Treatment of substance abuse in dual diagnosis

Interventions for substance use–related problems are limited for individuals with intellectual disability (ID). This is problematic, as the lack of interventions can lead to substance use initiation, progression of substance use into substance use disorder, poorer outcomes of treatment, and stigmatization of individuals with dual diagnosis. Additionally, staff who work with individuals with ID and addiction treatment lack resources to effectively help substance use in individuals with ID. Nevertheless, there has been an increase in studies assessing the feasibility and outcomes of interventions for substance use and abuse in individuals with ID. This chapter reviews psychological and pharmacological interventions for individuals with dual diagnosis of substance abuse and ID

The generalizability of the structure of substance abuse and antisocial behavioral syndromes:A systematic review

Background: Although several authors have suggested that a single externalizing spectrum encompassing both antisocial behavioral syndromes and substance use disorder is to be preferred, this assumption has not been evaluated systematically throughout studies. Purpose: The objective was to establish the generalizability of transdiagnostic models of externalizing disorders across different types of disorders and populations, in regard to the strength of the evidence. Method: We conducted a systematic literature review using combinations of two sets of keywords: 1) "antisocial", "externalizing", "conduct disorder", "disruptive behavior disorder", "substance abuse", "substance-related disorder", "cannabis", "cocaine", "hallucinogen", "alcoholism", "opioid"; 2) "latent structure", "factor analysis", "multivariate analysis". Results: Models supporting a superordinate factor appeared dominant in a limited set of different populations, on which the majority of the research sample was focused. Conclusions: Although the externalizing spectrum model is a promising angle for future research and treatment, extending research on this model in a higher diversity of populations is recommended to enhance the understanding and applicability of the externalizing spectrum model

Substance use in individuals with mild to borderline intellectual disability:A comparison between self-report, collateral-report and biomarker analysis

Background and aims Individuals with mild or borderline intellectual disability (MBID) are at risk of substance use (SU). At present, it is unclear which strategy is the best for assessing SU in individuals with MBID. This study compares three strategies, namely self-report, collateral-report, and biomarker analysis. Methods and procedures In a sample of 112 participants with MBID from six Dutch facilities providing care to individuals with intellectual disabilities, willingness to participate, SU rates, and agreement between the three strategies were explored. The Substance use and misuse in Intellectual Disability − Questionnaire (SumID-Q; self-report) assesses lifetime use, use in the previous month, and recent use of tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, and stimulants. The Substance use and misuse in Intellectual Disability − Collateral-report questionnaire (SumID-CR; collateral-report) assesses staff members' report of participants' SU over the same reference periods as the SumID-Q. Biomarkers for SU, such as cotinine (metabolite of nicotine), ethanol, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and its metabolite THCCOOH, benzoylecgonine (metabolite of cocaine), and amphetamines were assessed in urine, hair, and sweat patches. Results Willingness to provide biomarker samples was significantly lower compared to willingness to complete the SumID-Q (p < 0.001). Most participants reported smoking, drinking alcohol, and using cannabis at least once in their lives, and about a fifth had ever used stimulants. Collateralreported lifetime use was significantly lower. However, self-reported past month and recent SU rates did not differ significantly from the rates from collateral-reports or biomarkers, with the exception of lower alcohol use rates found in biomarker analysis. The agreement between self-report and biomarker analysis was substantial (kappas 0.60–0.89), except for alcohol use (kappa 0.06). Disagreement between SumID-Q and biomarkers concerned mainly over-reporting of the SumID-Q. The agreement between SumID-CR and biomarker analysis was moderate to substantial (kappas 0.48 − 0.88), again with the exception of alcohol (kappa 0.02). Conclusions and implications In this study, the three strategies that were used to assess SU in individuals with MBID differed significantly in participation rates, but not in SU rates. Several explanations for the better-than-expected performance of self- and collateral-reports are presented. We conclude that for individuals with MBID, self-report combined with collateralreport can be used to assess current SU, and this combination may contribute to collaborative, early intervention efforts to reduce SU and its related harms in this vulnerable group

Differences in seclusion rates between admission wards: Does patient compilation explain?

Contains fulltext : 116451.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)Comparison of seclusion figures between wards in Dutch psychiatric hospitals showed substantial differences in number and duration of seclusions. In the opinion of nurses and ward managers, these differences may predominantly be explained by differences in patient characteristics, as these are expected to have a large impact on these seclusion rates. Nurses assume more admissions of severely ill patients are related to higher seclusion rates. In order to test this hypothesis, we investigated differences in patient and background characteristics of 718 secluded patients over 5,097 admissions on 29 different admission wards over seven Dutch psychiatric hospitals. We performed an extreme group analysis to explore the relationship between patient and ward characteristics and the wards' number of seclusion hours per 1,000 admission hours. In a multivariate and a multilevel analysis, various characteristics turned out to be related to the number of seclusion hours per 1,000 admission hours as well as to the likelihood of a patient being secluded, confirming the nurses assumptions. The extreme group analysis showed that seclusion rates depended on both patient and ward characteristics. A multivariate and multilevel analyses revealed that differences in seclusion hours between wards could partially be explained by ward size next to patient characteristics. However, the largest deal of the difference between wards in seclusion rates could not be explained by characteristics measured in this study. We concluded ward policy and adequate staffing may, in particular on smaller wards, be key issues in reduction of seclusion.14 p