Association Between Concurrent Depression and Anxiety and Six-Month Outcome of Addiction Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This six-month prospective study of 326 patients with substance use disorders assessed rates of depression and anxiety symptoms among patients entering addiction treatment and examined the effects of concurrent psychiatric symptoms on indicators of addiction treatment outcome. METHODS: Initial assessments included semistructured clinical interviews, the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the Symptom Checklist 90-Revised (SCL90-R). Patients were reassessed at six months to determine treatment outcome (abstinence status and duration of continuous abstinence). RESULTS: A majority of the sample (63 percent) had significant psychiatric symptoms at intake: 15 percent (N=49) presented with depressive symptoms, 16 percent (N=53) with anxiety symptoms, and 32 percent (N=105) with combined depressive and anxiety symptoms. Forty percent of patients who presented with combined depression and anxiety symptoms were abstinent at six months. These patients fared worse than those who were less symptomatic at intake, including those who presented with depression symptoms alone; in the latter group, 73 percent were abstinent at six months. The hierarchical regression models accounted for 22 percent of the variance in the duration of continuous abstinence, 26 percent of the variance in the frequency of drug use at six months, and 39 percent of the variance in abstinence status at six months. Key predictor variables included days in treatment, primary drug of abuse, frequency of drug use, and report of concurrent depression or anxiety symptoms at intake. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent depression or anxiety symptoms at intake had a small but significant predictive effect on addiction treatment outcome over and above factors that are clearly known to influence outcome (length of stay in treatment and initial addiction severity).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".