You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'medication' tag.
CLPsych has an interesting post on a study that found that among patients with Medicaid in Oregon who were prescribed antipsychotic medication, only a minority actually had a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder or bipolar disorder (15% vs 27%). The rest had diagnoses of depression, anxiety, or PTSD. I think I’d like to add to this the fact disorders are often diagnosed for the medication as I’ve written about before (On Diagnosis, Symptoms, and Medication; Diagnosing for the Medication). In other words, there are times when the diagnosis is given in order to justify the medication that is prescribed. This doesn’t happen all the time, but it does happen.
http://clinpsyc.blogspot.com/2008/09/atypical-antipsychotics-for-all-oregon.html
Believe it or not, we all have self-defeating expectations at times. What do I mean by this?
“I wish I could meet someone to date…”
“What have you done to try to meet somebody?”
“Well nothing. Nobody would want to date me anyway.”
“Hmmm…”
A self-defeating expectation is different from outright self-sabotage. With self-sabotage, a person approaches a goal only to shoot themselves in the foot by something they do. For example, a person might drop out of college with only a class or two left to complete before achieving a degree. Secretly, they may fear that they will fail in their chosen career path, so it’s short-circuited before it even has a chance to start.
Most often with both patterns, there is an element of anxiety that is often subtly concealed. There can sometimes be a deep-seated belief, “Whatever I do, I am doomed to fail.” This often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. A person brings about that which they fear.
Now, believe it or not, sometimes a self-defeating pattern brings about things that are more positive in a person’s life. I remember one lady whose grandmother wanted her to become a nurse. She had a very close relationship with her grandmother. One day, her grandmother was complaining about a pain in her leg. Her grandmother remarked, “Oh, I probably just pulled a muscle.” And she responded, “Yeah, probably so.” Two days later, the grandmother was dead because a blood clot in her leg dislodged and ended up in her heart. This woman felt tremendously guilty—that she had caused her grandmother’s death by not suggesting that she see a doctor. She felt she had to fulfill her grandmother’s dreams for her in becoming a nurse. But she struggled in college. She became more depressed. She kept flunking certain classes. It was not because she lacked intelligence—I tested her IQ level and she should have been able to get all A’s or at least A’s and B’s in every class she took. What we discovered was that she didn’t really want to be a nurse. Once she was able to resolve her feelings of guilt about her grandmother’s death, she was able to see that her grandmother would have wanted her to choose a profession that she wanted to choose. She switched majors and started getting the A’s and B’s that I knew she was capable of.
Sometimes the patterns of self-defeat run a little deeper and keep repeating over and over. Most often, this has to do with a pattern of experiences in childhood that leads the person to have deep doubts about the competence or effectiveness. These patterns take longer to resolve, because the self-defeating beliefs are very strong and resist change. Sometimes, these patterns take several years to resolve. There may be numerous subtle anxieties that keep a person in a repeating pattern of self-defeat. But, if you are truly motivated to overcome these patterns and have a shrink that you connect with, you can overcome these patterns with a lot of hard work. Unfortunately, there is no medication that will help you do this, and there is no quick fix. It is difficult to resolve these patterns outside of a psychotherapeutic relationship, because everyone has their blinders.
Race horses are fitted with blinders. The blinders restrict their field of vision to basically straight ahead of them. This is so they do not become frightened by other things that are going on around them. People have “mental blinders,” defenses that keep them from recognizing those things that frighten them. Psychotherapy can help people remove these blinders and confront their fears and anxieties.
I’ve noted before that the role of psychiatrists is largely focused only the medication that a patient takes. To be fair, there are a few psychiatrists out there who do actual psychotherapy. Recent research shows this to be declining very steadily. (1)
I think the recent research on the decline of psychotherapy in psychiatry underestimates the ‘true’ shift in the field of psychiatry. The research is based on billing codes, and I know a little about that. I do computer consulting with a mental health center on their electronic medical record system. If the session goes over 15 minutes, it is billed as medication review + MD psychotherapy. So, in other words, if the session lasts more than 15 minutes, it is considered psychotherapy. This is whether it is true psychotherapy, or just an extended discussion of medication. There are no psychiatrists within a 50 mile radius of my practice that I would consider that provide true “psychotherapy.” So, the research results from 2004-2005 showing that 29% of psychiatrists provide ‘psychotherapy,’ is quite distorted. It frankly just means that sometimes they run over 15 minutes in the discussion of medication. I’m not saying that there are not any psychiatrists who provide psychotherapy, I’m just saying that it is very rare. That’s why you ought to be very skeptical about psychologists who have prescription privileges, because it is likely that they will go the way of psychiatrists.
(1). http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/578684?src=mpnews&spon=12&uac=107497SN
There is one thing that is virtually guaranteed….if you go to a mental health center, you will probably see a psychiatrist for medication. In my private practice probably 10-15% of my patients take medication. When I worked at a mental health center, it was closer to 90-95%. What accounts for this vast difference?
1. In a mental health center, the assumption is that patients will be referred for medication. It is the basic assumption. There is also a financial insentive. Mental health centers get paid more for the services of psychiatrists than therapists or psychologists. Funding is ALWAYS a very important issue in mental health centers.
2. In private practice, most of the responsibility falls on me (instead of a system). I explain the options to my patients, that they may be interested to try medication, but as long as the problems do not represent a serious risk (loss of job, harm to self, ect…), medications may not be warranted. Although it is a very individual decision. So far, every patient I have seen that comes to me first without being on medication, does not start on medication. The majority of those who are intially on medication are able to get off of the medication eventually.
3. Expectations… All shrinks are human beings. They have different expectations of their patients. They have different expectations about what is possible with psychotherapy. They have different levels of knowledge. They have different levels of comfort. They have different views of human nature. These factors are critically important in how psychotherapy unfolds with a patient.
4. What seems to be much more important than diagnosis is a willingness on the part of the patient to keep coming in to treatment, to think about what is discussed in session between sessions, and to have a genuine motivation to make changes. Now, certain diagnoses sometimes make these things less likely (severe schizophrenia, severe bipolar disorder, or severe personality disorders for example). However, if these things are present (the positive factors), the diagnosis is much less significant.
5. Psychiatrists often “diagnose for the medication.” The FDA approves drugs for specific diagnoses. Nobody likes to be sued. So, psychiatrists often bend or distort the diagnosis in order to justify the medication they want to try. See my previous post, Diagnosing for the Medication.
So, while the desired medication is more important than symptoms at times for psychiatrists, for some therapists and psychologists, what is more important is a willingness to seriously consider what is talked about in-session, a willingness to follow through with recommendations, and a willingness to believe that psychotherapy may be helpful. To a great extent, the actual symptoms a person has are less important than these factors.
Now, I’ve seen some folks with the most rigid belief systems (such as blantant paranoia and fantasies of revenge), that are only addressable on a spritual basis. Absolutely nothing else works at all–believe me, I’ve tried. But, when they consider their thoughts in the context of their belief in God, they are willing to acknowledge the distortion and errors in their thinking. There are times when a person’s difficulties can be addressed in nothing other than a spiritual realm.
Recently, many psychologists, psychiatrists, the general public, and the media have been becoming more aware of bias in pharmaceutical research. The most recent work found that researchers design the study in order to favor the medication that is sponsored by the funding source. In this post, I will talk about some of the problems with pharmaceutical study research design.
The Placebo Washout Phase
Nearly all studies of pharmaceuticals, at least psychotropics, include an initial phase in which people who respond (read benefit) from a sugar pill are excluded from the study. So, if in the initial phase, they get better on placebo, they are excluded from the study. Purportedly, this is to remove an unimportant variable. But what this does is amplify the effects of the medication in the actual study. So, the drugs end up looking like they have a greater effect than they actually have. You end up with a group of folks who purportedly do not respond well to placebo taking an active drug versus a sugar pill. If you are going to run this type of study, the results need to state, “For people who are poor responders to placebo, the drug proved to be moderately efficacious.” That would be a more honest way to present the results, but I have never seen this occur. The exclusion of ‘placebo responders’ amplifies the effect of the ‘drug.’
Use of Percentages in Results
I have seen a number of popular drugs tested against placebo and the only statistics you find in the article to be “percent who achieved remission.” You read the whole article and the only thing presented is percentages and statistics to tell you if the percentages who fall into certain groups differ. This is also done so that the drug looks better than placebo. As an example, please see my previous analysis of on a study of antidepressants (Prozac) in children.
The Double Blind is not Blind
The double-blind research design is considered to be the ‘gold standard’ in pharmaceutical research. It is purported to be the most objective and best way of determining whether or not a drug has efficacy. The double-blind experiment is accurately described on Wikipedia:
Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigour.
So, the assumption is that the researchers do not know which group the study participants have been assigned, and the participants do not know which group they have been assigned to. Ah….but there’s a problem here. Previous research with antidepressant medication, reveals that both patients and doctors are pretty good at figuring out which group they are in, most likely because of side effects.
Some Solutions to the Problem
If you are reading pharmaceutical research that does not include a check to see if the blinding actually worked (in other words ask the researchers or physicians what group they think the participant is in and ask the participant what group they think they are in), uses a placebo washout phase, and only uses percentages or stats to tell if the percentages differ, be very skeptical of this research. Irving Kirsch has proposed a model for research that includes an ‘active placebo,’ in other words a drug that produces side effects, but in theory does not act in the same way as the drug. This should help to actually insure the ‘blind’ of the study. Finally, when research is funded by a pharmaceutical company, you need to be very skeptical of the results. If researchers are going to receive pharmaceutical industry funding, they need to be blind to the ‘who’ is funding them.
I’ve seen yet another one. A child labeled as ADHD and put on 5 different medications (an antipsychotic, a stimulant, an antidepressant, a mood stabilizer, and 
clonidine–an antihypertensive). If I saw this every once in awhile, I could dismiss it more readily. But this practice seems to be becoming common based on the number of children I’ve seen with this type of polypharmacy.
Polypharmacy has multiple definitions. “Mixing many drugs in on prescription.” “The practice of prescribing multiple drugs to patients suffering from more than one malady.” “The prescription or dispensation of unnecessarily numerous or complex medicines.” This according to the freedictionary.com.
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=940
I’m not a psychiatrist. I’m a psychologist. For those of you who don’t know, psychologists can’t prescribe medication in most states. Psychiatrists can in all states. So, my viewpoint may be a bit biased. You see, I try to help people overcome problems without medication whenever possible. I’ve been able to keep several children off of medication for “ADHD.” So far, the only children on medication for ADHD that I see, are the ones who were already on medication when they came in. I’ve had to convince teachers and principals to be patient. I’ve had to give suggestions of how to deal with different children in the classroom. I’m sure there are some teachers who don’t like me very much because I don’t advocate medication in most cases. That’s tough luck as far as I am concerned. There are difficult adults and difficult children in the world. You deal with them the best that you can. Worst case scenario, you try some medication. But to me, that is the worst case scenario. Try everything else first.
Try nutritional changes, try exercise, try everything you can think of. If the child is failing then consider medication. Otherwise, use your brain, use the Internet, talk to others, and do anything you can to keep kids off of medication. Medication is warranted when there are severe consequences that may occur without it. The case I described at the beginning on this post, was given all of those medications because, “he gets a little irritable somethimes.” I feel sorry for this poor kid’s brain and mind. But he is not alone.
Some day, this whole approach of polypharmacy, the idea that you might as well throw every class of drug at a kid and maybe one will work, will be seen as in the perspective of psychosurgery (read labotomy) and electroconvulsive therapy for all kinds of problems.
When I worked at a mental health center, I often found myself scratching my head as to the diagnosis that was given to a patient by a psychiatrist. I had diagnosed one individual with an Adustment Disorder, which is anxiety and depressed mood related to a difficult situation in life. The psychiatrist diagnosed, schizoprenia, paranoid type. I was left utterly scratching my head as to why the psychiatrist had diagnosed schizophrenia, whereas I diagnosed an adjustment disorder. After looking at the medications that were prescribed, I found the reason, Abilify….an antipsychotic medication. Even though this patient did not meet the diagnostic criteria for Major Depression, let alone schizophrenia, the psychiatrist wanted to try Abilify; therefore diagnosed schizophrenia. That was the only conclusion I could come to. I saw this on numerous occasions. The diagnosis didn’t fit, and the medication was an antipsychotic. So, the diagnosis would be Bipolar Disorder, or a psychotic disorder.
As the Last Psychiatrist noted:
“You might argue the diagnosis leads us to the treatment, but in most cases, meds are used across all diagnoses, and more often than not a diagnosis is created to justify the medication.”
I had one patient, who for 14 years, was diagnosed with depressive disorder, NOS and personality disorder, NOS, until the psychiatrist wanted to try an antipsychotic. Suddenly, the diagnosis became schizoaffective disorder.
You may think that the diagnosis doesn’t have implications for treatment, but it does. If you are psychotic, you are not responsible for your behavior. The patient diagnosed as schizoaffective, was seen as psychotic by his wife and his psychiatrist. Therefore, he was not responsible for his Borderline, manipulative, aggressive and passive aggressive behaviors. This was the way the psychiatrist and his wife saw his behavior. I did not see the behavior this way because I was his psychologist. So, this puts me in a difficult position. I see him as responsible for the choices he makes, but the psychiatrist and wife see him as “mentally ill” when he engages in unsual behavior. I have to set limits and tell him that I would “find him a therapist who expects less” of him when the psychiatrist and husband justifies his behavior.
You see, I also do evaluations related to “sanity” and “fitness to stand trial.” This particular individual would likely be seen as incompetent and insane for his inappropriate behavior by the psychiatrist, but would be seen as perfectly sane by me who sees him as having a different diagnosis. You can say the diagnosis has no implications, but it really does in terms of personal responsibility and therapeutic issues with respect to psychotherapy.
So, this is one reason that I see diagnostic accuracy as being an important issue for treatment. My personality testing, interviews, and observations yield a diagnosis of a primary personality disorder, whereas, the psychiatrist’s desire to prescribe an antipsychotic yields a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder. So, it comes down to a situation where the patient has to decide to believe a professional who believes that they have control over their decisions versus a professional who believes they have no control or responsibility for their decisions. So far, when faced with this decision, my patients go with me, who believes that they have control and responsibility for their decisions. When they are legitimately psychotic, that’s one thing, when they are not, that is another. The diagnosis has real world implications in terms of personal responsibility and psychological treatment. Fortunately for most patients, when push comes to shove, they would rather believe that they are responsible for their behavior and have a desire to make efforts towards changing their maladaptive behavior. Unless they truly are psychotic….then the issue of personal responsibility has less meaning to them, because their reality contact is impaired.
So generally, when one of my patients is seeing a psychiatrist, the diagnosis has real world implications. And when they are not, the diagnosis has less meaning. Only the individual factors that contribute to the person’s difficulties are relevant. When the psychiatrist renders a diagnosis, then there are real world implications that affect the patient and their family.
Recent Comments