Medical Library Access - Revisited

 

It has been 2 years since I posted about the problems with medical library access if you are not faculty or adjunct faculty at your state medical school.  In that previous post I detailed all of the considerations and you can review them in that post. Several of us lost access during some turmoil at the University and my understanding is that we were taken off the necessary status by an interim department head who was not a psychiatrist.  My basic argument is that every physician in the state needs access for quality care purposes and if the medical school was no longer willing to provide that access, I would be happy to purchase it.  I was given a quote of $1,000 per year and let everyone who needed to know that I was willing to pay it. No response from anyone.

Since that original post, I contacted my state representatives. I got the usual “I agree with you and will look into it and get back to you.” But nothing beyond that. Nobody got back to me. Despite a good response from a post to the original nothing else happened.

I joined the University of Minnesota Alumni Association because I was told that would allow some access to the online library but nobody could tell me how much access I would have to the Health Sciences Library (formerly known as the Biomedical Library). I ended up with no access to anything.  Even though I clearly met alumni criteria nobody was ever able to send me what I needed for access.

While all of this was going on – I had to get access where I could. That typically involves an initial Google Scholar search looking for links to full text access in that format. A major online resource that was linked to Google Scholar removed that access last year. The links remained for a while but it was apparent you needed a subscription to access them and it was impossible to apply without a university affiliation. If Google Scholar fails I check Medline (PubMed) to see if full text is available.  Failing that I will go to Research Gate to see if full access is available there. When that does not work I will send an email to the corresponding researcher either on Research Gate or directly to an email address listed in the original paper. I have paid the charge for paywalled research only once, but I did subscribe to the Nature journals package for $30/month. So add $360/year to my previous total for journals access. It is not unusual to find out that you don't really have access to all of the Nature journals that you need. 

Many colleagues with medical library access from across the country volunteered to send me the articles I wanted for whatever I was researching at the time. I am very grateful for those offers – but the practical issue is the amount of reading I do.  It is impractical to ask anyone to provide that level of access unless they are being paid to do it.  The other issue is legality. Every library originated paper even in the electronic format – comes with a legal statement about copyright laws and something to the effect that I am the only end user and it will not be posted in an electronic format or shared with anyone else.  

I also tried county libraries to see if I could get access to medical journals.  Two years ago I applied – and went to their online site and there was nothing.  This year I reapplied for a library card and this time it was linked to a metropolitan county library with digital access to journals. There is a lengthy request form for every article accessed and that form times out quickly and erases all of the data that you entered.  If you can get past that point and the journal is in their database  – you can get a PDF of the requested paper. The turnaround time is 2-3 days and the barriers are such that it keeps the levels of requests low. So far, in the past 6 months I have requested and received about 10 papers.  I am hoping some day that they streamline the process.

That has been the battle for access to technical information on medicine and psychiatry. The county library access was a pleasant upside. The University’s Heath Science Library still looms large. I think the notion of a large taxpayer funded library for health sciences students and trainees that is only available to them when they are students, trainees, or faculty is an antiquated idea. Physicians are trained in lifelong learning.  To accomplish that goal – lifelong access to information is needed. Access is currently given to adjunct uncompensated faculty as a perk and that may be the real reason for not allowing a physician to pay for access. In other words it is a business management strategy. If access is controlled - the service becomes more valuable and it seems like uncompensated adjunct faculty are really getting something for their time.  I doubt that there would be a tremendous increase in utilizing the services even if they were free. It would be much more efficient because it would not require library staff somewhere – to read and decipher all of the requests when the physician could just find the journal and get exactly what they need. If you are reading this from a state other than Minnesota – I am very interested in hearing how you access the medical literature online if you are not medical school staff and do not have a subscription to the journal you want to access.

In the meanwhile – I will keep plugging away at my work arounds.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Success Rates In Psychiatry

 

Today's comment is on a brief editorial in JAMA Psychiatry about the evidence of success of psychiatric treatments (1). The authors present an even handed argument for establishing systems that would allow for the determination of success rates of psychiatric care. They point out the obvious limitations of developing these systems in the United States but may not have gone far enough. In the US - our healthcare data is considered proprietary by the health care company who owns the electronic medical record that the data is recorded in. Patients often find themselves in varying negotiations in order to get access to their own records. They may find some data is not accessible at all. If they venture into another system of care that uses the same electronic health record (EHR) – they may have to repeat significant portions of their record (current medication list, allergy list, immunization record, test results) that should have easily transitioned. Within a typical metropolitan area in the US – there may be many EHRs that cannot communicate with one another at a level that would allow determination of success rates. As a result, the authors conclude most of the success rate data in psychiatry comes from clinical trials.  That data is limited by selection biases and brief periods of treatment.

The authors also look at Specific Success Rates (SSR) and Aggregate Success Rates (ASR) as population-based quality measures. To the best of my knowledge there are no corporations currently using these measures. That lack of usage is based more on medical tradition than usefulness of quality measures. Current hospital and clinical measures typically sample worst possible outcomes or so-called sentinel events. This is the business approach to mortality and morbidity conferences in medicine and surgery that were detailed discussions of deaths and complications. The thinking has typically been to learn from worst case scenarios or your colleagues’ obvious mistakes. The problem with those conferences is that they provide little guidance about the best treatment for most other patients.  For many years Medicare used the same system.  I was a Medicare Quality reviewer for 2 states and their focus was on process rather than outcomes and success rates were never discussed.  Major quality events like a death on a psychiatric unit would trigger a detailed quality review.

As a long time follower of the work of Tiihonen, the first flaw that I noticed was that none of his work was referenced.  Tiihonen has a long track record of looking at outcomes using observational studies (2-12) and has commented on both the limitations and advantages of these studies (17). One of the critical advantages of doing research in Scandinavian countries is access to nationwide databases or registries that include the usual demographic patient information but also diagnoses, treatments, medications and outcome data.  Those data include hard outcomes (suicide, all cause mortality, disability) and soft outcomes (drug discontinuation, rehospitalization, symptom checklists, side effects checklists, psychosocial outcomes).  Similar data is available in other studies such as long acting injectable (LAIs) antipsychotic medications back to the 1980s, treatment cohort studies (Schou, Winokur, Guze, Angst) from similar periods and various sampling studies that look at surveys of medical clinics.  There are also the statistics from the 19^th century protopsychiatry era.  My favorite one is from Luther Bell (15) describing the outcomes of delirious mania:

“A subsequent case series published by Luther Bell in 1849 described 40 patients with the condition among 1700 admissions to McLean Hospital (Bell, 1849). He reported a mortality rate of 75% in these patients."

Today - nobody dies from delirious mania or the more common forms of mania that frequently led to deaths from congestive heart failure during the protopsychiatry era.  That is an improvement in mortality on par with any other medical specialty and it is due to improvements in psychiatric care.

But nothing can replace the rigor and data of registry studies from Scandinavia. By rigor I mean the results of treatment of unselected real-world patients in real world systems of care, very large data sets, and no missing data. Clinical trials can't compare when as many as 80% of real-world patients are omitted from consideration (16) and those patients may be at higher risk for morbidity and mortality outcomes.

Psychiatric treatment success rates are available if you look for them.  I am not as negative about observational or registry studies when I consider the advantages about knowing real world outcomes and how they diverge from relatively brief randomized controlled trials that do not choose real world patients and are biased at times to the point of being irrelevant by drop outs over time. Additional considerations in terms of the goals of this post include experienced psychiatrists themselves are the typically the best critics of the field. Critics who maintain a specific obvious viewpoint will generally continue to repeat the same criticisms they have been repeating for decades and cannot be considered reliable.  All psychiatrists have varying experiences clinically, in research, and in the literature of the field. An extensive review of psychiatric outcomes over time would seem to be indicated – but there is a lot of applicable research out there right now.  In terms of generating more thorough success rates several biases described above need to be overcome including viewing the necessary data as proprietary or the disingenuous application HIPPA regulations that seem to allow mass marketing of patient data but not allow adequate population-wide quality measures.  I would go as far as establishing a nationwide pharmacosurveillance/pharmacovigilance system to get adequate real world pharmacology data. 

In ending this note I will say that the editorial generated predictable rhetoric.  I typically find myself responding to rhetoric on this blog – but in this case another blogger stepped in and did the heavy lifting.  For anyone interested in the rhetorical side I refer you to the commentary by Awais Aftab, MD who provides excellent responses. Psychiatrists are trained in critiquing their own literature and provide the best legitimate criticism.  A lot of critics outside the field basically repeat what they have been saying for decades.  Those responses tend to be impervious to criticism reflect a general lack of knowledge about the field.  The original editorial by Freedland and Zorumski has merit. It was not intended as a blanket condemnation of the field.  I hope to have fleshed it out a bit in this post and suggested both sources of current data and next steps.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

 

Supplementary 1:  I am very interested in a large review of psychiatric outcomes.  If you have similar interests and expertise – send me your favorite references or suggestions on how we can collaborate.

 

References:

1:  Freedland KE, Zorumski CF. Success Rates in Psychiatry. JAMA Psychiatry. 2023 Mar 22. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.0056. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36947055.

2:  Taipale H, Tanskanen A, Mehtälä J, Vattulainen P, Correll CU, Tiihonen J. 20-year follow-up study of physical morbidity and mortality in relationship to antipsychotic treatment in a nationwide cohort of 62,250 patients with schizophrenia (FIN20). World Psychiatry. 2020 Feb;19(1):61-68. doi: 10.1002/wps.20699. PMID: 31922669; PMCID: PMC6953552.

“These data suggest that long-term antipsychotic use does not increase severe physical morbidity leading to hospitalization, and is associated with substantially decreased mortality, especially among patients treated with clozapine.”

3:  Tiihonen J, Tanskanen A, Taipale H. 20-Year Nationwide Follow-Up Study on Discontinuation of Antipsychotic Treatment in First-Episode Schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 2018 Aug 1;175(8):765-773. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.17091001. Epub 2018 Apr 6. PMID: 29621900.

“Whatever the underlying mechanisms, these results provide evidence that, contrary to general belief, the risk of treatment failure or relapse after discontinuation of antipsychotic use does not decrease as a function of time during the first 8 years of illness, and that long-term antipsychotic treatment is associated with increased survival.”

4:  Tiihonen J, Wahlbeck K, Lönnqvist J, Klaukka T, Ioannidis JP, Volavka J, Haukka J. Effectiveness of antipsychotic treatments in a nationwide cohort of patients in community care after first hospitalisation due to schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder: observational follow-up study. BMJ. 2006 Jul 29;333(7561):224. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38881.382755.2F. Epub 2006 Jul 6. PMID: 16825203; PMCID: PMC1523484.

16 yr study

“The effectiveness of first and second generation antipsychotics varies greatly in the community. Patients treated with perphenazine depot, clozapine, or olanzapine have a substantially lower risk of rehospitalisation or discontinuation (for any reason) of their initial treatment than do patients treated with haloperidol. Excess mortality is seen mostly in patients not using antipsychotic drugs.”

5:  Taipale H, Lähteenvuo M, Tanskanen A, Mittendorfer-Rutz E, Tiihonen J. Comparative Effectiveness of Antipsychotics for Risk of Attempted or Completed Suicide Among Persons With Schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2021 Jan 23;47(1):23-30. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbaa111. PMID: 33428766; PMCID: PMC7824993.

6:  Tiihonen J, Mittendorfer-Rutz E, Majak M, Mehtälä J, Hoti F, Jedenius E, Enkusson D, Leval A, Sermon J, Tanskanen A, Taipale H. Real-World Effectiveness of Antipsychotic Treatments in a Nationwide Cohort of 29 823 Patients With Schizophrenia. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Jul 1;74(7):686-693. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.1322. PMID: 28593216; PMCID: PMC5710250.

7:  Heikkinen M, Taipale H, Tanskanen A, Mittendorfer-Rutz E, Lähteenvuo M, Tiihonen J. Real-world effectiveness of pharmacological treatments of alcohol use disorders in a Swedish nation-wide cohort of 125 556 patients. Addiction. 2021 Aug;116(8):1990-1998. doi: 10.1111/add.15384. Epub 2021 Jan 14. PMID: 33394527; PMCID: PMC8359433.

8:  Lähteenvuo M, Tanskanen A, Taipale H, Hoti F, Vattulainen P, Vieta E, Tiihonen J. Real-world Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Treatments for the Prevention of Rehospitalization in a Finnish Nationwide Cohort of Patients With Bipolar Disorder. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Apr 1;75(4):347-355. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4711. Erratum in: JAMA Psychiatry. 2022 May 1;79(5):516. PMID: 29490359; PMCID: PMC5875349.

9:  Puranen A, Koponen M, Lähteenvuo M, Tanskanen A, Tiihonen J, Taipale H. Real-world effectiveness of mood stabilizer use in schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2023 Mar;147(3):257-266. doi: 10.1111/acps.13498. Epub 2022 Sep 14. PMID: 36065482.

10:  Tiihonen J, Haukka J, Taylor M, Haddad PM, Patel MX, Korhonen P. A nationwide cohort study of oral and depot antipsychotics after first hospitalization for schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 2011 Jun;168(6):603-9. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.10081224. Epub 2011 Mar 1. Erratum in: Am J Psychiatry. 2012 Feb;169(2):223. PMID: 21362741.

11:  Tiihonen J, Tanskanen A, Hoti F, Vattulainen P, Taipale H, Mehtälä J, Lähteenvuo M. Pharmacological treatments and risk of readmission to hospital for unipolar depression in Finland: a nationwide cohort study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Jul;4(7):547-553. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30134-7. Epub 2017 Jun 1. PMID: 28578901.

12:  Tiihonen J, Lönnqvist J, Wahlbeck K, Klaukka T, Tanskanen A, Haukka J. Antidepressants and the risk of suicide, attempted suicide, and overall mortality in a nationwide cohort. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;63(12):1358-67. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.63.12.1358. PMID: 17146010.

13:  Kisely S, Preston N, Xiao J, Lawrence D, Louise S, Crowe E. Reducing all-cause mortality among patients with psychiatric disorders: a population-based study. CMAJ. 2013 Jan 8;185(1):E50-6. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.121077. Epub 2012 Nov 12. PMID: 23148054; PMCID: PMC3537812.

14: McMahon FJ. Prediction of treatment outcomes in psychiatry--where do we stand ? Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2014 Dec;16(4):455-64. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2014.16.4/fmcmahon. PMID: 25733951; PMCID: PMC4336916.

15: Bell, L., 1849. On a form of disease resembling some advanced stageof mania and fever. Am. J. Insanity 6, 97–127. 

16:  Taipale H, Schneider-Thoma J, Pinzón-Espinosa J, Radua J, Efthimiou O, Vinkers CH, Mittendorfer-Rutz E, Cardoner N, Pintor L, Tanskanen A, Tomlinson A, Fusar-Poli P, Cipriani A, Vieta E, Leucht S, Tiihonen J, Luykx JJ. Representation and Outcomes of Individuals With Schizophrenia Seen in Everyday Practice Who Are Ineligible for Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022 Mar 1;79(3):210-218. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.3990. PMID: 35080618; PMCID: PMC8792792.

17: Taipale, H. and Tiihonen, J. (2021) “Registry-Based Studies: What They Can Tell Us, and What They Cannot,” European Neuropsychopharmacology, 45, pp. 35–37. doi: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2021.03.005. 

18:  Lähteenvuo M, Paljärvi T, Tanskanen A, Taipale H, Tiihonen J. Real-world effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for bipolar disorder: register-based national cohort study. Br J Psychiatry. 2023 Oct;223(4):456-464. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2023.75. PMID: 37395140.