MonthJanuary 2022

Reading of the Week: Less & Less – Psychiatrists & Psychotherapy; Also, Transgender Individuals & Care (Psych Services) and Digital Mental Health (ANZJP)

From the Editor

“For much of the 20th century, psychotherapy was viewed as synonymous with psychiatry and was the primary treatment modality employed by outpatient psychiatrists.” 

Daniel Tadmon and Dr. Mark Olfson (both of Columbia University) observe this in a new paper. But times have changed; has the practice of psychiatry moved away from psychotherapy?

This week, there are three selections. The first is a new paper from The American Journal of Psychiatry that looks at psychotherapy provided by US psychiatrists. Drawing on decades of data, Tadmon and Olfson find: “While a small group of psychiatrists (11% – 15%) continued to provide psychotherapy in all patient visits, in the 2010s, about half of psychiatrists did not provide psychotherapy at all, and those who provided psychotherapy in some patient visits came to do so more and more rarely.” We consider the paper and its implications.

Sorry Freud: most psychiatrists don’t practice psychotherapy

In the second selection, Dr. June Sing Hong Lam and his co-authors consider the mental health experiences of transgender individuals. In a Psychiatric Services paper, they draw on administrative databases focusing on both ED visits and hospitalizations. They conclude: “This study found that transgender individuals presenting for acute mental health care were more likely to experience marginalization than cisgender individuals and to present to acute care with different diagnostic patterns.”

Finally, in the third selection, Dr. Aswin Ratheesh and Mario Alvarez-Jimenez (both of the University of Melbourne) consider digital mental health and the post-pandemic world. In the Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, they write about various problems (for instance, with digital privacy). Still, they see much potential: “Effective digital tools, especially when blended and responsive can radically improve the availability of mental health care in our corner of resource-rich, yet manpower-poor world.”

Please note that there will be no Reading next week.

DG

Continue reading

Reading of the Week: Better with Time? The New JAMA Paper on Stigma; Also, Dr. Steuber on Real Doctors – and Real Stigma (Academic Psych)

From the Editor

“To say that I didn’t know my great-uncle, Wolfe Levine, would understate things. I didn’t even know of such an uncle, brother of my mother’s father (a grandfather with whom I was close). In retrospect, it’s clear that my great-uncle was simply unmentionable.” In a long essay, writer Howard Husock notes that his great uncle, who suffered from mental illness, was never mentioned.

Society’s view of mental illness has changed much in recent years (good), but some stigma still exists (not so good). How have the public’s views shifted over time?

In our first selection, drawing from JAMA Network Open, we look at a new paper by Bernice A. Pescosolido (of Indiana University) and her co-authors. Reviewing attitudes and beliefs over 22 years, they find that: “this survey study found the first evidence of significant decreases in public stigma toward depression.” That said, not all the results are encouraging. We look at the paper and its clinical implications.

In the second selection, Dr. Elizabeth R. Steuber (of Johns Hopkins University) writes about the stigma faced by those in mental health care. Dr. Steuber, who is a resident of psychiatry, discusses the comments of a patient. She contemplates her work and the potential to change ongoing stigma: “I am hopeful that by leading through example on the medical floors, psychiatry trainees will continue to reshape how the field is seen by society at-large, even if it is only one patient at a time.”

DG

Continue reading

Reading of the Week: The Best of 2021

From the Editor

Welcome 2022.

It’s a Reading of the Week tradition that we begin the New Year by reviewing the best of the past year; so, this week, we look back at 2021.

2020 to 2021

As with past annual reviews, I’ve organized papers into different categories – though there is one common thread: all the papers are clinically relevant and practical. And, yes, there is a person of the year. Spoiler alert: he was fond of bow ties and thinking outside the box.

And an observation about 2021: the quality of scholarship was very high. I’ve picked ten papers – but it would have been possible to pick scores more. Psychiatry continues to grow more sophisticated with each passing year.

DG

Continue reading