
Does my child have an anxiety disorder? Here are the signs parents should look out for
Many people might vividly remember their most troubling childhood fears, but they tend to outgrow the worries that once caused sleepless nights. For some children and their parents, however, it can be difficult to determine when fears are typical and when they are developing into more serious phobias or anxiety disorders.
Fears are a normal part of human development and serve as survival mechanisms, helping prevent children and adults from engaging in risky behavior. But once fears become debilitating or impair daily function, they can be classified as a phobia or anxiety disorder, said Thomas Ollendick, University Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Virginia Tech, who is known for his work with children and adolescents.
If anxiety disorders and phobias are left untreated, children are at risk of additional psychiatric or medical problems, which could follow them into adulthood, according to Wendy Silverman, director of the Yale Child Study Center's Anxiety and Mood Disorders Program, Alfred A. Messer Professor of Child Psychiatry, and professor of psychology at the Yale School of Medicine.
Common fears at different developmental stages
Children may develop phobias or anxiety disorders for a variety of reasons, including genetics, direct negative experiences with an event or object, observation of others or overhearing frightening information, Silverman said.
Phobic and anxiety disorders are also relatively common in children. As many as 1 in 3 children and adolescents are affected by these disorders, and these rates have increased substantially since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, according to 'The Parents' Guide of Psychological First Aid: Helping Children and Adolescents Cope With Predictable Life Crises.' (Silverman contributed to this book.)
New fears and anxieties tend to develop and vary as children and adolescents grow and adapt to new environments, Silverman said.
Infants and toddlers often show fears of loud noises, unfamiliar people and separation from their parents. By the time children start engaging in more imaginative play once they reach preschool age, they may develop fears pertaining to ghosts, monsters and small animals.
When children reach adolescence and start having more real-world experiences, it's common for them to develop fears around social anxiety, particularly when facing the scrutiny of others.
Distinguishing fear from anxiety disorders or phobias
The first step in addressing an anxiety disorder or phobia is recognizing symptoms that fall outside the boundaries of a common fear.
Parents may struggle to detect certain anxieties, especially if a child doesn't display classic symptoms — rejecting food, nausea or refusing to leave the house — or has reservations about sharing their fears, Ollendick noted.
To help parents distinguish whether a fear may develop into a more serious disorder, experts such as Ollendick and Silverman look at the frequency, intensity and duration of a fear.
Frequency helps determine how often a fear is occurring. Parents and children can note whether the fear is something that's popping up once a year compared with a daily struggle.
It's also important to assess the intensity of a fear, which parents can judge based on how their child responds when a situation isn't handled in the way that they want. Ranking your child's reactions on a scale of one to 10 can help parents and psychologists better understand the severity of these instances.
Finally, duration is crucial in knowing when it might be time to seek professional support. Psychologists recommend giving your child's fears some time to settle to see if such worries are more of a phase or long-lasting issue.
Citing the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Ollendick and Silverman noted that fears should last for at least six months before they are considered a clinically significant phobia or anxiety disorder.
However, if a fear is preventing a child from developing or functioning properly, impairing family function or negatively affecting academic performance, it's possible the fear has developed into a clinically significant problem, and it may feel unreasonable for parents to wait to seek professional support, Silverman said.
How parents can provide support
When managing children's fears, many parents instinctively want to intervene to shield their distress. However, Silverman warns against this approach, referred to as parent protection or accommodation, which provides temporary relief for the child but reinforces the fear instead of helping overcome the root of the concern.
If parents have specific anxieties that cause them to spiral and act inappropriately, it's essential to admit that they can demonstrate healthier reactions, which could help their child model better behavior in the future.
Additionally, parents should attempt to find a balance between acknowledging their child's concerns and discussing safety precautions and emphasizing the possible harms and negative outcomes of an event or object, Ollendick said.
It can be especially tough to navigate children's fears of real-world threats such as school shootings or natural disasters. However, Ollendick and Silverman highly recommend fostering open dialogue to help reduce worries or feelings of isolation and shame.
Parents can also share their emotions, in an age-appropriate manner, to show that it's healthy to talk about heavy topics and be vulnerable with others.
In some cases, explaining that certain fears are linked to low-probability events or creating a plan can provide reassurance, Silverman said.
For those who live in coastal areas more susceptible to hurricanes, your child may find comfort in discussing the actions family members would need to take if they were in danger.
Parents should encourage children to face their fears instead of falling into avoidant behaviors. Especially for younger ones, positive reinforcement can help children feel motivated to confront their fear. Small gifts or privileges such as playing a game or spontaneously getting ice cream should be offered as soon as possible after children have engaged in such behavior to build their confidence, according to Silverman.
Seeking professional help
If your child's anxieties persist beyond six months, despite your efforts at home, it's vital that parents seek qualified professionals for help, Silverman said.
When pursuing professional support, younger children may struggle to recognize and articulate their emotions. Parents can provide helpful insights to psychologists by tracking behaviors and gathering feedback from teachers or other caregivers, Ollendick said.
Silverman added that cognitive behavioral therapy, particularly exposure therapy, has proven highly effective in treating anxiety and phobias.
Exposure therapy gradually introduces the feared object or situation in a controlled way, starting small and increasing over time.
If there's a fear of dogs, for example, the child might begin by looking at pictures of the animals, then observing one through a window, before eventually interacting with a small, gentle dog, Silverman said.
Over time, you might consider taking your child to a park to be around dogs while they're restrained by their owners.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


UPI
6 minutes ago
- UPI
New study highlights inconsistencies in defining long COVID
The medical field still lacks a clear answer as to what constitutes long COVID, despite hundreds of published studies and millions of sufferers worldwide, a new study says. File Photo by Shou Sheng/EPA Do you suspect you have long COVID, but aren't sure? The answer you get will largely hinge on whom you ask, a new study says. The medical field still lacks a clear answer as to what constitutes long COVID, despite hundreds of published studies and millions of sufferers worldwide, researchers reported Tuesday in JAMA Network Open. The definition of long COVID varies so widely that the percentage of people identified as having the ailment can differ dramatically, making it harder to properly diagnose and treat patients, researchers said. "The findings highlight the need for a standard definition for long COVID," lead researcher Lauren Wisk, an assistant professor of medicine at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine, said in a news release. A number of major organizations like the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have advanced their own definitions for long COVID, but none has stuck and all feature some flaws, researchers said in background notes. For example, the National Academies' definition, released in 2024, is extremely broad and does not require lab confirmation that a person actually had an initial COVID-19 infection, researchers said. For the study, researchers applied five published long COVID definitions from previous studies to a group of more than 4,500 COVID patients being tracked as part of an ongoing research project. The prior studies took place in the U.S., U.K., Netherlands, Sweden and Puerto Rico. The five definitions differed by symptom duration, ranging from four weeks to six months, researchers said. The definition also varied by the number of potential symptoms, from nine to as many as 44. The percentage of patients with long COVID varied from 15% to 42%, depending on which definition had been used, results showed. These differences can lead doctors to miss legitimate long COVID cases while misdiagnosing others who actually don't have the syndrome, said senior researcher Dr. Joann Elmore, a professor at David Geffen School of Medicine. "Without a shared definition, we risk mislabeling patients and misguiding care," she said in a news release. "This is more than an academic debate -- it affects real people." These differences are also hampering medicine's ability to figure out long COVID, Wisk said. "If every study on long COVID uses a different definition for identifying who has it, the scientific conclusions become harder to compare across studies and may lead to delays in our understanding of it," she said. "In the absence of an objective measure, like a blood test, or a uniform standard for measuring long COVID, researchers and clinicians will need to decide which definition is best suited for their scientific question and be more transparent about the potential limitations of using a more versus less restrictive definition," Wisk added. More information The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more on long COVID. Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.


Axios
35 minutes ago
- Axios
Arizona COVID test positivity tops 11% as new variant spreads
Arizona is among the 12 states seeing higher positivity rates for COVID-19 tests compared to the rest of the country, according to new data from the CDC. Why it matters: Positivity rates are popping off as the "stratus" variant surges throughout the country. Summer outbreaks of COVID aren't surprising, especially as many children head back to school. But this recent wave comes as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unilaterally changed federal COVID vaccine recommendations. Driving the news: The CDC updated its regional data for COVID-19 test positivity on Monday — accountin for the week ending Aug. 2. Zoom in: The states with the highest COVID test positivity are New Mexico (12%), Texas (12%), Oklahoma (12%) Arkansas (12%), Louisiana (12%), Nevada (11.3%), Arizona (11.3%), California (11.3%), Alaska (11.1%), Washington (11.1%), Oregon (11.1%) and Idaho (11.1%). Worth noting: The rest of the country's test positivity rate sits between 5% to 9.9%. The big picture: Overall, the CDC reports that the COVID-19 trend is "growing," with 45 states experiencing a case increase. No state experienced a decline in cases as of Aug. 5, per the CDC. Context: The rise in COVID-19 cases amid an uptick in cases of the XFG "stratus" variant.


Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
COVID Revenge Is Supercharging the Anti-Vaccine Agenda
Four and a half years ago, fresh off the success of Operation Warp Speed, mRNA vaccines were widely considered—as President Donald Trump said in December 2020 —a 'medical miracle.' Last week, the United States government decidedly reversed that stance when Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. canceled nearly half a billion dollars' worth of grants and contracts for mRNA-vaccine research. With Kennedy leading HHS, this about-face is easy to parse as yet another anti-vaccine move. But the assault on mRNA is also proof of another kind of animus: the COVID-revenge campaign that top officials in this administration have been pursuing for months, attacking the policies, technologies, and people that defined the U.S.'s pandemic response. As the immediacy of the COVID crisis receded, public anger about the American response to it took deeper root—perhaps most prominently among some critics who are now Trump appointees. That acrimony has become an essential tool in Kennedy's efforts to undermine vaccines. 'It is leverage,' Dorit Reiss, a vaccine-law expert at UC Law San Francisco, told me. 'It is a way to justify doing things that he wouldn't be able to get away with otherwise.' COVID revenge has defined the second Trump administration's health policy from the beginning. Kennedy and his allies have ousted prominent HHS officials who played key roles in the development of COVID policy, as well as scientists at the National Institutes of Health, including close colleagues of Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (and, according to Trump, an idiot and a 'disaster'). In June, Kennedy dismissed every member of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which has helped shape COVID-vaccine recommendations, and handpicked replacements for them. HHS and ACIP are now stacked with COVID contrarians who have repeatedly criticized COVID policies and minimized the benefits of vaccines. Under pressure from Trump officials, the NIH has terminated funding for hundreds of COVID-related grants. The president and his appointees have espoused the highly disputed notion that COVID began as a leak from 'an unsafe lab in Wuhan, China'—and cited the NIH's funding of related research as a reason to restrict federal agencies' independent grant-awarding powers. This administration is rapidly rewriting the narrative of COVID vaccines as well. In an early executive order, Trump called for an end to COVID-19-vaccine mandates in schools, even though few remained; earlier this month, HHS rolled back a Biden-era policy that financially rewarded hospitals for reporting staff-vaccination rates, describing the policy as ' coercive.' The FDA has made it harder for manufacturers to bring new COVID shots to market, narrowed who can get the Novavax shot, and approved the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for only a limited group of children, over the objections of agency experts. For its part, the CDC softened its COVID-shot guidance for pregnant people and children, after Kennedy—who has described the shots as 'the deadliest vaccine ever made'—tried to unilaterally remove it. Experts told me they fear that what access remains to the shots for children and adults could still be abolished; so could COVID-vaccine manufacturers' current protection from liability. (Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson, said in an email that the department would not comment on potential regulatory changes.) The latest assault against mRNA vaccines, experts told me, is difficult to disentangle from the administration's pushback on COVID shots—which, because of the pandemic, the public now views as synonymous with the technology, Jennifer Nuzzo, the director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University School of Public Health, told me. Kennedy justified the mRNA cuts by suggesting—in contrast to a wealth of evidence—that the vaccines' risks outweigh their benefits, and that they 'fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu.' And he insisted, without proof, that mRNA vaccines prolong pandemics. Meanwhile, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya argued that the cancellations were driven by a lack of public trust in the technology itself. In May, the Trump administration also pulled more than $700 million in funds from Moderna that had initially been awarded to develop mRNA-based flu vaccines. The mRNA funding terminated so far came from HHS's Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority; multiple NIH officials told me that they anticipate that similar grant cuts will follow at their agency. (In an email, Kush Desai, a spokesperson for the White House, defended the administration's decision as a way to prioritize funding with 'the most untapped potential'; Nixon echoed that sentiment, casting the decision as 'a necessary pivot in how we steward public health innovations in vaccines.') COVID is a politically convenient entryway to broader anti-vaccine sentiment. COVID shots are among the U.S.'s most politicized vaccines, and many Republicans have, since the outbreak's early days, been skeptical of COVID-mitigation policies. Although most Americans remain supportive of vaccines on the whole, most Republicans—and many Democrats—say they're no longer keen on getting more COVID shots. 'People trust the COVID vaccines less,' Nuzzo told me, which makes it easy for the administration's vaccine opponents to use attacks on those vaccines as purchase for broader assaults. For all their COVID-centric hype, mRNA vaccines have long been under development for many unrelated diseases. And experts now worry that the blockades currently in place for certain types of mRNA vaccines could soon extend to other, similar technologies, including mRNA-based therapies in development for cancer and genetic disease, which might not make it through the approval process at Kennedy's FDA. (Nixon said HHS would continue to invest in mRNA research for cancer and other complex diseases.) Casting doubt on COVID shots makes other vaccines that have been vetted in the same way—and found to be safe and effective, based on high-quality data—look dubious. 'Once you establish that it's okay to override something for COVID,' Reiss told me, 'it's much easier to say, 'Well, now we're going to unrecommend MMR.'' (Kennedy's ACIP plans to review the entire childhood-immunization schedule and assess its cumulative effects.) Plenty of other avenues remain for Kennedy to play on COVID discontent—fear of the shots' side effects, distaste for mandates, declining trust in public health and medical experts —to pull back the government's support for vaccination. He has announced, for instance, his intention to reform the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which helps protect manufacturers from lawsuits over illegitimate claims about a vaccine's health effects, and his plans to find 'ways to enlarge that program so that COVID-vaccine-injured people can be compensated.' Some of the experts I spoke with fear that the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee—the agency's rough equivalent of ACIP—could be remade in Kennedy's vision. The administration has also been very willing to rescind federal funding from universities in order to forward its own ideas: Kennedy could, perhaps, threaten to withhold money from universities that require any vaccines for students. Kennedy has also insisted that 'we need to stop trusting the experts'—that Americans, for instance, shouldn't have been discouraged from doing their own research during the pandemic. He could use COVID as an excuse to make that maxim Americans' reality: Many public-health and infectious-disease-focused professional societies rely on at least some degree of federal funding, Nirav D. Shah, a former principal deputy director of the CDC, told me. Stripping those resources would be 'a way to cut their legs off'—or, at the very least, would further delegitimize those expert bodies in the public eye. Kennedy has already barred representatives from professional societies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, from participating in ACIP subcommittees after those two societies and others collectively sued HHS over its shifts in COVID policy. The public fight between medicine and government is now accelerating the nation onto a path where advice diverges over not just COVID shots but vaccines generally. (When asked about how COVID resentment was guiding the administration's decisions, Desai said that the media had politicized science to push for pandemic-era mandates and that The Atlantic 'continues to fundamentally misunderstand how the Trump administration is reversing this COVID era politicization of HHS.') The coronavirus pandemic began during the first Trump presidency; now its legacy is being exploited by a second one. Had the pandemic never happened, Kennedy would likely still be attacking vaccines, maybe even from the same position of power he currently commands. But without the lightning rod of COVID, Kennedy's attacks would be less effective. Already, one clear consequence of the Trump administration's anti-COVID campaign is that it will leave the nation less knowledgeable about and less prepared against all infectious diseases, Gregory Poland, a vaccinologist and the president of Atria Research Institute, told me. That might be the Trump administration's ultimate act of revenge. No matter who is in charge when the U.S. meets its next crisis, those leaders may be forced into a corner carved out by Trump and Kennedy—one from which the country must fight disease without adequate vaccination, research, or public-health expertise. This current administration will have left the nation with few other options.