MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027434131 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbaa030.404

M92. THE OVERLAP BETWEEN PSYCHOTIC SYMPTOMS, SUBSTANCE USE, AND ADVERSITY HISTORY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2020· review· en· W3027434131 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria C. Patterson, Alissa Pencer, Philip G. Tibbo

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOPsychiatryPsychologyPsychosisCINAHLCannabisSchizoaffective disorderSubstance abuseClinical psychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)ProdromeMEDLINEPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0190.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207