Ramadan: Advising clinicians on safe fasting practices

Photo by mohamed_hassan

If you are a basketball fan who recently watched Portland Trail Blazers’ Enes Kanter play against the Warriors in the western NBA semi-finals, you may have heard about Ramadan fasting. But most Americans haven’t — and that includes clinicians.

“Even those clinicians who are aware of Ramadan often do not fully understand the nuances of fasting,” explains Rania Awaad, MD, a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and the director of the Muslims and Mental Health Lab at Stanford. “For example, there is no oral intake from sunup to sundown of food, liquids and also medications. For clinicians who may be alarmed by this, it’s important to remember that fasting is globally practiced safely by adjusting the timing and dosing of medications and by following best practices like consuming enough fluids to rehydrate after the fast.”

Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, which is 11 days shorter than the solar year. This year in the U.S., it began on May 5 and ends on June 4. During Ramadan, many of the nearly two billion Muslims around the world fast during the sunlight hours as a means of expressing self-control, gratitude and compassion for those in need.

Several groups are exempted from this religious requirement — including pregnant women, children, the elderly and people who are acutely or chronically ill — but some fast anyway because of the spiritual significance, Awaad says.

“Ramadan is a very spiritual and communal month. So when clinicians immediately advise their patients not to fast, they may not realize they’re inadvertently isolating their patients from the broader community and support system,” Awaad says. She notes this is particularly important for patients with mental health disorders.

Awaad says she strongly advises clinicians to encourage their patients to seek a dual consultation with both a faith leader and medical professional at places like the Khalil Center, a professional counseling center specializing in Muslim mental health. Alternatively, patients observing Ramadan can consult both their faith leader and physician individually and help facilitate a consultation between both entities.

“Without a holistic treatment plan, patients are either fasting when they shouldn’t be — not taking their medications without telling their health care provider — or they are potentially not partaking in Ramadan when they can be,” Awaad says.

In a recent editorial in The Lancet Psychiatry, Awaad and her colleagues outline more clinical suggestions on the safety and advisability of Ramadan fasting that she hopes physicians will consider. For example, the editorial suggests that physicians working with patients with eating disorders should discuss the risks and benefits of fasting and consider close follow-up in this period and in the months following.

But the first step is knowing whether patients are Muslim. By co-teaching the “Culture and Religion in Psychiatry” class, Awaad says she helps Stanford psychiatry residents become comfortable asking about their patients’ religion, in the same way they are trained to ask other sensitive questions like sexual orientation.

“If we miss that our patient draws strength and support from their religion, then we miss the opportunity to support them holistically by incorporating their faith leader or faith community into their treatment plans,” Awaad explains. “The last Gallop poll revealed 87 percent of Americans believe in God, so it’s important to incorporate this into our patient care.”

This is a reposting of my Scope blog story, courtesy of Stanford School of Medicine.

Genetic roots of psychiatric disorders clearer now thanks to improved techniques

Photo by LionFive

New technology and access to large databases are fundamentally changing how researchers investigate the genetic roots of psychiatric disorders.

“In the past, a lot of the conditions that people knew to be genetic were found to have a relatively simple genetic cause. For example, Huntington’s disease is caused by mutations in just one gene,” said Laramie Duncan, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford. “But the situation is entirely different for psychiatric disorders, because there are literally thousands of genetic influences on every psychiatric disorder. That’s been one of the really exciting findings that’s come out of modern genetic studies.”

These findings are possible thanks to genome-wide association studies (GWAS), which test for millions of genetic variations across the genome to identify the genes involved in human disease.

Duncan is the lead author of a recent commentary in Neuropsychopharmacology that explains how GWAS studies have demonstrated the inadequacy of previous methods. The paper also highlights new genetics findings for mental health.

Before the newer technologies and databases were available, scientists could only analyze a handful of genetic variations. So they had to guess that a specific genetic variation (a candidate) was associated with a disorder — based on what was known about the underlying biology — and then test their hypothesis. The body of research that has emerged from GWAS studies, however, show that nearly all of these earlier “candidate study” results are incorrect for psychiatric disorders.

“There are actually so many genetic variations in the genome, it would have been almost impossible for people to guess correctly,” Duncan said. “It was a reasonable thing to do at the time. But we now have better technology that’s just as affordable as the old ways of doing things, so traditional candidate gene studies are no longer needed.”

Duncan said she began questioning the candidate gene studies as a graduate student. As she studied the scientific literature, she noticed a pattern in the data that suggested the results were wrong. “The larger studies tended to have null results and the very small studies tended to have positive results. And the only reason you’d see that pattern is if there was strong publication bias,” said Duncan. “Namely, positive results were published even if the study was small, and null results were only published when the study was very large.”

In contrast, the findings from the GWAS studies become more and more precise as the sample size increases, she explained, which demonstrates their reliability.

Using GWAS, researchers now know that thousands of variations distributed across the genome likely contribute to any given mental disorder. By using the statistical power gleaned from giant databases such as the UK Biobank or the Million Veterans Program, they have learned that most of these variations aren’t even in the regions of the gene’s DNA that code for proteins, where scientists expected them to be. For example, only 1.1 percent of schizophrenia risk variants are in these coding regions.

“What’s so interesting about the modern genetic findings is that they are revealing entirely new clues about the underlying biology of psychiatric disorders,” Duncan said. “And this opens up lots of new avenues for treatment development.”

This is a reposting of my Scope blog story, courtesy of Stanford School of Medicine.

Tips for discussing suicide on social media — A guide for youth

cell-phone-791365_1920
Photo by kaboompics

There are pros and cons to social media discussions of suicide. Social media can spread helpful knowledge and support, but it can also quickly disseminate harmful messaging and misinformation that puts vulnerable youth at risk.

New U.S. guidelines, called #chatsafe: A Young Person’s Guide for Communicating Safely Online About Suicides, aim to address this problem by offering evidence-based advice on how to constructively interact online about this difficult topic. The guidelines include specific language recommendations.

Vicki Harrison, MSW, the program director for the Stanford Center for Youth Mental Health and Wellbeing, discussed this new online education tool — developed in collaboration with a youth advisory panel — in a recent Healthier, Happy Lives Blog post.

“My hope is that these guidelines will create awareness about the fact that the way people talk about suicide actually matters an awful lot and doing so safely can potentially save lives. Yet we haven’t, up to this point, offered young people a lot of guidance for how to engage in constructive interactions about this difficult topic,” Harrison said in the blog post. “Hopefully, these guidelines will demystify the issue somewhat and offer practical suggestions that youth can easily apply in their daily interactions.”

A few main takeaways from the guidelines are below:

Before you post anything online about suicide

Remember that posts can go viral and they will never be completely erased. If you do post about suicide, carefully choose the language you use. For example, avoid words that describe suicide as criminal, sinful, selfish, brave, romantic or a solution to problems.

Also, monitor the comments for unsafe content like bullying, images or graphic descriptions of suicide methods, suicide pacts or goodbye notes. And include a link to prevention resources, like suicide help centers on social media platforms. From the guidelines:

“Indicate suicide is preventable, help is available, treatment can be successful, and that recovery is possible.”

Sharing your own thoughts, feelings or experience with suicidal behavior online

If you’re experiencing suicidal thoughts or feelings, try to reach out to a trusted adult, friend or professional mental health service before posting online. If you are feeling unsafe, call 911.

In general, think before you post: What do you hope to achieve by sharing your experience? How will sharing make you feel? Who will see your post and how will it affect them?

If you do post, share your experience in a safe and helpful way without graphic references, and consider including a trigger warning at the beginning to warn readers about potentially upsetting content.

Communicating about someone you know who is affected by suicidal thoughts, feelings or behaviors

If you’re concerned about someone, ask permission before posting or sharing content about them if possible. If someone you know has died by suicide, be sensitive to the feelings of their grieving family members and friends who might see your post. Also, avoid posting or sharing posts about celebrity suicides, because too much exposure to the suicide of well-known public figures can lead to copycat suicides.

Responding to someone who may be suicidal

Before you respond to someone who has indicated they may be at risk of suicide, check in with yourself: How are you feeling? Do you understand the role and limitations of the support you can provide?

If you do respond, always respond in private without judgement, assumptions or interruptions. Ask them directly if they are thinking of suicide. Acknowledge their feelings and let them know exactly why you are worried about them. Show that you care. And encourage them to seek professional help.

Memorial websites, pages and closed groups to honor the deceased

Setting up a page or group to remember someone who has died can be a good way to share stories and support, but it also raises concerns about copycat suicides. So make sure the memorial page or group is safe for others — by monitoring comments for harmful or unsafe content, quickly dealing with unsupportive comments and responding personally to participants in distress. Also outline the rules for participation.

Individuals in crisis can receive help from the Santa Clara County Suicide & Crisis Hotline at (855) 278-4204. Help is also available from anywhere in the United States via Crisis Text Line (text HOME to 741741) or the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at (800) 273-8255. All three services are free, confidential and available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

This is a resposting of my Scope blog story, courtesy of Stanford School of Medicine.