Quality of life and its associated factors among patients with substance use disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This study aimed to describe the quality of life (QoL) in patients with substance use disorder (SUD) and investigate factors associated with general QoL among patients with SUD.Methods Studies in English published before December 1st, 2021, were searched for on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science to identify primary studies on the factors associated with general QoL in patients with SUD. After reviewing for study duplicates, the full-texts of selected papers were assessed for eligibility using PECO criteria.Results After a detailed assessment of over 10,230 papers, a total of 20 studies met the eligibility criteria. The current research analyzed various relationships between sociodemographic features, clinical, the type of used drug, service use utilizations, and general QoL in patients with SUD. The odds of having a good general QoL were reduced among patients with common and severe mental disorders, alcohol use disorders (AUD), and receiving inpatient care; however, a better general QoL was observed among those receiving methadone maintenance treatment (MMT).Conclusions Healthcare staff are recommended to pay high attention to the general QoL of patients with SUD seeking interventions. In addition, it is suggested that policymakers address substance use disorders when designing national guidelines and programs.Abbreviations QoL: Quality of life; SUD: Substance Use Disorder; AUD: Alcohol use disorders; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; PECO: Participants, Exposures, Comparison, Outcomes; ORs: Odds Ratios; NOS: Newcastle Ottawa scale; CI: Confidence intervals; MMT:Methadone maintenance treatment; DSM-IV: Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders-fourth edition.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".