Hero

Videos

Slideshows

Articles

Podcasts

Poll

According to the Physicians Foundation’s 2022 Survey of America’s Physicians, 8 in 10 physicians believe the United States cannot improve health outcomes or reduce health care costs without addressing social factors that affect patient health. Furthermore, although they are interested in addressing social drivers of health (SDOH) for patients, 61% of the 1502 surveyed physicians said they do not have the time or ability to do so effectively. The February 2022 survey examined the current impact of SDOH on physician practice, physician well-being, and their patients, as well as possible solutions needed to address the social factors.

“Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no question that physicians and patients have all been impacted, some worse than others. Part of what drives the scale of that impact is SDOH,” Physicians Foundation CEO Robert Seligson said in a news release. “The desire from physicians to properly address the SDOH is there. We need take the initiative to make changes, like screening patients to identify social needs and creating financial incentives to support physicians in addressing their patients’ unique needs.”

Also known as social determinants of health, SDOH include factors such socioeconomic status, education, neighborhood and physical environment, employment, nutrition and food security, health care access, and social support networks.

The survey highlighted the resulting frustration of not being able to address SDOH for their patients. “[It] isn’t for lack of trying or effort—physicians face many barriers when addressing SDOH,” the Physicians Foundation report said. For instance, along with limited time, 84% of physicians said they have an insufficient workforce to navigate patients to community SDOH resources. Similarly, although there are some helpful resources to navigate SDOH factors, 77% of physicians reported community resources were not available, inadequate, or difficult to access, and 77% said there is inadequate information on how to access community resources.

The impact of SDOH challenges is very real, and not just for patients. More than half the physicians reported the challenges cause them stress on a daily or weekly basis. They cited factors such as existing payer reporting requirements taking time away from discussing patients SDOH (63%) and lack of reimbursement for screening or addressing SDOH (57%).

To make addressing SDOH easier for clinicians, the survey identified multiple policy steps that could improve patient health outcomes while ensuring high-quality, cost-efficient care. The top strategies were reimbursing physician-directed efforts to address SDOH (86%), incentivizing payers to invest in availability and quality of community resources to address patients’ SDOH (84%), and providing greater flexibility for Medicare Advantage to reimburse for addressing SDOH (81%).

“In 2021, The Physicians Foundation submitted the first-ever SDOH measures to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which are currently under consideration to be included in federal payment programs,” Seligson said in the news release. “If adopted, these measures might potentially impact reimbursements for physicians, as well as address SDOH in how our country pays for and delivers care to improve patient health.” ❒

8 in 10 physicians believe the United States cannot improve health outcomes or reduce health care costs without addressing social factors that affect patient health. 

Physicians Point to SDOH as Area of Improvement for Health Care

Apetamin is a syrup consisting of L-lysine, cyproheptadine, and B vitamins (thiamine, pyridoxine, nicotinamide, and dexpanthenol) that is produced by Indian pharmaceutical company TIL Healthcare Pvt Ltd.

 Cyproheptadine is available by prescription only in the United States,

 but Apetamin syrup is being sold illegally on social media platforms and other online sources as an unregulated weight-gain supplement.

 It has gained media attention in recent years, with social media influencers promoting it as a supplement for body enhancement, promising an hourglass figure that UK National Health Service (NHS) officials have described as “unobtainable and biologically unsafe.”

The misuse of cyproheptadine as a figure enhancer is occurring on an international scale. A 2019 case report from India describes a man who gained 15 kg of weight during a 1-year period while taking a “gym-tonic” pill composed of cyproheptadine and dexamethasone that was illicitly prescribed by his gym instructor for weight-gain purposes.

 Another recent study, this one from the Democratic Republic of Congo, describes the “C4 Phenomenon”: In Kinshasa, cyproheptadine is sold as an appetite stimulant under the name C4 and promoted as a way to obtain a rounded physical appearance.

 More than two-thirds of the population surveyed reported using C4 over the past 6 months, with use found to be more common among women and those with lower educational levels.

 Almost half of users reported that it had been recommended to them by their friends, and more than 90% reported self-prescribing.

NHS leaders in the United Kingdom have urged social media platforms such as Instagram to shut down accounts promoting or selling Apetamin, given significant concerns about its potential physical and mental health effects, particularly on young women and girls, to whom such content is predominantly targeted.

Cyproheptadine is a first-generation antihistamine with antiserotonergic, anticholinergic, and sedative properties.

 It has been in medical use since the 1960s and is approved by the FDA for the treatment of various allergic conditions.

 In the 2000s, it was studied for its orexigenic effects in undernourished children, with variable results.

 It has been used as an off-label treatment for a wide range of psychiatric conditions, including serotonin syndrome, akathisia, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor–induced sexual dysfunction. It has also been investigated for possible use in the treatment of nightmares in posttraumatic stress disorder, insomnia secondary to stimulant use, behavioral control in autism spectrum disorders, and neuropsychiatric sequelae of efavirenz.

A retrospective review of the French Pharmacovigilance Database by Bertrand et al examined all reported adverse effects of cyproheptadine since its first distribution in France in 1985 and concluded that it can be considered a “safe” drug.

 During this 35-year period, a total of 93 adverse effects (AEs) were reported, which were primarily neurological and hepatic in nature, with drowsiness representing the most common AE; hepatotoxicity was found to be uncommon.

The suggested initial dosing for the treatment of FDA-indicated conditions compared with the manufacturer’s suggested daily dose of Apetamin is outlined in 

Keep in mind, however, that individuals using illicitly obtained Apetamin as a weight-gain supplement may not adhere to these dosing recommendations. One case report from 2020 describes a woman who reported drinking Apetamin syrup directly from the bottle—to maximize its reported figure-enhancing effects; after 6 weeks of daily use, she developed autoimmune hepatitis.

Additionally, given that the illicit sale of Apetamin on social media is inherently unregulated, buyers cannot be certain that the product they are receiving is consistent with the formula reported by the manufacturer or that the product has not been adulterated with other substances. Consumption of unknown quantities of Apetamin presents the risk of unintentional cyproheptadine overdose. The maximum daily dose of cyproheptadine by age is outlined in 

In overdose, cyproheptadine may cause central nervous system depression and sedation, as well as anticholinergic syndrome, with symptoms such as dry mouth, dilated pupils, and flushing.

 A 2011 review of the characteristics of intentional cyproheptadine overdoses indicated that approximately 40% of cases were asymptomatic, whereas 17% developed anticholinergic delirium presenting as acute psychosis.

 The average dose ingested was lower for asymptomatic patients than for patients who developed delirium, at 49.

In addition, the weight gain associated with Apetamin use also presents a risk of developing obesity, which is in itself a risk factor for a range of health conditions including hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and osteoarthritis.

Clinical Considerations for Psychiatric Providers

Given that Apetamin misuse is occurring on a global scale, it is important for psychiatric providers worldwide to be aware of the risks this agent presents so that they are prepared to appropriately counsel patients. As influencers on social media platforms appear to be predominantly targeting young women and girls in their promotion of Apetamin, awareness is particularly important for providers treating children and adolescents.

Although the study from Kinshasa suggests that potential risk factors for use include female gender and lower educational levels,

 further research is needed into what other factors may place someone at greater risk for use. Providers may wish to consider screening patients with a known history of eating disorders, body dysmorphic disorder, or other body image–related concerns—particularly patients who are known to use social media platforms. Providers may also simply consider including Apetamin in their routine questioning of young women about medication and herbal supplement use.

In addition to the risks described, psychiatric providers should also keep in mind that for patients who are prescribed monoamine oxidase inhibitors, cyproheptadine has the potential to prolong anticholinergic effects.

 is a resident physician in the Department of Psychiatry at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

 is an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry and behavioral science and director of the Psychiatry Residency Program in the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.

1. Appetite stimulants. TIL Healthcare. Accessed January 27, 2022. 

https://tilhealthcare.com/appetite-stimulant/

2. Cyproheptadine. Package insert. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA; 2009.

3. Murdoch C, Powis S, Wallace K. Letter to Instagram from Claire Murdoch regarding the drug Apetamin. UK National Health Service. May 3, 2021. Accessed January 27, 2022. 

https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/letter-to-instagram-from-claire-murdoch-regard-the-drug-apetamin/

4. Bawaskar HS, Bawaskar PH, Bawaskar PH. 

5. Lulebo AM, Bavuidibo CD, Mafuta EM, et al. 

The misuse of cyproheptadine: a non-communicable disease risk behaviour in Kinshasa population, Democratic Republic of Congo

Safety of cyproheptadine, an orexigenic drug. analysis of the French National Pharmacovigilance Data-Base and systematic review

Cyproheptadine: a psychopharmacological treasure trove?

8. Garland V, Kumar A, Theisen B, Borum ML. 

Apetamin hepatotoxicity: potential consequences of purchasing a body enhancement drug off the internet

Review of the epidemiology and characteristics of intentional cyproheptadine overdose in Hong Kong

In overdose, cyproheptadine may cause central nervous system depression and sedation, as well as anticholinergic syndrome.

Under the Influence: Misuse of Apetamin, the Illicit Social Media Weight-Gain Drug

This article is dedicated to the memory of Sharland Trotter, EdD, whose wisdom, courage, and generosity gave life to this project.

What can we learn about practicing while dying from a therapist who is terminally ill? In this article, we examine this wisdom in an interview generously given by the brilliant therapist Sharland Trotter, EdD, 3 weeks before her untimely death. In the interview, Trotter shared her experiences and insights while treating patients for 3 years between her diagnosis with metastatic colon cancer in 1994 and her passing on Thanksgiving Day 1997.

The literature on this subject focuses primarily on the question of when and to what extent a therapist diagnosed with terminal illness should disclose this fact to their patients. Contrary to the majority view in the literature at the time of her death,

 but in accordance with emerging views that have gradually become widely accepted,

 Trotter adopted a policy of maximal disclosure consistent with the patients’ needs from the moment she was diagnosed. The broader clinical implications of Trotter’s insights are discussed.

Most articles about the therapist who is terminally ill are written from the patient’s perspective. The few articles written from the therapist’s perspective mostly focus on serious illness from which the therapist ultimately recovered, with Feinsilver

 being a notable exception. Articles written from the patient’s perspective primarily focus on the patient’s reaction to the therapist’s illness. Halpert

 focuses on the analyst’s denial of their own illness, which leads to denial by the patient. He states that patients use denial in response not only to their own guilt about their aggressive wishes toward the analyst, but also to their perception that the analyst cannot tolerate awareness of their illness. Meloche

 focuses on the ways the knowledge that the therapist is dying becomes therapeutically useful in completing unfinished past mourning with the dying therapist’s help. Clark

 focuses on the ways the therapist’s illness limits their ability to use the self as part of analysis. Auxéméry

 focuses on patients’ difficulty returning to treatment after the sudden death of their therapist. Rizq

 focuses on how the therapist’s illness recalls previous losses in the patient. Gómez et al

 focus on how institutions cope with the terminal illness of one of their founders.

A major debate in this literature centers on the degree to which seriously ill or dying therapists should disclose facts about their illness to their patients. Abend

 presents the traditional case for maintaining neutrality as much as possible, and for limiting the information given to the rescheduling of sessions. He acknowledges, however, that he found it impossible to maintain such neutrality when returning from his own illness. Schwartz

 similarly advocates for the “abstinent stance” with no disclosure to the patient, relying on Freud’s own behavior. On the other hand, Rosner

 reviewed 4 cases in which ill or dying therapists withheld as much information as possible from their patients in order to maintain analytic “neutrality.” He states that the majority of patients learned about the illness regardless of how much the therapist revealed, and they reacted based on their own histories. Patients may view the analyst’s illness as threatening and unacceptable, and some will deny the illness and feel deceived, betrayed, and abandoned. Rosner argues that these case histories support openness with patients, and that fantasies—including hostile fantasies—will appear regardless of how much information the therapist divulges.

 argues in favor of self-disclosure as both a requirement and a component of clinical technique. Bram

 presents arguments both for and against self-disclosure, but suggests that there is an ethical duty to disclose within limits. The only previous paper by a dying therapist—Feinsilver

—also argues in favor of disclosure, which functions in dialectical interplay with fantasy. Fajardo

 distinguishes between the traditional emphasis on transference and the more recent emphasis on the therapeutic alliance, which supports self-disclosure.

The most recent essays contained in Masur

 take a balanced view of these debates. They emphasize the analyst’s defense against acknowledging their mortality and the gradual development of acceptance. They counsel a limited disclosure that varies from patient to patient. Pinsky argues for a return to Freud’s more essential, humane approach against the emphasis of later analysts on neutrality, abstinence, and termination.

An emerging perspective on disclosure is in Elliott and Ragsdale,

 which concerns mental illness in therapists. The study found that expressions of prejudice toward people with mental illnesses were common among these mental health professionals and may contribute to an inclination among therapists to reveal their mental health history selectively, if at all, on the job. When it comes to sharing with clients, therapists tended to be thoughtful and deliberate about self-disclosure, only using it when they believed it would be beneficial to the client rather than to themselves. Regardless of whether they shared with clients, most of the therapists emphasized that having direct experience with mental illness enhanced their ability to empathize with their clients, cautioning that sometimes empathy triggered their own symptoms.

An important issue that is not sufficiently discussed in the literature is how disclosure affects planning for the transfer of patients to other therapists, and the problems that arise if there is no disclosure. Hackett

 explains that the myth of the untroubled therapist

 is shattered all too soon with the unexpected news of a therapist’s death following a short illness or due to incident or accident. These kinds of unplanned terminations have been demonstrated to result in a range of damaging effects on clients, outlined in the 

 found that therapists who “inherit” clients whose previous therapist died often experience negative comparisons with the deceased therapist, and that therapeutic attachment is not as secure.

Because of these negative effects, Hackett

 explains, international and US codes of ethics mandate provisions for the sudden death or incapacitation of therapists and supervisors. Some organizations with such codes of ethics include the American Counseling Association,

 the American Psychological Association (APA),

 the European Association for Counselling,

 and the Irish Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.

 However, only the APA provides tools and resources that therapists can use to deliver on this obligation.

 Practical and legal matters also arise following a therapist’s death. These include the implications of intestacy

 and demands on surviving family members to notify key individuals, as well as their duties as executor/administrator of the deceased clinician’s estate.

This interview with Trotter was conducted by the coauthors of this article in Trotter’s home while she received home hospice care. The following text is verbatim by Trotter, but it has been edited for confidentiality.

 I wanted to somehow get this recorded, my work over the last 3 years with patients, as I have been dying of colon cancer, metastatic colon cancer. I was diagnosed in the fall of 1994. It involved surgery to remove the offending tumor and then chemotherapy.

 I am extremely fortunate in having had a sort of mentor, supervisor, senior consultant who really helped me in more ways than I can—well, in ways that I will try to enumerate here. First of all, he said to me, “Don’t do anything ‘til we’ve talked.” And I went to his office on a Saturday morning, the Saturday after Thanksgiving. And we went through my patient list one by one. And we discussed how much information this one needed to know, how much information that one needed to know, how I should phrase it.

 The bottom line is that I told everyone that I was having surgery. And if they asked further, I told them as many details as they asked for, probably holding back on some details.

So that was the beginning. That began a policy in my practice, which had been an underlying assumption until then, that I was going to be very honest about this. That, without burdening my patients, I was going to answer their questions and not be equivocal. And allow them to be—to take part in this process with me. It had many unintended side effects as I sort of practiced what I would say to people. For example, “Well, have you asked about [weight loss]? Might have something to do with your diet.” I said, “Well, no, I haven’t.” He said, “Well, maybe it does, and maybe there’s a connection.” So, I would ask, and he would gently push me. Wherever I saw in the material of therapy a possibility that it was connected to my death, I would pursue it. I tried—and I think largely succeeded in—not rubbing anybody’s nose in this.

Surprisingly, only a few of my patients initially terminated. Most of them have hung in there for however many years I’ve been seeing them and these 3 years of illness.

For each of them, I think it has meant something different. It has stirred up their own feelings of loss and abandonment, and we have talked about prior losses of theirs. It has reinforced their attachment to me in a very good way. As I began, over the last several months, to actually terminate with people formally, I asked if they thought—what they thought about this experience. What they thought about having been in therapy with somebody who is dying. Whether they thought it had been a burden or a damage to them. And every single one of them said it had been a growth experience rather than anything else.

 Another way that the supervisor’s insistence on the kind of straightforwardness helped me was, I realized suddenly if I were talking to my patients in this candid way, I needed to be talking to my children in an equally candid way. So, it opened the door to an ongoing series of conversations with my own children, which continues, and in which I can see their growth and their coming to terms with this in ways that I would not have anticipated.

 Inadvertently, I pushed it beyond where I should have pushed it. I should have terminated with people before—I mean, a month or 2 ago. Why should I have done that? Because I think in the last month it has been draining. But only [in this last month] has it been a drain on me. For the most part, it has been the opposite: It has been a boost.

I think it [became draining] only when my body made its demands and I became more tired. More physical symptoms surfaced. It was clear I was not going to get better. And at that point, something internally shifted in me where I felt [a] growing—and I think it happened first with my patients—a growing sense of detachment… I do not know the extent to which any of them felt that, and it is not a question I could ask—“Are you as detached as I am?” But no, I think it is only when the illness assumed its rightful position in this drama that I realized it was time to go—time to end the work. So, I terminated with most people at the end of August and held on to a couple of people until the middle of October, and that was too long.

I think some of it was for me. These were people that I wanted to have a particularly good termination with. I wanted to make it as good of a termination as I possibly could. We cannot always calculate time down to the second. We cannot always—we cannot dictate time. So, if I had had 20/20 [hindsight]... yeah, I would have stopped the practice sooner. I would have pushed the whole thing back a little bit so I would have more time with my family. But, how much for them, and how much for me? It was pretty much—it was pretty equal. Otherwise, I would not have done it. I have been guided throughout my career by asking myself, “Is this something you really want to do?,” then weighing the pros and cons of whatever response or nonresponses I might make. And I have no idea what I was going to say next.

In some ways, this leads us into the whole conversation about self-disclosure and when do you self-disclose and when do you not. Are there ever any times when disclosing something personal about your own life is good for the patient? And actually, at the beginning of my illness, I read that literature. And I finally decided that I really could not do or be anything other than I am, who I am, and how I operate. So immediately it became clear to me that I could not suddenly shift gears and become the silent therapist, the blank screen, the—you know. And although I think there is something to be said for not disclosing anything of your personal life to your patients, I think there is also a great danger of disclosing too much. And disclosing without knowing consciously what this may do to the patient—what this may stir up in the patient. So, I struggled with that, and immediately it was clear to me that if I was going to err, it would be on the side of self-disclosure, not on the side of silence.

And there is the issue that you asked about: How many people wanted to know? And it is a very interesting question because some people wanted to know a lot, and some people would say, “How are you doing?” And I would say, “I’m actually doing well under the circumstances.” And they would say, “That’s good,” and then turn to their own stuff and not get into it—not get into, “Well, tell me more about what you’re experiencing.” They did not really want to know the details, and obviously I did not want to force the details down their throats.

There were patients who wanted to know what I considered too much—too much clinical information. And I told them I did not think the information would help them in any way.

Relationship with prediagnosis practices. 

[Let’s say] I was sitting here, [amidst] a debate. People on one side argue that no self-disclosure is ever good, that there is too much risk in letting the patient know anything much about you. On the other side [are the people who argue] you [can] tell [patients] almost anything. [I see it like this]: With each patient, I try to assess, well, what is this information going to really do to and for the patient? Is this something that they really need to know? And is it a thing that they—it would not make any difference if they knew? For example, “Where am I going on vacation?” I have no problem saying, “I’m going to blah blah blah. I’m going to the beach.” “How many kids do I have? How old are they?” It would be a little hard to hide in my circumstance, since I have a husband who writes a column for the 

. Most of my patients know about that, and probably most of them read it or at least glance at it or at least are aware that it is there. So already they know a little bit about my personal life.

My practice is in my house, so they know a lot just taking in the circum[stances]—you know, what the house looks like. So, yeah, I struggled with self-disclosure to some extent. I think one always has to. I think you cannot make a blanket policy and have that just be your policy and never be so inflexible that it does not change, [even] if that is what seems indicated. And sometimes not telling somebody something, even if it would not really in the long range make a difference, is important.

 I canceled very few sessions, and I also made a real effort to hang on to my dignity. So, when I was feeling sick, mostly I think my patients did not notice. They rarely said if they did. Now, occasionally somebody would say, “Are you feeling sleepy?” because I would nod off. And I would say, “Yes, I am.” And apologize. By that point, it was so clear that the illness was gaining ground that it did not bear a lot of discussion. Although as we sit here, talking about it, I think I should have said, “What is this like for you, you know, sitting here with a therapist who’s falling asleep?” I did not. So that is one I missed. In some ways, I was surprised to find there was such a big debate about this in the literature.

I never needed to excuse myself. I remember one incident—and it felt like being in hell—of not knowing whether I was going to make it, willing my bowels to stay tight until the end of the session. In other cases, I canceled. I mean, if I knew it would be a huge risk, I canceled.

 It was interesting to me. I mean, it added a dimension to a portrait of them that I was developing in my head as the therapy went on: that people were capable of sitting there and, really, talking about their problems and their issues with their girlfriends or wives or work. And there is a kind of denial about it all that I certainly fed into. I mean, I had my own level of denial. So, I would tend to reassure people that everything was going well.

To shake them up a little bit? “Hey, don’t forget. Reality check.” I remember dreading going to a session and not wanting to go through with, you know, putting on my professional mask. And almost always, the patient would draw me into their world, and I would actually feel enormously distracted from what was happening with me. So, that they really did not want to know just added a little dimension to who they were. One thing that was difficult was feeling I did not have the ability to ask, “Why are you not more interested in my cancer?” But I never figured out how to say that without sounding peculiar.

It was bittersweet. It was very poignant. I think there was not a single person who did not cry. And as I think I said before, people mostly—no, I think like 100%—said they did not feel that this had been a burden to them or damaging to them. That they had learned something about all of this, about themselves, about living and dying—about the fact that one could talk about something as taboo as death. It could in some ways help them revisit other losses without the sharp pain of remembering in some other way. That they had a concrete loss to deal with and another one to let seep in around the edges so they could deal with it more slowly and more gently.

 Yeah, I do remember, but I do not remember many of the details of that hour. But again, this is where my denial kicks in, and denial, I think in this case, served me very well. I could just put it all on hold and go into my office, close the door, be with the patient, with some relief that I was not going to say anything right now. And knowing that it was just 1 hour—I think it was just 1 hour. So, I would say that, in part, I was on automatic pilot through much of that session. But I certainly did not lose it. I went in, I did—I sat with the person for an hour and told them to have a nice weekend.

I guess that was the beginning of the formal termination that happened over the summer. I became aware in May or June that this was going to… that this was the beginning of the end. Although I had no idea how rapidly it was going to progress. Um… Push it off… So that was when my denial faded, and that was the time in which I started terminating. And I told each patient that it was clear that we had run out of treatment options—that I did not know how much longer I had, but that I was going to close my practice at the end of the summer, so we had work over the summer to make it right, I mean, to say goodbye to each other.

So, in that case, my denial again sort of guided me—or my lack of denial. The fading away of denial guided me in, “OK, what is the next clinical step here?” I think I made some mistakes. I think some patients who I saw practically until the bitter end, I held out to them some ambiguous hope that maybe it would be longer, and I think that was a mistake. Because it would have been clearer and cleaner if, earlier on, we had set a termination date and had done it, but we did not. So, there was a little bit of ambiguity at the end with these people in particular.

Trotter’s generosity, straightforwardness, and honesty offer a road map for navigating the tragic reality of the therapist’s untimely death. Trotter discusses her attempts to collect information about her patients’ perception of the course of their therapy and illuminates the important role of the therapist’s professional support system as she navigated the process of dying while working. Her unique perspective on the debate around issues of self-disclosure calls for the therapist’s engagement with a rigorous process of self-reflection governed by the age-old question of whose needs are being met in the therapy, and what is the role of the therapist’s professional life in the larger context of their identity.

 is a teaching associate in psychiatry at Cambridge Health Alliance, Harvard Medical School. 

 works in grief support services for Samaritans of Boston. The authors report no known conflicts of interest.

Serious illness in the analyst: countertransference considerations

Illness in the doctor: implications for the psychoanalytic process

The seriously ill or dying analyst and the limits of neutrality

The physically ill or dying psychotherapist: a review of ethical and clinical considerations

When the analyst is ill: dimensions of self-disclosure

The therapist as a person facing death: the hardest of external realities and therapeutic action

Mortality, integrity, and psychoanalysis (who are you to me? who am I to you?)

Flirting with Death: Psychoanalysts Consider Mortality

When the analyst is chronically ill or dying

The Pope’s confessor: a metaphor relating to illness in the analyst

Return to treatment after the accidental death of a psychiatrist

‘Who is the third who walks always beside you?’ on the death of a psychoanalyst

15. Gómez B, Vega E, Kirszman D, Fernández-Alvarez H. 

Coping with the terminal illness of a colleague in a mental health organization

Mental health professionals with mental illnesses: a qualitative interview study

Planning for our death/incapacitation as therapists

. Irish Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy. 2019;19(3):23-26.

The Myth of the Untroubled Therapist: Private Life, Professional Practice

Picking up the pieces after the sudden death of a therapist: issues for the client and the “inheriting therapist.”

Patients’ reactions to the death of the psychoanalyst

21. Garcia-Lawson KA, Lane RC, Koetting MG. 

Sudden death of the therapist: the effects on the patient

22. Alexander J, Kolodziejski K, Sanville J, Shaw R. 

On final terminations: consultation with a dying therapist

The death of the psychoanalyst (panel presentation)

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

. American Psychological Association; 2017.

26. European Association for Counselling. 

Training Standards, Accreditation and Ethical Charter

. European Association for Counselling; 2015.

27. Irish Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. 

IACP Code of Ethics and Practice for Counsellors/Psychotherapists

. Irish Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy; 2018.

Your professional will: why and how to create

. Updated October 1, 2020. Accessed November 15, 2021. 

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/death/before_a_death/making_a_will.html

When therapists are terminally ill, should they err on the side of self-disclosure or silence?

To Disclose or Not to Disclose? Lessons From a Dying Therapist

The Heart of Psychiatry

For American Heart Month, catch up on all the latest in psychocardiology. 

The Heart of Psychiatry 

was established by President Lyndon B. Johnson in December 1963 as a response to a joint resolution request by Congress. Ever since, government, health care, and private entities have set aside February as the month to particularly pay attention to heart health to prevent morbidity and mortality.

With increasing research pointing to a strong link between mental health, psychiatric illness, and cardiac well-being, the 

has flourished in recent years. As such, there are ample opportunities to support patients’ and help improve their overall hearth health.

 asked Richard J. Contrada, PhD, professor in the department of psychology and core faculty at Rutgers Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University, to share some insights and tips in honor of American Heart Month. Contrada has conducted research on psychological aspects of physical health and has published more than 100 articles, chapters, and books. His work has been supported by the National Institute of Health Mental Health and Aging Institutes, US Army, Fetzer Institute, and Charles A. Dana Foundation.

How does psychosocial stress affect cardiac health? Have psychosocial stressors associated with the pandemic resulted in increased heart-related morbidity/mortality?

 For any single heart condition, the effects of psychosocial stress depends on a number of different qualifying factors, such as stage of disease. That said, coronary artery disease is responsible for many cardiac conditions, including angina pectoris and myocardial infarction. It appears that chronic psychosocial stress—for example, stress associated with one’s occupation—may promote coronary artery disease, which usually takes several decades to develop.

 By contrast, once coronary artery disease has developed, acute forms of stress—such asan episode of anger or being in the vicinity of a terrorist attack—may precipitate clinical coronary heart disease.

It is too soon to tell with a high degree of confidence what the effects of stress related to the pandemic may be on coronary artery disease related morbidity and mortality. The optimal study design for addressing this question would involve a follow-up period of at least several years. But, there is reason for concern: One response to stress is avoidance, and there is evidence that the pandemic has led to a reduction in cardiovascular diagnostic testing.

 Of course, this avoidance issue extends to other chronic disorders as well.

Where has research focused in terms of psychosocial stress and cardiac issues?

A lot of research has focused on emotional traits and conditions,

 such as anger/hostility, depression, and anxiety-related disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder.

What are the pathways that link psychosocial stressors with poor cardiac health?

There are 3 main pathways through which psychosocial factors may contribute to heart disease. The first involves the direct biological effects of stress and emotions that may be associated with mental health problems. These include short-term cardiovascular changes, such as elevations in blood pressure and cardiac performance, the release of stress hormones that in turn alter metabolism of glucose and lipids (eg, cholesterol), increases in blood coagulability, and disturbances in heart rhythm, to name just a few. Excessive inflammation, a product of the immune system, also may be involved. Over time, these insults are thought to promote the development of coronary artery disease and may precipitate acute cardiac events.

The second major pathway is behavioral. Psychosocial stress and emotion can be involved in the regulation of health-damaging behaviors, such as cigarette smoking and poor diet.

The third involves psychological and behavioral reactions to symptoms and signs of disease, which may delay treatment-seeking or undermine medication adherence in individuals already diagnosed with heart disease.

What can psychiatrists do to support their patients’ cardiac health?

Psychiatrists can help prevent cardiac events by managing mental health problems involving negative emotions and unhealthy behaviors. They can also encourage patients to undergo regular checkups with their primary care physicians and refer patients to a cardiologist if they report what appear to be symptoms of heart disease. Where available, patients may be referred to heart disease prevention programs. This is especially important as patients enter and advance through middle age as well as if they are at high risk for cardiac problems due to risk factors such as cigarette smoking or being overweight/obese.

 Mental health problems, especially amidst a pandemic, warrant heightened attention from health care providers. It is important not to lose sight of chronic physical conditions, like heart disease, for which lifestyle change and medical care as indicated can make a life and death difference.

. Association Between Work-Related Stress and Coronary Heart Disease: A Review of Prospective Studies Through the Job Strain, Effort-Reward Balance, and Organizational Justice Models

Acute and Subacute Triggers of Cardiovascular Events

3. Einstein AJ, Shaw LJ, Hirschfeld C, et al. 

International Impact of COVID-19 on the Diagnosis of Heart Disease

4. Davidson KW, Alcántara C, Miller GE. 

Selected psychological comorbidities in coronary heart disease: Challenges and grand opportunities

 Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a systemic disorder: Pathways to cardiovascular disease

. 2021. Accessed February 10, 2022. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-07255-001

What can you do to support your patient's heart health?

Psychosocial Insights: Exploring Issues in Heart Health 

A prescription-only digital therapeutic was granted breakthrough device designation by the 

for the treatment of anxiety and depressive symptoms created by 

experienced by adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are hospitalized and undergoing high-intensity induction (HIC) chemotherapy.

Known as BNT200, the device was developed for use in the inpatient setting during the 4 to 6 weeks in which HIC treatment is administered. The content is synchronized with the HIC regimen to dull the stressors endured by this patient population. The application for BNT200 was supported by data demonstrating the device’s usability and preliminary efficacy. Blue Note’s digital therapeutics leverage cognitive behavioral stress management tailored for patients with cancer.

Areej El-Jawahri, MD, associate director of the Cancer Outcomes Research and Education Program and associate professor of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, stated in a press release: “The advancement of innovative therapeutic options for the treatment of the associated distress that often follows a diagnosis is promising for patients and addresses an unmet need.”

 El-Jawahri is the principal investigator of a trial evaluating the impact of the device on quality of life (QoL), mood, and symptoms of patients diagnosed with AML.

The specialized device is being studied for patients receiving inpatient care for acute myeloid leukemia.

Psychosomatics

Physicians Point to SDOH as Area of Improvement for Health Care

Under the Influence: Misuse of Apetamin, the Illicit Social Media Weight-Gain Drug

To Disclose or Not to Disclose? Lessons From a Dying Therapist

The Heart of Psychiatry

Psychosocial Insights: Exploring Issues in Heart Health

DTx Receives FDA’s Breakthrough Device Designation for Anxiety and Depression Symptoms Associated With Cancer

Delirium: Don’t Miss It

Lyme Disease in Psychiatry: Controversies, Chronic Symptoms, and Recent Developments

My Life is Hell, Doc. Please Help Me!

Care, Concern, and Cautions