MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2978734623 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0222806

Reconsidering the associations between self-reported alcohol use disorder and mental health problems in the light of co-occurring addictions in young Swiss men

2019· article· en· W2978734623 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Marmet, Joseph Studer, Mélissa Lemoine, Véronique S. Grazioli, Nicolas Bertholet, Gerhard Gmel

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAlcohol use disorderPsychiatryMental healthAnxietyAddictionOdds ratioCannabisBipolar disorderDepression (economics)MedicinePsychologyClinical psychologySocial anxietyBehavioral addictionMoodAlcoholInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is known to co-occur with other addictions, as well as with mental health problems. However, the effects of other addictions co-occurring with AUD on mental health problems were rarely studied and not considering them may bias estimates of the association between AUD and mental health problems. This study investigated which role co-occurring addictions play for the cross-sectional associations between self-reported AUD and mental health problems. METHOD: Participants were 5516 young Swiss men (73.0% of those that gave written informed consent) who completed a self-report questionnaire. Using short screening questionnaires, we assessed three substance use disorders (alcohol, cannabis and tobacco), seven behavioural addictions (internet, gaming, smartphone, internet sex, gambling, work, exercise) and four mental health problems (major depression, bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and social anxiety disorder). Differences in the proportions of mental health problems were tested using logistic regressions between (1) participants with no AUD and AUD, (2) participants with no AUD and AUD alone and (3) participants with no AUD and AUD plus at least one co-occurring addiction. RESULTS: Overall, (1) participants with AUD had higher proportions of major depression (Odds ratio (OR [95% confidence interval]) = 3.51 [2.73, 4.52]; ADHD (OR = 3.12 [2.41, 4.03]); bipolar disorder (OR = 4.94 [3.38, 7.21]) and social anxiety (OR = 2.21 [1.79, 2.73])) compared to participants with no AUD. Considering only participants with AUD alone compared to participants with no AUD (2), differences in proportions were no longer significant for major depression (OR = 0.83 [0.42, 1.64]), bipolar disorder (OR = 1.69 [0.67, 4.22]), social anxiety (OR = 1.15 [0.77, 1.73]) and ADHD (OR = 1.65 [1.00, 2.72]) compared to participants with no AUD. In contrast, (3) proportions of mental health problems were considerably higher for participants with AUD plus at least one other addiction when compared to participants with no AUD, with OR's ranging from 2.90 [2.27, 3.70] for social anxiety, 4.03 [3.02, 5.38] for ADHD, 5.29 [4.02, 6.97] for major depression to 6.64 [4.44, 9.94] for bipolar disorder. CONCLUSIONS: AUD was associated with all four measured mental health problems. However, these associations were mainly due to the high proportions of these mental health problems in participants with AUD plus at least one co-occurring addiction and only to a lesser degree due to participants with AUD alone (i.e. without any other co-occurring addictions). Hence, estimates of the association between AUD and mental health problems that do not consider other addictions may be biased (i.e. overestimated). These findings imply that considering addictions co-occurring with AUD, including behavioural addictions, is important when investigating associations between AUD and mental health problems, and for the treatment of AUD and co-morbid disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→