Psychotic symptoms in methamphetamine psychotic in-patients

The present study was aimed at exploring the prevalence and factor structure of methamphetamine (MA) psychotic symptoms. The data were obtained from a cross-country evaluation of substance use, health, and treatment in MA psychotic in-patients. The prevalence rates of lifetime and current psychotic symptoms were determined by using Mini-International Neurospychiatric Interview-Plus, Module M. The Manchester scale was used to assess the severity of psychotic symptoms during the week prior to assessment. All eight items of the Manchester scale were subjected to principal-component analysis, eigenvalue one test, and varimax rotation. The data of 168 patients (127 male and 41 female) included in the analyses were obtained from Australia, Japan, the Philippines and Thailand. Persecutory delusion was the most common lifetime psychotic symptom found in 130 participants (77.4%), followed by auditory hallucinations, strange or unusual beliefs, and thought reading. Auditory hallucinations were the most common current symptom found in 75 participants (44.6%), followed by strange or unusual beliefs and visual hallucinations. Current negative symptoms were also found in 36 patients (21.4%). Apart from a factor of anxiety and depression, the results yielded a two-factor model of MA psychotic symptoms, which were negative and positive/disorganized syndromes. The negative syndrome comprised poverty of speech, psychomotor retardation, and flattened/incongruous affects. The positive syndrome consisted of delusions, hallucinations, and incoherent speech. Both positive/disorganized and negative syndromes should be taken into account in assessing MA psychotic symptoms. The clinical findings do not support the shortcomings of amphetamine-induced psychosis in modelling the negative symptoms of schizophrenia.Manit Srisurapanont, Robert Ali, John Marsden, Agueda Sunga, Kiyoshi Wada and Maristela Monteir

Psychiatric services in primary care settings: a survey of general practitioners in Thailand

BACKGROUND: General Practitioners (GPs) in Thailand play an important role in treating psychiatric disorders since there is a shortage of psychiatrists in the country. Our aim was to examine GP's perception of psychiatric problems, drug treatment and service problems encountered in primary care settings. METHODS: We distributed 1,193 postal questionnaires inquiring about psychiatric practices and service problems to doctors in primary care settings throughout Thailand. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-four questionnaires (36.4%) were returned. Sixty-seven of the respondents (15.4%) who had taken further special training in various fields were excluded from the analysis, giving a total of 367 GPs in this study. Fifty-six per cent of respondents were males and they had worked for 4.6 years on average (median = 3 years). 65.6% (SD = 19.3) of the total patients examined had physical problems, 10.7% (SD = 7.9) had psychiatric problems and 23.9% (SD = 16.0) had both problems. The most common psychiatric diagnoses were anxiety disorders (37.5%), alcohol and drugs abuse (28.1%), and depressive disorders (29.2%). Commonly prescribed psychotropic drugs were anxiolytics and antidepressants. The psychotropic drugs most frequently prescribed were diazepam among anti-anxiety drugs, amitriptyline among antidepressant drugs, and haloperidol among antipsychotic drugs. CONCLUSION: Most drugs available through primary care were the same as what existed 3 decades ago. There should be adequate supply of new and appropriate psychotropic drugs in primary care. Case-finding instruments for common mental disorders might be helpful for GPs whose quality of practice was limited by large numbers of patients. However, the service delivery system should be modified in order to maintain successful care for a large number of psychiatric patients

Assessing the order of magnitude of outcomes in single-arm cohorts through systematic comparison with corresponding cohorts: An example from the AMOS study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>When a therapy has been evaluated in the first clinical study, the outcome is often compared descriptively to outcomes in corresponding cohorts receiving other treatments. Such comparisons are often limited to selected studies, and often mix different outcomes and follow-up periods. Here we give an example of a systematic comparison to all cohorts with identical outcomes and follow-up periods.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The therapy to be compared (anthroposophic medicine, a complementary therapy system) had been evaluated in one single-arm cohort study: the Anthroposophic Medicine Outcomes Study (AMOS). The five largest AMOS diagnosis groups (A-cohorts: asthma, depression, low back pain, migraine, neck pain) were compared to all retrievable corresponding cohorts (C-cohorts) receiving other therapies with identical outcomes (SF-36 scales or summary measures) and identical follow-up periods (3, 6 or 12 months). Between-group differences (pre-post difference in an A-cohort minus pre-post difference in the respective C-cohort) were divided with the standard deviation (SD) of the baseline score of the A-cohort.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A-cohorts (5 cohorts with 392 patients) were similar to C-cohorts (84 cohorts with 16,167 patients) regarding age, disease duration, baseline affection and follow-up rates. A-cohorts had ≥ 0.50 SD larger improvements than C-cohorts in 13.5% (70/517) of comparisons; improvements of the same order of magnitude (small or minimal differences: -0.49 to 0.49 SD) were found in 80.1% of comparisons; and C-cohorts had ≥ 0.50 SD larger improvements than A-cohorts in 6.4% of comparisons. Analyses stratified by diagnosis had similar results. Sensitivity analyses, restricting the comparisons to C-cohorts with similar study design (observational studies), setting (primary care) or interventions (drugs, physical therapies, mixed), or restricting comparisons to SF-36 scales with small baseline differences between A- and C-cohorts (-0.49 to 0.49 SD) also had similar results.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this descriptive analysis, anthroposophic therapy was associated with SF-36 improvements largely of the same order of magnitude as improvements following other treatments. Although these non-concurrent comparisons cannot assess comparative effectiveness, they suggest that improvements in health status following anthroposophic therapy can be clinically meaningful. The analysis also demonstrates the value of a systematic approach when comparing a therapy cohort to corresponding therapy cohorts.</p

Packages of Care for Alcohol Use Disorders in Low- And Middle-Income Countries

In the fourth in a series of six articles on packages of care for mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries, Vivek Benegal and colleagues discuss the treatment of alcohol use disorders