Symptomatic and Functional Outcomes of Substance Use Disorder Persistence 2 Years After Admission to a First-Episode Psychosis Program

Symptomatic and Functional Outcomes of Substance Use Disorder Persistence 2 Years After Admission to a First-Episode Psychosis Program

Symptomatic and Functional Outcomes of Substance Use Disorder Persistence 2 Years After Admission to a First-Episode Psychosis Program

Symptomatic and Functional Outcomes of Substance Use Disorder Persistence 2 Years After Admission to a First-Episode Psychosis Programs

| Ajouter

Référence bibliographique [20726]

Psychiatry Research, vol. 247, p. 113-119.

Fiche synthèse

1. Objectifs


Intentions :
The first «study objective was to describe SUD [substance use disorders] prevalence and course for each substance in FEP [first-episode psychosis] individuals treated in EIS [early intervention services]. The second objective was to compare clinical and functional outcomes as well as service use at 1 and 2 years by FEP individuals with persistent SUD to those who stopped SUD and those who never had SUD. The third objective was to determine which baseline predictive factors were linked with SUD persistence.» (p. 114)

2. Méthode


Échantillon/Matériau :
L’échantillon est composé de 212 patients de l’Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal ainsi que du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, âgés de 18 à 30 ans, et ayant eu un premier épisode psychotique.

Instruments :
Questionnaire

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé


Results show that «SUD severity (dependence vs. abuse) at baseline, Cluster B personality traits or disorder as well as less support from family (not living with family and/or income independent from family) and history of homelessness were associated with SUD persistence at 2 years […].» (p. 115) Also, «[i]t is noteworthy that living with family and being supported financially by parents are associated with “stopped SUD” at 2-year follow-up. This finding could suggest that those who returned home to family were subjected to increased parental vigilance regarding substance use (which reduced the opportunity to use or perhaps shifted social networks away from friends who were users, etc.). On the other hand, it might also be that parents only let their children return home if there was observable commitment to substance use reduction. Nevertheless, the results could suggest that family interventions should be developed to help families supporting young adults with psychosis and substance misuse co-morbidity in decisions and efforts to reduce or quit substance misuse. Preliminary evidence suggests that family interventions are useful in co-morbid patients […].» (p. 116)