Posted on

After Weight Restoration: The Role of Insight

One of the hallmark symptoms of Anorexia Nervosa (AN) is anosognosia, or a brain-based inability to recognize that one is sick. For this reason, most patients have little or no insight when they first present for treatment. Even months into effective treatment, most patients with AN continue to demonstrate anosognosia from time to time, if not consistently. The irony here is that most patients with AN do not believe they are sick until after they have gotten well.

I am outspoken in my belief that insight is unnecessary, not to mention unlikely, in early recovery from Anorexia Nervosa (AN). I do not expect my patients to have any insight whatsoever early on in their treatment with me. I expect kids with AN to present in my office denying that they have a problem. Their lack of insight does not delay or undermine treatment one bit.

In Family-Based Treatment (FBT), the patient is not required to demonstrate any insight at all during Phase I (Re-feeding and weight restoration). Phase II (returning control of eating to the adolescent) and even Phase III (establishing a healthy adolescent identity) can be successfully completed with a relatively small amount of insight on the patient’s part.

The re-feeding and weight-restoration components of treatment can be achieved without the patient’s consent or compliance. Through FBT and similar family-centered approaches, parents can feed their children complete, balanced nutrition and ensure that they maintain a healthy weight for as long as necessary. In theory, a patient could exist in an externally-maintained state of physical health forever, which would be far better than suffering the long-term medical and psychological consequences of AN. But this is not recovery.

Children and younger teens tend to lack the maturity to develop good insight even after their AN has been in remission for quite some time. Lack of insight is completely normal at this stage of development, even for kids who have never had a brain disorder. It is not necessarily problematic for recovering adolescents to lack insight as long as they are living safely under their parents’ roof.

For older adolescents and young adults, however, there comes a point later in recovery, after physical health is restored and most mental symptoms have subsided, when a patient does need to develop some insight about their illness and “own their recovery.” Patients do not need insight to get well, but they certainly do need insight in order to live a healthy, fulfilling, independent life.

As a side note here, the type of insight I am referring to here has nothing to do with “discovering the root cause” or “learning to love yourself” or “finding your voice” or any of the other talking points commonly referenced in ED recovery circles. The important insights to gain, in my opinion, are the following:

1.) Acknowledging and accepting that you have (or had) an eating disorder, which is a biologically-based brain illness that you did not choose to have and your parents did not cause

2.) Acknowledging and accepting the possibility of relapse

3.) Ability to recognize eating disordered thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in yourself

4.) Understanding the necessity of maintaining full nutrition, every day, for life

5.) Accepting the necessity of maintaining your ideal body weight in order to reduce the risk of relapse

How do you help a person who is recovering from AN to develop insight? It’s tricky, and it varies considerably based upon the patient’s own unique experience of having AN. Unlike full nutrition and weight restoration, insight cannot be thrust upon someone against their will. The patient must be an active participant in the process.

I find it helpful, as a therapist, to have frank conversations with patients and their parents about the biological basis of AN, potential triggers, vulnerability to relapse, and the importance of practicing good self-care. A single conversation at the start of treatment is rarely sufficient. Instead, I integrate these conversations into most of our sessions to help the patient absorb and internalize this information. For the first few months of treatment, these discussions are primarily for the benefit of the parents, as most kids are too malnourished and shut-down to process this information. However, after weight restoration and brain healing, these discussions can have a powerful impact on recovering kids.

Parents often have these insight-building conversations with their recovering teens at home. Often, teens will get defensive, shut down, or lash out when parents bring up these topics. But sometimes kids actually listen!

Many weight-restored patients go through a phase of romanticizing their AN, longing to return to the days of extreme thinness, perpetual motion, and hyper-focus on academics and athletics. While these feelings are understandable and typical at a certain stage of recovery, they need to be counterbalanced with conversations about the negative impact AN had on their bodies, their minds, and their lives. Otherwise, it is all too easy for recovering people to view AN through “rose-colored glasses.”

Bear in mind that the development of insight can take years. Recovered teens who initially presented for treatment at age 13-14 (the typical age of onset) will often show a blossoming of insight around age 17-18, just as they are preparing to leave home for college. This newfound insight is often the result of a variety of factors, including consistent full nutrition, brain healing, normal adolescent developmental processes, maturity, frontal lobe development, and successful therapy. I have worked with many adolescents for whom this happens beautifully, organically, and right on time. These kids go off to college in other states and thrive.

In other cases, however, the timing may be far less convenient. Those who develop AN at 16 or 17 years of age may not be sufficiently recovered to develop the insight needed to manage their illness independently at that magical age of 18. Similarly, who relapse during their junior or senior year of high school may have a setback in the process of insight development and thus may not be ready for independence right after high school.

In some cases, kids are diagnosed in childhood or early adolescence but don’t receive effective treatment until late adolescence. In these cases, it may take even longer for insight to develop if the illness has become entrenched and emotional maturity lags far behind chronological age.

Further, teens who have suffered through months or years of ineffective treatment may have built up an arsenal of bogus myth-based insight that has nothing to do with the reality of their illness. For example:

• “I developed AN as a way to cope with feeling out of control in life.”

• “I have to want to get better on my own. I have to do this for myself.”

• “Re-feeding doesn’t help us discover the root cause of your illness.”

• “I am enmeshed with my parents and this is keeping me sick. I need to become more independent.”

These myth-based “insights” very often result in parental alienation and protracted illness.

As you can see, all insight is not equal. The insights worth having are those that are based in empirical science, those that empower parents to help their offspring recover, and those that serve to help patients achieve and maintain their physical and mental health while living a full and meaningful life.

Posted on

Let’s Get Physical: Exercise in the Treatment of Mood and Anxiety Disorders

As the Olympic Winter Games are commencing tomorrow in Sochi, I feel inspired to write about the role of physical activity in mental health. This post will focus specifically on exercise in the treatment of mood and anxiety disorders.

Numerous studies have shown that regular exercise improves mood in people with mild to moderate depression. For those with severe depression or bipolar disorder, exercise alone is rarely sufficient, but exercise can play an adjunct role in helping patients recover and prevent relapse.

We know from Newton’s law of motion that an object at rest stays at rest unless a force acts upon it, and an object in motion stays in motion unless some force makes it stop. The same is true for human bodies. Paradoxically, sedentary people tend to have less energy and active people tend to have more.

Now, of course this begs the question of the chicken or the egg – it is likely that people become sedentary because they have little energy or stay active because they have a surplus. This is true. People seem to have “set points” for activity level just as they do for weight and mood. That being said, physical activity has an almost immediate effect on mood and energy level. Over time, consistent exercise helps to stabilize moods, improve sleep, reduce stress, and enhance motivation to continue moving.

For these reasons, I strongly encourage my patients who suffer from mood disorders or anxiety disorders to exercise regularly. In my opinion, exercise is every bit as important as therapy, medication, and sleep when it comes to mood and anxiety disorders.

As I have emphasized in previous posts, the mind is a series of conscious functions carried out by the brain, and the brain is part of the body. Physical health and mental health are one in the same. Despite what society, popular wisdom, and health insurance companies may tell us, there is no actual difference between a physical illness and a mental one. When you exercise your body, you are exercising your brain.

Unlike therapy or medication, exercise is cheap or even free. Unlike medication, which can have unpleasant or dangerous side effects, exercise is generally safe so long as you do it sensibly and moderately. Unlike therapy, which requires another person and an appointment, exercise can be done alone if you choose at a time that suits your schedule. Unlike therapy, which is typically one-on-one and indoors, exercise can be enjoyed inside or outside with your family, friends, classmates, or teammates.

Numerous times, I have been amazed at how much exercise improves my patients’ mental health. This is especially true for people who have historically been sedentary and embark on a new exercise routine as part of their treatment plan. For example, I am working with a 15-year-old girl whom I’ll call Elsa who suffered from severe depression and crippling anxiety. When I met Elsa last year, she hated exercise and barely had the energy to get out of bed. After months of encouraging her to try different enjoyable physical activities, she finally started biking with her mom and jogging with her neighbor. She is now in full remission from her depression, making excellent progress in tackling her anxiety, and training for her first 5K. She now wakes up at 7:00 am with plenty of energy and really enjoys exercising. I am so proud of her.

One of the more challenging aspects of incorporating exercise into a patient’s treatment plan is that sometimes the mental illness itself is part of the reason why the patient is inactive. Depressed people tend to lose interest in activities they once enjoyed. They feel unmotivated and chronically exhausted. Clearly, it is a challenge for them to do essential things like get dressed and go to school, let alone something “extra” and “optional” like exercise.

For these patients, I use a behavioral technique called behavioral activation. Here’s how it works: we agree upon a small, realistic exercise goal such as walking for 10 minutes three evenings a week. [Elsa’s initial idea was to do the Insanity DVDs she saw on an infomercial. Given that she hadn’t exercised in years, I told her that this idea was, frankly, insane, and I suggested something more moderate.] I have the patient choose an activity they enjoy (or at least one that they don’t hate) and a time of day when they’re likely to follow through (for example, not at 5:00 AM if they aren’t a morning person).

When possible and feasible, I encourage patients to exercise socially by attending a class, joining a sports team, taking lessons, or doing something active outdoors with their families. We make this activity part of their weekly schedule, writing it down (or, often, putting it in their smart phone) as if it were any other appointment or commitment. Most of the time, the patient achieves their initial goal because it is small, realistic, specific, and planned.

Achieving this initial exercise goal creates a feeling of success and personal satisfaction and enhances the person’s motivation to keep going. In addition, they experience a bit of a mood boost from the activity itself. Once the patient achieves the initial exercise goal, it is increased a little bit in frequency or duration.

Using the example above, the patient may walk for 20 minutes during the second week and 30 minutes during the third week. This gradual increase in frequency and duration continues for a number of weeks or months. Eventually, the patient has incorporated regular exercise into her lifestyle. The stress reduction, mood enhancement, and improvement in fitness level enhance her internal motivation to continue exercising.

Anxiety can also interfere with a patient’s plans to exercise. Many people who experience panic attacks are afraid of the physical sensations that result from exercise (rapid breathing, increased heartbeat, sweating), which closely resemble those of a panic attack.

Patients who have social anxiety may shy away from joining sports teams, taking dance classes, or going to gyms because they worry about being judged or making a fool of themselves. For example, Elsa had enjoyed dance classes and swimming in elementary school but later became socially anxious and self-conscious about wearing a leotard or swimsuit in front of her peers. For this reason, she chose to do biking and jogging which did not require such revealing attire. And now, for the record, Elsa does wear a swimsuit with only mild anxiety when she goes to the beach or the pool with her friends. Did I mention how proud of her I am?

For patients with eating disorders, exercise is altogether a different story. That will be the topic of my next blog post.

Posted on

Effective Treatment for Bulimia Nervosa: A Good Start

A randomized controlled trial recently published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that Enhanced Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT-E) was far more effective than psychoanalytic therapy in the treatment of Bulimia Nervosa (BN).

In this study, 70 adults with BN were randomly assigned to either the CBT-E group or the psychoanalytic therapy group. Those in the CBT-E group received 20 sessions over the course of 5 months, whereas those in the psychoanalytic therapy group received weekly sessions for 2 years.

CBT-E for bulimia nervosa directly targets bulimic symptoms of dietary restriction, binge eating, and purging by modifying self-defeating behaviors, identifying and challenging distorted thoughts and beliefs about food, body shape, and weight, and learning skills to regulate moods and deal with setbacks. For example, patients learn to moderate their food intake by consuming regular, satisfying meals and snacks throughout the day rather than fasting, which often leads to nighttime binges.

In contrast, psychoanalytic therapy helps patients work through emotions and resolve inner conflicts which are believed to be at the root of their eating disorder.

After five months of treatment, 42% of patients receiving CBT-E had stopped bingeing and purging, compared to only 6% of patients in the psychoanalytic therapy group. After two years, 44% of patients in the CBT-E group had remained abstinent from bingeing and purging, compared to 15% of patients in the psychoanalytic group. It is important to note that the 2-year assessment represents a 19-month post-treatment follow-up for patients in the CBT-E group, but an end-of-treatment assessment for the psychoanalytic therapy group. Thus, patients in the CBT-E group had maintained their remission 19 months after treatment ended.

I draw the following conclusions from this study:

1.) Treatments which directly target bulimic symptoms are likely to be much more effective than treatments that deal with underlying emotions and psychic conflicts.

2.) Bulimic patients who receive CBT-E experience symptom relief much more quickly than those who receive psychoanalytic therapy.

3.) CBT-E is more efficient and cost-effective. If a psychologist charges $150 per hour, twenty sessions of CBT-E over the course of 5 months would cost a total of $3000. Weekly psychoanalytic sessions for two years would cost a total of $15,600.

4.) The benefits of CBT-E are long-lasting for those who recover

5.) Psychoanalytic therapy can be effective for a small fraction of bulimic patients

6.) CBT-E should be a front-line treatment for bulimia nervosa because, statistically, patients are much more likely to benefit from it than from other treatment approaches.

Bulimia nervosa wreaks havoc on the brain as well as the rest of the body. Insufficient or erratic nutrition caused by restrictive dieting, fasting, bingeing, laxative abuse, purging, and dehydration have a direct and immediate impact on brain function. I suspect that a primary reason for the superiority of CBT-E is that it targets the symptoms of dieting, bingeing, and purging immediately, thereby helping patients achieve medical stability and brain healing. When a person is receiving consistent balanced nutrition and keeping it down, he or she is better able to process emotions, refrain from impulsive behaviors, and do the hard work that is necessary for full recovery.

Perhaps patients in the psychoanalytic therapy group did not have the tools necessary to recover. It is one thing to gain insight into one’s emotions and beliefs; it is another thing entirely to halt a destructive and addictive cycle of restricting, bingeing, and purging.

The authors of this study conclude that it “provides one of the clearest examples of the superiority of one well-implemented psychological treatment over another.” However, CBT-E is not a magic bullet: more than half of the patients who received CBT-E did not recover. Therefore, we need to improve existing treatments for BN and develop new, more effective treatments for this devastating illness.

Posted on

Expanding Our Minds: Towards a Biologically-Based Understanding of Eating Disorders

I read the abstract of a recently published journal article which illustrates one of the major problems in the field of mental health treatment in general, and eating disorder treatment in particular. The article, authored by Jim Harris and Ashton Steele and published in the latest issue of Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention is provocatively titled Have We Lost Our Minds? The Siren Song of Reductionism in Eating Disorder Research and Theory.

The authors state that, over the past decade, “the focus of eating disorder research has shifted from the mind to the brain.” I disagree with this assertion on two levels. First, the statement implies that the mind and the brain are separate entities. They are not. The “mind” is simply a range of conscious functions which are carried out by the brain: for example, thoughts, beliefs, emotions, intentions, motivations, and behaviors. These mental functions originate in the brain, are executed in the brain, and are interpreted by the brain.

Indeed, recent developments in genetics and neuroimaging techniques have allowed scientists to study the structure, function, and circuitry of the brain in far greater detail than was possible before. Researchers have utilized this new technology to generate and test novel hypothesis about the biological underpinnings of eating disorders. The results of these studies have indicated that eating disorders are genetically inherited, biologically-based brain disorders, similar to bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

However, while research in the area of genetics and neuroimaging has proliferated in the eating disorders field, there has been no shortage of research on psychosocial factors or non-medical treatments for eating disorders, such as FBT and DBT. Contrary to Harris and Steele’s assertion, we have not “lost our minds.” We’ve simply expanded our minds and deepened our realm of investigation to study the biological underpinnings of mental functions as new technology has allowed us to do so.

Harris and Steele assert that the brain disorder model of eating disorders necessitates that treatment targets the underlying neurobiological abnormality; namely, medication. The authors then conclude that the brain disorder model of eating disorders is misguided because no pharmacological intervention has been shown to significantly benefit patients with anorexia nervosa.

This simplistic assumption and its corollary reflect a lack of basic understanding of the relationship between the brain and the symptoms of psychiatric illness. The authors fail to recognize the fact that certain non-medical interventions HAVE been consistently shown to benefit patients with biologically-based brain illnesses.

For example, it is widely accepted amongst medical and psychological professionals, as well as the general public, that autism is a biologically-based brain illness. There are no medications which have shown to consistently benefit children with autism. The gold-standard of treatment for autism is early intervention with applied behavior analysis (ABA), which is a form of behavior therapy focused on skills building, parent training, and modifying environmental contingencies. Most children with autism do extremely well with this type of treatment, and many of them can be mainstreamed in classrooms with typically developing children.

Sound familiar? It should, because that is precisely what is happening in the world of eating disorder treatment. The treatment approaches which have shown the most promise in the world of eating disorders are psychological and behavioral treatments such as Family-Based Treatment (FBT) for anorexia nervosa and Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) for bulimia nervosa.

There are a number of misconceptions about these types of treatments. For example, many people believe that FBT is merely re-feeding. This is not so. FBT is a psychological and behavioral treatment – a form of psychotherapy – and parental control of re-feeding is but one component of the first phase of this three-phase treatment model.

As another example, some people believe that CBT and DBT are merely “learning skills.” Again, this is a misconception. CBT and DBT are forms of psychotherapy which involve a relationship with a therapist who instills hope, provides support and feedback and accountability, promotes awareness of thoughts and feelings, and teaches adaptive skills for managing life’s challenges.

Contrary to popular belief, psychotherapy does not consist of lying on a couch and talking about your mother. That myth stems from psychoanalysis, an antiquated form of treatment commonly practiced in the mid-20th century which has no evidence base. Modern evidence-based psychotherapy is entirely different: it is active, directive, and believe it or not, effective.

I get a bit irritated when uninformed people make sweeping generalizations on either side of the fence, such as “psychotherapy doesn’t work for eating disorders,” or, on the flip side, “psychotherapy is the best way to treat eating disorders.” The truth is more specific: evidence-based psychotherapies are effective in the treatment of eating disorders.

From my perspective, focusing on the biological basis of psychiatric illnesses does NOT mean:

• That the illness can only be treated with a pill
• That psychological and social factors are irrelevant
• That environment doesn’t matter
• That the patient can’t do anything about it
• That the psychologist’s job is obsolete

Focusing on the biological basis of eating disorders DOES mean:

• That eating disorders are illnesses, no different from cancer or diabetes or schizophrenia
• That patients do not, and in fact cannot, choose to develop eating disorders
• That eating disorders are not caused by family dynamics or social pressures
• That prevention efforts aimed at improving body image are unlikely to be effective
• That a person must have a certain genetic predisposition in order to get an eating disorder
• That biological relatives of eating disorder patients are at risk for developing the disorder themselves
• That medication can be helpful, though not curative, in some cases
• That full nutritional restoration, and thereby correcting the brain-based symptoms of starvation, is a necessary first step in treatment
• That psychotherapy focused on resolving underlying issues or gaining insight into the origins of one’s illness is unlikely to be effective in resolving eating disorder symptoms
• That behaviorally-based psychological treatments focused on symptom management and skills building can be very effective, in large part because they change the brain
• That last century’s theories about the causes of eating disorders are inaccurate

I wish that Harris and Steele, and all professionals involved researching or treating eating disorders, could grasp these points. If the general population had this basic understanding of eating disorders, then patients and their families would be viewed with compassion and understanding rather than judgment or smug clichés (e.g. “she needs to learn to love herself;” “it’s all about control”).

The past decade represents a monumental shift in the way expert clinicians view eating disorders. In fact, it will be 10 years ago this fall that I saw my very first eating disorder patient. As a bright-eyed graduate student hungry for hands-on clinical experience, I chose a training rotation at an adolescent eating disorders clinic. On my first day at the clinic, not much older or wiser than the teenagers I was about to start treating, I was introduced to “the Maudsley Approach,” a promising new treatment method from the UK. And the rest, as they say, was history.

Posted on

Sleep and Mood Disorders: Implications for Mental Health Care

Getting enough sleep is important for everyone. Well-rested bodies and brains are healthier, more resilient, and more energetic. For those with depression and other mood disorders, getting plenty of sleep must be a priority. In fact, research has demonstrated that people with insomnia are ten times more likely to develop depression than those who get sufficient sleep. Further, new research has shown that sleep disturbances can trigger psychiatric illnesses in those who are vulnerable.

Sleep is every bit as important as medication and therapy in the treatment of mood disorders. For this reason, I make a point of discussing and monitoring sleep patterns with my patients, and I integrate sleep hygiene into their treatment plans.

A recent study financed by the National Institute of Mental Health and published in The New York Times found that a psychological treatment called CBT-I (Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia) doubled the effectiveness of antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression.

This was not surprising to me. I was trained in CBT in graduate school and I have seen cognitive-behavioral techniques work wonders in many of my patients. But the implications of this study, and the fact that the results have made it into the popular media, are quite significant.

One of the most disturbing and unfortunate trends in mental health care in recent years has been the overuse of psychotropic medication and the corresponding underuse of behavioral and psychological interventions. This trend is especially bothersome to me because I am keenly aware – thanks to my training and experience as a psychologist – that certain evidence-based psychological treatments are as effective, if not more effective, than medication for treating certain illnesses.

Unfortunately, most people outside the field of psychology don’t know this. Americans are bombarded daily with advertisements for psychotropic medication on television, online, and in print. It’s only natural, then, that consumers who are suffering from depression or anxiety would request medications from their doctors, even when they have a problem that can be successfully treated by other means.

Don’t get me wrong – I am by no means anti-medication. I am thankful that we have effective, relatively safe medications on the market now that can help people effectively manage serious illnesses which were once disabling. Indeed, psychotropic medication can be extremely helpful – even life-saving – for many people. My concern is that psychotropic medications are prescribed too frequently to people who may not need them, often without the necessary monitoring, and often without the corresponding psychological and behavioral interventions that have been proven effective.

As a psychologist who practices said psychological and behavioral interventions, rather than a psychiatrist who prescribes said medications, am I biased? Well, obviously. I believe in what I do and I chose this profession for a reason. But still.

My hope is that, with articles such as this one, the general public will learn that evidence-based psychological treatments exist which can reduce their suffering and improve their quality of life. I would like people to be fully informed about their options when it comes to mental health treatment. I look forward to the day when people experiencing psychiatric symptoms routinely ask their primary care physicians for referrals to psychologists who practice evidence-based treatments, rather than, or in addition to, asking for prescriptions.

Posted on

Summary of Treatment Outcomes

My blog posts from June through November 2013 have been devoted to describing my patients’ treatment outcomes. I’ve been advised that my recent posts have been too data-heavy and too detailed, but hey – that’s how I roll. I like to be thorough, meticulous, and transparent. Prospective patients and their families deserve to have access to this information. But for those who prefer brevity, I’ve summarized my treatment outcomes below. Click on the headings in bold for details.

    Outcomes for Patients with Anorexia Nervosa


Fifty-seven percent of my former patients with Anorexia Nervosa (AN) completed treatment. Of the “treatment completers,” 94% reached full remission and the remaining 6% reached physical remission. Patients required, on average, 28 sessions over the course of 17 months to complete treatment.

Forty-three percent of my former patients with AN did not complete treatment with me. Of the “treatment non-completers,” 23% were referred to other treatment settings which could better meet their needs; 15% moved to other geographic locations during treatment and thus were referred for treatment near their new homes; and the remaining 62% dropped out of treatment prematurely.

    Outcomes for Patients with Bulimia Nervosa and Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified


Thirty-three percent of my former patients with Bulimia Nervosa (BN) and Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (EDNOS) completed treatment. One-hundred percent of those who completed treatment reached full remission. On average, patients took 15 sessions over the course of 10 months to complete treatment. Amongst patients with BN, 44% made significant progress prior to discontinuing treatment prematurely. For patients with EDNOS, 17% made significant progress prior to discontinuing treatment prematurely.

    Outcomes for Patients with Mood Disorders


Twenty-nine percent of patients my former patients with primary diagnoses of mood disorders completed treatment. Of the patients who completed treatment, 83% achieved full remission and the remaining 17% made significant progress. On average, patients took approximately 23 sessions over the course of 11 months to complete treatment.

Thirty-eight percent of mood disorder patients quit treatment prematurely, 24% were referred to other treatment providers who could better meet their needs, and 9% moved to other geographic locations during their treatment and were referred for treatment near their new homes.

    Outcomes for Patients with Anxiety Disorders


All of my former patients with primary diagnoses of anxiety disorders who attended more than two sessions experienced substantial improvement in anxiety symptoms as well as significant improvement in functioning, even if they did not complete a full course of treatment. Patients with anxiety disorders attended an average of 10 sessions over the course of 6 months.

Amongst those who completed a full course of treatment, 75% achieved full remission and the remaining 25% made significant progress.

Posted on

End of Treatment Outcomes for Patients with Anxiety Disorders

Since opening my practice in 2009, I have evaluated 14 patients who presented with a primary diagnosis of an anxiety disorder. All former patients who attended at least one treatment session with me following their evaluation were included in this sample (n = 9). Those who are currently still in treatment with me were not included in this sample. Please bear in mind that the results described below are specific to my practice and my patients, and should not be generalized to other therapists or other patient populations.

The sample described includes nine female patients who ranged in age from 10 to 42 years old (median age = 22). The patients’ primary diagnoses were Panic Disorder (n = 3), Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (n = 2), Acute Stress Disorder (n = 2), Hypochondriasis (n = 1), and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (n = 1). One-third of the patients (n = 3) had a comorbid diagnosis: one had Social Anxiety Disorder, one had Major Depressive Disorder, and one had Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified.

Duration of treatment ranged from one month to 11 months, with a mean duration of 5.6 months. Number of sessions attended ranged from 1 session to 18 sessions, with a mean of 10 sessions.

The primary treatment model used was individual Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). The children in this sample (n = 2) each had a high degree of family involvement, with a parent participating in part of each session. All of the college-aged patients in this sample (n = 3) were treated individually but had some degree of family involvement, with a parent participating in at least one session over the course of treatment. Amongst the adult patients in this sample (n = 4), half had no family involvement and half had some family involvement, with a loved one attending one session over the course of treatment.

None of the patients in this sample had a history of psychiatric hospitalizations before beginning treatment with me, and none of them needed to be hospitalized while in treatment with me. Forty-four percent (n = 4) of these patients took psychotropic medication during treatment. Approximately 56% of patients (n = 5) paid a reduced rate for my services based on their financial situation, and the remaining 44% (n = 4) paid my full rate.

For the purposes of this study, “full remission” was defined as complete absence of anxiety disorder symptoms in the past two weeks, along with good social, occupational, and academic functioning. “Significant progress” was defined having substantially less severe and less frequent anxiety symptoms compared to intake, along with significant improvement in social, occupational, and academic functioning. “Some progress” was defined as having somewhat less severe and frequent anxiety symptoms compared to intake, along with fair social, occupational, and academic functioning.

Forty-four percent (n = 4) of the patients in this sample completed treatment. The remaining 56% (n = 5) quit treatment prematurely. Seventy-five percent of the patients who completed treatment (n = 3) achieved full remission, and the remaining 25% (n = 1) made significant progress.

Patients who quit treatment prematurely attended an average of 12 sessions before quitting. Amongst patients who quit treatment prematurely, 80% (n = 4) had made significant progress at the time of the last session they attended, and the remaining 20% (n = 1) had made some progress. Importantly, the only individual who did not make significant progress quit treatment after attending only an evaluation and one treatment session.

In sum, patients with anxiety disorders responded very well to treatment in a relatively short period of time. All patients who attended more than two sessions experienced substantial improvement in anxiety symptoms as well as significant improvement in functioning, even if they did not complete a full course of treatment.

Posted on

Correlates of Treatment Outcome for Patients With Mood Disorders

In my last blog post, I described end-of treatment outcomes for patients with mood disorders. Here, I will elaborate on factors that were correlated with treatment outcome for these patients. Please be advised that these results are specific to my practice and my patients, and should not necessarily be generalized to other clinicians or populations.

Diagnosis
Type of mood disorder diagnosis was strongly correlated with treatment outcome. Patients with Depressive Disorder NOS (DDNOS; n = 3) fared best. Two-thirds of these patients (n = 2) completed treatment and achieved full remission. The remaining one-third (n = 1) attended treatment for two months and made significant progress before quitting prematurely.

Patients with Mood Disorder NOS (MDNOS; n = 4) had varying outcomes. Half of them (n = 2) completed treatment; of these, one achieved full remission and the other made significant progress. Of the remaining MDNOS patients, one quit prematurely after making some progress and the other regressed and was referred to a higher level of care.

Both of the patients in this sample with Dysthymic Disorder also had a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). For statistical purposes, I am subsuming these individuals under the category of MDD, as that is the more severe of the two diagnoses. Patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD; n = 11) had varying outcomes. Eighteen percent (n = 2) completed treatment and achieved full remission; 9% (n = 1) quit treatment after making significant progress; 45% (n = 5) either quit treatment or moved away after making some progress; and 27% (n = 3) were referred to other providers.

The presence of both dysthymic disorder and MDD (n = 2) did not have a consistent impact on treatment outcome – one of these individuals completed treatment and achieved full remission, while the other regressed and was referred to a higher level of care.

None of the patients with bipolar disorder (n = 3) completed treatment or achieved full remission. However, one of the patients with bipolar disorder remained in treatment for over a year and made significant progress, but was eventually referred to another treatment provider to address other treatment needs.

Comorbidity
Presence of a co-morbid diagnosis was a negative prognostic factor. Only 18% (n = 2) of the patients with comorbid disorders completed treatment, and only 9% (n = 1) achieved full remission, while the remaining 9% (n = 1) made significant progress. In contrast, 40% (n = 4) of patients without a comorbid diagnosis completed treatment, and all of these patients achieved full remission.

Medication
Patients who did not take psychiatric medication during treatment with me were more likely to make progress in treatment and more likely to achieve remission than those who took psychiatric medication. All of the patients who did not take medication (n = 8) made at least some progress in treatment. In contrast, 30% of those who took medication either made no progress (n = 2) or regressed (n = 2) during treatment. Half of the patients who did not take medication (n = 4) achieved remission by the end of treatment, compared to 8% (n = 1) of those who took medication.

My hypothesis is that patients who took medication had poorer outcomes not because their medication didn’t work or made them worse, but rather because taking medication is confounded with severity of mood disorder and with comorbidity. In other words, those with more severe mood disorders and/or comorbid conditions were more likely to require medication in order to function, whereas those with mild to moderate mood disorders were less likely to need medication.

Age and Family Involvement
Younger age was a significant predictor of treatment completion. Patients who completed treatment ranged in age from 16 – 29, with an average age of 19.7. Those who did not complete treatment ranged in age from 12 – 59, with an average age of 28.6.

Being under 18 years old was a protective factor. None of the adolescents under 18 quit treatment prematurely. Of the 6 adolescents in this sample, 50% (n = 3) completed treatment and attained full remission, 33% (n = 2) were referred to other treatment settings after a year or more of treatment with me due to other needs, and the remaining 16% (n = 1) engaged in treatment as a 17-year-old and made some progress, but quit shortly after his 18th birthday. I suspect that the high level of parental involvement that I require for adolescent patients is the primary reason why they are likely to remain in treatment and have positive outcomes. In addition, younger patients tend to have shorter duration of illness compared to adult patients, and early intervention is also predictive of positive outcome.

For patients over 18, family involvement often included spouses and significant others instead of parents, based on the patient’s living situation and relationship status. Sixty percent (n = 9) of the patients over 18 in this sample had no family involvement whatsoever, 27% (n = 4) had a low level of family involvement, and 13% (n = 2) had a moderate level of family involvement. None of the patients over 18 had a high level of family involvement.

Importantly, amongst the adults in this sample, family involvement was not necessary in order to make progress in treatment or attain remission. None of the adults who attained full remission (n = 2) had family members involved in their treatment. Likewise, 67% (n = 2) of the adults who made significant progress in treatment had a low level of family involvement and 33% (n = 1) had no family involvement at all.

None of the patients over age 30 (n = 5) completed treatment. I hypothesize that there are several reasons for this: 1.) Older patients had a longer duration of illness, which means that their illness was more entrenched and more difficult to treat; 2.) The majority of these patients (80%; n = 4) had no family support at all; 3.) All of these older patients paid reduced rates for my services, which indicates that they were of lower socio-economic status, and which may suggest that they value my services less than those who pay full price; 4.) I saw all of these patients during my post-doctoral year, when I was less experienced and not yet fully licensed. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the quality of my services was somewhat lower back then than it is now that I am fully licensed and more experienced; and 5.) I prefer working with child and adolescent patients and find that I tend to be more effective with them. For these reasons, particularly #5, I no longer treat adult patients beyond their mid-twenties.

Gender
Average duration of treatment was comparable for males and females (6.8 months vs 7.4 months, respectively). Rates of remission were similar between males and females. Twenty percent (n = 1) of males completed treatment and achieved remission, compared with 25% (n = 4) of females. However, amongst those who did not achieve remission, females were more likely to make significant progress than males. Twenty-five percent (n = 4) of females made significant progress, compared with none of the males.

Hospitalization
Hospitalization during treatment with me predicted regression in treatment. Of the patients who were hospitalized during treatment with me, 67% (n = 2) had regressed by the end of their treatment with me. In contrast, none of the patients who were not hospitalized during treatment had regressed as of their final session with me.

I hypothesize that patients who remained out of the hospital during treatment with me were responding well to treatment, which would explain why they were more likely to achieve remission or at least make significant progress. In contrast, being hospitalized during treatment may have been an indication that the patient was not responding well to treatment, which explains why they were likely regressed as of their last session with me.

Surprisingly, history of hospitalization before entering treatment with me was not related to outcome. Of the 8 patients who had been hospitalized previously, 25% (n = 2) achieved remission, 25% (n = 2) made significant progress, 38% (n = 3) made some progress, and only 12% (n = 1) regressed in treatment with me. These percentages are comparable to those of the 13 patients who had not been hospitalized before beginning treatment with me: 23% (n = 3) achieved remission, 15% (n = 2) made significant progress, 38% (n = 5) made some progress, 15% made no progress, and 8% (n = 1) regressed.

I would have suspected that history of hospitalization would be confounded with illness severity, and therefore would predict poor treatment outcome. However, it is possible that the individuals who had been hospitalized before entering treatment with me had not been given appropriate outpatient treatment, hence the escalation of illness need for hospitalization. Perhaps these patients were able to benefit from their treatment with me, and it is possible that, in some cases, hospitalization could have been avoided if they had received effective outpatient treatment sooner.

Attendance at Therapy Sessions
Attendance at therapy sessions was correlated with treatment retention as well as treatment outcome. Sixty-seven percent (n = 4) of those who completed treatment attended all of their appointments, while the remaining 33% (n = 2) had only one missed appointment. Eighty percent of patients who attained full remission (n = 4) had perfect attendance in therapy; the remaining 20% (n = 1) missed only one appointment. None of the patients who missed more than one appointment completed treatment or achieved full remission.

I suspect this relates to the old adage: “You get out of it what you put into it.” A patient who frequently misses appointments probably places little value on their mental health, which may explain why they tended to drop out of treatment prematurely. Those who were diligent about their treatment prioritized their mental health and worked hard in therapy. Those who were conscientious and responsible about attendance were, most likely, conscientious and responsible about completing therapy homework, taking their medication consistently, and making positive life choices in general. Thus, it is natural that these individuals had better treatment outcomes.

Fee for Services
Payment of full fee for services was a predictor of treatment completion and achieving full remission. Sixty-seven percent of patients (n = 2) who paid my full rate completed treatment, compared with only 22% of patients (n = 4) who paid a reduced rate. Given that so few patients in this sample paid my full rate (n = 3), it is difficult to draw any conclusions about how these individuals differ from those who pay a lower rate.

However, in my practice, the correlation between payment of full services and better treatment outcome has been consistent across diagnoses, regardless of the number of clients in the sample. As I have noted in recent posts, individuals who pay lower fees are, by definition, of lower socio-economic status (SES). These individuals may have more financial stressors than those of higher SES, and may have other life obstacles in general (limited access to healthcare, transportation difficulties, unemployment, single parent families) which interfered with their ability to progress in treatment.

In addition, those who pay reduced rates were much more likely than those who pay full rate to no-show for sessions or to cancel at the last minute. This finding suggests to me that, on average, individuals who paid reduced fees placed less personal value on their sessions, had less respect for my time, did not prioritize their recovery, and/or were generally irresponsible, compared with individuals who paid full rate.

Posted on

End of Treatment Outcomes for Patients with Mood Disorders

Since opening my practice in 2009, I have evaluated 30 patients with mood disorders. Former patients who attended at least one treatment session with me following their evaluation were included in this sample. Patients who are currently in treatment with me were not included in this sample. As you read, please bear in mind that these data are specific to my practice and my patients, and should not be generalized to other therapists or other patient populations.

The 21 patients in this sample had a range of different mood disorder diagnoses. The most common diagnosis was Major Depressive Disorder (43%; n = 9). Other mood disorder diagnoses included Mood Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (19%; n = 4), Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (14%; n = 3), Bipolar Disorder (14%; n = 3), and Dysthymia (10%; n = 2). Approximately one quarter of the sample (24%) was male.

Patients ranged in age from 12 to 59, with a median age of 21. Most of these patients had been suffering from their mood disorder for years before beginning treatment with me, and most had received some sort of psychological or psychiatric treatment in the past. Duration of illness prior to intake ranged from 1 month to 35 years, with an average duration of 8.4 years. These figures reflect the length of time since symptoms began, which is usually substantially earlier than diagnosis.

Many mood disorders, such as Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar Disorder, tend to be episodic, characterized by periods of remission and periods of relapse. Thus, the “duration of illness prior to treatment” figures reflect the total length of time from the onset of first symptoms to the initial session with me. Many patients had periods of mild or absent symptoms and good functioning in between mood disorder episodes.

Most of the patients in this sample had relatively severe forms of mood disorders. Thirty-eight percent of them (n = 8) had been hospitalized for a suicide attempt, suicidal gesture, or related psychiatric issue prior to beginning treatment with me, and many of these individuals had been hospitalized multiple times. Fourteen percent of patients (n = 3) had to be hospitalized during the course of their treatment with me.

This sample was ethnically diverse, comprised of 43% White Hispanic, 43% White Non-Hispanic, 10% multi-racial, and 4% Black Hispanic. The majority of patients in this sample (86%; n = 18) paid a reduced fee for my services; only 14% (n = 3) paid my full rate. Thus, most of these patients were of lower socio-economic status and/or were college students responsible for supporting themselves.

Approximately half of the sample (52%; n = 11) had a comorbid psychiatric disorder. The most common comorbid diagnoses were Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (14%; n = 3) and Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (14%; n = 3).

The patients in this sample received various types of treatment, depending on their age and symptoms. Nearly half of the patients in this sample (48%; n = 10) received Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Patients whose illnesses were characterized by impulsivity and self-harm received a Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) skills-based approach (38%; n = 8). Patients with milder symptoms and social difficulties received supportive counseling focused on self-care and interpersonal relationships (14%; n = 3). Sixty-two percent of patients (n = 13) were also seeing a psychiatrist and taking psychotropic medication during their treatment with me.

The level of family involvement in a patient’s treatment varied based upon his or her age, symptoms, and preferences as well as logistics. In this sample, 43% (n = 9) of patients had no family involvement, 19% (n = 4) had a low level of family involvement, 19% (n = 4) had a moderate level of family involvement, and 19% (n = 4) had a high level of family involvement.

I require the parents of all patients under 18 to be fully informed and actively involved in their child’s treatment. Therefore, all patients under 18 in this sample had moderate to high degrees of family involvement in treatment. This means that the patient’s parents participated fully in the evaluation and treatment planning, and participated in a portion of most therapy sessions (e.g., the last 10 minutes of each session) for the purposes of providing feedback, setting goals, and evaluating progress. These parents also had regular access to me via phone and email for the purpose of sharing information about their child and asking questions. For patients over age 18, family members were involved as appropriate, as needed, and as requested by the patient. For example, many college-aged patients had parents involved in their treatment, particularly when it came to issues of psychiatric consultation and hospitalization.

Patients in this sample attended between 1 and 96 sessions, with a mean of 19 sessions. Duration of treatment ranged from 1 month and 39 months, with a mean duration of 7 months. In other words, the typical mood disorder patient attended 19 sessions over the course of 7 months.

Twenty-nine percent of patients (n = 6) completed treatment and 38% (n = 8) quit treatment prematurely. I referred twenty-four percent of patients (n = 5) to other treatment providers who could better meet their needs, and 9% of patients (n = 2) moved to other geographic locations during their treatment and were referred to other providers near their new homes.

Patients who completed treatment attended between 1 and 96 sessions, with an average of 23 sessions. Duration of treatment for those who completed treatment ranged from 1 to 39 months, with an average duration of 11 months. Thus, it typically took approximately 23 sessions over the course of 11 months to complete treatment.

Each patient was given an end-of-treatment rating which describes their state as of their final session with me, regardless of the reason why treatment ended.

• Patients were classified as being in “full remission” if they had not experienced any symptoms of their mood disorder within the past two weeks, and their social / occupational / academic functioning were good.

• Patients were classified as having made “significant progress” if their mood disorder symptoms over the past two weeks were substantially less severe, less frequent, and less intense than at intake, but were still occurring, and their social / occupational / academic functioning were relatively good.

• Patients were classified as having made “some progress” if their symptoms over the past two weeks were somewhat less severe and less frequent than at intake, and if their social / occupational / academic functioning were fair.

• Patients were classified as having made “no progress” if the frequency, intensity, and duration of symptoms had not improved since intake, and social / occupational / academic functioning had not improved since intake.

• Patients were classified as “regressed” if their symptoms over the past two weeks were more severe or more frequent than at intake and their social / occupational / academic functioning had declined since intake.

Of the patients who completed treatment, 83% (n = 5) achieved full remission from their mood disorder and 17% (n = 1) made significant progress. Of the patients who quit treatment prematurely, 25% (n = 2) had made significant progress by their last session with me, 63% (n = 5) had made some progress, and 12% (n = 1) had made no progress. Among the patients whom I referred to other providers, 40% (n = 2) regressed during their treatment with me, 20% (n = 1) made no progress (n = 1), 20% (n = 1) made some progress, and 20% (n = 1) made significant progress.

In my next post, I will discuss factors that are correlated with treatment completion and good outcome in these mood disorder patients.

Posted on

A Comparison of Treatment Outcomes: AN, BN, and EDNOS

My previous posts described treatment outcomes and correlates of my patients with various eating disorder diagnoses, including Anorexia Nervosa (AN), Bulimia Nervosa (BN), and Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (EDNOS). Some findings were similar across diagnostic groups:

• The vast majority of patients with any diagnosis who completed treatment achieved full remission.

• The attrition rate, overall, was high.

• Family-Based Treatment (FBT) was associated with treatment retention, meaning that patients who participated in FBT were less likely to discontinue treatment prematurely than those receiving individual therapy.

• Patients who paid a reduced rate for services were much less likely to complete treatment and much less likely to achieve remission than those who paid full rate.

• Hospitalization during treatment with me was not related to treatment completion or treatment outcome, regardless of diagnosis.

• History of intensive eating disorder treatment (e.g., residential treatment, day treatment) was related to treatment non-completion and poorer outcome for patients across diagnoses.

Quite surprisingly, the differences among the diagnostic groups outnumbered the similarities:

• Patients with AN who completed treatment attended more sessions, over a longer period of time, than patients with BN or EDNOS. Completing treatment for AN involved an average of 28 sessions over 17 months, whereas completing treatment for BN or EDNOS involved an average of 15 sessions over 10 months.

• Type of treatment had a significant impact on outcome for patients with AN but not for patients with BN or EDNOS. All AN patients who achieved remission did so through FBT. However, patients with BN and EDNOS achieved remission through various means, including individual therapy with no family involvement, individual therapy with family involvement, and FBT.

• Younger age at intake and shorter duration of illness predicted treatment completion and remission for patients with AN. However, neither age nor duration of illness affected treatment outcome for patients with BN or EDNOS.

• All “treatment non-completers” with AN (those who quit prematurely, moved away, or were referred to other treatment settings) discontinued treatment within the first six months. In contrast, a number of “treatment non-completers” with BN or EDNOS remained in treatment for more than a year.

• Among patients with AN, those who completed treatment attended significantly more sessions than those who did not (28 sessions vs. 8 sessions) and remained in treatment for a much longer time than those who did not (17 months vs. 3 months). In contrast, for patients with BN and EDNOS, treatment completers and non-completers both remained in treatment for an average of 10 months, and treatment non-completers actually averaged more sessions than treatment completers (20 sessions vs. 15 sessions). Thus, it appears that for BN and ENDOS, treatment completers did not remain in treatment longer, but rather reached remission more quickly.

• Caucasians with AN were slightly more likely than Hispanics with AN to complete treatment and achieve remission. In contrast, Hispanics with BN or EDNOS were significantly more likely than Caucasians with these diagnoses to complete treatment and achieve remission.

• The presence of a comborbid disorder was not related to treatment completion or treatment outcome for patients with AN. However, the presence of a comorbid disorder was a significant predictor of treatment dropout and poorer outcome for patients with BN and EDNOS.

• History of hospitalization for an eating disorder or related psychiatric issue was related to poorer outcome for patients with BN and EDNOS, but not for patients with AN.

• Taking psychotropic medication during treatment was related to treatment completion and positive outcome for patients with AN but not for patients with BN or EDNOS.

Please bear in mind that these findings are specific to my practice and my patients, and are not intended to be generalized to other treatment settings or other patients.