Search

The present study aimed to investigate the profile of reading and cognitive skills of primary school' students with a history of specific developmental language disorder during preschool years. The sample comprised 247 children referred for assessment of their reading difficulties to the University Child Psychiatry Department, at the "Aghia Sophia" Children's Hospital, Athens, Greece. The study was retrospective utilizing medical records from where the following information was drawn: demographic data, presence of a diagnosis of a specific developmental language disorder, results of Reading Test-A and WISC-III. Among the 247 children with normal intelligence IQ>80 (mean age: 10.5 years, 61.5% boys) included in the study, 226 (92.5%) were identified as having significant reading difficulties in at least one of the four subtests of the Reading-A Test (≤ 30 percentile); 72% performed poorly in reading fluency, 67.1% in decoding familiar and pseudowords, 52.8% in reading comprehension and 49.8% in morphosyntax subtest. When comparing children with severe reading difficulties (≤ 10 percentile on the Reading Test A) with a history of specific developmental language disorder (N=110) and no relevant history (N=116), the findings indicated that a significantly higher proportion of children with a history of specific language disorder had severe difficulty in morphosyntax (χ2=21.94, p<0.001) and reading comprehension subtests (χ2=8.89, p <0,001) than those with no history. In terms of the cognitive profile of children with severe reading difficulties, the results showed that a significantly higher proportion of children with a history of developmental language disorder than those with no history had low performance (<7TB) on all WISC-III subtests, however the difference between the two groups was found to be statistically significant on three subtests: "Vocabulary" (p=0.014), Arithmetic (p=0.006), and "Information" (p=0.005). Multiple linear stepwise regression analysis showed that lower levels of the verbal IQ (β=-0.121, p=0.042) and positive history of developmental language disorder during preschool years (β=0.537, p<0.001) were independently related to the severity of reading disability. In conclusion, the findings of the present study highlight the importance of early detection of language deficits during the preschool years and timely speech and language therapy intervention.

Childhood trauma (CT) is correlated with suicidality among patients with bipolar disorder (BD). However, it has not been adequately investigated if a third factor, for instance impulsivity, mediates the effect of CT on suicidality in BD. This study aimed to explore potential mediatory effects of impulsivity in the pathway from CT to suicidality in BD. CT was assessed with the Early Trauma Inventory Self Report-Short Form (ETI-SR-SF), impulsivity with the Barratt Impulsivity Scale-11 (BIS-11) while lifetime suicidality was investigated with the Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised (SBQ-R). The effect of childhood trauma on suicidality and impulsivity as well as the effect of impulsivity on suicidality were examined with multiple linear regressions, including gender, age and diagnosis (BD-I, BD-II) as covariates. Structural equation models were built and path analyses were performed (with AMOS 25 software and using bootstrapping in 1000 samples) for the examination of the mediatory role of BIS-11 and its subtypes in the effect of childhood trauma and its subtypes on suicidality. We included 78 BD euthymic patients (60.3% female, 67.9% BD-I). ETI-SR-SF significantly predicted SBQ-R (p=0.004) and BIS-11 (p<0.001), while BIS-11 significantly predicted SBQ-R (p=0.001). In a model including ETI-SR-SF and BIS dimensions, only ETISR-SF physical abuse (p=0.012) and BIS attentional (p<0.001) subscales significantly predicted SBQ-R. In structural equation models, the indirect effect of childhood trauma on suicidality via impulsivity was significant (p=0.003) while the direct effect of childhood trauma on suicidality was non-significant (complete mediation of the effect of childhood trauma on suicidality via impulsivity). In specific, both the indirect effect of physical abuse on suicidality via attentional impulsivity (p=0.002) and the direct effect of physical abuse on suicidality (p=0.013) were statistically significant (partial mediation of the effect of physical abuse on suicidality via attentional impulsivity). Childhood trauma predicts suicidality and impulsivity, while impulsivity predicts suicidality. More specifically, physical abuse and attentional impulsivity predict suicidality. The mediatory role of impulsivity completely explained the effect of childhood trauma on suicidality. Moreover, attentional impulsivity partially mediated the effect of physical abuse on suicidality. Therefore, management of impulsivity and especially of attentional impulsivity is crucial for the prevention and management of suicidality among BD patients with a history of childhood trauma.

The current coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has led mental health systems to uncertainty regarding safe continuation of clozapine monitoring protocols. Clozapine is without doubt the only antipsychotic available with repeatedly proven efficacy in treatment resistant schizophrenia.1 Replacing clozapine with an alternative antipsychotic in patients stabilized with clozapine can potentially lead to higher risk of relapse or exacerbation of severity of illness.1 Clozapine, as already known, has a number of side effects, some of which can be serious, thus patients receiving clozapine require ongoing scheduled monitoring. Side effects of clozapine include neutropenia or agranulocytosis, myocarditis, fever, hypersalivation, weight gain and constipation. These side effects can be detected and treated when recognized on time decreasing the possibility of serious consequences making the implementation of an ongoing treatment monitoring protocol for patients on clozapine mandatory.2 Since it was advised for all mental health providers in most countries worldwide to limit non-urgent hospital visits and procedures to reduce the risk of contamination a challenge arose for patients' ability to access health care facilities for their routine clozapine monitoring. Nevertheless, the majority of Mental Health Care Authorities decided to ensure access for all patients on clozapine to their routine monitoring protocol.3,4 To date, no data exist on any potential relationship between antipsychotic use and the risk of contamination with SARS-CoV-2 or the development of severe symptoms of the infection. The literature suggests that patients receiving antipsychotics, especially clozapine, have an increased risk of developing pneumonia, leading to the assumption that patients receiving clozapine are at higher risk to develop COVID-19. 1 Balancing the importance of monitoring continuation against the increased risk for COVID-19, an International Consensus Statement was recently published addressing a monitoring protocol with reduced visits. The Consensus suggested reduced hematologic monitoring frequency of every 3 months with a prescription of 90 days clozapine supply (if safe). The above applies to patients receiving clozapine for at least one year without neutropenia. Τhe risk of neutropenia after 12 months of clozapine treatment falls significantly.4 Based on the above it is suggested to all clozapine clinics to implement a guidance monitoring protocol for all patients on clozapine to ensure safety during the pandemic. Besides hematological monitoring that requires physical contact with healthcare workers it is significant to implement a telemedicine appointment in frequent intervals to monitor symptoms of infection, symptoms of cardiovascular diseases and constipation. Patient should also be advised to regularly monitor one's blood pressure and pulses and ideally be educated on how by a member of the staff. If a patient is detected with any symptoms related to the above an emergency appointment for evaluation should be planned. Overall, since both the consequences and the duration of the pandemic are unknown, mental health services must work jointly to implement a clozapine monitoring plan to ensure safe continuation in such a vulnerable population.

A basic training in psychotherapy is a necessary requirement for the speciality of psychiatry. Nevertheless, any thorough training in psychotherapy in Greece lacks planning and a credible certification system. Τraining is carried out by different psychotherapeutic societies of varying prestige, through a number of programs. There have been very few attempts until now to map this field. The Section of Psychotherapy of the Hellenic Psychiatric Association (HPA) has tried to document the characteristics of the psychiatrists practicing psychotherapy. The study aimed at all of the trainee and trained psychiatrists, members of HPA. 210 questionnaires were filled in by members of HPA in 2000 and 2009-2011. Most of them were returned by post to the Section of Psychotherapy, while some were filled in during the 21rst HPA congress. With regard to psychotherapeutic training 151 (72%) reported some kind of psychoanalytic training, 90 (42.8%) cognitive, 85 (40.5%) systemic and 38 (18%) other (interpersonal, drama therapy, existentialist, cognitive-analytic, hypnosis, group therapy of another kind, orgonotherapy, vegetotherapy, Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing). The average duration of the training in years was 5.26 (±3.7) for the psychoanalytic one, 2.73 (±1.6) for the cognitive, 3.83 (±2.1) for the systemic and 3.08 (±2.5) for the psychiatrists with a different type of training. Interestingly, many of the participants reported more than one types of psychotherapeutic training. Another important finding is the fact that the range of training varies from a single seminar to many years, something which underlines the considerable divergence with regard to what is considered psychotherapeutic training. Several questions arise from the above findings: A first one is if a psychiatrist should, during his/her training, also be trained in psychotherapy and what kind of training this should be. A second question is if being a trained psychiatrist entails the capacity to practice psychotherapy and to be called a psychotherapist. Should the title of psychotherapist be a general one or should a specific theoretical-clinical approach be mentioned in the title (psychoanalyst, cognitive-behavioral, systemic, etc.). One more question is which institution is appropriate for the certification of a psychotherapist: a state authority or another, possibly private, institution such as scientific societies or Non-Governmental Organizations? A final question is where professionals from different fields certified as psychotherapists could converge and how their differences could be specified. The mapping and study of the field of psychotherapy within HPA can create the basis for a fruitful discussion on the issue of the psychiatrists' training and certification in psychotherapy, thus outlining a number of questions and dilemmas.