Introduction and Aims: Cognitive impairments in substance use disorder predict treatment outcome and are assumed to differ between substances. They often go undetected, thus the current study focuses on the prevalence of and differences in cognitive functioning across substances by means of a cognitive screen at the early stage of addiction treatment.Design and Methods: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment was administered to outpatients seeking treatment for substance use disorder. Patient characteristics (age, years of regular use, polysubstance use, severity of dependence/abuse, depression, anxiety and stress) were also taken into account.Results: A total of 656 patients were included (n = 391 used alcohol, n = 123 used cannabis, n = 100 used stimulants and n = 26 used opioids). The prevalence of cognitive impairments was 31%. Patients using alcohol had a lower total‐ and memory domain score than those using cannabis. Patients using opioids scored lower on visuospatial abilities than those using cannabis or stimulants. Younger patients scored higher than older patients. No effect was found for the other investigated characteristics.Discussion and Conclusions: Given the high prevalence of cognitive impairments, standard screening at an early stage of treatment is important to determine the course of treatment and maximise treatment outcome. Caution is needed in interpreting results about opioids due to an underrepresentation of this patient group, and more research is needed on the effect of age on Montreal Cognitive Assessment performance.
1 March 2015 in Research in Developmental Disabilities
Although the attention for substance use (SU) and SU disorders (SUD) among individuals with mild to borderline intellectual disability (MBID) has been growing exponentially, this form of dual diagnosis has largely been ignored by addiction medicine. In this article, we systematically review the research between January 2000 and June 2018 on the prevalence, assessment, and treatment of SU(D) among children, adolescents, and adults with MBID. A total of 138 articles were included. It is concluded that individuals with MBID are likely to be at a higher risk for developing SUD compared to those without MBID. Future research should focus on the detection of MBID among patients being treated in addiction medicine, the development and implementation of systematic assessment methods of SU(D) among individuals with MBID, and the development and evaluation of prevention and treatment interventions. System integration, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the development of tailored treatment for individuals with MBID are advised to improve treatment access and outcome for those who have developed SUD.
18 June 2015 in Journal of Medical Internet Research
(1) Background: Virtual reality (VR) has been investigated in a variety of psychiatric disorders, including addictive disorders (ADs); (2) Objective: This systematic review evaluates the current evidence of immersive VR (using head-mounted displays) in the clinical assessment and treatment of ADs; (3) Method: PubMed and PsycINFO were queried for publications up to November 2020; (4) Results: We screened 4519 titles, 114 abstracts and 85 full-texts, and analyzed 36 articles regarding the clinical assessment (i.e., diagnostic and prognostic value; n = 19) and treatment (i.e., interventions; n = 17) of ADs. Though most VR assessment studies (n = 15/19) showed associations between VR-induced cue-reactivity and clinical parameters, only two studies specified diagnostic value. VR treatment studies based on exposure therapy showed no or negative effects. However, other VR interventions like embodied and aversive learning paradigms demonstrated positive findings. The overall study quality was rather poor; (5) Conclusion: Though VR in ADs provides ecologically valid environments to induce cue-reactivity and provide new treatment paradigms, the added clinical value in assessment and therapy remains to be elucidated before VR can be applied in clinical care. Therefore, future work should investigate VR efficacy in randomized clinical trials using well-defined clinical endpoints.
8 September 2011 in Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities