Psychiatric Characteristics of Students Who Make Threats Toward Others at School.

OBJECTIVE: While studies have focused on identifying potential school shooters, little is known about the mental health and other characteristics of students who make threats. This study aimed to describe these students and factors prompting psychiatric interventions and treatment recommendations. METHOD: Child and adolescent psychiatry threat assessment evaluations of 157 consecutive school-referred youths in grades K-12 between 1998 and 2019 were reviewed for demographics, reasons for referral, nature of threat, psychiatric diagnosis, and psychiatric and educational recommendations. Predictors of recommendations for psychiatric interventions were modeled using multivariable logistic regression as a function of above-mentioned covariates. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age of referred students was 13.37 (2.79) years; 88.5% were male; 79.7%, White; 11.6%, Hispanic; 10.1%, Black; 2.5%, Asian. Of students, 51.6% were receiving special education services. Verbal threat was made by 80%, and 29.3% brought a weapon to school. History included being bullied in 43.4%, traumatic family events in 52.2%, physical abuse in 5.1%, sexual abuse in 5.7%, and verbal abuse in 36.3%. Frequently encountered psychiatric diagnoses were attention-deficit/hyperactivity, learning, depressive, anxiety, and autism spectrum disorders, usually in combinations. History of medication treatment was reported in 79 (50.3%) and psychotherapeutic interventions in 57 (36.3%). Recommendations to return the student to their prior schools were made for 63.1%. Recommendations for psychotherapy were made for 79.9%, medication for 88.5%, and both for 70.1%. Therapeutic school setting or psychiatric hospitalization was more likely recommended (with statistical significance) with a prior threat history (odds ratio [OR] 5.47, 95% CI 1.91-15.70), paranoid symptoms (OR 5.72, 95% CI 1.55-21.14, p = .009), autism spectrum disorders (OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.32-9.00), mood disorder (OR 5.71, 95% CI 1.36-23.96), personality disorder (OR 9.47, 95% CI 1.78-50.55), or with psychotherapy recommendation (OR 4.84, 95% CI 1.08-21.75). CONCLUSION: Students who make threats have diverse psychiatric profiles and warrant treatments. A trauma and/or abuse history is common. Evaluations of youths who make threats need to go beyond simply assessing the threat itself and should include identifying underlying psychiatric problems. Psychiatric evaluation of students who issue threats of any type can lead to revelations about psychiatric diagnoses and crucial treatment and educational recommendations. DIVERSITY & INCLUSION STATEMENT: The author list of this paper includes contributors from the location and/or community where the research was conducted who participated in the data collection, design, analysis, and/or interpretation of the work.

Demographics, Headache Features, and Comorbidity Profiles in Relation to Headache Frequency in People With Migraine: Results of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is typically divided into 2 headache frequency denominated categories, episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). Characterizing more narrow headache day frequency groups may be of value for better understanding the broad range of migraine experience and making treatment decisions. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the impact and burden of migraine in 4 monthly headache day (MHD) categories. METHODS: Respondents to the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study 2005 survey who met criteria for migraine were categorized into low frequency episodic migraine (LFEM) 0-3, moderate frequency episodic migraine (MFEM) 4-7, high frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) 8-14, and CM with ≥15 headache days per month. Data including sociodemographics, headache features and symptomology, comorbidities, cutaneous allodynia, and severe migraine-related disability were compared among groups. We combined the low- and medium-frequency EM groups (L/MFEM) and compared them with the HFEM group in 1 set of models and compared the HFEM and CM groups in a second set of models. Binary logistic regression, linear regression, and ordered logistic regression were used depending upon the variable type and adjusted for sociodemographics. RESULTS: Among 11,603 eligible respondents with migraine, 67.7% (7860/11,603) were categorized with LFEM, 17.7% (2051/11,603) with MFEM, 7.8% (898/11,603) with HFEM, and 6.8% (794/11,603) with CM. The mean age was 46 (SD 13.7), 80.2% (9301/11,603) were female, and 90.0% (10,187/11,323) were White, 6.9% were Black (784/11,323), and 3.1% (352/11,323) were identified as Other race(s). Individuals with HFEM differed from L/MFEM on a wide range of sociodemographic variables in the categories of headache features, disability, and comorbidities while few differences were found when modeling HFEM vs CM. In comparison with L/MFEM and HFEM, the HFEM group was more likely to have severe disability (P < .001 OR = 1.74 [1.42, 2.15]), chronic pain (P ≤ .007 OR = 1.35 [1.09, 1.69]), arthritis (P = .001 OR = 1.44 [1.15, 1.80]), high cholesterol (P = .005, OR = 1.37 [1.10, 1.70]), ulcers (P = .016, OR = 1.44 [1.07, 1.93]), and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]) (P < .001 OR = 1.50 [1.22, 1.84]). CONCLUSION: While rates of migraine symptoms, headache impact and disability, and comorbidities generally increased with increases in MHD frequency, respondents with HFEM and CM were remarkably similar on a broad range of variables including sociodemographics, disability/impact, and comorbidities. There were many more significant differences between the HFEM and L/MFEM groups on the same variables. Future work should use empirical strategies to identify naturally occurring groups and possibly reconsider the boundary between CM and HFEM.