A Proposed Brain-, Spine-, and Mental- Health Screening Methodology (NEUROSCREEN) for Healthcare Systems: Position of the Society for Brain Mapping and Therapeutics

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated neurological, mental health disorders, and neurocognitive issues. However, there is a lack of inexpensive and efficient brain evaluation and screening systems. As a result, a considerable fraction of patients with neurocognitive or psychobehavioral predicaments either do not get timely diagnosed or fail to receive personalized treatment plans. This is especially true in the elderly populations, wherein only 16% of seniors say they receive regular cognitive evaluations. Therefore, there is a great need for development of an optimized clinical brain screening workflow methodology like what is already in existence for prostate and breast exams. Such a methodology should be designed to facilitate objective early detection and cost-effective treatment of such disorders. In this paper we have reviewed the existing clinical protocols, recent technological advances and suggested reliable clinical workflows for brain screening. Such protocols range from questionnaires and smartphone apps to multi-modality brain mapping and advanced imaging where applicable. To that end, the Society for Brain Mapping and Therapeutics (SBMT) proposes the Brain, Spine and Mental Health Screening (NEUROSCREEN) as a multi-faceted approach. Beside other assessment tools, NEUROSCREEN employs smartphone guided cognitive assessments and quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) as well as potential genetic testing for cognitive decline risk as inexpensive and effective screening tools to facilitate objective diagnosis, monitor disease progression, and guide personalized treatment interventions. Operationalizing NEUROSCREEN is expected to result in reduced healthcare costs and improving quality of life at national and later, global scales.

Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Risk of Suicide and Self-Harm: A Danish Nationwide Cohort Study

Study Objectives In this nationwide study, we used the unique Danish registries to estimate the risk of suicide and deliberate self-harm in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Methods We identified all Danish citizens receiving a diagnosis of OSA between 1995 and 2015. As a reference cohort, we randomly selected 10 citizens for each patient, matched by sex and birth year. Using the Fine and Gray competing risk regression, we estimated the cumulative incidences of suicide, and Cox proportional regression analysis was used to compare the risk of suicide and deliberate self-harm in patients with OSA with the reference cohort. Results We identified 48,168 patients with OSA. A total of 135 patients had died by suicide, compared with 999 suicides in the reference cohort. Patients with OSA had an increased risk of dying by suicide when compared with the reference cohort (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95%CI, 1.07–1.55; and subhazard ratio, 1.23; 95%CI, 1.10-1.45). We identified 1,004 events of self-harm among patients with OSA, and 5,270 events in the reference group. The overall risk of self-harm was increased in patients with OSA when compared with the reference group (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95%CI, 1.19–1.37). Conclusion This is the first study to estimate the risk of suicide and deliberate self-harm in patients with OSA. We found that patients with OSA have an increased risk of both suicide and deliberate self-harm when compared with a large reference cohort, thereby highlighting the importance of a mental health screening in these patients.

Development and Psychometric Testing of the Mental Health Scale for Childrearing Fathers

The mental health of fathers influences the development of children and the functioning of families significantly. However, there is no useful scale for the mental health screening of childrearing fathers. This study developed a Mental Health Scale for Childrearing Fathers (MSCF) and determined its reliability and validity. Childrearing fathers are working fathers who co-parent with their spouses. This survey was conducted in two stages: a pilot study and a main survey. Data were obtained from 98 fathers raising preschoolers in the pilot study and 306 fathers in the main survey. The collected data were used to confirm the construct validity, criterion-related validity, convergent validity, and internal consistency reliability. The final MSCF consisted of 25 items comprising four factors: peaceful familial connection, healthy mind and body, satisfying paternal alliances, and leading a meaningful life as a parent. The internal consistency reliability estimated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the total scale was 0.918. The validity of the MSCF was logically secured using a confirmatory factor analysis. The MSCF can be an effective tool for mental health screening among fathers in relation to the burden of childrearing during regular infant health checks.

Mental Health Screenings: Practices and Patterns of These and Other Health Screenings in U.S. School Districts

Schools’ health screenings can identify students’ missed health concerns. Data from the 2016 School Health Policies and Practices Study were used to determine the proportion of U.S. school districts with physical and mental health screening policies and the proportion that arrange off-campus mental health services. We also examined differences between districts with and without mental health screening policies regarding having physical health screening policies, patterns of these policies, and off-campus mental health service arrangements. Eleven percent of districts had no policies on any of the four physical health screenings assessed, and 87% lacked policies on mental health screenings, the latter especially concerning considering the impact of COVID-19. Districts with policies on mental health screenings were significantly more likely to have body mass index ( p < .01) and oral health ( p < .001) screening policies, and to arrange for off-campus case management ( p < .001), family counseling ( p < .05), group counseling ( p < .01), self-help ( p < .05) and intake evaluation ( p < .05).