Friday Factoids: A Look At “When Spring Brings You Down” by Linda Andrews

 

 

Spring time is in the air, woohoo! Finally! With the cold weather behind us and the polar vortex no longer a significant threat, it is time to peel off the long winter coat and open the window blinds in your office to let the sun in [given there are windows in your office]. With the spring comes many perks, such as viewing the beautiful landscape of the soft Kentucky bluegrass, the green leaves hanging on the oak trees, colorful flowers, and the fresh smell of daffodils.

 

Sounds fantastic, right!

 

Well, not so fast.

 

In her article, When Spring Brings You Down, Andrews (2012) writes about two issues that are not so welcoming with the change of season. She mentions “seasonal allergies and reverse seasonal affective disorder (SAD).”  Seasonal allergy sufferers are vulnerable to inflammation and infection. As a result, Andrews states that the molecule, cytokines, forms clusters around the infected area (Mandal, n.d.), which has been linked to depression and in severe cases, suicide. An additional reading source by David Dobbs, entitled, Clues in the Cycle of Suicide, provides more information about suicide rates during the spring and into the summer months.

 

Interestingly, Andrews further talks about SAD and the possibility that it is not specific to the winter months, but to the summer as well.  As the DSM-5 begins to take center stage, SAD will no longer be a separate diagnosis. Rather, SAD will take the form of several specifiers for major depressive disorder, recurrent and bipolar I and II disorders (DSM-5; pgs153-154; 187-188).

 

Yes, you may have already noticed that specifiers rule in DSM-5.

 

In the end, however, the spring air, filled with its freshness and good spirits, may not be a time of optimism for some individuals.

 

References:

 

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5).

 

 

Andrews, L. (2012). When spring brings you down. Retrieved from
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/minding-the-body/201203/when-spring-brings-you-  down.

 

 

 

Dobbs, D. (2013).  Clues in the cycle of suicide. Retrieved from http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/clues-in-the-cycle-of-suicide/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0.

 

 

Mandal, A. (n.d.). What are cytokines? Retrieved from http://www.news-       medical.net/health/What-are-Cytokines.aspx.

 

 

 

David Wright, MA, MSW

WKPIC Doctoral Intern

Article Summary of Risk Factors for Violence in Psychosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis of 110 Studies

 

 

Witt, van Dorn, and Fazel (2013) noted many inconsistencies and varying emphases in the current literature on the association of violence and psychosis. This led the researchers to perform a meta-analyses of the current literature base, essentially combining all current studies on violence risk and psychosis into one helpful summary. The authors noted this task is important to the field for several reasons. First, combining and analyzing this information would hopefully help to develop evidence-based approaches to risk assessment. Next, this information can help focus treatment with relevant populations to the most pertinent risk factors, while simultaneously enhancing protective factors. Finally, consolidating this information can help clinicians and researchers better understand why certain individuals with psychosis have a higher risk of violence.

 

Six major databases were searched from their inception until December 2011. For some databases, this meant going back as far as 1960. Non-English articles were translated by qualified post-graduate students. For inclusion, diagnoses had to be assigned based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria, and more than 95% of study participants were aged 18 or older and diagnosed with either schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder, schizotypal disorder, psychosis not otherwise specified, and bipolar disorder. It is important to note that psychoses as the result of medical conditions, substance intoxication, or substance withdrawal were excluded from the collected data. Studies were excluded if the focus was on genetic or epigenetic associations with violence, childhood violence, or offender populations. Furthermore, items were only included in the data collection process if the risk factor was included in three or more separate studies, which helped improve the validity of risk estimates. Risk factors were separated by time in that “recent” factors were those that occurred within the past year from the time of the original study, while “history of” factors were those that occurred at some point in the past, more than one year from the time of the original study. Data collected from each study may have been reported in different measurements; therefore, all collected data was converted to an odds ratio (ORs). For each factor identified, ORs, 95% confidence intervals, number of studies, the z score, number of violent participants, and total number of participants were reported.

 

A total of 110 studies that included 73 independent samples met inclusion criteria. This equated to a large number of participants (n=45,533) of whom 18.5% (8,439) were reported to be violent. Just over 85% of participants were diagnosed with schizophrenia, just under 12% were diagnosed with other psychoses, and 0.4% were diagnosed with bipolar disorder. The age of participants ranged from 21.1 to 54.3 years, with the average age of 35.8 years. The data included studies conducted in 27 countries.

 

Overall, the strongest domains associated with violence include the criminal history, substance misuse, demographic, and premorbid factors. When analysis was restricted to inpatient samples, the substance misuse domain was significantly associated with violence, but less so compared to the findings in the overall analysis. Additionally, analysis restricted to inpatient samples found the psychopathology and positive symptom domains were more strongly associated with violence, while the negative symptom, neuropsychological, demographic, premorbid, suicidality, and treatment-related domains were not significantly associated with risk of violence when compared to the overall analysis. The finding of differences in factors associated with violence among inpatient samples versus community samples could lend itself to the field developing different violence risk assessment approaches depending on whether the individual is in inpatient or outpatient treatment currently. A rather interesting finding was the association of previous suicide attempts with violence, especially considering most current and commonly used violence risk assessments do not usually include assessment of suicide. The authors speculate that history of previous suicide attempts was associated with violence, while experiencing suicidal ideation was not, because impulsivity may be a contributing factor to violence toward self and violence toward others. The authors close by identifying the most important factors to attend to during violence risk assessments: hostile behavior, poor impulse control, lack of insight, general symptom scores, recent alcohol and/or drug misuse, psychotherapy non-compliance, and medication non-compliance.

 

The major findings are described below in outline format for easy reference.

  • Demographic Factors
    • Strongly associated with violence:
      • History of being violently victimized
    • Moderately associated with violence:
      • Recent homelessness or history of homelessness
      • Male
    • Weakly associated with violence:
      • Member of ethnic minorities
      • Currently having a lower socioeconomic status
    • NOT significantly associated with violence:
      • Received no more than a primary school education
      • Received no more than a high school education
      • Lower family socioeconomic status during childhood
      • Shorter duration of education in years
      • Lacking any formal education qualifications
      • Currently living in an urban environment
      • Currently living alone
      • Unmarried
      • Widowed or divorced
      • Currently unemployed
      • Having children
      • Younger age at study enrollment in years
  • Premorbid Factors
    • Moderately associated with violence:
      • History of childhood physical or sexual abuse
      • Parental history of criminal involvement
      • Parental history of alcohol misuse
    • NOT significantly associated with violence:
      • Experienced the death of one parent during childhood
      • Experienced divorce or separation of parents during childhood
      • Raised by a single parent
  • Criminal History Factors
    • Significantly associated with violence:
      • History of assault
      • History of imprisonment for any offense
      • Recent arrest or history of arrest for any offense
      • History of conviction for a violent offense
      • History of violent behavior
      • Hostility during the study period
  • Psychopathological Factors
    • Strongly associated with violence:
      • Lack of insight
      • Poor impulse control
    • Moderately associated with violence:
      • Diagnosis of comorbid antisocial personality disorder
      • Higher total Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) scores
    • NOT significantly associated with violence:
      • Diagnosed with bipolar disorder
      • Diagnosed with any subtype of schizophrenia
      • Diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder
      • Diagnosed with psychotic disorder not otherwise specified
      • Younger age of onset in years
  • Positive Symptom Factors
    • Associated with violence:
      • Higher positive symptom scores
    • NOT significantly associated with violence:
      • Experienced paranoid thoughts
      • Experienced delusions of any type
      • Experienced auditory hallucinations, including command auditory hallucinations
      • Acutely symptomatic
  • Negative Symptom Factors
    • NOT significantly associated with violence:
      • Higher poor attention span scores
      • Diagnosed with comorbid depression
  • Neuropsychological Factors
    • NOT significantly associated with violence:
      • Lower Full Scale IQ scores on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)
      • Lower Performance IQ scores on the WAIS
      • Lower Verbal IQ scores on the WAIS
      • Lower scores on the Picture Completion subtest of the WAIS
      • Lower total scores on the National Adult Reading Test (NART)
      • Higher perseverative errors on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
  • Substance Misuse Factors
    • Strongly associated with violence:
      • History of polysubstance misuse
      • Diagnosis of comorbid substance use disorder
      • Recent substance misuse
    • Moderately associated with violence:
      • Recent or history of alcohol misuse
      • History of substance misuse
      • Recent or history of drug misuse
  • Treatment-Related Factors
    • Strongly associated with violence:
      • Psychotherapy treatment non-compliance
    • Moderately associated with violence:
      • Medication non-compliance
    • NOT significantly associated with violence:
      • Not having a prescription of antipsychotic medication of any type
      • Higher antipsychotic dosage
      • Shorter duration of antipsychotic treatment in months
      • Shorter duration of current inpatient admission in months
      • Shorter duration of current outpatient treatment in months
      • Younger age at first psychiatric inpatient admission in years
      • Greater number of previous psychiatric admissions
      • Longer duration of untreated illness in years
  • Suicide Factors
    • Moderately associated with violence:
      • History of previous suicide attempts
    • NOT significantly associated with violence:
      • History of experiencing suicidal ideation
      • History of self-harm

Witt, K., van Dorn, R., & Fazel, S. (2013). Risk factors for violence in psychosis: Systematic review and meta-regression analysis of 110 studies. PLOS One, 8(2), 1-15.

 

Danielle M. McNeill, M.S., M.A.
Doctoral Intern

 

 

Welcome to the 2014-2015 Internship Class

Hooray!

 

 

WKPIC is thrilled to announce that we filled our 3 slots during Round I of Match this year–with awesome students! We extend a hearty welcome to Brittany Best, Faisal Roberts, and Graham Martin. We look forward to working with all of you come September!

 

 

 

Susan R. Vaught, Ph.D.
WKPIC Training Director

Review of Knoll’s Inpatient Suicide: Identifying Vulnerability in the Hospital Setting

Safety is the number one concern of patients admitted into an inpatient mental health facility.  In theory, inpatient mental health facilities fulfill two goals: (1) to safeguard patients especially to patients at risk for suicide, and (2) to provide comprehensive services including, but not limited to medication management, individual/group psychotherapy, and effective diagnosis. The overall plan of care requires a collaborative effort consisting of psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, nursing staff, the individual patient, and the patient’s family/primary support system. However, when an inpatient suicide takes place in a mental health facility, vulnerabilities must be carefully reviewed and addressed to help reduce and prevent the occurrence.

 

 

A study of Knoll’s (2008) article revealed frightening facts about the incidence of inpatient suicides. To support his findings, Knoll (as cited in the psychiatric-times.com) included information from the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) between 1995 -2005 (Knoll, 2008).  According to JCAHO, as cited from Knoll (2008) and Burgess, Pirkis, Morton, and Croke (2000),    “Suicides were the result of ineffective clinical assessment. The lack of risk management accounted for approximately 60% of suicides (Knoll, 2008;  p.1) .”

 

Specific to inpatient facilities, Knoll indicated that hanging was the most recurrent method to commit suicide.  Of particular interest, he indicated that approximately ¾ of inpatient deaths take place in the patient’s restroom, bedroom, or closet areas.  Knoll also reminds personnel that items such as shoelaces, belts, straps, razors, etc., can potentially be weapons used by patients wishing to attempt suicide. Furthermore, there is a pattern of concern that has emerged in recent literature which suggests that inpatient facilities are: (1) inadequately monitoring patients, and (2) inadequately protecting first admit patients with thoughts of self harm, either moderate or severe.  According to Knoll, these concerns have raised ethical concerns that question the efficacy of psychiatrists, psychologists, and the hospital staff to protect the patient from harm.

 

It is indeed a fact that hospitals face daily challenges.  Knoll emphasized that sharing information is a daily challenge and has become a critical issue to the point that it is of the utmost significance that staff communicate with one another to identify patients who are a suicide risk.  According to Knoll, communication or the lack thereof has contributed to a huge missing piece of the puzzle among the causes of suicide. He suggested ongoing staff education to focus on innovative suicide assessments and treatment. Knoll further stated that hospital staff should exercise caution when utilizing 15-minute checks with seriously suicidal patients who have been assessed as high risk or uncertain risk. He has also highlighted that inpatients can and do commit suicide while on 15-minute checks.

 

According to Knoll, too often will staff working in an inpatient environment get desensitized and no longer feel responsible for patient safety.  It is believed that staff may become stressed and oftentimes lose impartiality that they view patients as scheming, manipulative, over-dependent, or feigning. In other words, suicide rates tend to increase when there is a breakdown of empathy, genuineness, and a lack of unconditional positive regard. The bottom line is that Knoll stresses that the highest-risk times for suicide are the first week after admission to an inpatient mental treatment facility and shortly after discharge. In short, conventional therapy interventions may prove ineffective and in some instances may exacerbate the risk of suicidal ideation.  Therefore, mental health practitioners must implement out of the box thinking to approach patients who are at risk of suicide.

 

In summary, Knoll suggests that the mental health professional take a different point of view when caring for patients. Regardless of the mental health label, patient care should not be taken lightly. 1:1 close observation must be taken seriously. He states that the greatest risk of suicide is upon admission, especially when the patient being assessed is a first admit patient.

 

References

Knoll, J. L. (2008). Inpatient suicide: Identifying vulnerabilities in the hospital setting. Psychiatric Times, May 22, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/suicide/inpatient-suicide-identifying-vulnerability-hospital-setting

 

Burgess, B., Pirkis, J., Morton, J., & Croke, E. (2000). Lessons from a comprehensive clinical audit of users of  psychiatric services who committed suicide. Psychiatric Services, 51, 1555-1560.

 

David Wright, MA, MSW
WKPIC Doctoral Intern

 

 

Neuropsychology and Sports-Related Concussions

 

 

William B. Barr, Ph.D., ABPP, Associate Professor of Neurology & Psychiatry at NYU School of Medicine, writes,

 

“This year marks the 20th anniversary of the “modern era” in the study of concussion in sports, which began in 1994 following the retirements of Merrill Hoge and Al Toon and the National Football League’s (NFL) formation of its first Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee. Since that time, we have witnessed a marked shift from what was a pervasive attitude of denying or minimizing the effects of head injury in sport to one where stories of the current “concussion epidemic” or the controversy about long-term consequences of head injury in retired athletes appear in our newspapers on a daily basis. Over the same time period, the field of neuropsychology has received an unprecedented degree of public attention resulting from the fact that many in our field, including members of the Society of Clinical Neuropsychology (SCN), have provided important contributions to the scientific study of sports concussion and development of methods for its assessment. My goal in this SCN NeuroBlog is to provide a brief review and critique of neuropsychology’s role in the clinical management of sports concussion with suggestions on how we can maintain our position as leaders with regard to this highly publicized injury.”

 

Read the remainder of Dr. Barr’s piece on the direction and role of neuropsychologists in assessing concussions related to sports activities on the SCN NeuroBlog.

 

Susan R. Vaught, Ph.D.
WKPIC Training Director