EBD Blog

The US Congress is considering legislation to prevent abusive restraint and seclusion of students in schools. This is a welcome consequence of the highly visible reports about terrible abuses of students’ right to be free from harm. However, as much as I support this initiative, it is important to make clear that the laws (and regulations resulting from them) must be crafted carefully.

Here’s some text from the press efforts by the US House of Representatives about this important legislation. I follow it with a cautious support of the law.
Continue reading ‘US legislators consider law for preventing abusive restraint and seclusion’

Buie et al.’s “Take-Away Messages”

In Pediatrics Dr. Timothy Buie and colleagues published a paper providing evidence-based recommendations for pediatricians who evaluate and treat gastrointestinal problems in patients with Autism. The authors, who represent many important scientific groups concerned with allergies, gastrointestinal disorders, nutrition, and similar problems, concluded that children with Autism and related disorders should be assessed and, as approriate, given medical care just as would individuals without Autism. The team encouraged pediatricians to develop and employ “evidence-based algorithms for the assessment of abdominal pain, constipation, chronic diarrhea, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).”
Continue reading ‘Science, gastro-intestinal problems, diets, and Autism’

Hill Walker and colleagues reported that the First Step to Success program benefitted young children at risk for developing emotional or behavioral disorders. In a longitudinal study of the three-year program conducted in Albuquerque (NM, US), the researchers found substantial reductions in disruptive behavior and improvements in social functioning.

In a press release, Professor Walker said, “Albuquerque was the first opportunity we had to mount a large-scale study of the program using a randomized control group, the gold standard for research. First Step has been implemented widely, but not [studied] in this way.”
Continue reading ‘First Step takes off’

The second installment of Chicago Tribune reporters Trine Tsouderos’ and Patricia Callahan’s investigation of alternative treatments for Autism is available. Liz Ditz cited it in her comment on my earlier post about the first installment of this exemplary piece of journalism, but I am repeating the link here so that it will be readily apparent to readers. For even more on the coverage of questionable alternative therapies by Ms Tsouderos and Ms. Callahan, see the post entitled “The Unethical Treatments that ‘Autism is Vaccine Injury’ (And Other False Premises) Give Rise To” on Liz Ditz’s blog.

Writing in the Chicago (IL, US) Tribune under the headline “Autism treatments: Risky alternative therapies have little basis in science” Trine Tsouderos and Patricia Callahan reported about the background and myriad problems with many treatments used as therapy for children with Autism. They expose the lack of evidentiary support for therapies ranging from mega-doses of vitamins to chelation and show the relationships between practitioners of these therapies and a couple of organizations well-known among those who follow Autism.

The Tribune found children undergoing daylong infusions of a blood product that carries the risk of kidney failure and anaphylactic shock. Researchers in the field emphatically warn that the therapy should not be used to treat autism.

Children are repeatedly encased in pressurized oxygen chambers normally used after scuba diving accidents, at a cost of thousands of dollars. This unproven therapy is meant to reduce inflammation that experts say is little understood and may even be beneficial.

Children undergo rounds of chelation therapy to leach heavy metals from the body, though most toxicologists say the test commonly used to measure the metals is meaningless and the treatment potentially harmful.

Reporters Tsouderos and Callahan conducted interviews with an impressive array of advocates for the therapies (including representatives of Autism One, Autism Research Institute, and Defeat Autism Now) and doubters (mostly serious scientists). They combed through the weak and barely related research that many of the advocates use as well as the evidence showing limited or no benefits of the therapies.

All in all, these reporters deserve kudos for the unflinching thoroughness of their reporting. I encourage readers to read, reread, and disseminate the article. Here’s a link to “Autism treatments: Risky alternative therapies have little basis in science.” Flash of the electrons to Liz Ditz, whose Twitter post about this article alerted me to it.

The National Autism Center released the report of its National Standards Project. The project was designed to identify interventions that are or are not beneficial for individuals with Autism or Autism Spectrum Disorder and it presents known therapies in three categories: established, emerging, unestablished (including a subsection on “ineffective/harmful treatments”).

In summary, the National Standards Project, a primary initiative of the National Autism Center, seeks to:

• describe the age, diagnosis, and skills/behaviors targeted for improvement associated with treatment options
• identify the limitations of the current body of research on autism treatment
• offer recommendations for engaging in evidence-based practice for ASD

Continue reading ‘National Standards Project’

Although I have followed the promotion of secretin as a treatment for Autism pretty much since the first reports about it, I hadn’t checked on it lately. My initial foray into the topic in 1998 resulted in some skepticism with hedges. As the research evolved, it became clear that the skepticism was warranted.

However, I was surprised that Stephen Edelson, writing in a 2008 article entitled The secretin story: Still a promising treatment for autism,” considered “the studies investigating the efficacy of secretin have been very positive.” Coupled with some vaguely remembered notion that fewer than 50% of physicians discouraged use of secretin, the article gave me pause. I thought, “Hmmm. Maybe you’re earlier analysis was hasty, John.”
Continue reading ‘Secretin reminder’

Arne Duncan, US Secretary of Education, wrote to the chief officers of education for each of the states in the US on 31 July 2009 regarding the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. He expressed concern about the testimony heard recently by the Education and Labor Committee of the US House of Representatives, and recommended that states adopt Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support.

My home State of Illinois has what I believe to be one good approach, including both a strong focus upon Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) as well as State regulations that limit the use of seclusion and restraint under most circumstances….

Several other States have also adopted effective seclusion and/or restraint policies, but there are many jurisdictions that have not, leaving students and teachers vulnerable.
Continue reading ‘A. Duncan promotes PBIS’

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which is a part of the US Department of Health and Human Services, maintains a Web site where users can search for and learn more about methods for preventing or treating some Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. It’s called the “National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices” (NREPP) and, for those who are concerned about employing or recommending evidence-based practices, it’s worth reviewing.

The National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP) is a searchable online registry of mental health and substance abuse interventions that have been reviewed and rated by independent reviewers.

The purpose of this registry is to assist the public in identifying approaches to preventing and treating mental and/or substance use disorders that have been scientifically tested and that can be readily disseminated to the field. NREPP is one way that SAMHSA is working to improve access to information on tested interventions and thereby reduce the lag time between the creation of scientific knowledge and its practical application in the field.

NREPP is a voluntary, self-nominating system in which intervention developers elect to participate. There will always be some interventions that are not submitted to NREPP, and not all that are submitted are reviewed. In addition, new intervention summaries are continually being added. The registry is expected to grow to a large number of interventions over the coming months and years. Please check back regularly to access the latest updates.

Although NREPP originally focused on substance abuse, its coverage is broader now. Look for resources about, for examples, Across Ages; Aggressors, Victims, and Bystanders: Thinking and Acting To Prevent Violence; Al’s Pals: Kids Making Healthy Choices; All Stars; Caring School Community; CASASTART; Children’s Summer Treatment Program (STP); Coping Cat; Creating Lasting Family Connections (CLFC)/Creating Lasting Connections (CLC); Early Risers “Skills for Success”; Families and Schools Together (FAST); Guiding Good Choices; Incredible Years; Keep A Clear Mind (KACM); Keepin’ it REAL; Lions Quest Skills for Adolescence; Multisystemic Therapy (MST) for Juvenile Offenders; Multisystemic Therapy With Psychiatric Supports (MST-Psychiatric); Positive Action; Primary Project; Project Northland; Project Towards No Tobacco Use; Project Venture; Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS), PATHS Preschool; Protecting You/Protecting Me; Right Decisions, Right Now: Be Tobacco Free; SAFEChildren; Second Step; SMARTteam; Storytelling for Empowerment; Strengthening Families Program; Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14; Success in Stages: Build Respect, Stop Bullying; Too Good for Drugs; and Too Good for Violence;

Children and youths with ADHD and their families ought to know about systems of care. Systems of care are networks of services that are coordinated across different agencies and groups within the community. A system of care focuses on the needs of individuals and should be designed so that it takes advantage of that person’s strengths (i.e., is “strengths based”) and unique characteristics (e.g., ethnic background and native language).

Systems of care have been studied extensively in the disciplines focused on Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. They are not just for kids “lost to the streets.” The coordination of services can be beneficial for individuals with ADHD, too.

Learn more about ADHD and systems of care from the SAMHSA, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Download a PDF.

In the US state of Michigan, a major health insurance provider will now reimburse families for the cost of providing therapy for children with autism. The case, Johns v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, arose because Blue-Cross-Blue-Shield denied payment for behavioral treatment often called “ABA” to the family of a child with Autism. The case was settled in favor of the family last week.

Represented by Gerard Mantese, Mr. Christopher Johns alleged that the insurer should pay for the therapy for his son under the provisions of the policy. The insurance company refused and Mr. Johns sued. During depositions, Mr. Mantese and others on the Mr. Johns’ legal team learned of a draft memorandum identifying the behavioral therapy as effective and that a representative of the insurer would probably elect the behavioral therapy if that representative had a child with Autism.

Because Mr. Johns’ complaint was part of a class action suit, many other families will also benefit from the settlement. In an independent analysis of the case, Tresa Baldas discussed the implications.

The $1 million class action settlement from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan comes amid a legislative wave in which a growing number of a states are passing laws that require insurance companies to pay for autism treatments and screenings. To date, 13 states have such laws, the most recent being Connecticut, Colorado and Nevada. New Jersey is currently considering an autism bill, and Pennsylvania’s law goes into effect July 1.

The June 17 Michigan settlement, meanwhile, has autism advocates hopeful that insurance companies will stop claiming that behavioral therapy for autistic children is experimental, and start paying for it.

“It is a significant victory for the families, obviously, and it marks a trend, hopefully, that insurance companies will start to look at autism treatment differently,” said Areva Martin, an attorney at Los Angeles-based Martin & Martin who is currently handling about 30 autism cases. She believes the labeling of autism treatments as experimental is “absurd.”

I wonder what this will mean for the California rules that do not expressly exclude behavioral therapies, but set requirements for deciding whether they are reimbursable (see my earlier post on that story).

Link for a quasi-news article about the settlement. Read another of the law firm’s press releases. Here’s link to Ms. Baldas’ analysis of the case.

Here’s a special opportunity to learn about how to address challenging behavior problems. This is a star-studded line-up.—JohnL

International Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders

Professional Development

2 0 0 9 International Forum

Achieving Academic and Social Competence: Improving Educational Outcomes for Challenging Students

Tuscany Suites and Casino
Las Vegas, Nevada

January 30-31, 2009

Continue reading ‘CCBD forum 2009′