Posts Tagged ‘false positives’

Depression Screenings Not Recommended!

Wednesday, September 21st, 2011

Whistleblower Allen Jones gained international press coverage after uncovering pharmaceutical industry payments to government officials for the purpose of implementing a national mental health screening/psychotropic drug treatment plan.

Click image to watch video of whistleblower Allen Jones

Ivanhoe Newswire – September 21, 2011

If you’re feeling down, don’t rush to your doctor just yet. Many instances of mild depression resolve without intervention. In fact, a new analysis published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) concludes that routine screening for depression isn’t beneficial or efficient.

The United States and Canada recommend screening for depression by primary care providers, but the United Kingdom says no way! The UK does not recommend screening because of a lack of evidence and ineffective use of scarce health care resources.

In addition, The UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, cite concerns about high rates of false-positive results (in some cases more than 50 percent), lack of evidence, high costs and resources, and the diversion of resources away from people with serious depression.

“The prevalence of depression and the availability of easy-to-use screening instruments make it tempting to endorse widespread screening for the disease,” writes Dr. Brett Thombs, Senior Investigator, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, with coauthors.

Screening for depression involves the use of questionnaires, concerning the symptoms of depression, to identify patients who may have depression but have not sought treatment

“However, screening in primary care is a resource-intensive endeavor, does not yet show evidence of benefit, and would have unintended negative effects for some patients,” Dr. Brett writes.

One of the effects can be seen in the high prescription rates for antidepressant medication. In a 2005 study from Canada, seven percent of a sample from the general public reported current use of anti-depressant medication, a figure well above the estimated four percent who actually suffer major depression.

Another negative effect is the potential “nocebo effect”. The opposite of a placebo effect, this occurs when patients, who are not concerned about their mental health, are told they have depression. This can lead to the development or worsening of symptoms.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=28073

« Return to news items


Share

Australia’s Reckless Experiment In Early Intervention

Wednesday, June 8th, 2011

Note from CCHR: The article below was written by Allen Frances, a psychiatrist, and former Chairman of the DSM IV task force.  The subject of the article is Australian psychiatrist Patrick McGorry and his agenda to pre- diagnose kids with mental ‘illness’ before they develop it, which  Frances calls  a dangerous and risky proposition.    It is.  Yet Frances seems to be making excuses for the fact that McGorry’s plan is not only dangerous – its criminal.    He calls McGorry a charismatic psychiatrist, which may be true, but this is exactly what makes him so dangerous.  Because the Australian government has just funded a program so controversial and dangerous to children that even other psychiatrists, leaders in the field, are speaking out against it.  And why did they fund it?   Because “charistmatic” Patrick McGorry sold them  a $400 million bill of goods.

“Charisma is a tricky thing.  Jack Kennedy oozed it–but so did Hitler and Charles Manson. Con artists, charlatans, and megalomaniacs can make it their instrument as effectively as the best CEOs, entertainers, and presidents.” Patricia Sellers, FORTUNE Magazine


prevention that will do more harm than good

Psychology Today
By Allen Frances
May 31, 2011

Patrick McGorry is a charismatic psychiatrist who has recently gained heroic status. First he was chosen to be Australia’s Man Of The Year. Now, he has convinced the Australian government to spend more than $400 million over five years to fund his plan for a nationwide system of Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centres. McGorry is the visionary prophet and pied piper of preventive psychiatry. His goal is to diagnose mental disorders early and treat them expectantly- before they can do their worst damage.

McGorry’s goal is certainly great. But its current achievement is simply impossible and Australia’s plans are patently premature. Early intervention to prevent psychosis requires first that there be an accurate tool to identify who will later become psychotic and who will not. Unfortunately, no such accurate tool exists. The false positive rate in selecting prepsychosis is at least about 60-70% in the very best of hands and may be as high as 90% in general practice. That’s right, folks, nine misidentified non patients for one accurately identified truly prepsychotic patient. Those are totally unacceptable odds.

What are the costs? McGorry does not recommend antipsychotic medications as a routine part of his prevention regimen. But experience teaches us that they will be overused despite having no proven efficacy and posing the risk of massive weight gain (and its consequent array of serious complications). The false positives will also suffer unnecessary stigma and worry and will undergo unnecessary and misdirected treatment. And surely there are many more productive ways to spend $400 million doing a better job of managing the mental health needs of those who have real and treatable psychiatric disorders.

Unfortunately, Mcgorry is a false prophet who’s visions are offered at least a few decades before their time. Australia, led astray by his impractical hopes, is about to embark on a vast and untried public health experiment that will almost surely cause more harm to its children than it prevents. Before embarking on this headlong and reckless rush, the following research steps need to be accomplished:

1)Developing a proven and reliable definition of “Psychosis Risk”

2)Learning how to use it in a way that reduces current outrageously high false positive rates to levels that are tolerable.

3)Demonstrating that the interventions chosen are indeed effective in preventing psychosis.

4)Determining the likely rate of antipsychotic use and how this influences the overall risk/benefit balance sheet of early intervention.

5)Studying the beneficial and harmful impacts of early diagnosis on stigma and self perception.

6)Comparing the marginal utility of a dollar spent trying to prevent an alleged future disorder vs a dollar spent treating an already clearly established one.

This is a research enterprise that will take many groups around the world many decades to complete. But it is an absolutely necessary precondition before spending $400 million on what is likely to be a failure. The Australian experiment will be flying blind on an airplane that is not at all ready to leave the ground. Doing prevention prematurely and poorly will give a good idea an unnecessary bad name.

McGorry’s intentions are clearly noble, but so were Don Quixote’s. The kindly knight’s delusional good intentions and misguided interventions wreaked havoc and confusion at every turn. Sad to say, Australia’s well intended impulse to protect its children will paradoxically put them at greater risk. Let’s applaud McGorry’s vision but not blindly follow him down an unknown path fraught with dangers.

Read article here:  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201105/australias-reckless-experiment-in-early-intervention

« Return to news items


Share

Austrailan Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry’s Global Agenda for “Pre-Psychosis Risk Syndrome” Takes A Hit from Former DSM Task Force Member, Psychiatrist Allen Frances

Friday, July 30th, 2010

Note: The diagnosis being pushed for global implementation, “Pre-Psychosis Risk Syndrome” by “Australian of the Year,” Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry, takes a hit from a worthy opponent, Psychiatrist Allen Frances, former Chairiman of the DSM Task force. For more information about Patrick McGorry’s global agenda, click here:http://www.cchrint.org/2010/06/16/australian-psychiatrist-patrick-mcgorry-wants-his-pre-drugging-agenda-to-go-global/

DSM5 in Distress
Psychology Today
by Allen Frances, MD

The DSM 5 Workgroup that first suggested the inclusion of “Psychosis Risk Syndrome” has halfway come to its senses. It has dropped this stigmatizing name in a last ditch repackaging effort to salvage the proposal. The criteria set remains essentially the same, but is relabeled with the equally awkward title: “Attenuated Psychotic Symptoms Syndrome”. The suggestion remains just as dangerous and stigmatizing, whatever it is called.

Why the halfway reversal by the Workgroup at this late date? The “Psychosis Risk” proposal has stimulated widespread opposition (even I am told from within the Workgroup itself). The arguments against it are simply overwhelming. The false positive rate in predicting psychosis would be between 70-90%, meaning that between two and nine youngsters would be misidentified for every one accurately identified. The treatment most likely to be used would be antipsychotic medications. These have no proven efficacy in preventing psychosis, but most definitely have terrible side effects- especially enormous weight gain and its life threatening complications. These medications are overprescribed to those least able to resist- the young and those who are most financially disadvantaged.

Finally, the name “Psychosis Risk” was filled with ominous threat and stigma. Having a label that suggests one is at risk to soon develop a psychosis would cause the mislabelled person much unnecessary worry, unnecessarily reduced ambitions, and create great risk of discrimination in getting work or insurance – thus further exacerbating the risk side of the already totally unbalanced risk-benefit ratio.

As an early intervention strategy, everything that could possibly be wrong was wrong with “Psychosis Risk Syndrome”. An extremely inaccurate diagnosis would lead to widespread treatment with an ineffective but dangerous medication. To top it off, the writing of the criteria set is remarkably vague and internally inconsistent. That “Psychosis Risk” was an obvious nonstarter finally got through to the DSM 5 Work Group.

Seemingly, this should have been an end of story moment and we could all breathe a sigh of relief. The obvious and correct next step would be to withdraw the proposal for official recognition and instead relegate Psychosis Risk to where it belongs- in the DSM 5 appendix of suggestions that require further research. Instead, the Work Group is trying to save the suggestion by changing its name and ditching some of its overly ambitious claims.

The idea is to avoid the criticism regarding the high false positive rate by withdrawing claims that the “patients” described are likely to go on to psychosis and that the risk syndrome diagnosis can help to prevent this outcome. But the diagnosis now rests on a new set of equally questionable assumptions, that-1) the people described would have come for treatment anyway; 2) there will be no increase in overall diagnosis, just more accurate diagnosis;
3) inappropriate antipsychotic use can be contained by physician education; and, 4) the new name will carry less stigma.
.
The Work Group has always been well intentioned, but is as dead wrong in its new claims as it was in its old. Were this diagnosis to be made official- however renamed – it would certainly be used (and probably widely misused) to diagnose youngsters who previously would have avoided diagnosis and treatment. Particularly given the imprecise writing of the criteria set, it will mislabel many teenagers- especially those who are using substances, but also those who are creative or eccentric, and/or have difficult relationships with their parents. The experts on the Workgroup might make these mistakes infrequently, but they can’t responsibly make suggestions that are usable only by experts like themselves. Once official, the diagnosis will be misused in ways they never imagined or would accept and will lead to even greater misuse of antipsychotics. And the Work Group can’t rely on the wonders of physician education to clean up the mess they will be making. Most of the physician education will come from the very drug companies that have already shown themselves remarkably adept at furthering the overprescription of antipsychotics to children and teenagers.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201007/psychosis-risk-syndrome-just-risky-new-name

More information on Patrick McGorry and Pre Psychosis Risk Syndrome: http://www.cchrint.org/2010/05/21/meet-the-psychiatrist-pushing-for-a-brave-new-world-of-pre-drugging-kids%E2%80%94patrick-mcgorry/

http://www.cchrint.org/2010/06/16/australian-psychiatrist-patrick-mcgorry-wants-his-pre-drugging-agenda-to-go-global/

http://www.cchrint.org/2010/06/29/pre-crime-try-pre-diagnose-and-pre-drug-psychiatrists-target-infants-as-mental-patients-2/

« Return to news items


Share

Australia’s $80 billion plan to screen pregnant women mirrors U.S. Mothers Act: Bogus screenings produce false positives

Monday, September 7th, 2009

Michael Woodhead
6minutes.com.au
September 7, 2009

Researchers have sounded a note of caution about the government’s $80 million scheme to introduce routine screening for depression for all pregnant women.

Writing in the MJA (191: 276-79 ) today, researchers from the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Melbourne warn that the screening tools are imperfect and there is a risk of focusing too much on providing interventions such as antidepressants and CBT rather than exploring broader psychosocial issues such as partner violence, co-morbid health problems and housing.

The National Perinatal Depression Plan announced in the recent budget  proposes to introduce routine screening during pregnancy and after birth. But the researchers say there is little evidence to support such interventions, with screening tools producing high rates of false positives and negatives for depression.

They say screening has potential to do harm, with many women being upset at being labeled as having a mental health problem and reluctant to discuss mental health issues with antenatal care providers.

Read entire article: http://www.6minutes.com.au/articles/z1/view.asp?id=497263

« Return to news items


Share