to care for their children. The most damaging policy is one in which parents need to give up custody in order to get services for their children. Distance can also be a barrier to care. Sometimes families must travel long distances to receive appropriate care for their child.
Suggestions for engaging families include: (1) Develop anti-stigma campaigns to educate the public and healthcare providers; (2) Train services providers in effective, family-centered treatment approaches; (3) Support family members and family organizations who can improve access to services through a variety of outreach and support roles; and (4) Evaluate these practices.
C. Veree’ Jenkins,
Family Involvement Coordinator, Family HOPE, West Palm Beach, Florida
Ms. Jenkins described her family's experience overcoming the ravages of the mental illness of her son, Joel. She called it the story of "J.O.E.L.: Joy Overcoming Everything Logical." She emphasized the importance of faith in dealing with a child's mental illness. Joel had a journey through mental illness, substance abuse, the juvenile justice system and early fatherhood. All along the way, no one ever asked the family their faith and what they believed in, said Ms. Jenkins. In a substance abuse treatment program, Joel had his bible taken from him, told it was a crutch preventing him from overcoming his substance abuse problems. But, Ms. Jenkins said, you need faith in God to make it through these systems; you put faith in the hands of the therapist managing your care and sometimes are let down. Finally, Joel went to the church where he found ‘wrap-around faith’ where they provided mentoring, counseling services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, helped him get a job, and get rid of his guns and provided other assistance. Ms. Jenkins encouraged consideration of faith-based organizations, which can provide safe havens, camps, music, art, and all sorts of activities that can be very helpful to a family in need. Joel is now drug, alcohol and cigarette free. He is a law-abiding citizen, married, a good parent, employed and owns his home. A recent graduate of the McCollough Seminary, he is Assistant Youth Pastor of his church. As a family, Joel, Ms. Jenkins and her husband work together to share their faith and hope with others.
Lynn Pedraza, Ed.S.,
Family Member
Ms. Pedraza described how her family, which includes biological, foster and adoptive children, encountered many challenges trying to navigate the multiple systems often involved in the care and treatment of children with mental disorders. So much of the mental health world operates from a deficit perspective requiring families to prove their needs, rather than strengths, to get services. Workers have coerced parents and threatened to take children away when families try to fight for appropriate services. Suggestions to engage families include: (1) Put mental health at the forefront of health policy decisions and research efforts; (2) Research should focus on the human side of mental health, the connections to others, trust, pleasure, joy and respect. In other words, examine what caring looks like and what happens when this caring is incorporated into mental health services; and (3) Researchers need to become involved with families and their children long enough and deeply enough to really understand the multiple factors that affect children and their families. Researchers need to listen to families.
DISCUSSANTS
Brenda Souto,
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill
Ms. Souto described her experiences as a parent of a child with several disorders. She has been her son's case manager for 20 years and has had good experiences with psychiatrists and psychologists in Maryland, a parity-enforced state. Trying to find good services was another problem. She cited a report, Families on the Brink, that NAMI released a year ago, summarizing the stigmatization of families who often are blamed for no-fault brain disorders. She said the most unfortunate result of the lack of access to mental healthcare is when the family is forced to relinquish custody of their ill child to the state in order to get needed mental health services.
Carl Bell, M.D.,
Community Mental Health Council, Chicago
Dr. Bell described the insufficient infrastructure in the community health system. Back in 1980, President Jimmy Carter pushed for a plan to increase the infrastructure. But the plan never came into being because Carter lost the presidency. Dr. Bell encouraged conference participants to make sure they take action to ensure the agenda moves forward. He is particularly interested in African Americans. In order to fix the problems of African Americans within these various systems, African Americans must be involved in the conversations. The black community trusts the community centers but not the universities. Black people are concerned about who is testing their children and why. Partnerships between community-based organizations and the universities is one way to make technical expertise available to train community-based staff. Such efforts are underway at Dr. Bell's agency and the University of Illinois in Chicago, but they are costly. Few community agencies have the resources needed to train their staff in evidence-based interventions. Community-based organizations need to receive funding to assist them in training their staff and such support is necessary to help infuse evidence-based interventions into community-based services.
Michael M. Faenza, MSSW,
National Mental Health Association
Mr. Faenza noted that this session's presentations demonstrate children's mental health as a social justice issue. The disparities in access and treatment highlight the social injustice issues that come into play in children's services. He highlighted challenges in diagnosing mental disorders in children, and a need for more research in diagnosis and treatment. Because so much negative public attention is focused on overprescription of psychotropic medications and overdiagnosis in young children, particular sensitivity around such issues is needed to prevent the damage that such publicity could do. The prevalence of mental disorders and substance abuse disorders in the juvenile justice system suggests a starting point for change in operative services systems for children.
Phillipa Hambrick,
Family Member
Ms. Hambrick described her experiences as a grandmother and mother, providing family care to four grandchildren in need of mental health services for ADHD and major depression. She had difficulty getting services for these children, due to distance or because the children were put on a waiting list for services. The children eventually received services through the school system and through youth and family services. But such services must be expanded and made more comprehensive, she said. If she were to move, her children would lose the services because they would be in a different jurisdiction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
