Love it or hate it, sleeping naked hits different. Not only is it less laundry to wash, but taking off those pajamas can do wonders for your health. While you may feel self-conscious at first, the openness of resting in the nude can actually boost your confidence and help you look your best self. 

There’s no right or wrong way to get ready for bed—it’s all a matter of preference. And while nakedness won’t miraculously cure all your sleep problems, experts say there are some modest benefits to going au naturel.

1. Younger-looking skin 

James Walker, a medical advisor for the healthcare platform Welzo, says sleeping without clothes gives your skin an opportunity to breathe, allowing for better airflow. He explains that clothes, especially tight-fitting ones, can restrict blood circulation, making it harder for your skin to receive vitamins and minerals needed for collagen production. Certain materials also might add to your discomfort in bed. Aditya Kashyap Mishra, a sex educator and relationship expert for Lustyboy, says synthetic fibers like spandex and nylon trap moisture in your skin—the added heat can make it hard to fall asleep. Other synthetic fabrics and pajamas with dyed cotton may cause skin irritation and acne from the fabric rubbing against you.

[Related: 5 surprising beauty benefits of running]

Tossing and turning from wearing the wrong clothing can affect your quality of sleep and your skin. The body makes collagen during sleep, which is essential for supple and younger-looking skin. Research shows that getting less than the recommended seven hours of sleep for adults increases skin aging and slows down recovery from sun damage.

2. A cooldown for your body

As you might expect, sleeping with your skin exposed helps regulate your temperature at night, says Walker. The drop in body temperature can prevent overheating—a real concern in summer and in places where winter is virtually non-existent. Research shows that feeling extremely hot at night increases wakefulness. Even if you manage to land some shut-eye, it will likely be less restorative with shorter cycles of slow-wave sleep and REM sleep. 

Feeling colder, on the other hand, can also help you fall asleep faster. Your body temperature is synced up with the light-dark cycles outside; it normally falls when the sun goes down. A lower body temperature from sleeping nude tells your biological clock it’s time to shut down.

3. Fewer fungal infections

Fungi and bacteria thrive in warm and damp areas like your nether regions. Mishra explains that trapped sweat from moisture-wicking clothing increases the risk of microorganisms building up, resulting in yeast infections and jock itch. Jock itch can also come from constant friction from clothes. Stripping down to nothing will allow more air circulation and keep your intimate parts from getting overheated.

4. Better emotional intimacy

Skin-to-skin contact between partners can strengthen your relationship. Research shows touching among consenting adults releases the “love hormone” called oxytocin. This chemical reduces stress and encourages openness and social bonding with others. One US marketing poll of more than 1,000 adults found that 57 percent of couples who regularly snoozed in the nude were happy in their relationship compared to 48 percent of pajama wearers. Getting used to baring it all in front of a partner can counteract self-consciousness of how you look in bed. Mishra says this openness is a huge stress reliever, and the added relaxation can help you sleep better.

What if you want to sleep in clothes?

If you’re still not convinced about sleeping naked, there are other ways to improve your slumber. Avoid tight or constricting apparel that would restrict your movement, irritate your skin, or otherwise cause discomfort. Walker recommends going to bed in loose-fitting and breathable fabrics like cotton or bamboo, or one simple layer like an oversized T-shirt and shorts to avoid overheating.

[Related: 11 ways to sleep better in unbearable heat]

There’s nothing wrong with slipping on a pair of socks before bed, Walker adds. Some people find it comforting and helpful in keeping their feet warm, especially during colder seasons. However, he warns against sleeping in socks that are too tight as they could restrict circulation. 

Whether you go to bed nude or in clothes, you should always remove your makeup and any heavy jewelry. Snoozing with makeup on can clog pores and lead to future breakouts. “It’s best to cleanse the face thoroughly before sleeping to allow the skin to breathe and regenerate,” advises Walker. Additionally, laying down in chunky necklaces, bangles, and other jewelry can be painful and might even leave abrasions on the skin.

“Ultimately, the key is to prioritize comfort and choose sleepwear that allows for optimal relaxation,” Walker says. “It’s always a good idea to listen to your body and make choices that help you feel comfortable and at ease during sleep.”

The post Why you should sleep naked tonight, according to science appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on KFF Health News.

In the past few years, 10,000 to 20,000 apps have stampeded into the mental health space, offering to “disrupt” traditional therapy. With the frenzy around AI innovations like ChatGPT, the claim that chatbots can provide mental health care is on the horizon.

The numbers explain why: Pandemic stresses led to millions more Americans seeking treatment. At the same time, there has long been a shortage of mental health professionals in the United States; more than half of all counties lack psychiatrists. Given the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that insurers offer parity between mental and physical health coverage, there is a gaping chasm between demand and supply.

For entrepreneurs, that presents a market bonanza. At the South by Southwest conference in March, where health startups displayed their products, there was a near-religious conviction that AI could rebuild health care, offering apps and machines that could diagnose and treat all kinds of illnesses, replacing doctors and nurses.

Unfortunately, in the mental health space, evidence of effectiveness is lacking. Few of the many apps on the market have independent outcomes research showing they help; most haven’t been scrutinized at all by the FDA. Though marketed to treat conditions such as anxiety, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and depression, or to predict suicidal tendencies, many warn users (in small print) that they are “not intended to be medical, behavioral health or other healthcare service” or “not an FDA cleared product.”

There are good reasons to be cautious in the face of this marketing juggernaut.

Decades ago, Joseph Weizenbaum, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and considered one of the fathers of artificial intelligence, predicted AI would never make a good therapist, though it could be made to sound like one. In fact, his original AI program, created in the 1960s, was a psychotherapist named ELIZA, which used word and pattern recognition combined with natural language programming to sound like a therapist:

Woman: Well, my boyfriend made me come here.

ELIZA: Your boyfriend made you come here?

Woman: He says I’m depressed much of the time.

ELIZA: I am sorry to hear that you are depressed.

Woman: It’s true. I am unhappy.

ELIZA: Do you think coming here will help you not to be unhappy?

Though hailed as an AI triumph, ELIZA’s “success” terrified Weizenbaum, whom I once interviewed. He said students would interact with the machine as if Eliza were an actual therapist, when what he’d created was “a party trick,” he said.

He foresaw the evolution of far more sophisticated programs like ChatGPT. But “the experiences a computer might gain under such circumstances are not human experiences,” he told me. “The computer will not, for example, experience loneliness in any sense that we understand it.”

The same goes for anxiety or ecstasy, emotions so neurologically complex that scientists have not been able pinpoint their neural origins. Can a chatbot achieve transference, the empathic flow between patient and doctor that is central to many types of therapy?

“The core tenet of medicine is that it’s a relationship between human and human — and AI can’t love,” said Bon Ku, director of the Health Design Lab at Thomas Jefferson University and a pioneer in medical innovation. “I have a human therapist, and that will never be replaced by AI.”

Ku said he’d like to see AI used instead to reduce practitioners’ tasks like record-keeping and data entry to “free up more time for humans to connect.”

While some mental health apps may ultimately prove worthy, there is evidence that some can do harm. One researcher noted that some users faulted these apps for their “scripted nature and lack of adaptability beyond textbook cases of mild anxiety and depression.”

It may prove tempting for insurers to offer up apps and chatbots to meet the mental health parity requirement. After all, that would be a cheap and simple solution, compared with the difficulty of offering a panel of human therapists, especially since many take no insurance because they consider insurers’ payments too low.

Perhaps seeing the flood of AI hitting the market, the Department of Labor announced last year it was ramping up efforts to ensure better insurer compliance with the mental health parity requirement.

The FDA likewise said late last year it “intends to exercise enforcement discretion” over a range of mental health apps, which it will vet as medical devices. So far, not one has been approved. And only a very few have gotten the agency’s breakthrough device designation, which fast-tracks reviews and studies on devices that show potential.

These apps mostly offer what therapists call structured therapy — in which patients have specific problems and the app can respond with a workbook-like approach. For example, Woebot combines exercises for mindfulness and self-care (with answers written by teams of therapists) for postpartum depression. Wysa, another app that has received a breakthrough device designation, delivers cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety, depression, and chronic pain.

But gathering reliable scientific data about how well app-based treatments function will take time. “The problem is that there is very little evidence now for the agency to reach any conclusions,” said Kedar Mate, head of the Boston-based Institute for Healthcare Improvement.

Until we have that research, we don’t know whether app-based mental health care does better than Weizenbaum’s ELIZA. AI may certainly improve as the years go by, but at this point, for insurers to claim that providing access to an app is anything close to meeting the mental health parity requirement is woefully premature.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

The post AI therapists might not actually help your mental health appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Forging strong social relationships can help mitigate the effects of traumatic childhood events in human adults, but also in baboons. A study published May 17 in the journal Science Advances drew on 36 years of data from almost 200 baboons in southern Kenya and found that even though early adversity can take years of their lifespans, stronger social bonds in adulthood can help get these years back. 

[Related: Baboon poop shows how chronic stress shortens lives.]

“It’s like the saying from the King James Apocrypha, ‘a faithful friend is the medicine of life,’” co-author and Duke University biologist and evolutionary anthropologist Susan Alberts said in a statement.

Studies have consistently found that people who go through more bad experiences growing up, such as neglect or abuse,  are more likely to die early. However, the mechanisms behind how early adversity leads to a premature death has been harder for researchers to pin down, according to Alberts. Some of the limitations to earlier research is the reliance on self-reported memories which can be imprecise and subjective. 

Enter our primate cousins. Baboons share more than 90 percent of their DNA with humans and researchers have followed individual baboons near Amboseli National Park in Kenya since 1971. 

In this new study, the researchers analyzed how early life experiences and adult social connections affected long-term survival in 199 female baboons between 1983 and 2019.

Baboon childhood is certainly different from human childhood, but young baboons still face hardships. The team in the study tallied up each female’s exposure to six potential sources of early adversity, including whether she had a low-ranking or socially isolated mother or if her mother died before she reached maturity. It was also noted if she was born in a drought year or into a large group, and if she had a sibling close in age, which could contribute to more competition for both maternal attention and resources.

The team found that stressful experiences are very common for the baboons growing up in the semi-arid and unpredictable landscape of Amboseli. Of the 199 baboons in the study, 75 percent suffered through at least one stressor, and 33 percent had two or more.

Their results confirm previous findings that the more hardship a female baboon faces, the shorter her lifespan. Monkeys who experienced more upheaval at a young age were also more socially isolated as adults.

[Related: Monkeys with close friends have friendlier gut bacteria.]

However, the researchers showed that 90 percent of the dip in survival was due to the direct effects of early adversity, not to the weakened social bonds that continued into adulthood.

No matter how strong their bonds were with other baboons, each additional hardship translated to 1.4 years of life lost. Those who went through four bad experiences growing up died close to 5.6 years earlier than those who didn’t face any. Since the average female baboon lives to age 18, this is a large drop in lost years.

But an unfortunate start in life does not mean that a baboon will absolutely live a short life. 

“Females who have bad early lives are not doomed,” co-author and biologist at SUNY Oswego Elizabeth Lange said in a statement. “We found that both early life adversity and adult social interactions affect survival independently. That means that interventions that occur throughout the lifespan could improve survival.”

In baboons, strong social bonds are measured by how often they groom with their closest friends. Those with strong social bonds added 2.2 years to their lives, no matter what adversity they had faced in their earlier years. The baboons whose mothers died before they reached maturity and then forged strong friendships in adulthood showed the best ability to bounce back. 

However, the flip side is also true. Weak social bonds can magnify early life adversity, according to the study. 

It is not clear yet if these results can be translated to adult humans, but it suggests that early intervention is not the only way to overcome childhood trauma and its lingering effects. 

“If you did have early life adversity, whatever you do, try to make friends,” Alberts said.

The post Baboons can recover from childhood trauma with a little help from their friends appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

There are countless studies and copious amounts of research delving into how the internet can negatively impact your mind. But, new data indicates that there’s one way online time could actually benefit the brain. According to findings recently published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society from a team at NYU, it appears that regular internet usage may significantly reduce the risk of dementia in older populations.

As also highlighted by Gizmodo on Thursday, the study examined online habits of over 18,000 adults over the age of 50 for as long as 17 years (with a median of nearly 8 years) via data from the government’s biannual Health and Retirement Study. The dataset was subsequently broken down into two groups—those who were regular internet users, and those who were not. A second survey assessed their cognition at the study’s outset to use for reference over time. According to researchers, regular visitors to the internet “experienced approximately half the risk of dementia than non-regular users,” even when taking issues like pre-existing conditions into consideration. As Gizmodo also noted, those who reported using the internet in subsequent analysis displayed even lower risks of impairment.

[Related: How your daily screen time affects your wellbeing.]

But don’t take this as carte blanche to surf the web to your heart’s content just yet. When utilizing a smaller dataset of users that provided hourly usage rates per week, researchers discovered a potential U-curve situation between time and risk for dementia. Those who spend over six hours a day on the internet appear to possess a slightly increased chance to develop cognitive issues, much like those who rarely go online at all. This led researchers to hypothesize that “excessive online engagement may have adverse cognitive effects on older adults.” Despite the study’s caveats, however, the findings present an interesting look into the potential positives of online use, especially when people are often told to use the internet less.

The Goldilocks “not too much, but not too little” linkage between internet use and dementia falls in line with experts’ recent suggestions on how to best maintain cognitive health: lead an overall, decently healthy lifestyle, i.e. one with regular physical activity, a primarily plant-based diet, an aversion to bogus supplements, managing existing diseases, and reduced alcohol consumption. So, on top of all that, you can now possibly add a healthy hour or so of daily internet scrolling to the list. Just don’t fall too far down the rabbit hole.

The post The right amount of online scrolling could decrease your risk of dementia appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Is shyness something you feel, or is it something that defines you? Child psychologists are still not fully convinced one way or the other. A small study published April 25 in the journal Society for Research in Child Development found that timidness, fear and nervousness in social situations or being at the center of attention, is a fairly typical childhood experience, whether it is an emotion or personality. 

[Related from PopSci+: Can dogs be introverts?]

Some long standing theories about shyness believe that there are two types of coy behavior. “Temperamental” shyness remains roughly the same throughout development, whereas “state” shyness is felt during a social situation and manifests more like an emotion. 

In this new study, researchers examined the behavioral, affective, and physiological responses to a speech task in 152 Canadian children (73 girls and 79 boys) ages seven and eight. The children were told that they would be giving a speech that would be filmed and shown to other children. Their parents completed online questionnaires about their child’s temperament, while the children were given an echocardiogram to check for physiological indications of nervous behavior.

The children prepared a two-minute speech about their last birthday and recited the speech in front of a video camera and a mirror. The researchers monitored the children for behaviors coded as avoidance or inhibition, self-reported nervousness, and respiratory sinus arrhythmia.

The team found that temperamental shyness may exist in a distinct group of children over time, and a larger group of children may experience shyness as an emotion during certain situations. 

About 10 percent of the children had a high level of stress giving the speech in addition to relatively high levels of shyness over time, according to the questionnaires filled out by their parents. According to the team, this provides evidence that shyness may be part of these children’s temperament. Being the center of attention may be stressful across time and in various contexts in this group. Future research could examine the consequences on how this shyness affects academic, social, and psychological well-being since shyness could be measured across time. 

Roughly 25 percent of study participants were not reported to be shy, but demonstrated a higher level of stress from giving the speech. The authors believe that it is likely that state shyness in response to a speech task is a relatively common, normative experience for children at this age.

[Related: Little kids drew their grim—and hopeful—reality of COVID.]

“Our findings provide empirical support for the long-theorized idea that there may be a subset of temperamentally shy children who manifest heightened behavioral, affective, and physiological reactivity in response to a social stressor, as well as a subset of children who may experience only the affective component which may reflect state shyness,” co-author and Brock University post-doctoral fellow and psychologist Kristie Poole said in a statement. “This highlights the multiple components and developmental course of temperamental shyness and the features that distinguish temperamental and state shyness in middle to late childhood.”

This study provides some empirical evidence for long-standing ideas about shyness that were first made by the late psychologist Jerome Kagan. In the 1990s, Kagan argued that temperamental shyness may exist as a distinct category for some children and the features that define this category are relatively stable across time and context.

The authors also noted some limitations to the research, namely that the study only measured these behavioral, affective, and physiological components at one point in time and the sample size was relatively small. Future research should also include a more racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse pool and focus.

The post Is shyness something kids feel, or something kids are? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

If you’re reading this, you’re probably stressed. Never fear: We’ve dug through the evidence to reveal what science really says about finding zen—and holding onto it through tough times.

In 2013, Charlotte Figi made national news by becoming the youngest patient in Colorado to receive cannabidiol (CBD) therapy to soothe her seizures. The five-year-old had struggled with severe epilepsy since infancy, sometimes experiencing 50 or more episodes a day, with little relief from standard drugs and dietary tweaks. By the time her parents started consulting doctors about CBD extracts, she had difficulty walking, talking, and eating without help.

Figi’s neurologist put her on a low dose of a specially bred strain of medical cannabis, later dubbed “Charlotte’s Web.” The effects were almost immediate. The seizures slowed from daily to weekly events, and soon, the kid was living life almost normally. After close to two years of the oral treatment, the doctors decided to wean Figi off other epileptic medications.

Figi’s story represents one of the clearest, most well-documented cases of the healing potential of CBD. (The young pioneer died in 2020, due to complications of COVID-19.) Though people have used the plant-based chemical to treat migraines and other bodily aches for centuries, the science around its efficacy is still inconclusive because it’s tricky to study its direct effect on the nervous system. Regardless, the industry has boomed in the past decade. Today CBD can be found in a range of products—from lattes to bath bombs to dog treats—and is marketed as a cure-all for pain, anxiety, insomnia, and even AIDS.

So, what should a person who’s buying CBD expect? There’s plenty of information out there, but the bottom line is confusing. Here’s an overview of what medical experts say about the ingredient and whether it lives up to its hype.

What is CBD?

CBD is essentially cannabis, minus the strong psychoactive bits. The carbon-oxygen-hydrogen compound can be found in high concentrations in Cannabis sativa and less-potent hemp plants. Sometimes manufacturers mix it with traces of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the cannabis-based chemical that gets people high, but it generally doesn’t carry the same dopamine-heightening and possibly addictive properties.

Like THC, though, CBD works its “magic” by cozying up to the nervous system. From what molecular scientists know so far, it somehow changes proteins found all over the body that are responsible for managing pain, inflammation, mood, appetite, and even memory. It’s still unknown how extensively it affects that internal chemistry, especially when combined with other ingredients, says Johns Hopkins University food scientist Kantha Shelke.

Is CBD legal?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently updated its regulations to state that it supports further research on benefits, safety, and use of CBD products. For now, the extract is considered a controlled substance if it comes from cannabis plants. It’s treated more like a dietary supplement or food additive when harvested from hemp.

[Related: Cannabis poisoning is on the rise in pets]

That seems relatively straightforward, but throw local laws into the mix and the standards become a lot more unwieldy. CBD is legal to sell and buy in one form or another around the US, though it’s harder to hawk across state lines because of the federal regulations. In places where it’s lawful, the ingredient can be added to any product as long as it contains less than 0.3 percent THC and is marketed correctly. If it’s labeled as a drug it has to undergo clinical tests and win FDA approval before it’s available for public use. The agency has only approved one CBD medication so far: Epidolex, which is used to treat the same genetic syndrome that Charlotte Figi had.

At the beginning of 2023, the FDA announced that it would work with Congress on a new set of CBD regulations, citing potential long-term risks to people’s livers, the male reproductive system, livestock, and more. Once they are passed, the substance will be in a separate class from dietary supplements and food additives. In the meantime, the agency cautions against giving CBD products to children, pregnant and lactating people, and pets.

What are the proven benefits of CBD?

Some of the best research on CBD’s therapeutic effects comes from treating childhood epilepsy (thanks to the Figi family), schizophrenia, sleep deprivation, and anxiety disorders. The chemical has shown strong results in relieving all four of these conditions, with “a clear calming effect,” according to one 2019 analysis. That said, most of the studies exploring this connection don’t include a control group, or a baseline for comparison.

When it comes to looking at CBD for pain relief, the research is even more flimsy. Tests have shown that it can be effective against arthritis in rats, and that it might work as well as opioids for multiple sclerosis and cancer patients. But many of these treatments also included some amount of THC, so it’s hard to say if CBD was the primary cause of relief.

There’s also the question of which forms of CBD are safe enough for consumers but strong enough to make a difference. For neurological conditions like anxiety or apnea, the chemical needs to be absorbed into the bloodstream to have maximum impact. That means it needs to be ingested, inhaled, or rubbed in at high concentrations. But as health reporter Sarah Jacoby wrote in Self while vetting her own CBD buys, many of the proteins that trigger pain and inflammation are located between the skin and veins. So, any cream or gel that wants to counter aching joints and tight muscles needs to be able to get through the dermis but not as deep as the blood vessels. That’s a tall order for any drugstore formula.

Overall, doctors are reluctant to call CBD a pain panacea. But companies keep putting it in gels, goos, tinctures, massage oils, and roll-on creams, and people continue to snap them up. (One market report put CBD sales at nearly $5 billion sales in 2020.) It’s clear that the ingredient is somewhat beneficial to human health—science just needs to understand how much.

Does CBD have any bad effects?

Medical researchers haven’t pinpointed any deadly patterns with CBD use yet. A few case studies have mentioned respiratory failure, but in many of those instances, the patients also had THC in their system. People have complained about nausea and gastrointestinal issues after taking high concentrations of CBD. The Mayo Clinic also mentions fatigue, dizziness, and loss of appetite as possible complications.

[Related: Can you overdose on weed?]

There are concerns that CBD might interact negatively with other drugs, specifically blood thinners like warfarin. But there’s no specific guidance on which medications to avoid mixing with the extract.

How much CBD should people take?

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to calculate safe and effective serving sizes for CBD. Dosing depends on body weight, desired effect, and the way a person is taking it. CBD products often come with suggestions, but those can be misleading, given that the FDA doesn’t test every supplement against its labels and claims. (The agency has issued warnings to dozens of companies who’ve listed incorrect information about CBD and THC levels in their products; see the full list here.)

“With CBD, dosage matters,” Shelke says, as over-indulgence has been associated with ill effects. But without a fundamental understanding of the chemistry of the ingredient, and how the cooking process changes it, it’s hard to come up with scientifically backed dosing recommendations. With the limited information available, Shelke advises to go the “less is better” route with any unregulated CBD products.

Why is CBD so hard to study?

Because CBD is one of hundreds of compounds in hemp and cannabis, it’s tricky to extract and standardize. If the chemical is tainted or alternated in any way during the process, it can have a different set of effects. The way it’s consumed also plays a big part in the reaction. As Figi’s neurologist wrote back in 2014, cooking or smoking CBD means adding heat, which could break down the chemical and make it less beneficial. Pills and edibles, on the other hand, need to be carefully engineered so that they don’t get neutralized by stomach acid.

All that variability, both in the plants and the products that are derived from them, makes CBD more challenging to test for medicinal purposes. It’s also often mixed with THC when treating chronic pain or life-threatening illnesses, so it take many extra layers of research to isolate the purely physical perks from the psychoactive ones.

Is CBD safe to cook with?

Plenty of food brands, restaurants, and cookbook authors are now folding CBD into their recipes. But does the ingredient have the same therapeutic effect when it’s baked in a brownie pan at 360 degrees Fahrenheit or seared in a skillet with sea bass and lemon rinds?

“There are many unanswered questions about the science, safety, quality, and physiological effects of CBD that need to be addressed before one can identify the effects of various chemical reactions on its efficacy,” Shelke says. Part of the issue with cooking with the extract is that the purity and the concentration is often unknown. This makes it even harder to know how it will interact with other ingredients, and whether that combination will help or harm a person. Bottom line: It’s better to avoid highly processed products or prepared meals with CBD, especially if you’re new to the compound.

What’s the best way to see if CBD works for me?

If you’re looking for a supplement to help you go to sleep at night, relieve a light migraine, or unwind after a stressful event, try a low-stakes gummy or topical oil. Be sure to choose a well-reviewed and reputable product, Shelke says: Just because it says it contains CBD doesn’t mean it will live up to its promise.

To treat chronic pain, depressive disorders, or other serious illnesses, get your doctor’s recommendations first. They can take stock of the latest research specific to your needs and also track how CBD works with other prescriptions you’re taking.

[Related on PopSci+: The tasty chemicals flavoring the edible cannabis boom]

As you head into the experience, manage your expectations. Like most wellness products that are backed by tepid evidence, the results can be hit or miss. Stay within the recommended doses on the products’ labels and report any unexpected side effects to your primary-care physician.

The future of CBD seems full of potential, but in present times, there are more questions than answers.

Update (April 19, 2023): This post has been updated with new regulatory information from the FDA.

The post Can CBD help you chill? Here’s what we know so far. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Picture this: You’re at your desk working on a project when your phone chimes. A quick glance tells you a friend sent over a video on TikTok. Convinced you’re due for a break, you click the link to find a new dance video from Charli D’Amelio. Fast forward an hour later, and you’re still on your phone, except now you’ve gone from viral dances to animal videos to fitness gurus raving about a weight loss hack. 

If this scenario hits too close to home, you’re not alone. Most people on social media check it daily, and younger people are likelier to return to their favorite platforms multiple times a day. TikTok is especially popular with teenagers: A 2022 survey from the Pew Research Center suggests 67 percent of teens use it, while 16 percent use it almost constantly. 

So why do people spend so much time online? One underlying reason is that platforms like TikTok promote infinite scrolling. You might start off in one video only for the page to continuously load a never-ending stream of content. Absent-mindedly scrolling through content might seem like an innocent activity and a great excuse to waste time. However, research suggests it can negatively influence the brain and mental health.

Anyone can fall prey to mindless scrolling. Younger people are especially vulnerable since the brain is not fully developed until age 25, says Lisa Pion-Berlin, a psychologist and president of Parents Anonymous, a child abuse prevention nonprofit. While limiting access to social media (like this Utah bill requiring parental permission is trying to do) is one option, learning how to be a more active user can help anyone stop infinite scrolling and still enjoy social media.

Why infinite scrolling is bad for you

Social media platforms like TikTok are not comprehensively bad for you. Several studies suggest social media can prompt feelings of connectedness and positive well-being. Further, they allow for personal expression, which fosters positive mental health.

Ultimately, how social media makes people feel depends on how they use it. For example, excess social media use is associated with feeling more anxious, lonely, and generally bad about yourself. 

“The more attached we are to our devices, the more problematic it becomes,” says Lisa Strohman, a psychologist and the founder of Digital Citizen Academy, an education program that teaches children and teens how to have a healthy relationship with technology. 

[Related: Do you never feel FOMO? Time to meet its twin, JOMO.]

Moreover, Strohman says watching pictures and videos of everyone living their best life might make you worried or sad that you’re missing out. Some research suggests that comparing yourself to others on social media can result in aggression and anxiety, while other studies suggest a link between negative comparisons on social media and suicidal ideation.

Meanwhile, mindless scrolling can result in a state of mind similar to being in a trance state, says Pion-Berlin. She’s concerned that “mindless scrolling is a way to tune out” or dissociate from reality. Some research suggests that overuse of social media can result in negative psychological impacts: A 2023 study in the journal JAMA Pediatrics found that middle schoolers who constantly checked their social media feeds showed changes in how their brains responded to feedback and criticism from peers.   

Infinite scrolling can also lead to disrupted sleep patterns in adolescents and adults. The screen’s blue light can make it difficult to fall asleep, and the constant content prevents your brain from shutting down for the night. 

When we sleep, the brain sorts through and categorizes the information from the day and commits the vital stuff into long-term memory, explains Strohman. But mindless social media surfing before bedtime keeps giving it more data for the brain to process throughout the night, “and that’s what tends to lead to that insomnia,” she explains.

How infinite scrolling can hijack the brain

Mindless scrolling helps make social media an addicting habit because it takes advantage of the brain’s reward system, says Strohman.

An enjoyable TikTok, for example, can trigger the brain’s reward pathway. Subsequently, this causes the brain to release a chemical called dopamine, which Strohman describes “as a hit or a high” for the brain. The dopamine surge tells the brain that scrolling through social media is pleasurable and that we should do it again. Because another attention-grabbing Tiktok plays immediately when the first is over, this process starts all over again immediately. 

“The brain is rewarded every time because of how the feeds and algorithms are set up so that anytime we’re not on the app, we think we’re missing something,” explains Strohman. “That makes us want to go back on it again.:

The same process applies to adolescents—possibly to a more significant effect. Pion-Berlin explains that because the prefrontal cortex is one of the last brain areas to mature fully, younger people are more impulsive and have less self-control than adults. With less self-control, it may be easier for teens to fall into this rabbit hole of social media content, she says. In addition, the limbic system—a part of the brain involved in behavioral and emotional responses—is also more sensitive during our teenage years, which makes them likelier to prioritize pleasurable and desirable activities.

What are some ways to stop infinite scrolling?

While infinite scrolling isn’t great, that does not mean you need to quit social media altogether. On the contrary, there are some benefits to staying on the apps, such as building communities among people with a shared hobby or interest, maintaining relationships with family who live miles away, raising awareness for a particular cause, and learning from credible experts.

[Related: All the ways you can reduce screen time across your devices]

To make the most of your time, you’ll want to become an active rather than a passive user. Active users interact with others— in practice, this could look like commenting on posts or creating content. The high engagement gives you a specific purpose for being on the app, allows you to nurture and maintain online friendships, and is associated with improved well-being. 

Meanwhile, infinite scrolling is a passive activity because you’re socially disconnected from others and lurking in the background. Of course, sometimes you just want to take a break from life and watch some mind-numbing videos. In these situations, you’ll want to set a timer to limit the time you spend online and know when it’s time to log off, Strohman says. 

Another suggestion from Strohman is turning off notifications. People often fall into mindless surfing when notified or tagged in something. And while you might start out looking at the relevant post, you can easily find yourself lost in a comment thread or other recommended videos. 

“Have a clear purpose when accessing social media,” Strohman says. If a friend shares a post, tell yourself you will only watch this one video and not spend the next two hours on TikTok. 

“The more you scroll, the less settled you’ll be,” advises Strohman. “Be mindful, recognize your part in it, and try to do what you can to manage yourself in those online worlds.”

The post How to break your toxic infinite scroll habit on TikTok appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

When it comes to tackling the opioid crisis in America, there is no single solution. Public health officials have taken measures to prevent future overdoses by reducing the number of opioid prescriptions, curbing the flow of illicit drug trafficking, and raising awareness of the dangers of opioids. But for the three million people already addicted to this class of drugs, the emphasis has turned to a quick-working treatment: naloxone.

It’s possible to reverse an opioid overdose with an injectable or single-dose nasal spray called naloxone (also known by the brand name Narcan). Street drugs and prescription painkillers like heroin, morphine, and codeine target opioid receptors in the brain to induce a pleasurable high. But they can also affect neurons that control respiration, causing a person to stop breathing if they overdose. Naloxone blocks the brain receptors so that the drugs can’t reach them, preventing this deadly side effect. “There are very few things I would call a perfect antidote, but, in this case, Narcan is one of them,” says Ryan Marino, a medical toxicologist and addiction medicine specialist at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He adds that naloxone works against synthetic opioids like fentanyl.

[Related: At-home test strips for fentanyl are just the first step to preventing overdoses]

In response to the growing number of opioid overdose deaths—75 percent of drug overdose deaths in the US in 2020 involved an opioid—the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved an over-the-counter version of naloxone. The decision makes the drug more accessible: People will be able to buy the nasal spray at places like their local pharmacy or gas station without a prescription. But while medical experts have lauded the FDA’s ruling, not everyone is happy with the news. There have been some concerns from the public about distributing naloxone and whether it encourages more drug use. PopSci spoke with medical experts on common misconceptions surrounding naloxone and its safety.

Myth 1: Naloxone encourages people to do more drugs

A common objection to expanding naloxone access is that it acts as a safety net for people with addiction to continue their drug habits with few repercussions. But Kathryn Cunningham, director of the Center of Addiction Research at the University of Texas Medical Branch, says research has shown no evidence that naloxone leads to more drug use. 

A well-known 2013 study in The BMJ journal found the number of opioid-related hospital visits did not increase in communities with programs distributing naloxone and those with less access to the nasal spray. Instead, naloxone helped in reducing the amount of risky drug activity in 19 communities that distributed it to residents.

Myth 2: Naloxone prevents users from getting treated for addiction

Think of naloxone as a fire extinguisher in your house, Marino says. You’ll likely use it if there’s a small blaze. But if you have repeated incidents or if your house becomes engulfed in flames, the fire extinguisher can only help so much. Eventually, you’ll have to call the fire department for help. Simply put, naloxone may actually convince people to find professional help because it gives them more opportunities to seek treatment and rehabilitation later in life. “You can’t seek medical services if you’re dead,” Cunningham explains. 

If there’s any deterrent to getting treatment, it’s the stigma surrounding substance use disorders. Research suggests laws hampering access to care and discrimination from medical professionals against patients with a history of drug use may discourage people from opening up about their addiction. Even when they seek out help, patients have reported being treated as if they were untrustworthy, intimidating, and immoral.

Myth 3: Only medical professionals can use naloxone safely

You do not need medical training to give naloxone to someone who’s overdosed. Marino says the over-the-counter nasal spray that the FDA approved was designed to be easy enough to be used by a child as young as 6. The box also has step-by-step instructions printed on the side. “It comes with this little nasal atomizer,” Marino adds. “You just take it out of the package, put it in someone’s nose, and press the pointer. That’s all there is to it.” If a person accidentally applies naloxone to someone who hasn’t overdosed, it will be benign.

[Related: How to break free of the bystander effect and help someone in trouble]

There is no age limit for being treated with naloxone. You can use it on a newborn with opioids in their system or even a toddler who’s exposed to fentanyl patches. The nasal spray expires after three years, and should be stored in temperatures between 77 and 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Naloxone freezes at temperatures below 5 degrees Fahrenheit, making it unusable until it thaws out.

Myth 4: Naloxone makes users violent

It’s been rumored that the sudden onslaught of withdrawal symptoms caused by naloxone might cause a person to become aggressive or lash out when they gain consciousness. That’s not typically the case. Cunningham says common side effects after treatment include headaches, disorientation, vomiting, and nausea—all of which are temporary, because it’s a short-acting drug. “Withdrawal is not life-threatening,” Cunningham notes. “Not breathing because of an opiate is life-threatening.”

Fact: Naloxone could save many lives if more people have it

The FDA’s decision (which doesn’t mention exact rollout dates) makes it so that anyone can be ready to jump in and prevent deaths from opioid overdoses. Marino says it’s best to think of naloxone as another item in your first aid kit in case of emergencies. “We might tell ourselves that no one in our life is using drugs or going to overdose, but you never want to have a situation where you need it and not have it.”

The post 4 common myths about Narcan, the ‘antidote’ to opioid overdose appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on KHN.

Nothing prepared Linda C. Johnson of Indianapolis for the fatigue that descended on her after a diagnosis of stage 4 lung cancer in early 2020.

Initially, Johnson, now 77, thought she was depressed. She could barely summon the energy to get dressed in the morning. Some days, she couldn’t get out of bed.

But as she began to get her affairs in order, Johnson realized something else was going on. However long she slept the night before, she woke up exhausted. She felt depleted, even if she didn’t do much during the day.

“People would tell me, ‘You know, you’re getting old.’ And that wasn’t helpful at all. Because then you feel there’s nothing you can do mentally or physically to deal with this,” she told me.

Fatigue is a common companion of many illnesses that beset older adults: heart disease, cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, lung disease, kidney disease, and neurological conditions like multiple sclerosis, among others. It’s one of the most common symptoms associated with chronic illness, affecting 40% to 74% of older people living with these conditions, according to a 2021 review by researchers at the University of Massachusetts.

This is more than exhaustion after an extremely busy day or a night of poor sleep. It’s a persistent whole-body feeling of having no energy, even with minimal or no exertion. “I feel like I have a drained battery pretty much all of the time,” wrote a user named Renee in a Facebook group for people with polycythemia vera, a rare blood cancer. “It’s sort of like being a wrung-out dish rag.”

Fatigue doesn’t represent “a day when you’re tired; it’s a couple of weeks or a couple of months when you’re tired,” said Dr. Kurt Kroenke, a research scientist at the Regenstrief Institute in Indianapolis, which specializes in medical research, and a professor at Indiana University’s School of Medicine.

When he and colleagues queried nearly 3,500 older patients at a large primary care clinic in Indianapolis about bothersome symptoms, 55% listed fatigue — second only to musculoskeletal pain (65%) and more than back pain (45%) and shortness of breath (41%).

Separately, a 2010 study in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society estimated that 31% of people 51 and older reported being fatigued in the past week.

The impact can be profound. Fatigue is the leading reason for restricted activity in people 70 and older, according to a 2001 study by researchers at Yale. Other studies have linked fatigue with impaired mobility, limitations in people’s abilities to perform daily activities, the onset or worsening of disability, and earlier death.

What often happens is older adults with fatigue stop being active and become deconditioned, which leads to muscle loss and weakness, which heightens fatigue. “It becomes a vicious cycle that contributes to things like depression, which can make you more fatigued,” said Dr. Jean Kutner, a professor of medicine and chief medical officer at the University of Colorado Hospital.

To stop that from happening, Johnson came up with a plan after learning her lung cancer had returned. Every morning, she set small goals for herself. One day, she’d get up and wash her face. The next, she’d take a shower. Another day, she’d go to the grocery store. After each activity, she’d rest.

In the three years since her cancer came back, Johnson’s fatigue has been constant. But “I’m functioning better,” she told me, because she’s learned how to pace herself and find things that motivate her, like teaching a virtual class to students training to be teachers and getting exercise under the supervision of a personal trainer.

When should older adults be concerned about fatigue? “If someone has been doing OK but is now feeling fatigued all the time, it’s important to get an evaluation,” said Dr. Holly Yang, a physician at Scripps Mercy Hospital in San Diego and incoming board president of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine.

“Fatigue is an alarm signal that something is wrong with the body but it’s rarely one thing. Usually, several things need to be addressed,” said Dr. Ardeshir Hashmi, section chief of the Center for Geriatric Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.

Among the items physicians should check: Are your thyroid levels normal? Are you having trouble with sleep? If you have underlying medical conditions, are they well controlled? Do you have an underlying infection? Are you chronically dehydrated? Do you have anemia (a deficiency of red blood cells or hemoglobin), an electrolyte imbalance, or low levels of testosterone? Are you eating enough protein? Have you been feeling more anxious or depressed recently? And might medications you’re taking be contributing to fatigue?

“The medications and doses may be the same, but your body’s ability to metabolize those medications and clear them from your system may have changed,” Hashmi said, noting that such changes in the body’s metabolic activity are common as people become older.

Many potential contributors to fatigue can be addressed. But much of the time, reasons for fatigue can’t be explained by an underlying medical condition.

That happened to Teresa Goodell, 64, a retired nurse who lives just outside Portland, Oregon. During a December visit to Arizona, she suddenly found herself exhausted and short of breath while on a hike, even though she was in good physical condition. At an urgent care facility, she was diagnosed with an asthma exacerbation and given steroids, but they didn’t help.

Soon, Goodell was spending hours each day in bed, overcome by profound tiredness and weakness. Even small activities wore her out. But none of the medical tests she received in Arizona and subsequently in Portland — a chest X-ray and CT scan, blood work, a cardiac stress test — showed abnormalities.

“There was no objective evidence of illness, and that makes it hard for anybody to believe you’re sick,” she told me.

Goodell started visiting long covid web sites and chat rooms for people with chronic fatigue syndrome. Today, she’s convinced she has post-viral syndrome from an infection. One of the most common symptoms of long covid is fatigue that interferes with daily life, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There are several strategies for dealing with persistent fatigue. In cancer patients, “the best evidence favors physical activity such as tai chi, yoga, walking, or low-impact exercises,” said Dr. Christian Sinclair, an associate professor of palliative medicine at the University of Kansas Health System. The goal is to “gradually stretch patients’ stamina,” he said.

With long covid, however, doing too much too soon can backfire by causing “post-exertional malaise.” Pacing one’s activities is often recommended: doing only what’s most important, when one’s energy level is highest, and resting afterward. “You learn how to set realistic goals,” said Dr. Andrew Esch, senior education advisor at the Center to Advance Palliative Care.

Cognitive behavioral therapy can help older adults with fatigue learn how to adjust expectations and address intrusive thoughts such as, “I should be able to do more.” At the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, management plans for older patients with fatigue typically include strategies to address physical activity, sleep health, nutrition, emotional health, and support from family and friends.

“So much of fatigue management is about forming new habits,” said Dr. Ishwaria Subbiah, a palliative care and integrative medicine physician at MD Anderson. “It’s important to recognize that this doesn’t happen right away: It takes time.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The post Why fatigue is so common in older adults appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Update 04/06/2023: Comments from Monument’s CEO have been added to this article.

According to recent reports, two online alcohol recovery startups shared users’ detailed private health information and personal data to third-party advertisers without their consent. They were able to do so via popular tracking systems such as the Meta Pixel. Both Tempest and its parent company, Monument, confirmed the extensive privacy violations to TechCrunch on Tuesday. They now claim to no longer employ the frequently criticized consumer profiling products developed by companies such as Microsoft, Google, and Facebook.

In a disclosure letter mailed to its consumers last week, Monument states “we value and respect the privacy of our members’ information,” but admitted “some information” may have been shared to third parties without the “appropriate authorization, consent, or agreements required by law.” The potentially illegal violations stem as far back as 2020 for Monument members, and 2017 for those using Tempest.

Within those leaks, as many as 100,000 accounts’ names, birthdates, email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, membership IDs, insurance IDs, and IP addresses. Additionally, users’ photographs, service plans, survey responses, appointment-related info, and “associated health information” may also have been shared to third-parties. Monument and Tempest assured customers, however, that their Social Security numbers and banking information had not been improperly handled.

[Related: How data brokers threaten your privacy.]

Major data companies’ largely free “pixel” tools generally work by embedding a small bit of code into websites. The program then subsequently supplies immensely personal and detailed information to both third-party businesses, as well as the tracking tech’s makers to help compile extensive consumer profiles for advertising purposes. One study estimates that approximately one-third of the 80,000 most popular websites online utilize Meta Pixel (disclosure: PopSci included), for example. While both Tempest and Monument pledge to have removed tracking code from their sites, TechCrunch also notes the codes’ makers are not legally required to delete previously collected data.

“Monument and Tempest should be ashamed of sharing this extremely personal information of people, especially considering the nature and vulnerability of their clients,” Caitlin Seeley George, campaigns managing director of the digital privacy advocacy group, Fight for the Future, wrote PopSci via email. For George, the revelations are simply the latest examples of companies disregarding privacy for profit, but argues lawmakers “should similarly feel ashamed” that the public lacks legal defense or protection from these abuses. “It seems like every week we hear another case of companies sharing our data and prioritizing profits over privacy. This won’t end until lawmakers pass privacy laws,” she said.

“Protecting our patients’ privacy is a top priority,” Monument CEO Mike Russell told PopSci over email. “We have put robust safeguards in place and will continue to adopt appropriate measures to keep data safe. In addition, we have ended our relationship with third-party advertisers that will not agree to comply with our contractual requirements and applicable law.”

Tracking tools are increasingly the subject of scrutiny and criticism as more and more reports detail privacy concerns—last year, an investigation from The Markup and The Verge revealed that some of the country’s most popular tax prep software providers utilize Meta Pixel. The same tracking code is also at the center of a lawsuit in California concerning potential HIPAA violations stemming from hospitals sharing patients’ medical data.

Correction 04/06/2023: A previous version of this article’s headline stated Tempest and Monument “sold” user data. A spokesperson for the companies stated they “shared” data with third-party companies.

The post Two alcohol recovery apps shared user data without their consent appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on KHN.

Some adults who take prescription medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are required to have their urine tested for drugs several times a year. Others never are tested.

Such screenings are designed to check if ADHD patients are safely taking their pills, such as Adderall, and not selling them, taking too many, or using other drugs.

Several doctors told KHN there are varying opinions and no national standards on the role of urine testing to monitor adults who take ADHD medication. So patients face dramatically different requirements, depending on their clinics’ and health insurers’ policies.

“There really isn’t much literature to guide you on how to do this,” said Dr. Margaret Chaplin, a Connecticut psychiatrist who treats patients with ADHD, mental illnesses, or substance use disorders.

Chaplin first noticed the lack of testing standards about eight years ago, when she and colleagues proposed ways to prevent stimulant misuse in adult ADHD patients.

Her team recommended urine tests only if patients exhibit “red-flag behavior,” such as appearing intoxicated, repeatedly reporting lost prescriptions, or frequently switching doctors. Some doctors and clinics make testing decisions on a patient-by-patient basis taking into account those red flags or patient history. Others apply universal policies, which may be aimed at preventing discrimination. Some insurance companies and state Medicaid systems also have testing requirements.

ADHD stimulants, opioid pain medications, and some other drugs are classified as controlled substances, which are tightly regulated because they can be addictive or misused.

ADHD patients subjected to frequent drug screens say the tests can be time-consuming and expensive. Some feel stigmatized.

A.C. Shilton felt relieved when she was diagnosed with ADHD in her mid-30s. The farmer and freelance journalist from rural Tennessee said the diagnosis explained why she felt so disorganized and forgetful, and as if her brain were a motor running all day. Shilton said her medication slows that motor down.

The 38-year-old Jamestown resident said her first doctor ordered urine tests once a year. That doctor eventually closed his practice, and Shilton said her next physician made her take a test at nearly every visit.

“You go in to get the standard of care, which is this medicine, and you’re kind of treated like you’re a bad person again; there’s some shame associated with that,” Shilton said.

She was also upset after learning office staffers were incorrect when they told her that urine testing was required by law — something that other ADHD patients posting on social media forums said had happened to them too.

Shilton said few doctors treat adult ADHD patients in her rural community. She now drives more than an hour to a different clinic, which doesn’t require her to take as many drug tests.

Travis Gordon, 47, of Charlotte, North Carolina, has gone to the same ADHD clinic for more than 10 years. Gordon said he wasn’t drug-tested in the first few years. Then, for several years, he had to give a urine sample every three months. During much of the covid-19 pandemic, he wasn’t tested. Now, he’s screened every six months.

“We shouldn’t have to feel like street criminals to get drugs that are needed for our daily success,” Gordon said.

Gordon said it would make sense for doctors to order tests more frequently as they get to know new patients. But he said he doesn’t understand why such testing should continue for people like him, established patients who properly take their medication.

Traci Camper, 50, of northeastern Tennessee, said she has “never even tried a cigarette,” much less used illicit drugs, but her doctor has required urine tests every three months for more than 10 years. Camper said the process can be inconvenient but she’s ultimately OK with the tests, especially since she lives in an area with high rates of drug abuse.

The clinics that Shilton, Gordon, and Camper went to did not respond to KHN’s requests for interviews about their testing policies.

Adults are diagnosed with ADHD if they have multiple, frequent symptoms so severe they interfere with work, relationships, or other aspects of life. Treatments include therapy and medication, most often stimulants.

ADHD patients have been affected by the response to the opioid crisis, which has led to more scrutiny for all controlled medications. Some have reported trouble filling their prescriptions as drug distribution companies limit sales to certain pharmacies. Some patients, especially rural ones, could face obstacles if the federal government reverts to pre-pandemic rules that require at least one in-person appointment to receive controlled drugs via telehealth.

Chaplin said doctors who treat ADHD may feel the need to be extra vigilant with drug testing because of this increased scrutiny, or due to the risk of misuse.

An estimated 3.7 million Americans 12 or older misused prescription stimulants in 2021, and 1.5 million had a prescription stimulant use disorder, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Americans are more likely to misuse or be addicted to prescription opioids, sedatives, and tranquilizers, the agency said.

Adults with ADHD are more likely to have a substance use disorder than those without the condition, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Although there aren’t formal standards, several health care organizations and professionals have made recommendations to prevent and detect adult ADHD stimulant misuse. Suggestions include requiring patients to sign prescription-agreement contracts and regularly checking databases that show all controlled medications each patient is buying.

Chaplin said there’s little research into how effective any method is at preventing medication misuse.

A recent survey found that 42% of family physicians and 21% of college health professionals who treat adult ADHD require their patients to submit random urine drug screens.

Gordon, Camper, and some ADHD patients on social media forums said their drug screens have come at predictable intervals, instead of random ones.

Dr. Sidarth Wakhlu, a psychiatrist who specializes in treating substance use disorders at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, said some of his patients also have ADHD. He suggests drug-testing most ADHD patients once or twice a year. For “someone who has no addiction history, has no red flags, every three months is an overkill,” he said.

The cost of drug testing is as variable as the frequency.

For example, Dr. Michael Fingerhood at Johns Hopkins University uses urine tests that cost as little as $60 before insurance. Fingerhood makes testing decisions case by case for patients who take controlled substances to treat ADHD, pain, or opioid addiction.

Gordon used to pay $110 for each of his tests when he had insurance his doctor did not accept. Shilton’s insurance was billed $545 for a test. Shilton said she complained to a nurse who said, in the future, she could use a less expensive test.

Shilton said she replied, “Well, why aren’t we doing that to begin with? Why are we doing this extremely fancy drug testing?”

Wakhlu said the more expensive urine tests can identify specific types and quantities of drugs. Such tests are usually used to confirm the results of initial, less pricey tests, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Wakhlu said that when test results show a patient might be misusing stimulants, doctors should initiate a non-accusatory conversation to discuss the results and, if needed, offer help. He also said it’s important to emphasize safety, such as how taking too much ADHD medication or combining it with other stimulants, such as methamphetamine, can be dangerous.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The post ADHD patients face wildly different drug testing requirements appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on KHN.

Consider three hypothetical women in their mid-70s, all living alone in identical economic circumstances with the same array of ailments: diabetes, arthritis, and high blood pressure.

Ms. Green stays home most of the time and sometimes goes a week without seeing people. But she’s in frequent touch by phone with friends and relatives, and she takes a virtual class with a discussion group from a nearby college.

Ms. Smith also stays home, but rarely talks to anyone. She has lost contact with friends, stopped going to church, and spends most of her time watching TV.

Ms. Johnson has a wide circle of friends and a busy schedule. She walks with neighbors regularly, volunteers at a school twice a week, goes to church, and is in close touch with her children, who don’t live nearby.

Three sets of social circumstances, three levels of risk should the women experience a fall, bout of pneumonia, or serious deterioration in health.

Of the women, Ms. Johnson would be most likely to get a ride to the doctor or a visit in the hospital, experts suggest. Several people may check on Ms. Green and arrange assistance while she recovers.

But Ms. Smith would be unlikely to get much help and more likely than the others to fare poorly if her health became challenged. She’s what some experts would call “socially vulnerable” or “socially frail.”

Social frailty is a corollary to physical frailty, a set of vulnerabilities (including weakness, exhaustion, unintentional weight loss, slowness, and low physical activity) shown to increase the risk of falls, disability, hospitalization, poor surgical outcomes, admission to a nursing home, and earlier death in older adults.

Essentially, people who are physically frail have less physiological strength and a reduced biological ability to bounce back from illness or injury.

Those who are socially frail similarly have fewer resources to draw upon, but for different reasons — they don’t have close relationships, can’t rely on others for help, aren’t active in community groups or religious organizations, or live in neighborhoods that feel unsafe, among other circumstances. Also, social frailty can entail feeling a lack of control over one’s life or being devalued by others.

Many of these factors have been linked to poor health outcomes in later life, along with so-called social determinants of health — low socioeconomic status, poor nutrition, insecure housing, and inaccessible transportation.

Social frailty assumes that each factor contributes to an older person’s vulnerability and that they interact with and build upon each other. “It’s a more complete picture of older adults’ circumstances than any one factor alone,” said Dr. Melissa Andrew, a professor of geriatric medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, who published one of the first social vulnerability indices for older adults in 2008.

This way of thinking about older adults’ social lives, and how they influence health outcomes, is getting new attention from experts in the U.S. and elsewhere. In February, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and the University of California-San Francisco published a 10-item “social frailty index” in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.

Using data from 8,250 adults 65 and older who participated in the national Health and Retirement Study from 2010 to 2016, the researchers found that the index helped predict an increased risk of death during the period studied in a significant number of older adults, complementing medical tools used for this purpose.

“Our goal is to help clinicians identify older patients who are socially frail and to prompt problem-solving designed to help them cope with various challenges,” said Dr. Sachin Shah, a co-author of the paper and a researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“It adds dimensions of what a clinician should know about their patients beyond current screening instruments, which are focused on physical health,” said Dr. Linda Fried, an internationally known frailty researcher and dean of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University.

Beyond the corridors of medicine, she said, “we need society to build solutions” to issues raised in the index — the ability of seniors to work, volunteer, and engage with other people; the safety and accessibility of neighborhoods in which they live; ageism and discrimination against older adults; and more.

Meanwhile, a team of Chinese researchers recently published a comprehensive review of social frailty in adults age 60 and older, based on results from dozens of studies with about 83,900 participants in Japan, China, Korea, and Europe. They determined that 24% of these older adults, assessed both in hospitals and in the community, were socially frail — a higher portion than those deemed physically frail (12%) or cognitively frail (9%) in separate studies. Most vulnerable were people 75 and older.

What are the implications for health care? “If someone is socially vulnerable, perhaps they’ll need more help at home while they’re recovering from surgery. Or maybe they’ll need someone outside their family circle to be an advocate for them in the hospital,” said Dr. Kenneth Covinsky, a geriatrician at UCSF and co-author of the recent Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article.

“I can see a social frailty index being useful in identifying older adults who need extra assistance and directing them to community resources,” said Jennifer Ailshire, an associate professor of gerontology and sociology at the University of Southern California Leonard Davis School of Gerontology.

Unlike other physicians, geriatricians regularly screen older adults for extra needs, albeit without using a well-vetted or consistent set of measures. “I’ll ask, who do you depend on most and how do you depend on them? Do they bring you food? Drive you places? Come by and check on you? Give you their time and attention?” said Dr. William Dale, the Arthur M. Coppola Family Chair in Supportive Care Medicine at City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center in Duarte, California.

Depending on the patients’ answers, Dale will refer them to a social worker or help modify their plan of care. But, he cautioned, primary care physicians and specialists don’t routinely take the time to do this.

Oak Street Health, a Chicago-based chain of 169 primary care centers for older adults in 21 states and recently purchased by CVS Health, is trying to change that in its clinics, said Dr. Ali Khan, the company’s chief medical officer of value-based care strategy. At least three times a year, medical assistants, social workers, or clinicians ask patients about loneliness and social isolation, barriers to transportation, food insecurity, financial strain, housing quality and safety, access to broadband services, and utility services.

The organization combines these findings with patient-specific medical information in a “global risk assessment” that separates seniors into four tiers of risk, from very high to very low. In turn, this informs the kinds of services provided to patients, the frequency of service delivery, and individual wellness plans, which include social as well as medical priorities.

The central issue, Khan said, is “what is this patient’s ability to continue down a path of resilience in the face of a very complicated health care system?” and what Oak Street Health can do to enhance that.

What’s left out of an approach like this, however, is something crucial to older adults: whether their relationships with other people are positive or negative. That isn’t typically measured, but it’s essential in considering whether their social needs are being met, said Linda Waite, the George Herbert Mead Distinguished Service Professor of sociology at the University of Chicago and director of the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project.

For seniors who want to think about their own social vulnerability, consider this five-item index, developed by researchers in Japan.

(1) Do you go out less frequently now than last year?

(2) Do you sometimes visit your friends?

(3) Do you feel you are helpful to friends or family?

(4) Do you live alone?

(5) Do you talk to someone every day?

Think about your answers. If you find your responses unsatisfactory, it might be time to reconsider your social circumstances and make a change.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The post Social relationships are important to the health of aging adults appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Scrolling through Instagram and TikTok on a Monday morning is an easy trigger for the dreaded fear of missing out–or FOMO. To push back against this need to never miss a party or fancy vacation, the term JOMO (joy of missing out) has been popularized for those who report a healthy level of enjoyment of solitude.

However, most people who also have high JOMO also report higher levels of social anxiety, according to a study published this month in the journal Telematics and Informatics Reports.

[Related: Seattle schools sue social media companies over students’ worsening mental health.]

For the study, a team from Washington State University looked at two 500-person samples of adults recruited through Amazon’s crowdsourcing platform MTurk. As a way to measure JOMO, they asked a slate of questions about enjoying spending time alone and experiencing disconnection. For example, whether subjects liked having time to self-reflect and if they were happy to see friends and family out enjoying themselves even if they weren’t there. Questions to assess loneliness, social media use, social anxiety, personality traits, and general life satisfaction were also included. 

The surveys revealed mixed results, with some evidence that there is actually some anxiety hiding behind the joy. 

“In general, a lot of people like being connected,” psychology professor and co-author Chris Barry said in a statement. “When trying to assess JOMO, we found that some people were enjoying missing out, not for the solitude or a Zen-like, calming experience of being able to regroup, but more to avoid social interaction.”

This avoidance might explain the correlation the team found between social media use and JOMO, which surprised the team. They anticipated that people who wanted to miss out on social gatherings would not care to check in to see what their friends or family were doing. Instead, they found that those who have social anxiety may find social media as a less intense way to connect instead of interacting in person. 

The study of the first sample group showed connections in those high in JOMO and social media and also general life satisfaction, but social anxiety actually had the strongest correlation.

[Related: Study confirms the obvious: youth have abandoned Facebook.]

After getting these mixed results, they designed a second study to see if there was a group of people high in JOMO, but without that anxiety. While they did find these blissful introverts, the group was small and represented only about 10 percent of the participants in the study. This group was not socially anxious, but still reported some moderate feelings of loneliness.

Previous studies have linked FOMO with low self-esteem and loneliness, but these findings indicate that the experience of JOMO is not as clear. The team believes that JOMO might be more of a momentary phase of needing to disconnect instead of a constant state of feelings. Other studies have also shown that continued exposure to anxiety triggers can help lessen stress later.

“There are a lot of unanswered questions like ‘what’s a good dosage of social interaction versus disengagement?’ I think that’s going to differ for everyone,” Barry said.  “The motives matter,” Barry said. “Why are people missing out? If it’s because they need to recharge, that’s maybe a good thing. If they’re trying to avoid something, that is probably not healthy in the long run.”

The post Do you never feel FOMO? Time to meet its twin, JOMO. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on KHN.

Anxiety is the most common psychological disorder affecting adults in the U.S. In older people, it’s associated with considerable distress as well as ill health, diminished quality of life, and elevated rates of disability.

Yet, when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent, influential panel of experts, suggested last year that adults be screened for anxiety, it left out one group — people 65 and older.

The major reason the task force cited in draft recommendations issued in September: “the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for anxiety” in all older adults. (Final recommendations are expected later this year.)

The task force noted that questionnaires used to screen for anxiety may be unreliable for older adults. Screening entails evaluating people who don’t have obvious symptoms of worrisome medical or psychological conditions.

“We recognize that many older adults experience mental health conditions like anxiety” and “we are calling urgently for more research,” said Lori Pbert, associate chief of the preventive and behavioral medicine division at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School and a former task force member who worked on the anxiety recommendations.

This “we don’t know enough yet” stance doesn’t sit well with some experts who study and treat seniors with anxiety. Dr. Carmen Andreescu, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, called the task force’s position “baffling” because “it’s well established that anxiety isn’t uncommon in older adults and effective treatments exist.”

“I cannot think of any danger in identifying anxiety in older adults, especially because doing so has no harm and we can do things to reduce it,” said Dr. Helen Lavretsky, a psychology professor at UCLA.

In a recent editorial in JAMA Psychiatry, Andreescu and Lavretsky noted that only about one-third of seniors with generalized anxiety disorder — intense, persistent worry about everyday matters — receive treatment. That’s concerning, they said, considering evidence of links between anxiety and stroke, heart failure, coronary artery disease, autoimmune illness, and neurodegenerative disorders such as dementia.

Other forms of anxiety commonly undetected and untreated in seniors include phobias (like a fear of dogs), obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder (a fear of being assessed and judged by others), and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The smoldering disagreement over screening calls attention to the significance of anxiety in later life — a concern heightened during the covid-19 pandemic, which magnified stress and worry among seniors. Here’s what you should know.

Anxiety is common. According to a book chapter published in 2020, authored by Andreescu and a colleague, up to 15% of people 65 and older who live outside nursing homes or other facilities have a diagnosable anxiety condition.

As many as half have symptoms of anxiety — irritability, worry, restlessness, decreased concentration, sleep changes, fatigue, avoidant behaviors — that can be distressing but don’t justify a diagnosis, the study noted.

Most seniors with anxiety have struggled with this condition since earlier in life, but the way it manifests may change over time. Specifically, older adults tend to be more anxious about issues such as illness, the loss of family and friends, retirement, and cognitive declines, experts said. Only a small fraction develop anxiety after turning 65.

Anxiety can be difficult to identify in older adults. Older adults often minimize symptoms of anxiety, thinking “this is what getting older is like” rather than “this is a problem that I should do something about,” Andreescu said.

Also, seniors are more likely than younger adults to report “somatic” complaints — physical symptoms such as dizziness, fatigue, headaches, chest pain, shortness of breath, and gastrointestinal problems — that can be difficult to distinguish from underlying medical conditions, according to Gretchen Brenes, a professor of gerontology and geriatric medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

Some types of anxiety or anxious behaviors — notably, hoarding and fear of falling — are much more common in older adults, but questionnaires meant to identify anxiety don’t typically ask about those issues, said Dr. Jordan Karp, chair of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Tucson.

When older adults voice concerns, medical providers too often dismiss them as normal, given the challenges of aging, said Dr. Eric Lenze, head of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and the third author of the recent JAMA Psychiatry editorial.

Simple questions can help identify whether an older adult needs to be evaluated for anxiety, he and other experts suggested: Do you have recurrent worries that are hard to control? Are you having trouble sleeping? Have you been feeling more irritable, stressed, or nervous? Are you having trouble with concentration or thinking? Are you avoiding things you normally like to do because you’re wrapped up in your worries?

Stephen Snyder, 67, who lives in Zelienople, Pennsylvania, and was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder in March 2019, would answer “yes” to many of these queries. “I’m a Type A personality and I worry a lot about a lot of things — my family, my finances, the future,” he told me. “Also, I’ve tended to dwell on things that happened in the past and get all worked up.”

Treatments are effective. Psychotherapy — particularly cognitive behavioral therapy, which helps people address persistent negative thoughts — is generally considered the first line of anxiety treatment in older adults. In an evidence review for the task force, researchers noted that this type of therapy helps reduce anxiety in seniors seen in primary care settings.

Also recommended, Lenze noted, is relaxation therapy, which can involve deep breathing exercises, massage or music therapy, yoga, and progressive muscle relaxation.

Because mental health practitioners, especially those who specialize in seniors’ mental health, are extremely difficult to find, primary care physicians often recommend medications to ease anxiety. Two categories of drugs — antidepressants known as SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) and SNRIs (serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) — are typically prescribed, and both appear to help to older adults, experts said.

Frequently prescribed to older adults, but to be avoided by them, are benzodiazepines, a class of sedating medications such as Valium, Ativan, Xanax, and Klonopin. The American Geriatrics Society has warned medical providers not to use these in older adults, except when other therapies have failed, because they are addictive and significantly increase the risk of hip fractures, falls and other accidents, and short-term cognitive impairments.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The post Seniors are struggling with chronic anxiety, but don’t seek treatment appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

As a New Yorker, there’s a difference in whether it’s cold or “brick” outside. Cold weather is when you throw on a sweater before heading out. When it’s brick, you try to stay home as much as possible to avoid ending up like a human glacier. But the local lingo didn’t apply much this winter, with record-low snowfall and above-average temperatures across New York City.

A warm winter is more than just losing a few snow days. It’s knowing that the world will be dealing with more scorching heat waves and droughts, and natural disasters like the deadly flooding caused by Hurricane Ian in Florida and Cuba last year.

Climate change is only one of humanity’s long list of problems. This month we mark the third anniversary of the COVID pandemic, a disease that has killed millions worldwide and is becoming more chronic like the flu. On top of that, Turkey and Syria are still facing the aftershocks of a historically deadly earthquake, and soaring food prices from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could worsen global hunger for years to come. 

[Related: How to manage your mental health as traumatic events pile up]

There seems to be no shortage of community-wide tragedies. Likewise, these events are taking a toll on people’s psyches. Whether conscious or subconscious, you might mourn a loss of safety and security, on top of the more obvious layers of sorrow. But these feelings can also help you be the change you need to move forward in this ever-evolving world.

Collective grief is both a shared and unique experience

Some tragedies, like a mass shooting or police brutality, resonate among an entire group of people. “Grief is a normal reaction to loss,” says Kriss Kevorkian, a thanatologist and founder of the counseling service, A Grieving World. “When it’s collective grief, we’re experiencing that on a larger scale with more people.”

Collective grief can take hold even if you don’t personally know the people directly affected. When the Uvlade school shooting occurred, there was a nationwide outpouring of anger and sorrow over the murders of the teachers and children. Violent events like these force you to rethink life and the safety of your family, says Kevorkian.

Younger generations have become the most vulnerable to collective grief, especially with environmental anxiety. Kevorkian says that government failure to stop climate change has caused children to become more helpless and apathetic. When young people like Greta Thunberg do speak out on climate change, they are mocked and subject to verbal abuse.

Your brain and body on grief

Grief doesn’t stay in one corner of your body—it consumes your entire being. You might feel more tired than usual from tossing and turning all night. Maybe you’ve lost your appetite or have trouble keeping food down. Research shows that the first few months of grief can affect your body’s immune system activity and increase your risk of blood clots.

When your mind is weighed down by sadness, anger, and loneliness, there is little space to focus on other matters. Having “grief brain” can make it feel like you’re in a fog. Everyday tasks such as watering the plants or taking out the trash become really challenging. As you try to process your loss, you might forget things like where you placed your keys or an important doctor’s appointment. 

Grief brain happens because your mind recognizes the stress and emotional trauma as a threat, triggering the entire body’s fight-or-flight response. Brain regions like the amygdala signal the alarm through stress hormones that elevate your heart rate and increase your blood pressure, upping your anxiety and panic to keep tabs on the stressor. 

When you don’t deal with the heavy emotion, your brain protects itself by going into constant survival mode. Believing it’s in danger, it allocates more energy and resources to fear centers like the amygdala. Your brain might also decide to escape the stressor by metaphorically running away. It might dissociate from daily happenings, for example, to give you a mental break from negative emotions. “Deciding how to approach your grief can foster healing as opposed to delaying it when we try to ignore or deny reality,” says Jasmine Cobb, a social worker specializing in grief and trauma at Visual Healing Therapeutic Services in Texas.

Consume your grief before it consumes you

The good news is that grief-related stress on the brain is reversible. Meditation and mindfulness can train you to focus on the present moment instead of reliving the past or dissociating from future threats. Going outside for a 30-minute walk instead of doom-scrolling or watching the news can help clear and calm the mind. Crying can also be a healthy release of stress as it releases feel-good hormones such as oxytocin and endorphins. 

There is no normal amount of time you’re supposed to grieve. You can spend months or years mourning, only for a news story or movie to trigger your pain all over again. “There are three words I really can’t stand, ‘get over it,’” says Kevorkian. “Grief never ends.” 

While time can help with the grieving process, it’s important that you’re actively working on your emotions and any unresolved issues related to the loss. Cobb says speaking with someone you can confide in is important, whether it’s a family friend, therapist, or a spiritual leader. There is also power in shared grief. People who have gone through a similar experience can help provide support in overcoming your grief. “Find your community who can hold a torch for you when you’re unable to do that for yourself,” advises Cobb.

Turning collective grief into collective action

Grief is one of life’s greatest teachers, says Kevorkian. It shows you how to live in the present and appreciate all that you have right now. Beyond acceptance, taking action can help you wrestle with some of the hopelessness you might feel when dealing with events out of your control, Kevorkian explains.

[Related: The biggest tool we have to fight climate anxiety is community]

One example of a group turning pain into lasting change is Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). In 1980, 13-year-old Cari Lightner was killed by a drunk driver—a man who had just gotten out of jail two days after his fourth DUI arrest. For the next few years, Cari’s mother, Candace, used her daughter’s photo and story of her accident to raise awareness and change California traffic safety laws. Candace went on to form MADD, a political-advocacy group that gives other grieving parents the opportunity to feel like their tragedy was not in vain. 

“It’s easy for us to stay in bed under the covers and wallow in despair,” says Kevorkian. But finding the courage to take action can help you get out of your head and connect with others sharing similar distress. Hopefully, with time and work, the world will seem a little less bleak.

The post How to cope with collective grief—and even turn it into action appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The month of March brings with it the third anniversary of COVID-19 shutdowns beginning in the United States. The year 2020 became synonymous with change and fear, as major sporting events were canceled, thousands were infected with the novel virus and died, and work and school shifted online for millions. The world changed forever–especially for children.

In a survey of parents conducted in the fall of 2022 by Pew Research Center, 48 percent of parents with children in grades K-12 said that the first year of the pandemic had a very or somewhat negative impact on their children’s emotional well-being. Additionally, a 2022 review of survey studies by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that “the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health of children and adolescents is multifaceted and substantial,” and urged more well-designed studies looking at the mental health effects of the pandemic. 

[Related: COVID-19 vaccines are still essential in preventing death in children and teens.]

Now, a group of researchers in Sweden is turning to children’s drawings and their own explanation of what they drew to get a better sense of their feelings, beliefs, and ideas about COVID-19. A small study published March 2 in the journal Acta Paediatrica found that the common themes were detailed images of canceled activities, illness, and death, and the children had quite a bit of knowledge about the disease.

The team collected 91 drawings from kids between the ages of four and six years-old that were submitted to the Swedish Archive of Children’s Drawings between April 2020 and February 2021. The project was part of investigations into children’s voices in the public space during the pandemic.

“It was a very fun study to carry out. I was actually quite uncertain as to whether a medical journal would publish the article, but they did, including the children’s drawings and everything,” co-author Anna Sarkadi said in a statement. Sarkadi is a physician specializing in children’s health and social medicine from Uppsala University in Sweden

They analyzed the drawings using a type of visual analysis called semiotic visual analysis which looks at the image’s denotation (what images represent and how) and connotation (the associated meaning). The analysis also looked at the child’s own explanations accompanying the drawings.

The findings revealed that even the youngest children were strongly affected by the pandemic. In addition to canceled plans and images showing sick and dying people, fear, worry, and missing grandparents were common themes among them. Coronavirus was often described as a monster, while other children described how to protect themselves from the virus. One drawing even showed two children in a sword fight against a giant virus.

[Related: It’s harder for kids with food allergies to catch COVID.]

“The drawings were often covered in a lot of snot. On one drawing, a child wrote, ‘You throw up, then you cough, then you feel better or die,’ with extremely clear illustrations,” explained Maria Thell, a co-author and doctoral student at Uppsala University, in a statement. 

The study found that the children also know quite a bit about the virus, including how it spread and its symptoms. Out of 91 drawings, 14 showed hand washing, 17 showed symptoms like coughing, and 44 showed a depiction of the virus itself. 

“As a researcher with a background in child and youth science, I would love to develop this method further,” said Thell.

This team’s research will continue and the drawings from seven to 11 year old children will be studied next. 

“By encouraging young children to draw pictures using open prompts, such as how a disease feels, looks like or what is different now, it is possible to understand their interpretations of a situation and related emotions,” the authors write in the study. 

Additionally, they write that pediatricians can use children’s drawings to gage emotional response to COVID-19 in addition to other health issues and get a unique glimpse into their world. This can help adults have a better idea of what kids understand or don’t understand and detect any “unhelpful fantasies’ they may have conjured up. 

A survey of children in the United Kingdom found that seven to 11 year-olds were highly aware of the social restriction, illness, and death caused by the virus and similar reviews of children’s drawings have been conducted in Spain and Greece.

The post Little kids drew their grim—and hopeful—reality of COVID appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

If you’ve ever been pleasant to a rude customer while waiting tables, smiled through a friend’s wedding despite disliking their choice of spouse, or graciously received a truly ugly sweater as a gift, you’ve participated in a display rule. This is hiding a negative emotion usually to promote harmony between two individuals and the rules differ by culture. However, they can have negative consequences for the person suppressing a negative emotion or opinion. 

As daily interactions become increasingly virtual, display rules are changing. A group of researchers from the University of Tokyo in Japan set out to answer the questions of how emojis are used to reflect emotions in different contexts, if the same display rules apply to emojis, and how they affect a person’s well being. 

[Related: Meet the newest Apple emojis: a goose, a moose, and another pink heart.]

“As online socializing becomes more prevalent, people have become accustomed to embellishing their expressions and scrutinizing the appropriateness of their communication,” said Moyu Liu, a PhD student studying emotional management in online spaces at the University of Tokyo, in a statement. “However, I realized that this may lead us to lose touch with our authentic emotions.”

Liu is the co-author of a small study published March 3 in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, that found that emojis were used to both express positive feelings and soften the more negative ones–such as not liking a friend’s piece of art.

Earlier research established that emojis serve as functional equivalents of facial expressions, but it didn’t look at the relationships between emotions expressed and experienced. It’s here that display rules can be problematic—if there is too much of a dissonance between the emotions that you experience and the emotions that you express, it can lead to emotional exhaustion. 

To try to answer this question, Liu’s study observed 1,289 participants who use Simeji, the most-downloaded emoji keyboard in Japan, and how the emojis were used to either express an emotion or mask it. 

The participants provided demographic data, answered questions about their subjective well being, and rated how often they use emojis. They were also given messages with different social contexts and asked to respond to them as they would normally, and then rated the intensity of the expression of their emotions.

[Related: AI moderators can’t keep up with vaccine disinformation’s newest language: emojis.]

The study found that texters chose to express more emotions via emoji with people in a private context or with a close friend. The respondents expressed the least amount of emotion with higher-status individuals. The most intense expressions of emotion came with matching emojis, unless the respondents felt the need to mask their true feelings, such as using a smiling emoji to mask sadness. 

Only when negative feelings were very strongly felt did the respondents use a negative emoji. Additionally, using emojis to express emotions was associated with higher subjective well being compared to masking emotions.

Liu would like to expand this study with a larger and more varied sample, including more males since the Simeji keyboard is more popular among young women and from different cultural backgrounds.

“First, the highly gender-imbalanced sample may have led to stronger results. Future research should explore potential gender differences in emoji display rules and examine the structural issues surrounding the formation of these emotion cultures,” cautioned Liu. “Second, Japanese culture’s emphasis on interpersonal harmony and concealment of negative emotions may have influenced the results.”

The post People use emojis to soften the blow of negative feelings appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

When the wintry mix makes going outside unpleasant, the couch and a good book are tempting. But think: if you start your spring cleaning now, you’ll be able to enjoy the first warm days of the season outside smelling flowers instead of inside scrubbing floors.

Untidy spaces in particular seem to have a harmful effect on your mood and health. As a 2017 article in Psychology Today noted, clutter can interrupt “both your ability to move and your ability to think.”

[Related: A complete guide to digital spring cleaning]

Plus, it turns out people who regularly tidy up are getting a fair amount of light physical activity. That’s good if one of your New Year’s resolutions was to decrease the number on the scale, but cleaning also offers the benefit of space in your home to do things like rolling out the yoga mat or firing up an exercise video, doubling down on the physical benefits of a tidier space.

And if you start your spring cleaning now, it’ll give you an edge when warmer weather rolls around. Nearly 80 percent of households in the US ring in the new season with spring cleaning, and tackling what you can now means there will be less to do when you’d rather be outside. Some tasks, though, like washing windows, should probably still wait until you’re in significantly above-freezing temperatures.

Next, consider what you’ve accumulated—gifts, trinkets, and toys—over the past year and pare down items that serve similar purposes. For example, if you got a new phone or computer for Christmas, donate the old one. Be sure to include any cords and chargers, and consider including a pre-paid minutes card if you can afford it.

That said, don’t declare this the weekend you finally scour all the stain off every tile in your kitchen. Break a big task into more digestible chunks and tackle those grout stains a row or two at a time. Taking smaller steps will also let you know what “clean” and “tidy” mean to you—your place doesn’t have to look like an apartment straight out of #cleantok to be functional for you.

Give yourself a flexible deadline and bend the scope of the task to accommodate. Instead of having that shelf in order and the books to be donated out the door by the first day of spring, set a steady, regular pace that you can pick up and put down as you need. Even if the big stuff isn’t complete by the time the robins come back, it’ll still be much closer to being done than it was before.

Finally, consider tackling multiple projects on a rotating basis. A 2015 survey conducted by Microsoft in Canada showed that our attention spans have dropped substantially in the past decades—from 12 seconds in 2000 to 8 seconds in 2013. But switching things up keeps us more productive for longer. For work that’s repetitive or doesn’t need your full attention, multitasking and doing it in “small bites” can also help.

The post 3 early spring cleaning ideas to get you out of hibernation mode appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The death of Tyre Nichols at the hands of Memphis police earlier this year has set off new questions about what public safety really means in America. While the five former officers are being charged for Nichol’s murder, there’s been scrutiny over how EMS responders handled the victim’s injuries after arriving on the scene.

On the night of January 7, paramedics responded to a call of a person being pepper sprayed. Despite the man laying bloody and in distress against a police vehicle, they failed to make their own assessment of the patient beyond what the officers told them. It took another 19 minutes for the EMTs to bring a stretcher out for him. 

The mistreatment Nichols endured from people trained to save lives is a grave reminder that America is built on a system designed to treat minority communities differently. One in every 1,000 Black men in the US will be killed by law enforcement, estimates a 2019 criminal justice study. Among young Black men between 25 and 29, police brutality ranks as the sixth leading cause of death. And more than half of police brutality cases go unreported, especially when they involve Black people. 

[Related: Racism is undeniably a public health issue]

In the wake of Nichols’s murder, medical organizations like the Association of American Medical Colleges released statements condemning the violence. But they didn’t address the fact that fear of being harmed by figures of authority can also carry over to medical institutions and personnel. Sirry Alang, an associate professor of Black Communities & the Social Determinants of Health at the University of Pittsburgh School of Education, says police brutality must be considered a public health crisis. “Police brutality literally kills people. It causes death and disability and it shifts relationships with healthcare providers that make people less likely to seek care.”

The roots of medical mistrust

Medical mistrust is the belief that people working in the medical field want to harm you or don’t have your best interests at heart. Alang says it tends to come from the concern of being treated differently because you are affiliated with a specific racial or gender group. 

Medical mistrust has been justified through American history. From the 1930s to the 1970s, public health researchers with the Tuskegee syphilis study infected hundreds of healthy Black men and intentionally withheld treatment when penicillin became available. What’s more, the bogus science of eugenics promoted the forced sterilization of thousands of people of color in the 20th century. 

Mistrust has also arisen, in part, because of the prejudices workers at medical institutions hold against certain groups of people. For example, Black patients are less likely to be prescribed pain medication than white patients, even if they are experiencing the same level of pain, because of a deep-rooted stereotype that they have “thicker skin.” The US mortality rate among Black mothers from complications during pregnancy is also three times higher than that of white mothers, in part because of the failure of doctors to understand the pain of Black women.

“People don’t seek healthcare as individuals,” explains Alang—their choices are shaped by personal experience and the experiences of others in their community. “One bad experience can influence the expectations of others in that network and make it easy for medical distrust to spread.”

Cycles of violence, trauma, and more mistrust 

Experiencing police brutality creates traumatic racial experiences that can subvert a person’s belief on what to expect when dealing with a figure of authority. Think about the end of an abusive romantic relationship. Even if you moved on, you might always be wary of your new partner and whether they’ll behave just as badly. Similarly, a traumatic experience with the police keeps you on edge of being mistreated in other areas. 

“If people in authoritative roles have showed they don’t respect you, you’ll be more suspicious of other authority figures like healthcare providers,” says Georges Benjamin, the executive director for the American Public Health Association. What’s more, exposure to police violence can force survivors to develop feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness and further convince them to avoid care—even when they need it.

[Related: Teen girls and queer youth are facing a crisis of hopelessness]

Another issue is that healthcare institutions support a broken public-safety system that often works against those who need it. Take emergency medical dispatches, for example. First responders tend to talk to the officer at the scene first instead of speaking with the harmed individual to figure out what happened. “They then come to you like an object it has to fix instead of a person,” says Alang. 

Crumbling police-community relations

The stress and trauma that comes from the threat of police brutality can cause long-term stress that wears down the body over time. For example, a 2016 study of Black residents living in highly policed areas of New York City found they were more likely to have poor health outcomes such as high blood pressure, regardless of whether or not officers stopped them. Benjamin says that the perception that law enforcement is not actually there to protect you can create community stress that keeps your body in a constant fight-or-flight mode.

Constant stress contributes to a higher risk of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, along with a number of mental health conditions. But when people are apprehensive about how they will be treated for “overreacting” to the constant threat of police brutality, Alang says they are more likely to skip out on seeing or talking to their doctor about the source of their stress and trauma. They might also be less likely to adhere to medication or treatment plan. “The relationship between a healthcare provider and a patient is one of fundamental trust,” Benjamin explains. “If you don’t trust that individual, you might have some suspicions on their advice or you may not believe what they told you.”

Building a safer public health system

Reducing police violence is just one part of fixing medical mistrust; hospital, EMS groups, and public health organizations need to actively build rapport with communities grieving the loss of their members. Alang says putting out anti-racist press statements after a violent incident does little to reassure the public. Instead, both she and Benjamin advise medical institutions to take action in ways that make people feel heard or supported. 

This can come from changes like hiring a healthcare workforce that represents the patient population it’s treating, and setting up accessible mental health programs focused on addressing trauma and stress. Benjamin adds that medical institutions can work with law enforcement to build out community-based policing, including teaching them how to interact with people under stress. “Public health is not going to [completely] solve this police violence problem,” he says. “But we are part of the solution.”

The post Police brutality is an unaddressed public health crisis in America appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

For some workers, every weekend being a long weekend sounds like a dream. As it turns out, a  four-day work week trial from the United Kingdom analyzing nearly 3,000 workers across 61 companies is adding to the pile of evidence that demonstrates how a a reduction of hours is good for employees, the bottom line, and possibly the planet itself.

From June to December 2022, the studied employees worked 80 percent of their usual hours without a reduction in pay. In exchange, they promised to deliver 100 percent of their usual workload. According to 4 Day Week Global (4DWG) and 4 Day Week Campaign, the nonprofit organizations that organized the trial, this is the largest number of companies to participate in this kind of research. Researchers from the University of Cambridge, Boston College in Massachusetts, and workplace research group Autonomy oversaw data collection, interviews, and the analysis.

[Related: Essential tips and tools for working remotely—from anywhere.]

Employees were surveyed throughout the trial to gauge what an extra day of free time does for workers. The results were published today with 1,238 workers completing a final survey about their experience.

About 71 percent of employees reported lower levels of burnout, with 39 percent reporting less stress compared with the beginning of the trial. Sick days were reduced by 65 percent and there was a 57 percent drop in staff turnover compared to June to December 2021. 

Roughly 60 percent of employees found it easier to balance work and homelife. 62 percent of employees reported it easier to combine work with social life. 

“Before the trial, many questioned whether we would see an increase in productivity to offset the reduction in working time – but this is exactly what we found,” said sociologist Brendan Burchell, who led the University of Cambridge’s side of the research, in a statement. “Many employees were very keen to find efficiency gains themselves. Long meetings with too many people were cut short or ditched completely. Workers were much less inclined to kill time, and actively sought out technologies that improved their productivity.”

Company revenue barely changed, and even showed a marginal increase by 1.4 percent on average.

Additionally, male-identifying workers reported spending 27 percent more time taking care of their children, based on time diaries that were logged during the trial. Female-identifying  participants reported 13 percent increase in childcare.

“It is wonderful to see that we can shift the dial and start to create more balance of care duties in households,” Charlotte Lockhart, founder and managing director of 4DWG, told CNN.

[Related: Burnout is real. Here’s how to spot it—and recover.]

A day off in the middle of the week meant some savings on childcare expenses for some of the parents of young children. For parents with older children, it meant some more general free time. 

There were also some benefits for the planet. Simon Ursell, a founder of Tyler Grange, an environmental consultant group that participated in the trial, told the BBC, “On average we saw a 21 percent reduction in the number of miles traveled by car.” Tyler Grange cut out unnecessary meetings and travel and Ursell says some employees used additional days off to become more involved in volunteering.

The organizations that took part in the trial included a wide range of companies and sectors including online retailers, financial service providers, animation studios, housing, marketing firms, healthcare, and a fish and chip shop. About 92 percent of companies that took part in this pilot program said that they intend to continue a four-day work week and 18 companies confirmed the permanent change.

“We feel really encouraged by the results, which showed the many ways companies were turning the four-day week from a dream into realistic policy, with multiple benefits,” said David Frayne, a Research Associate at the University of Cambridge, in a statement. 

As calls for a shorter work week have increased, some lawmakers in the United States are  willing to put the state behind it to test its merits. Maryland legislators have proposed a bill (House Bill 181) that will encourage qualifying businesses that have at least 30 employees to implement a 4-day work week (without reduction in pay), as part of a 5-year pilot program. Companies would receive a tax credit to help maintain wages. If it passes, Maryland will be the first state to encourage a 32 hour work week.

The post 4-day work week shows big benefits for both workers and employers in UK appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Adolescence and its raging hormones and major physical and emotional changes has always been a fraught period of time. Add onto that the threats of climate change, constant mass shootings, the COVID-19 pandemic, and continued societal injustice and it’s a hard time to be young in the United States. The data collected in the 2021 Youth Risk Behavior Survey is revealing just how “engulfed” in violence and trauma teens are, especially teenage girls.

Nearly one in three high school-aged girls reported 2021 that they seriously considered suicide in 2021. This is a huge jump of nearly 60 percent from a decade ago, according to new data released from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on February 13. Teen girls additionally reported experiencing distress at twice the rate of teen boys. 

The YRBS also found increased rates of mental health issues and suicidal behavior among teens who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or questioning.

[Related: Some teenagers’ brains have been aging faster during the pandemic.]

“High school should be a time for trailblazing, not trauma. These data show our kids need far more support to cope, hope, and thrive,” said Debra Houry, CDC’s Chief Medical Officer and Deputy Director for Program and Science, in a statement. “Proven school prevention programs can offer teens a vital lifeline in these growing waves of trauma.”

The YRBS is conducted every other year, but this survey done in fall of 2021 was an especially crucial one. It is the first iteration of the survey where the COVID-19 pandemic was a factor. The pandemic has taken a toll on teenagers, many of whom were already struggling with mental health issues before the pandemic began. Many were dealing with social media pressures, family turmoil, the deaths of family members to COVID-19, and isolation. “These data make it clear that young people in the U.S. are collectively experiencing a level of distress that calls on us to act,” the authors wrote.

The survey asks teens about substance abuse, mental health, sexual behaviors, among other topics. The 2021 survey was also the first to ask about the social determinants of health (housing stability, food insecurity, etc.) and protective factors including parental involvement and connections with classmates. 

Youth mental health has continued to get worse over the three decades that the CDC has been gathering data on adolescents and the American Academy of Pediatrics declared a national emergency in child and adolescent mental health in 2021 and 2022. This new survey found particularly stark increases in widespread reports of harmful experiences among teen girls.

The report found that about 18 percent of teenage girls reported experiencing sexual violence. a 20 percent increase from 2017. More than 14 percent reported being forced to have sex, a 27 percent increase since 2019. 

“If you think about every 10 teen girls that you know, at least one and possibly more has been raped, and that is the highest level we’ve ever seen,” Kathleen Ethier, director of the CDC’s Division of Adolescent and School Health, told The Washington Post. She also said that the the rise of sexual violence almost certainly contributed to the glaring spike of depressive symptoms. “We are really alarmed.”

[Related: Gender-affirming hormones can improve teens’ mental health and life satisfaction.]

Worsening levels of persistent sadness or hopelessness were found across all racial and ethnic groups, with an increase in suicide attempts among Black and White youth. However, Black and Hispanic students were more likely than their White or Asian classmates to avoid school due to safety concerns. White students were also more likely to experience sexual violence than Asian, Black, and Hispanic students, and they were the only group to see an increase in sexual violence. Alaska Native and American Indian high school students were more likely than other racial or ethnics groups to have been raped.

Close to 70 percent of LGBQ+ students reported feeling persistently sad or hopeless and more than one in five had attempted suicide in the past year. The 2021 survey did not have a question assessing gender identity and did not highlight data specifically on students who identify as transgender, so the  “T” commonly used in the acronym LGBTQ+ was not included when referring to the data. However, the authors believe that strategies to improve adolescent health should be inclusive of all youth who identify as LGBTQ+.

Some of the positive findings of the new survey were that teens experienced lower rates of certain risky sexual behaviors (including general sexual activity and having multiple sex partners), substance abuse, and bullying at school.

The researchers wrote that schools can play a major role in helping address these issues through offering programs and connections that can protect against adverse mental health issues, such as youth development programs and inclusivity efforts. They also said that schools can link students and families with community resources and provide more mental, physical, and sexual health education. 

Contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline if you are experiencing mental health-related distress or are worried about a loved one who may need crisis support. Call or text 988. Chat at 988lifeline.org. Connect with a trained crisis counselor. 988 is confidential, free, and available 24/7/365. Visit the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline for more information at 988lifeline.org.

The post Teen girls and queer youth are facing a crisis of hopelessness, CDC finds appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

When the COVID-19 pandemic shut down normal life in 2020, nature became a refuge for many people  cooped up inside. As pandemic related travel disturbances continued, the National Park Service saw record numbers of visitors, as spending time outdoors was safer in terms of virus spread.

Even when a pandemic isn’t raging, spending time outside reduces stress, improves cognition, and can help us sleep better. All of this can help people lead happy, healthy, and productive lives, which helps the economy and lowers healthcare costs. 

[Related: Nature saves us trillions of dollars in healthcare.]

Citizen science has been designed to use people power for the benefit of scientific knowledge, but it can also help the citizens doing the science as well. A study published February 9 in the journal People and Nature found that involvement in citizen science boosts wellbeing and connection to nature for participants. 

“People connect with nature in different ways, so it’s great to see nature-based citizen science can provide another form of active engagement that can strengthen the human-nature relationship,” said study co-author Miles Richardson from the Nature Connectedness Research Group at the University of Derby in the UK, in a statement. “When combined with noticing the positive emotions nature can bring, citizen science and help unite both human and nature’s wellbeing.”

The study was conducted during pandemic lockdowns in 2020 by the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (UKCEH), the University of Derby, and the British Science Association. Five hundred volunteers from across the United Kingdom were randomly assigned to carry out a 10-minute nature-based activity at least five times over a period of eight days: a survey of pollinating insects, a butterfly survey, spending time in nature and jotting down three good things they noticed, or a combination of both. 

Researchers surveyed the participants both before and after the citizen scientists went out into nature, as a way to assess differences in connection to nature, well being, and pro-nature behavior. 

After completing their assignments, the researchers found that all volunteers showed increased scores in feeling connected to nature. 

“It gave me permission to slow down,” wrote one participant. 

“It made me more aware of nature in all aspects of the environment,” said another. 

“It reminded me that small things can make a big difference to my mood,” observed another volunteer.

[Related: Birders behold: Cornell’s Merlin app is now a one-stop shop for bird identification.]

The volunteers who wrote down the three good things they noticed while out in nature.Those who also combined those three positive things with nature recording activities (like counting pollinating insects) said that they were more likely to adopt more pro-nature behaviors beyond their involvement with this study. Some of those behaviors involved planting more pollinator friendly plants in their own gardens or helping build wildlife shelters. 

“Being in and around nature is good for our wellbeing, and we’ve shown that focused, active engagement with nature is just as important – whether that is ‘mindful moments’ in nature or taking part in citizen science,” said Michael Pocock, ecologist and academic lead for public engagement with research at UKCEH, in a statement. “This has been a valuable exercise for us in exploring how we can make citizen science even better. We now know that if we design future projects with additional nature-noticing activities, for example, we can enhance people’s own connection to nature, while still collecting valuable data.”

The post Citizen science is another great form of nature therapy appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

County prosecutors charged former labor and delivery nurse Lindsay Clancy with first-degree murder and three counts of strangulation on Tuesday, after the alleged killing of her three children in Duxbury, Massachusetts. Clancy, who has pleaded not guilty, underwent a psychiatric evaluation before her arraignment. Clancy’s lawyer is arguing that the mother was not in the right state of mind at the time of the killing, citing “overmedication” for issues with maternal mental health.

Although there has been no official diagnosis yet, her defense attorney has suggested Clancy has a rare disorder called postpartum psychosis. A major symptom of the condition, which occurs once or twice among every 1,000 people who give birth, is that a person loses their sense of reality after pregnancy. 

People may develop postpartum psychosis quickly, immediately following the delivery or within the first week following birth, says Ariadna Forray, an expert in postpartum maternal mental health psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine. Although it can cause severe mental illness that, if left untreated, could potentially bring harm to the individual and others, Forray says “it’s rare for women to develop postpartum psychosis, and it’s even rarer to have women act out on their symptoms.” And while Clancy was reportedly taking treatments for postpartum depression, which is far more common, months before the killing, the condition itself is very different from postpartum psychosis.

What are the signs of postpartum psychosis?

People with the disorder show sudden mood fluctuations. One moment, they might feel jittery and highly energetic, and then the next moment, they may seem sluggish and more irritable than usual. “It’s your brain’s extreme reaction to having a baby,” explains Allison Lieberman, a marriage and family therapist who specializes in postpartum depression and psychosis at the online mental health platform Choosing Therapy. Chemical and hormonal shifts from childbirth, along with the stress of being a parent, can trigger a mother’s brain to have a “survival reaction,” she says.

Postpartum psychosis can be hard to recognize at first, because a mother’s physical and emotional changes often result from typical tasks like caring for a newborn baby. Parents rarely get much sleep in the first few months and often show dips in energy and appetite. 

[Related: Meditation isn’t always calming. For a select few, it may lead to psychosis.]

Specific risk factors associated with the condition are not well understood, because it’s so rare. But the most important symptoms to watch out for are confusion and disoriented thoughts that signal a loss of touch with reality. For example, parents may create delusions about the baby being sick when the child is perfectly healthy. They could convince themselves that the only way to help is to harm. “It’s the difference between knowing the intrusive thoughts are real versus not real,” says Lieberman. “Even if you think ‘I’m going to throw my baby down the stairs,’ that’s not necessarily psychosis if it disturbs you.”

However, both Lieberman and Forray stress that having postpartum psychosis does not automatically make you a violent person. In Lindsay Clancy’s case, the defense team is arguing she killed her children because a voice compelled her to do it. 

Is postpartum psychosis a symptom of postpartum depression?

No, they are unrelated to each other. The only connection is that both conditions occur after delivery. 

Postpartum depression is a medical condition where people who give birth experience intense feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and low mood within the first four weeks after delivery. Lieberman says it’s a longer and more intense version of the :baby blues,: because the condition interferes with a mother’s ability to care for themselves. “There’s this extra level of guilt that’s associated with not being able to be the parent you want to be and not enjoying parenthood,” Lieberman says. 

[Related: We don’t really know how many pregnant people are dying in the US]

Postpartum depression is common. It affects one in seven people who give birth, though many cases go undiagnosed because of the stigma and fear of being judged. Lindsay Clancy allegedly was taking 12 prescription drugs for multiple mood disorders, including postpartum depression. However, both Lieberman and Forray say it is not possible for postpartum depression to manifest into postpartum psychosis. 

While depression may cause new mothers to exhibit mood swings, postpartum psychosis is considered a type of bipolar disorder. “An estimated 70 to 80 percent of cases are related to bipolar disorder,” Forray says. Research suggests that having a history of the manic illness puts someone at a higher risk of developing postpartum psychosis after giving birth.

How is postpartum psychosis treated?

While delusions and hallucinations can take on many forms, the majority do not cause an individual to become violent. If there is evidence of postpartum psychosis in a patient, the best plan is to prevent the condition from worsening and avoiding escalation to acting out on these delusional thoughts. 

People with suspected postpartum psychosis need to be admitted to a psychiatric hospitalization where they can be assessed by a mental health expert, Forray says. Depending on the symptoms, they might then be prescribed medications such as a mood stabilizer or an antipsychotic. Another modern-day and safe alternative is electroconvulsive therapy. Research has shown the therapy helps to improve the severity of symptoms. “There’s a whole host of treatments that can be very effective,” Forray says. “And women start doing better as soon as treatment starts.”

With immediate medical intervention and the right support, it is possible to recover from postpartum psychosis. If you or someone you know is experiencing a mental health crisis, consider texting HOME to 741741 to reach the National Crisis Text Line or dialing 988 to the National Suicide Prevention Hotline. The services are free, confidential, and equipped with staff trained to get you the help you need.

The post The important difference between postpartum psychosis and postpartum depression appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Over the past seven years, Allegheny County Department of Human Services workers have frequently employed an AI predictive risk modeling program to aid in assessing children’s risk factors for being placed into the greater Pittsburgh area’s foster care system. In recent months, however, the underlying algorithms behind the Allegheny Family Screening Tool (AFST) have received increased scrutiny over their opaque design, taking into account predictive AI tools’ longstanding racial, class, and gender-based biases.

Previous delving into the Allegheny Family Screening Tool’s algorithm by the Associate Press revealed certain data points could be interpreted as stand-in descriptions for racial groups. But  now it appears the AFST could also be affecting families within the disabled community as well as families  with a history of mental health conditions. And the Justice Department is taking notice.

[Related: The White House’s new ‘AI Bill of Rights’ plans to tackle racist and biased algorithms.]

According to a new report published today from the Associated Press, multiple formal complaints regarding the AFST have been filed via the Justice Dept.’s Civil Rights Division, citing the AP’s prior investigations into its potential problems. Anonymous sources within the Justice Dept. say officials are concerned that the AFST’s overreliance on potentially skewed historical data risks “automating past inequalities,” particularly long standing biases against people with disabilities and mental health problems.

The AP explains the Allegheny Family Screening Tool utilizes a “pioneering” AI program designed to supposedly help overworked social workers in the greater Pittsburgh area determine which families require further investigation regarding child welfare claims. More specifically, the tool was crafted to aid in predicting the potential risk of a child being placed into foster care within two years of following an investigation into their family environment.

The AFST’s black box design reportedly takes into account numerous case factors, including “personal data and birth, Medicaid, substance abuse, mental health, jail and probation records, among other government data sets,” to determine further investigations for neglect. Although human social service workers ultimately decide whether or not to follow up on cases following the AFST algorithm results, critics argue the program’s potentially faulty judgments could influence the employees’ decisions.

[Related: The racist history behind using biology in criminology.]

A spokesman for the Allegheny County Department of Human Services told the AP they were not aware of any Justice Department complaints, nor were they willing to discuss the larger criticisms regarding the screening tool.

Child protective services systems have long faced extensive criticisms regarding both their overall effectiveness, as well as the disproportional consequences faced by Black, disabled, poor, and otherwise marginalized families. The AFST’s official website heavily features third-party studies, reports, and articles attesting to the program’s supposed reliability and utility.

The post The DOJ is investigating an AI tool that could be hurting families in Pennsylvania appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Feeling flat or emotionally unavailable can be a common side-effect of serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), a widely used class of anti-depressants. About 40 to 60 percent of patients taking SSRI’s are believed to experience limited enjoyment or feel emotionally dull.

A small study published January 22 in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology is shedding light on why this “emotional blunting,” or the dulling of both good and bad emotions, may happen. The study finds that the drugs affect reinforcement learning, which allows us to learn from our environment and actions.

[Related: The first new FDA-approved antidepressant in decades goes up your nose.]

“Emotional blunting is a common side effect of SSRI antidepressants. In a way, this may be in part how they work—they take away some of the emotional pain that people who experience depression feel, but, unfortunately, it seems that they also take away some of the enjoyment,” said Professor Barbara Sahakian, a co-author and professor of psychology the University of Cambridge, in a statement. “From our study, we can now see that this is because they become less sensitive to rewards, which provide important feedback.”

SSRIs target serotonin, a chemical in the brain called the “pleasure chemical” or the “happiness molecule” that carries messages between nerve cells. According to the National Health Service (NHS), more than 8.3 million patients in England received an antidepressant during 2021 and 2022. In the United States, prescriptions for anti-anxiety and antidepressants increased by an estimated 21 percent following the COVID-19 pandemic.

A team led by researchers at the University of Cambridge and the University of Copenhagen looked into the long term clinical use of SSRIs. They recruited 66 healthy volunteers and gave 32 of them an SSRI called escitalopram and the other 34 took a placebo. According to the team, this drug is known to be one of the best-tolerated antidepressants available on the market and the study participants took them over 21 days.

The participants completed self-reported questionnaires and were given a series of tests that assessed learning, inhibition, executive function, reinforcement behavior, and decision-making.

In terms of attention and memory (also called ‘cold’ cognition), there were no significant differences. There also weren’t any differences in ‘hot’ cognition, or the cognitive functions that involve emotions.

The key novel finding of the tests was a reduced reinforcement sensitivity on two tasks for the group taking escitalopram compared to those taking the placebo.

[Related: A link to depression might be in your gut bacteria.]

The team used a probabilistic reversal test, where a participant was shown two stimuli (A and B). If they chose A, they would receive a reward four out of five times. If they chose B, they would only get a reward one time out of five. The participants weren’t told this rule, but would have to figure it out themselves. At some point during the test, the probabilities would switch, forcing participants to learn a new rule.

Compared with those taking the placebo, the participants taking escitalopram were less likely to use both the positive and negative feedback to guide their learning of the task. The participants on the antidepressants were 23 percent less sensitive to this stimuli switch, which suggests that escitalopram affected sensitivity to the rewards and the individual’s ability to respond accordingly.

This could also explain one big difference the team found in the self-reported questionnaires: volunteers taking escitalopram had more difficulty reaching orgasm when having sex, a widely-reported side effect of the medication.

“Our findings provide important evidence for the role of serotonin in reinforcement learning,” said Christelle Langley, a co-author also from the Cambridge Department of Psychiatry, in a statement. “We are following this work up with a study examining neuroimaging data to understand how escitalopram affects the brain during reward learning.”

The post Common antidepressants may blunt both pain and enjoyment appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Content moderation is a notoriously nasty job, and the burgeoning labor outsourcing industry surrounding it routinely faces heated scrutiny for the ethics of its approach to subjecting human workers to the internet’s darkest corners. On Wednesday, Time published a new investigative deep dive into Sama, a company that recently provided OpenAI with laborers solely tasked with reading some of the worst content the internet has to offer.

Although the endeavor’s overall goal was to develop helpful and necessary internal AI filters for the popular, buzzworthy ChatGPT program, former Sama employees say they now suffer from PTSD from their tenures sifting through thousands of horrid online text excerpts describing sexual assault, incest, bestiality, child abuse, torture, and murder, according to the new report.  Not to mention, the report states that these employees, largely based in Kenya, were paid less than $2 an hour.

[Related: Popular youth mental health service faces backlash after experimenting with AI-chatbot advice.]

OpenAI’s ChatGPT quickly became one of last year’s most talked about technological breakthroughs for its ability to near instantaneously generate creative text from virtually any human prompt. While similar programs already exist, they have been frequently prone to spewing hateful and downright abusive content due to their inability to internally identify toxic material amid the troves of internet writing utilized as generative reference points.

With already well over 1 million users, ChatGPT has been largely free of such issues (although many other worries remain), largely thanks to an additional built-in AI filtering system meant to omit much of the internet’s awfulness. But despite their utility, current AI programs aren’t self-aware enough to notice inappropriate material on their own—they first require training from humans to flag all sorts of contextual keywords and subject matter. 

Billed on its homepage as an “the next era of AI development,” Sama, a US-based data-labeling company that employs workers in Kenya, India, and Uganda for Silicon Valley businesses, claims to have helped over 50,000 people around the world rise above poverty via its employment opportunities. According to Time’s research sourced via hundreds of pages of internal documents, contracts, and worker pay stubs, however, the cost for dozens of workers amounted to self-described “torture” for takehome hourly rates of anywhere between $1.32 and $2.

[Related: OpenAI’s new chatbot offers solid conversations and fewer hot takes.]

Workers allege to Time that they worked far past their assigned hours, sifting through 150-250 disturbing text passages per day and flagging the content for ChatGPT’s AI filter training. Although wellness counselor services were reportedly available, Sama’s employees nevertheless experienced lingering emotional and mental tolls that exceeded those services’ capabilities. In a statement provided to Time, Sama disputes the workload, and said their contractors were only expected to review around 70 texts a shift.

“These companies present AI and automation to us as though it eliminates workers, but in reality that’s rarely the case,” Paris Marx, a tech culture critic and author of Road to Nowhere: What Silicon Valley Gets Wrong About Transportation, explains to PopSci. “… It’s the story of the Facebook content moderators all over again—some of which were also hired in Kenya by Sama.”

Marx argues the only way to avoid these kinds of mental and physical exploitation would require a massive cultural reworking within the tech industry, something that currently feels very unlikely. “This is the model of AI development that these companies have chosen,” they write, “[and] changing it would require completely upending the goals and foundational assumptions of what they’re doing.”

Sama initially entered into content moderation contracts with OpenAI amounting to $200,000 surrounding the project, but reportedly cut ties early to focus instead on “computer vision data annotation solutions.” OpenAI is currently in talks with investors to raise funding at a $29 billion valuation, $10 billion of which could come from Microsoft. Reuters previously reported OpenAI expects $200 million in revenue this year, and upwards of $1 billion in 2024. As the latest exposé reveals yet again, these profits frequently come at major behind-the-scenes costs for everyday laborers.

The post Building ChatGPT’s AI content filters devastated workers’ mental health, according to new report appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Access to gender-affirming hormones significantly improves the mental health and overall life satisfaction of transgender and nonbinary teens, finds a new study published January 18 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In one of the longest and largest studies looking at psychological outcomes, the authors’ conclusions further support the idea of gender-affirming care as a life-saving treatment.

“The authors provide a compelling defense for maintaining access to gender-affirming care for adolescents,” says Melina Wald, a child and adolescent psychologist and clinical director of the gender identity program at Columbia University Medical Center who was not affiliated with the study. For instance, the team found teens felt more comfortable in their bodies, who they are as it relates to their gender, and their mental state when they took therapeutic hormones. 

A June 2022 report estimates 1.6 million people over the age of 13 identify as transgender in the US. Among the 13- to 17-year-olds identifying as transgender or nonbinary, the number has nearly doubled from previous estimates in 2017. A common experience transgender youth wrestle with is gender dysphoria—a feeling of discomfort and distress when your sex assigned at birth does not match your gender identity. Left untreated, gender dysphoria is associated with an increase in suicide attempts and self-harm among trans teens. A branch of the National Institute of Health, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, funded the latest study to try to address the issue.

“There has been a lack of awareness in the past about the unique health needs and research opportunities for transgender and gender diverse populations,” a representative of the institute told Popular Science in an email. “Research in this area is important for expanding the evidence currently guiding the clinical care of transgender and nonbinary youth.”

One of the most effective ways to combat gender dysphoria is to make a person’s physical appearance more in line with their gender identity, and hormone therapy can help. Gender-affirming hormones—such as estrogen, testosterone blockers, progesterones—are a common medical path for transgender individuals to develop feminine or masculine features that help them feel more like their authentic selves. However, one long-standing complaint from critics against gender-affirming care is that it can cause “psychological mutilation” with some arguing hormone therapy “indoctrinates” children to continue treatment as adults, speculating that they would have been happier to not. The misinformation surrounding the dangers of gender-affirming care have fueled transphobic legislation that withholds medical care from adolescents.

[Related: Exploring the common misconceptions regarding trans and non-binary identities]

“Gender-affirmative care is safe, effective, and even lifesaving,” argues Michelle Forcier, a professor of pediatrics specializing in gender, sexual and reproductive health at Brown University not involved in the study. “Children should not be pawns of politicians [who hold] safe, effective healthcare hostage for political and personal goals. Most legislators are not qualified as medical experts in gender-affirming care and have no business inserting themselves in the clinical setting.” 

Forcier says that a patient’s decision to start and participate in gender-affirmative care is a personal and private one that should only be discussed with the child, caregivers, and their medical team. Popular Science reached out to multiple study authors for comment, but they had either declined or did not respond in time of publication.

The current study recruited 315 transgender and nonbinary youth between 12 to 20 undergoing gender-affirming hormone therapy from clinical sites in Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. About 60.3 percent of participants were transmasculine and 58.7 percent were non-Latinx white. The teens started gender affirming hormones at different stages of development, with 25 already on puberty blockers before the study. From July 2016 to June 2019, psychologists used several psychosocial tests from the National Institute of Health to track any depression or anxiety symptoms the teens experienced, as well as positive effects from treatment and their life satisfaction every six months.

During the two-year study period, teens who felt their appearance reflecting more of their gender identity after gender-affirming care reported more propensity towards positive emotions  and greater life satisfaction. Youths that initiated gender-affirming care earlier already came in with lower baseline levels of depression and anxiety than those who started hormone therapy in late puberty. 

[Related: LGBTQ+ health networks helped make urban neighborhoods more resilient against COVID]

Regarding race, non-Latinx white youth showed a more significant decrease in depressive symptoms than other ethnicities and mixed race groups. However, the results may not be generalized to reflect the Black community, as there was an underrepresentation of Black participants in the study. In addition, Wald says that tracking and comparing the outcomes of youth who did not pursue hormone therapy at the study clinics would help inform any differences across transgender youth who do not have access to this type of care.

One notable observation was that transmasculine, but not transfeminine teens, showed a significant reduction in symptoms related to anxiety and depression. The differences may lie in the hormones they are receiving. Gina Sequeira, the co-director of the Seattle Children’s Gender Clinic who was not involved in the study, says patients taking testosterone see physical changes congruent with their gender identity at a faster rate than people taking estrogen. Estrogen takes longer to reduce testosterone’s masculinizing effects on the body and develop feminine features. 

“A patient on testosterone, for example, would start noticing a deepening of the voice usually within the first six months,” describes Sequeira. “For estrogen, changes like breast development take years and my suspicion is that patients may not have achieved the breasts they wanted at the two-year mark.” 

Despite all the benefits observed with gender-affirming hormone therapy, it is not a cure-all for gender dysphoria. In the study, 11 participants disclosed that they experienced suicidal ideation and two had died by suicide during the two-year period. All experts say the findings emphasize the need for a multifaceted approach to care. 

“Gender-affirmative hormones offer some benefit and relief, but youth are still navigating a potentially hostile world around them,” says Forcier, who adds that after the treatment, people may still experience a body that is not aligned with their gender identity. 

Having support at home and in the local community “can’t be understated,” says Sequeira. She adds that the more spaces a young person is affirmed in their gender identity—in healthcare settings, school, sports—the better their mental health.

The post Gender-affirming hormones can improve teens’ mental health and life satisfaction appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally published on KHN.

Controlled substances became a little less controlled during the pandemic. That benefited both patients (for their health) and telehealth startups (to make money).

Some potentially addictive medications — like buprenorphine and Adderall — are now far more available online to patients because of regulatory changes. Given the scarcity of qualified doctors to treat some of the behavioral health conditions associated with these drugs, like opioid use disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, doctors’ new ability to prescribe online or, in some cases, by telephone is a huge change. But easier access to the drugs has both upsides and downsides, since they’re often dispensed without accompanying therapy that improves the odds of a patient’s success.

Pre-pandemic, patients sometimes traveled several hours for addiction care, said Emily Behar, director of clinical operations for Ophelia, a New York startup serving people with opioid addictions. Or patients might be struggling with multiple jobs or a lack of child care. Such obstacles made sustaining care fraught.

“How do you reach those people?” she asked.

It’s a question preoccupying much of the behavioral health sector, complicated by the reality that most patients with opioid use disorder aren’t in treatment, said Dr. Neeraj Gandotra, chief medical officer of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Increased access to telehealth has started to provide an answer. Behar, the startup executive, says its patients can see expert providers at their convenience. Missed appointments are dropping, say many in the industry.

The startup has secured solid funding — nearly $68 million, according to Crunchbase, an industry database — but addiction specialists and other prescribers of controlled substances online are a mixed group. Some are nonprofits; others are large startups attracting scrutiny from the news media and law enforcement for allegedly sloppy prescription practices.

The influx of new providers is attributable to loosened requirements born of pandemic-era necessity. To help patients get access to care while maintaining physical distance, the Drug Enforcement Administration and SAMHSA waived restrictions on telehealth for controlled substances.

But whether those changes will endure is uncertain. The federal government is working piecemeal to codify new rules for prescribing controlled substances, in light of the health care system’s pandemic experience.

On Dec. 13, SAMHSA issued a proposal to codify telehealth regulations on opioid treatment programs — but that affects only part of the sector. Left unaddressed — at least until the DEA issues rules — is the process for individual providers to register to prescribe buprenorphine. The new rules “get us at least a little bit closer to where we need to go,” said Sunny Levine, a telehealth and behavioral health lawyer at the firm Foley & Lardner, headquartered in Milwaukee.

Congress also tweaked rules around buprenorphine, doing away with a long-standing policy to cap the number of patients each provider can prescribe to. Ultimately, however, the DEA is the main regulatory domino yet to fall for telehealth providers.

In addition, pharmacies are taking a more skeptical stance on telehealth prescriptions — especially from startups. Patients were getting accustomed to using telemedicine to fill and refill their prescriptions for medications for some controlled substances, like Adderall, primarily used to treat ADHD. A shortage of Adderall has affected access for some patients. Now, though, some pharmacies are refusing to fill those prescriptions.

Cheryl Anderson, one Pennsylvanian with ADHD, said she sought online options because of her demanding schedule.

“My husband is frequently out of town, so I don’t have someone to reliably watch the baby to go to an in-person appointment,” she said. It was tough, with three kids, to find the time. Telehealth helped for about half of 2022. Previously, the DEA and state governments imposed tough rules on obtaining controlled substances from online pharmacies.

But in September, after her doctor wrote a refill prescription, she got a phone call saying her local pharmacy wouldn’t dispense medications if the prescription came through telehealth. Other local pharmacies she called took the same position.

Those denials seem to reflect a broader cultural shift in attitudes. Whereas patients and politicians hailed telemedicine at the beginning of the pandemic — first for its safety but also for its increased convenience and potential to extend care to rural areas and neighborhoods without specialists — hints of skepticism are creeping in.

The telehealth boom attracted shady actors. “You had a lot of people who saw an opportunity to do things that were less than scrupulous,” particularly in the behavioral health market, said Michael Yang, a managing partner at the venture capitalist firm OMERS Ventures. Skeptical media coverage has proliferated of startups that, allegedly, shotgun prescriptions for mental health conditions without monitoring patients receiving those medications. “It’ll settle down.”

The startups pose quandaries for local pharmacists, said Matt Morrison, owner of Gibson’s Pharmacy in Dodge City, Kansas.

Pharmacists have multiple obligations related to prescriptions, he said: to make sure incoming prescriptions are from legitimate physicians and that they’re connected to an actual health condition before filling the order. The sense around the industry, Morrison said, is that prescriptions from startups are tricky. They might come from a distant provider, whom the pharmacist can’t contact easily.

Those qualms pose difficulties for addiction treatment. Persuading pharmacists to fill prescriptions is one of the biggest administrative tasks for Ophelia, Behar said. Still, the shift online has been helpful.

“Telehealth picks up the gaps,” said Josh Luftig, a founding member of CA Bridge, a program based in Oakland, California, that helps patients in emergency departments initiate treatment for substance misuse. The supply of care providers wasn’t enough to meet demand. “Across the board, there’s been a lack of access to treatment in the outpatient setting. Now all they need is a phone and to get to a pharmacy.”

Treatment is more efficient for patient and provider alike, providers say. “The majority of our patients prefer to have a telehealth experience,” he said. “The telehealth appointments are more efficient. It increases the capacity of each person involved.”

Well-established organizations also report success: Geisinger, a large mid-Atlantic health system, said 94% of participants in one maternity-focused program were compliant, spokesperson Emile Lee said.

Ophelia, which started up just before the pandemic, expected to treat patients both in-office and online. “We have an office in Philadelphia we’ve never used,” she said. Now the company labors every few months — in anticipation of the end of state and federal public health emergencies — to make sure that the end of the associated looser rules doesn’t lead to disruptions in care for their patients.

More clarity on the future of online treatment could result from permanent regulations from the DEA. What the agency’s rule — which would create a registration process for providers interested in prescribing controlled substances online — will say is “anyone’s guess,” said Elliot Vice, an executive specializing in telehealth with the trade group Faegre Drinker. That rule has been pending for years. “To see this still not move, it is puzzling.”

The agency, which declined to comment specifically for this article, pointed to previous statements praising increased access to medication-assisted treatment.

“There shouldn’t be any change in the rules for telehealth,” Luftig said. “It would be the most horrific thing in terms of access for our communities. It would be an unmitigated disaster.”

[Correction: This article was updated at 10:30 a.m. ET on Jan. 11, 2023, to correct the location of Foley & Lardner’s headquarters.]

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The post Unclear regulations prevent telehealth from reaching its full potential appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

A free mental health service offering online communities a peer-to-peer chat support network is facing scrutiny after its co-founder revealed the company briefly experimented with employing an AI chatbot to generate responses—without informing recipients. Although they have since attempted to downplay the project and highlight the program’s deficiencies, critics and users alike are expressing deep concerns regarding medical ethics, privacy, and the buzzy, controversial world of AI chatbot software.

As highlighted on Tuesday by New Scientist, Koko was co-founded roughly seven years ago by MIT graduate Rob Morris, whose official website bills the service as a novel approach to making online mental health support “accessible to everyone.” One of its main services allowing clients like social network platforms to install keyword flagging software that can then connect users to psychology resources, including human chat portals. Koko is touted as particularly useful for younger users of social media.

[Related: OpenAI’s new chatbot offers solid conversations and fewer hot takes.]

Last Friday, however, Morris tweeted that approximately 4,000 users were “provided mental health support… using GPT-3,” which is the popular AI chatbot program developed by OpenAI. Although users weren’t chatting directly with GPT-3, a “co-pilot” system was designed so that human support workers reviewed the AI’s suggested responses, and used them as they deemed relevant. As New Scientist also notes, it does not appear that Koko users received any form of up-front alert letting them know their mental health support was potentially generated, at least in part, by a chatbot.

In his Twitter thread, Morris explained that, while audiences rated AI co-authored responses “significantly higher” than human-only answers, they decided to quickly pull the program, stating that once people were made aware of the messages’ artificial origins, “it didn’t work.” 

“Simulated empathy feels weird, empty,” wrote Morris. Still, he expressed optimism at AI’s potential roles within mental healthcare, citing previous projects like Woebot, which alerts users from the outset that they would be conversing with a chatbot.

[Related: Seattle schools sue social media companies over students’ worsening mental health.]

The ensuing fallout from Morris’ descriptions of the Koko endeavor prompted near-immediate online backlash, causing Morris to issue multiple clarifications regarding “misconceptions” surrounding the experiment. “We were not pairing people up to chat with GPT-3, without their knowledge. (in retrospect, I could have worded my first tweet to better reflect this),” he wrote last Saturday, adding that the feature was “opt-in” while it was available.

“It’s obvious that AI content creation isn’t going away, but right now it’s moving so fast that people aren’t thinking critically about the best ways to use it,” Caitlin Seeley, campaign director for the digital rights advocacy group, Fight for the Future, wrote PopSci in an email. “Transparency must be a part of AI use—people should know if what they’re reading or looking at was created by a human or a computer, and we should have more insight into how AI programs are being trained.”

[Related: Apple introduces AI audiobook narrators, but the literary world is not too pleased.]

Seeley added that services like Koko need to be “thoughtful” about the services they purport to provide, as well as remain critical about AI’s role in those services. “There are still a lot of questions about how AI can be used in an ethical way, but any company considering it must ask these questions before they start using AI.”

Morris appears to have heard critics, although it remains unclear what will happen next for the company and any future plans with chat AI. “We share an interest in making sure that any uses of AI are handled delicately, with deep concern for privacy, transparency, and risk mitigation,” Morris wrote on Koko’s blog over the weekend, adding that the company’s clinical advisory board is meeting to discuss guidelines for future experiments, “specifically regarding IRB approval.”

The post Popular youth mental health service faces backlash after experimenting with AI-chatbot advice appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Excerpted from Good Anxiety: Harnessing the Power of the Most Misunderstood Emotion by Dr. Wendy Suzuki with permission from Atria. Copyright © 2022 by Wendy Suzuki, PhD.

What does emotion regulation mean?

One expert on emotion regulation, James J. Gross, another psychology professor at Stanford University, defines emotion regulation as “the processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express them.” He also points out that regulation is a set of processes that exist on a “continuum from conscious, effortful and controlled regulation to unconscious, effortless, and automatic regulation.”

What does this mean in practice? The bottom line is this: Though anxiety might originate as some form of attention-getting signal to avoid danger, it doesn’t necessarily have to cause discomfort, distraction, or otherwise interfere with our natural drive toward well-being and balance. We can learn to use awareness to reframe a situation, remove the perception of danger, and reappraise it as an opportunity to overcome a challenge and create new responses. We have multiple options for managing both the attention to the signal and the anxiety (the feelings), and if it gets to that point, the response itself. Our brain is a wondrous thing!

[Related: Stress and anxiety wear down your brain. Here’s how to fight back.]

Our brain-body systems are in a constant drive toward homeostasis, that state of equilibrium between arousal and relaxation. Every system—from the nervous system to the digestive—is interacting and exchanging signals in order to respond to a stressor and then re-gain homeostasis. This is true of our emotional system as well. Our negative emotions arise to draw our attention to something that may be dangerous, and then make some sort of change or adaptation to feel better. In other words, they have a positive purpose. It is the same with anxiety: it’s the brain-body’s way of telling us to pay attention. Our built-in system for managing our negative emotions, of processing, responding to, and coping with negative emotions in particular, so we can maintain or return to homeostasis is called emotion regulation.

Let’s look at how emotion regulation plays out in real life. Say you are anticipating an important job interview after being let go from your former position six months prior. You are feeling pressure, self-doubt, and fear—fear of rejection, fear of failure, fear of not measuring up. The interview is four days away but you’re already feeling nervous. When you even imagine walking through the door of the building, your hands start to sweat, your heart ticks up, and your breath becomes a tiny bit shallow. Next, you begin to imagine every possible thing that could go wrong: you might forget to bring your résumé, you might wear mismatching socks, or you might forget everything you know about why you’re applying for the job in the first place.

Situation selection

One option is to avoid a situation that you expect will bother you or exacerbate your anxiety. Avoiding the situation (skipping the job interview) may alleviate the fear and stress in the near term; however, it clearly will not help you if, in the long run, you want or need the job in question. Gross calls this strategy situation selection.

Situation modification

Another option is to modify the current situation so that the anticipation or anxiety is made more tolerable or bearable. For instance, if you’re experiencing anxiety about the pending interview, you could modify the situation by asking to do the interview over the phone or video conference. This enables you to exert some control over your anxiety and puts you more in charge of the feeling that it’s bigger than you. Gross calls this situation modification. I call it a shift from bad to good anxiety. Your nervousness has not disappeared; it’s simply under your control and being channeled.

Attention deployment

A third option is referred to as attention deployment, which includes several ways you can avert your attention from the anxiety-provoking situation to something else that absorbs your attention. Parents use this technique frequently with their infants and toddlers. If the young child is afraid of dogs, for example, a parent could direct the child’s focus to a funny face while the scary dog walks away. This is a kind of intentional distraction.

[Related: How to keep your anxiety from spiraling out of control]

Cognitive change

The fourth and probably most sophisticated of the strategies for emotion regulation is referred to as cognitive change. In this case, you actively and consciously reappraise or reframe your mindset or attitude: instead of thinking about the job interview as a horrible way to spend your Friday morning, you reframe it as an opportunity to show yourself and your potential employer how much you know about the role and the company or organization; it also builds your confidence. The reframe acts as a mental suggestion that reshapes the feeling of anxiety from one of dread and feeling overwhelmed to one of excitement and challenge.

The post Understanding your emotions can help you manage your anxiety appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Of the trillions of microorganisms that call your gut home, 13 bacterial species may contribute to depression. A pair of studies published on December 6 in the journal Nature Communications identified bacteria linked to depression and a possible explanation for how they’re promoting depressive episodes. 

Depression is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. About five percent of adults live with the condition. If left untreated, a depressive episode can significantly impair your life, from constant hopelessness to a loss of interest in day-to-day activities. Understanding just how these microbes contribute to our mental health could shape gut-driven approaches for managing the condition.

Certain gut bacteria could be causing a chemical imbalance in the brain 

In one of the studies, the authors examined the microbiome composition of 1,539 adults in the Netherlands. “Our biggest surprise was the strength of the relationship between gut bacteria and depression,” Robert Kraaij, a senior research scientist at Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam in the Netherlands and study coauthor, wrote in an email to PopSci. Of the 13 microbial taxa linked to depression, people with a higher abundance of Sellimonas, Eggerthella, Lachnoclostridium, and Hungatella reported more depressive symptoms. 

The 13 microbial species help produce chemical messengers—glutamate, butyrate, serotonin, and gamma amino butyric acid (GABA)—which the levels are typically altered during the depression. The findings from the current study could help identify people who are most at risk for depression, explains Najaf Amin, a senior researcher at Oxford University and senior study author. 

In the future, Amin plans to study the levels of the four chemical messengers in the blood of people with and without depression to see how they compare. Doing so may help get a better sense of how gut bacteria influence a person’s brain chemistry and how the brain regulates mood.

[Related: Magic mushrooms help cancer patients deal with depression]

Differences across ethnicities in the gut microbiomes of people with depression

The second study investigated fecal samples of 3,211 individuals who resided in urban Amsterdam. The participants belonged to one of six different ethnic groups—Dutch, South-Asian Surinamese, African Surinamese, Ghanaian, Turkish, and Moroccan. The microbiome assessments showed changes in bacterial species associated with depressive symptoms, including those species from the Christensenellaceae, Lachnospiraceae, and Ruminococcaceae families. One interesting observation, however, was that not everyone with depression had the same amounts of each microbial species. About 18 to 29 percent of differences in depression-related bacteria was due to ethnic differences.

“This is pivotal research with interesting data on gut-brain [interactions], a burgeoning area of science and medicine now,” says Harvey Hamilton Allen Jr., chief gastroenterologist at Mohawk Valley Endoscopy Center at St. Luke’s Hospital, who was not involved in either of the studies.

What we know about the gut’s involvement in depression

One of the reasons depression is difficult to treat is that there seems to be no single cause. Prior research has linked depression to stressful or traumatic life events, while others have observed depression manifesting after chronic substance abuse. Genetic factors might also be at play, as people with a family history of depression are three times more likely to have it too. The gut microbiome might be another contributor at play. 

While the idea had been tossed around for centuries, biologists have only recently unearthed physical evidence of a gut-brain connection in the past couple of decades. The theory goes that humans have a “bidirectional” line of communication between the emotional and cognitive centers of the brain, explains Hamilton Allen Jr. Imagine a telephone wire running from your central brain to your enteric nervous system—a collection of neurons in the wall of the GI tract that controls your digestive system. The enteric nervous system is often called the “second brain” for its influence on the rest of the body. 

One important piece of evidence that the gut likely plays a role in depression is that about 95 percent of serotonin—often labeled the “happy hormone” for its mood-regulating effects—is made from gut bacteria. Paxil and Zoloft, two commonly prescribed medications for depression, block the body from reabsorbing serotonin to avoid the hormone’s levels from falling too low. 

Treating depression through the microbiome

A deep understanding of the ins and outs of the gut microbiome could revolutionize how we approach medicine, including how we treat depression. “If certain bacteria are part of the cause of depression, we can design treatments to modulate these bacteria,” says Kraaij.

One potential approach is through fecal transplants. While such a treatment might seem ripe for bacterial infections, it could help promote healthy gut bacteria in people who are unable to produce them on their own (there have been reported deaths from fecal transplants among immunocompromised people). Transporting the poop from a person with a healthy gut microbiota to someone with  an unhealthy gut has already become the standard of care for treating Clostridioides difficile infections. The procedure restores healthy bacteria back into the lower intestines. Just last week on December 2, the FDA approved the first pharmaceutical-grade fecal transplant to treat difficult intestinal infections.

[Related: Autism shapes the gut microbiome, scientists report, not the other way around]

There is also some growing evidence that fecal transplants could help with depression. In a small case study published in February 2022, two people with major depressive disorder underwent poop transplants in addition to their current treatment plan. Both showed a reduction in depressive-live behavior four weeks after the procedure. One of the patients continued to show improvement in their depressive symptoms for up to eight weeks after treatment, along with improvement in other GI problems. 

The two studies could make the fecal transplant process more efficient by knowing which of the 13 bacteria species need to be transferred to make the gut healthy again. What’s more, Hamilton Allen Jr. speculates the findings could even help fecal transplants to be more personalized to different ethnicities in the future. 

Still, gut microbes are one of many factors linked to depression, Hamilton Allen Jr. says. Without an experiment that could manipulate the microbiome to see how people fared with and without these microbes, scientists cannot definitively say a gut imbalance is a primary cause of depression. But he says, “this is definitely one of the new treatment modalities, and as we learn more about this organ, we are going to see more research going into treating the microbiome.”

Correction (December 12, 2022): This story has updated the genus name Clostridium difficile to Clostridioides difficile to reflect changes in taxonomic classification of the bacteria.

The post A link to depression might be in your gut bacteria appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on KHN.

Assisted living communities too often fail to meet the needs of older adults and should focus more on residents’ medical and mental health concerns, according to a recent report by a diverse panel of experts.

It’s a clarion call for change inspired by the altered profile of the population that assisted living now serves.

Residents are older, sicker, and more compromised by impairments than in the past: 55% are 85 and older, 77% require help with bathing, 69% with walking, and 49% with toileting, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Also, more than half of residents have high blood pressure, and a third or more have heart disease or arthritis. Nearly one-third have been diagnosed with depression and at least 11% have a serious mental illness. As many as 42% have dementia or moderate-to-severe cognitive impairment.

“The nature of the clientele in assisted living has changed dramatically,” yet there are no widely accepted standards for addressing their physical and mental health needs, said Sheryl Zimmerman, who led the panel. She’s co-director of the Program on Aging, Disability, and Long-Term Care at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

The report addresses this gap with 43 recommendations from experts including patient advocates, assisted living providers, and specialists in medical, psychiatric, and dementia care that Zimmerman said she hopes will become “a new standard of care.”

One set of recommendations addresses staffing. The panel proposes that ratios of health aides to residents be established and that either a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse be available on-site. (Before establishing specific requirements for various types of communities, the panel suggested further research on staffing requirements was necessary.)

Like nursing homes and home health agencies, assisted living operators have found it hard to retain or hire staff during the covid-19 pandemic. In a September 2021 survey, 82% reported “moderate” or “high” level of staffing shortages.

Dr. Kenneth Covinsky, a geriatrician and professor of medicine at the University of California-San Francisco, witnessed staffing-related problems when his mother moved to assisted living at age 79. At one point, she fell and had to wait about 25 minutes for someone to help her get up. On another occasion, she waited for 30 minutes on the toilet as overworked staffers responded to pagers buzzing nonstop.

“The nighttime scene was crazy: There would be one person for 30 to 40 residents,” said Covinsky, the author of an editorial accompanying the consensus recommendations. Eventually, he ended up moving his mother to another facility.

The panel also recommended staffers get training on managing dementia and mental illness, on medication side effects, on end-of-life care, on tailoring care to individual residents’ needs, and on infection control — a weakness highlighted during the height of the pandemic, when an estimated 17% more people died in assisted living in 2020 compared with previous years.

“If I were placing my parent in assisted living, I certainly would be looking not just at staffing ratios but the actual training of staff,” said Robyn Stone, senior vice president of research at LeadingAge and co-director of its long-term services and supports center at the University of Massachusetts-Boston. LeadingAge is an industry organization representing nonprofit long-term care providers. Stone said the organization generally supports the panel’s work.

The better trained staff are, the more likely they are to provide high-quality care to residents and the less likely they are to feel frustrated and burned out, said Dr. Helen Kales, chair of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at UC Davis Health.

This is especially important for memory care delivered in stand-alone assisted living facilities or a wing of a larger community. “We have seen places where a memory care unit charges upwards of $10,000 a month for ‘dementia care’ yet is little more than a locked door to prevent residents from leaving the unit and not the sensitive and personalized care advertised,” wrote Covinsky and his University of California-San Francisco colleague Dr. Kenneth Lam in their editorial.

Because dementia is such a pervasive concern in assisted living, the panel recommended that residents get formal cognitive assessments and that policies be established to address aggression or other worrisome behaviors.

One such policy might be trying non-pharmaceutical strategies (examples include aromatherapy or music therapy) to calm people with dementia before resorting to prescribed medications, Kales said. Another might be calling for a medical or psychiatric evaluation if a resident’s behavior changes dramatically and suddenly.

Further recommendations from the panel emphasize the importance of regularly assessing residents’ needs, developing care plans, and including residents in this process. “The resident should really be directing what their goals are and how they want care provided, but this doesn’t always happen,” said Lori Smetanka, a panel member and executive director of the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care, an advocacy organization.

“We agree with many of these recommendations” and many assisted living communities are already following these practices, said LaShuan Bethea, executive director of the National Center for Assisted Living, an industry organization.

Nonetheless, she said her organization has concerns, especially about the practicality and cost of the recommendations. “We need to understand what the feasibility would be,” she said, and suggested that a broad study look at those issues. In the meantime, states should examine how they regulate assisted living, taking into account the increased needs of the residents, Bethea said.

Because the nation’s roughly 28,900 assisted living communities are regulated by states and there are no federal standards, practices vary widely and generally there are fewer protections for residents than are found in nursing homes. Some assisted living facilities are small homes housing as few as four to six seniors; some are large housing complexes with nearly 600 older adults. Nearly 919,000 individuals live in these communities.

“There are many different flavors of assisted living, and I think we need to be more purposeful about naming what they are and who they’re best suited to care for,” said Kali Thomas, a panel member and an associate professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University.

Originally, assisted living was meant to be a “social” model: a home-like setting where older adults could interact with other residents while receiving help from staff with daily tasks such as bathing and dressing. But given the realities of today’s assisted living population, “the social model of care is outmoded,” said Tony Chicotel, a panel member and staff attorney with California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform.

Still, he and other panelists don’t want assisted living to become a “medical” model, like nursing homes.

“What’s interesting is you see nursing homes pushing to get to a more homelike environment and assisted living needing to more adequately manage the medical needs of residents,” Chicotel told me, referring to the current pandemic-inspired reexamination of long-term care. “That said, I don’t want assisted living facilities to look more like nursing homes. How this all will play out isn’t at all clear yet.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The post As old people get sicker, assisted living facilities must adapt appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

PSYCHEDELICS are having a moment. This past spring, Netflix’s How to Change Your Mind documentary series introduced the binge-watching masses to the concept of using trippy substances to reboot troubled brains. Numerous startups offer at-home ketamine therapy in glossy ads on Instagram. And in 2020, Oregon became the first state to vote to legalize psilocybin for therapeutic use.

The world of scientific research is buzzing too. Clinical trials on the use of MDMA to treat post-traumatic stress disorder have shown promising results and could lead to FDA approval in the next year or so. A recent study in the Journal of Affective Disorders suggested that administering ketamine before a cesarean section might mitigate postpartum depression in some patients. And in August 2022, a small study on substance use disorder in JAMA Psychiatry showed that when combined with therapy, two psilocybin sessions were associated with a sharp decrease in days of heavy drinking among participants.

While science is still homing in on why this works, we’re starting to form a preliminary understanding: Trippy compounds seem to affect how the brain regions responsible for mood, cognition, and perception respond to the neurotransmitter serotonin. Early research suggests this can lead to a boost in neuroplasticity—gray matter’s ability to learn things and adapt to change.

Though our clinical understanding of psychedelics is in its infancy, the drugs themselves are not. Even their therapeutic use is ancient. Mushrooms have been involved in the spiritual ceremonies of the Mazatec people in what’s now Oaxaca, Mexico, for thousands of years. Ibogaine, now touted as a therapy for substance use disorder, is derived from a plant that hunters in West Africa have long chewed for stimulation and focus while stalking game. Peyote has served as both a spiritual tool and a medicine in North America since at least 1000 B.C.E. And MDMA is derived from safrole, a compound in the oil of sassafras plants, whose recorded use by Native Americans dates to at least the 16th century.

Many Indigenous groups maintain an unbroken lineage of plant medicine use, while others now seek to reconnect with practices made difficult or impossible in the wake of colonization and other pressures. Federal drug policies in place since the 1970s, which many public health experts now agree to be misguided, have led to disproportionate punishment of BIPOC people and slowed or stopped research into the therapeutic benefits of compounds like LSD, mescaline, and psilocybin. Though decriminalization laws like Oregon’s are unwinding the war on drugs, some advocates also see trouble in the latest wave of enthusiasm.

They warn that psychedelic medicine’s renaissance, fueled by media hype and venture capital, could make the substances less accessible to the people who stand to benefit from them the most. That group includes Indigenous and other marginalized populations, who have disproportionately high rates of trauma and resulting illness but who lack equal access to basic treatment—let alone expensive clinics or drug tourism retreats.

The future of fair drug use in the US is a puzzle that will take many perspectives to solve. But these four visionaries—therapists, activists, educators, researchers, and entrepreneurs—are listening, learning, and changing minds.

Protecting resources during a boom

As a Newe—a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall, Idaho—Dawn D. Davis has many identities that share a common goal. As a researcher, educator, mother, farmer, fainting goat herder, and peyote user, she embodies a lifelong commitment to reciprocity with the substances that give us life. In her current postdoctoral work at the Idaho National Laboratory’s Energy Systems department, that means studying resource management, particularly as it pertains to water access and energy resilience in marginalized and rural communities. It has also meant laying the research groundwork for Lophophora williamsii, the squat cactus commonly known as peyote, to be treated with care both inside and outside Indigenous cultures.

The plant has recently caught the attention of psychedelics enthusiasts for containing the hallucinogenic compound mescaline, which studies suggest might help facilitate therapy for issues like addiction and trauma. But Davis’ ancestors and many other Indigenous North Americans have used it for spiritual ceremonies and general health applications, from soothing toothaches to treating wounds, for thousands of years. “It’s always been a part of my life,” she says.

As Davis grew up, however, she saw less and less available—and the cacti that were around appeared to be shrinking. L. williamsii also grows slowly, sometimes taking more than a decade to mature, and most of what is out there sits on private land. She and her family, like most traditional peyote users, access it through the ceremonies of a diffuse religious group called the Native American Church. After receiving degrees in museum studies and Native American studies, Davis began pursuing a doctorate in natural and water resources from the University of Idaho in 2013 to understand the scope of the problem. She’s since spent nearly a decade collecting data on where the plant grows to home in on its preferred vegetation and soil.

She hopes that her findings on peyote’s current distribution, which she earned a Ph.D. for in 2021, will help landowners and Indigenous users better understand the conditions in which the plant can thrive. While she’s still working to confirm and publish her data, it does indicate that the potential habitat for the slow-growing cactus in Texas and Mexico is “quite extensive,” suggesting that in situ conservation is entirely possible. But she cautions that bringing traditional knowledge into such efforts is key. In conducting her field research, she interacted with landowners and the earth in ways she didn’t learn in grad school: by sharing her intentions, introducing herself to the environment, and getting the permission of everyone and everything involved. To keep the plant’s population from dwindling further, she says, Western science will have to make room for people who engage with the earth in this way.

Conservation efforts may soon grow more pressing, as some psychedelics enthusiasts are pushing to have peyote widely decriminalized. Groups that include the Native American Church of North America, where Davis serves on the Legislative Committee, and the National Congress of American Indians, where she co-chairs the Peyote Task Force, argue that this will make the scant wild population even more vulnerable to outside parties, and have asked that peyote not be mentioned in any decriminalization efforts.

Some members of these and other advocacy groups have pointed out that there are other, faster-growing cacti, such as the San Pedro plant, that also produce mescaline and could be cultivated instead. While it is less potent, the tall cactus can grow all over the world. In the US, it’s a common sight on arid front lawns, where it’s legal to have but not legal to use for its mescaline. Davis, for her part, would prefer mescaline get left out of decriminalization bills entirely; she worries that such a loophole could mask peyote harvesting.

Davis emphasizes she’s one person from one tribe, so bringing many Indigenous voices into the conversation about psychedelic use is crucial. That’s as true for protecting a plant in peril as it is for respecting the reasons why tribes used specific flora and how they combine them. “I may be the only Native American peyote researcher,” she says. “I don’t know of any others. But that’s a hard space to be in, because I don’t consider myself a psychedelic researcher. I consider myself a medicine researcher. I see things from a very different perspective.”

Finding the sacred side of therapy

Danielle Herrera’s ketamine patients at Sage Integrative Health don’t get a very clinical experience. The Bay Area psychotherapist takes people for walks while they’re high, gives them sensory objects like feathers and bowls of water, and even sings with them. “That’s something that happens a lot in ayahuasca circles,” she says of the ceremonies involving the psychoactive South American brew. “Humming together can be really powerful.”

While Herrera, who identifies as mixed-Indigenous and part Filipino, tells people that her therapy is informed by traditional rituals, she doesn’t mean she treats every trip like a ceremony in the Amazon basin. She has at least two beliefs that buck the medical establishment: First, that every recreational drug has the potential to be beneficial, given the right therapeutic guidance and exploration. And second, that the process should look different for every patient—and for every therapist.

Her first work out of graduate school focused on treating children, though she was reluctant to turn her own childhood trauma, which stemmed from her parents’ struggles with substance use disorder, into a career. That is, until she found herself drawn to the Harm Reduction Therapy Center in San Francisco. The mobile clinics Herrera worked at would welcome people high on anything and give them whatever help they needed. Someone might be hungry, or have a wound that needed dressing, and she would also offer mental health support.

During that time, Herrera started training in ketamine therapy at the Sage Institute clinic. “Noticing what was happening in the intersection between harm reduction and psychedelic therapy allowed my relationship with my family to deepen,” she says. Her mother, who is now sober but used methamphetamines for years, opened up about her initial experiences with meth, which were intensely positive and spiritual. “Even drug counselors would just shame her,” Herrera says. “She told me, ‘If there was just one person who I could have talked to about my spiritual awakening on meth, I might not have fallen into the chaotic use and depression that followed.’”

Herrera has now facilitated integration—the thoughtful unpacking of insights gained while high—for “every drug you can think of.” And each session, she says, can be profound and unique. She pushes back against mainstream stereotypes of the psychedelic experience, which she feels can make patients think they should expect to find peace, that the drugs will calm their inner demons. Many of the people she treats, especially those who have endured lifelong racial aggression, actually become more in tune with their inner rage.

Perhaps most crucially, Herrera is always entirely herself. “When I was learning to become a therapist, I was really resistant to the colonialism I knew was entrenched in these systems,” she says of the perspectives that have typically informed modern psychiatry. “I was a real pot stirrer.”

Putting a new spin on pharmaceutical development

Jeeshan Chowdhury often reminds folks that his startup’s technology isn’t actually new. Mescaline, the compound Journey Colab recently synthesized, is best known as the psychedelic component of peyote. “While it feels like this is a new trend, it’s validated by thousands of years of use by Indigenous communities,” Chowdhury says.

The recent psychedelic boom has inspired a race to find—and patent—new chemical compounds that pack the same punch as ancient plant medicines. That sprint, of course, comes with the typical Big Pharma fears, from making treatments more expensive to leapfrogging traditional users by stamping trademarks. Journey Colab, which is exploring mescaline as a tool to treat substance use disorder, set itself apart from its beginnings in 2020: 10 percent of its founding equity is held in a perpetual trust overseen by representatives of Indigenous communities. “It’s actual ownership,” Chowdhury emphasizes.

Until about five years ago, Chowdhury, who was raised in a devout Muslim home, had never had much interest in drugs. But he eventually realized they could save him. “I was living these two very parallel lives,” he says. In 2017, he’d already earned an M.D. from the University of Alberta and a Ph.D. in health informatics as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford and had dropped out of a medical residency to found, build, and sell his first startup—a digital platform to help coordinate care in hospitals.

But he was in the midst of a mental health crisis. “I felt like I was drowning,” he says. Offerings like antidepressants and talk therapy helped, but felt like life preservers. By the time he sold that first company, he says, “I wanted to let go and drown.”

Out of desperation, he tried psychedelic therapy for the first time. “In that state of consciousness, it was like the muddy waters I’d been drowning in my whole life cleared up,” he says. He decided to get training in psychedelic integration—the process of folding insights gleaned from the thoughts and feelings of a trip into one’s conscious, everyday life—and grew fascinated by how much work still needed to be done to marry centuries of tradition with new scientific insight.

Journey Colab’s focus on mescaline could help refine our understanding of why the compound works so well. Previous studies in mice have indicated that the substance increases neuroplasticity for around five or six weeks; ketamine’s effects, by comparison, taper off after a couple of days, and those of MDMA and psilocybin in a fortnight. Journey Colab now wants to quantify how mescaline could help grease the wheels of alcohol use disorder therapy specifically.

Despite such promising signs, Chowdhury prefers to call Journey’s offerings “psychedelic procedures” as opposed to straightforward therapy sessions. Given their risks, he thinks they should be taken as seriously as surgery—and that they require tailored support and therapy to be effective. “It’s incredibly important for us to learn from the people who successfully integrated these very powerful tools into their individual lives and cultures and societies,” he says. “It’s done with ritual, and it’s done with respect.”

Making ketamine accessible and sustainable

Courtney Watson is supposed to be working on her dissertation. But a chance encounter in 2018 sent her on a detour. A licensed marriage and family therapist, Watson was moderating a panel at a conference for BIPOC techies when a stranger—who’d shown up thinking the meetup was about techno—asked her if she’d like to be introduced to the psychedelic therapy community.

She was intrigued. Watson had learned about the practice in grad school around 2011, when the drugs had yet to see their modern resurgence. In a class about addiction, a professor had pointed out that many illicit substances had once been used as medicine, and that they’d even been studied by modern scientists, but the war on drugs had shut those inquiries down.

On the advice of her new techno-loving acquaintance, Watson attended a conference on psychedelics. She was interested in the cultural perspectives of BIPOC and marginalized communities, but was surprised to hear a lot of chatter about LSD and psilocybin. “Those are white people drugs,” she remembers thinking. “We don’t do that stuff.” But then presenters talked about the power of such medicines to help treat PTSD. Watson knew that research increasingly showed members of marginalized communities had higher rates of the condition—one 2016 study, for example, indicated that more than one-quarter of Black women with depression in Oakland, California, had PTSD—but no one onstage was talking about that. She signed up for psychedelic-assisted therapy training not long after the conference ended. “I was like, ‘There’s an opportunity for healing here, and no one that’s here is going to be able to do that.’”

She opened Doorway Therapeutic Services, a ketamine clinic in Oakland designed by queer and BIPOC people, in 2020. There she relishes opportunities to challenge the status quo of one-on-one therapy. For instance, she and many other practitioners point out that traditional use of mind-altering drugs, like an ayahuasca ceremony she participated in in South America, tends to involve whole families and communities who spend generations learning to facilitate the rituals together. She also wants to see more opportunities for traditional herbalists to get the same recognition and legal validation as mainstream therapists. “It might be a mess in the beginning,” she says of shifting the paradigm around drug use and access, “but I believe we can do it.”

Watson is quick to point out that psychedelics need a lot more change—from including more BIPOC leaders to taming the high costs of therapy—than one person can kick-start. Under the leadership of sci-fi author Ayize Jama-Everett and activist Kufikiri Imara, she participated in an inaugural plant medicine conference called A Table of Our Own in the hopes of helping address these and other issues. The program gathered a couple dozen Black artists, academics, clinicians, cultivators, and spiritual leaders to re-imagine how psychedelic spaces can look with Black people at the helm.

For now, she’s doing what she can with Doorway. She works to make the organization as collaborative as possible and prioritizes employee well-being. That means sustaining the clinic by charging market rate for ketamine therapy in the Bay Area: more than $5,000 out of pocket for a full course of treatment.

Understanding that high cost limits accessibility, Watson, who’s still a Ph.D. candidate at Widener University, started a nonprofit. Access 2 Doorways helps fund clinics run by and for BIPOC people to facilitate access to psychedelic therapy. “We need this,” she says. “And we’re not going to get it if we don’t offer it.”

This story originally appeared in the High Issue of Popular Science. Read more PopSci+ stories.

The post 4 visionaries on the history and future of psychedelic medicine appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on The Conversation.

Imagine that a soldier has a tiny computer device injected into their bloodstream that can be guided with a magnet to specific regions of their brain. With training, the soldier could then control weapon systems thousands of miles away using their thoughts alone. Embedding a similar type of computer in a soldier’s brain could suppress their fear and anxiety, allowing them to carry out combat missions more efficiently. Going one step further, a device equipped with an artificial intelligence system could directly control a soldier’s behavior by predicting what options they would choose in their current situation.

While these examples may sound like science fiction, the science to develop neurotechnologies like these is already in development. Brain-computer interfaces, or BCI, are technologies that decode and transmit brain signals to an external device to carry out a desired action. Basically, a user would only need to think about what they want to do, and a computer would do it for them.

BCIs are currently being tested in people with severe neuromuscular disorders to help them recover everyday functions like communication and mobility. For example, patients can turn on a light switch by visualizing the action and having a BCI decode their brain signals and transmit it to the switch. Likewise, patients can focus on specific letters, words or phrases on a computer screen that a BCI can move a cursor to select.

However, ethical considerations have not kept pace with the science. While ethicists have pressed for more ethical inquiry into neural modification in general, many practical questions around brain-computer interfaces have not been fully considered. For example, do the benefits of BCI outweigh the substantial risks of brain hacking, information theft and behavior control? Should BCI be used to curb or enhance specific emotions? What effect would BCIs have on the moral agency, personal identity and mental health of their users?

These questions are of great interest to us, a philosopher and neurosurgeon who study the ethics and science of current and future BCI applications. Considering the ethics of using this technology before it is implemented could prevent its potential harm. We argue that responsible use of BCI requires safeguarding people’s ability to function in a range of ways that are considered central to being human.

Expanding BCI beyond the clinic

Researchers are exploring nonmedical brain-computer interface applications in many fields, including gaming, virtual reality, artistic performance, warfare and air traffic control.

For example, Neuralink, a company co-founded by Elon Musk, is developing a brain implant for healthy people to potentially communicate wirelessly with anyone with a similar implant and computer setup.

In 2018, the U.S. military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency launched a program to develop “a safe, portable neural interface system capable of reading from and writing to multiple points in the brain at once.” Its aim is to produce nonsurgical BCI for able-bodied service members for national security applications by 2050. For example, a soldier in a special forces unit could use BCI to send and receive thoughts with a fellow soldier and unit commander, a form of direct three-way communication that would enable real-time updates and more rapid response to threats.

To our knowledge, these projects have not opened a public discussion about the ethics of these technologies. While the U.S. military acknowledges that “negative public and social perceptions will need to be overcome” to successfully implement BCI, practical ethical guidelines are needed to better evaluate proposed neurotechnologies before deploying them.

Utilitarianism

One approach to tackling the ethical questions BCI raises is utilitarian. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that strives to maximize the happiness or well-being of everyone affected by an action or policy.

Enhancing soldiers might create the greatest good by improving a nation’s warfighting abilities, protecting military assets by keeping soldiers remote, and maintaining military readiness. Utilitarian defenders of neuroenhancement argue that emergent technologies like BCI are morally equivalent to other widely accepted forms of brain enhancement. For example, stimulants like caffeine can improve the brain’s processing speed and may improve memory.

However, some worry that utilitarian approaches to BCI have moral blind spots. In contrast to medical applications designed to help patients, military applications are designed to help a nation win wars. In the process, BCI may ride roughshod over individual rights, such as the right to be mentally and emotionally healthy.

For example, soldiers operating drone weaponry in remote warfare today report higher levels of emotional distress, post-traumatic stress disorder and broken marriages compared to soldiers on the ground. Of course, soldiers routinely elect to sacrifice for the greater good. But if neuroenhancing becomes a job requirement, it could raise unique concerns about coercion.

Neurorights

Another approach to the ethics of BCI, neurorights, prioritizes certain ethical values even if doing so does not maximize overall well-being.

Proponents of neurorights champion individuals’ rights to cognitive liberty, mental privacy, mental integrity and psychological continuity. A right to cognitive liberty might bar unreasonable interference with a person’s mental state. A right to mental privacy might require ensuring a protected mental space, while a right to mental integrity would prohibit specific harms to a person’s mental states. Lastly, a right to psychological continuity might protect a person’s ability to maintain a coherent sense of themselves over time.

BCIs could interfere with neurorights in a variety of ways. For example, if a BCI tampers with how the world seems to a user, they might not be able to distinguish their own thoughts or emotions from altered versions of themselves. This may violate neurorights like mental privacy or mental integrity.

Yet soldiers already forfeit similar rights. For example, the U.S. military is allowed to restrict soldiers’ free speech and free exercise of religion in ways that are not typically applied to the general public. Would infringing neurorights be any different?

Human capabilities

A human capability approach insists that safeguarding certain human capabilities is crucial to protecting human dignity. While neurorights home in on an individual’s capacity to think, a capability view considers a broader range of what people can do and be, such as the ability to be emotionally and physically healthy, move freely from place to place, relate with others and nature, exercise the senses and imagination, feel and express emotions, play and recreate, and regulate the immediate environment.

We find a capability approach compelling because it gives a more robust picture of humanness and respect for human dignity. Drawing on this view, we have argued that proposed BCI applications must reasonably protect all of a user’s central capabilities at a minimal threshold. BCI designed to enhance capabilities beyond average human capacities would need to be deployed in ways that realize the user’s goals, not just other people’s.

For example, a bidirectional BCI that not only extracts and processes brain signals but delivers somatosensory feedback, such as sensations of pressure or temperature, back to the user would pose unreasonable risks if it disrupts a user’s ability to trust their own senses. Likewise, any technology, including BCIs, that controls a user’s movements would infringe on their dignity if it does not allow the user some ability to override it.

A limitation of a capability view is that it can be difficult to define what counts as a threshold capability. The view does not describe which new capabilities are worth pursuing. Yet, neuroenhancement could alter what is considered a standard threshold, and could eventually introduce entirely new human capabilities. Addressing this requires supplementing a capability approach with a fuller ethical analysis designed to answer these questions.

The post US soldiers might control weapons with their thoughts someday. Here’s why that’s complicated. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The World Cup is in full swing, with countries duking it out on the soccer field for the championship and, of course, bragging rights. This World Cup has been anything but predictable. Fans were in uproar after Saudi Arabia beat out Argentina’s powerhouse team—the kingdom held a national holiday the day after to celebrate the win—while German fans were in disbelief after losing to Japan. And in a major upset, Mexico’s team was eliminated from the group stage, a first since 1978.

Whether or not you’re a soccer enthusiast, it’s hard to deny the excitement of seeing your home country move closer to the gold. And while not everyone can travel thousands of miles to the games held this year in Qatar, psychologists say there’s good reason to tune into a match. PopSci asked experts about the top five health benefits that come from rooting for a team, even if you’re just on the couch.

[Related: All the ways you can tune in to the 2022 Soccer World Cup]

You feel less lonely

Humans are, by nature, social creatures. This makes the world’s most popular sport a great opportunity to bond with others and find community. Carrie Wyland, a social psychologist at Tulane University in New Orleans, says there are two main reasons why. The first reason is that cheering for a team allows you to feel connected to something bigger than yourself. “Cheering for our favorite teams gives us a sense of identity,” she explains. This social identity is built on the small groups you’ve formed or connected with throughout your life. When you are deeply bonded with a group, your personal self shifts to a greater whole, creating a deeper sense of connectedness with others, explains Wyland. 

The second reason is collective joy. Whether you watch with family or go solo to a bar, your body experiences high arousal emotions, such as happiness and excitement, when you witness an event like your team scoring a goal. “When we experience and share these positive feelings with other people also watching the game, that actually allows us to enhance those emotions and have a greater emotional experience.”

And this social bond is felt through ups and downs—triumph and defeat. When your team loses, you might feel down for a few days, but there is an upside. Wyland says losing a game is still a collective experience and can continue to foster stronger bonds with others—whether in person, through a group chat, or even on social media—as you lament the loss together and figure out what went wrong.

You have higher self-esteem

A 2019 study in the journal Communication and Sport found that fans of winning sports teams reported higher self-esteem two days after the game. While more research is needed to confirm this link, Wyland says the boost in self-esteem after spectating a game may be from a psychological concept called “basking in reflected glory.” It’s when you associate another person’s wins with your own because of your close ties with this group. This can also be seen in fans who rejoice when their favorite music artist wins a Grammy or in supporters of a political party when their preferred candidate gets elected. In this case, a fan’s social identity in soccer may make them feel like they’re part of the team. So when fans cheer or perform rituals like wearing “lucky” socks, they feel like their support aided in the team’s victory.

You increase your life expectancy

There is some indirect support that cheering could help increase your lifespan. But this depends on how you cheer. Are you glued to the couch passively watching or are you physically getting up to jump and down or wave your hands when cheering? While it’s not near an actual physical workout, Wyland says small movements and gestures matter because it gets your body moving.

[Related: How to work out for your mental health] 

Socializing also positively impacts longevity. Social relationships—building friendships or feeling part of a community through sports—have been long associated with good physical and mental health. Regularly watching sports has even been linked to fewer depressive symptoms, which has been previously associated with a 10 to 12-year shorter lifespan in older adults. When you have that social support, there is evidence of a decreased risk of early death.

You relieve stress 

Getting swept away in the action of a game can help immerse yourself in the moment, especially in times of celebration, like when team USA’s Christian Pulisic scored that final goal against Iran to advance the team to the knockout rounds. 

“Sports are a celebration of life, and you are totally in the present—away from the regrets of the past or the anxieties of the future,” explains Eric Zillmer, a neuropsychologist and former director of athletics at Drexel University in Philadelphia. 

Watching and celebrating sports teams allows for a temporary escape from present reality. Zillmer says a game like soccer has rules and boundaries that can be therapeutic and easy to digest for people dealing with the unpredictability of life. Sports can also have people return to a simpler view of life: a triumphant comeback of the underdogs or the fairy tale moment of a superstar player carrying their team to the finals. 

“We know from studies on mindfulness and yoga that living your life in the present is very therapeutic for your health,” Zillmer says. “Sports make us feel alive, and it can be a catalyst for finding things that we hope to find in ourselves.” Sports are all about overcoming obstacles, he says; if those beating challenges exist in sports, they could exist in real life. 

[Related: The complex physics behind bending it like a World Cup player]

You are more motivated to exercise

Wyland says that seeing players zoom across the field and launch soccer balls into the air could inspire kids to get out and play the sport as well. Children may be energized after an exciting game and may want to play outside and emulate their favorite players like Argentina’s Lionel Messi or France’s Kylian Mbappé.

Adults can get in on the action, too, by channeling their excitement from watching the World Cup into their next workout. Zillmer advises linking high-probability behaviors (activities you like or enjoy doing) with low-probability behaviors (things you don’t want to do and may actively avoid). So if you’ve been meaning to exercise but can’t find the motivation to do it, think about your next session as a means to a reward. For example, if there’s a good chance you’re going to watch the USA versus Netherlands game (a high-probability behavior), then force yourself to engage in a low-probability behavior such as a walk around the block as a way of “earning it.” 

The post 5 ways cheering for your favorite World Cup team improves your health appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Almost three years into the pandemic, the spotlight isn’t just on COVID medicine anymore. While booster shots and take-home antiviral pills gave us new tools to fight the infectious disease, health researchers and drug makers regained momentum in other crucial areas, like organ transplants, STI prevention, and white-whale therapies for alopecia and HIV. At the same time, AI deepened its role as a diagnostic aid, while mental health services got an accessibility boost across the US. We know the pandemic isn’t over—and other pathogens and illnesses are likely lurking undetected—but the progress we make in medical labs, factories, and care centers can help nurse societies back to health before the next storm hits.

Looking for the complete list of 100 winners? Find it here.

Grand Award Winner

AuriNova by 3DBio Therapeutics: A replacement ear that’s made from ear cells

3DBio

Learn More

About 1,500 people in the US are born each year with absent or underdeveloped external ears. Traditional reconstruction techniques might fix the cosmetic issue, but a new 3D-printed ear transplant, called AuriNovo, offers a living substitute. The implant is made with proteins, hydrogel, and a patient’s own cells, giving it far more flexibility than any constructed with synthetic materials; plus, the procedure is less invasive than, say, transplanting tissue from a patient’s ribs. To build the replacement, a surgeon first takes a sample of an individual’s ear tissue to separate and culture the cartilage-making cells. Then, based on a 3D scan of the fully formed ear on the patient, the part is printed with collagen-based “bio ink” and surgically inserted above the jaw. A 20-year-old woman from Mexico was the first to get the implant this June. 3DBio Therapeutics, the New York-based regenerative medicine company behind AuriNovo, hopes to use the technology to one day create other replacement body parts, like noses, spinal discs, and larger organs. 

Paxlovid by Pfizer: The first take-home treatment for COVID-19

Pfizer

Learn More

COVID therapies have come a long way since the start of the pandemic, and now include several antiviral drugs and monoclonal antibodies. But Pfizer’s Paxlovid was the first oral treatment for the disease to receive emergency authorization from the FDA, meaning it can be obtained with a prescription. It’s also highly effective: Clinical trials show it reduces hospitalization and death from the virus up to 90 percent more than a placebo. The remedy is a combination of two pills: nirmatrelvir, which prevents the novel coronavirus from replicating, and ritonavir, which causes the body to metabolize nirmatrelvir more slowly. The drug does have downsides—it can interact with other medications and sometimes causes a foul aftertaste. Plus, rare cases of rebound COVID symptoms and positive tests have occurred in people following Paxlovid treatment, although research indicates that the latter might be related to the immune system responding to residual viral RNA. Still, it represents a crucial new safeguard for healthcare providers and the public.

EVO Visian Implantable Collamer Lenses by STAAR Surgical: Combining the perks of contacts and laser surgery

STAAR Surgical

Learn More

Most cases of nearsightedness and astigmatism, which is blurred vision caused by an irregularly shaped cornea, can be fixed with laser eye surgery. But the procedure requires some corneal tissue to be removed and often leaves recipients with lingering dry eyes. EVO ICL provides an alternative with a minimally invasive new way to correct or reduce both conditions. During the approximately hour-long procedure, a flexible collagen-containing lens is implanted between the iris and natural lens. The implant is meant to sit in the eye permanently, but can also be plucked out by an ophthalmologist if needed. In published clinical trial results, close to 88 percent of patients reported 20/20 or better and nearly all achieved 20/32 or better distance vision after six months. The lenses also block some UV rays for added protection.

Olumiant by Eli Lilly and Incyte: Long-term relief for severe alopecia

Eli Lilly and Incyte

Learn More

More than 300,000 people of all ages in the US live with severe alopecia areata, a condition that causes the immune system to attack hair follicles, leading to patchy baldness on the scalp and elsewhere. Hair loss in the nose and ears can affect patients’ hearing and allergies, and a lack of eyelashes can leave people vulnerable to eye irritation from dust. Olumiant, the first medication to secure the FDA’s approval for severe alopecia, can help hair grow back over the entire body. It belongs to a group of drugs called JAK inhibitors, which block certain inflammation-promoting enzymes. It was originally greenlit by the agency in 2018 to treat some forms of rheumatoid arthritis, but in clinical trials for alopecia, it helped roughly a third of participants to regrow up to 80 percent of their hair by 36 weeks, and nearly half after a year. Other JAK inhibitors in development could provide alternatives for patients who don’t fully respond to Olumiant.

AIR Recon DL by GE Healthcare: Sharper MRIs in half the time

GE Healthcare

Learn More

Laying motionless for an hour or longer in a magnetic scanner can be a claustrophobic and sometimes nauseating experience. A next-level neural network by GE Healthcare reduces the stress on patients, while filtering out visual noise from movement or faulty processing. The software combs through raw radio-wave data from MRI machines and turns the most accurate bits into high-resolution 3D images. Originally, the AI-reconstructed images had to be stitched together—but the updated tech, which received FDA approval this September, delivers in one go. The speedy precision can cut exam times in half, help hospitals and clinics serve more patients, and possibly improve the rate of diagnosis by giving radiologists a much cleaner view of tissues, bones, masses, and more.

ONE Male Condom by ONE: Latex that works for anal sex

ONE

Learn More

At first glance this condom isn’t all that different from those by other brands. It’s made from natural latex, comes in three thicknesses, and has a wide range of sizes for best fit. But the contraceptive is the first to also be clinically tested for STI protection during anal sex—and has proven to be extremely effective. In studies involving 252 male-male couples and 252 male-female couples, the condoms had a less than 2-percent chance of breakage, slippage, discomfort, and adverse events (which included urinary tract infections and bacteria and viruses spread during sex). With such a healthy showing, the company earned the FDA nod to label the product as “safe for anal sex.” With widespread availability, there’s hope that the condom can help beat back a record rise in chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, and other STIs.

Bivalent COVID-19 vaccines by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech: A one-shot-fits-all approach

Ringo Chiu, AFP via Getty Images

Learn More

One of the niftiest features of mRNA vaccines such as Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID shots is that they can be tweaked and scaled up quickly to keep up with an ever-changing virus. This August, the FDA authorized the first bivalent COVID boosters, modified with new genetic data to target both the original version of SARS-CoV-2 and the Omicron sub-variants BA.4 and BA.5. Just how much added protection the bivalent shots offer against the latest versions of COVID remains to be seen, although in early results, the Pfizer-BioNTech booster increased antibodies against the BA.4 and BA.5 sub-variants by up to 11 times, while the Moderna booster did so by up to 15 times. Experts anticipate that the bivalent COVID vaccines, which are available to all adults and children ages 5 and older in the US, could save thousands of lives if the virus surges again this winter. 

Umbilical cord blood transplant for HIV by Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Weill Cornell Medicine: The right cells for viral resistance

NIH

Learn More

There are now three official cases of patients in long-term HIV remission—but this one might be the most promising for the millions around the world living with the virus. In 2017, an unidentified American received a blood transplant packed with genes that were resistant to the pathogen behind AIDS. More than four years later, her doctors at Weill Cornell Medicine confirmed that the procedure at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center had indeed made her free of the disease. The miraculous sample was specifically taken from a relative’s umbilical cord blood cells, which were still in the process of maturing and specializing, making it easier for the transplant to take. Previous attempts to cure the disease depended on bone marrow donations that carry a mutated gene only known in Northern Europeans. This alternative treatment makes transplants more accessible for patients from other ethnic backgrounds, so their bodies can fight HIV in the long run as well.

988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline by SAMSHA: Streamlining the call for help 

SAMHSA

Learn More

When you have a general emergency, you might call 911. But for people experiencing a mental crisis, the number has been a lot less intuitive. This July, however, the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, run by the US Department of Health and Human Services since 2005, fully switched over to a three-digit code that’s easy to punch in: 988. The shortcut was years in the making, but required major collaboration with the Federal Communication Commission to connect every phone service provider to the alternative number. Since it went live, officials have reported shorter hold times and a 45-percent increase in use compared to August 2021, including on a specialized veteran hotline. The service shakeup also came with $177 million for states and tribes to support the transition in different ways, like alleviating surcharges, setting up call centers, and integrating crisis relief with existing or new emergency responses.

eCoin Peripheral Neurostimulator by Valencia Technologies: A discreet implant for bladder control 

Valencia Technologies

Learn More

Pads, vaginal seals, and skin patches can be a burden for anyone who has to deal with urinary incontinence on a daily basis. A new electrode device, about as small as a nickel and implanted above the ankle, nips the issue in the bud in a more private and convenient way. Incontinence typically occurs when the muscles in and around the bladder contract too often or too much. To prevent leaks and constant trips to the toilet, the eCoin sends low-key shocks through the tibial nerve, targeting the pelvic organs and relaxing the bladder wall. A doctor can control the intensity of the pulses with a remote, making the device more customizable for a broad range of patients. Neurostimulators have become a vanguard treatment for different nervous system conditions, including chronic back pain and even paralysis—but few are so adaptable as this.

The post The most powerful health innovations of 2022 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Between lockdowns, missing milestone events such as prom or graduation, and general worry over the state of the world in the past few years, times have been particularly tough on adolescents.

Reports of anxiety and depression in adults increased by more than 25 percent in 2020, and some new research suggests that mental health and the neurological effects of the pandemic on adolescents could be even worse than in their adult counterparts.

[Related: Neuroscientists are mapping all 100 billion cells in the human brain.]

Scientists are beginning to look at how the past two and a half years of pandemic life is affecting the brains of teens. A new study published today in the journal Biological Psychiatry: Global Open Science, suggests that stressors related to the COVID-19 pandemic have physically changed teen brains, causing their brain structures to appear multiple years older than the brains of comparable peers before the pandemic.

“We already know from global research that the pandemic has adversely affected mental health in youth, but we didn’t know what, if anything, it was doing physically to their brains,” said Ian Gotlib, study author and psychology professor at Stanford University’s School of Humanities & Sciences, in a statement.

Changes in brain structure occur naturally as we age. During early teenage years and in puberty, the hippocampus (which controls access to certain memories) and the amygdala (which helps moderate emotions), go through growth spurts like the rest of the body. The tissues in the cortex, which controls executive functioning, becomes thinner at the same time.

To get a closer look, Gotlib and his team compared the MRI scans of 163 children that were taken before and during the pandemic. The study showed that during the COVID-19 lockdowns, this developmental process in the brain sped up in adolescents. According to Gotlib, an accelerated change in “brain age” has typically appeared only in children and adolescents who have experienced chronic adversity (family neglect, violence, family dysfunction, etc.). These kinds of early adverse experiences can be linked to worse mental health outcomes later in life.

However, it is still unclear whether the changes in brain structure that this study observed will be linked to changes in mental health later on in life.

“It’s also not clear if the changes are permanent,” said Gotlib. “Will their chronological age eventually catch up to their ‘brain age’? If their brain remains permanently older than their chronological age, it’s unclear what the outcomes will be in the future. For a 70- or 80-year-old, you’d expect some cognitive and memory problems based on changes in the brain, but what does it mean for a 16-year-old if their brains are aging prematurely?”

The results of this study could have implications for some of the longitudinal studies that have spanned the course of the pandemic. Scientists will have to account for abnormal rates of growth in the brain for any research down the road involving this generation, if those who experienced the pandemic generally show this rapid brain change.

“The pandemic is a global phenomenon—there’s no one who hasn’t experienced it,” said Gotlib. “There’s no real control group.”

[Related: We shouldn’t disregard the ideas that come from teens’ developing brains.]

Co-author Jonas Miller, an assistant professor of psychological sciences at the University of Connecticut, added that results like this may have serious consequences for this generation later in life.

“Adolescence is already a period of rapid reorganization in the brain, and it’s already linked to increased rates of mental health problems, depression, and risk-taking behavior,” Miller said. “Now you have this global event that’s happening, where everyone is experiencing some kind of adversity in the form of disruption to their daily routines – so it might be the case that the brains of kids who are 16 or 17 today are not comparable to those of their counterparts just a few years ago.”

Gotlib plans to follow the same cohort of teens from this study through later adolescence and into young adulthood, looking to see if the pandemic changed the trajectory of brain development long term, alongside their mental health. He also plans to compare the brain structures of those who were infected with COVID-19 and those who weren’t infected with the virus, with the goal of identifying any differences in the brain potentially caused by infection.

The post Some teenagers’ brains have been aging faster during the pandemic appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

When’s the last time you looked away from your computer? If you’re anything like me, it’s been a while, which might be slowing both of us down. 

Taking regular breaks can vastly improve your focus, according to a University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign study published in March 2011, and that means you and I should really be stepping away from our screens more than we are. It doesn’t matter whether you’re working or in the middle of a gaming session—breaks will help you perform better. The problem: it’s hard to remember to take some time to regroup, so you may have to force the issue.

This advice will be even easier to follow if you make a habit out of it. You could take a walk every day at 10 a.m., or make yourself a cup of tea every afternoon at 2 p.m., and those are just two of countless examples I could list here. Build these breaks into a routine and you’ll find it’s easier to stick to. 

Try the Pomodoro Technique

Pomodoro, as you might know, is the Italian word for tomato. The Pomodoro Technique gets its name from the tomato-shaped kitchen timer used by its creator Francesco Cirillo when he started scheduling breaks into his day. The method is simple: decide on a task you want to accomplish, set a timer for 25 minutes, and get to work. When time’s up, take a five-minute break. After four such sessions, take a longer break, generally a half-hour or so. Then start over. A lot of people swear by this technique, which combines periods of intense focus with regular breaks—exactly why we mentioned it in our guide to overcoming procrastination.

You can use a regular kitchen timer for this, if you want, but most people today rely on apps. I recommend Pomodor for anyone who is curious. This simple application runs entirely within a web browser, meaning you won’t need to install anything. Hit the play button to start focusing on a task, then take a break when you get a notification to stop.

The reason I like Stretchly is that it pops up over whatever you’re doing, effectively forcing you to stop. Each time, the application also offers a suggestion for how to spend your break, like turning your head toward natural light or doing some basic stretching. 

The post Improve your focus by taking more breaks every day appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on KHN.

As the covid-19 pandemic worsened a mental health crisis among America’s young people, a small group of states quietly withdrew from the nation’s largest public effort to track concerning behaviors in high school students.

Colorado, Florida, and Idaho will not participate in a key part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Youth Risk Behavior surveys that reaches more than 80,000 students. Over the past 30 years, the state-level surveys, conducted anonymously during each odd-numbered year, have helped elucidate the mental health stressors and safety risks for high school students.

Each state has its own rationale for opting out, but their withdrawal — when suicides and feelings of hopelessness are up — has caught the attention of school psychologists and federal and state health officials.

Some questions on the state-level surveys — which can also ask students about their sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual activity, and drug use — clash with laws that have been passed in conservative states. The intense political attention on teachers and school curriculums has led to a reluctance among educators to have students participate in what were once considered routine mental and behavioral health assessments, some experts worry.

The reduction in the number of states that participate in the state-level CDC survey will make it harder for those states to track the conditions and behaviors that signal poor mental health, like depression, drug and alcohol misuse, and suicidal ideation, experts said.

“Having that kind of data allows us to say ‘do this, not that’ in really important ways,” said Kathleen Ethier, director of the CDC’s Division of Adolescent and School Health, which oversees the series of health surveys known as the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. “For any state to lose the ability to have that data and use that data to understand what’s happening with young people in their state is an enormous loss.”

The CDC developed the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System in 1990 to track the leading causes of death and injury among young people. It is made up of a nationally representative poll of students in grades nine through 12 and separate state and local school district-level questionnaires. The questions focus on behaviors that lead to unintentional injuries, violence, sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy, drug and alcohol misuse, physical inactivity, and more.

The decisions by Colorado, Florida, and Idaho not to participate in the state-level questionnaires will not affect the CDC’s national survey or the local school district surveys in the states that have them.

Part of what makes the survey a powerful tool is the diversity of information collected, said Norín Dollard, a senior analyst with the Florida Policy Institute, a nonprofit research and advocacy group. “It allows for the analysis of data by subgroups, including LGBTQ+ youth, so that the needs of these students, who are at a greater risk of depression, suicide, and substance abuse than their peers, are understood and can be supported by schools and community providers,” said Dollard, who is also director of Florida Kids Count, part of a national network of nonprofit programs focused on children in the United States.

The CDC is still processing the 2021 data and has not released the results because of pandemic-related delays, said Paul Fulton, an agency spokesperson. But trends from the 2009 to 2019 national surveys showed that the mental health of young people had deteriorated over the previous decade.

“So we started planning,” Ethier said. “When the pandemic hit, we were able to say, ‘Here are the things you should be looking out for.’”

The pandemic has further exacerbated the mental health problems young people face, said Angela Mann, president of the Florida Association of School Psychologists.

Nearly half of parents who responded to a recent KFF/CNN mental health survey said the pandemic had had a negative impact on their child’s mental health. Most said they were worried that issues like self-harm and loneliness stemming from the pandemic may affect teenagers.

But the CDC’s survey has shortcomings, said health officials from some states that pulled back from it. Not all high schools are included, for example. And the sample of students from each state is so small that some state officials said their schools received little actionable data despite decades of participation.

That was the case in Colorado, which decided not to participate next year, according to Emily Fine, school and youth survey manager at the Colorado health department. Instead, she said, the state will focus on improving a separate study called Healthy Kids Colorado, which includes questions similar to those in the CDC survey and Colorado-specific questions. The Colorado survey, which has been running for about a decade, covers about 100,000 students across the state — nearly 100 times the number that participated in the CDC’s state-level survey in 2019.

Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming, which also have their own youth surveys, either never participated or decided to skip the previous two CDC assessments. At least seven states will not participate in the 2023 state-level survey.

Fine said the state-run option is more beneficial because schools receive their own results.

In Leadville, a Colorado mountain town, a youth coalition used results from the Healthy Kids Colorado survey to conclude that the county had higher-than-average rates of substance use. They also learned that Hispanic students in particular didn’t feel comfortable sharing serious problems like suicidal thoughts with adults, suggesting that opportunities to flag issues early were being missed.

“I feel like most kids tell the truth on those surveys, so I feel like it’s a reliable source,” said high schooler Daisey Monge, who is part of the youth coalition, which proposed a policy to train adults in the community to make better connections with young people.

Education officials in Florida and Idaho said they plan to gather more state-specific data using newly created questionnaires. But neither state has designed a new survey, and what questions will be asked or what data will be captured is not clear.

Cassandra Palelis, a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Education, said in an email that Florida intends to assemble a “workgroup” to design its new system.

In recent years, Idaho officials cited the CDC survey data when they applied for and received $11 million in grants for a new youth suicide prevention program called the Idaho Lives Project. The data showed the share of high school students who had seriously considered attempting suicide increased from 15% in 2011 to 22% in 2019.

“That is concerning,” said Eric Studebaker, director of student engagement and safety coordination for the State Department of Education. Still, he said, the state is worried about taking up class time to survey students and about overstepping boundaries by asking questions that are not parent-approved.

Whatever the rationale, youth mental health advocates call opting out shortsighted and potentially harmful as the exodus erodes the national data collection. The pandemic exacerbated mental health stress for all high school students, especially those who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups and those who identify as LGBTQ+.

But since April, at least a dozen states have proposed bills that mirror Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law, which bans instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade.

The law, which critics call “Don’t Say Gay,” and the intense political attention it has focused on teachers and school curriculums are having a chilling effect on all age groups, said youth advocates like Mann, the Florida school psychologist. “Some of these discussions about schools indoctrinating kids has bled into discussions about mental health services in schools,” she said.

Since the law was adopted, some Florida school administrators have removed “safe space” stickers with the rainbow flag indicating support for LGBTQ+ students. Some teachers have resigned in protest of the law, while others have expressed confusion about what they’re allowed to discuss in the classroom.

With data showing that students need more mental health services, opting out of the state-level surveys now may do more harm than good, said Franci Crepeau-Hobson, a professor of school psychology at the University of Colorado-Denver, who has used the national youth risk behavior data to analyze trends.

“It’s going to make it more difficult to really get a handle on what’s happening nationally,” she said.

KHN Colorado correspondent Rae Ellen Bichell contributed to this report.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The post The CDC has surveyed teens on their health and behavior since the ’90s—but now some states are opting out appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Despite being a wealthy country, clean water crises continue to plague the US. Late last week, residents of Jackson, Mississippi filed a class action lawsuit over a major water crisis that left 150,000 people in the capital city without clean running water. The crisis started after major flooding in August, but follows years of neglect to the infrastructure in the majority-Black city. Simultaneously, an arsenic scare in New York City’s Jacob Riis Houses further sounded the alarm on critical updates to aging water infrastructure.

Arguably the biggest water wake-up-calls have come from the city of Flint, Michigan. On April 25th, 2014, the city government switched its water supply from Lake Huron and the Detroit River to the Flint River. The water supply then wasn’t properly treated to prevent lead and other elements from leaching out of the city’s old water pipes and into the drinking water. Virtually all Flint residents were consequently exposed to drinking water with unsafe levels of bacteria, disinfection byproducts, and lead (a neurotoxicant).

Now, a new study published in the journal JAMA Network Open reveals the serious mental toll that these water crisis can have on the residents affected. The study looked at data from the largest mental health survey of the Flint community. In the five years after the water crisis began, one in five adults (about 13,600 people) were estimated to have clinical depression, and one in four (about 15,000 people) were estimated to have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) five years after the water crisis began.

[Related: Michigan health director charged with involuntary manslaughter due to Flint water woes.]

“The mental health burden of America’s largest public-works environmental disaster clearly continues for many adults in Flint,” said Aaron Reuben, a postdoctoral scholar at Duke University who led the research, in a press release.

The drinking water in Flint wasn’t declared lead-free until January 24, 2017, but residents were cautioned that it could take over a year for the water to be completely safe. Tens of thousands of children and adults developed high blood-lead levels, putting them at greater risk for cognitive deficits, mental health problems, and other health problems later in life.

“We know that large-scale natural or human-caused disasters can trigger or exacerbate depression and PTSD,” said Dean Kilpatrick, a psychiatry professor at the Medical University of South Carolina and senior author of the study, in a press release. Kilpatrick noted that there was evidence of high rates of mental health problems in the community during the first years of the crisis. “What we did not know until now was the extent to which Flint residents continued to have mental health problems at the clinical diagnosis level five years after the crisis began.”

Past year rates of depression and PTSD identified in Flint and today they are three to five times greater than national estimates among US adults overall, according to Kilpatrick. This is likely due to a combination of higher base rates of mental health problems in Flint (lower incomes and systemic poverty, for example) before the crisis and significant exacerbation of problems resulting from the crisis.

[Related: The devastating effects of childhood lead exposure could last a lifetime.]

“The vast majority of our respondents were never offered mental health services despite clear indication that the crisis was psychologically traumatic. Now that pipes are being replaced, the time is right to begin a second phase of recovery from the water crisis – one that focuses on providing additional resources to heal psychological wounds,” Reuben added.

The findings in this study suggest that more should be done to provide mental health treatment for residents of Flint. “There is a clear unmet need. Nearly 100 percent of surveyed Flint residents reported that they changed their behavior to avoid consuming contaminated water during the crisis, and the vast majority still worry that the exposures they had may cause future health problems for themselves or their family members,” concluded Reuben.

While this problem isn’t unique to Flint, the city and its people shone a glaring spotlight on a nationwide issue. One of the enduring faces of this Flint crisis is Mari Copeny aka Little Miss Flint. At eight years-old, she wrote a letter to then President Barack Obama to draw attention to the crisis. The president shared that “letters from kids like you are what make me so optimistic about the future” and he visited Flint in 2016. Now 15 years-old, Copeny has continued to advocate for environmental justice and even launched a GoFundMe to raise money for Jackson residents.

The post PTSD found in 1 in 4 adults in Flint, Michigan, after water crisis appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

For the first time ever, a panel of health experts recommends that all adults under the age of 65 should be screened for anxiety. The new recommendations from the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) come in the wake of high stress levels in this population that were prevalent even before the COVID-19 pandemic. USPSTF aims aims for this new guidance to help clinicians identify mental health disorders earlier so that they do not go undetected. It made similar recommendations earlier this year for children and teens.

It is common for anxiety disorders to go unrecognized an undetected in a primary care setting. The task force cited a study from the World Health Organization (WHO) that found the median time for initiating treatment for anxiety is 23 years.

“To address the critical need for supporting the mental health of adults in primary care, the Task Force reviewed the evidence on screening for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk,” says task force member Lori Pbert a clinical psychologist and professor at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, in a press release. “The good news is that screening all adults for depression, including those who are pregnant and postpartum, and screening adults younger than 65 for anxiety can help identify these conditions early so people can be connected to care.”

[Related: Mental health ‘first aid’ can give bystanders the skills to act in a crisis.]

The panel had been preparing the guidance since before the COVID-19 pandemic began, but Pbert called the guidance “very timely” given reports of an increase in mental health problems that are associated with pandemic isolation and stress. “COVID has taken a tremendous toll on the mental health of Americans,” Pbert told The Washington Post. “This is a topic prioritized for its public health importance, but clearly there’s an increased focus on mental health in this country over the past few years.”

According to a study from the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) cited by the task force, the percentage of adults experiencing recent symptoms of a depressive or anxiety disorder jumped to 41.5 percent from 36.4 percent between August 2020 to February 2021. Between 2013 and 2018, only a few years before the pandemic, 8.1 percent of American adults 20 and older had depression in a given 2-week period and the number did not increase.

Currently, the guidance is in draft form and the public has opportunity to comment until October 17. While recommendations from USPSTF are not mandatory, they greatly influence primary care physicians across the US.

Some mental health care providers emphasized that programs that screen for anxiety and depression are are useful only if they can lead patients to effective solutions. Jeffrey Staab, a psychiatrist and chair of the department of psychiatry and psychology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota told The New York Times that at a time when the country is “short on mental health resources on all levels—psychiatrists, psychologists, and therapists—that’s a real concern. We can screen lots of people, but if that’s all that happens, it’s a waste of time.” Staab is is not on the task force.

According to the USPSTF, screening and followup care can help reduce the symptoms of anxiety and depression, but there there is limited evidence on the benefits and harms of screening adults over 65 for anxiety. It also called for more research into suicide prevention, which remains a leading cause of death in the United States, according to the CDC.

[Related: How to manage your mental health as traumatic events pile up.]

“The Task Force cares deeply about the mental health of people nationwide. Unfortunately, evidence is limited on screening adults 65 or older for anxiety and screening all adults for suicide risk, so we are urgently calling for more research,” said task force member Gbenga Ogedegbe, the inaugural and founding director of the Institute for Excellence in Health Equity at NYU Langone Health and a member of the National Academy of Medicine, in a press release. “In the absence of evidence, healthcare professionals should use their judgment based on individual patient circumstances when determining whether or not to screen.”

The panel also cited the “racism and structural policies” disproportionally affecting people of color. Black patients, for example, are less likely to receive mental health services compared to other groups, and more likely to be misdiagnosed.

The task force stressed that this is just a single step in addressing an urgent mental health crisis and the task force will read every comment during the comment period, according to Pbert. “We would like people to be honest, to provide their input and perspectives,” she told CNN. “It’s really important because it’s allowing us to hear from the public—and the public includes people who are specialists in these areas. We really value the input of other specialists who can give us their perspective and their comments.”

The post Anxiety screening is now recommended for all adults under 65 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

A study published Monday in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry found that some people who received intravenous ketamine across three private ketamine infusion clinics had “significant improvement” in symptoms of depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation.

Used primarily in hospital settings as an anesthetic, ketamine is a very powerful medication that also is used illegally by less than one percent of the US population. It can create intense highs, hallucinations, and distortions.

Ketamine has been emerging as a potential treatment option for several years, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a nasal spray derived from ketamine called esketamine for people with treatment-resistant depression in 2019. However, the FDA still hasn’t approved other ways of using ketamine to treat depression, such as IV infusion, shots in the arm, or lozenges. Some treatments using the medication are considered “off-label” and are npt covered by health insurance.

“While it’s wonderful to have new drugs, we remain reliant on serendipitous observation,” Steven Hyman, a psychiatrist at the Broad Institute, which partners in depression research with MIT and Harvard, told Popular Science in 2019. “We will have really turned a corner when we understand the mechanisms.”

[Related: Can tripping on ketamine cure PTSD? I decided to try.]

For this study, the researchers looked at data on 424 people with treatment-resistant depression (when symptoms of depression do not go away with traditional anti-depressants). The patients were treated between November 2017 and May 2021 at three ketamine infusion clinics in Virginia. These unregulated clinics specialize in treating suicidal ideation, depression, or anxiety. The patients filled out physical and mental health surveys during visits, and were given six ketamine infusions within 21 days.

The researchers say that half of the participants responded to the treatment within six weeks of beginning infusions and 20 percent had depressive symptoms in remission. After 10 infusions, response rates were 72 percent and remission rates were 38 percent. The team also saw a 30 percent reduction in anxiety symptoms over the course of the treatment and half of the patients who experienced suicidal ideation were in remission after six weeks.

This new study adds to a growing body of research into the its use in treating these types of illnesses. However, there are still no direct directives on how the drug should be used and private ketamine infusion clinics remain highly unregulated. Reporting from Bloomberg last year highlighted the growing market for psychedelic drug therapy “schools” charging large sums with little to no regulation.

Gerard Sanacora, a psychiatry professor at the Yale School of Medicine (who did not conduct the study) told CNN that the paper, “gives some more real-world data, which is incredibly important” because it helps show its potential to work in a more general population. He also explained that this study leaves some “critical gaps, including data on adverse effects and direct comparisons to other options, that make it difficult to conclude how it should be used.”

[Related: Two radically new drugs bring hope for people with depression. But psychiatrists are skeptical.]

Additionally, one of the main limitations of this particular research is that that it was not conducted as a blind study with a control group. It relied on patient-reported surveys and didn’t take into consideration those who declined to have ketamine infusions. The team also acknowledge that they didn’t systematically assess adverse events or side effects of the treatment.

“It’s an epidemic, and it’s been going on forever,” said Patrick Oliver, the study’s lead researcher, the medical director of MindPeace Clinics, and a former emergency room physician, in an interview with The Washington Post. “And we’ve found a medication that literally costs pennies to make and is fixing these patients.” Oliver claimed that ketamine therapy could potentially become a mainstream solution to depression and potentially other mental disorders that have long been undertreated.

According to data from the National Center on Health Statistics, nearly 46,000 Americans died from suicides in the United States in 2020 and it is the second leading cause of death for Americans age 10-34 as of 2020.

The post New study highlights ketamine’s promise for treatment-resistant depression appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

A study published this week in the journal BMJ Open finds a possible link between inhaled and systemic glucocorticoids, commonly taken for ailments like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma, and structural and volume changes in brain gray and white matter. The medications, also sometimes known as corticosteroids, come in both an inhaled and systemic (pill or injection) form and are widely prescribed (their taken by roughly 1 percent of the general population). The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America estimates that 25 million people (1 in 13 individuals) have asthma in the United States.

The study looked at data from the UK BioBank, a biomedical research center that followed half a million residents of the United Kingdom from 2006 to 2010. The researchers found 222 oral glucocorticoid users and 557 users of inhaled glucocorticoids (779 total) who did not have a previous diagnosis of any neurological, hormonal, or mental health disorder.

[Related: Your car’s exhaust is giving kids asthma.]

The team then performed cognitive and mental health testing on these 779 individuals and took diffusion MRIs of their brains. The team compared the MRI and cognitive findings with over 24,000 people in the database who did not use these steroids. They found reduced white matter integrity in the corticosteroid users, according to the study.

“This study shows that both systemic and inhaled glucocorticoids are associated with an apparently widespread reduction in white matter integrity,” wrote study author Merel van der Meulen, a postdoctoral student at Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands. “The greatest amount of white matter damage was found in people who use oral steroids regularly over long periods of time, with inhalers having the smallest impact on brain matter.”

In the brain, white matter is a tissue that forms connections between brain cells and the rest of the nervous system. Less white matter in the brain can slow down its ability to process information, as well as attention span and memory. Some studies have connected lower levels of white matter with depression and irritability.

“This study shows that both systemic and inhaled glucocorticoids are associated with an apparently widespread reduction in white matter integrity, which may in part underlie the neuropsychiatric side effects observed in patients using glucocorticoids,” the team wrote.

Some of the neuropsychiatric effects patients using these steroids for a long term are anxiety, depression, mania, and delirium.

In an interview with CNN, Avindra Nath, the clinical director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, who was also not involved in the study said that, “there’s no reason for alarm.” Nath said physicians have long known that, if you give patients steroids, “the brain does shrink, but when you take them off the steroids, it comes back.” White matter has the ability to regenerate, thankfully.

[Related: Why Western states have the worst air pollution.]

The team pointed to certain limitations in the study. Only a few indicators of mood change were assessed and only for the preceding two weeks. They also reported that the changes might have been related to the condition for which steroids were prescribed rather than to steroid use itself. They also weren’t able to differentiate between steroid tablets and infusions for systemic users, all of which may have influenced the findings.

“Although a causal relation between glucocorticoid use and changes in the brain is likely based on the present and previous studies, the cross-sectional nature of this study does not allow for formal conclusions on causality,” they wrote.

This is another example of how correlation does not equal causation. Just because two things correlate does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. So if you’re an asthmatic taking one of these medications, make sure to talk to your doctor before considering any changes to your regimen.

The post Common asthma medications may change brain matter, but don’t panic appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Health monitoring tech like Google Fit and the Apple Health app rake in millions of dollars every year. But they are primarily limited to physical aspects like fitness and sleep quality. Recently, however, multiple companies are attempting to tackle the psychological aspects of consumers’ wellbeing, raising numerous questions regarding privacy, accuracy, and ethics.

Both Fitbit and Tinder cofounder, Sean Rad, are offering new products billed as tools to better keep track and improve users’ mental health. The former’s newest item, the Sense 2, is a wearable akin to the Apple Watch that attempts to monitor your stress levels in realtime, then react accordingly. Aside from already ubiquitous datapoints like heart rate and skin temperature, Fitbit’s Sense 2 constantly measures electrodermal activity, aka sweat levels.

[Related: A beginner’s guide to Google Fit and Apple Health.]

Meanwhile, Rad’s Happy Ring company is already taking preorders for its new wearable designed that checks in with users whenever it notices stress-indicating fluctuations in biometrics. “Happy Ring makes no claims of being a diagnostic tool. Rather, the company believes it has cracked the code of monitoring wearers’ progress, in a kind of mental health analog to fitness trackers like Apple Watch and Oura,” explains TechCrunch in a recent writeup. “Much like those products, it purports to be a method for monitoring those vital readings and presenting actionable data to help get the wearer back on track.”

There is no upfront hardware cost to the Happy Ring—instead, consumers will pay for one of three subscription tiers ranging between $20 and $30 per month on a contract basis. When paired with its app, Happy Ring will monitor wearers’ biometric data in real-time, alerting them when it detects spikes in stress or tension and directing them to aid like cognitive behavioral therapy and breathing exercises, meditation prompts, and educational articles.

[Related: Tinder and the metaverse are breaking up.]

Many consumers may be intrigued by the idea of having comparatively cheap, constantly available digital counselor at their side, but there are numerous caveats to new products like these. First, as always, is understanding how customers’ data will be stored, utilized, and potentially sold to third-parties. None of these services are purely altruistic, and consumer health data is a goldmine to countless companies looking to hone their markets.

Secondly, an app’s recommendations are rarely a perfect substitute for actual mental health services and aid. While access to counselors and psychologists remains a major barrier for a huge portion of the country, products like Fitbit and Happy Ring won’t always be suitable alternatives. Then there’s the question of accuracy—inner psychological workings are much more complicated than physical exercise routines. It could be ineffective, potentially even dangerous, to think these intersectional issues can be broken down by apps and wearables. This isn’t to write off the industry entirely, but a healthy degree of skepticism is necessary when approaching what appears to be an inevitably massive industry in the years ahead.

The post A new generation of wearables may know when you’re stressed appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Psilocybin, the psychedelic compound that causes the trippy effects of magic mushrooms, could help people with alcohol use disorder drink less and potentially quit altogether. A new clinical study published August 25 in JAMA Psychiatry found that two doses of psilocybin combined with psychotherapy reduced the amount people drank compared with people who only received psychotherapy. Psilocybin’s effects persisted for at least seven months after the second dose, suggesting it could be a potential long-term treatment for alcohol addiction. 

“The findings are promising and exciting,” says lead study author Michael Bogenschutz, director of the NYU Langone Center for Psychedelic Medicine. “We saw large and very persistent effects that could help us find out what place psilocybin will play in the treatment of alcohol use disorder and potentially co-occurring mood and anxiety disorders.”

Though it enrolled fewer than 100 people, the trial “represents the largest psilocybin study to date, and the relatively robust outcomes in both overall drinking, and drinking-related behaviors in a study of this size are therefore noteworthy,” says James Giordano, professor of neurology and biochemistry at Georgetown University Medical Center who was not a member of the research team.

The Food and Drug Administration does not approve psilocybin as a treatment for any disorder. But in the past decade, a growing scientific movement has explored possible mental health benefits of psychedelics. Psilocybin, most notably, has shown to provide immediate and long-term relief for people with depression. Research suggests psilocybin’s effectiveness increases when combined with therapy, especially for treatment-resistant depression. The current trial tested psilocybin’s health benefits towards another condition: alcoholism. 

About 14.5 million people in the US have alcohol use disorder; alcohol is the third-leading preventable cause of death among Americans. Heavy drinking rates have also soared during lockdown, with an increased 25 percent of alcohol-related deaths in the first year of the pandemic. While some medications and psychotherapy can effectively manage alcohol abuse, Bogenschutz says their effects are small. Only one person out of 60 with alcohol use disorder actually seek medical treatment.

The new randomized, double-blind clinical trial is based on the results of a 2015 pilot study led by Bogenschutz, in which his team tested the effects of two doses of psilocybin plus psychotherapy on 10 participants with alcohol dependence. While the previous study was not well-controlled, Bogenschutz observed that the treatment substantially decreased people’s drinking and there were no noticeable safety issues.

[Related: Is Dry January the best way to cut back on drinking?]

To build off those results, the researchers enrolled 93 men and women diagnosed with alcohol use disorder. Each person received 12 psychotherapy sessions for 12 weeks and was randomly assigned to receive either two doses of psilocybin (48 patients) or an antihistamine placebo (45 patients). The team tracked the participants’ health outcomes and their daily drinking patterns for eight months. After the eight months, every participant was offered a third session where they would knowingly receive psilocybin.

People in the psilocybin group drank significantly less than people in the placebo group during the first 32 weeks. The rate of heavy drinking–four or more drinks in men and three or more drinks in women in a single day–in people who took psilocybin was 9.7 percent. For people who had the antihistamine, it was 23.6 percent. The last follow-up showed psilocybin’s effects persisted for another seven months.

Twice as many people in the psilocybin group stopped drinking altogether compared with those who were abstinent in the placebo group (48 percent vs. 24 percent). “My greatest expectations for this were to be able to manage my cravings, and this surpassed that,” said John Costas, one of the first participants enrolled in the clinical trial, in a press conference about the study. “[Psilocybin] eliminated all my cravings to the point where it cured my alcoholism, and I don’t categorize myself as an alcoholic anymore.”

Paul Mavis, another study participant who received the placebo but then psilocybin in the optional third session, said he feels comfortable again going out to dinner with friends who are drinking in front of him. “No one would have thought that I would not be drinking, including myself… I haven’t had a drink or a craving, it was as if I never drank in my life.”

[Related: What is a hangover? And can you cure it?]

“This is a very encouraging preliminary study of psilocybin-assisted therapy for alcohol use disorder,” says Keith Heinzerling, an addiction medicine specialist and director of treatment and research in psychedelics at Providence Saint John’s Health Center who was not affiliated with the study. Not only were there improvements in heavy drinking, but Heinzerling noted taking psilocybin did not cause any serious side effects. He pointed out, though, that the study had trouble hiding who had the hallucinogen and who did not; participants quickly realized which group they were in. “This is a challenge in all psychedelic clinical trials and may have biased the results in favor of psilocybin.”

The study has the potential to expand psilocybin use to co-morbidities often associated with alcohol dependence, Giordano says. But it would have been helpful to observe how psilocybin affected people by gender, ethnicity, and age, he adds.

Bogenschutz and his team are planning to expand their findings into a three-year trial with more than 200 participants at 15 sites. If all goes well, the trial may be one step closer toward FDA approval of psilocybin, which Bogenschutz says would be “a real breakthrough in the treatment of alcohol use disorder.”

The post A powerful combo of psilocybin and therapy might help people overcome alcohol use disorder appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on The Conversation.

Taking oxycodone at the same time as certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), a commonly prescribed class of antidepressant, can increase the risk of opioid overdose, according to a study my colleagues and I published.

Doctors prescribe the opioid oxycodone to treat moderate to severe pain after surgeries and injuries or certain conditions like cancer. Opioids are also a common drug of abuse. In the U.S., over 70% of drug overdose deaths in 2019 involved an opioid.

Because many patients with depression also experience chronic pain, opioids are often coprescribed with antidepressants like SSRIs. Prior research has shown that certain SSRIs, namely fluoxetine (Prozac or Sarafem) and paroxetine (Paxil, Pexeva or Brisdelle), can strongly inhibit a liver enzyme crucial to the proper breakdown of drugs in the body, including oxycodone. The resulting increased concentration of oxycodone in the blood may lead to accidental overdose.

To see whether different types of SSRIs might affect a patient’s risk of overdosing on oxycodone, my colleagues and I examined data from three large U.S. health insurance claims databases. We included over 2 million adults who began taking oxycodone while using SSRIs between 2000 and 2020. The average age of the group was around 50, and a little over 72% were women. A little over 30% were taking the SSRIs paroxetine and fluoxetine.

We found that patients taking paroxetine or fluoxetine had a 23% higher risk of overdosing on oxycodone than those using other SSRIs.

About 30% of patients with chronic pain experience adverse drug interactions while taking opioids. Other types of drugs have been shown to increase the risk of overdose and other harmful interactions. These include some muscle relaxants commonly used to treat pain, benzodiazepines commonly used to treat anxiety or poor sleep and some antipsychotics commonly used to treat schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Similarly, in 2019, the Food and Drug Administration required drugmakers to include new warnings on using gabapentinoids, a class of drugs commonly used to treat epilepsy and pain, concurrently with opioids and other drugs that suppress the central nervous system. This mandate was due to an increased risk of dangerously reduced breathing rates that can result in overdose and death when these drugs are taken together.

The findings from our study offer insight on which of the most commonly used antidepressants could most likely lead to opioid overdose. Further investigation of how other drugs interact with opioids could help doctors and patients better understand which drugs are safe to take at the same time.

The post Combining certain opioids and commonly prescribed antidepressants may increase the risk of overdose appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

When you laugh, you can immediately reap the rewards—your mood improves and you relax. And it doesn’t stop there as in the long term, more chuckles can give your heart health a boost, and reduce stress. 

But with everything going on in the world, it can be hard to laugh. Spending time with the people, comedians, movies, or TV shows that make us laugh the most is a good start, but there’s an even easier way to get the benefits of some extra cackles: making yourself laugh through simulated laughter. 

Laughing is healthy

Neuroimmunologists, the scientists who study the interaction between our nervous and immune systems, have shown that laughter can help us get rid of stress faster. In a 1989 study published in The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, researchers took blood samples from 10 men watching a funny hour-long video and found that their levels of a stress hormone called cortisol decreased faster than those of the control group. A similar, larger study published in 2001 in Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, showed that people who watched a single, hour-long funny video had a significant boost in their immune response. This means laughter not only decreases stress but also has the potential to help fight other illnesses. 

[Related: Why does laughing feel so stinkin’ good?]

In the long term, minor drops in stress levels and an improved immune function can have a dramatic effect on your wellbeing. In 2016, public health researchers from Japan used data from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study—including self-reported data from 20,000 adults aged 65 years and older—to analyze cardiovascular risk. They found that even after controlling for other risk factors such as high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and body mass index, the prevalence of heart disease was 20 percent higher in those who said they rarely or never laugh, compared to those who reported laughing every day. 

You don’t need a joke to laugh

When we think of laughter, we normally think of spontaneous or stimulated chuckles. The former happens when we hear a funny joke, for example, while the second occurs when someone tickles us. But there are other types of laughter—it can be induced (with medications like laughing gas), pathologic (due to brain damage or certain psychiatric disorders), or simulated. 

That last one is different from other kinds of chuckles because you can generate it whenever you want, without any specific purpose. Unlike spontaneous laughter, simulated laughter allows you to retain total control of your body movements and the intensity and duration of your own cackle. The best part about simulated laughter is that it provides many of the benefits of spontaneous laughter, like lower blood pressure, improved sleep quality, and reduced chronic muscular pain.  

When it comes to mental health, simulated laughter may even be better than spontaneous laughter. In a 2019 meta-analysis published in Social Sciences & Medicine, researchers of behavioral psychology at Vrije University in the Netherlands examined 29 different studies that looked at both types of laughter. They found that simulated laughter was doubly effective at reducing depression and anxiety, compared to spontaneous laughter. 

If you want to start reaping the health benefits of simulated laughter, you can start now. Before you start, and whether you do it alone or in a group, there are a few things you should note to get the maximum benefit—laugh in sessions of at least three minutes, twice a week, or more, for a minimum of six to eight weeks. 

How to laugh on your own

It may sound completely silly, but simulated laughter can be fun to do by yourself. The easiest way to start is a fake laugh, which you can then try to turn into laughter that gradually becomes longer and louder. If you have trouble with this technique, begin with a loud “ha-ha-ha” or “ho-ho-ho”. With practice, you can slowly build yourself up to the recommended three minutes. 

If that doesn’t work for you, or you want some variety, there are a few other methods you can try. 

First, there is lion laughter. Start by looking in a mirror, opening your mouth wide, and sticking your tongue out. Continue by pretending your hands are paws by opening them up and swatting at the air. Then, roar like a lion, and in between roars, laugh as much as possible. 

A second technique is crying laughter. In this method, you repeatedly lean forward and pretend to cry, and then lean back and laugh as much as you can. 

Finally, you might want to try laughing with yourself. To do this, think about a silly mistake you made, acknowledge it, and just start laughing. 

If you need them, there are online videos and guides available for solo laughter sessions. Robert Rivest, a certified laughter yoga master trainer, has several YouTube videos that can guide you through a laughter yoga session if you want to chuckle and stretch at the same time. There are also many laughter meditation guides available online with different durations. One version by Melissa Eisler, is a simple 10-minute routine you can do on the go. 

Better to laugh as a group

As practical as solo laughter is, a lot of people like to get together and simulate chuckles in a guided group. 

But before you engage in collective laughter, experts recommend you follow some simple guidelines. First, make sure you’re comfortable at all times: wear comfy clothes and bring a cushion or mat if the group will be doing floor exercises. If any of the movements—or poses in the case of laughter yoga—are painful, it’s okay to skip them. Second, if the simulated laughter turns into spontaneous laughter or vice versa, that’s okay—it’s all beneficial. Third, maintain eye contact with those in the group, as it helps keep you present and transmit the laughter to others. Fourth, since the point is to laugh as much as possible, try to avoid talking unless it is part of the session. Finally, as much as possible, smile, laugh, and encourage laughter in others.

[Related: Laughter is a key part of play for many animals]

While laughter yoga is the most popular form of simulated laughter, there are other ways to do it in a group, such as laughter gymnastics or with music and other forms of art. 

Laughter is an expression of joy, and other than providing health benefits, it should help us be happier. Enjoy it. 

The post How to make yourself laugh appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Decades of environmental psychology research tell us that everything that surrounds us is crucial to our mental health, and nature has a particularly powerful role in making us feel good. Clinical studies suggest that natural light can significantly improve health outcomes for patients with depression and agitation. Likewise, cluttered spaces spike cortisol levels in the body resulting in stress and depression, but also make us more prone to making mistakes and giving in to our impulses. A 1984 study published in Science found that surgery patients recovered better in rooms with a view of trees rather than a brick wall. 

This all may seem obvious, but it’s easy to forget. Fields like architecture and design, whose main goal is to create pleasant and functional spaces for their inhabitants, haven’t always fully embraced these principles. 

There are, in fact, several easy and right-before-your-nose tweaks you can do to make your home a more hospitable space for your mental health. They are more than just scattering plants around, but they’re renter-friendly, and don’t require a large budget or the freedom to tear down walls.

Biophilic design is a novel understanding of the importance of natural elements in home design. Meaning “passionate love of life,” this architectural trend recognizes nature as the stage of our evolution as a species and incorporates that relationship into the spaces we inhabit. This, biophilic design scholars say, is one of the most effective ways to create spaces that are better for our mental health.

“In the last about 200,000 years, our brains haven’t changed much. Our bodies haven’t changed much—we are basically still the same species,” says Michal Matlon, an architecture psychologist who works with Olszewska on Venetian Letter, a mental health and design newsletter. He explains that our brains and bodies have developed to fit inside natural environments and we need to build spaces that reflect that. It’s not just about how they look aesthetically, but about how they stimulate our senses.

This is why light is one of the most important elements to keep in mind when designing our homes. Access to daylight improves sleeping quality and mental health, according to a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Another study published in 2020 by the same journal showed participants who had access to natural light scored 42 percent higher in cognitive assessments than those who didn’t.

If you own your home and have the resources, you could increase your daily dose of sunshine by adding some roof lights. But something as simple as opening the blinds or the curtains every day can make a huge difference, explains Ben Channon, an architect, and author of Happy by Design. Even just moving your desk under a direct source of natural light could do the trick of improving your performance and creativity.

“We know that we need natural light, but there has also been a lot of talk about circadian lighting,” Matlon says. 

Several studies have shown that avoiding artificial light as much as possible during the evenings, and blue lights, in particular, has a positive effect on our sleep cycle. This too, Matlon says, is an easy tweak. You can purchase smart light bulbs and set them to dim automatically as the evening comes, or you can seek out special blue-spectrum-reduced light bulbs to ensure the light around your home—especially in the bedroom and the living room—is warm. Introducing smaller task lights or zoned atmospheric lamps can help focus illumination only where you need it. Bouncing light off surfaces like walls or filters rather than pointing it directly at something, can also reduce the overall lighting in a room and get you ready for bed. 

You might also want to recreate the dynamism of light in the outside world. Olszewska recommends you try looking for lamps that mimic the effect of light traveling through a canopy, for example, or the reflection of moving water. Similarly, it makes sense that sunset lamps have been taking the internet by storm.

But Olszewska says it is not just about greens and blues to mimic the trees and the ocean. Since the idea is to bring the outdoors in, the colors you choose will depend on your home’s surroundings—this includes the urban design but also the geography of the place. 

“You want to have this kind of correspondence between the colors outside and the colors inside because you want to recreate a connection with the outside,” she says. 

Amber Dunford, a design psychologist at Overstock.com, says monochromatic color palettes can also help your surroundings remind you more of nature. And more nature means better mental health. In the design world, monochromatic palettes don’t mean just one hue, but families of colors that are close to each other, like orange going into yellow. 

“Monochromatic spaces elicit a calming effect on humans, as the transition in color changes are more subtle and easy to experience,” she says. “While contrasting colors such as red and green create an energizing effect, a monochromatic palette creates a soothing effect.” 

It’s not just the color that you paint the walls, but the tones of everything or at least the main elements in a room. Start with an anchoring piece like a rug or sofa, says Dunford, and then layer in smaller elements such as pillows, throws, and artwork in similar hues.

“There’s a need for visual complexity because we don’t like to be bored,” says Channon. 

Even just looking at pictures of nature can relax you as much as if you were looking at an actual nature landscape, according to a 2019 study published by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. And if you don’t want to straight-up hang pictures of the oceans and forests on your walls, one easy trick to satisfy your need for visual complexity and nature is to use leaf, wood, or water patterns.  

“Living around wood texture can provide the same stress-reducing response we would experience from being out in nature,” says Dunford. “These surfaces provide a sense of warmth and safety, and are often described as being cozier and more welcoming in relation to other textures and materials.” 

A study published in 2017 in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, showed touching wood grain can calm prefrontal cortex activity and activate our parasympathetic nervous system, which induces relaxation. 

If you already have wooden furniture at home, consider exposing the natural wood by sanding it down to remove paint or shiny finishes, Dunford says. She also recommends foraging wood and using it as decor throughout your space.

 “A simple branch arrangement in a vase or a large piece of bark can act as an accessory when paired with other objects on a shelf,” she explains. 

You can also introduce small pieces like a carved wood bowl, wood frames, or larger elements like a wooden coffee table or furniture with wood arms. 

“You could buy furniture like a coffee table or a side table that’s maybe curved like a stub,” says Channon.

Nice rounded shapes can do the trick as well. 

Large empty spaces with echoes can be distracting and alienating because there usually aren’t any in nature, says Matlon. Instead, use textures and acoustic materials, like carpets and upholstery, to absorb the echo. You should also consider incorporating natural sounds into your spaces—a small table fountain can easily provide the song of a babbling brook. 

Similarly, technology can now emulate natural acoustics. Recently Matlon noticed his air conditioning unit had an option to mimic a natural breeze as if the windows were open, pushing air in unevenly and at different angles. “The air feels much more natural and comfortable,” says Matlon. Not everybody’s air conditioning does this, of course, but you can try out white noise machines, or even online platforms or smartphone apps, to add a little bit of natural ambiance to your space.

But transition spaces, such as corridors or entrances, are important too. They are often forgotten and neglected, but can serve as important points to recover your attention and find peace in between areas of your home, says Olszewska. 

[Related: 5 great spots for LED strip lights around your home]

For example, transition spaces can help you move from your workday to a relaxing evening. 

“Corridors or passage spaces could be a great opportunity for us to recover our cognitive resources,” says Olszewska, who is pioneering the movement of bringing corridors to the center of architectural design. In her study published in the Journal of Science-Informed Design, she analyzes the role of Japanese gardens as transition spaces that serve as restorative areas for the mind.

The post 9 nature-inspired decorating tips to make your home a more relaxing space appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Headlines appear in the news about the latest natural disaster tied to the effects of climate change nearly every day, such as Yellowstone National Park’s flooding and Lake Mead’s shrinking water levels. The impact of climate change is only expected to worsen, and large portions of the public report feeling distressed about their future. 

Studies have shown that about two-thirds of Americans experience “climate anxiety.” This form of anxiety, caused by climate change-related fears, is pervasive among younger people who will see many of the effects of climate change in their lifetimes. 

Traditionally, combatting anxiety can mean going to therapy, meditating, and exercising more, according to mental health experts. However, climate anxiety is a creature of its own. While conquering generalized anxiety is a personal journey, experts say communities must unite to defeat this mental health threat.

Sarah Jaquette Ray, a professor of environmental studies at California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt, tells Popular Science that climate anxiety isn’t the same as generalized anxiety. Climate anxiety connects to a threat that affects us all, though in unique ways.

She says one crucial way is for people to discuss their feelings about climate change cooperatively. One way communities can do this is through support groups. Several organizations, such as the Good Grief Network and Climate Awakening, have methods and programs that allow people to come together and work through climate-related anxiety. There are also online tools for starting your own climate support group for your workplace or community through the All We Can Save project. Resources also exist to connect people to climate-aware therapists. 

[Related: 4 new myths about climate change—and how to debunk them.]

“I would like to see collective therapy,” Ray says. “The causes of stress and the causes angst are in fact social and political, therefore the arena that the solutions need to happen in and the services need to happen in ought to be at the collective level as a way to get people to simultaneously address their emotional distress and also build the kind of structures that are going to be needed to adapt to and mitigate climate change.”

Ray authored a 2020 book called “A Field Guide to Climate Anxiety,” which goes in-depth on the causes and potential solutions to climate anxiety. She says that one of the best ways for people to handle their climate anxiety is to take climate action. Feeling like they’re part of a group doing something about the problem can provide relief to an anxious individual and build a community of similarly climate-minded individuals.

“The vast majority of Americans care about climate change and are worried about climate change but just don’t know what to do about it,” Ray says. “They feel like it’s such a big problem that they have no way of controlling it, and that can make them completely check out. A different story needs to be told that what you do matters, and you can get a sense of purpose from it. You can build community while you do it, and it’s happening all over the place.”

Research has shown that young people who engage in climate activism or join environmental organizations tend to be less anxious about climate change. Ray adds that people involved in these collective actions are more capable of helping fight climate change because they are experiencing less anxiety about it.

“The mental health of a populace is necessary for significant climate action and social change,” Ray says. “The fact that people are mentally despairing actually increases their ineffectiveness. If we’re going to be effective in dealing with this stuff, we need to actually have our mental health intact.”

If you aren’t feeling anxious about climate change but know someone who is, there are a few ways to be effective in helping them. First, Ray says, don’t tell those experiencing it that climate change is not a problem they can solve and to just not worry about it. This type of advice is called “toxic positivity,” when someone hears to stay positive regardless of their circumstances and feelings. Being told to “think positively” can have detrimental effects on anxiety patients. 

“I think there’s a real need to accept the fact that this is going to involve some pretty uncomfortable emotions and learn the skills needed for dealing with those emotions,” Ray says.

On a grander scale, governments and other big players can do two things to help with a climate anxiety crisis: do more to solve climate change and fund mental health programs. A significant source of this anxiety comes from people feeling like not enough is being done to address the issue. But considering the climate will continue to get worse no matter how quickly governments act, people will still need support. 

If you’re finding yourself depressed or anxious about climate change, you aren’t alone. Luckily, chapters of existing climate organizations like 350.org or the Sunrise Movement are worldwide. Getting involved, talking to other people struggling with climate anxiety, and using those emotions to push for real change can help heal and strengthen your mind. 

The post The biggest tool we have to fight climate anxiety is community appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

After nearly three years of planning, the shortcut for the National Suicide Prevention Hotline, 988, is going live on every landline, smartphone, and online dial pad in the US. First recommended by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and other national agencies, including the Department of Veteran Affairs, the three-digit number is meant to make 1-800-273-TALK easier and more accessible to use for individuals of any age experiencing a mental crisis. After speaking to the experts on the hotline, they will be connected to local services that best fit their needs, whether it be in-person counseling centers, mobile emergency teams, or substance abuse therapists.

Those seeking help will be able to call or text 988 with any provider they have. Some larger companies, like Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile, adopted the shortcut within months of the FCC finalizing its plan in summer of 2020. July 16 is the deadline for every phone provider, including digital-only ones, to connect the three-digit code. The commission also allowed some buffer time for trained staff at more than 180 crisis centers around the country to gear up in case of an influx of messages.

[Related: How to manage your mental health as traumatic events pile up]

The streamlined number comes during a national mental health crisis and stark rise in suicide attempts among teenagers. While the hotline is still largely the same beyond the new 988 option (for example, veterans can still select “1” to be directed to more specificalized counselors), federal groups are pushing states to set aside funds so that callers and texters can get local medical support, therapy, and more. One way states and territories can generate revenue is by mimicking the small 911 fee (anywhere from a few cents up to $2) that most customers already have on their monthly phone bills. But so far, few governments have elected to add this surcharge or create a designated 988 funding pool. Among them, Washington, Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia have passed the most impactful hotline legislation, according to a tracker by the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

Mental health support groups are still concerned that public awareness around the 988 update is still low. As PopSci and others reported earlier this year, a survey conducted by the Trevor Project, a nonprofit that works on suicide prevention for LGBTQ+ youth, found that 70 percent of 2,000 adult respondents knew little to nothing about the shortcut. Still, the National Suicide Prevention Hotline has seen higher call and text volumes during the pandemic, and officials are expecting even higher numbers once 988 is available for everyone.

[Related: Mental health ‘first aid’ can give bystanders the skills to act in a crisis]

Other mental health and suicide hotlines continue to exist for people with specific needs. The nonprofit Crisis Text Line (741741 by SMS) has long provided a support system for teens and kids, but was recently criticized for sharing anonymized data with a customer service company. Other services provide help in different scenarios, like domestic abuse or PTSD after natural disasters; international crisis centers provide a better range of language options (988 is only available in English and Spanish).

“There is still much work to do. But what matters is that we’re launching,” US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said during a press conference on July 1. “If you are willing to turn to someone in your moment of crisis, 988 will be there. 988 won’t be a busy signal, and 988 won’t put you on hold. You will get help.”

The post 988, the shortened National Suicide Prevention Hotline number, is live appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The habit of doomscrolling—idly flicking through social media, consuming content that isn’t necessarily good for our mental health—is all too easy to fall into. At the back of our minds we know there are more productive ways to fill our time, and yet we keep on opening the same apps and refreshing them again and again.

Part of the problem is that our phones are always with us and easy to reach. Another issue is that there are many short intervals in the day, whether it’s waiting on a subway platform or getting ready to go to sleep, where we’ve got nothing better to do but to open up our apps and see what might be new. 

But it doesn’t have to be this way. There are apps that can bring us all kinds of benefits and positive vibes as an alternative to doomscrolling. And what’s more, you can use them in short snippets throughout the day, whenever you have a spare couple of minutes.

Invest a few minutes here and there throughout the day and they can quickly build up into hours of practicing your reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills in another language. At all times you can keep track of your progress and mix up the kinds of tests and challenges you’re doing.

The gold standard here is Duolingo (iOS, Android), because of its intuitive interface and its quick, simple lessons. You can use it for free or pay $7 a month to remove the ads and get more types of exercises. Babbel (iOS, Android) and Rosetta Stone (iOS, Android) are top quality alternatives.

If you’re on iOS you’ve got Apple Books, and if you’re using an Android phone there’s Google Play Books & Audiobooks. There are also third-party alternatives like the Amazon Kindle app (iOS, Android) to consider. All of these apps are free to download and use, and you’ll find plenty of free e-books, too—especially out-of-copyright classics.

When it comes to replacing doomscrolling, you might be surprised at how much reading you can get through with just a handful of minutes a day. At a glance, you can see how far through each e-book you are and how much reading you’ve got left.

Importantly for this particular list, most podcast players include a timer function that lets you set how long you want to listen to a particular episode for. So, if you know you’ve got a five-minute break or 10 minutes before bed, you can set the timer accordingly and forget about having to stare at the screen.

If you’re on an iPhone, the obvious podcast player choice is Apple Podcasts. For Android users, it’s probably Google Podcasts (which is also available on iOS, by the way). There’s a whole host of other podcast players available, too—we especially like the free Pocket Casts (iOS, Android).

You can save articles to Instapaper (iOS, Android) very easily from any web browser. The app cuts out ads, navigation bars, and other distractions, leaving you with a simplified reading interface. Even better, it shows you at a glance how long each article is, so you can pick and choose accordingly. For $3 a month you can get extra features such as full text search and no limits on the notes you add to articles.

Feedly (iOS, Android) is also worth considering. This RSS reader can collate new articles from your favorite sites, giving you a straightforward interface to read them on, and adding features such as tags and highlights. You can follow up to 100 feeds for free, and after that, paid plans start at $6 a month.

You could just put on a relaxing playlist, for example, and let your thoughts drift—a quick search on YouTube (iOS, Android) or Spotify (iOS, Android) will return plenty of options for you to pick from. YouTube can offer you lots of free guided meditations, too: Include a time limit in your search that matches how long you’ve got.

Then there are dedicated meditation apps you can turn to. One of the most well-known is Headspace (iOS, Android), which has hundreds of guided meditations to pick from—it costs $13 a month, but you can try it free for a week. Calm (iOS, Android) is also worth a look, with its own vast library and a choice of meditation lengths: A limited amount of content is available for free, with a premium subscription costing $15 a month.

The post 5 healthy and productive alternatives to doomscrolling appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on KHN.

When Pat Paulson’s son told her he was feeling anxious and depressed at college, Paulson went through her Blue Cross Blue Shield provider directory and started calling mental health therapists. No providers in the Wisconsin city where her son’s university is located had openings. So she bought a monthly subscription to BetterHelp, a Mountain View, California, company that links people to therapists online.

Her son felt uncomfortable with his first BetterHelp therapist. After waiting several weeks, he saw a second therapist, whom he liked. But she wasn’t available the following week.

Despite the switch and the wait, Paulson is grateful she was able to find her son help. “He was getting to the point where he was ready to give up trying to find someone,” she said.

Many U.S. adults aren’t able to find help because of a shortage of therapists. Nearly 40% are struggling with mental health or substance abuse issues, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

So millions of people are turning to online companies like BetterHelp that have sprung up in the past several years, advertising quick access to therapy. Often backed by venture capital firms, these for-profit businesses offer a wide mix of services, including one-on-one and group video therapy visits with licensed professionals, supportive texting, coaching videos, and prescriptions for medications.

In their ads, some of the companies feature testimonials from celebrities like Olympic athletes Simone Biles and Michael Phelps. But veteran therapists and officials from leading mental health professional associations say there’s limited evidence of the new online providers’ effectiveness.

“There are fundamental questions about what these companies are doing and whether they are reaching people who really need help,” said Dr. John Torous, director of the digital psychiatry division at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Health Information Technology Committee. “They may be doing wonderful work, but it’s hard to know when we don’t have that data.”

Dr. Varun Choudhary, chief medical officer at Talkspace, an online and mobile-based therapy provider, said online companies can help patients who face financial, cultural, and accessibility barriers to traditional therapy. He said clients may want the convenience of getting care online at home.

“By bringing together patients on a teletherapy platform, Talkspace expands capacity to deliver treatment,” he said. The company, headquartered in New York, says it has served more than a million people with 3,000 providers across all 50 states, and it charges $400 or more per month for four weekly live sessions.

Research suggests therapy delivered online can be effective and, spurred by the covid-19 pandemic, many individual therapists are offering sessions with their patients online. But the rapid proliferation of the online commercial therapy industry worries some traditional mental health professionals who have raised concerns about aggressive advertising for online services and whether patient care is compromised by inadequate training and pay for therapists working at some digital companies. In addition, news reports have detailed questionable prescription protocols, after which federal law enforcement launched probes of one company.

“Online companies inundate the internet with appealing ads that make promises about treating depression and anxiety,” said Marlene Maheu, a clinical psychologist and founder of the Telebehavioral Health Institute, who trains practitioners in best online practices and evaluates services for employers who may want to offer them as benefits to workers. “But can you trust them with your kid who’s in trouble?”

Therapy via text

Studies have found face-to-face video psychotherapy visits and other mental health sessions to be just as effective as in-person encounters. But veteran mental health professionals are skeptical of some online providers’ texting practices and services that do not involve real-time video therapy. Research support for the efficacy of texting and similar services is scarce. On its own sites and publications, the American Psychological Association has barred advertising from one online mental health company on the grounds that its services do not meet the APA’s criteria for evidence-based therapy.

“Our concern there is that a patient will leave a text and it might be hours before the therapist responds,” said Vaile Wright, senior director for innovation at the American Psychological Association. “We don’t have peer-reviewed research to support that this is effective.”

Psychologist Bradley Boivin, who worked as an independent contracting therapist with BetterHelp for three months last year, said he had such strong concerns about the extensive use of texting for therapy that he told his clients he wouldn’t do it.

Boivin, who now works for a private practice in Scottsdale, Arizona, said other BetterHelp therapists told him they felt pressured to reply to client texts at all hours of the day. A BetterHelp compensation sheet obtained by KHN shows therapists get paid by the number of text words they read and write.

Alon Matas, founder and president of BetterHelp, which spent more than $7 million in December to advertise on 556 podcasts, defended the use of texting, saying his company’s therapists are not expected to respond immediately to clients’ texts. Each therapist uses professional judgment to decide when is the right time to use messaging and “how it’s best suited for each individual member,” he said.

Many therapists working at online companies are independent contractors, with no liability insurance or health insurance from the company, according to officials at associations for mental health professionals.

The online companies often attract therapists who are less experienced because the pay is typically lower than what therapists in private practices generally earn, according to Laura Groshong, director of policy and practice for the Clinical Social Work Association. “This is a way for new clinicians to get a foot in the door, and that’s something people should know,” she said.

The BetterHelp compensation sheet shows that the company pays therapists on a sliding scale based on how many hours per week they work — $30 per hour for the first five hours, $35 for the next five, etc., topping out at $70 per hour for any hours in excess of 35. That’s less than the typical $100 to $200 per session that private-practice therapists around the country charge clients.

Matas said the sheet does not reflect that therapists’ base hourly compensation by his company may be supplemented with monthly stipends, payments for group sessions, bonuses, and caseload incentives. BetterHelp has more than 25,000 therapists in its network, and Matas said it effectively pays up to 60% more than the median compensation for licensed therapists in every metropolitan area where it has therapists.

A virtual pharmacy

There also are concerns about online companies whose clinicians prescribe psychiatric drugs — either controlled substances that are potentially addictive such as Adderall, or antidepressants such as Zoloft that are not addictive but have potentially dangerous side effects.

Federal law requires doctors to see a patient in person before prescribing controlled drugs, which are those tightly regulated by the government because they can be abused. The federal government waived that provision under public health emergency rules issued early in the covid pandemic. Officials are considering whether to extend that waiver whenever the public health emergency period is over.

That review has been roiled by recent law enforcement actions following news reports in March. The Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration are investigating Cerebral, a San Francisco online-prescribing company, for possible violations of the Controlled Substances Act for its prescribing of Adderall. The company told news organizations it has not been accused of violating the law and it would pause prescribing Adderall and other controlled drugs for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In a statement to KHN last month, it said, “Cerebral is fully cooperating with the Justice Department investigation.”

The DEA declined to comment on the probe, and the Department of Justice did not respond to KHN.

In a letter to the editor responding to a Bloomberg News article describing practices at Cerebral that included short patient appointments, aggressive advertising, and pressure on providers to prescribe drugs, Cerebral’s founder and CEO, Kyle Robertson, said his company did not give quotas or targets to clinicians to prescribe drugs. Cerebral “follows clinical prescribing guidelines based on the latest research,” he wrote.

The company’s directors removed him from his position in May.

The Cerebral allegations are “a wake-up call to everyone in the industry,” said Thomas Ferrante, an attorney at Foley & Lardner, which represents some online companies. “It’s a reminder that health care is a highly regulated space.”

“Companies like Cerebral are wrecking telemedicine for everyone,” said Piper Buersmeyer, a psychiatric nurse practitioner who is the majority owner of Med Rx Partners, an online and in-person service that evaluates patients and prescribes medications in Vancouver, Washington. “They are destroying trust.” She said she was concerned that some companies do not adequately evaluate patients’ mental health issues before prescribing medicines.

Other companies also advertise directly to consumers about aid in obtaining medication. For instance, Hims & Hers, another San Francisco telehealth firm, has run ads offering to provide “medication for anxiety and depression in less than 24 hours” after clients fill out a short form and connect online with a Hims & Hers provider. A spokesperson for the company, Sam Moore, said providers prescribe drugs only after following “evidence-based clinical protocols.”

Dr. Bob Kocher, president of Lyra Clinical Associates in Burlingame, California, said the optimal treatment pairs talk therapy with medication when needed. That generally works better than medication alone, he said. But he is concerned that some online therapy providers may not perform an adequate clinical evaluation of patients before and after they prescribe, may rely too much on patients’ self-diagnosis, and may not provide enough talk therapy.

“It’s not always clear it’s depression,” said Kocher, a practicing internist. Prescribing medications without adequate diagnostic work or continuing talk therapy, he added, would be “worrisome, because antidepressants are not without their own serious risks, including suicide.”

Based on her experience reviewing some online companies for employers and training therapists in online settings, Maheu is concerned that companies may not give their therapists training in how to deliver safe, effective, and ethical therapy online. As a trainer of online providers herself, she teaches therapists how to de-escalate suicidal or other crisis situations over the video screen. Meanwhile, there’s little government or professional regulation to protect consumers, she added. “What’s happening is a corporate takeover of behavioral health care by digital entrepreneurs,” Maheu warned. “This industry is a catastrophe waiting to happen.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The post Digital therapy companies promise to make mental health accessible—but experts are skeptical appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Fireworks and Independence Day are synonymous for many—the pyrotechnic shows that reverberate across the nation on and around the Fourth of July are often one of the most anticipated events of the holiday. Yet they can also be difficult for people who suffer from some types of PTSD.

The loud noises, bright flashes, and pungent scent of gunpowder that accompany fireworks can be a trigger for people who have served in the military, are refugees of war, participated in protests, or survived a natural disaster, to name a few of the groups who may struggle this weekend. For some, these aerial explosions can trigger a full-body response, ranging from heightened anxiety to complete dissociation and hallucinations.

This doesn’t mean that somebody with PTSD cannot or will not be able to enjoy life during firework season. Avoiding the ubiquitous pyrotechnics altogether, after all, isn’t a long-term solution. What will make it easier is if they and those around them take a couple extra steps to ensure the long weekend is more pleasant than not. 

Hoff also recommends looking at the National Center for PTSD’s website, which has a wealth of information for the public, including screening questions you can bring to your doctor if you think you might have undiagnosed PTSD.

You can also try to practice some deep breathing. “Just doing five slow deep breaths will do wonders for calming, and you don’t need any fancy gizmos or instruction,” says Hoff. Other helpful grounding techniques include the 5-4-3-2-1 exercise: in your head, list five things you can see, four things you can hear, three things you can feel, two things you can smell, and one positive thought, she explains. 

Even a simple phone call can be a positive coping mechanism—Weiss specifically recommends making a list of friends and family members you can dial up during the day for emotional support.

Heck, maybe just hang out with your dog in the bathtub. “Having a friendly animal around in a safe space may be just the ticket, and if you are calming your dog down, you might be a little distracted from your own anxiety,” says Hoff.

“As you might expect, there are no easy or simple tricks that friends or family should try,” says Black. “Because PTSD symptoms are complex and can be unpredictable, little tricks can—and often will—backfire.” You can help by asking your loved one how much or how little they want to be involved in fireworks-related festivities, by listening without judgment even if you can’t fully understand their needs, and by respecting and supporting their choices about how much or how little they want to do, says Black. Let them take the lead. 

And as always, if you or someone around you is experiencing a crisis or is feeling suicidal, contact the national suicide hotline or the Veterans Crisis Line for Veterans at 1-800-273-8255. Telephone, text, and chat options are available 24/7.

The post Fireworks can trigger PTSD. Here’s how you can help yourself and others find ease. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The message of spending time in nature to elevate our mental health pops up everywhere: self care books, blogs, and even on some of the most authoritative medical websites. But like so much data, the information we have on nature’s role in human well-being is incomplete.

New research out last week in the journal Current Research in Environmental Sustainability found that out of 174 expert-reviewed studies on nature and mental health benefits published between 2010 and 2020, 95 percent occurred in high-income countries across North America, Europe, and East Asia. Research based in the Global South was more or less absent—and only 4 percent of studies took place in medium-income countries, with none in low-income nations. Additionally, 62 percent of the studies didn’t report participant ethnicity.

“I can’t say that we were hugely surprised,” says Rachelle Gould, a professor at the University of Vermont’s Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources and an author of the new paper. “Unfortunately, we anticipated that this might be the case.”

The skew in mental health research is notable, primarily because most people live in parts of the world that aren’t in the Western Hemisphere, formally educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic, otherwise known as WEIRD zones. Still, a huge number of universal conclusions are based on data collected from inhabitants of these areas. And when it comes to our relationships with nature, the cultures around us play a heavy factor.

“It is really important to know the details of how nature impacts us in intangible ways,” Gould says. “There’s some of it that probably is universal, but there are also maybe some that are culturally specific.”

Cultural differences can be as simple as what we perceive nature to be. In Western traditions, people may associate nature with forests or parks. But for others, including lead study author Carlos Andres Gallegos-Riofrío, the connection can look very different. Gallegos-Riofrío is from Ecuador, and his vision of nature includes the high-altitude grasslands of the Andes that provide water for millions of people. But this landscape is incredibly unique to his region. Denizens of other parts of the world might have desert landscapes as part of their “nature,” in stark contrast to the greenery that’s typically considered “natural.”

[Related: Nature saves us trillions of dollars in healthcare]

“All the time it’s forest and parks,” Gallegos-Riofrío explains. “[It’s] another sign of how dominant the cultural mark of [Western culture] is in this type of work.”

Additionally, the way that we see nature in relation to ourselves varies greatly by how we’re raised. While most everybody can enjoy a walk in the park, for some cultures, particularly in non-Western ones, the relationship with nature can be familial, adds Gould. For Indigenous groups, nature might represent more than a physical part of the world: It is kinship, she says, and often a “profound experience”.

“I see it in my regular world when I’m working with Indigenous populations, what people call Pachamama, which is Mother Nature,” says Gallegos-Riofrío. “In Ecuador, they are referring to something that is so fundamental to their existence. Pachamama is everything, including people. Pachamama is your field, where you grow the food. Pachamama is your whole territory.” 

This research also matters in the context of climate change, which is already directly harming people of color and poorer nations the most. Climate anxiety is a burgeoning field of assessing how people are responding to the destruction of the environment: Within that, it’s crucial to understand how different cultural factors play into the anxiety. So far the field of study is mostly a “largely white phenomenon,” Gould says.

Gallegos-Riofrío says that environmental destruction can bring about extremely different responses in different cultural groups. For example, he worked with an Indigenous population that had to be relocated due to a volcanic eruption, and found that they were distressed because they could not stay with the land, even in its last livable moments. 

“Especially the elders, they said, ‘no, I prefer to stay here and die here rather than to move, because this is me. These spaces are all me, these animals. How can I leave them behind?’” he says. “It was so cruel, so sad. We are not capturing these things in [nature and well-being research], but we must.”

[Related: We can’t truly protect the environment unless we tackle social justice issues, too]

Our relationship with nature is far from static, Gould adds; especially in times when the climate is changing rapidly, it’s crucial to know how different people feel and react to their own natural surroundings. While a landscape being destroyed can be disheartening for most people, it might take on a whole new meaning of grief for those who have lived there for centuries. 

“Part of it is that it’s sort of looking at the flip side that yes, nature is really good for our mental well-being. But when nature is being degraded and with climate change, it hurts,” says Gould. “I think understanding the diversity and variation in that hurt is just as important as understanding the diversity and variation in the positives that nature gives us.”

The post People around the world love and grieve nature in unique ways appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

There may be some truth to the common saying that magic mushrooms will open up your mind. New research shows that psilocybin, the psychedelic compound naturally found in some fungi, can help patients with depression by changing their brain-wave patterns.

Researchers in the United Kingdom told patients with major depressive disorder that they would receive some dosage of psilocybin. Those 43 patients were randomly assigned to receive two doses of either 25 mg or 1 mg—an amount that is considered negligible—of psilocybin. The doses were spaced three weeks apart, and patients did not know which dosage they received. After the first dose, each patient was told to take daily capsules for six weeks. Those who got the 25 mg psilocybin dose received placebo pills each day, while those who got just 1 mg of psilocybin received pills of escitalopram, a common antidepressant drug. 

Participants given escitalopram reported mild improvement in their symptoms at the end of the six-week treatment. By contrast, those who were given the high dose of psilocybin reported rapid improvement in their depression. Their fMRI scans showed heightened brain connectivity—and those improvements persisted for weeks. Psilocybin creates a liberating effect in the brain, the study authors write, breaking it out of the rut of depressive thinking. The findings were published on Monday in Nature Medicine. 

Healthy individuals tend to have highly connected brains, but in people with depression, “we sort of see the opposite of that—a brain characterized by segregation,” first author Richard Daws, a doctoral student at Imperial College London at the time of the study, told Live Science. Their study supports psilocybin use as a potential therapy for depression by way of boosting connectivity between different brain networks.

[Related: Oregon just voted to legalize magic mushrooms. Here’s what that actually means.]

But other experts who study neurocognitive effects of psychedelics say there are many more questions to be answered, especially given this new report’s small sample size and limited time frame. 

“This is an important contribution though I’m more interested in what happens in three months or six months,” Stephen Ross, associate director of the NYU Langone Center for Psychedelic Medicine, who studies psilocybin’s antidepressant effects in cancer patients, told The New York Times. “It’s a little bit like looking out into the universe with a telescope and seeing interesting things and then starting to build theories based on that.”

Depression remains one of the most common and most challenging mental health concerns in the US—an estimated 21 million adults (8.4 percent of all US adults) reported a major depressive episode in 2020, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. The COVID-19 pandemic has also triggered a 25 percent rise in anxiety and depression worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. While widely used antidepressants are a boon to many, they do not work for everyone and often have significant side effects. As many as one third of patients have “treatment-resistant” depression. 

Researchers have turned to unconventional, mind-altering drugs as potential alternate therapies for the patients for whom antidepressants fall short. Psilocybin, as well as LSD and MDMA, are major research targets of interest for psychiatric disorders including PTSD, anxiety, and eating disorders.

The study authors caution that while their findings are encouraging, people with depression should not attempt to self-medicate with psilocybin.

The post We may finally know how magic mushrooms help fight depression appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Sarah Hellewell is a Research Fellow at the Faculty of Health Sciences and the Perron Institute for Neurological and Translational Science at Curtin University. This post was originally featured on The Conversation.

Far from the respiratory disease it seemed at first, COVID can impact almost all parts of the body, including the brain. For a small number of people, COVID infection may be accompanied by an episode of post-COVID psychosis, a break from reality which can be frightening for the patient and their loved ones.

Psychosis is a condition characterised by confused thoughts, delusions, and hallucinations. People with psychosis can struggle to tell what’s real from what isn’t. Psychosis occurs in “episodes” which may last for days or weeks. Since the start of the COVID pandemic, reports of post-COVID psychosis have come from all over the world.

Post-COVID psychosis is different to psychosis seen in other brain illnesses and diseases. So-called “first episode psychosis” is usually seen in teens or young adults in the development of schizophrenia, or alongside dementia in elderly people.

But people experiencing post-COVID psychosis are typically in their 30s, 40s and 50s, and are experiencing psychosis for the first time. They usually do not have any family history of psychosis. People with post-COVID psychosis also frequently have insight into the way they are feeling. They can recognize this is not normal for them, and something has changed in the way they are thinking.

Features in common

Based on the small number of reports so far, the start of psychosis has been days, weeks or even months after COVID diagnosis. While the symptoms of post-COVID psychosis can be varied, there are some commonalities: people usually have problems sleeping, followed by paranoid delusions and hallucinations. Some people feel compelled to hurt themselves or others.

The scientific evidence of post-COVID psychosis comes mostly from “case reports”, which are research papers describing symptoms and recovery of individual patients.

In the first and most widely reported case, a 36-year-old American woman developed psychosis approximately four days after she started having mild COVID symptoms. She became delusional, thinking that her partner was trying to kidnap her children. She was convinced she was being tracked through her mobile phone.

After trying to pass her children through a fast-food restaurant drive-through serving counter to protect them, she was taken to hospital for care. After one week of in-patient care to treat her psychosis, she was discharged. Her delusions did not return.

In another case, a 43-year-old Bulgarian man began experiencing psychois two days after he was discharged from hospital for severe COVID.

He believed the doctors had faked the results saying his COVID illness had resolved. He also had delusions that he had already died and his organs were rotten. He became a danger to his family, believing he should kill them to “spare them the same slow suffering”. After two weeks of treatment in hospital, his psychotic symptoms resolved and did not return.

Other case studies have reported people having delusions that patients in the hospital were actors and medical staff were trying to harm them, hearing voices speaking in foreign languages or telling them to take on grand tasks, like saving the earth.

Changes in the brain

The cause of post-COVID psychosis is not well understood. Some scientists think it could be due to persistent inflammation in the brain, prolonged inflammatory signals in the body or due to changes in blood vessels in the brain.

There is new evidence that brain areas undergoing change in mild COVID infection may also be areas that change in people who are at risk of, or who are experiencing, first-episode psychosis (that is, not after COVID infection). These areas are the orbitofrontal cortex at the front of the brain, and the parahippocampal gyrus–a key memory region deep in the brain. These regions may shrink in both mild COVID and psychosis.

However, more research is needed to understand this link.

Not the first time

COVID is not the first virus to be linked to psychosis. During the “Spanish flu” influenza pandemic of 1918 there were reports of post-viral psychosis.

Psychosis has been reported after infections with the other human coronaviruses, like those that cause Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). Links between coronaviruses, immune system activation and psychosis have also been found, suggesting COVID may not be the only coronavirus capable of causing psychosis.

Just how common is post-COVID psychosis? The evidence to date suggests it is rare, occurring in about 0.25% of COVID cases who are not hospitalized (and likely have a mild infection), and 0.89% of people who are hospitalized for COVID.

Because there have been so many cases of COVID worldwide, isolated reports of post-COVID psychosis may stand out more. The frightening nature of what people might experience means we might hear more and more about them on social media and in the news.

Although the risk of post-COVID psychosis is low, people who have had COVID and their families should look out for any sudden changes in personality, paranoia or delusions in the days, weeks and months following infection.

If these signs are noticed, seeking medical help is vital. Most cases of post-COVID psychosis resolve quickly with proper psychiatric care and treatment with medication.

If you or someone you know are in crisis, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255), or contact the Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741.

The post Post-COVID psychosis is rare, but distressing appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Perhaps you find yourself caught in an endless scroll on social media, or closing apps just to immediately reopen them. Perhaps you pick up a book only to put it back down shortly after because none of the words are registering. Perhaps you have so much on your plate that your mind keeps jumping from thought to thought without actually finishing any of them. 

If any of that resonates, you’re not alone. The ongoing, prolonged pandemic has unbalanced our health and wellbeing in every sense, including our ability to focus and pay attention. The good news is that this damage is (for the most part) reversible. 

Stress and anxiety are among the most well-understood factors influencing memory. When we experience immense or chronic stress, it’s normal for our brains to stay in survival mode, says Carmen Sandi, a neuroscientist at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland. It’s an evolutionary adaptation where as soon as our nervous system senses danger, it prioritizes the areas of the brain in charge of keeping us alive, to detriment of other processes, such as critical thinking. Also a result of going into “survival mode” is our instinct to dart our attention around, as we must be hyper-aware of incoming threats. 

[Related: How to manage your mental health as traumatic events pile up]

But that doesn’t mean that any amount of stress is bad—“to perform well, to learn and to be efficient, a bit of stress is quite good,” says Sandi. Small doses of stress put your nervous system slightly on alert, heightening your focus and attention. But it works in an inverted “U” shape—once stress levels pass a certain threshold, the effect reverses and your nervous system starts to only pay attention to basic survival needs rather than complicated thought processes. Anything that causes you acute or chronic stress and anxiety—like being a parent, or suffering from a physical or mental health condition—can worsen your ability to remember things or pay close attention to the world around you. 

People with long-COVID often have difficulty concentrating. What’s worrying is that not every source of stress is controllable on an individual level. The pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, inflation, and other economic stressors all pile on top of the persisting pressures of everyday life. This makes bouncing back and recovering our mental functions a difficult task, but there are small things we can do to get there.

An important first step is noticing any changes in yourself, says Shishir Baliyan, a doctoral student in psychobiology at the Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia in Spain who studies stress and empathy. But being aware of your own stress levels is harder than you might think. 

“The amount of stress that you feel, and the amount of stress that your body is going through are two different things,” says Baliyan. One is physiological stress, which is the mix of stress hormones and other sensory input occurring in your body, he explains. The other is psychological stress, which is the perception you have of how well you’re doing. The problem is that they rarely match up perfectly.

Take stock of your condition by stopping and asking yourself some questions: Is your memory worsening, and if so, how quickly? Did the onset of this decline coincide with stressors in your life? Being mindful of your own condition is important, Baliyan adds—you can’t fix a problem you’re not aware of. 

Memory is something that you can, actually, improve, but it’s important to know that it may take time. If they don’t see results fast enough, says Sandi, some people may start feeling a lack of control or a sense of failure, which can be problematic if it turns into a cycle. When that happens, the feeling of hopelessness adds more stress and worsens the problem. 

“Memory and working memory require practice,” she says. “One can train them.”

For example, research shows that mindfulness exercises like meditation can theoretically help attentional control, though there is not enough data to definitively say whether these practices directly improve attention span. There is mixed evidence on the effectiveness of games and exercises designed to improve working memory and attention, generally, the consensus is that our memory and attention spans are not fixed—they can be improved through discipline. 

Training your attention and memory has other benefits, too. In one study in the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, psychologists found that those with greater attentional control developed fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety during the onset of the pandemic. 

Finding ways to live with a shorter working memory and attention span is just as important as working towards improvement. Rather than beating yourself up for forgetting things, go easy on yourself and find workarounds. Strategies like writing notes to yourself, setting up more frequent reminders, and practicing different approaches, like the Pomodoro technique, can help you stay on top of things without straining your brain.

Feeling good can sometimes mean thinking well: “emotional and cognitive processes, they go hand in hand,” Baliyan says. If you’re feeling emotionally bogged down, that may be a sign you’re also not in the best cognitive state, and vice versa. 

Friends, family, and community can help by taking things off your plate—perhaps by taking your kids for a day, or cooking a meal when you don’t have the time. They can also provide emotional support for the stresses you are currently experiencing, and preemptively build up your sense of resilience in anticipation of future stresses. 

Improving your attention span and working memory is a journey with no guaranteed results, especially if stressors in your life do not change. But take comfort in the knowledge that your attention span and memory are plastic. Just as you may have seen them shorten and decline, it is possible to build them back up again with discipline and patience. They are not fixed in stone.

The post Stress and anxiety wear down your brain. Here’s how to fight back. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Undark.

When Randy Jones got his start as an emergency medical technician in the 1970s, he wore a smock and a clip-on tie that reduced the chances a patient would grab hold and strangle him. With few job prospects in the tiny Kansas town where he grew up, the rush of running to emergencies in an ambulance felt like God’s work. Jones remembers wearing blood on his shirt like a badge of pride.

Then, in the early hours of New Year’s Day 1979, he plowed through a snowstorm to a call he can’t forget. Jones says he heard screaming a block away. A young couple had returned home after a night out and found their child unresponsive. A fireman passed the baby to Jones. He did mouth to mouth. The parents’ wailing continued, but there would be no resuscitation, no reviving, no heroic lifesaving. That night, he replayed the call, trying to figure out where he might have gone wrong. Later, after seeing other infants die with seemingly no explanation, Jones began having nightmares about running code blues on his own children.

So much of Jones’ life was inextricably wrapped up in his career, but he no longer trusted he could do what he’d felt called to do. For a time, he says he contemplated suicide. Death seemed preferable to calling for help, he says, and having his colleagues know he had broken. “There’s so much shame involved in it—to admit you can’t take it,” he says, adding that “co-workers lose faith in your ability to handle emergencies, and their lives depend on you.”

Today, there is also the threat of losing one’s livelihood. Many physicians fear that state boards could suspend their license or revoke its renewal if they seek mental health care. The threat of formal sanctions can reinforce a workplace culture that stigmatizes mental health. Seeking treatment may be seen as a career-ending decision—that a person is unfit for duty, both in the eyes of their colleagues and their profession.

By March of 2020, Jones had switched careers. At the time, he worked as a chaplain at a hospital in Greeley, Colorado. When the first reports of what would become the Covid-19 pandemic began filtering in, he was reminded of the old emotions he felt as an EMT. The virus seemed poised to exacerbate an invisible epidemic—the emotional repercussions of witnessing trauma, as well as the moral distress of being unable to do what’s best for every patient. Worse: Some physicians seemed to think they could handle anything. “That’s where doctors crack,” Jones says. “You look at the world in black and white and, you know, how much of human tragedy can you take?”

In the months that followed, Jones says he and ICU staff would wear the same masks, 12-plus hours a day. He consoled colleagues with sweat-slicked hair. Jones watched nurses cry. Patients died without having their loved ones at their bedside. One day, he says, a man with Covid-19 requested to see him. He borrowed a pair of goggles and ventured into the patient’s room—a forbidden zone. The man was about to be intubated, Jones says, and didn’t know whether he would wake up again. He wanted to make a confession. Jones is not a Catholic priest, but he agreed to hear what seemed like they might be the patient’s last words. He would later be reprimanded, he says, and had to promise never to do it again. But he wished he could put his palm into patients’ hands as they passed over. And Jones could sense that he wasn’t alone in feeling like he was unable to do his job.

Then, in March 2021, Jones quit. He joined First Responder Trauma Counselors, an organization in Colorado launched by Ed and Joanne Rupert, a husband-and-wife team. The Ruperts see themselves as providing a 911 for 911 workers’ wellbeing. FRTC offers counseling and mental health services for workers in the emergency response system: dispatchers, police officers, EMTs and paramedics, and nurses. In addition to offering 24-hour support, the Ruperts have a decked-out black Sprinter van that serves as a mobile response unit.

The Colorado group aims to address a crisis that predated the pandemic: In failing to care for caretakers, some say, the emergency response system in the U.S. has, in effect, created an exploited workforce, where those on the front lines confront daily the gap between demand on the ground and what they can feasibly provide. FRTC’s approach also reflects a growing interest in what is broadly known as peer support—help from people who share a similar lived experience. (All of FRTC’s clinical staff members, for instance, have professional experience working as first responders or in the military.) Keely Phillips, who manages peer support programs at a branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association, writes in a book chapter that peers are uniquely positioned, using their experience “like a lantern on a dark path. The lantern is loaded with strategies, new perspectives, and hope for the person who is struggling.”

The concept has resonated with administrators and staff alike. But sources say that, in part because it is predicated on patients’ trust, and in part because of its ambiguous definition, peer support lags in one key respect: Research on its effectiveness is limited. Proponents also caution that these programs cannot necessarily replace reform that addresses systemic problems plaguing the workforce.

Peer supporters are nonetheless forging ahead. In recent years, the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration has invested millions in peer support programs. Leading medical organizations and practicing physicians have called for implementation in health care settings, where a staggering number of workers have quit since the pandemic began. All in all, experts are suggesting: Who better to care for caretakers than one of their own?

In the early 1970s, psychiatric clinicians borrowed hippie-era drug slang to describe the physical and mental burnout associated with “helping” professions, such as social work and teaching. The term eventually evolved, becoming a vague catchall for exhaustion. Another related, but more narrowly defined, concept emerged in the 1990s: Providers who found themselves running low on empathy were experiencing a symptom of “compassion fatigue.” By 2013, with the release of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the American Psychiatric Association recognized that “experiencing repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details” of a traumatic event could qualify someone for a post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis, provided they experienced other distressing symptoms as well—as can be the case with first responders, where vicarious trauma is a routine part of the work.

One concept that has gained considerable ground in recent years is called moral injury. In the 1990s, Jonathan Shay, a clinical psychiatrist, described moral injury in the context of war: Post-traumatic stress not only stemmed from what someone had done on the battlefield, but also what they had failed to do. Wendy Dean, a psychiatrist, applied the concept to health care in a 2018 essay she co-authored in STAT. First responders witness trauma, and these events can have a stacking effect. But Dean’s critique had a more systematic bent: The U.S. health care system forces workers to carry out orders that transgress deeply held moral beliefs. “What health care workers have said on a regular basis,” she told Undark, “is that, even before the pandemic: ‘I can’t get what I need to do my job. And I can’t get patients what they need.’”

“There’s so much shame involved in it — to admit you can’t take it,” Jones says, adding that “co-workers lose faith in your ability to handle emergencies, and their lives depend on you.”

Randy Jones

The Covid-19 pandemic intensified these issues. The virus has, so far, killed nearly 1 million Americans. For some health care workers, the politicized resistance to public health interventions, along with other on-the-job pressures, also seemed to be killing their sense of purpose. By some estimates, nearly one out of five health care workers quit their jobs.

While there is no clear way to measure mental, emotional, or moral injuries, data nonetheless suggests that leaving these issues unaddressed can have serious and widespread consequences. One 2015 survey of more than 4,000 EMS providers found that 37 percent had contemplated suicide. Suicides appear to be significantly higher than the general population for law enforcement officers, nurses, and physicians. Last month, the U.S. Senate passed the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act, which is named for a New York City physician who died by suicide during the Covid-19 pandemic. The legislation, which went to President Biden’s desk on March 11, would establish grants for more programing to promote mental health. But the law would do little to reform professional licensing boards, which can effectively end a career. (Breen’s family has said these fears were among the reasons she felt she could not get help.)

Without top-down reform to respond to the ongoing psychological crises, several initiatives sprang up in recent years, particularly as Covid-19 swamped health care facilities. Many turned to the same form of expertise: Peers, the people who lived through it.

At age 26, Joanne Rupert, who grew up in England and South Africa, responded to a newspaper ad for a volunteer firefighter. Rupert worked for Head, a sports equipment company, in Boulder, and took flying lessons on the side. Improbably, the first 911 call she ever went on with the fire department was to the scene of a plane crash. Joanne instantly recognized the plane: It was her instructor’s. Drawing closer, she could see that he had a terrible head injury. But she had no medical training, and just had to stand there and watch. “At that point,” she says, “I said, ‘Wow, I never want to feel this way.’ That I can’t help, and I really wanted to help.”

Joanne went on to become an EMT and eventually took a job as a victim advocate for a local sheriff’s office, assisting those affected by crime or abuse. While working there, she learned about an accident involving a rock crusher at a quarry, and went to check in on the firefighters who had taken the call. They showed her graphic photos of the scene, Joanne says, “as if it was another day of the week.” But not long after, she got a call at four in the morning from one of the firefighters. He was not OK, she says, and he asked her: “Can you come out?” It felt a bit like encountering the plane crash all over again. Joanne wasn’t a licensed counselor at the time, and her job with the sheriff’s office didn’t involve assisting first responders. She couldn’t help him—no matter how much she wanted to. “I can’t just self deploy and be a vigilante and take care of everyone,” she says. The incident was a catalyst for going back to school for clinical psychology and eventually starting the organization that is now First Responder Trauma Counselors.

FRTC offers cognitive behavioral therapy, a type of talk therapy commonly used for PTSD, as well as eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, a technique where patients recall traumatic experiences while following sensory cues, such as tracking a therapist’s finger back and forth. (The exact mechanism by which EMDR works has been the subject of some controversy, though the American Psychological Association conditionally recommends it as a treatment for PTSD.) The Ruperts also offer alternative therapies with less robust evidence, including hypnosis, brainspotting (an offshoot of EMDR), and vibroacoustic resonance therapy that involves audible sound vibrations. But the core of their practice is predicated on having culturally competent clinicians—that is, their staff has worked as first responders. “Unless you’ve been at the dirty end of an arterial bleed, a weapon, or a hose line, you really don’t get what the feeling attached with the circumstance you’re in” is, Ed says, “and the hypervigilance that it creates over time.” Joanne says she emphasizes a pragmatic no-bullshit approach. “I’m not a touchy-feely therapist,” she says. “When people come in to see me, they don’t need me just to shake my head and go, ‘Uh-huh, mm-hmm, mm-hmm.’ That’s not going to work for a first responder. So I’m very much knees in the dirt, blood on the shirt as a therapist.”

One evening about a year ago, the Ruperts received a call. Joanne shared a summary of the conversation with Undark. “Everything was going fine on the phone. And then the person,” Joanne pauses. “I was in the middle of a sentence, and the person hung up on me.” She’d never met the caller, and so she looked at Ed, and said, “Uh-oh.” The couple picked up a paramedic and drove to the caller’s house at 11 p.m. Joanne says, “They were just like, ‘I can’t believe you’re here. I can’t believe you’re fucking here.’” The caller, who was intoxicated, had plans to die by suicide. The Ruperts say they stayed until the person sobered up and went to bed. (Data suggest that people who attempt suicide usually consider it for less than 24 hours before acting.)

According to some regional EMS administrators, the Ruperts and their counselors provide something that is sorely needed. “They just stand there with you,” says Kevin Waters, an EMS battalion chief. “Not just with us individually, but just with us collectively. And they stand in that space with you. And they say, ‘Yeah, we’re here. We’re here with you.’” Another former administrator in Fort Collins says a colleague of his had gone to group therapy, a counseling session geared towards laypeople, but he was told that they couldn’t help him after he shared details of an especially traumatic EMS call. He had experienced something most people could not imagine and most certainly did not want to hear about. If it weren’t for peer support, these testimonials suggest, there might be no one. Ed explains that the options available to civilians didn’t always seem like viable options to those in uniform. “The shame of calling 911 when they have a mental health crisis is overwhelming,” he says. “Everybody knows now. The toothpaste is out of the tube. You can’t unring the bell.”

On a night in November 2021, Ed says they have not had a day off since the first waves of Covid-19 arrived in Colorado. Listening to the scanner that night, it seemed clear that their work would never end. As winds, unusually dry for late fall, howled, dispatchers reported a three-car crash. Around 9 p.m., emergency responders reached a plane that crashed while fighting a wildfire, killing the pilot.

One of the driving forces behind peer support in the U.S. initially came from a movement led by people who had been diagnosed with mental illnesses or used drugs, who demanded alternatives to institutional approaches. Advocates wanted to reposition people in control of their own care. More recent efforts have focused on professionalizing these peers. Certified specialists are now recognized nearly every state and, since 2007, they are reimbursed through Medicaid, the single largest payer of mental health services in the U.S. As of 2016, 25,317 peer specialists were certified nationwide.

Despite the growing popularity of peer support, better empirical research, and data, is needed to single out or measure outcomes that are specifically attributable to the approach. For instance, in 2014, Sharon Reif, a health services researcher at Brandeis University, reviewed 11 previously published papers, only two of which were randomized controlled trials — the gold standard for health research. Subsequent reviews, including one by the Research Recovery Institute, a nonprofit affiliated with Harvard Medical School, have found some positive effects — for instance, reduced relapse and improved recovery. But in asking people what they need, and then getting it to them, the interventions vary. “Giving support is nebulous,” Reif says, “by definition.”

As such, Reif cautions against evaluations that compare peer practitioners against traditionally trained clinicians, which she says could create a false dichotomy that does not necessarily reflect the reality: Many people are simply not getting any support. Instead, she says, future studies might look a specific intervention, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, and evaluate one group receiving CBT without a peer compared to a group seeing a therapist in addition to a peer. (As Reif put it, “Do peers, plus whatever else you’re doing, make a difference?”)

“They just stand there with you. Not just with us individually, but just with us collectively. And they stand in that space with you. And they say, ‘Yeah, we’re here. We’re here with you.’”

Kevin Waters

For instance, one randomized controlled trial recruited 330 military veterans who were already receiving treatment for depression, such as medication or psychotherapy. The control group continued their usual care: Medication or psychotherapy from a traditionally trained therapist. The experimental group received their usual care along with computer-based cognitive behavioral therapy, but they also met with a fellow veteran who had personally experienced depression. Peer-supported therapy helped improve “depression symptoms, quality of life, and mental health recovery,” the authors wrote.

Something may certainly be better than nothing, but no evidence suggests peer support can be rolled out in lieu of addressing a root problem: The number of people who need mental health care exceeds those who get it.

Similarly, the pandemic spurred interest in applying the model in professional settings, particularly support by and for health care workers. Practitioners can face cultural and structural barriers to receiving the support they need. The American Medical Association, the largest professional group of medical doctors in the U.S., has promoted peer support training for health care workers providing formal and informal guidance to colleagues. In a June 2020 newsletter, the Joint Commission, a national accrediting body for health care organizations, encouraged the use of peer support during crisis, and pointed to a successful program developed at Johns Hopkins Hospital known as the Resilience in Stressful Events, or RISE, program.

Although research on the efficacy of peer support is limited, Cheryl Connors, a nurse and the director of RISE, says the best evidence is utilization—how often people call the support hotlines for help. When she spoke to Undark back in September, she said RISE went from about 12 calls a month to as many as 40 per day during the pandemic. Connors, who holds a doctorate in nursing, admits she would like better evidence, such as how often callers go on to seek further resources after talking with a peer. “We want to study this. We want to know direct impact,” she says, “but we also feel like it’s wrong.” Asking distressed workers for feedback on confidential support sessions, she explains, could feel intrusive.

Moreover, as Jo Shapiro, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and the founder of the Center for Professionalism and Peer Support at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, points out, there are many factors shaping the outcomes researchers would like to study, which can make it difficult to attribute any effect (or lack of effect) to peer support. “We’d like to see, ‘Did we prevent suicide?” she says. “Did we decrease burnout? Did we increase morale, productivity, retention, whatever? These are really important outcome measures.” But those factors are difficult to study in a limited size program. Suicide, for example, “occurs way more than it should,” Shapiro says, but not frequently enough to know whether a peer support program actually helped prevent suicides.

The concept of peer support has face validity, Shapiro says. It appears to work, and there is little evidence of risk. “This seems like a really reasonable thing to do. The chance of harm is just minuscule, right? The chance of harm of not doing it is huge.” She cites the high rates of suicidal ideation. The demand is there too: She pointed to a 2012 study in which she and colleagues surveyed more than 100 medical doctors, and found that 88 percent wanted some form of peer support.

According to Leslie Hammer, a professor of psychology at Portland State University, occupational psychologists’ recommendations for reducing on-the-job stress and trauma usually fall into several broad categories, including reducing demand and giving workers more autonomy. But neither option is especially viable in crisis situations. Instead, peer support appears to offer a third option: enhanced social support. Shapiro says she has worked with more than 100 health care institutions to set up programs. The concept continues winning over administrators and federal agencies. In recent years, the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration has increased funding for programs that involve peer support. On March 1, President Biden announced a plan to “build a national certification program for peer specialists,” as part of a broader initiative to address the country’s ongoing mental health crisis.

Shapiro says that peer support for professionals can reframe the emotional fallout of stressful events as an occupational hazard rather than a personal failing. In doing so, it can reduce stigma and normalize seeking help. “What we don’t have is proof that this is the way to do it,” Shapiro says. “But we’ll get there.”

By late 2021, the number of patients needing intensive care in Colorado threatened to surpass the number of available beds. Hospitals faced staffing shortages. Nurses were quitting in droves. Randy Jones has kept in touch with several from the hospital where he worked as a chaplain. He says that one of them quit the ICU and started baking cakes out of her home, picking up hospice work on the side. Another called him after taking some time off because of a suspected Covid-19 exposure. She wasn’t sure if she still had it in her to go back to critical care. Jones sympathized, and says the nurses were right to wonder: “Is my chosen profession the right thing for me? Or is it going to kill me?”

One day at his office, he sat with an ICU nurse of 14 years, who asked not to be named because she did not have permission from hospital administration to speak with media. She says she felt her colleagues sometimes took better care of patients when they learned their story. Covid made that harder, with so many patients on ventilators. Families only appeared over video-conferencing. Many ICU patients lay facedown, in a prone position, for 18 hours or more—a tactic, the ICU nurse says, used to help improve lung oxygenation. “How, in good faith, do I keep taking care of these people day after day,” she says, “knowing that I’m not doing the absolute best that I can do?”

One patient in particular had stayed with her. The woman ate breakfast, and then decided to go off oxygen. She died soon after, alone, holding the nurse’s hand. It wasn’t so much the death; it was that the woman’s rapid decline—without that being part of her plan. “And, so for me, it was, ‘How do I go to my next day?’” the nurse says. “‘How do I take this situation that is very different for me, grow from it, share it with my co-workers, but not let it weigh heavy on my heart and not take it home to my family?’”

Jones helped her realize a simple mantra: Control what you can and manage what you can’t. The nurse says she cares the same for each patient, including the estimated 80 percent of hospitalized Covid-19 patients in Colorado who had not been vaccinated as of last November. She met them where they were at regardless of their life choices. Still, the work left her with feelings her family might never understand, burdens she didn’t want to place on her colleagues. If it sometimes seemed like society couldn’t comprehend her experience in the ICU, at least she could count on support from one of her own. She didn’t seem to feel the need to go into detail, and with Jones, she didn’t need to. He’d been there. He got it.

If you or someone you know are in crisis, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255), or contact the Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741.

Peter Andrey Smith is a reporter who has contributed to Science, STAT, Bloomberg Businessweek, The New York Times, WNYC Radiolab, and other publications.

The reporting for this story was supported in part by a grant from The Sidney Hillman Foundation.

The post Who helps first responders in crisis? A peer support group in Colorado is trying. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

As COVID-19’s Omicron variant waned and we took a second to catch our breaths, another anxiety-inducing and devastating event began: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. People in the area have suffered unspeakable traumas while trying to hunker down or flee their home country, and the world has looked on in terror and exhaustion. If dealing with an ongoing pandemic and the rippling effects of an overseas war seems like too much, it’s because it is.

While some of us might simply be stressed or concerned about the war, it can be clinically traumatic for others. To medically count as trauma, an event has to involve “actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence,” according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Experiencing multiple traumas at once, or repeated trauma—as many are right now—is “complex trauma.” Such layered traumas are linked to increased emotional problems, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Complex trauma typically involves at least one interpersonal trauma, such as an assault, rape, or neglect, often as a child. A secondary traumatic event could be interpersonal, such as a natural disaster, serious accident, or exposure to war; or non-interpersonal, such as intense anxiety about world events. The level of trauma varies for everyone, and can obviously be much more traumatic for someone directly experiencing a situation, such as those enduring daily life within a conflict zone. 

According to Craig Bryan, psychologist and director of The Ohio State University’s trauma program, psychologists refer to trauma in two ways: “Trauma” with a capital T, and “trauma” with a lowercase t. 

“There’s a lot of debate over what should be classified as trauma,” says Bryan, who served in the US military, deployed to Iraq in 2009, does Department of Defense-funded research, and works with military personnel on mental health. “Trauma with a little ‘t’ is a more generic use, and people [use it to] refer to ‘Well, this is very stressful, very upsetting.’ But for others, the pandemic was traumatic with a capital ‘T’: They were on a ventilator; they almost died, and they recovered; or had a family member who contracted COVID and died,” he says. Healthcare workers seeing large numbers of patient deaths may also have that capital-T trauma, and the same can be true for people processing the events in Ukraine. 

“For some people, it is traumatic with a capital ‘T’ because they’re either witnessing it directly or seeing it. They have family members who have been killed, or that they’re worried about, and then there’s the rest of us,” he explains. “[For us], it’s unsettling, it’s uneasy, we’re anxious, we’re afraid, but it wouldn’t necessarily be a trauma with a capital ‘T.’”

[Related: The best apps for dealing with anxiety]

Still, those still suffering financial, emotional, and logistical tolls from the pandemic can feel that added anxiety from war and other stressful events can feel like too much to process. For those experiencing “trauma with a lowercase ‘t,’” piled onto previous trauma with any kind of “t,” here’s how to cope.

“It’s fair to take a more broad view of the impact of traumatic experiences—these can be anything that leaves us with a feeling of uncertainty, of confusion,” says Ross Goodwin, a psychiatrist at Kaiser Permanente. He adds that acknowledging one traumatic event layered on the next is a “useful framework” for defining our current experience and finding ways to cope. 

“We can acknowledge that there may be people in our community who do have a more direct connection with what’s going on across the ocean. [Be] attuned to that and listen for community members who may have family or have heritage in Eastern Europe,” he says. “Maybe we can [then ask]: ‘What can we do to be proactive? What can we do to build our community and contribute to taking care of folks who are suffering?’” He recommends volunteering, donating, and advocacy as a way to reverse feelings of confusion and powerlessness. And if you are able, keep listening and thinking about how you can serve affected people in your community, long after today’s current events have passed. It’s not pleasant to think about, but there are always potentially traumatic events occurring across the world.

“Take back a sense of ownership, or empowerment, or self-advocacy—that ‘I can make a difference, I can contribute.’ That’s healing… trauma typically takes away people’s sense of power or agency,” Goodwin says.

“It sounds weird to say, but in some ways, we could say the pandemic is more predictable than another world leader that might not be predictable,” he says. For some, this might alleviate the feeling of dealing with two global crises at once, and create a sense of security that we know how to handle one problem, at least.

Refuel your emotional capacity with “preventative maintenance” 

Bryan is the last person you’ll catch using the overused term “self-care,” but not because he doesn’t believe in it. Instead, he advises his current and former military clients to rely on an alternate term they may have learned during their service: “preventative maintenance,” which is typically used to refer to maintaining firearms and ensuring equipment is in working order.

“Why do we do that?” he asks clients. “So it works when you need it,” they might answer. We have to do the same for ourselves. That means exercising, eating nutritious food, spending time with loved ones, taking leave from work, and taking part in enjoyable activities. Then, when we need to tap into our emotional reserves, it “reduces the likelihood of malfunction,” he says.

By using these preventative tools to build up your emotional capacity, you can fortify your mental health in a way that makes it easier to navigate multiple major stressors or traumas, Bryan explains. “There is a sense that we all have a certain amount of reserves to respond to stressful events and adversity, and if we have to tap into those reserves frequently, then we have less available when a bigger stressor occurs,” he says.

Limit catastrophizing

Adding what some see as the threat of World War III to a pandemic that has killed more than 6 million people can seem like the literal end of the world. But that type of catastrophizing, as it’s called in the mental health field, only adds to your perceived trauma and stress. Both experts point out that this type of thinking can be the result of too much doomscrolling.

If you are using social media to get your news without any intentional limits, it’s easy to be overwhelmed by multiple crises in the world during your day, Goodwin says.

“It’s important to remain informed about what’s going on because we can gain a sense of empowerment through being aware and knowledgeable, but at the same time, it’s important to have limits,” he says, suggesting people identify their trusted sources, visit those sources for their “daily dose of media consumption,” and then stop. In a similar vein, Bryan had to delete certain social media platforms because “it was just constant anxiety, fear, and anger.” He says it’s crucial to take control of our environment in this way, and doing so also helps remind us that these major stressors or traumas aren’t the only thing happening in our lives.

[Related: Soothing stories to take your mind off of stressful things]

Bryan especially attributes repetitive exposure to stress as something that can retrigger PTSD symptoms, especially for veterans watching war coverage. They may be more inclined to experience a great degree of stress, as opposed to someone who hasn’t been in a conflict zone and can process the events as “unfortunate” while still viewing the world as an overall safe place inhabited by good people, he says. In a veteran’s case (or anyone else experiencing the same type of serious stress), he says therapy is definitely helpful, as opposed to some of the DIY solutions above alone.

Parents should also pay attention to how much catastrophizing they are doing in front of children, whether through media consumption or overheard conversations. Staying aware of how much kids can handle can help mitigate any potential damage to their mental health. “Kids are going to hear everything and absorb everything, even if they seem like they’re not,” Goodwin says.

Both therapists highly encourage anyone dealing with anxiety, trauma, or other mental health concerns to promptly reach out for mental health services. Goodwin recommends a site his practice collaborates with, “Find Your Words,” which aims to help connect people with both the language and services necessary to understand and ease mental health issues. Bryan recommends people consider STRIVE, OSU’s suicide and trauma reduction initiative for veterans, first responders, and their families. If you are contemplating suicide, reach out to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255.

The post How to manage your mental health as traumatic events pile up appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

After a few months of overthinking, I finally started calling therapists who I thought might be able to help one of my sons with, well, being a kid in a pandemic. The responses repeatedly followed a frustrating theme: “We’re full.” “We canceled our waitlist because it was 50 people long.” “No new patients.” “We are on a six-month wait.”

I was initially surprised at how hard it was to find someone, but digging into the data helped clarify the reasoning behind these replies. From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health problems have skyrocketed, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting alarmingly elevated numbers of anxiety, depression, trauma and stress-related disorders, substance abuse, and thoughts of suicide. By early April 2020, Americans were suffering emotionally, financially, and physically, reporting myriad disruptions to their daily lives. As a result, more than one-sixth of us started going to therapy, 15 percent began taking medication for mental health issues in 2020, and another 15 percent changed their dosage, according to a survey of 2,000 people.

Even without this increased demand, the logistical hurdles people have to jump before getting real, meaningful mental health assistance can be exhausting, but there are ways to clear them and ensure you or your family members get the help they need as quickly as possible.

What to do if a therapist has a waiting list

When you finally make a call and learn you’re destined for a waiting list, or that there’s no availability at all, it’s disheartening. The pandemic created a massive spike in mental health issues, but didn’t create a correlating spike in new mental health professionals. “It’s not as if an extra 100,000 therapists have been licensed in the past two years—that hasn’t happened,” says Tom Delaney, an associate professor at the University of Vermont’s Larner College of Medicine who researches the effectiveness of mental health programs. 

It’s quite the opposite. One poll reported that nearly 1 in 5 healthcare workers has quit during the pandemic, 1 in 8 has been fired, and nearly a third of those remaining have considered leaving. This means patients seeking any type of care—not just therapy—are likely to be turned away, or placed indefinitely on a waiting list. In a New York Times survey of over 1,300 therapists, 1 in 3 said it would take at least three months for new patients to see them, or that they don’t have room for new patients at all.

Back to that waiting list offer: say yes, but also ask for a referral to other recommended professionals they might know have openings, Delaney suggests. “Say: ‘I know you’re filled up, but can you tell me about anybody who works with people like me that you know would do a really good job?’” he says, adding that some will even reach out on your behalf to try to find you an opening. And there’s a lot of turnover in practices,, so a waiting list might move quicker than you think, he explains.

If you’re looking for a psychiatrist—a mental health professional who also oversees medication management—you might have to wait at least a year, according to Bethany Cook, a clinical psychologist who specializes in neuropsychological assessment and music therapy. In the meantime, you can start with a therapist and your general care physician, who can often prescribe mental health medications as well.

How to choose the best therapist for you

In the “before” times, finding a therapist was as simple as asking for recommendations from friends, trusted medical team members, and even online groups. But now, it can involve much more research and digging. Both Cook and Delaney recommend the popular search function Psychology Today offers as the best database for finding a therapist who specializes in your area of need. From there, you can use built-in filters to tailor your preferences by issues, insurance, gender, type of therapy, age, price, ethnicity, sexuality, language, faith, and location. You will be able to see therapists’ bios and are likely to find many who offer virtual therapy. 

The only frustrating aspect, Cook says, is that it’s hard for clients to identify if a therapist is PsyPact certified, meaning they can work with patients over state lines (in most cases), as there’s currently no central database for that. Her Psychology Today account notes the states she’s certified in, but not everyone’s does. “If a person in Texas found me on Psychology Today and asked me, ‘Could you be my therapist?’ 100 percent yes. I’m qualified,” the Illinois-based therapist says. However, she might not take insurance based in Texas—another complicating factor—and they may have to pay out of pocket. If you find someone you are interested in working with, ask if they’re PsyPact certified, she says. You can also try searching on TherapyDen, which does not charge therapists a fee to list their practice (a profile on Psychology Today costs a therapist $30 a month).

[Related: Mental wellness apps are basically the Wild West of therapy]

Finally, it can be confusing to navigate the sea of certifications and types of therapy. There are psychologists, psychiatrists, licensed clinical social workers, alcohol and drug abuse counselors, and additional license variations within most of those. “It kind of doesn’t matter what the qualification is, as in our state you still have to show your competency,” Delaney says. He encourages people to focus less on the license and more on the fit, which he says is the No. 1 indicator of a successful therapy experience.

Your best bet is to make a list, Cook says. She suggests using the Psychology Today database to find five therapists who align with your needs and reaching out to them for availability. Delaney notes that you shouldn’t rely on the provider’s availability status listed on the site, as sometimes spots have become available but the provider hasn’t updated it yet. Once your list is done, Cook says to find each provider’s National Provider Identifier number (NPI), and to have that information ready when you call your insurance company. When you’re ready to make that call, use the number on the back of your card for better results—don’t run an internet search. 

If you’ve already looked up potential therapists, Cook recommends asking your insurance company: “Where is the list of providers in network?” or reading them your list so they can verify who is and isn’t in network. Also ask: “What is my deductible?” or “Do I have a deductible?” she says, as this is the amount you are typically responsible for paying before your coverage kicks in. You can also ask if you will owe a copay, and how many sessions will be covered—Cook warns that some insurers put a lifetime cap on how many sessions they will cover. 

You can also ask a therapist you really want to work with if they’d be willing to get “paneled” with your insurance, though Cook warns this cumbersome process is part of the system-wide access problem. For one insurance company, it has taken her seven months so far to get in-network, despite their promises of expediency.

But that expense itself shouldn’t deter you from seeking help, Cook says. If you know somebody who works in mental health, reach out to see if they can guide you in any way or connect you with useful resources, she says. Also, bring up your cost concerns with the therapist—they may do pro-bono work, and/or have sliding scales based on income.

[Related: Nature saves us trillions of dollars in health care costs]

If you still can’t find affordable help, Cook recommends looking for a workbook on the specific issue you are dealing with, such as anxiety or addiction, to hold you over until you can see a therapist. She recommends Retrain Your Brain: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in 7 Weeks, by Seth J. Gillihan, to patients with anxiety, for example. You may also want to try looking for therapists on Open Path Psychotherapy Collective’s website—Open Path is a nonprofit focused on helping people find mental health care at reduced rates. And there are cognitive behavior therapy apps that can help you work through difficult thoughts too, though not all are effective.

“I’ve had a few clients who’ve said, ‘I want to see someone in person—I live alone and need that human interaction,’” Cook says. Delaney notes that some therapy-seekers, such as children, might have to be in-person in some cases. 

“Older people, or people who don’t have a driver’s license [might need a ride]. We have really crappy public transportation,” Delaney says. “Don’t be afraid to ask for help.” Some public agencies will help with medical appointment transportation, and Medicaid in some states will cover cab fare for psychotherapy, he says. Start by asking your insurer if any of these options are available, but also ask the therapist how other clients with this issue are working it out. 

And we can’t stress this enough: Because these hurdles can seem insurmountable to someone in a mental health crisis or emergency, and therapy can take a while to start, if you are experiencing a mental health emergency, you should visit the nearest emergency room, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255, or text the Crisis Text Line immediately.

The post Finding a therapist can be overwhelming, but these tips can help appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Soomi Lee is an assistant professor of Aging Studies, University of South Florida. This story originally featured on The Conversation.

Fewer than one-fifth of Americans say they actually experienced a midlife crisis. And yet there are still some common misunderstandings people have about midlife.

I study midlife, and especially how people in this stage of life experience sleep and stress. In my research, I have also found that midlife brings both opportunities and challenges.

Are we there yet?

Exactly when midlife begins is hard to pin down. Compared with other developmental periods – like childhood, adolescence and older adulthood – midlife lasts longer and includes more diverse social roles. There are fewer published studies on midlife than studies on childhood and older adulthood. So researchers still know little about the timing and unique experiences of this stage of life.

Midlife may begin at different times for different people.

In the 1990s, people generally agreed that midlife begins at age 35. This has shifted toward an older age. Now Americans might say midlife begins at age 44 and ends by 60. An increased life expectancy and medical advances may have contributed to this shift.

Today’s adults are living longer and healthier lives than previous generations. Also, the demands of establishing a career while building a family have increased. That’s why some researchers have started referring to the period occurring roughly from age 30 to 45 as “established adulthood,” distinguishing it from midlife as it was previously understood.

Chronological age is only one way to define the beginning of midlife. Psychologist Margie Lachman emphasizes looking at certain life transitions and social roles that commonly occur in midlife as a way of coming up with a definition.

So many roles, so little time

Midlife is a time when individuals occupy the greatest number of social roles. The average US adult in midlife typically has four key roles – paid worker or homemaker; spouse or partner; parent; and adult child. Having multiple roles may provide more opportunities to build resources such as income, self-esteem, relationships and success. But people must also divide their time and energy across these multiple roles.

Risk factors for later-life diseases also show up in midlife. Slower metabolism, weight gain and hormonal changes are common. Also, women experience menopause, which involves hot flashes and emotional ups and downs. Men in midlife are more likely than younger men and women to develop sleep apnea.

All these factors are closely related to sleep, so it’s no surprise to find poor sleep among midlife adults. Sleeping less than six hours a night, getting poor-quality sleep and other sleep issues are prevalent.

Sleep, stress, happiness

Age-related physical changes are not the only threat to sleep, however. The struggle of midlife adults to juggle multiple often incompatible roles also causes stress. Stress has negative consequences on sleep, such as chronic insomnia. What’s worse: Stress can result from poor sleep. So sleeping poorly or being stressed out can create a vicious cycle and cascading health problems.

Both sleep and stress affect emotions, so you might expect low levels of happiness in midlife. Research backs this up. Fewer people are happy during midlife than older and younger groups. Yet it is important to note that midlife also involves growth, including peaks in work productivity, better financial decision-making and greater wisdom.

Although researchers have been able to identify overall patterns of degraded sleep, increased stress and lower happiness in midlife, experiences vary from person to person. For some people, there may be more growth than decline, or a balance of both. Indeed, some research shows that personal growth is related to well-being during midlife.

For now, it is already clear that midlife is a pivotal time that determines the trajectory of aging. That’s why self-care during midlife is especially important, despite the busy schedules brought on by a greater number of roles. It’s hard to overemphasize the value of getting enough sleep and managing stress. Doing these things could help individuals turn a “midlife crisis” into “midlife potential.”

The post The secret to avoiding a midlife crisis appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Crisis Text Line, a messaging service that uses technology and human volunteers to provide mental health support, has ended its controversial data-sharing relationship with Loris.ai, a for-profit spinoff from the nonprofit’s founder, Nancy Lublin. In a blog post Monday evening, Crisis Text Line cited their “community’s concerns” as the impetus for the policy change, alluding to the backlash it has received from privacy experts, politicians, and the public since Politico examined the arrangement last week.

Crisis Text Line purports to provide free, round-the-clock, and confidential messaging. The service utilizes machine learning to identify keywords and sort messages based on their perceived urgency. But in order to speak with a Crisis Text Line counselor, Politico found that users previously had to give consent for their anonymized data to be shared with Loris, a customer service software company that launched in 2021. TechCrunch previously described Loris as a training platform to help companies prepare for and handle difficult conversations, like heated customer service confrontations, using “the learnings of Crisis Text Line.” Along with having the same founder, Crisis Text Line holds an ownership stake in Loris, Politico says.  

Multiple privacy experts shared their concerns with Politico over the data sharing policy employed by Crisis Text Line, questioning whether users were actually aware of the arrangement and noting the difficulty in scrubbing personal data to the point of being truly unrecognizable.

[Related: Mental wellness apps are basically the Wild West of therapy]

“These are people at their worst moments. Using that data to help other people is one thing, but commercializing it just seems like a real ethical line for a nonprofit to cross,” Jennifer King, a privacy and data policy fellow at Stanford University, told Politico. The report also notes that Crisis Text Line has worked with schools, local governments, tech companies, and shares its data through its research collaboration program.  

In an open letter and series of tweets, Crisis Text Line responded that its relationship with Loris has always been public and affirmed its confidence in the company’s ability to anonymize data. “We do not share personally identifiable information with Loris.ai or any other company,” the letter says. 

Still, the arrangement continued to receive criticism over the weekend, and on Monday, Brendan Carr, Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sent a letter requesting the nonprofit end the arrangement “to preserve the integrity of mental health hotlines.” (The FCC helps administer the The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, which is “distinct from the services offered by the Crisis Text Line,” Carr says in the letter). Later that evening, Crisis Text Line posted the blog announcing that change, along with an updated Terms of Service & Privacy Policy page. 

“We understand that you don’t want Crisis Text Line to share any data with Loris, even though the data is handled securely, anonymized and scrubbed of personally identifiable information,” the post reads. “As a result, we have ended our data-sharing relationship with Loris. This change includes our request that Loris delete the data it has received from Crisis Text Line.”

The post One of the biggest suicide prevention hotlines amends its data-sharing practices appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Richard Huskey is an assistant professor of Communication and Cognitive Science, University of California, Davis. This op-ed originally featured on The Conversation.

New years often come with new resolutions. Get back in shape. Read more. Make more time for friends and family. My list of resolutions might not look quite the same as yours, but each of our resolutions represents a plan for something new, or at least a little bit different. As you craft your 2022 resolutions, I hope that you will add one that is also on my list: feel more flow.

Psychologist Mihály Csíkszentmihályi’s research on flow started in the 1970s. He has called it the “secret to happiness.” Flow is a state of “optimal experience” that each of us can incorporate into our everyday lives. One characterized by immense joy that makes a life worth living.

In the years since, researchers have gained a vast store of knowledge about what it is like to be in flow and how experiencing it is important for our overall mental health and well-being. In short, we are completely absorbed in a highly rewarding activity—and not in our inner monologues—when we feel flow.

I am an assistant professor of communication and cognitive science, and I have been studying flow for the last 10 years. My research lab investigates what is happening in our brains when people experience flow. Our goal is to better understand how the experience happens and to make it easier for people to feel flow and its benefits.

What it is like to be in flow?

People often say flow is like “being in the zone.” Psychologists Jeanne Nakamura and Csíkszentmihályi describe it as something more. When people feel flow, they are in a state of intense concentration. Their thoughts are focused on an experience rather than on themselves. They lose a sense of time and feel as if there is a merging of their actions and their awareness. That they have control over the situation. That the experience is not physically or mentally taxing.

Most importantly, flow is what researchers call an autotelic experience. Autotelic derives from two Greek words: autos (self) and telos (end or goal). Autotelic experiences are things that are worth doing in and of themselves. Researchers sometimes call these intrinsically rewarding experiences. Flow experiences are intrinsically rewarding.

What causes flow?

Flow occurs when a task’s challenge is balanced with one’s skill. In fact, both the task challenge and skill level have to be high. I often tell my students that they will not feel flow when they are doing the dishes. Most people are highly skilled dishwashers, and washing dishes is not a very challenging task.

So when do people experience flow? Csíkszentmihályi’s research in the 1970s focused on people doing tasks they enjoyed. He studied swimmers, music composers, chess players, dancers, mountain climbers, and other athletes. He went on to study how people can find flow in more everyday experiences. I am an avid snowboarder, and I regularly feel flow on the mountain. Other people feel it by practicing yoga—not me, unfortunately—by riding their bike, cooking, or going for a run. So long as that task’s challenge is high, and so are your skills, you should be able to achieve flow.

Researchers also know that people can experience flow by using interactive media, like playing a video game. In fact, Csíkszentmihályi said that “games are obvious flow activities, and play is the flow experience par excellence.” Video game developers are very familiar with the idea, and they think hard about how to design games so that players feel flow.

Why is it good to feel flow?

Earlier I said that Csíkszentmihályi called flow “the secret to happiness.” Why is that? For one thing, the experience can help people pursue their long-term goals. This is because research shows that taking a break to do something fun can help enhance one’s self-control, goal pursuit, and well-being.

So next time you are feeling like a guilty couch potato for playing a video game, remind yourself that you are actually doing something that can help set you up for long-term success and well-being. Importantly, quality—and not necessarily quantity—matters. Research shows that spending a lot of time playing video games only has a very small influence on your overall well-being. Focus on finding games that help you feel flow, rather than on spending more time playing games.

A recent study also shows that flow helps people stay resilient in the face of adversity. Part of this is because flow can help refocus thoughts away from something stressful to something enjoyable. In fact, studies have shown that experiencing flow can help guard against depression and burnout.

Research also shows that people who experienced stronger feelings of flow had better well-being during the COVID-19 quarantine compared to people who had weaker experiences. This might be because feeling flow helped distract them from worrying.

What is your brain doing during flow?

Researchers have been studying flow for nearly 50 years, but only recently have they begun to decipher what is going on in the brain during flow. One of my colleagues, media neuroscientist René Weber, has proposed that flow is associated with a specific brain-network configuration.

Supporting Weber’s hypothesis, studies show that the experience is associated with activity in brain structures implicated in feeling reward and pursuing our goals. This may be one reason why flow feels so enjoyable and why people are so focused on tasks that make them feel flow. Research also shows that flow is associated with decreased activity in brain structures implicated in self-focus. This may help explain why feeling flow can help distract people from worry.

Weber, Jacob Fisher, and I have developed a video game called Asteroid Impact to help us better study flow. In my own research, I have participants play Asteroid Impact while having their brain scanned. My work has shown that flow is associated with a specific brain network configuration that has low energy requirements. This may help explain why we do not experience flow as being physically or mentally demanding. I have also shown that, instead of maintaining one stable network configuration, the brain actually changes its network configuration during flow. This is important because rapid brain network reconfiguration helps people adapt to difficult tasks.

What more can the brain tell us?

Right now, researchers do not know how brain responses associated with flow contribute to well-being. With very few exceptions, there is almost no research on how brain responses actually cause flow. Every neuroscience study I described earlier was correlational, not causal. Said differently, we can conclude that these brain responses are associated with flow. We cannot conclude that these brain responses cause flow.

Researchers think the connection between flow and well-being has something to do with three things: suppressing brain activation in structures associated with thinking about ourselves, dampening activation in structures associated with negative thoughts, and increasing activation in reward-processing regions.

I’d argue that testing this hypothesis is vital. Medical professionals have started to use video games in clinical applications to help treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD. Maybe one day a clinician will be able to help prescribe a Food and Drug Adminstration-approved video game to help bolster someone’s resilience or help them fight off depression.

That is probably several years into the future, if it is even possible at all. Right now, I hope that you will resolve to find more flow in your everyday life. You may find that this helps you achieve your other resolutions, too.

The post The feeling of ‘flow’ is surprisingly scientific appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Digital therapy is here to stay. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, therapy apps were already starting to gain popularity amongst people struggling with issues ranging from stress to serious mental illness. When offices went virtual, they secured their spot in the mental health space. While some applications like Talkspace and Betterhelp connect you with a licensed therapist, a substantial portion of the market has gone fully humanless. Friendly chatbots offer cognitive behavioral therapy; mood trackers prompt users with bipolar disorder to monitor their disposition; apps designed to help treat post-traumatic stress disorder claim to guide people through acute episodes with deep breathing exercises. 

The new technology has the potential to help people without regular mental healthcare recognize and manage symptoms of mental illness. That’s a huge benefit at a time when mental healthcare is virtually unobtainable for around half of Americans living with mental illness, says Jason Moehringer, a clinical director at ClearView Communities, a residential treatment facility for people with serious mental illness, and co-founder of PsyberGuide, a website that provides evidence-based reviews of mental health applications. Apps can provide many things that traditional therapy often cannot: They are usually cheaper and they don’t require a commute to an office. Some studies suggest that select applications can be effective treatments for mental illness. At the same time, experts are concerned about the rapidly growing and unregulated market for these apps. 

With no regulatory body actively vetting mental health apps, users are left to navigate an explosion of options that range from expert-recommended to potentially harmful. “Many claims are made that may or may not accurately reflect what these products actually offer,” Moehringer says, “It’s the wild west.”

The “Psyber” Boom

The market for mental health applications (also known as “mHealth”) has grown at a shocking pace, says John Torous, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Mental health apps have been around as long as the devices that offer them, but starting in 2016, the digital tools exploded both in number and popularity. Today there are approximately 10,000 to 20,000 mental health apps available, according to the American Psychological Association. And the COVID-19 pandemic has likely given the market an added boost, Torous adds. Over the past year, Americans have only become more receptive to the idea of using technology to care for their health. 

[Related: Meditation isn’t always calming. For a select few, it may lead to psychosis.]

Despite the mHealth apps’ newly found popularity and ubiquity, not all mental healthcare providers are onboard with their use. When designed properly, these technologies have been shown to help their users’ mental health and wellbeing. For example, in 2017, Torous and an international team of psychologists compiled data on the efficacy of 22 different smartphone apps. All the data they pooled came from randomized controlled trials, the gold standard of scientific evidence, which randomizes participants into a treatment or no-treatment group. Their results, published in the journal World Psychiatry, found that, overall, the smartphone apps they assessed helped people feel moderately less depressed. Other analyses have found similar results. Mental health apps can help people feel less anxious, reduce schizophrenia symptoms, and even stop smoking. 

Some of the studies Torous and his colleagues analyzed even suggested that mHealth apps might be as or more effective than in-person therapy, though Torous said this last finding should be taken with a grain of salt. A body of work published since 2017 suggests that these apps work best when combined with in-person therapy. Plus, he adds, these clinical studies aren’t totally generalizable to the average app user’s experience. For example, trial participants might be more motivated to participate in an mHealth treatment program. The average user, in comparison, tends to stick with an mHealth app for around two weeks, Torous says.  

And for people who do need more hands-on treatment, mHealth can help guide them towards in-person therapy. “It can provide such a great foot in the door,” says Colleen Stiles-Shields, a professor of psychiatry at Rush University Medical Center. After all, seeking mental health treatment is still laden with stigma. An app can be an easy and discreet first step. 

There’s a catch: The number of mental health apps vetted by scientists pales in comparison to the plethora that are out there. And it’s nearly impossible to distinguish what’s legit from what’s not. 

“The Wild West” of digital health apps

Technically, mHealth apps that provide treatment advice are considered medical devices by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). But, in general, app developers can make treatment claims without going through the FDA because the regulatory agency exercises what’s called “regulatory discretion” with regards to mHealth apps. Because the risks associated with using the apps are relatively low,  the FDA takes a laissez faire approach towards the mHealth market. If a particularly harmful app came to the agency’s attention, the FDA would have the power to take the app down from the various app stores. In practice, though, the sheer volume of applications and limited capacity of the FDA means that many apps make unsubstantiated claims and get away with it, Torous says. “No one seems to be checking the veracity of their claims,” he wrote in a text message.

In a review of 52 apps for anxiety, an international team of psychologists found that sixty-seven percent had been developed without any guidance from a healthcare professional. In another review of apps for anxiety, scientists found that out of the 25 highest-rated apps for anxiety, exactly zero contained any content consistent with evidence-based treatments. 

Literally anyone can develop and market one of these apps, Moehringer says. “It’s difficult for professionals to tell the difference sometimes, much less prospective consumers who are just looking for some relief,” he adds. 

Some of the advice offered by these apps can be downright harmful. A 2015 review published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, which analyzed the quality of mHealth apps, found that one app (the study didn’t call any apps by name) for bipolar disorder advised users experiencing a manic episode to “take a shot of hard liquor” to help them fall asleep. Another app cautioned that “sometimes bipolar disorder can transfer to another relative if they spend too much time with you and listen to your depressive life.” 

Torous is also concerned about data privacy. Many mHealth apps collect sensitive mental-health data to sell for ad-revenue, Torous says. “The biggest potential risk of this is the unknown. What’s going to happen to your data in the future?” he says. In 2020, hackers attacked mental health clinic Vastaamo, which had backed up all of its client data digitally, and demanded ransom from an estimated 30,000 current and former patients, threatening to leak their notes from therapy. Torous worries that data from mHealth apps could be similarly vulnerable.

[Related: Are hyperbaric chambers really a fountain of youth?]

In 2012, Moehringer began working at the non-profit Psyberguide, which offers objective and evidence-based reviews of mHealth apps. He and two other psychologists trawled through the app store and tested mHealth apps, investigating data privacy, whether the developers had consulted experts and included evidence-based content. At times, it was frustrating work. He was reviewing hundreds of apps, and he knew his contribution was only a drop in the bucket. As the technology transformed, the organization didn’t have the funding to keep up. Psyberguide keeps churning away, but not quickly enough to include a comprehensive and up-to-date portrait of the market, experts say. 

It’s unlikely that mHealth apps will ever overtake therapy, Torous says. Research suggests that most people are open to using these apps, but would prefer to meet with a mental healthcare professional in-person. Still, when choosing apps, Torous recommends taking a cautious approach. Websites like Mindapps.org offer information on hundreds of apps, including data privacy.  Users trying to determine whether an app is effective and evidence-based should skip doing their own internet research, Torous says. “It’s increasingly difficult to tell if an app is effective,” he says. Additionally, he says, many app developers run their own studies, which is a conflict of interest. Instead, he recommends going to a medical professional, like a physician or psychologist, and see what they recommend. At the very least, a professional can take a look at the app and make sure that it’s consistent with evidence-based treatments.

Ultimately, this work of indexing and vetting mHealth apps should fall on app stores or government regulatory agencies, not small nonprofits, Moehringer says. Marketplaces could require app developers to submit their product for verification in order to make claims about mental health or wellness, he says. At the very least, they could require developers to work with the guidance of a licensed professional. Moehringer doesn’t see that happening in the near future. Regulation would almost certainly eliminate most health apps while dramatically increasing development costs. As a result, the FDA faces pressure to stay out of the app market, he says. Moehringer thinks a pared-down market and higher barrier to entry for developers would be a good thing. “We have various boards monitoring all kinds of medical interventions,” he adds. “I don’t see a reason why that model couldn’t be repeated here.”

The post Mental wellness apps are basically the Wild West of therapy appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The COVID-19 pandemic has breathed new life into a 160-year-old rivalry. Science skeptics are flocking toward a fringe set of beliefs called “terrain theory,” an ideology that ranges from total denial of the existence of viruses and bacteria to the belief that lifestyle choices alone force otherwise benevolent microbes to transform into pathogens. The central gist is that the body’s “terrain,” not germs, creates disease—reasoning that offers legitimacy to skeptics of masks and vaccines. In the Facebook group “Terrain Model Refutes Germ Theory,” which has grown from 147 followers to 20,700 since the beginning of the pandemic, one member who tested positive for COVID-19 speculated that he fell ill because he broke his ankle. Another member argued that “measles is a developmental cleansing.” 

Followers of this movement have chosen an unlikely martyr: Antoine Béchamp, a French chemist and underdog who died with little recognition for his accomplishments, still bitter toward his arch-rival, Louis Pasteur. Béchamp was the father of terrain theory. Scientists and historians say his ideas weren’t totally wrong—but somewhere along the way, fueled by the conviction that Béchamp was unfairly ignored, an entire pseudoscience movement has cropped up around his discoveries.

Béchamp vs. Pasteur: an enduring rivalry

As a historical figure, Louis Pasteur is renowned. Not only did the 19th-century French chemist help discover that microbes cause infectious disease, but his research also taught us how to prevent illnesses. The first scientist to grow weakened versions of bacteria, he laid the groundwork for modern vaccination. And every time you buy a pint of pasteurized milk or wine, you can thank Pasteur—he discovered that heating liquids prevents their contamination. Some historians have honored him as the “father of microbiology” and one of the fathers of germ theory. 

[Related: Probiotics are more hype than science]

At the time of his discoveries, Pasteur was France’s golden child. The scientist had everything: a huge lab, funding from the French government, the best equipment around. He was lauded for his discoveries, says Thomas Laqueur, a historian of medicine at the University of California, Berkeley. “Whatever he said was held to be true,” Laqueur explains. But Pasteur was unwilling to share the spotlight—he wasn’t the type of scientist to credit others for their ideas In summary? “He was not a generous guy,” Laqueur says.

Pasteur’s star status earned him at least one enemy. On paper, he and Antoine Béchamp had a lot in common: Both were born around the same time in early 19th-century France, and both began their careers not as doctors or biologists, but as chemists studying fermentation. And that’s where their rivalry began. 

In 1857, Pasteur announced the remarkable discovery that we can thank tiny organisms for fermentation, upturning the previous belief that chemical changes, like food spoiling, happened spontaneously. There was only one problem: Béchamp had already made a similar discovery—or so he claimed. You see, he hadn’t actually published that finding. But Pasteur’s discovery incensed Béchamp. Pasteur’s increasing acclaim only rubbed salt into the wound, Laqueur says. Béchamp didn’t receive the funding, equipment, or acclaim that Pasteur did. On top of that, the poor guy just had a rough life. “He lost his kids. He lost his wife,” Laqueur adds. “They hate each other because [Béchamp] got beaten by this star.”

Experts today acknowledge that the chemists likely came to their conclusions independently, according to a 2007 article published in the South African Journal of Science. But the two rivals didn’t acknowledge that possibility. Instead, at meetings and conferences, accusations of plagiarism were lobbed in both directions. “They hated one another,” Laqueur says.

It didn’t take the rivals long to jump from chemical reactions to illness, and that’s where their ideas veered in different directions. When Pasteur began to develop a theory of infectious disease, Béchamp called it “the greatest scientific silliness of the age,” according to the same article in the South African Journal of Science. In response, he developed what he later called “terrain theory,” which looked quite different from the modern movement. He believed that microorganisms are essentially benign, and that pathogens emerge when structures inside our cells, called microzymes, transform into bacteria in response to unhealthy environmental conditions—like tiny Dr. Jekylls transforming into Mr. Hydes. In other words, he believed that disease causes pathogens, and not the reverse.

The truths and mistruths of terrain theory

Let’s be clear: No reputable scientist today refutes germ theory. “Germ theory is a basic understanding that has held up wonderfully for well over a century now,” says John Swartzberg, a physician and expert in infectious disease also at the University of California, Berkeley. “Really, there’s nothing to controvert that.” When a vaccine eradicated smallpox, we saw germ theory at work. When antibiotics made previously deadly childhood infections like strep throat easily treatable, that was another win for germ theory. 

[Related: How to tell science from pseudoscience]

That said, in a few small ways, Béchamp was correct. For instance, it’s true that the vast majority of microorganisms are benign, and often even critical to our survival. “Only a small handful of bacteria are what we call primary pathogens, meaning if we get exposed to them, they have a good chance of causing disease,” Swartzberg says. Another kernel of truth: environment, or “terrain,” does matter, and even pathogenic bacteria don’t cause disease in everyone. You don’t have to look far for a clear example. For reasons not totally understood, an estimated 35 percent of people infected with COVID-19 don’t get sick, according to a recent analysis published in the journal PNAS. Factors that seem to play a role in whether a person develops symptoms include age, underlying medical conditions, whether someone smokes, and even their sex—all of which you could argue affect terrain. But these ideas aren’t a smoking gun held by the medical establishment; to the contrary, they fit neatly within germ theory, which doesn’t claim that all germs cause disease.

Plus, the majority of Béchamp’s ideas were totally wrong. There is no scientific basis to the idea that microzymes lie dormant in human cells, waiting to turn into pathogens, Swartzberg says. More fanciful still—and more dangerous—is the modern interpretation of the chemist’s ideas. 

“[Béchamp] seems to offer some historical legitimacy to the view that what matters is diet, healthful living, and a whole bunch of life-style factors,” Laqueur writes in an email. One member of “Terrain Model Refutes Germ Theory” suggested that it was sugar and alcohol, and not disease, that killed an estimated 90 percent of Native Americans after the arrival of Europeans. Commenters on another post offered advice to a mother whose young adult daughter had just learned she had HPV and an irregular pap-smear with suggestions like detoxing, switching her daughter to a fruitarian diet, and never getting a pap-smear again. This extrapolation of one concept into something completely different is a common theme in pseudoscientific movements, Swartzberg says: “People will take a kernel of truth and then build a whole idea around it that has no scientific nor historically plausible basis for it.” 

The role of the human psyche

While much has been made about the spread of misinformation, movements like terrain theory have less to do with ignorance than they do with distrust, says Gabriele Contessa, a social epistemologist specializing in public distrust in science at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. Some of that skepticism is justified, Contessa says. There are indeed scientists and corporations that have alternately suppressed or ghostwritten scientific results to cast their work in a more favorable light. Marginalized groups have historically experienced systematic mistreatment by the scientific and medical establishments. Members of these same marginalized groups often also experience gaslighting when they visit doctors with legitimate concerns. These events and experiences sow distrust in sound science, Contessa says. And it doesn’t help that during the pandemic, US politicians have very deliberately launched campaigns to undermine the credibility of experts, he adds.

Equally important is the sense of identity and community that people find in these movements, Contessa says. He calls this search “desperate.” A profound sense of powerlessness and disenfranchisement—feelings only amplified by the pandemic—fosters deep cynicism. “That makes you want to stick to those who see the world like you,” he explains. Once people join a movement, it’s hard for them to change their views—to question any aspect of the pseudoscience is to risk ostracism from the community. “If you start objecting, and you start saying, ‘Look, there is something that doesn’t really add up here,’ you’re immediately blacklisted as somebody who is not a true believer,” Contessa says. This dynamic is evident in terrain theory Facebook groups, where members shout down doubtful or confused commenters. 

[Related: These urologists are setting the record straight about penises and COVID]

For members of the modern terrain theory movement, Pasteur represents the medical and political establishment they so distrust. In some ways, this is confounding to historians and scientists alike. After all, Pasteur was only one member of a whole group of scientists who developed the germ theory of disease—and he wasn’t even the most important member, at that. (That honor arguably goes to Robert Koch, a German scientist who developed a set of criteria to prove that a specific organism causes a disease, Swartzberg says.) Similarly, Béchamp wasn’t the only figure to object to germ theory. “I’m not sure why this binary argument has come up as Pasteur versus Béchamp. It doesn’t make much sense to me,” Swartzberg says. 

It does make a little sense to Laqueur. In some ways, the character Pasteur plays in the modern terrain theory movement is an echo of the past. “Pasteur was the darling of the Third Republic and of French imperialists,” Laqueur writes in an email. “Béchamp and his latter-day supporters object to germ theory from an individualistic perspective and from a distrust of the state.” Then and now, politics and science remain tightly intertwined, the former influencing the credibility of the latter. In contrast, Béchamp, whose obituary simply read “his name was associated with bygone controversies of which it would be unprofitable to recall,” is viewed as an underdog, justly sticking it to the establishment, Laqueur says.

It all comes down to a good story: the powerful versus the powerless, the lone wolf versus the sheep. It just so happens that the “sheep” of this story had ideas that turned out to be more correct—and saved lives. But for those who identify with the underdog, that doesn’t matter. Science maps onto the story we tell ourselves. 

The post This pseudoscience movement wants to wipe germs from existence appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This post has been updated. It was originally published on September 18, 2020.

Even with gyms reopening at limited capacity, it’s still safer to exercise at home or outdoors. Check out our other Muscle Month to help you keep up your fitness, power, and health in socially distant times.

—

It’s no secret that your bodily health depends on your mental health and vice versa. While lack of exercise might emphasize feelings of depression and anxiety, squeezing into your workout gear can lead to lots of benefits, like a rush of happy endorphins and a distraction from your daily worries. Over time, active people tend to be more confident and social, according to the Mayo Clinic.

Hillary Cauthen, a psychologist and board member of the Association for Applied Sport Psychology, calls exercise a form of “consistent coping,” which keeps our minds resilient and prepared for any stress or difficulties life may throw at us. But the type of exercise also makes a difference on the individual level, Cauthen says.

“Any movement is wonderful for your natural boost,” she explains. “But when you dive a little bit deeper into where you hold tension or what you’re struggling with, you can adapt those workouts, and that increases the motivation to sustain [an active lifestyle]”.

Here are two of Cauthen’s tips on choosing a workout that best supports your mental health needs in the short and long run.

Be mindful while working out

It’s true that high-intensity workouts can give you cathartic release through a rush of positive emotions and clarity. But it’s also important to take the time to check in with your emotions, Cauthen says, and choose an activity that matches your status quo. If you’re feeling anxious, think an exercise like yoga or pilates that helps you center yourself and focus mainly on breathing. If your mind is running in circles, dipping down rabbit holes, and seeing the worst in every scenario, Cauthen says these activities can be incredibly helpful.

Refocusing your mind by being concentrating your energy on form, poses, and breathing can help rewire your brain to handle stress more effectively, she says. In fact, meditation has been shown to trigger neurotransmitters that help handle anxiety.

If you’re the type of person who only likes high-intensity fitness, try pairing the physical release with some other form of mental escape. Cauthen suggests reflective journaling after an intense run or boxing session to distill your emotions and figure out why you needed that escape in the first place. Even a meditative stretching session or walk can help you come to terms with the things you’re running from or fighting in the form of a workout.

[Related: Is Gatorade actually better than water?]

Mix it up to avoid mental monotony

Exercise isn’t a magic pill for your problems, so don’t think that working out every day won’t safeguard you from negative events or feelings (it’s actually pretty common for athletes to get depressed). But by switching up your workout routine, daily or weekly, you can eliminate some of the tedium.

Whether you’re a swimmer working on your stroke count or soccer player perfecting your footwork, getting out of the pool and off the field is a good way to both exercises and strengthen your mental health. Luckily, there are tons of ways to diversify the way you get in shape—and they all don’t give the same results.

For example, if your workout of choice is going for a run or grunting through a HIIT class, maybe throw in a more soothing pilates session once in a while to balance out the rush with self-reflection. Or if you’re prone to working out on your own, switch that up by flexing your social muscles at an outdoor fitness club.

If taking the leap to a totally new form of exercise stresses you out, simply add some spice to your morning jog or walk. Cauthen suggests taking out your headphones and focusing on your surroundings while you’re outside to bring yourself into a completely new mental space. Even shifting a single sense can work out your brain in a different—and good—way.

When you’re feeling down or depressed, you might find yourself slinking into a routine that keeps you feeling lonely and down. That could include exercise as well. So, Cauthen says, activating your brain to focus on how you’re feeling while steering yourself away from monotony can make your workouts more fulfilling on both the physical and mental end. After all, being fit is only one part of having a full and happy life.

The post How to work out for your mental health appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Rosie Shrout is an assistant professor of Human Development and Family Studies, Purdue University. This story originally featured on The Conversation.

With the flurry of shopping, spending money and traveling to see family, stress can feel inevitable during the holidays.

You might already know stress can affect your own health, but what you may not realize is that your stress—and how you manage it—is catching. Your stress can spread around, particularly to your loved ones.

As a social-health psychologist, I have developed a model on how partners and their stress influence each other’s psychological and biological health. Through that and my other research, I’ve learned that the quality of intimate relationships is crucial to people’s health.

Here’s just a sample: Relationship stress can alter the immune, endocrine, and cardiovascular systems. A study of newlyweds found levels of stress hormones were higher when couples were hostile during a conflict—that is, when they were critical, sarcastic, spoke with an unpleasant tone, and used aggravating facial expressions, like eyerolls.

Likewise, in another study, people in hostile relationships had slower wound healing, higher inflammation, higher blood pressure ,and greater heart rate changes during conflict. Middle-aged and older men had higher blood pressure at times when their wives reported greater stress. And partners who felt they weren’t being cared-for or understood had poorer well-being and higher mortality rates 10 years later when compared with those who felt more cared-for and appreciated by their partners.

Conflict and cortisol

Cortisol is a hormone that plays a key role in the body’s stress response. Cortisol has a diurnal rhythm, so its levels are usually highest soon after waking and then gradually decline during the day. But chronic stress can lead to unhealthy cortisol patterns, such as low cortisol levels upon waking or cortisol not tapering off much by the end of the day. These patterns are associated with an increase in disease development and mortality risks.

My colleagues and I found that conflict altered cortisol levels of couples on the day they had a dispute; people with stressed partners who used negative behaviors during the conflict had higher cortisol levels even four hours after the conflict ended.

These findings suggest that arguing with a partner who is already stressed could have lasting biological health effects for ourselves.

Managing stress

Here are three ways you can reduce the stress in your relationship, during and after the holidays.

First, talk to and validate each other. Tell your partner you understand their feelings. Talk about big and little things before they escalate. Sometimes partners hide problems to protect each other, but this can actually make things worse. Share your feelings, and when your partner shares in return, don’t interrupt. Remember, feeling cared-for and understood by a partner is good for your emotional well-being and promotes healthier cortisol patterns, so being there for each other and listening to each other can have good health effects for both you and your partner.

Next, show your love. Hug each other, hold hands and be kind. This too lowers cortisol and can make you feel happier. One study found that a satisfying relationship can even help improve vaccination response.

Then remind yourself that you’re part of a team. Brainstorm solutions, be each other’s cheerleaders and celebrate the wins together. Couples who unite to tackle stress are healthier and more satisfied with their relationships. Some examples: Make dinner or run errands when your partner is stressed; relax and reminisce together; or try a new restaurant, dance or exercise class together.

That said, it’s also true that sometimes these steps aren’t enough. Many couples will still need help managing stress and overcoming difficulties. Couples therapy helps partners learn to communicate and resolve conflicts effectively. It’s critical to be proactive and seek help from someone who is trained to deal with ongoing relationship difficulties.

So this holiday season, tell your partner that you’re there for them, preferably while you’re hugging. Take each other’s stress seriously, and no more eyerolls. It’s not so much the stress itself; it’s the way that both of you manage the stress together. Working as an open and honest team is the key ingredient to a healthy and happy relationship, during holiday season and into the new year.

The post 3 ways to protect your relationship from end-of-the-year stress appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

When Blair Lewis, a wildland firefighter based in Eugene, Oregon, was deployed to fight a fire in Montana, she never expected to be gone for two months. A normal deployment for a firefighter lasts two weeks. But again and again, she was asked to stay, until eight weeks had passed with just five days off. “None of us expected to ever be out there that long or be away from home or family for that long,” Lewis said. 

During that time, she worked twelve-hour days. At one point, encroaching flames forced her and her crew up a hill and into a safety zone where 120-foot flames towered just 400 feet from them. She watched as flames engulfed a home, helpless to do anything about it. For the first time, she was fighting fires at the interface between wildlands and residential areas, events that have increased in recent years due to a number of factors: a growing number of homes built near forests, policies around forest management that emphasize fire suppression, and climate change. When she returned to Eugene in September, she was absolutely depleted.

The months following her deployment were surreal. Lewis wasn’t sure what to do with herself after weeks and weeks of non-stop adrenaline, so she kept herself busy by sleeping, doing laundry, and spending time with her dog. Her social group had also changed: Except for those who also fight fires, none of her friends really understand what she went through, and one friendship fell apart entirely. Overall, Lewis is okay, but she recognizes the toll the season took on her.

More than half of the 20 largest fires in California history and eight of the top 20 fires in Oregon took place in the past four years. The number of “fire-weather days”—when hot, dry, and windy air combine to create the perfect conditions for a wildfire—have increased throughout the west over the past four decades, in some places tripling. More homes and communities are involved, which adds an additional layer of stress for firefighters, some of whom feel responsible or even guilty when they’re unable to stop fire from burning down homes and businesses. During the Carr and Camp fires, firefighters took phone calls from people trapped in their homes as fire encroached. “​​We weren’t seeing whole towns burnt down in the past,” says Patricia O’Brien, a former wildland firefighter and clinical psychologist based in Portland, Oregon. “The stakes are higher today.”

As fire seasons intensify, the chronic stress involved in controlling them is harming the mental health of wildland firefighters. Fire season used to last for four months out of the year. Now it’s year-round. “I can never relax,” a firefighter told researchers for a 2019 qualitative study on the mental health of wildland firefighters. “We go 56 hours without sleep during [the] initial attack which leads to not only fatigue, but paranoia. I used to sleep on the line, but now if you sleep, your crew might die.” 

Data on wildland firefighters, those who fight wildfires as opposed to fires that burn buildings and other manmade structures, is limited. But some research suggests that rates of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and substance abuse are between two and 10 times higher in wildland firefighters compared to the general population. Firefighters have one of the highest suicide rates of any occupational group, and that risk may be even higher among wildland firefighters, the results of a 2018 study published in the journal Psychiatry Research suggested. The study, which analyzed data on 1,131 firefighters, found that 15 percent of wildland firefighters had attempted suicide, compared to 4 percent of structural firefighters ( who typically work in urban or residential areas). 

While structural firefighters work year-round, usually receive a salary, and go home at night, wildland firefighters are considered seasonal workers. They’re deployed on contracts, may work with a different crew each season, work for weeks at a time, and then go home when the season ends. Crucially, most are not paid during the off season, says Jeff Dill, a former firefighter and founder of the Firefighter Behavioral Health Alliance, which trains counselors on how to work with first-responders and collects data on firefighter suicides.

The erratic schedule means that wildland firefighters operate at extremes. For weeks to months at a time, they face highly stressful, often life-or-death situations every single day, says Suzanne Connolly, an Arizona-based therapist specializing in post-traumatic stress disorder. For some firefighters, horrifying events—such as the fire tornado that took place during the Carr Fire or the day when Paradise went up in flames—can cause PTSD, says Connolly, who has appeared on panels discussing the mental health of wildland firefighters. She calls this kind of response “trauma with a big T.” But chronic levels of high stress, what Connolly calls “small t” trauma, still can have long-lasting mental and physical effects. Stress activates the body’s fight-or-flight system, flooding the body with adrenaline and cortisol, hormones that help us respond to life-threatening situations by increasing our heart rate and helping the body harvest energy from glucose. Cortisol also decreases activity in systems you don’t need when your life is in danger, such as the reproductive and immune systems.

[Related: Burnout is real. Here’s how to spot it—and recover.] 

The fight-or-flight response is helpful in the short term, “but when you’re forced to stay in a situation like in a war or fighting a fire, it’s really hard on your body,” Connolly says. Normally, the parasympathetic nervous system, which acts like a break on the fight-or-flight response, should kick into gear, returning the body to homeostasis. But, some researchers think that when stress lasts long enough, it can send the nervous system into overdrive or tax it to the point of exhaustion. 

As fire season changes, that’s an even greater risk for wildland firefighters, Connolly says. “We are now plagued with forest fires that can last months with no break. That’s a long time for anyone’s autonomic nervous system to be in fight-or-flight mode,” Connolly says. 

Marilyn Woolley, a therapist based in Redding, California is trained to work with wildland firefighters and receives referrals from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). She’s also seen an increase in the number of capital T traumas. “It’s just all the time now,” Woolley said. Many of her current clients are still healing from the effects of trauma, such as PTSD, from the devastating Carr and Camp fires that took place during California’s horrific 2018 fire season. Woolley is seeing more of her clients retire early with disabilities, often due to trauma and chronic stress. She thinks of firefighters, generally speaking, as a group of people passionate about what they do. “They just think it’s the best job,” she says. “And now they’re just like, I can’t take it anymore. It’s just too much. And it’s affecting my family and affecting my health.”

Some wildland firefighters are calling for change. In 2020, an anonymous firefighter penned an open letter to U.S. representatives asking for more support and better working conditions. “We often hear from local citizenry, news stations, a governor or senator that we are ‘Heroes.’ I’ve had innumerable conversations with fellow firefighters how disingenuous this feels,” the firefighter wrote, “Our wages lag far behind standard firefighter wages. We do not receive pay for our increasing workload within an increasingly longer fire season.” 

The letter-writer called for psychologists at the headquarters of each national forest, paid leave for mental health, higher pay, and salaried positions for returning firefighters. 

“The conversation has started changing,” says Marc Titus, a former firefighter who left the profession ten years ago after developing PTSD, anxiety, and depression that required hospitalization. More data is being collected on mental health and suicide. The National Wildfire Coordinating Group now holds a national suicide prevention week in early September. CalFire recently held an annual safety meeting devoted to mental health alone. But there’s a long way to go, Titus says. The prevailing culture of the wildland firefighting community tends to shy away from discussions of vulnerability. 

Still, O’Brien has hope for the community. “There’s just tremendous strength in the relationships firefighters have with one another,” she says, “this is a group of highly skilled, highly talented, resilient people.”

The post Extreme wildfires are taking a toll on the mental health of firefighters appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

When people ask me why I became a writer, I have plenty of reasons to list: Words bring me joy. I ask questions constantly. And when I hear a good story, I’ll repeat it again and again until my friends get tired of hearing it. But in July of 2021, these responses started to feel hollow. 

I was burned out. 

“I feel like I sprained my brain,” I told my friend over the phone. When I wasn’t working, I felt fine; when I tried to use my head, it felt like putting weight on a bum ankle. 

I know I’m not alone. At this moment, when work is isolating some people at home while putting others in danger, burnout seems particularly rampant. In a survey of 1,500 workers from Indeed in March 2021, 53 percent said they were burned out—up by nearly 10 percent from the previous year. Another survey of nearly 21,000 healthcare workers published in May in The Lancet found similar rates. 

I wanted to regain my curiosity and the joy I find in language as soon as possible, so I reached out to scientists to find out what, exactly, was happening in my body—and what I could do to make it better.

Burnout is a phenomenon so old, they made a sin out of it, according to Gordon Parker, a professor of psychiatry at the University of New South Wales. Once called “acedia,” the eighth cardinal sin described a state of listlessness, apathy, and torpor observed in fourth century monks. “They would wake up one day and say ‘the sky is no longer blue,’” Parker said. These monks would stop getting pleasure out of life and would lose their faith in God. 

They were more than just tired. They had forgotten the meaning of all that they did. And that pretty much describes burnout. The response to chronic stress goes beyond exhaustion; sufferers also experience a loss of idealism and feel like they’re bad at whatever they do. Those are the three prongs identified by the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the assessment most often used by psychologists to evaluate such mental fatigue. 

And all that angst isn’t just in your head—it’s very much a physical phenomenon, rooted in the body’s stress-response system. Scientists studying the syndrome are particularly interested in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, also called the HPA axis. When we’re faced with a threat—say, a bear chasing us, or the prospect of responding to an ambiguously stern-sounding email—the HPA axis releases a hormone called cortisol. Cortisol helps the body run from whatever is threatening it; it raises our heart rate and helps our body harvest energy from glucose. Cortisol also decreases activity in systems you don’t need when your life is in immediate danger, like the reproductive and immune systems. When the hypothalamus, a structure in the brain that acts like the control room for the HPA axis, detects high levels of cortisol in the blood, it’s supposed to say “okay, my work is done here,” and shut the stress response down. 

[Related: Stress can literally kill you. Here’s how.]

Researchers can capture a snapshot of how the stress-response system is functioning with a test called the dexamethasone challenge. Dexamethasone is a drug that tells the hypothalamus to suppress the stress-response system. Given a dose of it, a healthy person should start producing less cortisol. But multiple studies have found that people with burnout have an altered response to the drug. Some studies find that those individuals don’t react to dexamethasone much, if at all—they continue pumping out more cortisol regardless. Other research finds that people with burnout have an exaggerated response to the drug—they suppress cortisol more than the healthy controls do. Researchers hypothesize that these two seemingly contradictory findings represent two stages: burning out, and being burnt out. 

“During the burning-out phase, the system is in overdrive,” Parker said. When stress is chronic, cortisol levels in the body keep going up, but the system doesn’t shut itself down. The burnt-out phase begins when that system is tapped out, says Renzo Bianchi, a psychologist at the University of Neuchâtel in Switzerland. “Your stress response gets so exhausted that you stop producing cortisol at high levels,” Bianchi said. 

Cortisol may stress us out, but we also need the hormone to survive. It’s quite literally what gets us up in the morning. So when people enter this “burnt out” phase, they feel tired and cynical. They lose drive. They might even experience cognitive impairment and memory changes. 

These symptoms might sound similar to clinical depression. But according to some scientists, including Christina Maslach of the Maslach Burnout Inventory, burnout and depression are not at all the same. 

Burnout is a syndrome that may cause a person to become depressed; depression might predispose a person to burnout. But ultimately, burnout is distinct in that work is always at its root. People often feel better as soon as they’re able to get away from the cause of their stress, Parker said. That’s not usually the case with depression.

That distinction is important to make, because by treating burnout as an illness—like depression or an anxiety disorder—we risk offering the wrong solutions, Maslach said. You can’t self-care away your burnout, she added. It’s not so much about the individual as it is the situation they’re in. You have to remove the cause of your stress, and that often requires structural changes in the workplace. 

That was disappointing for me to hear. When I reached out for expert advice, I’d already spent several of the preceding months focused on getting more sleep, running more often, and trying to take short vacations. All of these habits support good mental health, and might even offer short-term relief, Bianchi says—but they don’t get at the root cause of burnout. You can take all the time off you need, he says, but without identifying the root causes of your stress, you’ll eventually return to the same place.

[Related: Lessons learned in the world’s most stressful careers]

In scientific literature that investigates risk factors for burnout, six come up again and again, according to a review co-authored by Maslach and published in the 2016 book Stress: Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior. There’s workload, the amount of autonomy you have, and fairness in the workplace. Then there’s reward—how much your work is recognized and compensated—and workplace community, or the social support you receive from colleagues or clients. Finally, values and meaning: whether or not the work you’re doing syncs up with your ideals. 

Employers have the power to prevent burnout by creating a fair and supportive workplace, Maslach says—one where people feel like they have autonomy and are able to cope with their workload. But people with burnout may need to troubleshoot which factors are negatively impacting them so they know how to take action on their own. For some people, Maslach says, curing burnout might necessitate moving organizations or switching fields entirely. 

That wasn’t my route. Instead, I worked through Maslach’s six risk factors like a checklist. The more I thought about it, the more I came to believe that my work load itself wasn’t the main problem; instead, I realized that it had been a long time since I’d thought about what had initially excited me about journalism—talking to scientists, love for the craft of writing itself, the thrill of finding a new story—in other words, my values. I created spreadsheets of topics that intrigued me, scientists I loved speaking to, and projects I had long put on the back-burner. Then, I brainstormed ways to make time for them, blocking off chunks of time for tasks like going down internet rabbit holes in search of stories.

While I expected the answer to involve loads of rest, curing my own personal case of burnout turned out to be a lot of work. But it was worth it. Three months after starting this research, words excite me again. I’m back to annoying my friends with facts about frogs and physics. And several times a week, without fail, I spend an afternoon in the coffee shop around the corner to work on my personal creative projects.

Nine months ago, before my burnout began,I told a friend “I feel like I have the best job in the world.” By getting to the root of my stress, I’ve managed to get that feeling back again. 

The post Burnout is real. Here’s how to spot it—and recover. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

After a 2020 holiday season marked by video chat dinners, vaccines have allowed us to travel more freely and celebrate with our loved ones once again. 

But after a relentless two-year pandemic, political strife, and overall instability, reuniting with your family can be… a lot. Preparing yourself mentally and emotionally for the festivities to come can make for holidays filled with joy and delicious food, as opposed to bickering and passive aggression. 

[Related: What mental health professionals have learned six months into pandemic care]

The current health crisis has hit us all pretty hard. And we’re all carrying trauma whether or not we’ve been diagnosed with a mental health condition, says Frank Anderson, a psychiatrist and author of Transcending Trauma: Healing Complex PTSD With Internal Family Systems (IFS) Therapy. 

“COVID has come in waves, and every time something new happens, we’re retraumatized by it,” Anderson explains. 

The negative impact of the pandemic on our mental health is what experts call chronic trauma: a succession of repetitive events over a prolonged period of time that affects us psychologically. Everything we’ve experienced—lockdown uncertainty, the hope for vaccinations, frustration over politics, and the fear of the delta variant—has left a mark that leaves us more vulnerable and sensitive to the world around us. 

With that in mind, know that everyone in your family is going to arrive with a little extra baggage this holiday season. Understanding that may help you empathize with them and be more patient when you feel things are taking a turn for the worse. 

“It’s like a Disney vacation—you pay so much money for your kids to have the most perfect time and more often than not, something goes wrong,” Anderson says. 

The high pressure of trying to make the most out of the holidays after two years apart, combined with the desire to have special moments with each and every one of your loved ones is a recipe for disaster, Anderson says. Instead, he recommends that you sit down before your departure, think about your expectations, and try to make them realistic. 

“Don’t stress about every little thing, or you’ll end up obsessing over them,” he says. “Just think about the food, for example. In your head it’s probably going to be the best dinner ever, but maybe the turkey will be a bit dry. And that’s ok!” 

Bringing that awareness to other members of your family can also help, but be careful how you go about it. Telling them up-front that they should lower their expectations will feel like you’re trying to impose yours, which could prompt confrontation. Instead, Anderson recommends that you ask them what they want to happen. Just planting the inquiry in their heads is enough for them to start thinking about it. 

But spending a prolonged time in a tight space with a bunch of people, no matter how or how much you’re related, can be quite stressful. This is why, if possible, Anderson recommends you find your own place to stay. 

This may cause some trouble, as someone in your family might be offended. But having somewhere else to go will help you in two very practical ways. First, you’ll likely be a lot more comfortable if you don’t have to share an inflatable mattress with one of your cousins, and second, it will allow you to take a break whenever you need it. 

A hotel, an Airbnb, or a friend’s house are all good options. Just make sure that wherever you’re staying isn’t also hosting any social events, and you can allow yourself the time and space to take a breather. 

“Love and connection—that’s why we do it,” he says. “Instead of participating in an argument or responding to aggressive rhetoric, tell the other person you don’t want to fight. Remind them you’re there to hang out, to have a good time, and that you’ve missed them.”

It may not be an infallible solution. But if you can get the other person to remember what they’re there for, then maybe they’ll finally drop whatever point they were trying to make and concentrate on enjoying some good ol’ family fun.      

The key is not to wait until you’re angry before you decide to abort the mission. Give yourself tiny breaks, even if you don’t think you need them. Staying centered will help you enjoy yourself and your family a whole lot more. 

But if you do have to flee the scene, Anderson emphasizes the importance of playing as a team. 

“If you’re going with your significant other and your kids, for example, also be mindful of their wants and needs,” he explains. “Maybe you can facilitate a break for them, or you can take turns going to family events in case things get a bit intense.”

“Some families may be downright toxic and people may be better just staying away if they don’t feel up to it,” Anderson says. “But if that’s the case for you, I wouldn’t recommend you spend the holidays alone.”

[Related: How to work out for your mental health]

A 2014 survey from the National Alliance on Mental Illness found that around 24 percent of people with a mental health condition find that the holidays make their condition a lot worse. For those without a diagnosis, it may be just a case of the Holiday Blues, but historically, people tend to feel sadder around the end-of-year festivities. (Although contrary to popular belief, that doesn’t mean there’s a higher suicide rate around this time.)

So if you’re avoiding blood relatives this year, Anderson recommends you seek out your chosen family—friends, colleagues, neighbors, your community at large. And if you don’t have anybody to spend the holidays with, you can always volunteer at a church or another organization that interests you. 

“It’s like with the oxygen masks in planes,” says Anderson. “You need to help yourself before you can help others.”

The post Dreading family time over the holidays? These 6 tips will help. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Dating, catching up with family, and going to happy hour are best in person. When those interactions aren’t possible, loneliness and even depression can creep in. However, we can still remain socially healthy by hopping on video chat.

The modern means of communication can boost emotional and psychological well-being in similar ways to in-person mingling. A 2013 Cyberpsychology study found that video chatters expressed a higher rate of emotional bonding than those who talked on the phone or texted. (The format was beaten out only by in-person meetups.) It seems the more immersive our experiences with others are, the more prone we are to bond. The reason, says Alan Teo, an associate professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health and Science University, is likely that some 80 percent of human communication is nonverbal. Video chat, unlike audio or text, still lets us convey feelings via facial expressions.

When we make eye contact, we notice movements like a slight smile, raised cheeks, and squinted eyes, which our brain senses, decodes, and translates into readable emotional messages. Suddenly, the word “hello” becomes a spirited and genuine greeting. A little bit of face time may be all you need to keep your friends close and your mind healthy.

The post Zoom chats can be surprisingly therapeutic appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

A young patient had tried everything to alleviate her depression: about 20 different medications, in-hospital programs, electroconvulsive therapy, transcranial magnetic stimulation. But nothing seemed to work.  

The California resident became so overwhelmed by her disease that she quit her job and moved back in with her parents. Then, Sarah, the 36-year-old patient, joined an experimental trial as its first participant—University of California, San Francisco neuroscientists surgically implanted a battery-operated “pacemaker for the brain.” About the size of a business card, the device produces a quick jolt of electricity into the area of her brain causing her illness. It’s a variation of deep brain stimulation. 

“Within a few weeks, the suicidal thoughts just disappeared,” Sarah told The New York Times. “The device has kept my depression at bay, allowing me to return to my best self and rebuild a life worth living.”

Depression can be difficult to treat in part because no two people’s depression is exactly alike. And the disease itself can manifest in entirely different parts of the brain. To pinpoint where Sarah’s disease stemmed from, the UCSF scientists conducted a 10-day exploration using electrodes to stimulate her brain while asking Sarah how she felt. The neuroscientists realized that stimulation to her right hemisphere, by the ventral striatum and the amygdala, might drastically improve Sarah’s symptoms. The implant sends electric bursts (which Sarah cannot feel) up to 300 times a day to preempt depressive brain signals, and each burst lasts for six seconds.

[Related: Laughing gas could help people with hard-to-treat depression]

While deep brain stimulation is not new, the novel, personalized approach this one provides could be key to its success. If this research can be replicated, it would be a “tremendous advance” for neuropsychiatric treatment, Paul Holtzheimer, a psychiatrist at Dartmouth who was not involved in the study, told Live Science. “Other approaches to deep brain stimulation have all been sort of cookie cutter,” he added. This sort of personalized treatment is an exciting new development. 

Pre-implantation, Sarah scored a 36 out of 54 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, a diagnostic questionnaire commonly used to assess depression severity. Two weeks after implantation, her score dropped to 14. A few months later, it dropped below 10. The results have all now been published in Nature Medicine.

Because depression can be so different between individuals, personalized therapies hold so much potential. About 30 percent of the 250 million people worldwide living with depression don’t respond well to standard treatments—a personalized approach could deliver relief to so many. Right now, though, while other participants have been recruited, Sarah is the only one to have received the treatment.  

“The big question is whether you can adapt and scale this approach. For that, you need more data from more patients,” Helen S. Mayberg, an Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai neurologist who has studied deep brain stimulation for depression and was not involved in the study, told Technology Review. 

Katherine Scangos, a psychiatrist at UCSF involved in the study has already enrolled two other patients in the trial and hopes to recruit nine more. She told the BBC that they hope to “look at how these circuits vary across patients and repeat this work multiple times.” The team will also need to follow these patients “to see whether an individual’s biomarker or brain circuit changes over time as the treatment continues.”

Even so, the UCSF research team knows that this treatment is not exactly accessible as it stands. A surgical procedure like this is not only invasive but also quite expensive, neuroscientist Edward Chang, who was part of the research team, told The New York Times. Part of the next steps for them will be trying to replicate these results with a simpler system, preferably one that is non-invasive. If they could do that, scaling this treatment to greater numbers of patients would be so much more achievable.

Months out from her surgery, Sarah told The New York Times that her negative feelings feel “compartmentalized,” and kept at an “emotional distance.” She added that she feels alert and present. Hobbies are enjoyable again, and she takes pleasure in life in ways her depression didn’t allow her to before. She said she’s “seeing things that are beautiful in the world, and when I was in the depths of depression, all I saw was what was ugly.”

The post How a personalized brain implant helped one woman’s extreme depression appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

IN THE FACE OF GRUELING STRESS, it’s easy to romanticize the body’s commitment to balance. A dark and lovely liver serenely regulates its life-sustaining chores like some kind of untrammeled deity. Nearby, plump kidneys churn out requests for water and salt—twin cherubs of the torso. Even Claude Bernard, the 19th-century French physiologist credited with devising the concept of such internal give-and-take, spoke of his theory with beauty and grace, saying “a free and independent existence is possible only because of the stability of the internal milieu.” (Bernard also vivisected the family dog, so the romance only gets you so far.)

We call this balancing act homeostasis. Walter Bradford Cannon coined the term in 1926, but study of it took off in the 1960s, when scientists applied control theory—a branch of engineering concerned with dynamic, changing systems—to human anatomy. They found it to be filled with receptors and sensors that are constantly assessing for changes, like drops in blood oxygenation, fluctuations in sugar, and external threats. These sentinels stay in contact with systems equipped to issue streams of calibrated instructions to the parts of the body that can act to maintain stability. It’s a lot like cruise control: Your car will make the necessary tweaks to keep you at the speed you set it to, regardless of whether you are climbing a hill or careening down one. In this metaphor, the slope is a stand-in for the concept of stress—something that challenges homeostasis and necessitates adjustments.

This process works just fine in the face of fleeting strains like minor infections and irritating strangers, but what happens in the face of obstacles that just won’t quit? Can such pressures spell the end of you? In a word: yes.

[Related: Baboon poop shows how chronic stress shortens lives]

In situations of prolonged angst, the biochemical status quo doesn’t come back. We’re meant to compensate for a stressor’s presence until it goes away; with acute situations, like a brawl, cold, or traffic jam, the body responds and then returns to homeostasis when the event concludes. In a chronic crisis—a hostile work environment or a pandemic, for instance—our system constantly reacts, which takes a damaging physical toll.

Faced with unrelenting hurdles, our bodies start to suppress production of dopamine and growth hormone while continuing to pump out high levels of cortisol and adrenaline—both of which are involved in our fight-or-flight response. “The more somebody’s exposed to those chemicals, the worse they get,” explains George Chrousos, professor of pediatrics and endocrinology at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, who’s been studying stress for decades.

Cortisol is particularly troublesome. Secreted by the adrenal glands in response to agitation, it’s helpful in a pinch but becomes dangerous in excess. When we’re in trouble, a shot of it can spike blood sugar, facilitate tissue repair, and divert energy away from functions that are less essential in the moment, like digestion—all handy adjustments when we need to flee or prepare for battle.

However, since the hormone also stimulates glucose production in the liver, high levels of continued stress ultimately result in increased visceral fat. These cells blanket the internal organs, and their inflammatory presence ups the risk of many serious medical issues, such as stroke, Alzheimer’s, and type 2 diabetes. One 2019 study in the European Heart Journal found that for women, whole body fat mass was not associated with heart disease, but increased levels in the abdomen specifically predicted a 91 percent higher risk of cardiac troubles. A 2008 report in Neurology showed that folks with the highest levels of midsection adipose were nearly three times as likely to develop dementia as those with the lowest. There are similar links between excess cortisol and decreases in bone density and muscle mass.

As they circulate throughout the body and make their way into the brain, certain molecules can cause anxiety and depression. Among the main culprits: the corticotropin-releasing hormone, which is a major regulator for our adrenal system; the activity-inducing neurotransmitter norepinephrine; and interleukin 6, which helps control inflammation. In fact, a 2020 study published in PNAS found that chronic stress can increase blood-brain barrier “leakiness,” allowing for greater permeation by the very mediators that affect our mental state.

There is no doubt that constant struggles are making us sick. A 2003 study out of the University of Colorado estimated that up to 90 percent of doctor’s office visits are stress-related. Echoing this, the American Psychological Association put out a somber warning in October 2020: “We are facing a national mental health crisis that could yield serious health and social consequences for years to come.” Even before COVID, academics had linked chronic stress to the country’s top six causes of death, including heart disease and certain cancers. So what is there to do?

“That’s a long story,” Chrousos says with a kind and gentle laugh. With nearly 40 years in the field, he lists off the usual suspects for anxiety—lifestyle, exercise, sleep, and eating habits—with ease. But adding to this, he urges people to try activities like meditation. “Anything that will control your brain for a few minutes.”

[Related: Stay calm under pressure with lessons learned in the world’s most stressful careers]

It’s a fair point. As anyone who has spent a night doom-scrolling can attest, what we think about affects us. A 2014 study published in Biological Psychology found that for people with depression, simply ruminating on troubles may prolong cortisol production. This suggests that deliberately taking one’s mind off things could go a long way toward mitigating the effects of protracted mental strain. A 2014 meta-analysis from JAMA Internal Medicine supports this: Researchers found that mindfulness meditation programs can result in small to moderate reductions in the negative effects of stress, such as anxiety, depression, and pain.

With the chemical footprints of more than a year of pandemic living collecting in our bodies, it’s as important as ever to consider how our thrumming streams of consciousness can help or hinder our internal balancing act. If Chrousos, one of the world’s most cited endocrinologists, says quieting our brains can help make us more resilient to a world hell-bent on sending us to early graves, then it’s worth being open to it. Perhaps there’s something romantic about homeostasis after all.

This story originally ran in the Spring 2021 Calm issue of PopSci. Read more PopSci+ stories.

Is your head constantly spinning with outlandish, mind-burning questions? If you’ve ever wondered what the universe is made of, what would happen if you fell into a black hole, or even why not everyone can touch their toes, then you should be sure to listen and subscribe to Ask Us Anything, a brand new podcast from the editors of Popular Science. Ask Us Anything hits Apple, Anchor, Spotify, and everywhere else you listen to podcasts every Tuesday and Thursday. Each episode takes a deep dive into a single query we know you’ll want to stick around for.

The post Stress can literally kill you. Here’s how. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Apple is reportedly working with UCLA to develop new technology that uses facial recognition and other behavioral tracking tools to detect depression in iPhone users, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article.

By using information most smartphones already have access to, like your typing behavior and activity patterns, Apple seems to be imagining a world where your phone could warn you that your mood’s been bleak.

“I certainly don’t imagine that we can diagnose any mental health condition simply by using passive sensing technology,” says Dr. Mitch Prinstein, chief science officer of the American Psychological Association, “but I do think that we can create an opportunity for people to become aware of significant risk factors, and increase awareness about conditions people might not even realize they’re suffering from.”

Here’s what to know about Apple’s potential foray into the world of mood tracking. 

What would a future where this tech is used look like?

The technology would use data from the phone’s camera, video and audio sensors to make these mood assessments, according to the Wall Street Journal. If you have an Apple Watch, the system would also be able to use data about your sleeping habits, exercise routines, and vital signs. People’s facial expressions, as well as how they speak and type, including how often there are typos in their texts, could help phones analyze user moods.

Apple has already implemented a number of well-known health-tracking features, and also offers a Research app for optional investigations such as the Apple Hearing Study. Apple’s current healthcare tracking tools automatically count steps, for example, and users can also track their menstrual cycles, keep track of their immunizations, and analyze other health markers that can be sent in a report to your doctor. And of course, health is a major focus point of the Apple Watch.

But trying to detect mental illness takes this type of analysis a step further, and Prinstein says that’s actually a good thing. “So many primary school children receive screenings for hearing, vision, and are taught during school time how to appropriately brush their teeth,” says Prinstein. “I think it’s long past time that we are thinking about how to build in emotional and behavioral health prevention opportunities in exactly the same way.”

[Related: ​​Apple has a new plan to curb child pornography. Here’s why it’s controversial.]

Our phones won’t be able to diagnose us with conditions like depression, says Prinstein, but they could hypothetically alert us if we’ve been texting our contacts less, or moving less, by using our geolocation and information about our texting frequency. The tech could also provide valuable data points to share with a doctor. Prinstein compares it to the way a friend might be able to notice changes in your behavior, but notes that “the phone would be able to do so with ubiquitous presence and probably far more reliably.”

What are the potential dangers?

Given how alarming it could be to get an alert on your phone saying you might be depressed, Prinstein says “it will be very important for psychologists to be involved in thinking about ways to create resources, alerts and information that can be supportive without causing undue distress or alarm.” 

Access to mental healthcare is still limited for many Americans, so living in a world where your phone can warn you about risk factors isn’t helpful when that world is still one where you cannot afford to seek treatment. “I hope policymakers are recognizing that there’s a window of opportunity here with the changes in technology,” says Prinstein. “We have spent too long providing funding and resources only for those who are already experiencing a crisis. Here, we can build psychological fluoride into the water.”

But while Prinstein is positive about the new technology, defenders of electronic privacy are voicing their concerns. This new tech would presumably use algorithms to analyze emotions. And recent studies have shown that emotion-detection software is susceptible to racial bias and is often inaccurate. One 2019 study analyzing all the research in the field came to the conclusion that there is little basis for accurately assessing people’s emotions with this technology. 

Even so, the value of emotion-detection software, which is used to vet job candidates and observe students in classrooms, is predicted to hit $37 billion by 2026.

What possible effects could this have?

Prinstein hopes this will spur government agencies into action. “I believe that private companies like Apple have recognized a very dire need for us to address mental health in a way that’s different from what we’re doing now,” says Prinstein. “I hope that the public sector will quickly follow in the private sector’s lead.”

Critics, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, say this will further expand Apple’s reach and allow it to surveil its customers in ways they haven’t agreed to.

Apple CEO Tim Cook is passionate about the company’s work in the health field. “If you zoom out into the future, and you look back, and you ask the question, ‘What was Apple’s greatest contribution to mankind?’ It will be about health,” he said in 2019.

The post Your iPhone already tracks your steps. What if it tracked your mood, too? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This can be one of the most anxiety-inducing questions out there for childless people, often asked at family gatherings by distant relatives or prodding parents. For as long this prying question has been asked, young adults have already been strapped with a whole bunch of anxieties, be it economic, political, job-related, and so on. But today’s potential parents have another ever-changing and unprecedented crisis looming over their heads: climate change.

We already know that climate change causes bounds of anxiety in some of today’s youth, but a new preprint in The Lancet also brings up a specific type of anxiety—whether or not to have kids amid some horrific climate change-induced disasters. 

“I meet a lot of young girls who ask whether it’s still OK to have children,” 25-year-old climate activist Luisa Neubauer told the Guardian. “It’s a simple question, yet it tells so much about the climate reality we are living in.”

Why young people may be hesitant to have kids 

According to this new research, which was led by psychologists from the University of Bath and still has to go through peer review, 40 percent of the 10,000 young people included in an international survey said they were hesitant to have kids in the future. This could be for one of a few reasons, says Matthew Schneider-Mayerson, an associate professor of environmental studies at Yale-NUS College in Singapore, who was not involved in the new study but has done research on eco-reproductive concerns—the first of which is “fears or concerns that one’s child will not have a good life.”

Considering the state of the planet right now, with increasingly dangerous weather and pollution, this isn’t an irrational fear. “People feel rightly scared that we aren’t on the right track,” says Kimberly Nicholas, an associate professor of sustainability science at Lund University in Sweden who was not involved in the new study. “Governments aren’t upholding their promises to reduce emissions fast enough.” In 2020, Schneider-Mayerson published a paper that showed that in 600 surveyed people between the ages of 27 to 45, 96 percent were either “very” or “extremely concerned” about how their kids would fare in a future marred by climate change. 

[Related: Kids are suffering from climate anxiety. It’s time for adults to do something.]

Another reason, Schneider-Mayerson says, is the carbon footprint of raising a baby, which can be surprisingly significant. Nicholas and colleague Seth Wyne’s 2017 paper demonstrated how having a child in a developed country totals around 58.6 tons of CO2-equivalent emissions per year—the biggest long-term impact a person can make on the Earth’s climate. “Environmentalists have taken that very seriously and want to do everything they can, and so some of them are having smaller families or not having children at all,” Schneider-Mayerson adds.

Not everyone is ditching parenthood

On the flip side of the coin, some adults that care about climate change argue that it’s essential to keep having children, Schneider-Mayerson says. Having kids may give individuals a stronger reason to stay on top of the crisis because they have a personal stake in the future. 

“The focus tends to be a lot more on worrying about a child having a hard life or a big carbon footprint,” Schneider-Mayerson says. “But I found that parents were concerned about investment in environmental politics. People say, ‘If I choose not to have kids, I don’t have a reason to care about the future, so I’m going to have kids to maintain this care about the future.’”

Another, slightly cynical reason Schneider-Mayerson mentions is that someone has to raise the next generation of environmentalists. Parents who ignore or deny the existence of climate change probably aren’t addressing it with their families. For some climate scientists and activists, that’s a little scary considering how many of their peers aren’t having kids, he says.

Of course, there’s no guarantee that your kids will turn out to be warriors for the planet—conservative parents sometimes end up raising radical leftist kids and vice versa, Schneider-Mayerson explains. Having kids in the hopes they’ll end up changing the fate of the planet is perhaps not the best thing to hinge a life-changing decision on.

So, what’s the right decision here?

At the end of the day, climate change can be part of your child-having discussion, but don’t let it be the only one. “I think the personal decision about having kids comes down to values,” Nicholas says. 

[Related: It’s about time adults start rising up against climate change.]

Besides, if you’re stressing about the potential carbon footprint of your offspring, there are ways to keep lowering it even as your family grows: Ditching your car, flying less, and eating meat on limited days of the week are three big changes you can make right now to slash your personal emissions. Some parents, such as Keya Chatterjee, now the Executive Director of the US Climate Action Network, take it even further by installing solar panels on their homes and buying baby products in bulk.

“It’s a human right to decide whether or not you want a child,” Nicholas says. “It’s not a human right to drive an SUV or fly in planes.”

On the other hand, no one should feel forced into being a parent. Wanting to have kids or not is a deeply personal decision, so follow your gut if you feel strongly one way or the other.

“There are so many factors involved, even for people whose number one concern is climate change,” says Schneider-Mayerson. “There’s still going to be nine or ten other factors for them and things that they aren’t even conscious of.”

Correction: This post originally credited the survey of 600 people between the ages of 27 to 45, 96 percent were either “very” or “extremely concerned” about children in the future of climate change to Kimberly Nicholas, but the study was actually done by Matthew Schneider-Mayerson.

The post If climate change is impacting your desire to have kids, you’re not alone appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This story originally featured on Mel Magazine.

After Mark got his second Pfizer shot at the end of April, he was excited to celebrate with his fully vaccinated friends. But when the 34-year-old in Chicago finally went out to a bar, he felt a type of anxiety he had never experienced before. “It wasn’t a panic attack or social anxiety, but no masks, crowds and everything was too much all at once,” explains Mark, whose name has been changed for privacy. He soon found himself cancelling plans with fake excuses and feeling a sick sense of relief when vaccinated people started testing positive. “I know that sounds terrible, and I don’t want anyone to get sick. But a part of me just wants to go back inside,” he says.

Mark isn’t a total asshole and he’s in good company, according to psychiatrist Arthur Bregman. Over the last year, Bregman started to see patients experiencing feelings of heightened anxiety around getting back to “normal.” And while those experiences can seem like a combination of agoraphobia and seasonal affective disorder (SAD), there was really no term to adequately describe the unique condition caused by the prolonged isolation and panic of the pandemic. “I soon realized that almost half my patients were struggling with leaving the cave and that it was a syndrome,” he tells me. “The lightbulb came on, and I decided to call this behavior ‘cave syndrome.’”

Cave syndrome isn’t an official medical diagnosis, but rather a casual moniker for a set of symptoms that many are experiencing as we slowly emerge from quarantine. These symptoms can include general anxiety about COVID and its variants, over-washing of hands, obsessing about germs, resistance to leaving the house, depression from the long-term isolation and “​​all the pressures of navigating through a new normal and how to re-enter society without getting sick,” Bregman says. 

Vaccinated or not, many of Bregman’s patients have begged him for a doctor’s note to get them out of returning to the office—a trend that’s made him genuinely concerned for their careers. But instead of doing so—or immediately prescribing medication — Bregman believes the best treatment for this affliction is all in the name: Get out of the cave. 

Other experts suspect that literally leaving the cave (or house or apartment) may be equally important for preventing cave syndrome as it is for managing it. There’s ample scientific evidence that the simple act of going outside improves individual mental health. “Being outside in nature has been associated with reduced rumination and activation in the subgenual prefrontal cortex,” explains Dorlee Michaeli, a psychotherapist trained in EMDR. Since this is the part of the brain that handles rewards and emotions, it “is likely to be playing a positive role in emotional regulation.”

While being around nature is important, for people who live in cities, natural light still decreases stress hormone levels and boosts feel-good neurotransmitters like serotonin. “Sufficient exposure to natural light helps people cope with anxiety by warding off seasonal affective disorder, improving sleep, as well as reducing rumination and decreasing cortisol,” Michaeli notes. The most compelling evidence for why people need sunlight is SAD, a type of depression linked to a lack of exposure to natural light in winter months that leads to a drop in serotonin. 

Daily exposure to sunlight, particularly “in the morning, can help regulate sleep cycles and improve mood,” adds psychiatrist Gail Saltz. Other studies similarly show that the more sunlight office workers received between 8 a.m. and noon, the more likely they were to sleep well at night, and experience less stress and depression as a result. 

On the flip side, laying around in a proverbial cave with smartphones and laptops can have the opposite effect. A growing body of research has demonstrated how blue light erodes our mental health over time by disrupting our circadian rhythm. And yet, for many of us, the screens in our caves were all we had when quarantine hit. 

Michaeli and Saltz agree that the sooner people started going on walks and doing other outdoor activities in lockdown—and the more consistent they were with these activities—the less prone they were to getting stuck in their caves. There is an important caveat, however: only if they had agency in that choice. Those who were forced to go to work and take risks they weren’t ready for might experience higher levels of anxiety regardless of getting out due to “the reasonable fear of contracting the virus and their relative higher exposure risk,” Michaeli explains.

That’s the most challenging part of treating cave syndrome, Bregman explains, because a lot of this anxiety can stem from valid concerns about scientific uncertainties regarding COVID. The problem is, when such anxieties cause people to cut off the outside world, hypothetical concerns can cause very real mental health consequences. That said, by focusing his patients on some of the precautions they can take, Bregman has found that they feel more in control. “If they can feel secure and safe at the same time, they’ll feel freer about venturing out,” he says. “I personally think going to an office space is healthy, as socialization is important for the human psyche and that’s why I work hard to get my patients back to the workplace.”

He also recommends mindfulness exercises like visualizing specific anxiety-provoking situations, such as going to work, but this time imagining these scenarios going well. “I have my patients envision picking out their clothes for that day, thinking about their commute and walking through the door of their workplace,” Bregman explains, adding that they can think about wearing a mask if it helps make them feel safer. “I encourage them to imagine a wonderful day unfolding in front of them outside of the cave.”

From there, he tells his patients to start taking small trips to the park, or to sit outside at a coffee shop. Time, however, is of the essence. “Remember, the longer a patient stays sheltered away, the harder it is to encourage them to venture out, so don’t wait to get working on it,” Bregman warns. 

Mark admits to spending most of the past year in his one-bedroom apartment, coping more with edibles and movies than outdoor coffee dates or socially distanced walks. “Chicago winters are brutal, but I could have tried to get out more than I did,” he tells me. In early August, Mark started going back to the office twice a week and found that his anxiety became more manageable after dealing with it head-on. “I hate to admit that, because I still want to work from home,” he says. “But I haven’t been bailing on friends as much in the past month since I’m already out.” 

Little by little, he’s also noticing more people wearing masks again, arranging outdoor social gatherings and getting COVID tests regularly—the kind of precautions Bregman prescribes to his patients to keep them connected. It helps that most people seem to be finding a middle ground between the deep isolation of last year and hot vax summer. “Most of my friends have calmed down a lot and are being more careful,” Mark says. And if he’s at a party where too many people aren’t being safe, or he feels anxious, “I can leave before things get really intense like they did during the summer.” 

But while his cave always awaits him, he’s also beginning to understand that there’s plenty of refuge outside of it as well.

The post Did the pandemic give you ‘cave syndrome’? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

If this past year has proven anything, it’s that animals are the best free internet therapy there is. From virtual zoo tours to TikTok challenges, animals have been an invaluable source of entertainment—and relief—during the pandemic.

On that note, we wanted to share our favorites from the 2020 finalists of the Comedy Wildlife Photography Awards, which will be announcing its winners in mid-October. The contest has been shaking up the all-too-serious field of nature photography since 2015, but this year it feels even more necessary.

Now, without further delay, some serial killer fish, hungover penguins, and profane, pissed-off sea turtles for your “educational” benefit.

The post 9 goofy, award-winning animal photos to turn your day around appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

You’re lying in bed, your room dark around you. Blue light shines on your fingertips as you scroll through your phone, words and images flashing by your eyes. You’re waiting, watching other people live their lives. A sinking feeling gnaws at your stomach as you yearn for something—anything—to make you feel less alone.

What is loneliness?

The effects of loneliness

Most people can recognize the gnawing, painful longing that accompanies loneliness. But beyond feelings of sadness and depression, loneliness has been shown to affect the way our minds perceive social situations. 

“[Lonely people] don’t expect the other person to like them, and then it becomes kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy,” says Dan Perlman, emeritus professor of human development and family studies at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

People who feel lonely tend to think they’re unlikeable, expect more negative social reactions, remember these negative interactions, and build an overall negative picture of their social experiences, Perlman says. This, he explains, can make them want to withdraw from social interactions altogether.

People who feel lonely also don’t sleep as well, which has myriad effects: decreased immune response, less mental alertness and focus, and increased stress and anxiety. This likely contributes to the long-term consequences of loneliness, which can damage multiple bodily systems and eventually lead to death.

[Related: The best apps for dealing with anxiety]

Loneliness has been linked to earlier cognitive decline, as well as cardiovascular events including heart attacks, congestive heart failures, and strokes. Louise Hawkley, a senior research scientist studying loneliness and social isolation at the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, says that loneliness can also change hormonal regulation, increasing inflammatory responses associated with chronic diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure. Loneliness can even affect the body at the genetic level, where genes that promote inflammation are expressed more and genes that decrease inflammation are expressed less.

Why do we feel lonely?

How to cope

If loneliness is a discrepancy between the relationships you want and the relationships you have, there are two ways to shrink that gap: either change the expectations you have for your relationships, or change the relationships you have.

“If we only focus on external people and we haven’t worked on ourselves, we haven’t opened up our source for connection. It’s like pouring into a bottomless pit,” he says. 

Brown encourages his clients to connect with themselves through self-care practices, which he defines as “anything that grows your practice of compassion, gratitude, kindness, and self love.” He suggests endeavors such as journaling, gardening, crafting, running, meditating, or cooking—or any solitary activity that leads to your spiritual and personal growth.

Deepen your relationships

The easiest way to develop meaningful social relationships is to deepen your current relationships so that they become more emotionally fulfilling. While this can take many forms, you may want to consider reaching out in vulnerable situations, like when you’re feeling sad or lonely. Doing so might seem scary, but it can strengthen these relationships in profound ways.

Making new friends is another way to find that social fulfillment. Spending time with hobbies or in environments you enjoy can bring you into contact with like-minded people and build new relationships—whether you’re at your favorite bookstore, a pottery class, or a rock climbing gym.

Find connection via the internet

As with many social issues plaguing the US, the same groups that have been historically oppressed—including communities of color, women, and LGBTQ+ communities—are also uniquely vulnerable to loneliness.

This was especially challenging during the pandemic. Jor-El Caraballo, a therapist in New York City, says police brutality, job instability, and conflicting messages of social value placed additional burdens on many people of color, piling on top of the disconnection and loneliness everyone was feeling from COVID.

“I think that one way that people really tried to manage that was everyone was getting online. The internet was really a safe haven for people to explore their identities and connect with people and find safety and family,” Caraballo says.

Living in the land of the lonely

A compelling misconception is the idea that if you feel lonely, it’s because you are not good at relationships. This is not necessarily true.

“I think of loneliness as a social failure, not as an individual failure. And when you see that large numbers of people are lonely, I think it’s a sign that communities aren’t functioning well, that we don’t have a social infrastructure that really functions very well,” says Richard Weissbourd, co-director of Harvard’s human development and psychology master’s program.

Weissbourd explains that many people feel like it’s their own fault if they’re lonely, but this isn’t the case—our societal priorities often revolve around achievement and work, instead of social fulfillment. As a result, it’s hard to find spaces where social relationships are the priority, and loneliness often ensues as a result.

Ultimately, getting to know and respect your own social needs in the same way you acknowledge your physical needs is one powerful way to improve your health, productivity, and happiness.

“Because you’re not ever alone,” Brown says. “You are with yourself.”

The post Why loneliness is increasing, and how to fight back appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This story originally featured on Mel Magazine.

I’ll never forget my first addiction: RuneScape, a vast online fantasy game. It was 2004, and I played it round-the-clock. In school, I daydreamed about slaying dragons. On weekends, I fought goblins until the sun rose. I didn’t have much time for homework because I had too many spells to cast.

I was only 12 years old, but my mom would warn me about getting addicted to the game all the time. Addiction runs in the family, she’d say, so I needed to watch out if I ever drank alcohol, and other drugs weren’t even a conversation. I’d tell her not to worry — I hadn’t even touched a cigarette at the time. 

Still, I always had this feeling that there was something obsessive inside me, something I’d never shake. That’s what I thought my mom was trying to say, anyway.

I learned the hard way that she wasn’t wrong. Ten years later, I was binge-drinking Fridays to Sundays without a wink of sleep, usually with some chemical help, and trying (often unsuccessfully) to keep lunch beers to no more than a couple per day during the week. It wasn’t until five years and too many mistakes later that I was forced to kick booze for good.

But there’s always been something I can’t seem to get enough of, whether it’s weed, coffee or true crime videos on YouTube. Some would say I have an “addictive personality,” or an inherent voraciousness. Personally, I’ve taken to thinking it’s that same inner demon my mom cautioned me about when I was just a kid playing wizard until I’d fall asleep at the computer. 

Many of us addiction sufferers internalize this barbaric sense of self. We feel as though we’re different, hardwired to want more, more, more. “All I want to do is slam a dopamine button to feel good,” says Loz, creator of @brutalrecovery, an Instagram page dedicated to memifying the experience of addiction rehabilitation. “I can be addicted to literally anything.” First it was drugs and alcohol, but now she says it’s “smoking, sex, Nutella, exercise, new hobbies, books, food, cooking and buying shit I don’t need.”

But the reality of addiction is much more complicated than just “some people have it, some people don’t.” It can’t be boiled down to a singular character type. In fact, there aren’t any universal traits that all addicted people share. Some have one addiction. Some have multiple. Some are loners. Some are extroverts. Some have personality disorders. Some don’t.

In short, there’s no such thing as an addictive personality. Every peculiarity imaginable can be found among people with addictions, which is to say that anyone can become addicted to anything given the right circumstances. (That said, there are debates about whether behavioral addictions, like sex or gambling, qualify as “true” addictions in the same ways that a physical dependence on drugs does.)

We do know, however, that certain personality traits can put a person at higher risk of developing an addiction. Psychologist Kelly Green, author of Relationships in Recovery, says being impulsive, thrill-seeking, nonconformist and having a low distress tolerance are all characteristics that “run in the same circle as addiction.” 

Dan Mager, author of Some Assembly Required: A Balanced Approach to Recovery from Addiction, says feelings of emptiness and hyper-sensitivity are also common among folks who develop addictions. Likewise, while people with addictions can’t be identified by their mental health conditions, persons with anxiety are more likely to suffer from substance abuse. “Using is a way of numbing or turning down the volume of those feelings,” he says. For whatever reason, we also know that children with higher IQs are more likely to use illegal drugs later in life.

Whether these quirks end up leading to addiction depends on a smorgasbord of other factors. Green says about 50 percent of a person’s susceptibility to addiction can be linked to their genes, but we’re not entirely sure how that manifests. “That leaves the other 50 percent up to all sorts of psychological, social and cultural factors,” she explains. Your environment also plays a part, as does how you cope with your idiosyncrasies and how other people treat them. Even stress can rewire the brain’s reward circuitry, so someone with an extremely stressful life (for any reason) can be more prone to addiction.

“It’s a combination of nature and nurture,” says Mager. But there’s so, so much in between, and we’re still learning what actually constitutes nature and nurture when it comes to developing addictive tendencies. “It’s impossible to tease out where one ends and where one begins,” he adds.

From a nature standpoint, Green says, “We’re starting to learn that it might be related to some neurological differences in things like the density of dopamine receptors in the brain. So if somebody has fewer dopamine receptors, they’d need more dopamine to feel that same kind of good feeling that others would have more naturally.” This, of course, can be achieved through drugs.

Then, once you begin using a drug, it does actually change your brain’s biochemistry to keep you wanting more.

Nurture, meanwhile, can involve all sorts of circumstances, from being around family members who use drugs openly to living in a culture that relies on prescribing your problems away. “American culture in particular is so insidious for addiction because we’re sold this message from the time we’re kids that we’re supposed to feel happy, and if we don’t feel happy, there’s something wrong with us,” Green says. “To have a good time, you have to have this type of drink or this type of cigarette. We’re just bombarded by these images of filling ourselves up with external means instead of learning the coping skills.”

Loz is a good example of someone who grew up around addicts and picked up on their behaviors. “There wasn’t a lot of moderation going on around me, so I didn’t learn it as a concept,” she says. “Then the little motor inside me that always wanted more and different was allowed to take front and center.”

Combine all of this, and you create an ideal environment for addictive behavior to develop. But again, there are many who face these addiction-motivating circumstances and come out scot-free, which points to the immense complexity of addiction. “My sister with the exact same childhood and gene pool isn’t an addict in any sense of the word,” Loz says. “She’s never even smoked a cigarette and knows how to moderate everything.”

As for me, well, it does run in the family, like my mom always said, so I have those addictive genes. I’m an anxious person, too, so there’s that. And yeah, I guess I could have learned better coping mechanisms for stress at a young age.

But the only way to truly explain why I can’t quit logging back into RuneScape to this day would involve analyzing every moment of my life, picking through my genes and poking around my brain. 

Unfortunately, I have way too many spells to cast to make time for that.

The post There’s no such thing as an ‘addictive personality’ appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Kory Floyd is a professor of Communication at University of Arizona. This story originally featured on The Conversation.

Rose Gagnon could not hug her grandchildren for several months.

Not being able to see and touch her loved ones every day because of COVID-19’s social distancing protocols was taking a toll on the mental health of the 85-year-old. Like many, she was feeling lonely and yearning for an emotional connection that had been hampered by the inability to embrace those most important to her.

That’s when Gagnon’s granddaughter Carly Marinaro devised an innovative solution in the form of a “hug time” device. Inside a frame made of PVC piping, Marinaro fashioned a see-through plastic barrier with two arm attachments, so that grandmother and granddaughter could share a hug while minimizing the risk of exposure to the coronavirus.

Like Gagnon, many Americans have missed the warmth of an embrace, the intimacy of a kiss or the calming feeling of holding someone’s hand. When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its advice to stay 6 feet apart from others back in March 2020, that suddenly made affectionate touch a scarcity.

As a social scientist, I have been studying the communication of affection for over two decades. Affectionate communication comes in many forms, and not all of them have been curtailed by the pandemic. Even with social distancing, people can still say “I love you.” They can also share affectionate text messages and social media posts—and thanks to platforms such as Zoom and Skype, they can see each other’s faces and hear each other’s voices. The one experience it has not been able to facilitate, however, is touch. Individuals cannot hug their grandchildren, kiss their friends, or hold the hand of a dying loved one via Microsoft Teams or Google Hangout.

What people have suffered during the pandemic is “touch hunger,” a colloquial term for what social scientists call “affection deprivation”, a state in which individuals want or need more affection than they receive. And here’s why that matters.

Touch hunger impairs well-being

Similar to regular hunger, touch hunger serves as an alert that something important is missing—in this case, the sense of security, intimacy, and care that comes with tactile contact. As people have taken pains to socially distance, many have discovered the sense of deprivation that can accompany the lack of affectionate touch.

Touch hunger is essential to well-being throughout our life span. Psychologist Ruth Feldman has demonstrated that touch is instrumental for healthy physical and cognitive development beginning in infancy. During adulthood, affectionate touch contributes to both psychological health and the body’s ability to manage stress and reduce inflammation.

And among the elderly, affectionate touch can enhance calmness and responsiveness for those suffering from dementia. Touch is so powerful, in fact, that even imagining touch can reduce stress and pain, according to psychologists Brittany Jakubiak and Brooke Feeney.

When people feel deprived of touch, therefore, it is understandable that their well-being can suffer. Even in normal times, touch hunger is associated with greater stress, anxiety and loneliness; lower-quality sleep; and reduced satisfaction and closeness in romantic relationships. Add to that the restrictions on touch introduced by COVID-19 and it makes sense why so many are suffering. In fact, research has demonstrated that the benefits of affectionate interaction—including touch—are heightened during experiences of distress.

Biological psychologist Karen Grewen and her colleagues have shown that hugging a romantic partner reduces the extent to which stressful situations elevate blood pressure and heart rate, whereas psychologist Sheldon Cohen and colleagues found that hugging protects the body against the stress of a viral exposure.

Responding to a lack of affectionate touch

Not everyone needs the same amount of affectionate touch, of course, any more than everyone needs the same amount of food or sleep. Like many characteristics, the need for touch varies from person to person, according to communication scholars Laura Guerrero and Peter Andersen. Some people are even what Andersen calls “touch avoidant,” meaning they often find interpersonal touch stressful instead of pleasurable.

Receiving touch can be uncomfortable for those with physical conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, or mental health conditions such as autism spectrum disorder. People who have been traumatized or sexually abused may also find touch to be triggering.

It is also worth noting that not all forms of touch are equally beneficial. Some perfunctory touches, such as a handshake, may be largely benign, whereas aggressive or abusive touch often precipitates long-term health detriments.

For those who are missing touch, however, research suggests some substitutes. Sharing affection with a pet has stress-alleviating benefits. Self-massage, such as of the hands or neck, can have calming and pain-reducing effects. Even hugging a pillow reduces the brain’s experience of stress. These are all imperfect substitutes, to be sure, but until COVID-19 is a memory, they may be useful for those suffering from touch hunger.

The post There’s a biological reason why we miss hugs so much appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Follow all of PopSci’s COVID-19 coverage here, including tips on cleaning groceries, ideas for hosting a virtual party, and the argument against using valved masks.

This fall, students might not recognize their college campuses. No bustling move-in days and long hugs in front of dorm rooms, no breathless reunions over dining hall tables, and no daily treks to new classes. As about 20 million college students prepare to either return to school or take courses remotely, they’re not only facing the risk of infection with coronavirus, but also a mental health crisis.

The typical college environment isn’t just overwhelming, it’s consuming—and that presents challenges for adapting during a pandemic. “Students still have to study, get good grades, date, figure out their careers, get internships, and discover themselves,” says Martin Scanbrow Becker, an assistant professor of psychological and counseling services at Florida State University. “These will likely be interrupted by physical distancing and stress.”

Even without a pandemic looming, many college students find themselves mired in depression and anxiety, to the extent that some experts call it a mental health “epidemic.” A survey from the American College Health Association last year revealed that 60 percent of higher-ed students experience “overwhelming anxiety,” and a 2018 survey showed that 40 percent reported feeling so depressed that they had difficulty functioning at times. “Students who were stressed before COVID-19 are even more at risk for depression,” Scanbrow Becker says.

Now, as students return to the rigor of coursework, they’ll have to contend with the fact that college has been rapidly transformed by COVID-19, with remote courses, closed dining halls, suspended extracurricular activities, and a widely minimized social scene. “It’s going to be different no matter what path they choose, either returning to campus or learning remotely,” says Lindsay Oberleitner, a professor of psychology at Western Connecticut State University.

In spite of all the extreme changes, students can take on a few simple steps toward maintaining mental wellness through the next semester.

Set safety & health boundaries before you step foot on campus

Each student in a different boat when it comes to social distancing and caution in the face of COVID-19, so make sure to outline your personal rules before arrival on campus. “Everyone’s safety level is slightly different,” Oberleitner says. “It’s okay if others have stricter or looser guidelines than you.” Stick to your boundaries—skipping out on in-person gatherings or hangouts is more than understandable, and even advisable. “When you’re telling a friend, ‘Eh, I’m not okay with going to that,’ you have to be confident,” Oberleitner says. To firm up your nerves, try practicing your response in front of the mirror or with other peers.

Regain a sense of control over your life with schedules

When much of the world feels wild and unmanageable, writing a simple schedule with basics like studying, exercise, sleep, and nutrition can help you grasp a stronger sense of power over your life, Scanbrow Becker says. Online tools can give structure to a seemingly spineless day, but a good old notebook and pen works just as well.

Build relationships with your professors and classmates

With most classes now remote, students may lose out on spontaneous conversations with professors in the hallway or side chats with classmates during class. But these relationships aren’t completely out of reach. “You have to ask for it,” Oberleitner says. “It doesn’t hurt to send that email and build that relationship.” Having virtual coffee chats with professors and classmates can help you feel more connected to the people you’re spending time with on video calls for the bulk of the day.

Use your college’s mental health resources

Whether it’s counseling, therapy, or psychiatric help, most colleges offer a wide slate of telehealth options for free. Any student can, and should, jump on these opportunities. “You don’t need a mental illness to talk to a counselor,” Scanbrow Becker says. “You can get an appointment to talk through anything.” Even a casual chat with a counselor can lift a weight from your shoulders. Jennifer Rothman, a senior manager at the National Alliance on Mental Illness, also urges faculty and staff to learn about their college’s mental health resources so that they can clue students in when needed.

Detox from screens at the end of the day

Especially during self quarantine, everyone is obsessively drawn to screens. But now that classes, club meetings, counseling sessions, and social events all demand tech time, Zoom fatigue can hurt your mental health. “Screen time is exhausting and addicting,” Scanbrow Becker says. “Schedule in a digital detox where you put all your electronics down.” Try treating the end of the day as a sacred time by turning off your computer and close up your office area, if you have one.

Be a safe social butterfly

Staying in the loop with your college community is more essential than ever, especially for students living in home environments that aren’t safe or positive. “Purposefully plan Zoom dates, online trivia nights, and Netflix Party movie nights, and have fun with your friends virtually,” Rothman says. To maximize your social interactions, Scanbrow Becker encourages phone and video calls over texting. “Get that real human connection,” he says. “Sometimes it feels like you’re connecting when chatting on Messenger, but that’s not as effective in combating isolation as a video chat or a phone call.”

Keep an eye out for signs of mental illness among friends

For people on the outside, mental health decline can either be subtle or apparent. A drastic change in personality, for example, sometimes signals psychological distress, Rothman says. Other signs include class absences, plummeting grades, or neglected assignments. If a friend starts drinking or partaking in drug activity more than usual, it’s cause for concern, too. Make sure to point a loved one who’s struggling in the direction of on-campus resources or national networks.

Work towards accepting that campus life is going to be different

As students return to campus, there’s a universal hope that everything will be just as it was before the pandemic. “We all wish that,” Oberleitner says, “but we’re not there yet. The world is going to be a little different, and that’s okay.” College will be far from perfect these next few months—but accepting and building on this altered experience is the first step to having the most fulfilling semester possible.

The post 8 tips for boosting mental health at college in the age of COVID-19 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

What do you do when the world feels like it’s crashing down on you? Many young people deal with anxiety in the way that you or I would—going out for a walk, brewing a cup of tea, or taking a moment of mindfulness.

Every person on Earth has grown up with their own generation’s crises and dilemmas. But today’s kids are dealing with something that’s unprecedented in human history: They’re trying to survive in a world marred by climate change, while also leading widespread action against it.

When interviewing young folks for her soon-to-be-released book on climate activism, 19-year-old environmentalist Mya-Rose Craig was struck by the ages of her subjects. “They’ve been aware of these issues and have been fighting since they were young children,” the UK resident says.

As extreme weather, hunger, and displacement grip different regions, public health experts predict at least 250,000 yearly climate change deaths in the near future. That’s may be far less than the live lost in World War II, and even the COVID-19 pandemic, but it’s important to understand that there’s no clear end point to this catastrophe. “[Adults have] gone through life thinking that things can be bad sometimes, but we recover. We fix things,” says Caroline Hickman, a psychotherapist at the University of Bath and member of the Climate Psychology Alliance. “The problem is … the climate crisis isn’t like that.”

Youth and adults see climate change in vastly different ways, which means the anxiety they feel as they handle the future is different, too. And for many children, those mental health impacts are nearly unbearable. 

How do kids experience eco-anxiety?

Eco-anxiety is defined as persistent worry about the future of the warming planet, and how it will change in unpredictable ways. This kind of stress isn’t limited to kids—anyone who’s turned on the news can see just how disasters are escalating. But there’s a difference between slowly realizing that one day Miami may sink underwater and some species may go extinct, and having been born into the world knowing these realities.

Take the story of 17-year-old climate activist Genesis Whitlock. She learned about global warming in primary school, and saw it in action just a few years later when her home in the Caribbean was struck by Hurricane Irma. Entire towns and communities were completely destroyed, leaving thousands of people displaced and half of Barbuda’s population homeless. The destruction spurred Whitlock to stand up for her small island nation. “We have to acknowledge that we are extremely vulnerable to the climate crisis,” she says. “Mitigating climate change and advocating for climate justice must be our first priority.” 

[Related: It’s about time adults start rising up against climate change.]

This sentiment extends all around the globe—from countries that are major emitters to those that will suffer the worst climate change has in store. And whether kids learn about what’s happening in their science classrooms or out in the world, they will be moved by it, Hickman says, in part because they have a clear sense of justice

Just think about it like this—if you give two kids a piece of cake each and one is significantly larger than the other, you’ll never hear the end of it. It just simply isn’t fair. 

Climate change is a giant, glaring example of injustice against millions of people, especially the poor, sick, vulnerable, and newer generations. Even more frustratingly, governments and corporations have known about this problem for decades, and the answer to the dilemma is pretty cut and dry—lower greenhouse gas emissions. But what it really seems like to today’s youth is that adults really don’t care about them or their futures, and people in power have given them plenty of reason to believe so. 

So why haven’t adults done enough about climate change? There’s a simple psychological explanation for that, too, Hickman says. “We haven’t got this [wisdom] around the climate crisis because we haven’t faced anything that will create extinction of humanity,” she explains. So, there’s no mental roadmap to fall back on like with past global crises.

In a nutshell, grown-ups have pushed off their climate anxiety onto younger generations because it’s simply too much to handle. Many fall into two camps of avoidance, Hickman says: naive hope that someone out there is gonna invent the perfect solution just in the nick of time, or extreme pessimism the future is doomed no matter what. Choosing either option allows adults to feel fine with their inaction even as the planet burns around them.

“What children and young people are telling me is that they feel betrayed,” Hickman says. “They feel abandoned by adults. They are confused by adults, who are basically lying to them.”

[Related: We can avoid the worst effects of climate change, but we’re still in for a fight]

So on top of the anxiety of a changing planet, kids are facing the pain of disillusionment. As adults push climate change to the backburner of their lists of worries, the younger generations have to take up the helm because they know, more than anybody else, that unless climate change gets fixed, nothing else will matter. 

What can adults do to support?

Many young people have made it extremely clear that without fixing this problem, nothing else really matters—and that stance is backed up by cold, hard science. And a good way for grown-ups to contribute is by finally taking on the burden of solving the crisis.

“Adults focus too much on the past and blaming others on the issues that we are facing today,” says Joseph Wilkanowski, an 18-year-old activist from New York City. “We need to focus on what we can all do to start reversing some of the damage.”

Of course, it’s impossible to make change without the help of technology, industries, and politicians. But taking responsibility for our part in the crisis is more than just important for the young people in our lives—it helps us to actually get started on the work we need to do. “We need to accept what we’ve gotten wrong first,” Hickman says. “And we have to grieve.” 

In the same way that we need natural biodiversity to survive, we need emotional biodiversity, Hickman adds. To really do good, you must allow yourself to feel everything that today’s youth has been holding on to: anxiety, grief, guilt, shame, sadness, despair, rage, hopelessness, and hopefulness. By dealing with those negative feelings head-on, you can actually set an example for kids on how to handle stress—and open up real discussions about what they need from you as they contend with climate change.

“There should be more conversations at the dinner table, more news headlines, more opportunities to address the fact that we are soon approaching a point where we can no longer reverse the damage we have caused to the planet,” Whitlock says. “Adults should mobilize behind us to hold governments and corporations contributing to the climate crisis accountable and integrate climate justice in their everyday lives.”

So, if you care about the mental health of kids in your life, now is the time to act on climate change. Plant a carbon-sequestration garden, take public transit to work, hold businesses accountable for their actions, vote, change your diet, reduce your own consumption, and most importantly, listen and learn.

The post Kids are suffering from climate anxiety. It’s time for adults to do something. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

After she lost her child during childbirth, says Kay Matthews, it took months before her primary care doctor diagnosed her with postpartum depression. “I know I had the symptoms, I know that my experience was in alignment,” she says. She calls herself a researcher by nature, but nothing that she was finding helped her make the connection.

Until recently, treatment for perinatal depression—an umbrella term that refers to all depressive disorders related to pregnancy and childbirth—was exactly the same as for other depressive disorders. And Matthews says that the conflation of the two kept some people from seeking care. “Mental health and maternal mental health are two different diagnoses,” she says. “And this is where women struggle—we don’t want the Prozacs, we don’t want the heavy drugs without that diagnosis.”

As part of the movement towards treating perinatal depression as its own distinct issue, a new breed of fast-acting antidepressants is popping up. Positive results from a phase III trial of one such option, zuranolone, were published in June, showing that medication might offer at least some hope to those suffering during or after pregnancy. 

“I think we’re finally at the point where we might be entering this new frontier of treating postpartum depression, and breaking from the past where we treat it like any disorder,” says Kristina Deligiannidis, who studies and treats reproductive psychiatry at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, and is the lead author on the study. (Deligiannidis disclosed funding from the drug manufacturer, Sage, including grants for the study and private consulting fees.)

Zuranolone is a sister compound to another antidepressant, brexanolone, approved in 2019 to treat postpartum depression. Both are distinct from existing antidepressants in that they take effect within days, instead of weeks. And so far, patients have not reported suicidal ideation as a side effect, a major risk of existing drugs. But brexanolone is delivered by a multi-hour IV drip, while zuranolone is given as a series of daily pills.

In June, zuranolone’s manufacturer released top-line results from another phase III trial that used the drug to treat major depressive disorder. (The results haven’t gone through peer review.) Those results found some initial efficacy that waned over time, at least by one measure of depressive symptoms. But six weeks into the trial, there was no significant difference between those who’d received the placebo and those who’d received zuranolone. By another measure, zuranolone never made any difference. (After the trial concluded, however, blood analysis suggested that some participants hadn’t been taking their medication, which could explain the lack of results. Other trials for depression are ongoing.)

The postpartum trial was much less ambiguous. The drug was effective on multiple measures of depression, and the effect was consistent for six weeks after beginning treatment. In a press release, the company said that it would “discuss next steps” with the FDA.

More importantly for the purposes of patients, says Deligiannidis, at the end of the study, 53 percent of people who took zuranolone were in remission, versus 30 percent who’d taken the placebo.

That may be, at least in part, due to the difference between the broader major depressive disorder and the much more specific perinatal depression.

Although the language of psychiatry refers to major depressive disorder as a single diagnosis, its causes aren’t well-understood. It’s likely that those causes—social, neurological, genetic, and their overlaps—vary from person to person, just as symptoms do, and there are many different “depressions” that fall under the banner of “major depressive disorder.”

By contrast, Deligiannidis says, the triggers for perinatal depression are better understood, and are largely distinct. “I wonder if [perinatal depression] is a more pure subtype overall, in contrast to major depressive disorder in men and women across their lifetimes.”

[Related: Exercise really does seem to help with depression]

“The data so far is that women who develop perinatal depression or postpartum depression have an altered sensitivity to stress during these phases of reproductive hormone variability,” Deligiannidis says. That stress response seems to come from the interaction between a specific neuroreceptor, GABA, and reproductive hormones, but it’s shaped by genetics, previous trauma, or chronic stress. People who develop some form of perinatal depression seem to have GABA systems that aren’t able to adapt to changes in hormones and general stress either during or after pregnancy.

Researchers know that zuranolone, which is closely related to some of those key sex hormones, modulates some GABA receptors, which likely impacts how the entire brain responds to stress. “We know that it’s capable of changing brain function very quickly,” Deligiannidis says, “but that’s kind of the end of what we know.” But it may have something to do with why zuranolone seems to work for perinatal depression.

This lack of clarity isn’t entirely surprising in the field of antidepressants; despite decades of use, it’s still not clear why exactly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, an incredibly common class of antidepressant, alleviate some people’s symptoms and not others.

But even with zuranolone, perinatal depression remains a problem for about 13 percent of people who become pregnant.  Matthews says that was clear as she talked to people she knew about her experience—everywhere she turned, she found friends who could relate to what she described.  Those conversations led naturally into advocacy: she leads an organization that connects women, and especially women of color (who she describes as both under and overdiagnosed) with mental health resources around childbirth.”It affects everyone in their birthing experience, but there’s just not an alignment with conversations around maternal mental health,” she says. “There’s never been anything out there specific to this mental health condition.”

The post A new drug could help treat perinatal depression appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

As more people get vaccinated and guidelines loosen, the return to life as we knew it before the COVID-19 health crisis is finally in sight. But for some of us, that’s a frightening thought.

Even if you can’t relate, chances are someone around you still feels unprepared to go back to normal. Learning how to help them feel better in all this uncertainty can make this transition easier on everyone. 

“Anxiety can be a signal that something is important to you, and if you’re trying to get rid of anxiety entirely, dismissing or minimizing it can be unhelpful,” he says. 

Fear and anxiety evolved as a way to draw attention to potentially dangerous situations, but it becomes a disorder when it begins disrupting your day-to-day life. Getting anxious when you get an alert about suspicious usage on your debit card is healthy and normal. Feeling dread when a party invitation shows up in your inbox is a different thing.

[Related: How to keep your anxiety from spiraling out of control]

Part of the problem is that anxiety can be self-reinforcing. For example, if you suffer from social anxiety, canceling party plans will give you immediate relief. But over time, that creates a habit of avoidance that prevents you from learning to manage anxiety and live your life in a healthier way. 

And it’s not only canceling plans at the last minute. Having a little too much to drink at gatherings is also a type of avoidance, as is making an appearance early on and leaving when the room begins to fill up, or spending the entire time on your phone.

Being open and patient with anyone struggling with anxiety can definitely ease their transition.

Instead, asking somebody how they’ve been and letting them talk is the best option. This is especially true if you haven’t seen them for a while.

“Letting the person take the lead in what is and is not helpful for them can allow people to feel more in control of the situation, which may help decrease their anxiety about opening up,” says Kelly Heft, a licensed mental health counselor.

Be open and non-judgmental

You may think you know what a person is going through. But you have to keep in mind that you may not know the whole story, or that what may not look like a big deal from the outside might still cause a lot of distress for someone else. 

“People’s minds and bodies respond differently to input, and it’s not a matter of ‘strength’ or ‘weakness,’” Gunnia says. “There are factors from your upbringing that may impact how you perceive new input and how your body processes your autonomic responses.” 

[Related: How you and your family can cope with post-COVID anxiety]

You cannot know exactly what someone else has dealt with, so acknowledging what they went through will do more than trying to point out that it isn’t so bad. Try using phrases like “I can see how that must have been hard for you” or “Is there something I can do to help?”.

Instead, ask what they might need from you, or if they want to discuss what’s worked for you in similar situations. 

Above all, we’ll need to be patient with each other, and accept that people have changed in the wake of the pandemic. We’re going to have to get to know each other and ourselves again, and that’s going to be a process for all of us.

The post How to support people feeling anxious as pandemic restrictions lift appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Researchers have a hard time understanding how tiny changes to networks of neurons in an animal’s brain can affect its behavior. Now a team of researchers has figured out a way to tinker with the neural networks of mice in real time, using a wireless controller that can both shine light on the brain and deliver drugs to it. The device even lets scientists control the movements of their test mice from afar.

Neural circuits are thought to be key for various neurological disorders having to do with stress, depression, addiction, and pain—researchers can study them by adding various chemicals or light to neurons to mimic the disease. But observing or manipulating neural circuits to figure out how they work has been notoriously difficult. When researchers do tests on mice, the animals have to be awake and moving around, but the devices to monitor their brain activity are usually hooked up to wires, so they can’t move freely. When they’re implanted, the devices often displace a substantial amount of the mouse’s brain tissue, which could change the outcome of the experiments.

In this recent study, published last week in Cell, researchers tested a device made of soft materials and just one-tenth the width of a human hair—much less invasive than the devices typically used in drug injection experiments. The devices were also hooked up to tiny batteries so that they didn’t need to be attached to wires and contained reservoirs of the drugs or viruses that they wanted to test so that they could be injected wirelessly.

Mice with the device implanted.

To test the devices, researchers implanted them in the brains of several mice, which were put in a cage about three feet from the remote control. The device allowed them to precisely map the mice’s neural circuits by injecting viruses that label cells with genetic dyes. By injecting a morphine-like drug to the ventral tegmental area (VTA) of the brain that controls motivation and addiction, the researchers made the mice walk in circles. Viruses injected into the mice’s brains using the device made certain neurons in the VTA very sensitive to light; when the researchers shined light on those neurons using the device, the mice stayed only on one side of their cage.

In the study the researchers provide explicit instructions for how to manufacture the device, which contains four LEDs and has the capacity to inject four different chemicals or drugs into the mice’s brains. The researchers hope that other scientists will use their plans to discover more about how neural networks work to create or treat diseases.

The post Scientists Can Now Control Mice Brains Wirelessly appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

In 2006, at the age of 20, a junior at Indiana University Bloomington’s prestigious conservatory could barely pick up her viola. The student, who requested to remain anonymous, felt her life had become unmanageable. 

Every time she tried to play, waves of depression came on. Desperate to continue her studies, she turned to meditation. Occasional classes with her mom quickly turned into a routine regimen: 30 minutes of morning meditation, the same at night, as well as weekly group sessions and retreats at nearby ashrams. A year into her practice, her depression had melted away, she had friends, and she could play her viola again.

That was where her healing stopped—and where one of the darkest periods of her life began.

Like the violoist, millions of people have turned to meditation for their mental and physical wellbeing. Between 2012 and 2017, the percentage of U.S. adults who meditated in a given year more than tripled, from 4.1 percent to 14.2 percent, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). And many people benefit from the practice. Research suggests that regular meditation reduces blood pressure, symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome, anxiety and depression, and insomnia. 

But meditation isn’t always beneficial or even benign. A year after the student musician began meditating, she attended a group meditation in India along with 50,000 other people and their guru. When she returned, her perspectives had shifted in a surprisingly drastic way: Colors seemed brighter and inanimate objects suddenly held subliminal messages, energies, even personalities. She began to believe she had absorbed the power of her guru. Energy pulsed from the base of her spine to the crown of her head. It radiated through her limbs and into her viola. Each time she meditated, the feeling grew more intense. “I was losing touch with reality,” she says. “Messages were coming from everywhere in a barrage. It was terrifying.”

While home for the holidays in New York City, she refused to wear a coat in frigid weather, convinced she was immune to the cold. It was in a pizza restaurant, dressed in a single thin layer, sobbing, that an emergency medical technician approached her. Later that evening, at a psychiatric hospital, the young woman received her diagnosis: schizoaffective disorder, a type of schizophrenia. 

******

The violist wouldn’t be the first person to experience a psychiatric emergency after meditating. Dozens of similar cases have been documented in the medical literature going all the way back to 1915. On the subreddit r/meditation, users describe how they suddenly stopped sleeping after meditation retreats, developed a sense of impending doom, or felt as though they were “traveling through different timelines.”

To be clear, the majority of people who practice meditation won’t go on to develop psychosis or schizophrenia. And any connection between these serious mental illnesses and the practice of meditation isn’t entirely clear. While there’s still a lot researchers don’t know, some believe, based on case-reports, that people who are predisposed to mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, are more at risk. They compare the association between psychosis and meditation to observations that in rare cases, mind-altering substances like marijuana can trigger psychosis, particularly in individuals already vulnerable to mental illness. Similarly, not all meditation is the same, and it seems that meditation associated with hours of practice a day may be more connected to adverse experiences like psychosis compared to shorter periods of daily or weekly meditation. 

In 2017, a team of psychologists and religious scholars set out to understand the characteristics of these difficult experiences and how common they were. The team interviewed 73 western Buddhist meditation practitioners and experts. Their results, published in the journal PLOS One, found that 47 percent experienced delusions or paranormal beliefs, 42 percent had hallucinations, 62 percent went through sleep changes, and 82 percent experienced fear, anxiety, panic, or paranoia. The experiences weren’t always disabling—for some, they lasted less than a week. However, 73 percent of participants described “moderate to severe impairments” and 17 percent required inpatient hospitalization. 

To assess whether meditation might have caused these experiences, the study authors examined 11 criteria, including participants’ own beliefs, how soon after meditating the experience occurred, and whether or not the participants had the same experience when they tried meditating again. On average, participants met four criteria. (In these types of assessments, an average of two criteria is enough to signify a possible causal relationship.) 

Still, it’s impossible to determine with certainty whether, in any individual case, meditation causes psychosis. Most interviewees attributed these experiences to meditating, but it’s important to note that the study authors didn’t rule out other factors nor did they establish that meditating caused these experiences. It could be that psychosis and meditation, by chance, happen to coincide, says Pawan Sharma, a professor of psychiatry at Patan Academy of Health Sciences in Nepal. Sharma began publishing case studies and literature reviews on meditation-induced psychosis after working with a patient who was struggling with hallucinations and involuntary movement after months of meditating for hours each day. In some cases, if the interest in meditation seems sudden or uncharacteristic, the fixation could in itself be an early symptom of psychosis, Sharma said. 

But from a neuroscience perspective, the apparent connection between meditation and psychosis does make sense. Studies have shown that meditation itself has a very real effect on our brain. Meditation is linked to increased activity in areas of the brain associated with emotion regulation and concentration, which may help explain why some people benefit from the practice.  

[Read more: Are hyperbaric chambers really a fountain of youth?]

But like any other treatment or therapy that changes our body, meditation may have side effects. Some of the brain changes we see alongside meditation mimic those that take place during psychosis. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that meditation elevates dopamine in the brain—one of the hallmark characteristics of schizophrenia, says David Zilles-Wegner, a senior physician in psychiatry at University Medical Center Gottingen in Germany. Dopamine doesn’t just make us feel good, it also serves the purpose of telling our brain what is “salient.” In other words, what to focus on. “Dopamine is a kind of amplifier in the brain,” Zilles-Wegner says. But when we have too much dopamine, our brain begins thinking that even insignificant stimuli are relevant and important. Objects might seem to carry hidden messages; television personalities might seem to be speaking directly through the screen. 

It’s not just dopamine levels. In some people, meditation seems to sensitize the brain to the environment, making it more reactive. That may be why many people report feeling more attuned to their surroundings after meditating, says Willoughby Britton, a professor of psychiatry at Brown University who studies meditation-related challenges. One possible explanation for this phenomenon is a built in system in our brains, called homeostatic neuroplasticity, which makes sure that neural activity remains stable. When we reduce sensory input, this system turns the dial up, and vice versa.  When we meditate, it’s typically quiet, our eyes are closed, and we’re often actively focusing on only one stimulus (our breath, for instance). As such, there’s less for our brains to process. In response, homeostatic plasticity kicks into high gear. Our brains become more sensitive to stimuli. Nerves fire at the slightest provocation, so that colors become brighter and sounds louder. And sometimes, nerves fire with no stimuli at all—that can cause hallucinations.

People who are genetically predisposed to schizophrenia might be more likely to suffer these side-effects, experts point out. Many case studies of psychosis after meditation have been documented in people with a history of schizophrenia or other mental illness. But there’s not enough evidence to exclude this group of people from meditation entirely, Britton says. After all, some studies have found that meditation actually reduces schizophrenia symptoms. 

For some people, the negative side effects of meditation are transient. Twelve percent of participants in the 2017 PLOS ONE study felt impaired for less than a week after their symptoms started. For others, these experiences have longer-lasting consequences. More than half of participants in the same study had symptoms that lasted more than a year. 

The college violist falls into that category. Her schizophrenia is very much a presence in her life. Objects still carry subliminal meanings and personalities. But she’s finally found the right medication for her condition. Rather than the barrage that accosted her when she was unwell, these messages have transformed into a kind of enhanced creativity. She’s a writer, a mental health activist, and a musician; she also has a masters degree in social work.

It’s been fourteen years since the onset of her psychosis. She hasn’t meditated since.

*****

It’s controversial to assert that meditation might carry risks. I posted on the r/meditation subreddit, looking for people who might be willing to share their experiences. People who responded called the idea “hogwash.” I told Sharma about this; he laughed. Since beginning work in this area of psychiatry, he’s received his share of hate mail. “When we challenge somebody’s belief, they’re bound to get distraught about that,” Sharma says.

That said, Sharma isn’t anti-meditation. “Meditating is a good thing,” he says. Sharma believes there needs to be more awareness of the practice’s risks. For example, it’s possible that certain meditation practices are safer than others. In 2019, a group of researchers interviewed 1,232 regular meditators, asking them about particularly unpleasant meditation experiences. Their results, published in PLOS ONE, suggested that people who attended retreats, which often involve meditating in silence for hours each day, were more likely to report experiences like anxiety and hallucinations. Sharma also suspects that transcendental meditation, which often involves focusing on a mantra to produce an altered state of mind, is a risk factor for psychosis. Concentrating on the mantra can act as a kind of sensory deprivation, he says, compared to mindfulness meditation, which involves noticing stimuli in the environment.

[Read more: How does BMI change your COVID-19 risk? The answer reveals how little we know about body fat and health.]

The link we observe between meditation and psychosis highlights how little we understand about meditation. Much of the neuroscience focusing on meditation relies on studies that compare meditators and non-meditators, says Katya Rubia, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at King’s College London. It’s hard to draw concrete conclusions from this kind of research, because outside factors, like socio-economic status and activity levels, could affect the results. Ideally, she says, we’d have experiments in which people are randomly assigned to meditation and non-meditation groups, then compared. 

Most importantly, studies on the neuroscience of meditation need to better honor the diversity of responses to the practice, Brown University’s Britton says. “Much of science is based on averages,” she wrote in an email, “Neuroimaging studies that seek to understand what meditation does to the brain combine different, and sometimes opposite neurological changes, and make a generalized statement that represents the majority of people.” That statement might be accurate most of the time—but it also tends to swamp other responses to meditation, which matter too and deserve attention. “Science needs to reflect the experiences of everyone, Britton wrote, “not just the majority.”

The post Meditation isn’t always calming. For a select few, it may lead to psychosis. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

THE FIRST TIME I get high on ketamine, I’m not sure I’m doing it right. The setting is nice enough: I’m tucked beneath a gray weighted blanket, reclining on a creamy leather chair. Headphones deliver the sort of playlist you’d find by searching for “meditation” on Spotify, and a mural of a gorgeous forest is the last thing I see before putting on a silky sleep mask. A therapist sits a few feet away, ready to provide reassurance if I need it. Down the hall, a friendly nurse practitioner is on call with Tylenol and gluten-free pretzels if I feel a little peaky when the session finishes, plus anti-anxiety medication if the sensation crosses into a little more than peaky. I am warm, safe, and supported.

Am I high enough, though? Should someone be saying something? Has it started? Am I ruining things by expecting something to “start”?

I came to Field Trip, a psychedelic clinic in midtown Manhattan, to try to vanquish post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from an abusive relationship that ended years ago. Ketamine’s on-label use is for surgical anesthesia, but over the past two decades, neuroscientists and psychiatrists have found it remarkably effective in treating symptoms of depression. Subsequent studies have also shown its promise with other mental health problems such as anxiety, substance abuse disorders, and PTSD.

In operating rooms, anesthesiologists characterize the drug as dissociative—distorting perception of sight and sound to the point of temporary oblivion—yet when it’s shot into my arm for the first time I remain decidedly associated. I feel woozy and relaxed, and the vague patterns of light and color I’m used to seeing when I squeeze my eyes closed are more vivid than usual. Still, all I can think about is that I’m supposed to be viewing my trauma with a new lens: seeing what I did and what was done to me from some great protective height. Turning inward will, I hope, empower me to banish whatever monsters I might find there. But right now, all my inner self has to say is, I am probably doing ketamine wrong.

After about an hour spent debating whether I should speak my misgivings out loud, my therapist gently invites me to “return to the space.” Over a cup of turmeric tea, I sheepishly admit that I fear I wasted my first of six prescribed “experiences.”

They assure me that this is common among their clientele so far. Field Trip opened its first clinic, in Toronto, in March 2020, to treat depression and other mental health problems, and has operated in New York City only since the following July. With my sessions straddling the turn of 2021, I’m working through a protocol the team there is still studying and adjusting.

To the average person, what Field Trip is doing may seem like a fringe practice, but it isn’t, strictly speaking, all that new. Research on how psychedelic experiences may relieve mental health conditions dates to the middle of the 20th century and stems from spiritual and cultural practices centuries older than that. Ketamine’s ability to cure patients let down by traditional antidepressants and therapy emerged in the late ’90s, and since then, investigators have worked steadily to hone their understanding. It’s helped a lot that the drug, approved as a general anesthetic in 1970, is easy to get—unlike more heavily regulated compounds like LSD or psilocybin. That availability, though, has also made it possible for commercial use to outpace scientific consensus. Online directories indicate that at least 75 US clinics offer the substance to the public.

[Related: What happens with psychedelics make you see God?]

While evidence for ketamine’s antidepressant effects is strong, questions remain about exactly how it should be administered, to whom, and how often. And only in the past few years have researchers begun to test it in Field Trip–like regimens—taken in trip-inducing portions in conjunction with talk therapy. If the outcomes are positive, that would align with similar findings for other psychedelic substances.

In my own search for healing, I have tried antidepressants, anti-anxiety meds, and cognitive behavioral therapy. The existing data told me that ketamine might help and, even if it didn’t, was unlikely to do any harm if my practitioners are careful and trustworthy. I decided to take the risk.

IN 2006, WHEN I WAS 14, an episode of House M.D. gave me a glimpse into ketamine’s potential. It’s good TV: After a gunshot wound, the medical drama’s titular drug addict and diagnostic supersleuth emerges from surgery to a confusing series of hallucinations and stretches of lost time. He blames his colleagues for dosing him with ketamine as an anesthetic. They counter there’s research suggesting that a single infusion could alleviate his chronic leg pain. Plot twist! It’s all been a dream, and he’s still bleeding out from his bullet wound. As he’s rolled into the ER, House gasps, “Give me ketamine.”

Later episodes portray a man reborn without pain or strife, albeit temporarily. I remember being amused at the suggestion that just one IV drip might rewire your brain for the better. But when writers scripted the show, real-world research on ketamine had implications beyond easing nerve pain. That same year, scientists at the National Institutes of Mental Health released the results of a trial in which 17 patients with depression received IVs of ketamine while 14 with a similar profile got saline drips. Nearly 75 percent of those receiving the drug showed marked improvement in their depression symptoms the day after; more than a third of them still felt the effects a week later. A quick infusion seemed to accomplish what years of therapy and traditional medication had not.

Meanwhile, the notion that tripping can be a lasting cure for mental illness has been around since the 1950s. Early tests combining LSD, mescaline, or psilocybin with talk therapy delivered promising results. But the Nixonian war on drugs made the substances illegal in 1970, stymying progress for those psychedelics and eventually MDMA as well. Decades of lobbying from academics and the nonprofit research group Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) eventually led the Food and Drug Administration to recommend in the early 1990s that studying MDMA could continue under strict oversight.

That, coincidentally, is about the same time ketamine came into the conversation, as neuroscientists began to suspect it might affect depression. While all mental illnesses have complex causes, we know that the balance of certain chemicals called neurotransmitters—which facilitate communication between nerve cells—plays a part in regulating symptoms of depression. Common medications such as Prozac and Lexapro primarily act by boosting happy-making serotonin to spur the brain to increase its interconnectivity over the course of weeks or months. Though the exact mechanism by which these drugs work is still rather murky, eventually, researchers at Yale became intrigued by the potential role of another, more abundant brain chemical: glutamate.

If drugs that target serotonin help, they posit, then compounds that zero in on glutamate might help even more. They theorize that depressive symptoms arise when receptors in the brain that handle glutamate—what Gerard Sanacora, director of the Yale Depression Research Program, describes as the “gasoline” of the brain—aren’t being stimulated and can’t do their thing. That causes some synapses, the junctions between neurons, to wither. Ketamine reactivates those glutamate receptors, which may then create a sudden boom of new brain cell connections as the system goes back to normal. They suspect that this superbloom of neural networks represents a quicker, more reliable version of the same process by which more mainstream antidepressant meds work.

While the precise mechanism at play remains unknown, when ketamine is effective, it can be like flipping a switch. “In psychiatry, we just generally don’t have treatments that work quickly,” says David Feifel, who was a professor of psychiatry at UC San Diego when he read the 2006 NIMH ketamine study. “I thought, If this is even half as good as it appears to be, it’s going to be a blockbuster.” Consider the potential impact: More than 264 million people on Earth are affected by depression, according to the World Health Organization, which makes it a leading cause of disability and a major contributor to suicide, which kills nearly 800,000 people globally each year. Knowing the stakes, Feifel set out to look into ketamine for himself.

With the drug readily available as an anesthetic, he opened an outpatient program at UCSD in 2008 and began collecting data, though he recalls that some of his colleagues acted as if he were the one in need of psychiatric help for starting the practice. “It was very controversial,” he says, but the effort maintained the university’s approval by treating only the most desperate. “We started with the patients who had tried everything and failed and were suicidal if we didn’t do anything,” Feifel says.

In 2014, psychiatrists and neuroscientists at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai published the first randomized trial on ketamine for chronic PTSD in JAMA Psychiatry. They had found a marked reduction in symptoms in their 41 subjects after a single dose. Three years later, Feifel published his own findings in the Journal of Affective Disorders—the first report on how ketamine patients fared outside the controlled setting of a clinical trial, and one that confirmed the drug’s efficacy in treating depression. Since then, a handful of other small studies have supported Mount Sinai’s results, and some suggest that repeat dosing may help sustain improvements in mental health over time.

Convinced that academia was moving too slowly, Feifel opened a private clinic offering ketamine and other therapies in La Jolla, California, in 2017. While he agrees that more work is needed to fully harness the drug’s potential for depression and other conditions, he has no qualms about carefully monitored use in private facilities. “There’s too much suffering out there,” Feifel says. “We’ve got to help people, because their lives are ticking away.”

FIELD TRIP’S PRACTITIONERS ease me into higher doses with each visit, and it’s around the halfway point in my regimen that I go from feeling slightly not-lucid to knowing what it means to be high on ketamine. My “journeys” are at first unfamiliar but easily described: a feeling of deep contentment, of being held close, with rapid-fire thoughts that seem somehow more profound than they would otherwise, and perhaps a slight sense of disconnection from my body. By the fourth session, the experiences become almost impossible to articulate.

Under the influence of 85, 90, 100 milligrams of ketamine (Field Trip set my max dose at around 1 milligram per kilogram of body weight), my perception of time and sound warp in irreproducible ways. I see colorful patterns. Not swirly like clichéd lava lamps and black-light posters, but tessellated or jagged like pyrite. The shapes collapse in on themselves and cycle in time with the music from my headphones, which also collapses in on itself and becomes quite atonal. I frequently feel as if I’m sinking into heaps of soft grass. The world and everything in it is made of shades of green.

Somewhere in this emerald whirlpool that looks like pixelated glass but feels like a cloud, I hope to find and slay my demons.

Living with PTSD has been like living in a haunted house. It’s not inherently untenable. I’ve met ghosts capable of tormenting me for a few hours or days, but most are benign. Still, I never know when a bubble bath will remind me of the nights I spent floating in my ex’s tub feeling as if I might as well die. I lose time and expend a lot of emotional energy occasionally ruminating on my past self’s inability to leave an abusive relationship. Sometimes it feels as if jump-scare-loving ghouls have settled into my sock drawer and under my desk, and I have no way of knowing when they’ll choose to pop out.

Then there’s the existential threat. To live with PTSD, for me, is to know that there is always the possibility that I will be scared to death. That a memory will emerge that I cannot recover from. That I will become mired in helplessness and despair in a way that nothing—not the happy marriage and comfortable home of my current life nor the years of therapy I’ve absorbed—will be able to counteract.

Unfortunately for me and upward of 8 percent of the US population, PTSD is even less understood than major depressive disorder, though the two often tend to darken the same halls. Early research like the 2014 Mount Sinai study suggests that the same kind of miraculous plug-and-play IV therapy that makes ketamine a game changer for depression might help PTSD patients, but the effects on both can be temporary. As difficult as it was for psychiatrists 20 years ago to believe that ketamine might turn depression around in a day, it seems even more far-fetched that something as complex as trauma, which can come from any number of sources and manifest in infinite ways—from violent flashbacks to emotional detachment—could disappear with only a single shot.

But the practitioners at Field Trip don’t promise quick fixes. My treatment protocol, informed by the work laid out by the MAPS research group and similar organizations, is far from a fast infusion in a doctor’s office. It begins with a psychiatrist’s evaluation and an hour-long initial session with the licensed therapist who will guide me through the process, which consists of two ketamine experiences a week for three weeks. Before each, I meet with my therapist to set intentions. I talk about my history of eating disorders and my recurring memories of abuse, and how I would like to find some kind of healing. A nurse practitioner takes my vitals as I settle in. Then it’s into the dark, curated streaming playlist void, and I feel the dull punch of the drug being shot into my tricep.

I’m aimless and out of it for about an hour at most. Though I occasionally zero in on some profound realization under the swirling green, it’s in the integration phase—the 20 or so minutes I spend talking with my therapist as I wake up and the hour I spend talking to her over video chat the following day—that the real magic is happening. Feeling soft and open (“expansive” is the word I often write in my journal), I experience a mental quiet I have never known before. I’m able to have one single thought at a time. I luxuriate over each notion like it’s a piece of chocolate melting in my mouth. I am achingly kind to myself in these moments, and I ache to be so kind to myself at all times.

This course of treatment—a high-intensity trip bookended by shrink sessions—is known as psychedelic-assisted therapy. The evidence has piled up that this approach works with other drugs, but no one’s stringently tested it yet with ketamine. A 2020 overview, authored by several experts in association with the American Psychiatric Association Council of Research, concluded that, based on existing clinical trials, MDMA seems to be effective against PTSD when combined with tailored therapy. The same is true for psilocybin as a remedy for depression and cancer-related anxiety. Results are more scant, but promising, for LSD.

[Related: 8 common misconceptions about drugs]

Although ketamine has the most data backing its use in addressing depression out of the whole bunch, it’s gotten the least academic attention in terms of developing treatments that combine it with therapy. “The issue with ketamine now is that it’s already out there,” Feifel says. “It’s approved for anyone to use in any way, which makes it hard to set standards.” Any physician with a controlled-substance license can administer the stuff. That means clinics can make up their own ways of using it—ranging from IVs of the drug administered by anesthesiologists to lower repeated doses. There’s even an FDA-approved ketamine variant, Spravato, which shows great promise in fighting treatment-resistant depression and isn’t intended to induce psychedelic experiences at all. The question for places like Field Trip, Feifel says, is how to determine if therapy provides an added benefit and whether psychedelic experiences are a crucial part of the process. Those answers require more research.

When the FDA clears other psychedelics specifically for treating depression and PTSD, Feifel expects to see more standardization in how they’re used. Advocacy groups like MAPS envision a future where people struggling with their mental health can work with practitioners to decide which mind-altering compound might assist them and how they should combine the experience with therapy to best achieve long-term healing.

BECAUSE OF THE LACK of existing data on ketamine for psychedelic-assisted therapy, there’s no clear endpoint at which I’ll be able to say it’s “worked” for me and that the benefits won’t slip away in time. More than three months after my last treatment, I still feel improved, though perhaps not as radically as I did a few weeks ago. I will keep going to talk therapy. I will keep meditating. If I start having more “bad” days than “good” ones, my therapist might recommend a “booster” appointment a couple of times a year or as often as every six weeks. Maybe I’ll try other drugs too.

In the course of my reporting for this article, more than one researcher told me they would just love to see how I’d do on MDMA, which, if current trials stay on track, could get the FDA greenlight as soon as 2023. Field Trip, for its part, is working on developing more long-term solutions that don’t necessarily require more drugs; the company plans to create group counseling options for people who’ve been through the experience. Regardless, I do feel the ketamine sessions helped me. With nothing to compare them to and a sample size of just one Rachel, I can’t draw any broader conclusions.

[Related: Oregon voted to legalize mushrooms. Here’s what that means.]

For me—despite the fact that science can’t yet explain precisely why—having taken ketamine helps me see that I’m not trapped in a haunted house. I am the haunted house.

It’s like this. Somewhere in the midst of my fourth treatment, when I’ve decided to focus on seeking respect for myself and my body, my abuser finally appears. My dose is high enough at this point that thinking of anything, including my own name, leads me to lazily roll the word around in my brain as an abstract concept: What is a “Rachel,” really?

At last, the pathological narcissist who coercively controlled me all those years ago floats through my hazy green space. I immediately grasp that he is physically a part of me. By that I don’t mean I’m mulling over the great oneness of all living things. When I emerge from the trip and enter the integration phase of my treatment, what I write in my journal is not that we are universally connected. I write that the memories and horrors and ruminations that make up my PTSD are not my ex. They are me. I do not have to fight and struggle to excise them, but rather to love and cherish and heal them.

On my way home from my final session, I think I see the man who abused me. My Lyft idles at an intersection where I might once have expected to run into him, and someone in the crosswalk lights up my brain like a parade. His face is turned away, but his clothes, his swagger, the flip of his hair. Could it be? No, as it turns out. The hands are all wrong.

As we coincidentally follow this stranger from stoplight to stoplight, crawling in rush-hour traffic, I ask myself what this soft, enlightened, expansive Rachel would do if it were the man who’d pitted and scarred me inside and out. Would I simply close my eyes and wish him well? Would I lower the window and shout forgiveness?

No, I decide. I would still tell him he could go rot in hell. My sense of connection and empathy didn’t change how I would confront a bad man standing right in front of me. Nor did it quiet the protective instincts that had long left me on edge whenever I passed through his old stomping grounds. But I do feel better able to put the ghosts in my head to bed. I settle back into the folds of my rideshare’s leather seat and close my eyes the rest of the way home.

This story originally ran in the Spring 2021 Calm issue of PopSci. Read more PopSci+ stories.

The post Can tripping on ketamine cure PTSD? I decided to try. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

After the long shutdown due to the covid pandemic, the US is slowly reopening. After more than 18 months of confinement, vaccines are making it possible for authorities to finally lift the rules we’ve grown accustomed to. 

As excited as we all may be to get back to normal, the changing or lifting restrictions come with a certain amount of anxiety. 

The first time I walked into a grocery store maskless after Massachusetts stopped requiring people to wear face coverings indoors, I had a pit in my stomach waiting for someone to yell at me. There are also people who have a hard time feeling safe without a mask on, or comfortable sharing a reduced space with others, even if they’re fully vaccinated. 

It’s going to be a process for some of us. Fortunately, we can take steps to help ourselves and our families work through those feelings and get back to the lives that we want to live. 

Anxiety is natural and valid

Some level of anxiety is a common and expected response to any change in the world around us, says Nicole Beurkens, a licensed child psychologist in Caledonia, Michigan.

“Now we’re making a change again, and it’s a new pattern, unfamiliar, and it raises our stress and anxiety levels,” she says.  

[Related: COVID-19 survivors may have higher risk of anxiety, depression, and neurological disorders]

The uncertainty we felt when the pandemic required that we stay home, wear masks and social distance, is peeking its ugly face now that a new reality is upon us. But just as we were able to adjust to those mandates, our brains will settle into new patterns and reacclimate—it just takes a little time.  

And while some anxiety is natural, if at any point it becomes overwhelming and it significantly interferes with you or your kids’ daily lives, Holly Schiff, a licensed clinical psychologist in Greenwich, Connecticut, suggests seeking professional help or utilizing community resources such as mental health community centers, outpatient clinics, and social services agencies. 

Don’t try to do too much

Everyone has their own comfort level with re-entering society. It’s ok if you prefer a slow pace, but keep in mind that avoiding these potentially uncomfortable situations altogether doesn’t help, and only serves to generate more anxiety. 

Michael Ceely, a licensed family therapist in San Francisco, California, is a big advocate of taking baby steps as we emerge from our bubbles. Rather than having a big family barbecue or a crowded concert as your first outing post lockdown, he recommends taking a walk with a friend, or getting coffee in an outdoor cafe. The idea is to find activities that push you to get out into the world, but won’t completely overwhelm you. 

Beurkens adds that taking it slow and incrementally putting yourself out there is particularly important for children. In the fall, a lot of kids will be going back to school fully in-person, in some places likely without masks or other protective measures in place. If being in crowded hallways will be their first exposure to other people after all this time, they may struggle. 

It’s crucial to help kids work those coping muscles again. Parents should be gentle, but also persistent about getting the younglings back out into the world. 

Communication is key

Having clear, direct conversations is also important. Within your family, talk about the things that you are afraid of and the sources of your anxiety. Ask your children questions about how they’re feeling, what types of activities they’re OK with doing, and with whom. 

“Don’t just hope that everyone is going to be OK. You need to have the difficult conversations” Ceely says. 

He also stresses that these interactions should be about listening. “We are warming them back up to getting back out into the world,” he says. Conversations that validate concerns can help ease some of the anxiety, but too much pressure can increase it. 

[Related: What mental health professionals have learned six months into pandemic care]

It’s also important not to bury those anxious feelings, says Claudia Finkelstein, associate professor of family medicine at Michigan State University. Instead, make the effort to identify, name, and own your emotions and concerns. There is nothing wrong with feeling stressed during stressful times. 

These conversations can also be lessons in resilience, adds Beurkens. If your kids are concerned, remind them about other challenges they’ve overcome in their lives. 

“Kids need to understand that it’s OK to have these feelings,” she says. “Acknowledge and empathize, and express your confidence in their ability to navigate it.” 

One way to help them build that confidence is to preview uncomfortable activities with them. Talk through how they may feel and present them strategies they can use to navigate those feelings. Also discuss what to do in case the situation does get overwhelming. Identify locations they can go to get away from people and have some time to themselves, and come up with a plan for how to make an easy exit as a family if the situation is too much. 

Conversations aren’t just limited to direct family. It’s also a good idea to touch base with the comfort levels of your kids’ friends’ parents, and other people coming into close contact with your children.

“Go into that conversation without expectations or solutions, and simply share your concerns and ask questions,” Ceely says. 

Talk through who is vaccinated or not, whether masks are important to you, and whether you want to prioritize indoor or outdoor activities. Remember that you don’t have to decide anything right away, but simply having the conversation will help to ease everyone’s anxiety.

Managing anxiety in the moment

For me, it was playing mini golf with my family on a crowded evening, maskless. Eventually it’ll happen to you too, and you will be in a situation that makes you uncomfortable. 

When those inevitable moments happen, Claudia Finkelstein recommends the power of the 4-4-8 breathing technique—breathe in for four seconds, hold it for four seconds, and then breathe out for eight seconds. 

[Related: The best apps for dealing with anxiety]

Breathing exercises like this help you reset your parasympathetic nervous system, which controls the body’s “rest and digest” processes. When these processes are in control, it reduces our physiological stress response, and we calm down and relax. 

“Where your body goes, your brain follows,” Finkelstein says. “If you can force your body to calm down, your mind will calm down as well.”

She also recommends focusing on the things that you can control. We can’t control whether other people are following local guidelines, decide to get vaccinated, or subscribe to the misinformation about COVID-19. But you can control your own emotional state, your response to the mandates, and the specific actions you can take in the face of anxiety and adversity.

Ceely agrees. Even as the US reopens, there’s so much uncertainty that dwelling on the future or what others are doing doesn’t help you or your family. His advice is simple: “Control what you can control with the information that you have.” 

The post How you and your family can cope with post-COVID anxiety appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

A small phase II clinical trial, published on June 9 in the journal Science Translational Medicine, found that nitrous oxide—known in the dentist’s office as “laughing gas”—may help drive down symptoms in some people with treatment-resistant depression. 17 million U.S. adults experience depression for which common treatments don’t seem to work, and researchers have also been interested in approaches that act faster than traditional medications for depression, like SSRIs, which can take up to six weeks to begin working. 

“Until the introduction of ketamine, there was no drug that could rapidly improve depressive symptoms,” says lead author Peter Nagele, a trauma anesthesiologist at the University of Chicago. Ketamine, which, like nitrous oxide, has been around for a long time, is considered a “promising” new treatment option, but it can have serious side effects, Nagele says, such as increases in blood pressure, hallucination, and addiction. Like ketamine, nitrous oxide blocks a neural receptor called the NMDA receptor, which indicated to researchers that it might have a similar antidepressant effect. Laughing gas “might be the oldest drug we use in medicine, older than aspirin”—it started out as a party drug in 18th century England, hence the name—and it’s considered less risky in terms of side effects, says Nagele. 

This phase II trial followed an initial phase II “proof-of-concept” trial involving 20 participants, whose results, published back in 2015, suggested that nitrous oxide may have fast-working antidepressant effects. However, “a lot of important questions were unanswered,” says Nagele, like whether a lower dose of nitrous oxide would work as well with fewer side effects (some patients experienced nausea or vomiting), and how long the anti-depressant effects would last. 

The trial, which was meant to test those questions, involved 20 people with treatment-resistant depression. The majority of participants were women, and 96 percent were white. The researchers tested two different doses of nitrous oxide (and a placebo of regular oxygen), which the participants inhaled for one hour. Researchers did a series of mood assessments on the patients before and after inhalation, with one last assessment taken four weeks after the last treatment. 

[Read more: Mental health ‘first aid’ can give bystanders the skills to act in a crisis]

“I work with these people for so many years, I don’t expect to see new things work,” senior author Charles Conway, professor of psychiatry at Washington University, told STAT News. “But patients in this trial, some of whom I have known for a long time, got better.”

The researchers found that both doses actually had a similar level of effectiveness, but the lower dose had fewer side effects such as nausea or headaches. When the three-month study was finished, 85 percent of patients saw improvements. Eight of the 20 people entered remission, scoring within a healthy range on a depression scale, and 11 out of 20 people saw a drop of over 50 percent in their score on a depression scale. 

“And we showed really, for the first time, that in many patients, these effects would last for two weeks,” says Nagele.

The researchers noted that the study had limitations: It was difficult to prevent participants from identifying the placebo treatment, for example, and some patients changed their antidepressant dosage during the trial. 

“The key limitation is that it’s a very small study,” Ravi Das, a psychopharmacologist at University College London, told NBC news. Other experts told STAT News that nitrous oxide could potentially be abused, like other drugs that work on the brain, and that there’s insufficient safety data on its extended use. Given that nearly all of the participants were white, Lisa Harding, a psychiatrist at the Yale School of Medicine, told STAT News that future trials need to include a more diverse set of patients. 

“It’s exciting to have these kinds of preliminary findings, says Nagele, “but the results must be not only replicated, but shown in much larger, more diverse, and even hopefully international clinical trials.”

The post Laughing gas could help people with hard-to-treat depression appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Six strangers sit in a dimly lit Brooklyn classroom watching a woman have a panic attack. She bows over a metal folding chair, gasping for air as her eyes dart around the circle of bystanders, breathlessly pleading for one of them to help.  

And then, one does; she sits the frantic woman down and asks her to breathe, slowly and deeply. “In….. and out, in….and out,” the stranger models. “It looks like you’re having a panic attack,” she says reassuringly. “It feels scary now, but they usually don’t last more than five minutes. It will be over soon.” 

Such was one of the many scenarios played out at Mental Health First Aid (MHFA), an all-day course teaching volunteers how to recognize and respond to signs of crisis in strangers. Like physical first aid, MHFA is meant to supplement—not replace—professional support. But in imminent crises like panic, psychosis, addiction, and suicide, MHFA gives ordinary bystanders research-backed tactics to intervene. 

“Mental health problems are really common, far more so than some of the things you learn about in a regular first aid course,” says Betty Kitchener, the nurse who co-founded MHFA on the other side of the world in 2000, in an explainer video. 

COVID-19 has only made that more true. In a 2020 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of roughly 5,500 US adults, 41 percent reported at least one adverse mental health condition, with 26 percent experiencing symptoms of anxiety (versus 8 percent in 2019) and 24 percent experiencing symptoms of depression (versus 7 percent in 2019). Separate CDC data found that overdose deaths during 2020 were higher than they had been during any 12-month period on record, and a recent analysis by Tulane University confirms that Google searches related to panic attacks have spiked.

As more Americans are witnessing mental health crises (or experiencing one themselves) for the first time, a growing number are participating in Mental Health First Aid—an 8-hour certification-based course, now adapted to a virtual setting—to learn short-term solutions. Since launching its virtual format in July 2020, MHFA has trained more than 62,000 people remotely. It’s likely why the American Red Cross recently created its own virtual “Psychological First Aid,” a course for people to “support [themselves] and others during COVID-19,” the website reads.

[Related: Naomi Osaka put her mental health first—and that needs to be normalized]

COVID consequences aside, mental health first aid trainings could also help address the nation’s impending shortage of professional therapists—a resource many Americans already find difficult to access and afford. And as cities heed growing calls to make “major changes” to their law enforcement systems, the two-decade-old MHFA model could offer ways for police and non-police to intervene in a mental health crisis proactively. 

It’s likely why 20 US states—both blue and red—have made MHFA a funding priority since 2015. But for all of the potential mental health first aid holds in addressing mental health crises on the mass scale, the real test of the model will come as trainees are called to put their lessons to practice in the real world. 

Stop, look, and listen 

Mabel Martinez-Almonte learned a key part of mental health first aid as a 10-year-old kid, decades before she would come to teach it. Growing up during the early 1970s in a part of Brooklyn with “a lot of gang activity,” Almonte says she quickly became “streetwise”—learning the language and behaviors of people who hung out around her neighborhood so she could safely play outside with her two older brothers. But years later, when she’d meet people who’d instead grown up “sheltered,” she noticed something troubling about how they would interact with individuals who didn’t look or act like they did. “They might think, ‘Oh, if somebody has a tattoo, they must be a drug addict,’” she says. “[People] create these stereotypes out of fear and anxiety, but there’s no truth to them.”

Almonte would continue to confront stereotypes when she became a licensed occupational therapist and worked on an in-patient psychiatric unit, while using a wheelchair. “You would think that somebody with a physical disability should be concerned about encountering a really angry, agitated patient,” says Almonte. “But what I found is that it’s all about how you encounter the person; how you give them space; how you acknowledge that they are in distress at the moment and are empathetic to them.”

After 24 years of helping individual patients with stress management and coping skills, Almonte enrolled in MHFA as soon as she learned about it, thinking it would be “right up [her] alley” to teach others the mental health crisis interventions she practices. “I wanted to train as many nursing staff as possible,” she remembers, having often witnessed a vicious cycle: Psychiatric patients would be admitted through the emergency room, and nurses wouldn’t know what to do. The most common practice was to “give them some kind of medication to de-escalate whatever was going on,” Almonte remembers—but that wasn’t a long-term solution for the patient nor the underlying stereotypes in the system. 

“These nurses would be petrified of being assaulted,” she remembers. She says their anxieties—made worse by a “culture of rumors” and a news cycle that disproportionately focused on a few rare cases of mental illness-related violence—were understandable. But in reality, Almonte reminded them, people with psychiatric diagnoses are much more likely to be the victims of assault than the perpetrators.  

Almonte emphasized these points at Brooklyn’s SUNY Downstate Hospital, where I met her and five others taking MHFA in January 2020. Beyond the panic attack improvisation, Almonte used quizzes, videos, and live role play to help us consider what to do if someone is having hallucinations, showing signs of addiction, or exhibiting other concerning behaviors. The answers, we learned, are contained in a handy mnemonic device, ALGEE: (A)ssess for risk of suicide or harm, (L)isten non-judgmentally, (G)ive reassurance and information, (E)ncourage appropriate professional help, and (E)ncourage self-help and other support strategies.  

While most trainees attended MHFA that day to get professional health and social work accreditations, Cindy Yee, a New York born-and-raised millennial working in e-commerce, was there for personal reasons. “My mom has some erratic behaviors, and it can be hard to adjust to [her] mood swings,” Yee said. “So I thought, ‘Maybe I should just be a bit more proactive in understanding what’s going on with her, and figuring out what self-care techniques could work for us, because it does get very exhausting.”

Fourteen months after taking MHFA, Yee tells me it has, in fact, helped her better understand and interact with her mom. “I would sometimes lose my temper, but now I just let her talk and listen instead of snapping,” Yee says, adding that some of the benefits have passed on to her other family members, too.

[Related: City life damages mental health in ways we’re just starting to understand]

Yee also says the training has helped her “feel a lot more empathetic” for fellow New Yorkers she sees in distress. But so far, Yee says, that’s been more “observing than intervening,” especially during COVID. “When I’m taking a train, I notice more incidents where someone is crying or laughing,” says Yee, a first-generation immigrant who’s lived in the city for her whole life. “Even though people kind of clear away, I’m like, ‘Okay, maybe I’ll just stay for five minutes in case the person needs something.’”

“Aiming to be as evidence-based as possible”

Yee’s instincts to help are exactly what Betty Kitchener had hoped for when she conceived of Mental Health First Aid. As a teenager in the suburbs of Sydney, Australia, in the 1960s, she suffered from severe depression and had attempted suicide. But unlike the crisis hotlines, internet guides, and school counselors typically available to today’s teens, Kitchener had no expert help. 

One evening in 1997, while walking her dog down the streets of Canberra with her psychologist husband, Anthony Jorm, Kitchener began to wonder how many others had similarly suffered from a mental illness in solitude. More importantly, what would it take to support them? Her husband had an idea: Just as Kitchener had taught first aid for physical emergencies, could they develop such a course for psychological triage? 

The duo spent the next three years researching that question. On weekends, they’d bring together nurses, psychologists, teachers, regular first aid instructors, and mental health care recipients to co-design the curriculum, which they piloted for a local Australian group in November 2000. Two years and many sessions later, they found an encouraging answer: In the first uncontrolled study of MHFA, participants reported that the training improved their mental health literacy. 

MHFA has since reached 4 million people across 24 countries, where those early results have been consistently replicated by Jorm, Kitchener, and a slew of independent researchers. Studies from Sweden, Canada, and California consistently find that MHFA improves its trainees’ mental health literacy, reduces the stigmas they hold around mental illness, and gives them greater confidence in providing help to those in distress. 

But where the studies fall short, critics say, is in measuring whether recipients of mental health first aid find it helpful. Amy Morgan, a senior research fellow at the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health at University of Melbourne, says that’s the “holy grail” question of mental health first aid—and one that’s inherently “really hard” to answer. 

Like physical first aid, part of that difficulty comes from its design; people give emergency care where and when it’s needed, and often never see their patient again. So, to compensate, Morgan and her team designed a randomized controlled study training people with teenage children in MHFA. In the experimental group, the researchers measured whether teens with trained parents showed mental health improvements over time, compared with a control group whose parents didn’t learn MHFA. But despite multiple attempts, Morgan admits those studies are “still a bit inconclusive.”

“We just didn’t get the participant numbers we needed,” says Morgan, explaining how they only recruited 300 parents instead of the 1,000 they set out to find. Beyond the time commitment barrier true of most long term observational studies, which require folks willing not just to undertake training sessions but also to report back as weeks and months go by, she says parents who signed up often did so because they had concerns about their child, and, therefore, didn’t want to be in the control group that went without MHFA. 

Morgan also can’t completely discredit the risk that MHFA could possibly, unintentionally, create harm. “If someone’s resistant to talking about their problem or opening up, perhaps, if people really push and want to help, and that person just doesn’t want that, it might cause damage,” she says. Still, she underscores, “the course teaches [trainees] to respect people’s wishes” about receiving care. 

[Related: How to work out for your mental health]

Despite hypothetical dangers, Morgan says the curriculum is constantly being updated to be as “evidence-based” as possible. MHFA tracks and chronicles the peer-reviewed studies measuring its impact (or lack-thereof), and reevaluates its training content every three years to make sure its up to par. “It does undergo a lot of research in comparison to other kinds of training courses in the mental health area.”

“A major shift” 

In a 15-person Zoom call in March of 2021, Marcie Timmerman shares her screen to show a video of a man talking his friend through a panic attack. “How did he do? Did he follow ALGEE?” asks Timmerman, who serves as Executive Director of Mental Health America Kentucky, and did her first and only “on-the-ground” MHFA training right before COVID. 

Timmerman has always worked in the mental health space, but in her first job—as a receptionist for a group administering psychological tests to Ohio police officers—she learned the importance of real-time mental health crisis care when someone called in and said they were suicidal. “I had no idea how to handle it, and I think that’s the case for a lot of frontline staff,” she remembers. “But now, using the steps of ALGEE and the suicide assessment tool, I would know what to do if that next person calls.”

The tool, we learned, involves directly asking people who are suicidal if they have a plan—if they’ve decided when and how they’ll do it. If so, and if it seems the person’s immediate safety is at risk, first-aiders should call 911 immediately; if not, they should follow the steps of ALGEE —listening non-judgmentally, asking how long they’ve felt this way, and offering support to find the person professional help. “It’s about asking the right questions, and just being able to do that keeps me calm,” Timmerman says. 

Timmerman is now an official MHFA instructor, and says COVID has “absolutely [been] a driver” in pushing more people to take it. In 2020, Mental Health America saw four times the number of mental health screenings they had in other years; of those screened patients, she says, there’s been a “decided increase” in the severity of reported anxiety and depression. It’s true, too, that there’s an increase in opioid overdoses in Timmerman’s home state of Kentucky—a development MHFA recently addressed by adding Naloxone resuscitation to its curriculum.  

But another major driver of interest in MHFA, Timmerman says, comes from the national conversation on racism, criminal justice, and mental illness that followed George Floyd’s murder; 10 percent of 911 calls relate to mental health situations most police aren’t prepared to deal with, and people with untreated mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement. 

[Related: How to keep your anxiety from spiraling out of control]

Some police departments, like Charlotte-Mecklenburg in North Carolina, are training their officers in MHFA to help tackle that tension. And in New York City, psychiatrist Sidney Hankerson of the Columbia Wellness Center is helping to train Harlem faith leaders to bring MHFA to African American and Latinx communities, who have the lowest rates of mental health treatment nationally. Those disparities, Hankerson said in a 2017 presentation at Columbia University, are largely due to stigma, mistrust, and a history of systematic racism inflicted by medical professionals against communities of color. He references the 1972 Tuskegee study, where doctors purposely withheld syphilis treatment from Black men without their knowledge or consent in the name of documenting the progression of their symptoms, as just one example of the fraught history of healthcare for people of color in America. 

As for Timmerman, she says more than half of her classes have consisted of people from BIPOC communities, and notes how MHFA’s curriculum was recently updated to be more inclusive in the characters, settings, and cultural norms it espouses. In her community in Kentucky, which faces its own unique stigmas around mental health care, she says she’s proud of the “major shift” she’s witnessed in her lifetime, adding that the governor’s mere mention of mental health in a televised COVID address is something that “would have been unheard of 20 years ago.” 

“It’s just such a tone change,” says Timmerman. “People really recognize now that there’s stress and anxiety in all of us.” 

She says she’s seen that tone change among other mental health professionals, too. In a recent training with domestic violence specialists, one trainee—like the nurses Almonte once observed—admitted feeling scared of patients with psychosis. But Timmerman says that after the group’s deep dive into what psychosis is, where it comes from, and its myths around violence, the trainee “couldn’t stop asking questions, even into the break.” 

“She was like, ‘Wow, I had no idea,’” Timmerman recalls. “It was just amazing to see her light up like that.”

The post Mental health ‘first aid’ can give bystanders the skills to act in a crisis appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Humans have long shared the anecdotal benefits of animal companionship, but until recently research has been lacking. This is particularly true when it comes to the benefits of emotional support animals. 

This month, the first peer-reviewed, scientific study was published on the benefits of emotional support animals for those with serious mental illnesses, like chronic anxiety or depression. The study, which was conducted by researchers at the University of Toledo, found that one year after adopting, participants saw a significant reduction in depression, anxiety, and loneliness.  

Unlike service animals, emotional support animals need no formal training or certification. Yet they are still formally recognized by healthcare professionals as therapeutically necessary for people with certain conditions, like anxiety, depresion, or addiction, that qualify as disabilities under the Fair Housing Act.

“This study shows there is a place for emotional support animals in terms of them being partners in our health and well-being,” says Janet Hoy-Gerlach, PhD, LISW-S, a professor of social work at the University of Toledo and lead investigator of the study. 

The study recruited participants through the Hope and Recovery Pet (HARP) Program, an initiative that places strays into homes as emotional support animals. The program was developed in 2010 by Hoy-Gerlach, and is a partnership between the Humane Society and ProMedica, a large healthcare system. It now operates in 28 states. 

“The best part of the program is it’s two-fold,” says Hoy-Gerlach. “The program benefits people’s health, and it gets shelter animals into good, loving homes.” 

All participants in the study were considered low-income, had chronic mental illnesses, and lived alone. The Humane Society vetted candidates and conducted a home visit prior to matching them with an animal to ensure the pet’s safety. 

Before participants adopted their emotional support cat or dog, they took a test assessing their anxiety, depression, and loneliness. Researchers also collected saliva samples to measure for three biomarkers of stress and bonding: 

• Oxytocin, also known as the “love hormone.” The brain releases it during bonding interactions which is why one experiences warm, fuzzy feelings when with loved ones. 
• Cortisol, the primary stress hormone. Consistent over-exposure to cortisol increases one’s risk of depression, anxiety, and heart disease, amongst other conditions. 
• Alpha-amylase, an enzyme found in the saliva which can also indicate levels of stress. 

Researchers followed-up with participants at one month, three months, six months, nine months, and 12 months. In each follow-up they collected saliva samples, and then had the participants and their emotional support animal interact for 10 minutes, whether it was petting, playing, or talking. After the brief interaction, they collected another set of saliva samples. 

At the 12-month mark, everyone took the same psychological test again to assess their mental well-being. Not only did the study find that participants had significantly lower levels of anxiety and depression one year after adoption, but they were also less lonely. 

Yet there weren’t corresponding changes in the three saliva biomarkers. Although Hoy-Gerlach says there was a consistent pattern of oxytocin increasing and cortisol decreasing after participants interacted with their pet for 10 minutes, the trends weren’t statistically significant. 

Hoy-Gerlach first came up with the idea for the study early in her social work career when she conducted risk assessments for people contemplating suicide. One of the many questions she asked was, ‘what has stopped you from acting on these thoughts?’ 

“I would get a lot of ‘I couldn’t do that to my kids’ or ‘It’s against my faith.’” says Hoy-Gerlach. “But I also regularly got responses along the lines of, ‘I don’t want to leave my pet behind.’” 

As an animal lover herself, those responses intuitively made sense. But as a mental health professional, she realized none of her training or education ever mentioned animals as a means of protecting and preserving human health. 

 “And yet, the people I was talking with were citing their pets as the reason they were alive,” says Hoy-Gerlach. “That’s a really powerful thing, keeping someone alive.” 

The present study lacked a control group and had a small sample size, so researchers cannot make wide, sweeping generalizations. But Hoy-Gerlach says this could be just the first study of many. “My hope is that [this study] will catalyze more research with more rigorous methods so we can better understand and leverage the benefits that can be had through emotional support animals.” 

The post Emotional support animals really do emotionally support us appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Dorothy Chin is an associate research psychologist at University of California, Los Angeles. Tamra Burns Loeb is an associate adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. This article originally featured on The Conversation.

Japanese tennis star Naomi Osaka announced that she would withdraw from the French Open after she was fined and threatened with being disqualified for not speaking to media during the tournament to protect her mental health.

French Open officials and others initially reacted not with concern but by criticizing her for not fulfilling her obligations. This occurred despite the fact that her refusal came after a first-round win, unlike others fined for skipping press conferences after losses.

The evolving maelstrom that has followed weighs two priorities—the obligation to fulfill one’s job requirements, which in Osaka’s case includes talking to the press—and protecting one’s mental wellness. While a physical injury is routinely accepted as a legitimate reason for not performing aspects of one’s duties, mental or emotional injury has yet to reach the same level of attention or legitimacy. For instance, Anthony Davis of the Los Angeles Lakers did not speak to the press after suffering a groin strain earlier this week. This decision, while discussed in the media, was accepted. His injury even led to talk about whether athletes should have shorter seasons and lighter loads.

As research psychologists who study the effects of culture and trauma on mental health, we’re taking note of how these issues play out in Osaka’s predicament.

Taking heat for protesting

As a high-profile Black athlete, Osaka has taken a leading role protesting the death of George Floyd and other African Americans who died at the hands of police, wearing a mask with a different name on each match day at the 2020 U.S. Open. Elite athletes who speak out on social justice issues have often faced a backlash for their stances.

Osaka, who is Black, Asian, and female, may have contended with an even greater sense of vulnerability this past year, in light of the Black Lives Matter protests and the increased violence against Asian Americans. Studies have shown that individuals suffer from vicarious trauma when members of their group are targeted and discriminated against. Adding to the complexity is the fact that the norms in Osaka’s native Japanese culture frown upon speaking out, which could exacerbate anxiety and vulnerability.

Osaka’s gender also may have contributed to the negative reaction following her refusal to do press conferences and her subsequent withdrawal. There may be an implicit expectation that women accommodate questioning no matter how inappropriate the questions or uncomfortable they may feel, while male athletes may be accommodated for remaining silent.

Pressing problems with stigma

For several years, even before the pandemic, Osaka has explained that speaking with members of the media during press conferences causes her anxiety and sometimes feels like being bullied. She has alluded to being shy, even “really depressed” after losing a match. She has said she grew anxious “off the court, if I was ever thrown into a situation where I had to speak in front of 100 people, I feel like I would start shaking.” She tweeted that she has experienced long bouts of depression and anxiety triggered by speaking to the press.

The misery and loss that many endured during the pandemic year are resulting in poorer mental health, particularly for ethnic minorities. It’s not surprising that this manifests in the workplace – in Osaka’s case, a press conference – and needs to be reckoned with.

And, stigma surrounding mental health issues is more pronounced among African Americans and Asians, where personal concerns are expected to remain private.

There is a long-held notion that individuals suffering from mental distress should just get over it. The crux of the matter is that people don’t think about mental challenges the same way as physical injury. For hundreds of years, society upheld the notion that the mentally ill were morally deficient or lacked character. Families banished mentally ill members and rendered them invisible.

Bringing mental health out of the closet

Mental health is an essential part of one’s overall health, and mental illnesses are extremely common, yet mental health is often overlooked, minimized or stigmatized. Approximately 20 percent of US adults age 18 or older (nearly 47 million individuals) report having a mental illness. The prevalence of mental illness is higher among females than males, in part due to greater social and economic difficulties that women face.

Among people age 15 to 44, depression is the most common cause of disability in the US. In addition, many individuals suffer from more than one mental illness, and depression and anxiety often occur together. In December, the US Census Bureau reported that 42 percent of U.S. adults experience symptoms of anxiety or depression, a six-fold increase during the pandemic. Finally, the prevalence of mental illness is highest among adults with more than one racial or ethnic affiliation.

Addressing mental wellness in the workplace

Despite its common occurrence, about half of US workers worry about discussing mental health challenges in the workplace, and are afraid of negative repercussions to if they ask for help.

We hope that Osaka’s choice to make her mental health struggles public serves as an inflection point in how mental illness is perceived and addressed in professional settings. Among elite athletes in particular, the perception of invincibility may inhibit any disclosure of emotional struggles, which reinforces the idea that such struggles are a sign of weakness. Yes, talking to the press is currently part of the job, but perhaps the dimensions of the job need to be reexamined when they contribute to poor mental health, on par with discussions about physical health.

One suggestion is to provide players opportunities to participate in decisions about issues that affect the level of stress experienced in their profession. In general, workplace policy should be updated to reflect the importance of mental health as a key aspect of overall well-being. Wellness programs can screen for depression, anxiety, and other sources of stress, provide support and facilitate linkages with appropriate treatment.

Naomi Osaka is just 23, but she has already won four major tournaments and emerged as a leader among her peers in social justice issues. That she has disclosed her experiences with depression and anxiety and is seeking to protect her well-being, in spite of the backlash, may be the ultimate reflection of her mental toughness.

The post Naomi Osaka put her mental health first—and that needs to be normalized appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Arash Javanbakht is an associate professor of Psychiatry at Wayne State University. This article originally featured in The Conversation.

Recent clinical trials, including one soon to be published in Nature Medicine, have suggested that MDMA combined with psychotherapy may help treat post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. The news generated considerable optimism and excitement in the media, and some in the scientific community.

As a psychiatrist and an expert in neurobiology and treatment of PTSD, I think these developments may be important—but not the major breakthrough that some people are suggesting. This approach is not a new magic bullet. A combat veteran discusses his experience with PTSD.

PTSD, a disorder of emotional memories

Post-traumatic stress disorder is a result of exposure to extreme traumatic experiences, such as natural disasters, motor vehicle accidents, assault, robbery, rape, combat and torture. Based on the type and severity of the trauma, people may develop PTSD, a condition of heightened anxiety that includes flashbacks, nightmares and avoidance of any reminder of trauma.

In the neuroscience world, we see PTSD as a disorder of emotional memories, where recall of a traumatic memory can trigger high anxiety as if the event is happening in the here and now. People with PTSD often develop fear responses to anything remotely reminding them of the trauma. We also see PTSD as a disorder of context processing: A person has the same emotional response to a loud noise in the safe civilian environment as in the battlefield.

Current treatments for PTSD are effective

Treatments for PTSD mostly include antidepressant medications, and psychotherapy.

Psychotherapy is among the most effective treatments for PTSD, as it addresses traumatic memories and related emotional and cognitive reactions. That is, a person with PTSD may conflate the experience of trauma with being a bad person. Psychotherapies address these thought processes, or cognitions, caused by trauma.

Trauma therapists also use exposure therapy to gradually help people expose themselves to situations they avoid or the memories that terrify them until they learn that these situations are safe. The goal is to also help the brain of the person with PTSD disassociate the traumatic memories from the negative emotions that they trigger. This process is called extinction of fear memories. And it is here where researchers and others hope that MDMA and other drugs will help, by enhancing the extinction of these fear memories.

MDMA: It won’t work by itself to treat PTSD

Exposure therapy to traumatic memories is a difficult and exhausting process for some patients. Researchers are working to identify drugs that can enhance the effects of psychotherapy and make extinction of traumatic memories happen faster, or more effectively.

MDMA, or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, is an agent that affects a wide range of neurotransmitters, or brain chemicals facilitating signaling between neurons including serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. No one knows for certain just how MDMA affects the learning brain in therapy, but there are some theories. MDMA may enhance psychotherapy by reducing anxiety during recall of trauma memories, helping the patient feel better about himself and others, increasing bonding with the therapist and enhancing extinction learning.

Recent clinical trials suggest that use of MDMA paired with carefully delivered psychotherapy might improve patient outcomes. Furthermore, these effects seem to persist months after the treatment. Given these positive results, the studies entered a multisite phase 3 clinical trial of 90 patients with severe PTSD with 67 experiencing significantly diminished symptoms.

It is very important to note that MDMA is not suggested as a standalone treatment for any condition, and only “MDMA-assisted” psychotherapy is researched in these studies.

Breakthroughs sometimes break hearts

Although these reports sound promising, I am skeptical of breakthrough medical pronouncements. Throughout the history of psychiatry, people have become too excited about promising cures like psychoanalysis, ketamine, cannabinoids, virtual reality, propranolol, opioids and memory-enhancing agents for treatment of PTSD and other psychiatric disorders.

Although each of these treatments helped some patients, none was a magic bullet. Many, including opioids, propranolol and memory-enhancing agents, did not find their way out of the research laboratories into the real clinical world.

For MDMA, we still do not have a solid mechanistic explanation for how this drug might have rapid effects in enhancing long-lasting effects of therapy.

There is a large difference between a highly controlled research study with a limited number of participants and the complexities of real clinical work. For instance, a lot of psychiatric or medical conditions that many patients have are excluded from the clinical trials. Also, psychotherapies are delivered in their ideal form. In the cases of drugs such as ketamine and MDMA, it is almost impossible to blind these studies—meaning, to keep both patient and doctor in the dark about who received the trial drug or a placebo. Most patients, and consequently probably therapists, will know whether the patient received the psychoactive agent or the placebo.

Consequences of trauma cover a spectrum of symptoms, from zero to extremely high level. For having consistent language in research, we draw an imaginary line on this spectrum—say, 70 percent—and designate whoever is above the line as having PTSD. That does not mean that someone at 65 or 60 percent does not have symptoms or distress. None of the studied approaches thus far totally eradicated symptoms. They just showed a larger decrease in symptoms compared with a placebo.

Potential risks and dangers of MDMA

While drugs called selective serotonin uptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, and psychotherapy are relatively safe, agents like cannabis, ketamine and MDMA have many risks. The first is addiction. Although patients in the clinical trials are given only a limited number of doses, it is likely that someone experiencing a great feeling of relief from a drug given in the clinic will seek it on the street.

We are still dealing with the terrible opioid and benzodiazepine pandemic, the medications about which people were so excited a few decades ago. Longitudinal studies of risks of future substance use with MDMA are currently lacking. This can be further complicated among those with a history of problems with prescription or illegal drug abuse, or those with personality disorders.

While the hype often suggests the drug itself is the cure, it is important to remember that what worked in these studies involved drugs and psychotherapy together.

Also, it is vital to remind people not to expect a cure from street drugs. At best, the effects will be as good as the therapy provided. So an unskilled person providing therapy, consultation or even friendship using such agents might create much more harm than help. Negative memories could arise that the unskilled person does not have the expertise to deal with. It is also important to know drugs obtained on the street might be very different from what is used in research. Impurities can cause a lot of harm.

We in the psychiatric treatment world have been here before many times. And, in some cases, we are still paying dearly for the initial excitement.

The post Ecstasy is a tool, not a cure-all, for healing trauma appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Michael Stones is an emeritus professor in Psychology at Lakehead University. This story originally featured on The Conversation.

Joe Biden’s election as president of the US rekindled interest in accomplishments by adults who stutter. President Biden has struggled with a stutter since childhood.

Ten years earlier, the movie The King’s Speech elicited similar interest. The movie depicts how his speech therapist helped King George VI control stuttering during his first radio broadcast. The movie won four Academy Awards and 12 Oscar nominations.

A list of stutters compiled at Minnesota State University cites nearly 200 historical and contemporary people along with their notable achievements. The list includes famous actors, sports stars, politicians, singers, musicians, writers and others. Clearly, stuttering is not an insurmountable barrier to achievement.

However, research findings indicate that many adults who stutter also experience psychological problems. These include anxiety, depression and social phobia, as well as applying stigma about stuttering to their self-identity.

I’m writing as someone who began stuttering when very young. As an adult, my career began in clinical psychology followed by professorships at universities. Consequently, this article considers negative and positive experiences related to stuttering from both personal and academic perspectives.

Stuttering runs in families, and my earliest memories include feelings of pride to stutter like my father. My most unpleasant memories were having to read text aloud at primary school. However, unlike many children who stutter, I cannot remember any instances of ridicule or bullying by school mates.

After speech therapy during adolescence, I learned ways to get around severe stuttering. Nowadays, stuttering only occurs when I’m anxious, on the telephone or unsure about what to say.

Models of stuttering

Research in neuroscience and genetics ascribes the root causes of stuttering to inherited brain dysfunction. Psychologists long ago established relationships between stuttering and personality traits, and with disorders such as anxiety and depression. Some researchers include a societal perspective of a disability culture (or social model) of stuttering, in which people who stutter may share a common bond, identity and pride.

Psychological well-being—measured by self-reports of happiness or life satisfaction—likely plays an important role. Recent research often attributes lower well-being to negative life experiences associated with stuttering. However, other models suggest the reverse is more likely.

In these models, well-being has an overarching influence on everyday experiences. Measures of well-being remain relatively stable regardless of changes in a person’s life circumstance. This implies that individual differences in well-being affects experiences of stuttering, rather than effects of stuttering that affect well-being.

For people whose well-being is low, the negative impact of stuttering on daily life is excessive. Stigma about stuttering is also more likely to be included in their identity.

Implications for therapy

To improve quality of life, people lower in well-being require treatment beyond that provided by speech therapy. A large-scale study of people awaiting speech therapy provides an example: one-third of that sample evidenced social anxiety disorder.

That group reported greater speech dissatisfaction and negative life impact of stuttering than those without diagnosis of social anxiety disorder. They clearly needed treatment for issues beyond speech dysfluency to improve their quality of life.

Likewise, a review of research recommends “collaboration between speech pathologists and psychologists.” The aims are to develop programs to effectively assess and treat social anxiety among people who stutter.

The concise title of a Norwegian article summarizes the approach well: Personality is important in deciding which treatment works best.

Positive outcomes associated with stuttering

The research community has largely ignored any possible positive outcomes of stuttering. The experiences of notable people who stutter suggest several such potential benefits: increased empathy, appreciation of societal support, greater resilience and a more positive identity.

• President Biden has described the empathy that comes from anguish: “Stuttering gave me an insight I don’t think I ever would have had into other people’s pain. They taught me to aim high, work hard and be confident in pursuit of life goals.”
• Blogger Michael Punzi reported that he became more observant, a better listener, a better thinker because “speaking was always difficult.”
• Thirteen-year-old Brayden Harrington stuttered movingly by video at the 2020 Democratic National Convention about how Biden’s accomplishments helped him overcome his own stutter.
• Bestselling novelist Knut Faldbakken describes a resilience strengthened by overcoming hardships, attributing his success to “stutter toughness—nothing is easy, and I never give up.”

My own experiences include gratitude for all those people that supported or mentored me throughout my life. They taught me to aim high, work hard and be confident in pursuit of life goals.

I’ll conclude with a question to evaluate benefits associated with stuttering: Because stuttering helped fashion who I am, would I choose to live my life over without stuttering?

I’ve come to realize that I would not. I suspect that President Biden would answer likewise

The post Speech therapy alone may not make stuttering go away appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Anne Fishel is an associate clinical professor of Psychology at Harvard Medical School. This article originally featured on The Conversation.

For all the parents feeling exhausted by the cooking, cleaning and planning of a million meals during the pandemic, there’s some good news. Commensality, or the sharing of food with others, is beneficial for your physical and mental health.

Most parents already know that family mealtimes are great for the bodies, the brains, and the mental health of children. More than two decades of studies reveal that kids who eat with their families do better in school and have bigger vocabularies. They also have lower rates of depression, anxiety and eating disorders, as well as healthier diets and better cardiovascular health.

But what may come as unexpected news to beleaguered parents is that these same shared meals are also good for adults. Across the life span, from young parents eating with toddlers to parents talking about pandemic-coping strategies with their school-age kids and Medicare-eligible adults eating with younger generations, shared meals are associated with healthier eating and better mood.

Healthy for all adults, but especially for parents

For adults, both with and without children, there are numerous health benefits to eating with others. Even unrelated adults, like firefighters, have enhanced team performance when they cook and eat together as they await the call to action.

On the flip side, researchers have found that eating alone is associated with an increased likelihood of skipping meals and the downstream effects—lower intakes of nutrients, reduced energy and poorer nutritional health.

Regardless of parental status, adults who eat with others tend to eat more fruits and vegetables and less fast food than those who eat alone. Even when a home cook isn’t particularly focused on healthy cooking, home-cooked meals lower the odds that adults will be obese. Large portion sizes, the embrace of fried foods and a heavy hand with butter are more common at restaurants than in a civilian’s kitchen.

Adults who park their dinner plates in front of the television may have a greater chance of weight gain, just as evidence from the US, Sweden, Finland and Portugal supports the connection between obesity and kids’ eating dinner while watching TV.

In addition to these benefits of dining with others, there are additional boosts for adults who eat with their children—and they pertain equally to mothers and fathers. When kids are present at mealtime, parents may eat more healthily, perhaps to model good behavior and provide the best nourishment they can to their kids. When there is plenty of conversation with kids chiming in, the pace of eating slows down, allowing diners’ brains to register fullness and signal that it’s time to stop eating.

For kids, eating more family meals is associated with lower rates of obesity. The act of eating with others does not correlate with reduced weight gain in adults, though—unless their dining companions include children. Parents who dine with their kids also tend to report less dieting and binge-eating behavior. Parents may dial back some of these destructive behaviors when they know their kids are watching and ready to imitate.

Despite all the work, a boost for mental health

It may seem counterintuitive that a process that demands so much time and resources—the energy to plan the meal, shop for it, prepare it, serve it and clean up after—could also lead to boosts in mental health. Much more obvious is how kids would benefit from their parents’ demonstrating their love and care by providing nightly dinners.

But researchers have found that having frequent family meals is associated with better mental health for both mothers and fathers, despite mothers’ carrying more of the burden of meal prep. Compared with parents who rarely ate family meals, parents who regularly dined with their kids reported higher levels of family functioning, greater self-esteem and lower levels of depressive symptoms and stress.

And mental health benefits don’t depend on a slow-roasted pork shoulder or organic vegetables. Since it’s the atmosphere at the dinner table that contributes most significantly to emotional well-being, takeout or prepared food eaten at home will work nicely too.

In an earlier study of parents of infants and toddlers, couples who attached more meaning and importance to family meals were more satisfied with their marital relationship. It’s unclear in which direction the causality goes. Is it that those in more satisfying marriages gravitate toward creating daily rituals? Or that enacting daily rituals leads to more robust relationships? In either case, the establishment of meaningful rituals, like shared mealtime, during early stages of parenthood may add some predictability and routine at a time of life that can be very busy and fragmented.

Just as for children, family dinner is the most reliable time of the day for adults to slow down and talk to others. It’s a time to step away from video calls, emails and to-do lists, and instead connect face to face. Dinnertime often allows for a few laughs, a time to decompress and also to solve logistical problems and talk about the day’s events and what tomorrow holds.

Family meals are a COVID-19 habit to keep

For parents taking the long view, there is another perk to family dinner. When adolescents grow up having regular family dinners, they are much more likely to replicate that practice in their own homes when they become parents. Adults who reported having had six to seven family meals a week as a child went on to have frequent family meals with their own children. Family dinner and its benefits may be an heirloom you pass along to future generations.

Shared mealtime, however, is not equally accessible to all. Frequent family dinners are more common among white Americans, those with higher levels of education, married people and those with household incomes that are middle class or higher. While family meal frequency in the US remained quite steady overall from 1999 to 2010, it decreased significantly (47 to 39 percent) for low-income families while increasing (57 to 61 percent) for high-income families. This gap can be understood in terms of structural disparities: Low-income parents often have less control over their work schedules and may need to juggle more than one job to make ends meet.

As people now tiptoe back to living more expansively, many are reflecting on what they learned during the pandemic that might be worth holding on to. There is some evidence that more families ate more meals together during the COVID-19 pandemic than ever before. Some families who didn’t prioritize eating together pre-pandemic may emerge from the past year with a new appreciation of the joys of commensality. Of course, others may already be bookmarking all their favorite restaurants, eager to have chefs cook for them after feeling depleted by so much home labor.

But parents may want to remember that the science suggests shared mealtime is good for the mental and physical health of each member of the family. As people start to heal from this past year of loss, disruption and anxiety, why not continue to engage in nourishing practices that are helpful to all? In my family therapy practice, it will be a top recommendation.

The post Family dinners are good for our health—and it’s not just because of the food appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

My fascination with real estate listings began when I was young. My foster mother and I, both orphans, would whiz through suburban neighborhoods searching for houses we’d live in one day—all while knowing we had no plans or means to leave our apartment in a housing project just outside of Boston. In my teens I scoured every real estate listing book I could get my hands on. Today, even though I own a home, I still find myself searching—and the aimless hunt is easier than ever. With websites such as Realtor.com, Zillow, Trulia, and Redfin, I can zip from a Miami penthouse to a mountain retreat in Vail without even leaving my own abode. For me, these technological advances simply make my lifelong hobby more efficient. But the digitization of real estate has also introduced brand new looky-loos to the practice. 

This habitual home searching is quickly becoming a part of the cultural lexicon. “Saturday Night Live” recently featured a skit about millennials salivating over Zillow porn, and Curbed now has a weekly column devoted to listings found while idly browsing. In 2020, Zillow saw a total of 9.6 billion visits to its website and app, up 1.5 billion from 2019. But only a “single-digit percentage” turned into buyers, according to the company’s CEO. Data from the National Association of Realtors confirms as much, showing that just 5.64 million existing homes changed hands in 2020. It seems clear that for many of us, searching for real estate has become a rather serious hobby. A 2014 survey by Discover Home Loans suggests that even earnest potential homeowners can go a little too hard on the tire-kicking process; some two-thirds of those surveyed thought their habit of scrolling through listings had become addictive. 

Why has online house-hunting morphed into a roleplay activity? “My take is that people want to experience vicariously what they doubt they may ever have,” says Edie Weinstein, a licensed social worker in Pennsylvania. She says it’s the same reason people watch home renovation, decor, and DIY shows. Lynn Saladino, a clinical psychologist in New York City, agrees, noting that it’s perfectly natural to enjoy imagining how other people live and even to place yourselves in their shoes. It’s okay on occasion, Saladino says, to “pretend you have something that you don’t.”

But not everyone is simply assembling an internal vision board. The urge for virtual nesting can scratch a much deeper itch, too. “Some who peruse listings are fulfilling what they might have missed in their childhood,” Weinstein says. 

That explanation resonates with me: Growing up on the top floor of a city walkup, I wanted everything I didn’t have—a three-dormered cape filled with siblings on a tree-lined street, to be precise. For me, searching for real estate listings serves as wish fulfillment. It remains a way to dream, explore, and understand that I’ve always been in awe of the idea of a traditional home. 

While looking at listings is something anyone with an internet connection can indulge in, certain people may be more prone to searches, and not just because of the circumstances of their youth. “There are certain personalities always looking for the next best thing. There are also the people caught in a situation where they wish for better,” says Saladino. Meanwhile, people with anxiety may browse as a way to cope, using the habit to self-soothe, according to Lindsay Weisner, a clinical psychologist in Long Island, New York, and author of Ten Steps to Finding Happy: A Guide to Permanent Satisfaction. 

There are a host of benefits to searching for homes we’ll never buy. The pure escapism and distraction of moving into another space and life, even if only virtually, is appealing, especially during a global pandemic. “With COVID, people are looking for things that make them feel grounded, and homes are definitely something that does this,” says Saladino. With the uncertainty of the past year, financial insecurity, rising levels of unemployment, and the stress of global lockdowns, the entire world has been thrown out of whack. Weinstein calls our home searches, “a substitute for being in the real world,” which most of us have been isolated from in recent months. Plotting out imaginary future moves might also help us feel a sense of control in unprecedented times. “Some people bake bread, some do crafts, some organize their spaces, and some imagine living elsewhere,” Weinstein says. Anything that puts us firmly in the driver’s seat can provide comfort in a world that feels full of chaos. 

Weisner thinks SNL hit the nail on the head when they called it “Zillow porn.” Online home searches, she explains, likely activate the same neurotransmitters that light up when we take in erotica. “Dopamine is the anticipatory hormone, which means it is released when you anticipate a future good or reward, and then again if and when you receive that reward,” Weisner says. While Zillow surfing only gives you one serving of dopamine—because you’re not actually receiving the payoff you’d get if you bought the house—it’s still a temporary balm for your brain. (And unlike actual homeownership, your dose of dopamine isn’t followed by the existential nausea of staring down a 30-year mortgage.) 

The digital hobby serves more practical purposes as well. It can help us with everything from gleaning decorating ideas to setting goals for the future. The average price of an American home has risen by more than $300,000 in the past 40 years, and in 2016, just 53 percent of 35 year olds in the US owned houses—making millennials some 20 percent less likely to own their own homes than their Baby Boomer parents were at the same age in the early ‘80s. Millennials make up the largest share of overall home buyers, and have since 2014, but high housing prices and the crush of student loan debt made 12.3 percent of millennial renters surveyed in 2019 say they’d probably rent forever. Seeing what’s out there can help young folks dealing with these steep odds start saving accordingly, Saladino says, or encourage them to rethink their future plans about where and how they hope to make a home. GenXers and Boomers may be searching real estate listing sites to help set new goals as well—not for starter homes, but for the houses they’ll retire to. 

No matter your age, goal setting has a host of psychological benefits, including driving people toward success, achievement, and fulfillment. A 2006 review of existing studies on the subject correlated the process of lining up difficult but specific targets with an increase in self-confidence and motivation. Saladino suggests that if people want to use their real estate search as a goal-setting tool, they should invest in ways to turn their searches into action and look seriously at getting from point A to point B. 

While browsing for houses can be a fun and relaxing distraction, a useful coping mechanism, or a way of planning for the future, it can also have a downside. For many, contrasting their lives to others, or their homes to others, can create unhappiness and discontent. One study in The Journal of Adult Development found that making social comparisons can lead to many negative emotions including guilt, envy, and regret. Another 2014 study on social media use supports the link between frequent comparisons and low self-esteem. And just as heavily curated, filtered, and edited Instagram shots may leave you with a distorted view of how well everyone else is living, a perfectly staged and photographed house could skew your sense of what a home should look like. 

Weisner also adds that anything that causes us to withdraw into a fantasy world has the potential to make us less present in our real lives. “If scrolling through houses is interfering with your professional or personal relationships or your ability to complete tasks, you might have a problem,” she says. Saladino agrees. “When you start to see dissociation, people losing time when doing this, it may be turning into an unhealthy habit,” she says.

If you feel as though your indulgence in Zillow porn is doing more harm than good, you should try to explore your motivation for scrolling. Are you unhappy with some aspect of your own life? Are you trying to compare yourself to others? Saladino suggests asking yourself what you feel when you find a property that gives you shivers. What about it appeals to you? Are you lusting after the outdoor spaces? Drooling over a gleamingly clean bathroom? Pining for the exquisite dishes you’d cook if only you had such a gorgeous kitchen? Once you figure that out, you can work to heal whatever you feel is lacking in your own life. You may not be able to transplant yourself to the sprawling home of your Zillow-scrolling dreams, but you might do yourself a world of good by getting some plants, committing to a new cleaning routine, or taking a cooking class. 

Whether we are looking to feel grounded by a split-level in suburbia, or excited by an upscale high-rise in Manhattan, looking at homes can be a great coping mechanism in times of stress. But it can also be the key to finding the fulfillment we didn’t even realize was missing. 

The post The psychology behind our love of ‘Zillow porn’ appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

There is no doubt that air pollution is bad for human health. It is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and is an enormous risk factor for morbidity and mortality worldwide. More recently, a growing body of research shows air pollution can also have detrimental impacts on the brain. 

A new study tracked a cohort of over 2,000 individuals in the United Kingdom throughout childhood and adolescence to discover links between mental health and pollution. The long-term study found higher rates of symptoms related to mental illnesses like depression and schizophrenia in those exposed to fine particulates and nitrogen oxides from cars, factories, and power plants. 

Aaron Reuben, a clinical psychology doctoral student at Duke University and study author, says researchers recognized a potential link between exposure to pollutants and brain health back in the 1990s. Studies over the past two decades have shown some alarming connections between fine particulate matter, also known as PM2.5, and cognitive decline, which could lead to dementia. 

[Related: Tiny air pollutants may come from different sources, but they all show a similar biased trend.]

This new study uses longitudinal data from a cohort of children born in England and Wales who have regularly participated in health evaluations from birth throughout childhood until they reached adulthood. Scientists evaluated the mental health of the participants when they reached age 18. 

“We asked them about symptoms across 10 important mental disorders, so things like depression, anxiety, psychosis, alcohol dependence,” Reuben says. Then the researchers took this data and used it to calculate one number called a “psychopathology factor,” which would be higher if the person had more mental health issues. When comparing exposure to environmental pollutants throughout childhood to the test results, the researchers found higher rates of mental illness symptoms in those exposed to the most pollution throughout their youth.

Interestingly, the impact of air pollution didn’t lead to one specific type of mental health issue. “It doesn’t seem to target any one brain function, but actually, it leads to overall dysregulation that manifests in greater rates of mental illness across all diagnostic categories,” he says. However, the highest effects were on thought disorders like psychosis.

Children that grew up in areas with high rates of nitrogen oxides in their neighborhoods from ages 10 to 18 struggled the most once they reached adulthood. “Nitrogen oxides were the most strongly implicated in our findings,” Reuben says, “but we can’t say if that was necessarily, you know, nitrogen oxides themselves, or other things related to traffic emissions that come alongside nitrogen oxides.” 

This may, Reuben says, “help explain a long term trend that we’ve known about for many years, which is that people who live in cities tend to be at greater risk of schizophrenia and psychosis.”

[Related: Living in the same city doesn’t mean breathing the same air.]

Of course, pollution isn’t the only thing that can affect a person’s mental health. But when corrected for other factors, like family history and neighborhood environment characteristics, the data still stood, Reuban says. 

“None of our results changed when we made these high-quality adjustments,” he says. “That makes us pretty confident that what we’re seeing is actually a unique independent effect of air pollution on the development of mental health problems.” 

While scientists know that air pollution can harm the brain, the mechanisms for the harm are still elusive. There is some evidence, Reuben says, that pollution traveling through the nose to the brain can have a direct impact on the brain. “But it seems that even greater contributors are probably what we call systemic inflammation,” where small pollutants invade the lungs and cause a “cascade of inflammatory actions that then seem to reach the brain and cause inflammation.” Research has shown that the body’s immune response causes inflammation, which may then be linked to mental illnesses such as depression and bipolar disorders, but this needs more examination in the future.

Reuben says this study shows that even in areas such as the UK (which barely breaks the top 100 most polluted countries in the world), people are feeling the mental strain of pollution. More research must be done on the young residents of other countries, like China and India, with locations that suffer even greater amounts of pollution. 

The post Car, factory, and power plant pollution can be damaging to kids’ mental health appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Between 2005 and 2016, 334 coal-fired power plants in the U.S. shut down as natural gas increasingly fed the grid. While natural gas has its own problems as an energy source (and won’t get us the emissions cuts we need to halt global warming), it does have an edge on coal when it comes to pollutants. A new study in Nature Sustainability puts numbers to that edge, estimating that thousands of lives and millions of bushels of crops were saved thanks to those coal plant closures.

Carbon dioxide is a global pollutant—every individual power plant around the world contributes to the rising concentration of the gas in the atmosphere, warming our planet. But fossil fuel-powered plants also release pollutants that harm their local environment. Fine particulate matter, an array of tiny particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, and ozone gas form from the smoke rising from these plants. Both are known to be harmful to our respiratory systems. Ozone can also wither crops by causing tissue damage when it enters leaves. For decades, numerous studies have tracked the effect of these pollutants on both human and plant health, but few linked those pollutants directly back to power plants.

Jennifer Burney, an environmental scientist at the University of California San Diego, was interested in doing just that. “There’s a lot of studies that look at changes in concentrations of pollutants,” says Burney. “But those are often not able to connect back to tangible policy or technology changes that caused those situations, so they tend to lack a punch.” She adds that it’s more powerful to be able to say power plants caused the pollution-related deaths, as opposed to just blaming pollution generally.

The coal plant closures across the country gave Burney an opportunity to illuminate those pollution-caused impacts. She used satellite and ground-based measurements of pollutants from 2005 to 2016, as well as county-level information on mortality and crop yields. By performing a statistical analysis of the power plant sites, she could see how the shifts affected air quality and, in turn, lives and agriculture. “It’s a really solid paper and a really cool analysis that she was able to do observationally and statistically, rather than doing the modeling approaches that get used frequently to do this kind of thing,” says Jonathan Buonocore, an environmental health researcher at Harvard who was not involved in the study.

Health and agriculture significantly improved when coal power left a county. Based on the analysis, the shutdown of coal plants across the country between 2005 and 2016 saved 26,610 lives. On average, the closing of a single coal-powered facility led to a 0.9 percent reduction in county-wide mortality.

In addition to human lives, the shutdowns saved approximately 570 million bushels of corn, wheat, and soybeans in nearby fields (that’s around two million dump trucks worth of grain and beans). While her main analysis was confined to the counties with coal plants, Burney estimates in her study that if you consider pollutants travelling as far as 200 kilometers away from a plant, closing those power stations actually saved 38,200 lives and 4.8 billion bushels of food. “The results that she got are fairly consistent with the results from modeling studies,” says Buonocore. This underscores the threats posed by coal. “If you take two different approaches to answering your question and get pretty similar answers, then that’s a good sign that your answer is robust.”

While the benefits of cutting coal are heartening, that’s not the whole story—a lot of that power was replaced by natural gas (though the new gas plants are generally not in the same locations). Burney’s study found that at locations that didn’t have a power plant before, adding a natural gas plant led to increases in ozone and fine particulate matter. The gas plants tend to produce about half the particulate matter as coal plants, and around the same amount of ozone. And natural gas is still a fossil fuel, releasing carbon dioxide when it’s burned.

Burney also estimated the impacts of the remaining coal plants that are still running nationwide. Those operating during the same time period contributed to 329,417 deaths and 10.2 billion bushels of lost crops. The big takeaway for her is how these numbers underscore the loss averted with every power plant taken down. “Power generation comes along with a negative set of impacts that we all share, but it’s sort of a nebulous bad thing that we don’t really think about,” says Burney. “Seeing the distribution [of power plants] hit home for me that if a plant shuts down there but not here, those are tangible impacts. There are people that die here but not there.”

The post We save lives and crops every time a coal plant closes appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has given the hallucinogenic compound psilocybin, known for giving “magic mushrooms” their mind-altering powers, a “Breakthrough Therapy” designation for the second time in just over a year. This designation, which is designed to expedite the development and review of drugs—given out only for therapies that have shown strong preliminary evidence in treating serious medical conditions—puts new pharmaceuticals on a fast track for approval and offers “intensive guidance” from the FDA.

In October 2018 the FDA granted a Breakthrough Therapy designation to COMPASS Pathways for its use of psilocybin in addressing treatment-resistant depression (TRD). As the name suggests, this condition is defined by depressive symptoms that don’t improve with the use of two or more standard therapies. Also, in March 2019, the FDA approved a TRD nasal spray (designed to mimic the positive effects of the hallucinogenic ketamine) as the first new antidepressant in decades.

But unlike that recently released spray and COMPASS Pathways’ ongoing trials, the latest potential therapy to get a boost from the FDA targets major depressive disorder (MDD). While TRD is estimated to affect about 5 million people in the U.S., at least 17 million American adults have MDD, which is more commonly referred to simply as “depression.” Depression is the leading cause of disability among Americans age 15 to 44, and affects hundreds of millions of people globally.

The latest Breakthrough Therapy designation goes to the Usona Institute, a nonprofit medical research group dedicated to “understanding of the therapeutic effects of psilocybin and other consciousness-expanding medicines.” Usona recently launched a Phase 2 clinical trial (more on what trial phases mean here) and is actively recruiting participants for an 80-person study. The trial will aim to determine the efficacy of treating depressed patients with single, one-time oral doses of psilocybin. It will likely be several years before any therapies related to these trials hit the market.

Research has already shown the effectiveness of psilocybin and LSD, which target the same receptors in the brain, in decreasing symptoms of depression and fear of death among cancer patients. Much of that research suggests that while these drugs can have a profound and positive effect on the individuals who ingest them, the key to providing lasting relief from mental illness is to offer specialized talk therapy while patients are under the influence. Researchers have seen similar outcomes in the use of MDMA, otherwise known as ecstasy, in tandem with therapy for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

A small 2017 study found that psilocybin treatment decreased activity in the amygdala, a region of the brain that helps regulate fear and anxiety, and helped stabilize the default mode network, which is a set of multiple brain regions that work together to help us think about ourselves and others. Dysfunction in the communication of this network have been noted in patients with Alzheimer’s, PTSD, and Autism Spectrum Disorder. In theory, this hallucinogenic compound could serve to calm negative emotions and prime patients to gain more valuable insight and longterm effects from therapy. However, possible side effects can include dizziness, nausea, vomiting, paranoia, and frightening hallucinations, so taking them in a controlled setting is crucial to their therapeutic use. Hallucinogens are not recommended for individuals with a family history of schizophrenia, as there is some concern they might trigger psychotic episodes in people prone to them.

More than 200 species of mushrooms naturally produce psilocybin, and humans have been taking them for religious, medical, and recreational purposes since before recorded history began. One 2017 survey declared them the safest recreational drug, as most serious negative side effects are the result of users mistakenly consuming the wrong species of mushroom. However, it is illegal to cultivate or possess psilocybin-producing fungi in the United States. You should not attempt to self-medicate with shrooms for a couple of reasons: It’s easy to accidentally ingest poisonous fungi that look similar if you don’t know what you’re looking for, and the powerful emotional effects of a hallucinogenic trip can backfire without the help of an expert to guide you.

The post The FDA is fast-tracking a second psilocybin drug to treat depression appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Carl Philpott is a professor of Rhinology and Olfactology at the University of East Anglia. This story originally featured on The Conversation.

Losing your sense of smell or having it “disturbed” is not as rare as you might think: One in 20 people experience it at some point in their lives. It can happen as a result of chronic sinusitis, damage caused by cold viruses, or even a head injury. It is sometimes also a precursor of nervous system diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. But compared with hearing and sight loss, it receives little research or medical attention.

We wanted to better understand the issues people with smell disorders face, so we analysed written, personal accounts of anosmia (loss of sense of smell) by 71 sufferers. The texts revealed several themes, including feelings of isolation, relationship difficulties, impact on physical health and the difficulty and cost of seeking help. Many people also commented on the negative attitude from doctors about smell loss, and how they found it difficult to get advice and treatment for their condition.

Significant harm

Smell loss leaves sufferers vulnerable to environmental hazards, such as spoiled food and gas leaks. It also has a negative effect on a range of activities and experiences, potentially causing significant harm. In reality, perhaps this is not surprising given the extra dimension that smell gives to the enjoyment of food, exploration of our environment and bringing back memories. So our sense of smell is both a life-saving and life-enhancing sense. Losing it can have the opposite effect. Indeed, recent studies from the US and Scandinavia show that losing your sense of smell is a risk factor for dying younger.

Our research showed that anosmia led to physical concerns included diet and appetite. Because of the reduced pleasure of eating, some participants reported a reduced appetite with subsequent weight loss. Others reported a general decline in the quality of their diet with the reduced perception of flavors leading to an increased intake of foods with low nutritional value (particularly those high in fat, salt, and sugar).

Emotional disruption

Emotional negatives experienced by sufferers include embarrassment, sadness, depression, worry, and bereavement. We saw evidence that it disrupted every aspect of life. These ranged from everyday concerns, such as personal hygiene, to loss of intimacy, and the breakdown of personal relationships. Some participants reported that they couldn’t take pleasure in occasions that would usually be a cause for celebration. The inability to link smells with happy memories may render these events underwhelming experiences.

Underlying these emotions was the loss of enjoyment of activities, difficulty in expressing the impact of symptoms of anosmia, and little sympathy or understanding from outsiders. Others included reduced socializing, no effective treatments, and little hope of recovery. Many participants described a profound effect on their relationships with other people as a result of their smell disorder. These range from not enjoying eating together to more intimate relationships—particularly sex.

The financial burdens described included the cost of private referral and alternative treatments. The effects were profound for some, especially if their profession or safety depends upon it. Participants often described negative or unhelpful interactions with GPs and specialists, such as ear, nose, and throat surgeons. Participants were concerned by a lack of empathy. Unlike spectacles or hearing aids, no simple solutions are yet available for smell loss. But even if no reversible cause can be identified, at least we can now provide clear information and support.

The post Smell loss is an invisible disease with devastating impacts appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.