Search results

Widely varying rates for the prevalence of psychiatric disorder have been reported in the previous published literature. The aims of this study were to describe the prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a random sample of adults with moderate to profound learning disabilities living in the community, and to explore the socio‐clinical factors associated with psychiatric disorders.A process of active case finding was undertaken to identify adults with learning disabilities. A random sample of 240 was taken of whom 121 were found to have moderate to profound learning disabilities at interview. Information was collected on socio‐demographics, service use, physical health, medication use, and life events. Standardised instruments were used to assess psychiatric symptoms, problem behaviour, and severity of learning disabilities. Diagnoses were generated using four diagnostic systems: clinical, DC‐LD, DCR‐10 and DSM‐IV.Higher rates of psychiatric disorder are reported than in previous published studies in the general population and in studies with people with learning disabilities living in the community. Further investigation of the effect of diagnostic system on prevalence rates, and associations of psychiatric disorder are warranted.

There is a paucity of comparative literature on pathway to care among patients with co-occurring disorders and those with only substance use disorders. This paper aims to compare the pathways to care among patients with co-occurring disorder and those with only substance use disorders.

A cross-sectional observational study was carried out on male treatment seekers at a tertiary care substance use disorder treatment center in India. Participants were recruited in two groups, those with co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders and those with only substance use disorders. The two groups were matched for age and socio-economic status.

A total of 189 subjects with co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders and 197 subjects with substance use disorders only were recruited. Psychiatric services were the most common first point of care. However, a larger proportion of the subjects in the co-occurring disorder group received the first care from faith healers, while a greater proportion received first care from the therapeutic communities in substance use disorder only group. Initial care was sought mostly following suggestion from the family members in both the groups. The time to treatment for substance use disorders did not differ between the two groups, though the treatment seeking for substance use disorder was more delayed than that of psychiatric disorder in the co-occurring disorder group.

The findings shed light on the pathway of care followed in India and is a matter of further research.

Expansion of services and dissemination of information about psychiatric disorders and substance use disorders can provide timely care to patients with substance use disorders and co-occurring disorders.

The findings have a social implication as well. More awareness is needed currently in India for timely treatment of dual disorders.

The paper is an original research by the authors. The data were collected from the participants who reported to the dual diagnosis clinic. The findings are important as they tell us about the current understanding of dual diagnosis by the general public.

The purpose of this paper is to examine gender differences in lifetime substance use and non-substance use (non-SUD) psychiatric disorders among illicit drug users and determine factors associated with non-SUD psychiatric disorders independently for males and for females.

Secondary analysis of five cross-sectional studies conducted in Barcelona, Spain during 2000-2006. Lifetime DSM-IV substance use and non-SUD psychiatric diagnoses were assessed using the Spanish Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental disorders (PRISM) among 629 people who use substances (68 per cent male) recruited from treatment (n=304) and out of treatment (n=325) settings. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using binary logistic regression.

The prevalence of any lifetime psychiatric (non-SUD) disorder was 41.8 per cent, with major depression (17 per cent) and antisocial personality disorder (17 per cent) being the most prevalent disorders. After adjusting for age and study, the odds of having any lifetime non-SUD (OR 2.10; 95%CI 1.48, 2.96); any mood disorder (OR 2.13; 95%CI 1.46, 3.11); any anxiety disorder (OR 1.86; 95%CI 1.19; 2.92); any eating disorder (OR 3.09; 95%CI 1.47, 6.47); or borderline personality disorder (OR 2.30; 95%CI 1.36, 3.84) were greater for females than males. Females were less likely than males to meet criteria for antisocial personality disorder (OR 0.59; 95%CI 0.36, 0.96) and attention deficit disorder (OR 0.37; 95%CI 0.17, 0.78).

Psychiatric disorders are common among people who use substances, with gender differences reported for specific disorders. Gender-sensitive integrated treatment approaches are required to prevent and to address comorbidity psychiatric disorders among this population.

This secondary analysis of five cross-sectional studies included a large sample size allowing sufficient power to examine the differences between men and women. An additional strength of the methodology is the use of the gold standard PRISM which was used to assess disorders.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and review the range and quality of international epidemiological and observational studies reporting impacts of psychiatric disorders on labour force activity. This information is needed to explore the relative priority of different diagnostic groups for more intensive forms of vocational rehabilitation.

The authors provide an overview of the current literature. A systematic review of papers measuring labour force variables and psychiatric disorders across a range of countries is conducted. These results are compared to OECD background unemployment rates during the same period. The results for each diagnostic category included are aggregated and compared to the other diagnostic categories.

The proportions of people employed decreased with the more severe disorder categories, indicating that severe psychiatric illnesses are contributing to employment struggles for people with these illnesses, across countries.

This review is exploratory and shows that there is little consistency in reporting of labour force variables. Future research should endeavour to utilise internationally agreed definitions of labour force activity.

This conclusion is relevant to matching community residents with psychiatric disorders to the more intensive and costly forms of vocational rehabilitation.

To our knowledge, no previous review has examined diagnostic categories of psychiatric disorders by labour force activity internationally while taking into account background unemployment. This review found an employment gradient related to severity of diagnostic category that will be of interest to clinicians and policy makers.

This study investigated disparities in dual diagnosis (comorbid substance use and depressive/anxiety disorders) among US adults by nativity and racial–ethnic origin and socioeconomic, cultural, and psychosocial factors that may account for the observed disparities.

The study drew on data from two waves of the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Racial–ethnic categories included African, Asian/Pacific Islander, European, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and other Hispanic/Latino. Substance use and depressive/anxiety disorders were assessed per DSM-IV. A four-category measure of comorbidity was constructed: no substance use or psychiatric disorder; substance use disorder only; depressive/anxiety disorder only; and dual diagnosis. The data were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression.

The prevalence of dual diagnosis was low but varied by nativity, with the highest rates among Europeans and Puerto Ricans born in US states, and the lowest among Mexicans and Asians/Pacific Islanders. The nativity and racial–ethnic effects on likelihood of having dual diagnosis remained significant after all adjustments.

The limitations included measures of immigrant status, race–ethnicity, and stress and potential misdiagnosis of mental disorder among ethnic minorities.

This new knowledge will help to guide public health and health care interventions addressing immigrant mental and behavioral health gaps.

This study addressed the research gap in regard to the prevalence and correlates of dual diagnosis among immigrants and racial–ethnic minorities. The study used the most current and comprehensive data addressing psychiatric conditions among US adults and examined factors rarely captured in epidemiologic surveys (e.g., acculturation).

Purpose – This chapter explores the changing definition of bipolar disorder, examining how debates within psychiatry actually construct the definition of mental illness, thereby creating the appearance of an emerging epidemic with increasing prevalence.

Method – I review the recent psychiatric and epidemiological research to reveal that the intellectual and scientific debates that occur in the psychological laboratory and in survey research are in fact falsely increasing the figures that show that an epidemic of bipolar is emerging.

Findings – For centuries, bipolar disorder was equated with severe psychosis and had a prevalence rate between 0.4% and 1.6%. As spectrum and subthreshold conceptions of bipolar disorder become established in official psychiatric diagnostic manuals, however, estimates of the prevalence of bipolar spectrum disorders have risen to almost 25%. I demonstrate that nearly all of this increase is a result of changes in the scientific and intellectual definition of bipolar disorders among psychiatric professionals, and that rates of symptoms are not in fact increasing.

Contribution to field – The arbitrariness of diagnostic thresholds naturally leads researchers to argue for lower thresholds. This allows more individuals who were previously considered psychiatrically normal to be reclassified as psychiatrically disordered. Lowering diagnostic thresholds increases the risk of confusing normal elation or sadness with disordered states, increasing the potential of false-positive diagnoses and the false impression of rising rates of disorder.

Adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) present with a range of psychiatric disorders. However, making an accurate diagnosis is challenging. It is important to follow a robust and informed process in the assessment of psychopathology that is centred on the individual and their neurodevelopmental difficulties. The purpose of this paper is to provide clinicians with an evidence-based approach to the assessment process for adults with ASD presenting with a possible co-occurrent psychiatric disorder.

A review of the recent literature was undertaken focusing on key papers that describe the assessment of mental health problems in adults with ASD.

The presentation of psychiatric symptoms is influenced by the underlying developmental disorder and it is often quite different from the one of the general population. Thus, it is essential to undertake a comprehensive psychopathological assessment including a diagnostic assessment of ASD. There is a very small evidence base on the use of diagnostic tools in the assessment of adults with ASD.

This is a practice review paper applying recent evidence from the literature.

Treatment satisfaction of different mental disorders is still poorly understood, but of high clinical interest. Inpatients of a general psychiatric care hospital were asked to fill out questionnaires on satisfaction and clinical variables at admission and discharge. On the basis of an exploratory approach, differences in treatment satisfaction among diagnostic groups were examined by means of one-way analysis of variance. Potential associated clinical and socio-demographic variables were studied using multi/univariate tests. Patients with personality disorders (n=18) showed a significantly lower treatment satisfaction (ZUF-8, Zurich Satisfaction Questionnaire) and a slightly lower improvement of symptoms (CGI, Clinical Global Impression) and global functioning (GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning scale) than that of other diagnostic groups (n=95). Satisfaction in patients with personality disorders correlated much stronger with the symptom improvement and slightly with the functioning level than in patients without personality disorders. Interestingly, in patients with personality disorders psychopharmacological treatment in general (present versus not present) was independent from satisfaction. This exploratory investigation suggests that a lower satisfaction of patients with personality disorders in a general psychiatric hospital is mainly based on a reduced improvement of the symptoms and of the global functioning level.

The purpose of this paper is to determine: the extent to which an intellectual disability diagnosis meets current diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM) diagnostic criteria; the prevalence of reported autism spectrum disorders (ASD); and the extent to which assessment of developmental issues is central to the diagnosis of psychotic disorder, in patients discharged with a diagnosis of psychotic disorder and intellectual disabilities.

Of all patients discharged with psychotic disorder during a four‐year period (n=3339), chart reviews were completed on those also diagnosed with intellectual disability or borderline IQ.

The findings if this paper are threefold: only 39 percent of the 41 individuals discharged with a diagnosis of psychotic disorder and intellectual disability met documented DSM criteria for intellectual disability; the prevalence of reported ASD was much lower than expected; and the average number of different discharge diagnoses per individual over time was 4.8. Schizophrenia diagnoses were made early in the diagnostic process and tended to persist even when ASD concerns were documented.

The results support the need to systematically assess the developmental issues of patients with intellectual disability as part of the psychiatric diagnostic formulation. Differential diagnoses of psychotic‐like behaviours seen in people with intellectual disability, and alternative frameworks for understanding these behaviours, which in turn should guide more effective interventions and treatment, are discussed.

Studies on psychiatric comorbidity in individuals with borderline intellectual functioning (BIF) are scarce, particularly with respect to certain diseases frequently observed in clinical practice. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the relevance of epidemiological research to psychiatric comorbidity in people with BIF.

Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Inclusion criteria: publications about BIF appearing between 1995 and 2017; epidemiological findings about comorbid mental disorders in individuals with BIF; and studies comparing BIF, mild intellectual disability (ID) and normal intellectual functioning. The discussion covers 24 of the 224 studies initially considered.

The most frequent psychiatric comorbidity reported was personality, post-traumatic as well as psychotic disorders, followed by psychosis, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, bipolar and sleep disorders. Individuals with BIF exhibit psychiatric comorbidity more frequently than individuals with normal intellectual functioning. Some psychiatric comorbidities were similarly prevalent in patients with BIF and those with mild or moderate ID; however, the prevalence was always higher in people with severe ID. Environmental factors, especially psychosocial adversity, seem to play an important mediating role. Pharmacotherapy is the most common treatment approach, including behavioural disorders.

This review of literature on mental disorders in people with BIF demonstrates the epidemiological relevance of psychiatric comorbidity, especially personality and post-traumatic disorders. Mental health professionals, general practitioners and other workers in outpatient settings have to be aware about the vulnerability and even fragility of people with BIF.