What Is Traumatic Separation?

You may have a memory of being separated from a parent when you were a child, even just for a few minutes. Maybe you lost them in a crowd or wandered a little too far at the store and felt panicked and afraid.

A moment like this might be among your earliest memories because the feeling was so intense, says Caitlyn Downie, LCSW, the Director of Trauma and Resilience at the Child Mind Institute. That offers some insight into the fear of a child of any age who is separated from a parent or caregiver in a more serious way. The effects of this stress are so powerful they can actually change the way a child develops.

A toddler whose mother goes to prison. A kindergartener whose father is detained and deported. A teen who is placed in foster care. These are a few examples of what experts call traumatic separation, a clinical concept based on the importance of the parent-child bond and the profound effects that can result from breaking it.

What is traumatic separation?

Traumatic separation isn’t a clinical diagnosis, but research shows that it can be profoundly harmful to kids. What makes it traumatic (as opposed to routine partings, like when an adult regularly leaves their child to go to work) is the character of the separation: ones that are sudden, unexpected, or confusing, or those that come about through larger distressing events, like a natural disaster or war. It’s not defined by the time spent apart — both short and long-term separations can be harmful.

Some common examples of separation that can become traumatic include:

  • Parental deportation
  • Immigration (e.g., forced separation at the border)
  • Parental military deployment
  • Parental incarceration
  • Termination of parental rights

Separating from a parent or primary caregiver can be distressing to a child even when it’s deemed necessary for their safety, as in cases where the parent they have been separated from has abused them, says Kimberly Alexander, PsyD, a psychologist at the Child Mind Institute. “There’s still a natural attachment that occurs. And the separation disrupts that relationship, even if it’s for the support and care of the child.”

Why is traumatic separation harmful?

More than eight decades of research has shown the profound developmental importance of the parent-child bond. This is the guiding principle of attachment theory, which was pioneered by a British psychologist who studied children who were evacuated during the Blitz, the aerial bombardment of London in World War II.

Here’s what the research tells us about the harms of traumatic separation:

It can disrupt secure attachment

Think of secure attachment as a “fundamental sense of security and safety” that a child feels with a parent or caregiver, says Dylan Gee, PhD, a psychologist at Yale University who studies how early-life stress affects children’s development.

“Attachment is the lens through which children come to know what they can expect from the world around them,” she explains. “Is this going to be a safe place or a dangerous place? This is foundational to a child’s sense of their ability to navigate the world. Traumatic separation can shatter that sense of safety.”

It can affect neurobiological development

Children’s brains are especially plastic, says Dr. Gee, constantly learning to understand their environment and how to deal with stress. “Trauma that occurs in childhood can be even more consequential than trauma that occurs later in life,” she says, and experiencing these disruptions in childhood can affect the way your brain and body are primed to react to stress later on.

But heightened plasticity is a paradox, she adds. “It confers more vulnerability, but it also confers more potential for resilience — children have heightened potential for supportive intervention and for healing and recovery.”

What do the effects of traumatic separation look like?

There are acute and short-term effects that are common across kids of all ages:

Sleep problems: “It’s often one of the first things that we see: nightmares, trouble falling asleep, or a lot of crying as kids are trying to fall asleep,” Dr. Gee says.

Separation anxiety: This might look like distraction, withdrawal, or clinginess because of fear of being separated from their new caregivers, Dr. Alexander says.

But signs may take weeks or months to show up. Dr. Alexander advises caregivers to consider the child’s baseline — their typical patterns of eating, sleeping, or engaging with others. “If they’re having more trouble with sleep, they’re eating more, eating less, they’re withdrawing or expressing a lot of worried thoughts three or four months later — that’s something worth getting looked at by a clinician,” she says.

Signs of traumatic separation at different ages

“Sometimes people ask, ‘Well, when is separation the most harmful?’ It can be extremely harmful at any age,” Dr. Gee emphasizes. But there are specific signs at different developmental stages:

Infants

Babies may not be as consciously aware of being separated from a parent as older children, “but they’re fundamentally aware that their primary source of regulation and safety is missing,” Dr. Gee says. Because infants are so reliant on caregivers for nurturing and sustenance, the separation “can be experienced as a threat to their survival.” That might look like “crying a lot or becoming withdrawn,” she says. “And at any age we can see intense fear.”

Toddlers and young children (3–6)

Toddlers and young children might become extra clingy with new caregivers or show regressive behaviors like bedwetting or baby talk. Regressive behaviors happen when kids are overwhelmed by stress and can’t express themselves another way, Downie says. “It’s like your nervous system goes kind of haywire,” she explains, “so it uses the body to signal that something is wrong.”

Similarly, kids at this age might act out more, throwing more tantrums, or withdraw. They might develop selective mutism, a condition where kids are too anxious or distressed to speak, even when they want to, in certain situations or with certain people.

School-age children

School-age children might act out or experience separation anxiety. They may also struggle to understand the meaning of the separation, why it happened, or who is at fault for it. Thus, kids at this age are more prone to magical or distorted thinking and feelings of guilt, thinking or saying things like, “I’m the one that caused this” or “This is my fault.”

The weight of these distorted thoughts or other worries, Dr. Alexander says, might make it appear as though a child is struggling to concentrate or that they’re disengaged or distracted. They might withdraw in a group or be averse to stepping outside of their comfort zone.

Children who are school age or older can also experience emotional desensitization — a kind of emptiness of feeling — Downie says, which can look like spikes in irritability, a lack of empathy, not smiling or expressing positive emotions, or an inability to relate to others.

Preteens and teenagers

“I’ve seen teenagers have a lot of mistrust with systems and be very oppositional,” says Downie. “Like, ‘I don’t trust you. I don’t trust my teacher. I don’t trust this child services worker.’” It might make sense that, say, a teen in foster care would be wary of the foster care system. But Downie says it’s often a larger instinct for anger and mistrust, one that extends beyond any specific entity or person.

The teenage years are also when kids are forming their identity, and traumatic separation can fundamentally alter that process. For example, a teen with younger siblings may step into a parent role, taking on new worries and responsibilities. Conversely, teens may become more reckless in a caregiver’s absence, putting them at risk for substance abuse or incarceration.

How to help kids separated from a parent

Adults caring for a child who has been separated from a parent — family members, foster parents, teachers — “can play a profound role in supporting their mental health and resilience,” says Dr. Gee.

Validate feelings

One of the most important things caregivers can do is be present as a child reacts to their experiences, especially if and when scary feelings come up. But be careful not to lead kids or assume they feel a certain way. “You don’t want to make something more distressing to a child if it’s not presenting itself,” says Downie.

If a child expresses guilt, or says something like, “This is my fault,” there are still ways to validate the feeling without endorsing the statement, says Dr. Alexander. You might say something like: “I can understand why that thought comes to mind and how difficult it is to feel that way. When you’re ready, let’s think about other possibilities to this situation.”

Create consistency and stability

One of the hardest things about traumatic separation is the uncertainty — Where did they go? When will they come back? What is happening? Giving kids some sense of consistency and stability can help them feel safe despite the unknowns. So as much as possible, help them stick to any routines: going to school, seeing friends, doing activities they enjoy.

Dr. Alexander advises focusing on things you can control — for example, shielding kids from potentially worrying discussions in a family where a parent has been deported.

“There would likely be a lot of conversations in the home about the situation, maybe a lot of watching the news, maybe making a lot of phone calls to attorneys,” she explains. “So where are you having those conversations, and can you have them in an area or at a time of day where your kid isn’t overhearing the discussions out of context?”

For young kids, it might be as simple as asking them to play in their room. For teens, it might be better to have certain conversations when they are out of the house and invite them to participate directly in others.

Be honest but reassuring

Caregivers might not have all the answers — like knowing when a child’s parent is coming back — but they can create a sense of consistency and stability in how they respond to kids’ questions, too.

Avoid undue reassurance (“Everything is going to be fine”) or over-promising (“They’ll be back in two weeks”) by focusing on what kids can expect, says Dr. Gee. For example: “What I can tell you is that I’m here for you, and I’m going to be with you until he’s back,” or “You’re safe with me, and I’m going to stay with you through this really hard time.”

Model handling stress

Children are sensitive to tone, Dr. Alexander says. “So, if you’re having really big emotions that are out of context for a child, the child is looking at these emotions and trying to understand what’s happening. ‘Am I in danger in this specific moment?’”

She says it helps to have conversations about these moments, especially with younger kids. “Like, ‘I know you noticed mommy crying. We’re feeling really big feelings, and this is how we’re going to deal with those big feelings. I’m going to take a break. I’m going to get a sip of water. Whenever you’re having big feelings, I want you to let me know so that I can help you try doing the same things,’” Dr. Alexander says, explaining the importance of naming the emotion and then teaching kids that there are ways of dealing with it.

Long-term risks of traumatic separation

The effects of traumatic separation can persist even after a child and their caregiver are reunited. Traumatic separation, like other adverse childhood experiences, puts kids at risk for a host of long-term medical and mental health conditions, including depression, anxiety, attention issues, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

But Downie notes that not everyone who experiences traumatic separation develops PTSD. “Just because someone’s experiencing trauma now doesn’t mean that it’s going to become a PTSD diagnosis,” she says. “A lot of the behaviors that we’re talking about are normal and expected. There’s an adjustment period when a separation happens.” But if symptoms persist or escalate over several months, a child may need more serious support.

Treatment for a trauma diagnosis

While not every child who experiences a separation may receive a trauma diagnosis or require treatment, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) — and the more specific trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) — is the “gold standard,” says Downie. TF-CBT is specifically for children experiencing trauma-related symptoms. An important component of TF-CBT is creating a trauma narrative, where kids create a story about what happened to help them process it. “But if you have a child who is not ready to process and integrate that trauma, you can’t force the pacing of the treatment,” she says.

In short, a good clinician will follow a child’s lead — even if that means just sitting in the same room with them to build trust. “People really need to feel like they’re being heard and that they can trust someone,” Downie says. Which is why a supportive caregiver or trusted adult can make a big difference.

“If people can take anything away from this, it’s that you want to make kids understand that that they’re not responsible for what’s happened and that people do care about them,” Downie says. “Kids are really resilient, and they can adapt in a good-enough environment. They don’t have to have everything to be successful.”

The post What Is Traumatic Separation? appeared first on Child Mind Institute.

<![CDATA[Psilocybin therapy shows fast, lasting relief for depression; clinicians discuss trial hurdles and emerging promise for PTSD and addiction in this podcast.]]>

Two-year longitudinal neuropsychological monitoring after unilateral and staged bilateral subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation

IntroductionDeep brain stimulation (DBS) is an increasingly popular therapeutic method for treating motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease, but its impact on non-motor symptoms in long-term follow-up remains debated.MethodThe primary objective of this study was to monitor the cognitive functioning, mood, and quality of life in 2 years of unilateral and staged bilateral subthalamic nucleus DBS. A cohort of 30 patients was evaluated at three intervals: before DBS surgery, at 6 months, and 24 months post-surgery. The time points of neuropsychological assessments were set to control the impact of unilateral and bilateral DBS throughout the treatment. Two selected groups, unilateral and bilateral DBS, were also analyzed. The study employed a combination of computerized and paper-based tests to assess cognitive functions, alongside questionnaires to gauge emotional state and quality of life. The cognitive evaluation focused on three domains critical for daily activities: attention and processing speed, learning and episodic memory, and executive functions, including working memory and cognitive flexibility.ResultsAnalysis of the entire cohort from baseline through the two follow-up assessments revealed no decline in cognitive function, mood, or quality of life, alongside significant motor improvement. Additional analyses of the two subgroups—unilateral DBS and staged bilateral DBS—also showed no overall decline in any assessed domain over the 2-year follow-up period. However, comparison of cognitive outcomes with normative data indicated a higher proportion of patients meeting criteria for cognitive decline at the 24-month follow-up in the staged bilateral DBS group compared with the unilateral DBS group.ConclusionThe findings support the long-term overall stability of cognitive function, mood, and quality of life following unilateral and staged bilateral subthalamic DBS. Subgroup analyses did not reveal any significant decline in cognitive measures over time. Nevertheless, individual comparisons with normative data showed a higher proportion of patients with memory deficits in the staged bilateral DBS group after the two-year follow-up.

Can exercise combined with transcranial direct current stimulation improve cognitive function in older adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveThis study investigated whether combining exercise with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) improves overall cognition, memory, and executive function in older adults.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched databases including PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wan Fang for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the combined effect of exercise and tDCS on cognitive function in older adults. Used RStudio (version 4.2.0) to merge effect sizes and represent them as SMD with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The main effects are synthesized using a random effects model, and heterogeneity sources are explored through subgroup regression and sensitivity analysis.ResultsThe combined exercise and tDCS intervention significantly improved global cognitive function in older adults (SMD = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.89, p < 0.0001). Significant enhancements were observed in executive function (SMD = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.92, p = 0.005) and general cognitive ability (SMD = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.21 to 1.30, p = 0.006), while memory showed a non-significant improvement (SMD = 0.58, 95% CI: −0.03 to 1.19, p = 0.063). Both interventions lasting less than 6 weeks (SMD = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.27, p < 0.0001) and those lasting 6 weeks or longer (SMD = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.37, p = 0.0006) positively impacted cognitive function. However, the effect size was larger for cognitively healthy older adults (SMD = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.20 to 1.18, p = 0.006) compared to those with cognitive impairment (SMD = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.92, p = 0.0002). The combination of tDCS and integrated exercise produced the largest effect size (SMD = 1.74), despite high heterogeneity, while the combination of tDCS and Tai Chi produced the smallest but most robust effect (SMD = 0.25, I 2 = 0%), indicating that exercise type significantly regulates the intervention effect of tDCS (p = 0.0015). Regression analysis shows that tDCS stimulation time has a significant positive regulatory effect on cognitive function in elderly people (p = 0.0002), while the combined intervention period (p = 0.030) and single exercise time (p = 0.034) both have a significant negative regulatory effect.ConclusionBased on limited evidence, we found that a combined intervention of exercise and tDCS is a potentially effective means of improving cognitive function in older adults. However, the extent of improvement varies with the cognitive domain, baseline performance level, and intervention plan.

Computer-based tree drawing test in adolescents and adults with depression

ObjectiveTo evaluate the value of the computer-based Tree Drawing Test in the auxiliary diagnosis of depressive disorders and to analyze the differences in the performance of adolescent and adult depression patients in the Tree Drawing Projection Test.MethodsThis study was conducted at Guo Yang County People’s Hospital in Anhui, China, and involved a total of 184 participants: 43 adults with depression, 82 adolescents with depression, and 59 healthy controls. The Tree Drawing Test and scale assessments were administered to patients with depressive disorders (adult group and adolescent group) and a control group. Computer image recognition and calculation techniques were used to analyze the results statistically.ResultsSignificant differences were observed between the adult depression group and the control group in terms of crown area, trunk area, total area, and HDRS scores (p < 0.001). Statistically significant differences were also found between the adult depression group and the adolescent depression group in terms of trunk area (p < 0.01), total area (p < 0.001), HDRS scores (p < 0.001), and HAMA scores (p < 0.01). The crown area (r = -0.261, p < 0.001), trunk area (r = -0.154, p = 0.037), total area (r = -0.285, p < 0.001), and HDRS scores in the Tree Drawing Test were significantly correlated.ConclusionThe computer-based Tree Drawing Test has certain value in the auxiliary diagnosis of depression. Future research should include larger sample sizes and participants from different regions and cultural backgrounds to further validate the generalizability and cultural adaptability of the Tree Drawing Test for depression assessment.

Barriers and Facilitators in the Implementation of the Systematic Medical Appraisal, Referral, and Treatment (SMART) Mental Health Digital Intervention in Rural India: Mixed Methods Process Evaluation Study

<strong>Background:</strong> An estimated 150 million people have mental health care needs in India, but only 15% are able to access care. Depression and anxiety contribute to a large proportion of mental morbidity. The Systematic Medical Appraisal, Referral, and Treatment (SMART) Mental Health trial used a mobile-based clinical decision support system for primary care doctors and community health workers (CHWs) to identify and treat people at risk of depression, anxiety disorders, and self-harm. A community-based antistigma campaign was also delivered. The intervention led to improved remission rates for depression and anxiety and lower stigma scores. <strong>Objective:</strong> A process evaluation assessed (1) implementation fidelity, barriers, and facilitators; (2) perceptions of doctors and CHWs on the use of SMART Mental Health; and (3) the causal pathways that led to trial outcomes. <strong>Methods:</strong> A mixed methods evaluation combining backend program data and qualitative data was conducted. A total of 38 focus group discussions and 37 key informant interviews were conducted with primary doctors, CHWs, government officials, local community leaders, and research project staff. The data were coded and analyzed using a framework analysis approach based on the UK Medical Research Council guidance on process evaluations and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. <strong>Results:</strong> The intervention had high implementation fidelity. Across clusters, the median proportion of participants with at least 1 CHW follow-up was 98% (IQR 96.6%-100%). The referral rate for a psychiatrist was low (224/1697, 13.2%), and only 23.6% (53/224) of those referred visited the psychiatrist. The median exposure to antistigma audiovisual content was 84% (IQR 65.7%-95.9%). At the community level, key implementation barriers included cultural inhibitions in seeking mental health care and the unavailability of patients due to competing demands. Proximity and tight social connections between CHWs and their communities were important facilitators in seeking medical help. Doctor and CHW training, mentoring, and feedback provided by program staff were important facilitators to support the use of the digital health components by the health workforce. <strong>Conclusions:</strong> A complex intervention that included both community-based antistigma and clinical digital health interventions achieved high implementation fidelity. Key areas to consider for maintenance of such interventions include (1) the need for sustained community-based strategies to address stigma and other cultural barriers; (2) health workforce strengthening policies, including supportive supervision for CHWs and doctors to increase capability in the use of mental health digital health tools; and (3) strategies to improve access to specialist care for those with more complex care needs. <strong>Trial Registration:</strong> Clinical Trial Registry India CTRI/2018/08/015355; https://tinyurl.com/5r63suxp

Digital Therapeutic Content for Substance Use Disorder Treatment: Development and Evaluation Study

Background: Substance use disorders (SUDs) are a major public health concern, contributing to significant individual and societal costs. Despite this, the uptake of evidence-based pharmacologic and behavioral interventions remains limited. The digital delivery of SUD treatment has emerged as a potentially scalable way to reduce access barriers and increase treatment use. Existing digital therapeutic interventions are often created without clinician involvement, evidence-based materials, interdisciplinary input, or content review. The implementation of a structured and methodologically rigorous development process is needed across digital health interventions to help ensure patient-facing materials are validated, understandable, and actionable for the end user. Objective: This early report seeks to describe and evaluate an iterative, interdisciplinary, platform-agnostic process for adapting and refining existing print materials for digital therapeutic modules in SUD treatment. The a priori goal was to evaluate if a structured, human-centered approach would generate digital modules that were rated as understandable and actionable based on a validated assessment for written materials. Methods: Fourteen therapeutic modules were adapted from existing Mayo Clinic–written, patient-facing education materials originally developed by a board-certified addiction psychiatrist and a doctoral-level education specialist for clinical use. A team of 4 purposively recruited licensed alcohol and drug counselors with lived experience with a SUD, all in recovery, and a doctoral-level therapeutic specialist met weekly for one hour over a 6-month period to iteratively adapt this existing content for smartphone delivery (2‐3 hours per module). The process flow included selecting source material, restructuring content for viewing on a phone screen, simplifying language, improving organization and flow to promote understanding, and including specific actions users could take based on the content. The counselors then independently evaluated the modules using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for printable materials (PEMAT-P). PEMAT-P scores for understandability and actionability were calculated as percentages, and descriptive statistics were used to summarize scores in aggregate and across modules. A target of >70% was set for each PEMAT-P domain, consistent with accepted benchmarking standards. Results: Mean understandability and actionability for all modules were 87.2% (SD 4.8%; range 81.4%‐96.9%) and 75.1% (SD 12.3%; range 57.1%‐95.0%), respectively, exceeding the recommended threshold. While all modules were adequately understandable, 35.7% (5/14) scored below the actionability threshold. Conclusions: This early report highlights the value of a human-centered, iterative process for adapting therapeutic materials for digital delivery in SUD treatment. Although the modules performed well overall on PEMAT-P benchmarks, actionability was less consistent than understandability, and aggregate scores masked weaknesses in several individual modules. This indicates that a standardized process does not guarantee actionable material across all content types. Involving current patients in this process may improve the end product by incorporating a perspective that was previously missed.

Oral Small-Molecule GLP-1s Linked to Deep Brain Activity and Reduced Cravings in Mice

Interest in glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1s) continues to surge due to their effectiveness in reducing body weight and improving metabolic outcomes. This includes interest in small molecule oral GLP-1s which are more bioavailable and more easily manufactured than their injectable counterparts.

Now data from a new study in mice performed by scientists at the University of Virginia shows that this emerging class of weight-loss drugs suppress hedonic eating by modulating a reward circuit deep in the brain that is separate from previously described mechanisms that broadly affect appetite. The scientists believe that this pathway could be an avenue by which GLP-1s treat other dysfunctions in reward processing such as substance use disorders.

Details of the National Institutes of Health-funded study were published this week in a Nature paper titled “A brain reward circuit inhibited by next-generation weight-loss drugs in mice.” In it, the team reported that they investigated the small-molecule GLP-1s including Eli Lilly’s recently approved drug orforglipron, also known by the brand name Foundayo, as well as danuglipron, an oral GLP-1 that was being developed by Pfizer until the company decided to discontinue its development in 2025. 

Previous studies that explored the effects of larger peptide GLP-1s such as semaglutide in the brain have found that they suppress hunger-driven eating by engaging networks in the hypothalamus and hindbrain. What has been less clear is the mechanism by which small-molecule GLP-1s work. “As the accessibility of these medications continues to rise and patient uptake increases, it’s crucial that we understand the neural mechanisms underlying the effects we’re seeing,” said Lorenzo Leggio, MD, PhD, clinical director of NIH’s National Institute on Drug Abuse.

The current study gets scientists one step closer to that goal. According to the paper, the scientists first used gene editing to modify the GLP-1 receptors of mice to make them more humanlike. They then administered orforglipron or danuglipron to the mice, and identified brain regions where the drugs induced activity. The results showed that in addition to inducing activity in familiar pathways, the drugs also triggered the central amygdala, a region associated with desire that is deeper in the brain than scientists previously thought GLP-1s could directly reach. Further testing showed that once activated, the central amygdala reduced the release of dopamine into key hubs of the brain’s reward circuitry during hedonic feeding. 

“We’ve known that GLP-1 drugs suppress feeding behavior driven by energy demand,” said co-corresponding author Ali Guler, PhD, a professor of biology at the University of Virginia. “Now it seems oral small-molecule GLP-1s also dial back eating for pleasure by engaging a brain reward circuit.”

Given the effect of these drugs on eating for pleasure, future studies could explore whether small-molecule GLP-1s can also suppress cravings for other addictive substances. It is a question that the team hopes to explore in follow up studies focused specifically on substance use disorder. 

The post Oral Small-Molecule GLP-1s Linked to Deep Brain Activity and Reduced Cravings in Mice appeared first on GEN – Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.