Psychopathology in dual-diagnosis and nonaddicted schizophrenics: are there differences?

Abstract

Analysis of 447 schizophrenic inpatients found a lifetime prevalence for substance use of 42.9% (3-month prevalence 29%). While the overall differences were small between schizophrenics using (dual diagnosis) and those not using substances, dual-diagnosis patients in general reported more positive symptoms, especially more intense hallucinations. These differences were observed in patients with current (3-month) substance use on admission but not on discharge, possibly as a result of substance use. The most marked differences were in previous suicide attempts and delinquency, which were more prevalent in dual-diagnosis schizophrenics. These findings indicate that patients with dual diagnosis are more disturbed than other schizophrenics. We discuss the implications for the self-medication hypothesis for substance use in schizophrenia and future research in this area are discussed.

Treatment approaches for dual diagnosis clients in England

“…This figure falls into the mid-range of previous findings in the UK where widely varying estimates ranging from two to 68% in MHS and four to 83% in DAS were reported [22-23, 31, 36, 59-60]. Similarly, our findings fit well with recent non-UK studies, which reported prevalence rates ranging from six to 78% in the US [61][62][63], 34 to 51% in Norway [7], 14 to 45% in Canada [6], 29% to 43% in Germany [64] and 27 to 49% in Spain [65] across different treatment settings.…”

“…This figure falls into the mid-range of previous findings in England, where widely varying estimates ranging from 2% to 68% in MHS and 4% to 83% in DAS were reported [22,23,31,36,59,60]. Similarly, our findings fit well with recent non-UK studies, which reported prevalence rates with a range of 6-78% in the United States [61][62][63], 34-51% in Norway [7], 14-45% in Canada [6], 29-43% in Germany [64] and 27-49% in Spain [65] across different treatment settings. The obtained prevalence rates might be underestimates, as our findings suggest that many services may fail to identify DD because no comprehensive assessments are undertaken with new clients.…”

“To see or not to see: that is the question.” The “Protection-Against-Schizophrenia” (PaSZ) model: evidence from congenital blindness and visuo-cognitive aberrations

“…Interestingly, visual deterioration has been associated with the risk for criminal behavior (Bachara and Zaba, 1978; Zinkus and Gottlieb, 1978; Lane, 1980; McKay and Brumback, 1980; Broder et al, 1981; Clack, 1990), one of the strongest indicators of a severe course (Steinert, 1998; Nedopil, 2007; Hutton et al, 2012), outcome (Leygraf, 1988; Haller et al, 2001; Soyka and Morhart-Klute, 2002; Soyka et al, 2002; Fazel et al, 2009; Nitschke et al, 2011; Kooyman et al, 2012), and relapse (Soyka et al, 2004; Witt et al, 2013) in schizophrenia. Specifically, it was argued that in very young children and juveniles, perceptual deficits lead to a higher rate of learning disabilities, specifically reading problems.…”

Evaluation of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test among Patients at a Norwegian Psychiatric Emergency Ward

“…This situation may deprive patients of the opportunity to receive appropriate treatment, with possibly severe consequences for the patients' psychiatric morbidity [5,6,7,8]. This study shows that AUDIT and DUDIT may provide precise information about the drug use of emergency psychiatric patients, and in view of the simplicity of the instruments, routine implementation may be possible.…”

“…In groups of psychiatric inpatients, prevalence rates of SUD as high as 50% are commonly reported [2,3,4]. The presence of SUD among psychiatric patients is associated with more severe symptoms, higher admission rates, and increased risk of violence and suicide [5,6,7,8]. Many studies indicate that treatment of SUD among psychiatric patients is associated with better drug-related, psychiatric and psychosocial outcomes (e.g.…”