MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293072679 · doi:10.1159/000526079

Substance Use, Substance Use Disorders, and Co-Occurring Psychiatric Disorders in Recently Incarcerated Men: A Comparison with the General Population

2022· article· en· W4293072679 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Fovet, Marielle Wathelet, Massil Benbouriche, Imane Benradia, Jean‐Luc Roelandt, Pierre Thomas, Fabien D’Hondt, Benjamin Rolland

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Addiction Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsInstitut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychiatryPopulationMedicineCannabisAlcohol use disorderLogistic regressionAlcoholInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The rates of alcohol and illegal drug use and the prevalence of alcohol and illegal drug use disorders (AUDs and DUDs) are high in prison populations, particularly in men entering jail. However, these rates have never been exhaustively assessed and compared to those of the general population in France. METHODS: We based our research on two surveys, conducted in the same French region, which included a total of 630 men entering jail and 5,793 men recruited from the general population. We used the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview to assess alcohol and drug use, AUD, DUD, as well as co-occurring psychiatric disorders, and we examined differences in prevalence rates between the two populations. Logistic regression models were performed to (i) identify the factors associated with AUD and DUD and (ii) test whether the interaction between admission to jail and the presence of AUD, DUD, or both is linked to the presence of at least one co-occurring psychiatric disorder. RESULTS: Compared to the general population sample, the prevalence of AUD (33.8% vs. 8.7%, p < 0.001) and DUD (at least one type of drug: 28.7% vs. 5.0%, p < 0.001; cannabis: 24.0% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001; opioids: 6.8% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001; stimulants: 5.2% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001) was significantly higher in the jail population sample, as well as the rates of past-year use of various substances (alcohol: 62.1% vs. 56.4%, p = 0.007; at least one type of illegal drug: 50.0% vs. 14.4%, p < 0.001; cannabis: 45.6% vs. 13.9%, opioids: 9.4% vs. 0.7%; stimulants: 8.6% vs. 1.9%). Admission to jail was associated with a higher risk of AUD (aOR = 3.80, 95% CI: 2.89-5.01, p < 0.001) or DUD (aOR = 4.25, 95% CI: 3.10-5.84, p < 0.001). History of trauma was also associated with both AUD (aOR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.53-2.14, p < 0.001) and DUD (aOR = 2.15, 95% CI: 1.74-2.65, p < 0.001), whereas history of migration was only associated with DUD (aOR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.12-1.71, p = 0.003). AUDs and DUDs were more strongly associated with co-occurring psychiatric disorders in incarcerated men than in the general population. Among individuals with AUD, DUD, or both, co-occurring anxiety and mood disorders were particularly more frequent in jail than in the general population. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: As in most countries, AUD and DUD are highly prevalent among men entering jail in France. Our results also suggest that incarceration constitutes an independent vulnerability factor for a dual disorder, which supports a systematic assessment and treatment of psychiatric disorders in men entering jail and diagnosed with an AUD or DUD.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Addiction ResearchSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207