Anniversary Reactions to a Traumatic Event:
The Recovery Process Continues
As the anniversary of a disaster or traumatic event approaches, many survivors report a return of restlessness and fear. Psychological literature calls it the anniversary reaction and defines it as an individual's response to unresolved grief resulting from significant losses. The anniversary reaction can involve several days or even weeks of anxiety, anger, nightmares, flashbacks, depression, or fear.
On a more positive note, the anniversary of a disaster or traumatic event also can provide an opportunity for emotional healing. Individuals can make significant progress in working through the natural grieving process by recognizing, acknowledging, and paying attention to the feelings and issues that surface during their anniversary reaction. These feelings and issues can help individuals develop perspective on the event and figure out where it fits in their hearts, minds, and lives.
It is important to note that not all survivors of a disaster or traumatic event experience an anniversary reaction. Those who do, however, may be troubled because they did not expect and do not understand their reaction. For these individuals, knowing what to expect in advance may be helpful. Common anniversary reactions among survivors of a disaster or traumatic event include:
Memories, Dreams, Thoughts, and Feelings: Individuals may replay memories, thoughts, and feelings about the event, which they can't turn off. They may see repeated images and scenes associated with the trauma or relive the event over and over. They may have recurring dreams or nightmares. These reactions may be as vivid on the anniversary as they were at the actual time of the disaster or traumatic event.
Grief and Sadness: Individuals may experience grief and sadness related to the loss of income, employment, a home, or a loved one. Even people who have moved to new homes often feel a sense of loss on the anniversary. Those who were forced to relocate to another community may experience intense homesickness for their old neighborhoods.
Fear and Anxiety: Fear and anxiety may resurface around the time of the anniversary, leading to jumpiness, startled responses, and vigilance about safety. These feelings may be particularly strong for individuals who are still working through the grieving process.
Frustration, Anger, and Guilt: The anniversary may reawaken frustration and anger about the disaster or traumatic event. Survivors may be reminded of the possessions, homes, or loved ones they lost; the time taken away from their lives; the frustrations with bureaucratic aspects of the recovery process; and the slow process of rebuilding and healing. Individuals may also experience guilt about survival. These feelings may be particularly strong for individuals who are not fully recovered financially and emotionally.
Avoidance: Some survivors try to protect themselves from experiencing an anniversary reaction by avoiding reminders of the event and attempting to treat the anniversary as just an ordinary day. Even for these people, it can be helpful to learn about common reactions that they or their loved ones may encounter, so they are not surprised if reactions occur.
Remembrance: Many survivors welcome the cleansing tears, commemoration, and fellowship that the anniversary of the event offers. They see it as a time to honor the memory of what they have lost. They might light a candle, share favorite memories and stories, or attend a worship service.
Reflection: The reflection brought about by the anniversary of a disaster or traumatic event is often a turning point in the recovery process. It is an opportunity for people to look back over the past year, recognize how far they have come, and give themselves credit for the challenges they surmounted. It is a time for survivors to look inward and to recognize and appreciate the courage, stamina, endurance, and resourcefulness that they and their loved ones showed during the recovery process. It is a time for people to look around and pause to appreciate the family members, friends, and others who supported them through the healing process. It is also a time when most people can look forward with a renewed sense of hope and purpose.
Although these thoughts, feelings, and reactions can be very upsetting, it helps to understand that it is normal to have strong reactions to a disaster or traumatic event and its devastation many months later. Recovery from a disaster or traumatic event takes time, and it requires rebuilding on many levels - physically, emotionally, and spiritually. However, with patience, understanding, and support from family members and friends, you can emerge from a disaster or traumatic event stronger than before.
April 07, 2010
April 06, 2010
Bipolar Continuing Education CEU
Family Psychoeducation
Workbook
Chapter 10: Other Clinical Models for Psychoeducational Multifamily Groups
Introduction
As the effectiveness of the Family Psychoeducation approaches to the treatment of schizophrenia has become established, interest has developed in extending these models to other conditions. That has led to the development of several newer approaches designed for consumers with specific diagnoses or for specific situations, such as when a given consumer has no family available or family involvement is complicated by a history of trauma within the family. The design of these newer models has proceeded with the same method as was done in working with people who experience schizophrenia: specific aspects have been designed to ameliorate phenomena that have been shown to influence outcome in previous research. That is, they are rooted in empirical findings, rather than theory, and those findings range over the entire body of psychiatric and psychological research, including both biological and psychosocial studies. Though they do not have the depth of outcome study results that has been shown for the models for people who experience schizophrenia, evidence is accumulating that they are just as effective. The practitioner who sets out to apply these models should review the available literature, since at the time of this writing many of these models were being tested, but results were not yet published.
Included here are brief summaries of descriptions of psychoeducational multifamily group treatment approaches for people with several common diagnoses as well as a model for ameliorating the effects of chronic medical illness on the family. The practitioner interested in applying these newer methods should consult the volumes in which they are described fully and seek training from qualified trainers.
Multifamily Groups for Bipolar Illness
David A. Moltz, M.D.
Margaret Newmark, M.S.W.
The psychoeducational multifamily group model must be significantly modified for people who experience a bipolar disorder. The symptoms, course and family responses have been shown to be different than in schizophrenia, and recent biological research has highlighted major differences in brain function between the disorders. A key finding is that family “expressed emotion” (defined earlier in text as behaviors perceived by the consumer as being critical and/or lacking warmth/support) affects relapse, but there is an even greater biological contribution to relapse than in schizophrenia. For instance, Miklowitz and his colleagues found that family psychoeducation, in the form of single-family behavioral management, reduced relapses markedly, but from nearly 90% to about 50%, as opposed to the 40% to 15% reduction observed for consumers with schizophrenia. Thus, biological and psychosocial factors seem to be more evenly weighted in determining course of illness in bipolar disorder; nevertheless, family psychoeducation remains a powerful treatment in preventing relapse and improving longer-term outcomes.
A Model for Bipolar Disorder
This model, developed by Moltz, Newmark, McFarlane and associates, was first implemented at a public mental health center in the South Bronx of New York City and later at a community mental health center in coastal Maine. It has been effective in both settings. Only one other group has published a report of psychoeducational multifamily group approach. Anderson and associates compared a family process multifamily group to a psychoeducational multifamily group for short-term treatment of hospitalized consumers with affective disorders. One of the few significant differences between the groups was that those attending the psychoeducational group reported greater satisfaction than those attending the process group. Therefore, whether or not the psychoeducational format had measurable clinical advantages, it was more valued by family members. For further information please refer to the references in Chapter 12.
The key elements of this model are the same as in the approach for consumers with schizophrenia. Each is modified in important ways to match the clinical and psychosocial problems encountered in bipolar disorder.
The materials cited in Chapter 12 contain information regarding the use of single family groups for individuals with bipolar disorder.
Joining
Initial joining sessions are held separately for the consumer and the family.
Individual and family sessions have similar structure, since the individual with bipolar illness is usually able to participate fully.
Meetings with the consumer and the other family members are often carried out separately during the acute phase of illness, but usually together if joining occurs after the manic phase is over and family meetings with the consumer are less likely to be emotionally intense.
Content
The content of the joining sessions is modified to reflect the specific impact of bipolar illness on the family. It includes:
Extensive discussion of the history of symptoms and course of illness
Identifying precipitants and prodromal signs
Emphasis on differing attitudes and attributions
Discussion of inter-episode functioning, that is to say, “how is life between episodes?”
Conjoint sessions
After several sessions with the family and the consumer meeting separately, they are seen together for one or more conjoint sessions facilitated by the two practitioners who will be co-facilitating the group. These conjoint sessions allow the family to come together as a unit prior to the multifamily group, while the separate sessions allow each party to express their concerns without constraints and thereby diminishes conflict during the joinings.
Educational workshop
The structure and format of the bipolar workshop are similar to the schizophrenia workshop except that the consumer is included. Content is determined by the specific characteristics of the illness and includes:
Symptoms of manic and depressed episodes, differences from normal highs and lows
The issue of will-power
The question of the “real” personality
The impact of acute episodes on the family
The long term impact of the illness on the family
Theories of etiology of the illness
Short and long-term treatment strategies
Ongoing group meetings
The structure of the multifamily group meetings is essentially the same as the schizophrenia model.
Challenges to group formation and maintenance
Several issues related to specific characteristics of bipolar illness have presented challenges to group formation and process:
Diagnostic ambiguity
Maintaining the group structure
Co-occurring conditions, especially substance abuse in consumer and other family members.
Outcomes
In general, consumers reported that:
they were less angry over time;
they had less debilitating episodes when they did occur;
they were better able to manage symptoms and episodes;
they experienced fewer hospitalizations; and
they were more able to appreciate their family’s experience.
Family members reported:
increased confidence in their ability to cope with the illness;
increased confidence in the consumer’s ability to manage the illness; and
benefits from the program even if the consumer did not attend.
Practitioners reported:
it took about two years to master the techniques;
they learned to see their role more as consultant than therapist;
they better appreciated family’s and consumer’s experience of illness and efforts to cope with it; and
each person’s struggle with illness is different.
Multifamily Group Treatment For Major Depressive Disorder
Gabor Keitner, M.D. Ivan W. Miller, Ph.D.
Laura M. Drury, M.S.W. William H. Norman, Ph.D.
Christine E. Ryan, Ph.D. David A. Solomon, M.D.
To date, the only previous multifamily group treatment for consumers who experience depression has been the model developed by Anderson (1986). This multifamily approach has been used at the University of Pittsburgh for many years, however the only empirical data collected on this model is a comparison of participants’ satisfaction with the group. This study indicated that consumers and families were very satisfied with the treatment and believed that they obtained significant benefits. However, despite the fact that this intervention has been incorporated into several long-term studies of depression, there has been no study of the potential effects of this multifamily treatment on outcome or course of illness in major depression. Such studies are underway now and preliminary results are promising.
Conducting multifamily group treatment for people with depression
Consumers with mood disorders participated in psychoeducational multifamily groups in a 5-year federally-sponsored research study. Consumers with unipolar and bipolar illness were combined in order to ensure a critical mass of consumers and families, and also because we felt that there was a significant overlap in the themes of remission and relapse between unipolar and bipolar forms of mood disorders. In addition, both unipolar and bipolar consumers had a common experience in the depressive phase of the illness and it was assumed that a certain percentage of unipolar consumers may eventually experience an episode of mania.
Much of the following material was drawn from previous descriptions of psychoeducational groups.
Overview of goals and structure
Helping consumers and family members become knowledgeable about the signs and symptoms of depression and mania;
Promoting relationships and increasing understanding of the effects of the illness by sharing information, support and members' perspectives on family interactions;
Consumers and family members gain insights and learn new coping strategies in dealing with different phases of the consumer's illness; and
Consumers and families have a better understanding of how they can work with each other and with mental health professionals to deal with the illness.
Family and group composition
A core feature of this program is that both the consumer and family members attend the sessions. All family members of the household over the age of 12 are expected to attend. A minimum of four families seems to be necessary to insure adequate activity and group discussion. Groups of five to six families, or twelve to fourteen people, are optimal. Groups typically include consumers with both bipolar disorder and others with major depression.
Practitioners
Two co-leaders are needed. The leaders deal with any consumers or family members who become upset during a session. Leaders should be experienced in working with consumers, their families, and also in group process and therapy. They should know about current issues and treatments of major depression and bipolar illness, including the biopsychosocial model of mood disorders.
Clinical procedures
The group leaders (practitioners) should meet before each session to discuss the content of the session and the division of tasks between them. They should also meet immediately after the session to review and assess group members and plan future agendas and strategies. This debriefing is especially important if a crisis occurred during the group session with either a consumer or a family member.
Screening session
This is an individual meeting between the consumer, family member(s) and one of the two co-leaders. It serves to:
Introduce the consumer and family to the therapist;
Provide an opportunity to assess the family's and consumer's knowledge about mood disorders, coping skills and methods of dealing with the illness;
Build an alliance between the therapist consumer, and family; and
Let the therapist assess the appropriateness of the family and the consumer for the psychoeducational group.
Structure of psychoeducation groups
Please refer to the references in Chapter 12 for specific information about the structure of these groups.
Conclusion
The optimal treatment of depression has yet to be defined. Pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, family therapy, and group therapy all play a role for some consumers at some point in the illness. The multifamily group format is a welcome addition to the currently available treatments for depression. The role of the family is significant in determining the course of the depression and its response to treatments.
Multifamily Psychoeducational Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder
Cynthia Berkowitz, M.D.
John Gunderson, M.D.
The development of psychoeducational multifamily treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) is prompted by four factors:
the need for novel psychosocial interventions in this disorder,
the success of psychoeducational multifamily treatment of schizophrenia,
the need for more effective family interventions in this disorder, and
the emergence of a deficit model of BPD.
Dialectical Behavioral Therapy has been developed by Marsha Linehan and colleagues as a disorder specific treatment of BPD, focusing on the diminution of the self-destructive behavior that is the major cause of morbidity in BPD. It is the only psychosocial treatment of this disorder that has been subjected to a controlled outcome study. Linehan has established the effectiveness of this cognitive-behavioral treatment of BPD.
Practitioners who treat individuals with BPD know that the recurrent crises that mark the course of the illness often occur in response to interactions between the individual with BPD and relatives. This pattern strongly suggests that a treatment targeted at altering the family environment could positively influence the course of the disorder. The findings of Young and Gunderson, (1995) suggest that adolescents with BPD saw themselves as being significantly more alienated than did adolescents with other disorders. Their research found that alienation in the family environment is a useful target for intervention and indicates that psychoeducation may be able to diminish feelings of alienation.
Based on studies of the role of expressed emotion (EE) in BPD by Jill Hooley as well as by John Vuchetich, (the latter study in association with development of the current treatment), we hypothesize that EE in the family may be a risk factor for worsening psychosocial functioning in the individual with BPD.
Rationale for psychoeducational multifamily treatment of BPD
The following principles borrow heavily from the previous work of Anderson, Hogarty, Falloon, Leff and McFarlane in the development of psychoeducational treatment but also incorporate emerging concepts of BPD, particularly the functional deficit model.
BPD is characterized by functional deficits of (i) affect and impulse dyscontrol, (ii) intolerance of aloneness and (iii) dichotomous thinking. If individuals with BPD have functional deficits in their ability to cope, it follows that they would benefit from an environment that could help them cope with those deficits.
The functional deficits above may render individuals with BPD handicapped but not disabled. This means that they can be held accountable for their actions but that change for them occurs very slowly and with great difficulty.
BPD is an enduring disorder characterized by recurrent crises. The specific goal of the treatment is to diminish crises rather than to cure the disorder. We hypothesize that stress in the family environment may significantly influence the course of the disorder.
Families can influence the course of illness in that they can either diminish the stresses that cause relapses or inadvertently create them. Families are asked specifically to make the home environment calmer and to reduce the stress the consumer who experiences BPD is subjected to.
Living with an ill relative has stressful consequences for the family. A major goal of the current treatment is to diminish stress within the family.
Family members will want to use education to change their behavior if they believe they can help an ill family member by doing so.
Stress within the family may have at its root alienation between the individual with BPD and the family. Psychoeducational treatment moves parents away from issues of their possible causal role in the occurrence of the illness and away from blaming and criticizing the individual with BPD.
The role of the multifamily group in treatment of BPD
The mechanisms of the multifamily group directly address the particular problems facing the families of individuals with BPD, including the need for:
improved clarity of communication and directness;
diminished hostility; and
diminished over-involvement.
Structure of psychoeducational multifamily group treatment
The same three-stage structure used in the treatment of people with schizophrenia can be applied to people with borderline personality disorder. In this model, family psycoeducational treatment begins with a joining phase followed by an educational workshop. Families then join a multifamily group for an extended period of biweekly treatment. Again, the details of conducting the joining sessions, educational workshop and multifamily group sessions are described in the references listed in Chapter 12.
Treatment outcome
The psychoeducational multifamily group treatment of BPD is currently under study in a project involving two multifamily groups. Each of the families consisted of a mother or two parents with a daughter having BPD. Data is currently available for only eight of the participating families:
66.7 percent felt that the multifamily group helped them to modulate angry feelings
66.7 percent felt less burdened
All participating families felt that the group improved their communication with their daughters (75 percent felt that the improvement was “very great” )
All participating families felt that the treatment improved their knowledge of the disorder
91.6% of parents felt that the treatment had helped them to set limits
All of the participating families felt supported by the group
Conclusion
While the evidence supporting its effectiveness for people who experience borderline personality disorder is preliminary, the data available suggests that consumers are experiencing improved communication and diminished hostility within their families.
Multifamily Behavioral Treatment of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
Barbara Van Noppen, M.S.W.
Gail Steketee, Ph.D.
Education about consumers with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and the reduction of critical responses to behavioral symptoms are important family factors in the course of illness and possibly in treatment outcome for OCD. Clinical investigation of family members’ responses to OCD symptoms and of their impact on the symptoms can lead to the development of family behavioral interventions that may help both the consumer and the family. Multifamily behavioral treatment (MFBT) includes consumers and their significant others in a 20-session intervention (12 weekly and 6 monthly sessions) over a period of 9 months. Preliminary findings revealed efficacy of MFBT comparable to standard individual behavioral therapy. Furthermore, reductions in the symptoms experienced by consumers with obsessive compulsive disorder who completed MFBT have been maintained at one-year follow-up.
Multifamily behavioral treatment (MFBT)
MFBT, compared to single-family behavioral therapy, offers the opportunity for reduction in perceived isolation, enriched opportunities for problem solving and emotional distancing, enabling family members to respond in a less personalized way to the symptoms. A sense of community and social support often develops through the course of the MFBT, as families share stories with one another. There is a lessening in feelings of shame and stigma, which encourages family members to take a larger role in treatment and join with the consumer to combat the symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorder. The presence of other families with similar problems provides an opportunity for consumers and families to learn effective negotiation of agreements and to adopt symptom management strategies modeled by other members of the group. Additional potential benefits of multifamily intervention are reduced therapist burnout and greater cost-effectiveness of treatment.
A recent uncontrolled trial by Van Noppen and colleagues examined the effects of MFBT for 19 consumers and family members treated in 4 groups. Consumers experienced significant reductions in obsessive compulsive symptom severity and similar reduction in scores on a measure of family functioning. Among MFBT consumers, 47% made clinically significant improvements (reliably changed and scoring in the non-clinical range on OCD symptoms) at post-test, and 58% achieved this status at 1-year follow-up. Results from MFBT were comparable to those achieved by individual behavior therapy. Overall, the multifamily intervention was quite effective, although some consumers did not show strong gains and there is clearly room for improvement.
Features and procedures of MFBT
MFBT is similar to methods described by McFarlane and Falloon, but uses interventions specifically aimed at reducing obsessive-compulsive symptoms and changing dysfunctional patterns of communication. This family group treatment incorporates psychoeducation, communication and problem-solving skills training, clarifying boundaries, social learning and in vivo rehearsal of new behaviors. There is also in-group observation of exposure and response prevention with therapist and participant modeling.
4-6 families (no more than 16 total participants is recommended), including consumer and others who have daily contact with the consumer. Co-leaders are optimal; at least one leader should have an advanced degree in social work, psychology or certified counseling and experience in clinical work with individuals, families and groups.
Sessions are 2 hours long and typically meet in the late afternoon or early evening.
The key clinical procedures include:
Each consumer and family has a pre-treatment screening by phone with the therapist(s) to determine appropriateness for the group and readiness for treatment; following this, two intake sessions are scheduled;
At the intake sessions, 1 1/2 hours each, pretreatment forms are completed, symptom severity and family response styles determined, goals of the group and behavioral therapy principles are discussed, and pre-treatment concerns and questions are addressed;
Treatment is comprised of 12 weekly sessions and 6 monthly group follow-up sessions, providing:
education about OCD and reading of self-help material;
education about families and OCD;
in vivo exposure and response prevention plus homework and self-monitoring;
homework discussion with family group feedback and problem-solving; and
behavioral contracting among family members and communication skills training.
Conclusion
MFBT appears to be a good alternative to labor-intensive individual behavioral treatment. Recent research findings suggest that MFBT may especially help consumers who experience obsessive compulsive disorder and have not benefited from standard individual treatment and who are living with family members. MFBT incorporates family members into behavioral treatment by teaching family members and consumers to negotiate contracts. The goal of this treatment is to encourage anxiety reduction for the consumer, to educate and model reasonable interactive responses within families, and to remove family members from the consumer’s compulsions in a supportive manner.
http://www.aspirace.com
Workbook
Chapter 10: Other Clinical Models for Psychoeducational Multifamily Groups
Introduction
As the effectiveness of the Family Psychoeducation approaches to the treatment of schizophrenia has become established, interest has developed in extending these models to other conditions. That has led to the development of several newer approaches designed for consumers with specific diagnoses or for specific situations, such as when a given consumer has no family available or family involvement is complicated by a history of trauma within the family. The design of these newer models has proceeded with the same method as was done in working with people who experience schizophrenia: specific aspects have been designed to ameliorate phenomena that have been shown to influence outcome in previous research. That is, they are rooted in empirical findings, rather than theory, and those findings range over the entire body of psychiatric and psychological research, including both biological and psychosocial studies. Though they do not have the depth of outcome study results that has been shown for the models for people who experience schizophrenia, evidence is accumulating that they are just as effective. The practitioner who sets out to apply these models should review the available literature, since at the time of this writing many of these models were being tested, but results were not yet published.
Included here are brief summaries of descriptions of psychoeducational multifamily group treatment approaches for people with several common diagnoses as well as a model for ameliorating the effects of chronic medical illness on the family. The practitioner interested in applying these newer methods should consult the volumes in which they are described fully and seek training from qualified trainers.
Multifamily Groups for Bipolar Illness
David A. Moltz, M.D.
Margaret Newmark, M.S.W.
The psychoeducational multifamily group model must be significantly modified for people who experience a bipolar disorder. The symptoms, course and family responses have been shown to be different than in schizophrenia, and recent biological research has highlighted major differences in brain function between the disorders. A key finding is that family “expressed emotion” (defined earlier in text as behaviors perceived by the consumer as being critical and/or lacking warmth/support) affects relapse, but there is an even greater biological contribution to relapse than in schizophrenia. For instance, Miklowitz and his colleagues found that family psychoeducation, in the form of single-family behavioral management, reduced relapses markedly, but from nearly 90% to about 50%, as opposed to the 40% to 15% reduction observed for consumers with schizophrenia. Thus, biological and psychosocial factors seem to be more evenly weighted in determining course of illness in bipolar disorder; nevertheless, family psychoeducation remains a powerful treatment in preventing relapse and improving longer-term outcomes.
A Model for Bipolar Disorder
This model, developed by Moltz, Newmark, McFarlane and associates, was first implemented at a public mental health center in the South Bronx of New York City and later at a community mental health center in coastal Maine. It has been effective in both settings. Only one other group has published a report of psychoeducational multifamily group approach. Anderson and associates compared a family process multifamily group to a psychoeducational multifamily group for short-term treatment of hospitalized consumers with affective disorders. One of the few significant differences between the groups was that those attending the psychoeducational group reported greater satisfaction than those attending the process group. Therefore, whether or not the psychoeducational format had measurable clinical advantages, it was more valued by family members. For further information please refer to the references in Chapter 12.
The key elements of this model are the same as in the approach for consumers with schizophrenia. Each is modified in important ways to match the clinical and psychosocial problems encountered in bipolar disorder.
The materials cited in Chapter 12 contain information regarding the use of single family groups for individuals with bipolar disorder.
Joining
Initial joining sessions are held separately for the consumer and the family.
Individual and family sessions have similar structure, since the individual with bipolar illness is usually able to participate fully.
Meetings with the consumer and the other family members are often carried out separately during the acute phase of illness, but usually together if joining occurs after the manic phase is over and family meetings with the consumer are less likely to be emotionally intense.
Content
The content of the joining sessions is modified to reflect the specific impact of bipolar illness on the family. It includes:
Extensive discussion of the history of symptoms and course of illness
Identifying precipitants and prodromal signs
Emphasis on differing attitudes and attributions
Discussion of inter-episode functioning, that is to say, “how is life between episodes?”
Conjoint sessions
After several sessions with the family and the consumer meeting separately, they are seen together for one or more conjoint sessions facilitated by the two practitioners who will be co-facilitating the group. These conjoint sessions allow the family to come together as a unit prior to the multifamily group, while the separate sessions allow each party to express their concerns without constraints and thereby diminishes conflict during the joinings.
Educational workshop
The structure and format of the bipolar workshop are similar to the schizophrenia workshop except that the consumer is included. Content is determined by the specific characteristics of the illness and includes:
Symptoms of manic and depressed episodes, differences from normal highs and lows
The issue of will-power
The question of the “real” personality
The impact of acute episodes on the family
The long term impact of the illness on the family
Theories of etiology of the illness
Short and long-term treatment strategies
Ongoing group meetings
The structure of the multifamily group meetings is essentially the same as the schizophrenia model.
Challenges to group formation and maintenance
Several issues related to specific characteristics of bipolar illness have presented challenges to group formation and process:
Diagnostic ambiguity
Maintaining the group structure
Co-occurring conditions, especially substance abuse in consumer and other family members.
Outcomes
In general, consumers reported that:
they were less angry over time;
they had less debilitating episodes when they did occur;
they were better able to manage symptoms and episodes;
they experienced fewer hospitalizations; and
they were more able to appreciate their family’s experience.
Family members reported:
increased confidence in their ability to cope with the illness;
increased confidence in the consumer’s ability to manage the illness; and
benefits from the program even if the consumer did not attend.
Practitioners reported:
it took about two years to master the techniques;
they learned to see their role more as consultant than therapist;
they better appreciated family’s and consumer’s experience of illness and efforts to cope with it; and
each person’s struggle with illness is different.
Multifamily Group Treatment For Major Depressive Disorder
Gabor Keitner, M.D. Ivan W. Miller, Ph.D.
Laura M. Drury, M.S.W. William H. Norman, Ph.D.
Christine E. Ryan, Ph.D. David A. Solomon, M.D.
To date, the only previous multifamily group treatment for consumers who experience depression has been the model developed by Anderson (1986). This multifamily approach has been used at the University of Pittsburgh for many years, however the only empirical data collected on this model is a comparison of participants’ satisfaction with the group. This study indicated that consumers and families were very satisfied with the treatment and believed that they obtained significant benefits. However, despite the fact that this intervention has been incorporated into several long-term studies of depression, there has been no study of the potential effects of this multifamily treatment on outcome or course of illness in major depression. Such studies are underway now and preliminary results are promising.
Conducting multifamily group treatment for people with depression
Consumers with mood disorders participated in psychoeducational multifamily groups in a 5-year federally-sponsored research study. Consumers with unipolar and bipolar illness were combined in order to ensure a critical mass of consumers and families, and also because we felt that there was a significant overlap in the themes of remission and relapse between unipolar and bipolar forms of mood disorders. In addition, both unipolar and bipolar consumers had a common experience in the depressive phase of the illness and it was assumed that a certain percentage of unipolar consumers may eventually experience an episode of mania.
Much of the following material was drawn from previous descriptions of psychoeducational groups.
Overview of goals and structure
Helping consumers and family members become knowledgeable about the signs and symptoms of depression and mania;
Promoting relationships and increasing understanding of the effects of the illness by sharing information, support and members' perspectives on family interactions;
Consumers and family members gain insights and learn new coping strategies in dealing with different phases of the consumer's illness; and
Consumers and families have a better understanding of how they can work with each other and with mental health professionals to deal with the illness.
Family and group composition
A core feature of this program is that both the consumer and family members attend the sessions. All family members of the household over the age of 12 are expected to attend. A minimum of four families seems to be necessary to insure adequate activity and group discussion. Groups of five to six families, or twelve to fourteen people, are optimal. Groups typically include consumers with both bipolar disorder and others with major depression.
Practitioners
Two co-leaders are needed. The leaders deal with any consumers or family members who become upset during a session. Leaders should be experienced in working with consumers, their families, and also in group process and therapy. They should know about current issues and treatments of major depression and bipolar illness, including the biopsychosocial model of mood disorders.
Clinical procedures
The group leaders (practitioners) should meet before each session to discuss the content of the session and the division of tasks between them. They should also meet immediately after the session to review and assess group members and plan future agendas and strategies. This debriefing is especially important if a crisis occurred during the group session with either a consumer or a family member.
Screening session
This is an individual meeting between the consumer, family member(s) and one of the two co-leaders. It serves to:
Introduce the consumer and family to the therapist;
Provide an opportunity to assess the family's and consumer's knowledge about mood disorders, coping skills and methods of dealing with the illness;
Build an alliance between the therapist consumer, and family; and
Let the therapist assess the appropriateness of the family and the consumer for the psychoeducational group.
Structure of psychoeducation groups
Please refer to the references in Chapter 12 for specific information about the structure of these groups.
Conclusion
The optimal treatment of depression has yet to be defined. Pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, family therapy, and group therapy all play a role for some consumers at some point in the illness. The multifamily group format is a welcome addition to the currently available treatments for depression. The role of the family is significant in determining the course of the depression and its response to treatments.
Multifamily Psychoeducational Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder
Cynthia Berkowitz, M.D.
John Gunderson, M.D.
The development of psychoeducational multifamily treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) is prompted by four factors:
the need for novel psychosocial interventions in this disorder,
the success of psychoeducational multifamily treatment of schizophrenia,
the need for more effective family interventions in this disorder, and
the emergence of a deficit model of BPD.
Dialectical Behavioral Therapy has been developed by Marsha Linehan and colleagues as a disorder specific treatment of BPD, focusing on the diminution of the self-destructive behavior that is the major cause of morbidity in BPD. It is the only psychosocial treatment of this disorder that has been subjected to a controlled outcome study. Linehan has established the effectiveness of this cognitive-behavioral treatment of BPD.
Practitioners who treat individuals with BPD know that the recurrent crises that mark the course of the illness often occur in response to interactions between the individual with BPD and relatives. This pattern strongly suggests that a treatment targeted at altering the family environment could positively influence the course of the disorder. The findings of Young and Gunderson, (1995) suggest that adolescents with BPD saw themselves as being significantly more alienated than did adolescents with other disorders. Their research found that alienation in the family environment is a useful target for intervention and indicates that psychoeducation may be able to diminish feelings of alienation.
Based on studies of the role of expressed emotion (EE) in BPD by Jill Hooley as well as by John Vuchetich, (the latter study in association with development of the current treatment), we hypothesize that EE in the family may be a risk factor for worsening psychosocial functioning in the individual with BPD.
Rationale for psychoeducational multifamily treatment of BPD
The following principles borrow heavily from the previous work of Anderson, Hogarty, Falloon, Leff and McFarlane in the development of psychoeducational treatment but also incorporate emerging concepts of BPD, particularly the functional deficit model.
BPD is characterized by functional deficits of (i) affect and impulse dyscontrol, (ii) intolerance of aloneness and (iii) dichotomous thinking. If individuals with BPD have functional deficits in their ability to cope, it follows that they would benefit from an environment that could help them cope with those deficits.
The functional deficits above may render individuals with BPD handicapped but not disabled. This means that they can be held accountable for their actions but that change for them occurs very slowly and with great difficulty.
BPD is an enduring disorder characterized by recurrent crises. The specific goal of the treatment is to diminish crises rather than to cure the disorder. We hypothesize that stress in the family environment may significantly influence the course of the disorder.
Families can influence the course of illness in that they can either diminish the stresses that cause relapses or inadvertently create them. Families are asked specifically to make the home environment calmer and to reduce the stress the consumer who experiences BPD is subjected to.
Living with an ill relative has stressful consequences for the family. A major goal of the current treatment is to diminish stress within the family.
Family members will want to use education to change their behavior if they believe they can help an ill family member by doing so.
Stress within the family may have at its root alienation between the individual with BPD and the family. Psychoeducational treatment moves parents away from issues of their possible causal role in the occurrence of the illness and away from blaming and criticizing the individual with BPD.
The role of the multifamily group in treatment of BPD
The mechanisms of the multifamily group directly address the particular problems facing the families of individuals with BPD, including the need for:
improved clarity of communication and directness;
diminished hostility; and
diminished over-involvement.
Structure of psychoeducational multifamily group treatment
The same three-stage structure used in the treatment of people with schizophrenia can be applied to people with borderline personality disorder. In this model, family psycoeducational treatment begins with a joining phase followed by an educational workshop. Families then join a multifamily group for an extended period of biweekly treatment. Again, the details of conducting the joining sessions, educational workshop and multifamily group sessions are described in the references listed in Chapter 12.
Treatment outcome
The psychoeducational multifamily group treatment of BPD is currently under study in a project involving two multifamily groups. Each of the families consisted of a mother or two parents with a daughter having BPD. Data is currently available for only eight of the participating families:
66.7 percent felt that the multifamily group helped them to modulate angry feelings
66.7 percent felt less burdened
All participating families felt that the group improved their communication with their daughters (75 percent felt that the improvement was “very great” )
All participating families felt that the treatment improved their knowledge of the disorder
91.6% of parents felt that the treatment had helped them to set limits
All of the participating families felt supported by the group
Conclusion
While the evidence supporting its effectiveness for people who experience borderline personality disorder is preliminary, the data available suggests that consumers are experiencing improved communication and diminished hostility within their families.
Multifamily Behavioral Treatment of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
Barbara Van Noppen, M.S.W.
Gail Steketee, Ph.D.
Education about consumers with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and the reduction of critical responses to behavioral symptoms are important family factors in the course of illness and possibly in treatment outcome for OCD. Clinical investigation of family members’ responses to OCD symptoms and of their impact on the symptoms can lead to the development of family behavioral interventions that may help both the consumer and the family. Multifamily behavioral treatment (MFBT) includes consumers and their significant others in a 20-session intervention (12 weekly and 6 monthly sessions) over a period of 9 months. Preliminary findings revealed efficacy of MFBT comparable to standard individual behavioral therapy. Furthermore, reductions in the symptoms experienced by consumers with obsessive compulsive disorder who completed MFBT have been maintained at one-year follow-up.
Multifamily behavioral treatment (MFBT)
MFBT, compared to single-family behavioral therapy, offers the opportunity for reduction in perceived isolation, enriched opportunities for problem solving and emotional distancing, enabling family members to respond in a less personalized way to the symptoms. A sense of community and social support often develops through the course of the MFBT, as families share stories with one another. There is a lessening in feelings of shame and stigma, which encourages family members to take a larger role in treatment and join with the consumer to combat the symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorder. The presence of other families with similar problems provides an opportunity for consumers and families to learn effective negotiation of agreements and to adopt symptom management strategies modeled by other members of the group. Additional potential benefits of multifamily intervention are reduced therapist burnout and greater cost-effectiveness of treatment.
A recent uncontrolled trial by Van Noppen and colleagues examined the effects of MFBT for 19 consumers and family members treated in 4 groups. Consumers experienced significant reductions in obsessive compulsive symptom severity and similar reduction in scores on a measure of family functioning. Among MFBT consumers, 47% made clinically significant improvements (reliably changed and scoring in the non-clinical range on OCD symptoms) at post-test, and 58% achieved this status at 1-year follow-up. Results from MFBT were comparable to those achieved by individual behavior therapy. Overall, the multifamily intervention was quite effective, although some consumers did not show strong gains and there is clearly room for improvement.
Features and procedures of MFBT
MFBT is similar to methods described by McFarlane and Falloon, but uses interventions specifically aimed at reducing obsessive-compulsive symptoms and changing dysfunctional patterns of communication. This family group treatment incorporates psychoeducation, communication and problem-solving skills training, clarifying boundaries, social learning and in vivo rehearsal of new behaviors. There is also in-group observation of exposure and response prevention with therapist and participant modeling.
4-6 families (no more than 16 total participants is recommended), including consumer and others who have daily contact with the consumer. Co-leaders are optimal; at least one leader should have an advanced degree in social work, psychology or certified counseling and experience in clinical work with individuals, families and groups.
Sessions are 2 hours long and typically meet in the late afternoon or early evening.
The key clinical procedures include:
Each consumer and family has a pre-treatment screening by phone with the therapist(s) to determine appropriateness for the group and readiness for treatment; following this, two intake sessions are scheduled;
At the intake sessions, 1 1/2 hours each, pretreatment forms are completed, symptom severity and family response styles determined, goals of the group and behavioral therapy principles are discussed, and pre-treatment concerns and questions are addressed;
Treatment is comprised of 12 weekly sessions and 6 monthly group follow-up sessions, providing:
education about OCD and reading of self-help material;
education about families and OCD;
in vivo exposure and response prevention plus homework and self-monitoring;
homework discussion with family group feedback and problem-solving; and
behavioral contracting among family members and communication skills training.
Conclusion
MFBT appears to be a good alternative to labor-intensive individual behavioral treatment. Recent research findings suggest that MFBT may especially help consumers who experience obsessive compulsive disorder and have not benefited from standard individual treatment and who are living with family members. MFBT incorporates family members into behavioral treatment by teaching family members and consumers to negotiate contracts. The goal of this treatment is to encourage anxiety reduction for the consumer, to educate and model reasonable interactive responses within families, and to remove family members from the consumer’s compulsions in a supportive manner.
http://www.aspirace.com
April 05, 2010
Depression and Mood Disorders
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.
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 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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
