What should I do if I can’t see a psychiatrist?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
People presenting at emergency with mental health concerns are experiencing the longest wait times in Australia for admission to a ward, according to a new report from the Australasian College of Emergency Medicine.
But with half of New South Wales’ public psychiatrists set to resign next week after ongoing pay disputes – and amid national shortages in the mental health workforce – Australians who rely on psychiatry support may be wondering where else to go.
If you can’t get in to see a psychiatrist and you need help, there are some other options. However in an emergency, you should call 000.
Why do people see a psychiatrist?
Psychiatrists are doctors who specialise in mental health and can prescribe medication.
People seek or require psychiatry support for many reasons. These may include:
- severe depression, including suicidal thoughts or behaviours
- severe anxiety, panic attacks or phobias
- post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
- eating disorders, such as anorexia or bulimia
- attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Psychiatrists complement other mental health clinicians by prescribing certain medications and making decisions about hospital admission. But when psychiatry support is not available a range of team members can contribute to a person’s mental health care.
Can my GP help?
Depending on your mental health concerns, your GP may be able to offer alternatives while you await formal psychiatry care.
GPs provide support for a range of mental health concerns, regardless of formal diagnosis. They can help address the causes and impact of issues including mental distress, changes in sleep, thinking, mood or behaviour.
The GP Psychiatry Support Line also provides doctors advice on care, prescription medication and how support can work.
It’s a good idea to book a long consult and consider taking a trusted person. Be explicit about how you’ve been feeling and what previous supports or medication you’ve accessed.
What about psychologists, counsellors or community services?
Your GP should also be aware of supports available locally and online.
For example, Head to Health is a government initiative, including information, a nationwide phone line, and in-person clinics in Victoria. It aims to improve mental health advice, assessment and access to treatment.
Medicare Mental Health Centres provide in-person care and are expanding across Australia.
There are also virtual care services in some areas. This includes advice on individualised assessment including whether to go to hospital.
Some community groups are led by peers rather than clinicians, such as Alternatives to Suicide.
How about if I’m rural or regional?
Accessing support in rural or regional areas is particularly tough.
Beyond helplines and formal supports, other options include local Suicide Prevention Networks and community initiatives such as ifarmwell and Men’s sheds.
Should I go to emergency?
As the new report shows, people who present at hospital emergency departments for mental health should expect long wait times before being admitted to a ward.
But going to a hospital emergency department will be essential for some who are experiencing a physical or mental health crisis.
Managing suicide-related distress
With the mass resignation of NSW psychiatrists looming, and amid shortages and blown-out emergency waiting times, people in suicide-related distress must receive the best available care and support.
Roughly nine Australians die by suicide each day. One in six have had thoughts of suicide at some point in their lives.
Suicidal thoughts can pass. There are evidence-based strategies people can immediately turn to when distressed and in need of ongoing care.
Safety planning is a popular suicide prevention strategy to help you stay safe.
What is a safety plan?
This is a personalised, step-by-step plan to remain safe during the onset or worsening of suicidal urges.
You can develop a safety plan collaboratively with a clinician and/or peer worker, or with loved ones. You can also make one on your own – many people like to use the Beyond Now app.
Safety plans usually include:
- recognising personal warning signs of a crisis (for example, feeling like a burden)
- identifying and using internal coping strategies (such as distracting yourself by listening to favourite music)
- seeking social supports for distraction (for example, visiting your local library)
- letting trusted family or friends know how you’re feeling – ideally, they should know they’re in your safety plan
- knowing contact details of specific mental health services (your GP, mental health supports, local hospital)
- making the environment safer by removing or limiting access to lethal means
- identifying specific and personalised reasons for living.
Our research shows safety planning is linked to reduced suicidal thoughts and behaviour, as well as feelings of depression and hopelessness, among adults.
Evidence from people with lived experience shows safety planning helps people to understand their warning signs and practice coping strategies.
Are there helplines I can call?
There are people ready to listen, by phone or online chat, Australia-wide. You can try any of the following (most are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week):
Suicide helplines:
- Lifeline 13 11 14
- Suicide Call Back Service 1300 659 467
There is also specialised support:
- for men: MensLine Australia 1300 78 99 78
- children and young people: Kids’ Helpline 1800 55 1800
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: 13YARN 13 92 76
- veterans and their families: Open Arms 1800 011 046
- LGBTQIA+ community: QLife 1300 184 527
- new and expecting parents: PANDA 1300 726 306
- people experiencing eating disorders: Butterfly Foundation 1800 33 4673.
Additionally, each state and territory will have its own list of mental health resources.
With uncertain access to services, it’s helpful to remember that there are people who care. You don’t have to go it alone.
Monika Ferguson, Senior Lecturer in Mental Health, University of South Australia and Nicholas Procter, Professor and Chair: Mental Health Nursing, University of South Australia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Boundary-Setting Beyond “No”
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
More Than A “No”
A lot of people struggle with boundary-setting, and it’s not always the way you might think.
The person who “can’t say no” to people probably comes to mind, but the problem is more far-reaching than that, and it’s rooted in not being clear over what a boundary actually is.
For example: “Don’t bring him here again!”
Pretty clear, right?
And while it is indeed clear, it’s not a boundary; it’s a command. Which may or may not be obeyed, and at the end of the day, what right have we to command people in general?
Same goes for less dramatic things like “Don’t talk to me about xyz”, which can still be important or trivial, depending on whether the topic of xyz is deeply traumatizing for you, or mildly annoying, or something else entirely.
Why this becomes a problem
It becomes a problem not because of any lack of clarity about your wishes, but rather, because it opens the floor for a debate. The listener may be given to wonder whether your right to not experience xyz is greater or lesser than their right to do/say/etc xyz.
“My right to swing my fist ends where someone else’s nose begins”
…does not help here, firstly because both sides will believe themself (or nobody) to be the injured party; for the fist-swinger, the other person’s nose made a vicious assault on their freedom. Or secondly, maybe there was some higher principle at stake; a reason why violence was justified. And then ten levels of philosophical debate. We see this a lot when it comes to freedom of expression, and vigorous debate over whether this entails freedom from social consequences of one’s words/actions.
How a good boundary-setting works (if this, then that)
Consider two signs:
- No trespassing!
- Trespassers will be shot!
Superficially, the second just seems like a more violent rendition of the first. But in fact, the second is more informationally useful: it explains what will happen if the boundary is not respected, and allows the reader to make their own informed decision with regard to what to do with that information.
We can employ this method (and can even do so gently, if we so wish and hopefully we mostly do wish to be gentle) when it comes to social and interpersonal boundary-setting:
- If you bring him here again, I will refuse you entrance
- If you bring up that topic again, I will ask you to leave
- If you do that, I will never speak to you again
- If you don’t stop drinking, I will divorce you
This “if-this-then-that” model does the very first thing that any good boundary does: make itself clear.
It doesn’t rely on moral arguments; it doesn’t invite debate. For example in that last case, it doesn’t argue that the partner doesn’t have the right to drink—it simply expresses what the speaker will exercise their own right to do, in that eventuality.
(as an aside, the situation that occurs when one is enmeshed with someone who is dependent on a substance is a complex topic, and if you’re interested in that, check out: Codependency Isn’t What Most People Think)
Back on track: boundary-setting is not about what’s right or good—it’s about nothing more nor less than a clear delineation between what we will and won’t accept, and how we’ll enforce that.
We can also, in particularly personal boundary-setting (such as with sexual boundaries’ oft-claimed “gray areas”), fix an improperly-set boundary that forgot to do the above, e.g:
“How about [proposition]?”
“No thank you” ← casually worded answer; contextually reasonable, and yet not a clear boundary per what we discussed above
“Come on, I think you’d like it”
“I said no. No means no. Ask me again and I will [consequences that are appropriate and actionable]”What’s “appropriate and actionable” may vary a lot from one situation to another, but it’s important that it’s something you can do and are prepared to do and will do if the condition for doing it is met.
Anything less than that is not a boundary—it’s just a request.
Note: this does not require that we have power, by the way. If we have zero power in a situation, well, that definitely sucks, but even then we can still express what is actionable, e.g. “I will never trust you again”.
“Price of entry”
You may have wondered, upon reading “boundary-setting is not about what’s right or good—it’s about nothing more nor less than a clear delineation between what we will and won’t accept, and how we’ll enforce that”, can’t that be used to control and manipulate people, essentially coercing them to do or not do things with the threat of consequences (specifically: bad ones)?
And the answer is: yes, yes it can.
But that’s where the flipside comes into play—the other person gets to set their boundaries, too.
For all of us, if we have any boundaries at all, there is a “price of entry” and all who want to be in our lives, or be close to us, have to decide for themselves whether that price of entry is worth it.
- If a person says “do not talk about topic xyz to me or I will leave”, that is a price of entry for being close to them.
- If you are passionate about talking about topic xyz to the point that you are unwilling to shelve it when in their presence, then that is the price of entry for being close to you.
- If one or more of you is not willing to pay the price of entry, then guess what, you’re just not going to be close.
In cases of forced proximity (e.g. workplaces or families) this is likely to get resolved by the workplace’s own rules (i.e. the price of entry that you agreed to when signing a contract to work there), and if something like that doesn’t exist (such as in families), well, that forced proximity is going to reach a breaking point, and somebody may discover it wasn’t enforceable after all.
See also: Family Estrangement: More Common Than Most People Think
…which also details how to fix it, where possible.
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Why Lung Cancer Is On The Rise In Women Who’ve Never Smoked
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s easy to assume that if you’ve never smoked, lung cancer is just not a risk for you, unless you got very unlucky with an asbestos-laden environment or such.
And yes, smoking is indeed the most overwhelmingly strong risk factor:
❝It is estimated that cigarette smoking explains almost 90% of lung cancer risk in men and 70 to 80% in women❞
Which is a lot (and we’ll address that discrepancy by sex shortly), but meanwhile first let’s mention:
❝Compared with non-smokers, smokers have as much as a 30-fold increased risk of developing cancer.
31% and 26% of all cancer deaths in men and women, respectively, result from lung cancer in the United States.
Overall 5-year survival is only 15%, and 1-year survival is approximately 42%.
In total, lung cancer is responsible for more deaths than prostate, colon, pancreas, and breast cancers combined❞
Source: Smoking and Lung Cancer
Sobering statistics for any smoker, certainly.
But, “smoking is bad for the health” is not the breaking news of the century, so we’ll look now at the other risk factors.
Before we do though, let’s just drop this previous main feature of ours for anyone who does smoke or perhaps who has a loved one who smokes:
Which Addiction-Quitting Methods Work Best? ← it’s not specific just to smoking, but it does cover such also
So, Why the extra risk for women, even if we don’t smoke?
Let’s reframe that first statistic we gave, now presenting the same information differently:
Women who do not smoke are 2–3x more likely to get lung cancer than men who do not smoke.
So… why?
There are three main reasons:
Genetic risks
Cancer often arises from genetic mutations. In the case of lung cancer, genes such as ALK, ROS1, TP53, KRAS, and EGFR are implicated, and some of those are much more likely to mutate in women than in men.
In some cases, it’s because if you have XX chromosomes (as most women do), there are genes you have redundant copies of that people with XY chromosomes don’t. Other less common karyotypes, such as XXY, probably carry higher risks, but that’s just a hypothesis we’re making based on “more copies of a gene = more chances for it to mutate”.
See also: Frequency and Distinctive Spectrum of KRAS Mutations in Never Smokers with Lung Adenocarcinoma
In other cases, it’s because estrogen interacts with the gene mutations, making lung cancer more likely to develop in women over time:
Hormonal risks (but not what you might think)
When something affects women more, it’s easy to blame hormones, but, as researchers have concluded…
❝A reduced lung cancer risk was found for OC and HRT ever users. Both oestrogen only and oestrogen+progestin HRT were associated with decreased risk. No dose-response relationship was observed with years of OC/HRT use. The greatest risk reduction was seen for squamous cell carcinoma in OC users and in both adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma in HRT users.❞
OC = oral contraceptive
HRT = hormone replacement therapyNote: we snipped out the statistical calculations for readability and brevity, so if you are interested in those, check out the paper below:
Meanwhile, another research review of 22 studies with nearly a million participants found:
❝Current or ever HRT use is partly correlated with the decreased incidence of lung cancer in women.
Concerns about the incidence of lung cancer can be reduced when perimenopausal and postmenopausal women use current HRT to reduce menopausal symptoms.❞
So, the problem seems to at least a lot of the time be not estrogen (notwithstanding what we mentioned previously about mutations—sometimes a thing can have both pros and cons), but rather, untreated menopause being the higher risk factor.
This is very reminiscent of what we talked about in one of our main features about Alzheimer’s disease:
Alzheimer’s Sex Differences May Not Be What They Appear ← Women get Alzheimer’s at nearly 2x the rate than men do, and deteriorate more rapidly after onset, too.
Chronic inflammation
For reasons that have not been tied to genetics or hormones*, women suffer from autoimmune diseases at much higher rates than men.
*presumably it is at least one or the other, because there aren’t a lot of other options that seem plausible, but (as with many “this thing mainly affects women” maladies), science hasn’t yet determined the cause.
Because cancer is in part a disease of immune dysfunction (cells fail to kill cells they should be killing), having an autoimmune disease, or indeed chronic inflammation in general, will result in a higher risk of cancer.
For general theory, see: Cancer and Autoimmune Diseases: A Tale of Two Immunological Opposites?
For specifics, see: Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Role of the Immune System and Potential for Immunotherapy
And this one is the most likely explanation of why lung cancer in women who’ve never smoked is on the rise—it’s because chronic inflammation in women is on the rise. While people regardless of gender are getting chronic inflammation at increased rates nowadays (probably due in large part to the rise of ultra-processed food, as well as the higher stress of modern life, but again, we’re hypothesizing), if all other factors are equal, women will still get it more than men.
However!
Like the consideration of HRT’s protective effects (and unlike the genetic factors), this is one we can do something about.
For how, check out: How to Prevent (or Reduce) Inflammation
Want to know more?
For lung health in general, see:
Seven Things To Do For Good Lung Health!
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Test For Whether You Will Be Able To Achieve The Splits
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Some people stretch for years without being able to do the splits; others do it easily after a short while. Are there people for whom it is impossible, and is there a way to know in advance whether our efforts will be fruitful? Liv (of “LivInLeggings” fame) has the answer:
One side of the story
There are several factors that affect whether we can do the splits, including:
- arrangement of the joint itself
- length of tendons and muscles
- “stretchiness” of tendons and muscles
The latter two things, we can readily train to improve. Yes, even the basic length can be changed over time, because the body adapts.
The former thing, however (arrangement of the joint itself) is near-impossible, because skeletal changes happen more slowly than any other changes in the body. In a battle of muscle vs bone, muscle will always win eventually, and even the bone itself can be rebuilt (as the body fixes itself, or in the case of some diseases, messes itself up). However, changing the arrangement of your joint itself is far beyond the auspices of “do some stretches each day”. So, for practical purposes, without making it the single most important thing in your life, it’s impossible.
How do we know if the arrangement of our hip joint will accommodate the splits? We can test it, one side at a time. Liv uses the middle splits, also called the side splits or box splits, as an example, but the same science and the same method goes for the front splits.
Stand next to a stable elevated-to-hip-height surface. You want to be able to raise your near-side leg laterally, and rest it on the surface, such that your raised leg is now perfectly perpendicular to your body.
There’s a catch: not only do you need to still be stood straight while your leg is elevated 90° to the side, but also, your hips still need to remain parallel to the floor—not tilted up to one side.
If you can do this (on both sides, even if not both simultaneously right now), then your hip joint itself definitely has the range of motion to allow you to do the side splits; you just need to work up to it. Technically, you could do it right now: if you can do this on both sides, then since there’s no tendon or similar running between your two legs to make it impossible to do both at once, you could do that. But, without training, your nerves will stop you; it’s an in-built self-defense mechanism that’s just firing unnecessarily in this case, and needs training to get past.
If you can’t do this, then there are two main possibilities:
- Your joint is not arranged in a way that facilitates this range of motion, and you will not achieve this without devoting your life to it and still taking a very long time.
- Your tendons and muscles are simply too tight at the moment to allow you even the half-split, so you are getting a false negative.
This means that, despite the slightly clickbaity title on YouTube, this test cannot actually confirm that you can never do the middle splits; it can only confirm that you can. In other words, this test gives two possible results:
- “Yes, you can do it!”
- “We don’t know whether you can do it”
For more on the anatomy of this plus a visual demonstration of the test, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Stretching Scientifically – by Thomas Kurz ← this is our review of the book she’s working from in this video; this book has this test!
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
If you’re worried about inflammation, stop stressing about seed oils and focus on the basics
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
You’ve probably seen recent claims online seed oils are “toxic” and cause inflammation, cancer, diabetes and heart disease. But what does the research say?
Overall, if you’re worried about inflammation, cancer, diabetes and heart disease there are probably more important things to worry about than seed oils.
They may or may not play a role in inflammation (the research picture is mixed). What we do know, however, is that a high-quality diet rich in unprocessed whole foods (fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, grains and lean meats) is the number one thing you can to do reduce inflammation and your risk of developing diseases.
Rather than focusing on seed oils specifically, reduce your intake of processed foods more broadly and focus on eating fresh foods. So don’t stress out too much about using a bit of seed oils in your cooking if you are generally focused on all the right things.
What are seed oils?
Seed oils are made from whole seeds, such as sunflower seeds, flax seeds, chia seeds and sesame seeds. These seeds are processed to extract oil.
The most common seed oils found at grocery stores include sesame oil, canola oil, sunflower oil, flaxseed oil, corn oil, grapeseed oil and soybean oil.
Seed oils are generally affordable, easy to find and suitable for many dishes and cuisines as they often have a high smoke point.
However, most people consume seed oils in larger amounts through processed foods such as biscuits, cakes, chips, muesli bars, muffins, dipping sauces, deep-fried foods, salad dressings and margarines.
These processed foods are “discretionary”, meaning they’re OK to have occasionally. But they are not considered necessary for a healthy diet, nor recommended in our national dietary guidelines, the Australian Guide for Healthy Eating.
Seed oils often have a high smoke point.
Gleb Usovich/ShutterstockI’ve heard people say seed oils ‘promote inflammation’. Is that true?
There are two essential types of omega fatty acids: omega-3 and omega-6. These are crucial for bodily functions, and we must get them through our diet since our bodies cannot produce them.
While all oils contain varying levels of fatty acids, some argue an excessive intake of a specific omega-6 fatty acid in seed oils called “linoleic acid” may contribute to inflammation in the body.
There is some evidence linoleic acid can be converted to arachidonic acid in the body and this may play a role in inflammation. However, other research doesn’t support the idea reducing dietary linoleic acid affects the amount of arachidonic acid in your body. The research picture is not clear cut.
But if you’re keen to reduce inflammation, the best thing you can do is aim for a healthy diet that is:
- high in antioxidants (found in fruits and vegetables)
- high in “healthy”, unsaturated fatty acids (found in fatty fish, some nuts and olive oil, for example)
high in fibre (found in carrots, cauliflower, broccoli and leafy greens) and prebiotics (found in onions, leeks, asparagus, garlic and legumes)
low in processed foods.
If reducing inflammation is your goal, it’s probably more meaningful to focus on these basics than on occasional use of seed oils.
Choose foods high in fibre (like many vegetables) and prebiotics (like legumes).
Kiian Oksana/ShutterstockWhat about seed oils and heart disease, cancer or diabetes risk?
Some popular arguments against seed oils come from data from single studies on this topic. Often these are observational studies where researchers do not make changes to people’s diet or lifestyle.
To get a clearer picture, we should look at meta-analyses, where scientists combine all the data available on a topic. This helps us get a better overall view of what’s going on.
A 2022 meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigated the relationship between supplementation with omega-6 fatty acid (often found in seed oils) and cardiovascular disease risk (meaning disease relating to the heart and blood vessels).
The researchers found omega-6 intake did not affect the risk for cardiovascular disease or death but that further research is needed for firm conclusions. Similar findings were observed in a 2019 review on this topic.
The World Health Organization published a review and meta-analysis in 2022 of observational studies (considered lower quality evidence compared to randomised controlled trials) on this topic.
They looked at omega-6 intake and risk of death, cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, mental health conditions and type 2 diabetes. The findings show both advantages and disadvantages of consuming omega-6.
The findings reported that, overall, higher intakes of omega-6 were associated with a 9% reduced risk of dying (data from nine studies) but a 31% increased risk of postmenopausal breast cancer (data from six studies).
One of the key findings from this review was about the ratio of omega-3 fatty acids to omega-6 fatty acids. A higher omega 6:3 ratio was associated with a greater risk of cognitive decline and ulcerative colitis (an inflammatory bowel condition).
A higher omega 3:6 ratio was linked to a 26% reduced risk of depression. These mixed outcomes may be a cause of confusion among health-conscious consumers about the health impact of seed oils.
Overall, the evidence suggests that a high intake of omega-6 fatty acids from seed oils is unlikely to increase your risk of death and disease.
However, more high-quality intervention research is needed.
The importance of increasing your omega-3 fatty acids
On top of the mixed outcomes, there is clear evidence increasing the intake of omega-3 fatty acids (often found in foods such as fatty fish and walnuts) is beneficial for health.
While some seed oils contain small amounts of omega-3s, they are not typically considered rich sources.
Flaxseed oil is an exception and is one of the few seed oils that is notably high in alpha-linolenic acid (sometimes shortened to ALA), an omega-3 fatty acid.
If you are looking to increase your omega-3 intake, it’s better to focus on other sources such as fatty fish (salmon, mackerel, sardines), chia seeds, hemp seeds, walnuts, and algae-based supplements. These foods are known for their higher omega-3 content compared to seed oils.
The bottom line
At the end of the day, it’s probably OK to include small quantities of seed oils in your diet, as long as you are mostly focused on eating fresh, unprocessed foods.
The best way to reduce your risk of inflammation, heart disease, cancer or diabetes is not to focus so much on seed oils but rather on doing your best to follow the Australian Guide for Healthy Eating.
Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland and Emily Burch, Lecturer, Southern Cross University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
What’s the difference between ADD and ADHD?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Around one in 20 people has attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It’s one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders in childhood and often continues into adulthood.
ADHD is diagnosed when people experience problems with inattention and/or hyperactivity and impulsivity that negatively impacts them at school or work, in social settings and at home.
Some people call the condition attention-deficit disorder, or ADD. So what’s the difference?
In short, what was previously called ADD is now known as ADHD. So how did we get here?
Let’s start with some history
The first clinical description of children with inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity was in 1902. British paediatrician Professor George Still presented a series of lectures about his observations of 43 children who were defiant, aggressive, undisciplined and extremely emotional or passionate.
Since then, our understanding of the condition evolved and made its way into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as the DSM. Clinicians use the DSM to diagnose mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions.
The first DSM, published in 1952, did not include a specific related child or adolescent category. But the second edition, published in 1968, included a section on behaviour disorders in young people. It referred to ADHD-type characteristics as “hyperkinetic reaction of childhood or adolescence”. This described the excessive, involuntary movement of children with the disorder.
It took a while for ADHD-type behaviour to make in into the diagnostic manual. Elzbieta Sekowska/Shutterstock In the early 1980s, the third DSM added a condition it called “attention deficit disorder”, listing two types: attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADDH) and attention deficit disorder as the subtype without the hyperactivity.
However, seven years later, a revised DSM (DSM-III-R) replaced ADD (and its two sub-types) with ADHD and three sub-types we have today:
- predominantly inattentive
- predominantly hyperactive-impulsive
- combined.
Why change ADD to ADHD?
ADHD replaced ADD in the DSM-III-R in 1987 for a number of reasons.
First was the controversy and debate over the presence or absence of hyperactivity: the “H” in ADHD. When ADD was initially named, little research had been done to determine the similarities and differences between the two sub-types.
The next issue was around the term “attention-deficit” and whether these deficits were similar or different across both sub-types. Questions also arose about the extent of these differences: if these sub-types were so different, were they actually different conditions?
Meanwhile, a new focus on inattention (an “attention deficit”) recognised that children with inattentive behaviours may not necessarily be disruptive and challenging but are more likely to be forgetful and daydreamers.
People with inattentive behaviours may be more forgetful or daydreamers. fizkes/Shutterstock Why do some people use the term ADD?
There was a surge of diagnoses in the 1980s. So it’s understandable that some people still hold onto the term ADD.
Some may identify as having ADD because out of habit, because this is what they were originally diagnosed with or because they don’t have hyperactivity/impulsivity traits.
Others who don’t have ADHD may use the term they came across in the 80s or 90s, not knowing the terminology has changed.
How is ADHD currently diagnosed?
The three sub-types of ADHD, outlined in the DSM-5 are:
- predominantly inattentive. People with the inattentive sub-type have difficulty sustaining concentration, are easily distracted and forgetful, lose things frequently, and are unable to follow detailed instructions
- predominantly hyperactive-impulsive. Those with this sub-type find it hard to be still, need to move constantly in structured situations, frequently interrupt others, talk non-stop and struggle with self control
- combined. Those with the combined sub-type experience the characteristics of those who are inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive.
ADHD diagnoses continue to rise among children and adults. And while ADHD was commonly diagnosed in boys, more recently we have seen growing numbers of girls and women seeking diagnoses.
However, some international experts contest the expanded definition of ADHD, driven by clinical practice in the United States. They argue the challenges of unwanted behaviours and educational outcomes for young people with the condition are uniquely shaped by each country’s cultural, political and local factors.
Regardless of the name change to reflect what we know about the condition, ADHD continues to impact educational, social and life situations of many children, adolescents and adults.
Kathy Gibbs, Program Director for the Bachelor of Education, Griffith University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
How Tight Are Your Hips? Test (And Fix!) With This
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Upon surveying over half a million people; hips were the most common area for stiffness and lack of mobility. So, what to do about it?
This test don’t lie
With 17 muscles contributing to hip function (“hip flexors” being the name for this group of 17 muscles, not specific muscle), it’s important to figure out which ones are tight, and if indeed it really is the hip flexors at all, or if it could be, as it often is, actually the tensor fasciae latae (TFL) muscle of the thigh. If it turns out to be both, well, that’s unfortunate but the good news is, now you’ll know and can start fixing from all the necessary angles.
Diagnostic test for tight hip flexors (Thomas Test):
- Use a sturdy, elevated surface (e.g. table or counter—not a bed or couch, unless there is perchance room to swing your legs without them touching the floor).
- Sit at the edge, lie back, and pull both knees to your chest.
- Return one leg back down until the thigh is perpendicular to the table.
- Let the other leg dangle off the edge to assess flexibility.
Observations from the test:
- Thigh contact: is the back of your thigh touching the table?
- Knee angle: is your knee bent at roughly 80° or straighter?
- Thigh rotation: does the thigh roll outward?
Interpreting results:
- If your thigh contacts the surface and the knee is bent at around 80°, hip mobility is good.
- If your thigh doesn’t touch or knee is too straight, hip flexor tightness is present.
- If your thigh rolls outwards from your midline, that indicates tightness in the TFL muscle of the thigh.
Three best hip flexor stretches:
- Kneeling lunge stretch:
- Hips above the knee, tuck tailbone, engage glutes, press hips forward, reach arm up with a slight side bend.
- Seated hip lift stretch:
- Sit with feet hip-width apart, hands behind shoulders, lift hips, step one foot back, tuck tailbone, point knee away.
- Sofa stretch:
- Kneel with one shin against a couch/wall, other foot forward in lunge, tuck tailbone, press hips forward, lift torso.
It’s recommended to how each stretch for 30 seconds on each side.
For more on all of the above, and visual demonstrations, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: