15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The associations between psychotic experiences and substance use and substance use disorders: findings from the World Health Organization World Mental Health surveys : Psychotic experiences and substance use

      1 , 2 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 14 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 29 , 34 , 35 , on behalf of the WHO World Mental Health Survey Collaborators
      Addiction
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S1"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d3170252e484">Background and aims</h5> <p id="P1">Prior research has found bidirectional associations between psychotic experiences (PEs), and selected substance use disorders. We aimed to extend this research by examining the bidirectional association between PEs, and various types of substance use (SU), and substance use disorders (SUDs), and the influence of antecedent mental disorders on these associations. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S2"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d3170252e489">Design, setting, participants and measurements</h5> <p id="P2">We used data from the World Health Organisation World Mental Health surveys. A total of 30,902 adult respondents across 18 countries were assessed for (a) six types of lifetime PEs, (b) a range of types of SU and DSM-IV SUDs, and (c) mental disorders using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Discrete-time survival analyses based on retrospective age-at-onset reports examined the bidirectional associations between PEs and SU/SUDs controlling for antecedent mental disorders. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S3"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d3170252e494">Findings</h5> <p id="P3">After adjusting for demographics, comorbid SU/SUDs and antecedent mental disorders, those with prior alcohol use disorders (OR=1.6, 95% CI=1.2–2.0), extra-medical prescription drug use (OR=1.5, 95% CI=1.1–1.9), alcohol use (OR=1.4, 95% CI=1.1–1.7), and tobacco use (OR=1.3, 95% CI=1.0–1.8) had increased odds of subsequent first onset of PEs. In contrast, those with temporally prior PEs had increased odds of subsequent onset of tobacco use (OR=1.5, 95% CI=1.2–1.9), alcohol use (OR=1.3, 95% CI=1.1–1.6) or cannabis use (OR=1.3, 95% CI=1.0–1.5) as well as of all substance use disorders (ORs ranged between 1.4 and 1.5). There was a dose response relationship between both count and frequency of PEs and increased subsequent odds of selected SU/SUDs. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S4"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d3170252e499">Conclusions</h5> <p id="P4">Associations between psychotic experiences (PEs) and substance use/substance use disorders (SU/SUDs) are often bidirectional, but not all types of SU/SUDs are associated with PEs. These findings suggest that it is important to be aware of the presence of PEs within those with SUDs or at risk of SUDs, given the plausibility that they may each impact upon the other. </p> </div>

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cannabis use and psychosis: a longitudinal population-based study.

          J. VAN OS (2002)
          Cannabis use may increase the risk of psychotic disorders and result in a poor prognosis for those with an established vulnerability to psychosis. A 3-year follow-up (1997-1999) is reported of a general population of 4,045 psychosis-free persons and of 59 subjects in the Netherlands with a baseline diagnosis of psychotic disorder. Substance use was assessed at baseline, 1-year follow-up, and 3-year follow-up. Baseline cannabis use predicted the presence at follow-up of any level of psychotic symptoms (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 2.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18, 6.47), as well as a severe level of psychotic symptoms (OR = 24.17, 95% CI: 5.44, 107.46), and clinician assessment of the need for care for psychotic symptoms (OR = 12.01, 95% CI: 2.24, 64.34). The effect of baseline cannabis use was stronger than the effect at 1-year and 3-year follow-up, and more than 50% of the psychosis diagnoses could be attributed to cannabis use. On the additive scale, the effect of cannabis use was much stronger in those with a baseline diagnosis of psychotic disorder (risk difference, 54.7%) than in those without (risk difference, 2.2%; p for interaction = 0.001). Results confirm previous suggestions that cannabis use increases the risk of both the incidence of psychosis in psychosis-free persons and a poor prognosis for those with an established vulnerability to psychotic disorder.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people.

            To investigate the relation between cannabis use and psychotic symptoms in individuals with above average predisposition for psychosis who first used cannabis during adolescence. Analysis of prospective data from a population based sample. Assessment of substance use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms was based on standardised personal interviews at baseline and at follow up four years later. 2437 young people (aged 14 to 24 years) with and without predisposition for psychosis. Psychotic symptoms at follow up as a function of cannabis use and predisposition for psychosis at baseline. After adjustment for age, sex, socioeconomic status, urbanicity, childhood trauma, predisposition for psychosis at baseline, and use of other drugs, tobacco, and alcohol, cannabis use at baseline increased the cumulative incidence of psychotic symptoms at follow up four years later (adjusted odds ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 2.46). The effect of cannabis use was much stronger in those with any predisposition for psychosis at baseline (23.8% adjusted difference in risk, 95% confidence interval 7.9 to 39.7, P = 0.003) than in those without (5.6%, 0.4 to 10.8, P = 0.033). The risk difference in the "predisposition" group was significantly greater than the risk difference in the "no predisposition" group (test for interaction 18.2%, 1.6 to 34.8, P = 0.032). There was a dose-response relation with increasing frequency of cannabis use. Predisposition for psychosis at baseline did not significantly predict cannabis use four years later (adjusted odds ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 2.31). Cannabis use moderately increases the risk of psychotic symptoms in young people but has a much stronger effect in those with evidence of predisposition for psychosis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The epidemiology of dual diagnosis.

              R Kessler (2004)
              The English language literature on the epidemiology of dual diagnosis is reviewed. The literature shows mental disorders to be significantly related to alcohol and drug use disorders. The strongest associations involve externalizing mental disorders and alcohol-drug dependence. Mental disorders are associated with alcohol-drug use, problems among users, dependence among problem users, and persistence among people with lifetime dependence. These dual diagnoses are associated with severity and persistence of both mental and alcohol-drug disorders. A wider range of mental disorders is associated with nicotine dependence. Most people with dual diagnosis report their first mental disorder occurred at an earlier age than their first substance disorder. Prospective studies confirm this temporal order, although significant predictive associations are reciprocal. Analyses comparing active and remitted mental disorders suggest that some primary mental disorders are markers and others are causal risk factors for secondary substance disorders. The article closes with a discussion of ways epidemiologic research can be used to help target and evaluate interventions aimed at preventing secondary substance use disorders by treating early-onset primary mental disorders.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Addiction
                Addiction
                Wiley
                09652140
                May 2018
                May 2018
                February 21 2018
                : 113
                : 5
                : 924-934
                Affiliations
                [1 ]National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre; University of New South Wales; Sydney NSW
                [2 ]Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, and Queensland Brain Institute; The University of Queensland; St Lucia Queensland Australia
                [3 ]Center for Reducing Health Disparities; UC Davis Health System; Sacramento CA USA
                [4 ]College of Medicine; Al-Qadisiya University; Diwaniya governorate Iraq
                [5 ]Health Services Research Unit; IMIM-Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute; Barcelona Spain
                [6 ]Pompeu Fabra University (UPF); Barcelona Spain
                [7 ]CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP); Barcelona Spain
                [8 ]Núcleo de Epidemiologia Psiquiátrica-LIM 23; Instituto de Psiquiatria Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo; Brazil
                [9 ]Department of Psychiatry; Stony Brook University School of Medicine; Stony Brook NY USA
                [10 ]Universitair Psychiatrisch Centrum; Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (UPC-KUL), Campus Gasthuisberg; Leuven Belgium
                [11 ]Lisbon Institute of Global Mental Health and Chronic Diseases Research Center (CEDOC), NOVA Medical School | Faculdade de Ciências Médicas; Universidade Nova de Lisboa; Lisbon Portugal
                [12 ]Unit of Epidemiological and Evaluation Psychiatry; Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS)-St John of God Clinical Research Centre; Brescia Italy
                [13 ]National School of Public Health, Management and Professional Development; Bucharest Romania
                [14 ]Department of Psychiatry; University College Hospital; Ibadan Nigeria
                [15 ]Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, CIBERSAM; Universitat de Barcelona; Sant Boi de Llobregat Barcelona Spain
                [16 ]Department of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Medicine; Balamand University; Beirut Lebanon
                [17 ]Department of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology; St George Hospital University Medical Center; Beirut Lebanon
                [18 ]Institute for Development Research Advocacy and Applied Care (IDRAAC); Beirut Lebanon
                [19 ]EHESP Dpt MéTis Epidémiologie et biostatistiques pour la décision en santé publique /Laboratoire Psychopathologie et Processus de Santé (EA 4057); Université Paris Descartes EHESP School for Public Health; Paris France
                [20 ]Department of Health Epidemiology and biostatistics for decision making in public health /EA 4057; Paris Descartes University; Paris France
                [21 ]Department of Psychiatry; Chinese University of Hong Kong; Tai Po Hong Kong
                [22 ]Hôpital Lariboisière-Fernand Widal, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris; Universités Paris Descartes-Paris Diderot; Paris France
                [23 ]National Institute of Psychiatry Ramón de la Fuente; Mexico City México
                [24 ]Survey Research Center; University of Michigan; Ann Arbor MI USA
                [25 ]UDIF-SM, Subdirección General de Planificación, Innovación y Cronicidad, Servicio Murciano de Salud. IMIB-Arrixaca, CIBERESP-Murcia; Murcia Spain
                [26 ]Universidad Cayetano Heredia; Lima Peru
                [27 ]National Institute of Health; Lima Peru
                [28 ]Faculty of Social Sciences; Colegio Mayor de Cundinamarca University; Bogota Colombia
                [29 ]Department of Health Care Policy; Harvard Medical School; Boston MA USA
                [30 ]Department of Psychological Medicine; University of Otago; Dunedin Otago New Zealand
                [31 ]Departamento de Psiquiatría y Salud Mental, Facultad de Medicina; Universidad de Buenos Aires; Argentina
                [32 ]Trimbos-Instituut, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction; Utrecht the Netherlands
                [33 ]Department of Psychiatry; Virginia Commonwealth University; Virginia USA
                [34 ]Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, and Queensland Brain Institute; University of Queensland; St Lucia Queensland Australia
                [35 ]National Centre for Register-based Research; Aarhus BSS, Aarhus University; Aarhus Denmark
                Article
                10.1111/add.14145
                5895500
                29284197
                7c006f3d-9e0a-4ef9-a876-6b5849a72555
                © 2018

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article