M92. THE OVERLAP BETWEEN PSYCHOTIC SYMPTOMS, SUBSTANCE USE, AND ADVERSITY HISTORY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Research has found that adversity and substance use individually influence the onset of psychosis and its clinical outcomes, though there has been little examination of a potential three-way interaction. An estimated 30–75% of individuals with psychosis have experienced at least one adverse event that predates their psychotic symptoms, and substance misuse is estimated to exceed 55% in individuals with psychosis. The current systematic review is the first attempt to review the temporal ordering of adversity, psychosis, and substance misuse, as well as examining the effect of type (e.g., type of adversity, type of substance) on the association between these variables. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search strategy and review of studies against strict inclusion and exclusion criteria was completed. Studies published between 2000 and 2020 were included from PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the grey literature. Inclusion criteria, all of which must be met within a single study, included a diagnosed psychotic disorder, experiencing at least one adverse event, and current or past problematic substance use (i.e., substance misuse). High-risk and prodromal studies were excluded. We used search term combinations such as (schizophrenia OR schizoaffective) AND (adversity or trauma OR abuse) AND (“substance abuse” OR cannabis OR cocaine). Results Our initial search found 7,183 papers examining psychotic disorders, substance misuse, and adversity. Preliminary results for included studies indicate that 13 studies met criteria for inclusion. Across studies, the prevalence of experiencing at least one adverse event ranged from 24.8 to 100%, with significant variation in rates among studies due to variance in definitions of adversity, instruments used, and types of adverse events assessed. It is noteworthy that people with a psychotic disorder and a substance use disorder experienced more adverse events compared to people with a psychotic disorder and no substance use disorder. Moreover, individuals with a psychotic disorder, substance misuse, and a history of adversity are more likely to experience reduced functional outcomes, lower rates of remission of psychotic symptoms, and increased post-traumatic stress symptoms and diagnoses. Across studies, adversity appeared to precede substance misuse, which preceded psychotic disorder onset. Discussion Our results suggest that individuals affected by psychotic disorders, substance misuse, and a history of adversity fare worse than those without a history of adversity, even once enrolled in a treatment program for psychosis. Moreover, adversity appeared to precede both substance misuse and psychotic disorders, however, the role of additional adverse events within this relationship was not well-studied and should be examined in the future. Findings suggest that assessing for substance use and a history of adversity within psychosis treatment programs is a critical first step in the recovery for people affected by these psychiatric comorbidities and specific treatment options addressing these factors would be critical for recovery. Moreover, treatment options should be capable of targeting maintenance mechanisms (e.g., avoidance, hopelessness) shared by all three constructs to provide an integrated treatment approach.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,054 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,019 | 0,019 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».