Article Review: Bullying, Depression, and Suicide Risk in a Pediatric Primary Care Sample (Kodish, Herres, Shearer, et al, 2016)

Kodish, Herres, and Shearer, et al’s Bullying, Depression, and Suicide Risk in a Pediatric Primary Care Sample seeks to explore what, if any, causal relationship there may be between bullying and the prevalence of suicide among youth aged 14 to 24 years.  Uniquely, their study seeks to identify not only the relationship between bullying and suicide among youth, but also to distinguish between the different types of bullying and their associated effects on suicidal ideation, as well as to explore what role depression may have as a moderating factor between bullying and suicide risk.  Kodish, et al, derived their cohort for study from ten primary care practices located in rural and semi-urban Northeastern Pennsylvania,and used the Behavioral Health Screen (BHS) to arrive at a sample of 5,429 participants.

 

By using the DSM in conjunction with the BHS, the surveyors were able to assess risk for bullying by type (verbal, physical, and/or cyber) as well as the presence of depressive symptoms (using five factors gauged over a two week period), and also included a four item mean from the lifetime suicide scale that included questions to determine if the participant had felt life to be not worth living; had considered suicide; planned to commit suicide; or had attempted suicide.  Controlling for depression and demographics, the collected data was then analyzed to determine what relationship, if any, existed between the types of bullying and suicidal risk levels, as well as testing the interactions between each bullying type and incidences of depression (Kodish, et al, 2016).  It was determined that there is a statistically significant relationship between risk of suicide and all three types of bullying, with a cumulative bullying experience also associated with a heightened risk of suicide.  It should also be noted that significance was recognized between all four bullying factors (verbal, physical, cyber, cumulative) and incidences of depression, with a stronger link between bullying occurrences and suicide severity among patients with depressive symptoms.  While the effects of physical, cyber, and cumulative bullying experiences were found not to be statistically significant with regard to suicide attempts, patients who experienced verbal bullying were shown to be 1.5 times more likely to report a suicide attempt (Kodish, et al, 2016).

 

Overall, it was discovered that all three forms of bullying were linked to suicide risk severity, with the effect being acutely heightened when symptoms of depression were present.  Of the three forms of bullying assessed, it was discovered that verbal bullying had, by far, the most impact, which may be due to it being the most common type reported (25% of the sample cohort reported verbal abuse in bullying situations).  This may be due to the fact that it is usually delivered publicly and in person.  By contrast, physical bullying, which may be painful and socially humiliating, may have a lesser psychological impact than other forms of bullying.  This could be due to any number of factors (“David v Goliath”-type situation, physical confrontation being motivated by racism, etc).  In regards to cyber bullying, the fact that it is usually done anonymously as well as the fact that the Internet is impersonal in nature may have a curtailing effect on the impact of this particular type of bullying.  Depression has been shown in this particular study to definitely be a moderator between bullying and suicide risk, but further study is warranted to determine the overall extent to which this relationship exists, as well as determining the extent of moderation for each type of bullying.

 

Looking at the relationship between bullying, suicidal ideation and the relevance of associated depression provides insight into developing appropriate and effective treatment protocols for those who are most at-risk.  By establishing a solid connection between bullying, suicidal ideation, and depression, the authors have furthered insight into a serious issue facing our youth, and it should be noted that not only does this research benefit those who are bullied, but also those who do the bullying; youth who bully others have been found to be at significantly increased risk for suicide and depression as well.

 

Delving further into these issues will help to improve not only the understanding necessary for addressing the victims of bullying but also to understand what it is that causes a bully to victimize others, thus allowing earlier interventions for prevention of escalation, and ultimately the reversal of those trends that lead to bullying, depression, and suicidal ideation.  The authors note that assessing for these issues during primary care visits is warranted.  Going forward, improving the assessment for these issues through clinical interviews should be a priority for those not only in healthcare occupations, but also those who are likely to have the most social non-parental contact with children (teachers, clergy, etc).

 

Kodish, T., Herres, J., Shearer, A., Atte, T., Fein, J., & Diamond, G. (2016). Bullying, Depression, and Suicide Risk in a Pediatric Primary Care Sample. Crisis, 37(3), 241-246. doi:10.1027/0227-5910/a000378

 

 

Teresa King
PMHC Doctoral Intern

 

Friday Factoids: The Dangers of Synthetic Marijuana

 

 

While many states have decriminalized the possession, use, and cultivation of natural Cannabis for either medicinal or recreational purposes, a majority of states continue to follow Federal guidelines with their approach to natural Cannabis and the law.  This seems to be driving the popularity of synthetic marijuana in those states where natural Cannabis is still treated as a controlled substance.  Synthetic marijuana goes by many names such as Spice, K-2, “fake weed”, etc., and the biggest issue seems to be that although it binds to the same CB1 receptor in the brain, it acts as a full agonist, rather than just a partial agonist as in the case of THC. (NIDA, 2015; Walton, 2014)  Binding with a much greater efficiency seems to make it much more difficult for the body to process and metabolize the acting ingredient that gives the high the user is looking for, with the result that the effect is many times more powerful than that produced by THC.

 

While the active ingredients in synthetic marijuana are called “cannabinoids” due to their chemical resemblance to cannabinoids that are found in natural Cannabis, they are much more potent, and unpredictable, in their effects on the user.  Even though they are marketed as a safe and legal alternative, their effects can be so much more powerful that they can become life-threatening. (NIDA, 2015)  The fact that CB1 receptors are in every structure of the brain is a key part of what makes the issue so serious, as are the symptoms experienced during an overdose event.  CB1 receptors in the hippocampus (memory affect), temporal cortex (seizure initiation), prefrontal cortex (psychosis), and brain stem (cardiac, respiratory, and gastrointestinal affect) all contribute to the myriad of symptoms that occur during an overdose on synthetic marijuana having a lasting effect, while the effects of an “overdose” from THC in natural Cannabis tend to dissipate fairly quickly.   “Clinically, they just don’t look like people who smoke marijuana,” says Lewis Nelson, MD, at NYU’s Department of Emergency Medicine, Division of Medical Toxicology. “Pot users are usually interactive, mellow, funny. Everyone once in a while we see a bad trip with natural marijuana. But it goes away quickly. With people using synthetic, they look like people who are using amphetamines: they’re angry, sweaty, agitated.” (Walton, 2014)

 

Newly available and unregulated psychoactive compounds, including synthetic marijuana, belong to a drug group called “new psychoactive substances”, or NPS.  NPS are problematic in that as soon as a compound is added to the group for regulation, another is quickly made available, and the cycle continues.  Fundamental changes in drug policy, drug law, public perception/attitudes, and approaches to treatment will be necessary before the depth of the problem can be ascertained, and a suitable method for treatment and recovery developed and implemented.

 

References

NIDA (2015). Synthetic Cannabinoids. Retrieved November 24, 2016, from          https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/synthetic-cannabinoids

 

Walton, A. G. (2014, August 28). Why synthetic marijuana is more toxic to the brain than pot. Forbes. Retrieved November 24, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/08/28/6-reasons-synthetic-marijuana-spice-k2-is-so-toxic-to-the-brain/#5e615f9249eb

 

Teresa King
Pennyroyal Doctoral Intern