MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4289745178 · doi:10.1186/s13690-022-00940-0

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Quality of life and its correlated factors among patients with substance use disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4289745178 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Bahram Armoon, Marie‐Josée Fleury, Amir-Hossien Bayat, Azadeh Bayani, Rasool Mohammadi, Mark D. Griffiths

Dossier post-publication

OpenAlex signale ce travail comme rétracté, mais aucune notice correspondante de Retraction Watch ne figure dans cette base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueArchives of Public Health · 2022
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Établissements canadiensMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteDouglas College
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineOdds ratioMeta-analysisQuality of life (healthcare)Confidence intervalMEDLINEPsychiatryClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with substance use disorder (SUD) usually report lower quality of life (QoL) than other patients and as much as patients with other mental disorders. The present study investigated variables associated with QoL domains among patients with SUD. METHODS: 2021, were searched for on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science to identify primary studies on factors associated with QoL domains among patients with SUD. After reviewing for study duplicates, the full-texts of selected papers were assessed for eligibility using PECO (Participants, Exposures, Comparison and Outcome) criteria: (a) participants: patients with SUD; (b) exposures: sociodemographic factors, clinical, and service use variables; (c) comparison: patient groups without SUD; and (d) outcomes: four domains of QoL (physical, mental, social, and environmental domains). Three researchers recorded the data independently using predefined Excel spreadsheets. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for assessing risk of bias and rated each study in terms of exposure, outcome, and comparability. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and β coefficient were utilized at a 95% confidence level, and because sampling methods differed between studies' pooled estimates, a random effects model was utilized. RESULTS: After the assessment of over 10,230 papers, a total of 17 studies met the eligibility criteria. Five studies (1260 participants) found that patients with SUD who were older were less likely to have a good physical Qol (OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.78, 0.95). Two studies (1171 participants) indicated that patients with SUD who were homeless were less likely to have a good environmental Qol (β = -0.47, p = 0.003). However, a better mental QoL was observed in four studies (1126 participants) among those receiving support from their family or friends (social networks) (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.04, 1.07). Two studies (588 participants) showed that those using cocaine were less likely to have a good mental QoL (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.75, 0.93). Two studies (22,534 participants) showed that those using alcohol were less likely to have a good physical QoL (β = -2.21, p = 0.001). Two studies (956 participants) showed that those having severe substance use disorders were less likely to have a good mental (β = -5.44, p = 0.002) and environmental (β = -0.59, p = 0.006) QoL respectively. Four studies (3515 participants) showed that those having mental disorders were less likely to have a good physical QoL (β = -1.05, p = 0.001), and another three studies (1211 participants) that those having mental disorders were less likely to have a good mental QoL (β = -0.33, p = 0.001). Finally, two studies (609 and 682 participants) showed that individuals who experienced trauma symptoms or mental disorders were less likely to have good social and environmental QoL, respectively (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.61, 1.00) and (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.9, 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest the need for mental health services to improve the QOL among patients with SUD but further study is needed. Cocaine may cause behavioral changes which can increase the possibility of reckless and suicidal behaviors. Therefore, identifying cocaine user access, adherence, and satisfaction with treatment is recommended as an important component of adaptive functioning. Interventions that help patients with SUD get support from people within their social networks who support their recovery are also essential to their QoL.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,026
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,097
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesIntégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,993
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,139

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0260,097
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0090,008
Bibliométrie0,0070,008
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0050,004
Science ouverte0,0040,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0230,002

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,217
Tête enseignante GPT0,372
Écart entre enseignants0,155 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeMéta-analyse
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations54
Publié2022
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueArchives of Public HealthMême sujetSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesTravaux en français237 207