Cargando…

New Access Routes to Undertreated Populations; How Do Problem Substance Users Recruited from an Unemployment Office Differ from Detoxification Treatment Inpatients?

Background: Only a minority of subjects with substance use disorders (SUDs) are in addiction-specific treatment (treatment gap). Co-operation between an unemployment office and a psychiatric hospital was established for the assessment and counseling of long-term unemployed clients with SUD. We aim a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scherbaum, Norbert, Mikoteit, Thomas, Witkowski, Lilia, Bonnet, Udo, Specka, Michael, Schifano, Fabrizio, Lieb, Bodo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8702029/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34948622
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413014
_version_ 1784621147087699968
author Scherbaum, Norbert
Mikoteit, Thomas
Witkowski, Lilia
Bonnet, Udo
Specka, Michael
Schifano, Fabrizio
Lieb, Bodo
author_facet Scherbaum, Norbert
Mikoteit, Thomas
Witkowski, Lilia
Bonnet, Udo
Specka, Michael
Schifano, Fabrizio
Lieb, Bodo
author_sort Scherbaum, Norbert
collection PubMed
description Background: Only a minority of subjects with substance use disorders (SUDs) are in addiction-specific treatment (treatment gap). Co-operation between an unemployment office and a psychiatric hospital was established for the assessment and counseling of long-term unemployed clients with SUD. We aim at validating whether such a treatment gap exists in that group, and whether clients from an unemployment office differed from a matched group of inpatient detoxification patients with regard to socio-economic characteristics, substance use and treatment history, and the prevalence of mental disorders Methods: Unemployment office clients (n = 166) with an SUD were assessed using a standardized sociodemographic and clinical interview. They were compared with 83 inpatients from a local detoxification ward, matched for age, sex, and primary addictive disorder (matching ratio 2:1). Results: Most (75.9%) subjects were males, with an average age of 36.7 years. The SUDs mostly related to alcohol (63.9%) and cannabis (27.7%). Although most unemployment office clients had a long SUD history, only half of them had ever been in addiction-specific treatment during their lifetime, and only one in four during the last year. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding age at onset of problematic substance use, the proportion of migrants, and prevalence of comorbid mental disorders. The unemployment office sample showed lower levels of education (p < 0.001), job experience (p = 0.009), and current employment rates (p < 0.001). Conversely, inpatients showed lower rates of imprisonment (p < 0.001), more inpatient detoxification episodes (p < 0.03); and longer abstinence periods (p < 0.005). Conclusions: There was a lifetime and recent treatment gap in the group of long-term unemployed subjects with alcohol and cannabis dependence. The markedly lower educational attainment, chronic employment problems and higher degree of legal conflicts in the client group, as compared with patients in detoxification treatment, might require specific access and treatment options. The co-operation between the psychiatric unit and the unemployment office facilitated access to that group.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8702029
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87020292021-12-24 New Access Routes to Undertreated Populations; How Do Problem Substance Users Recruited from an Unemployment Office Differ from Detoxification Treatment Inpatients? Scherbaum, Norbert Mikoteit, Thomas Witkowski, Lilia Bonnet, Udo Specka, Michael Schifano, Fabrizio Lieb, Bodo Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Background: Only a minority of subjects with substance use disorders (SUDs) are in addiction-specific treatment (treatment gap). Co-operation between an unemployment office and a psychiatric hospital was established for the assessment and counseling of long-term unemployed clients with SUD. We aim at validating whether such a treatment gap exists in that group, and whether clients from an unemployment office differed from a matched group of inpatient detoxification patients with regard to socio-economic characteristics, substance use and treatment history, and the prevalence of mental disorders Methods: Unemployment office clients (n = 166) with an SUD were assessed using a standardized sociodemographic and clinical interview. They were compared with 83 inpatients from a local detoxification ward, matched for age, sex, and primary addictive disorder (matching ratio 2:1). Results: Most (75.9%) subjects were males, with an average age of 36.7 years. The SUDs mostly related to alcohol (63.9%) and cannabis (27.7%). Although most unemployment office clients had a long SUD history, only half of them had ever been in addiction-specific treatment during their lifetime, and only one in four during the last year. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding age at onset of problematic substance use, the proportion of migrants, and prevalence of comorbid mental disorders. The unemployment office sample showed lower levels of education (p < 0.001), job experience (p = 0.009), and current employment rates (p < 0.001). Conversely, inpatients showed lower rates of imprisonment (p < 0.001), more inpatient detoxification episodes (p < 0.03); and longer abstinence periods (p < 0.005). Conclusions: There was a lifetime and recent treatment gap in the group of long-term unemployed subjects with alcohol and cannabis dependence. The markedly lower educational attainment, chronic employment problems and higher degree of legal conflicts in the client group, as compared with patients in detoxification treatment, might require specific access and treatment options. The co-operation between the psychiatric unit and the unemployment office facilitated access to that group. MDPI 2021-12-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8702029/ /pubmed/34948622 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413014 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Scherbaum, Norbert
Mikoteit, Thomas
Witkowski, Lilia
Bonnet, Udo
Specka, Michael
Schifano, Fabrizio
Lieb, Bodo
New Access Routes to Undertreated Populations; How Do Problem Substance Users Recruited from an Unemployment Office Differ from Detoxification Treatment Inpatients?
title New Access Routes to Undertreated Populations; How Do Problem Substance Users Recruited from an Unemployment Office Differ from Detoxification Treatment Inpatients?
title_full New Access Routes to Undertreated Populations; How Do Problem Substance Users Recruited from an Unemployment Office Differ from Detoxification Treatment Inpatients?
title_fullStr New Access Routes to Undertreated Populations; How Do Problem Substance Users Recruited from an Unemployment Office Differ from Detoxification Treatment Inpatients?
title_full_unstemmed New Access Routes to Undertreated Populations; How Do Problem Substance Users Recruited from an Unemployment Office Differ from Detoxification Treatment Inpatients?
title_short New Access Routes to Undertreated Populations; How Do Problem Substance Users Recruited from an Unemployment Office Differ from Detoxification Treatment Inpatients?
title_sort new access routes to undertreated populations; how do problem substance users recruited from an unemployment office differ from detoxification treatment inpatients?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8702029/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34948622
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413014
work_keys_str_mv AT scherbaumnorbert newaccessroutestoundertreatedpopulationshowdoproblemsubstanceusersrecruitedfromanunemploymentofficedifferfromdetoxificationtreatmentinpatients
AT mikoteitthomas newaccessroutestoundertreatedpopulationshowdoproblemsubstanceusersrecruitedfromanunemploymentofficedifferfromdetoxificationtreatmentinpatients
AT witkowskililia newaccessroutestoundertreatedpopulationshowdoproblemsubstanceusersrecruitedfromanunemploymentofficedifferfromdetoxificationtreatmentinpatients
AT bonnetudo newaccessroutestoundertreatedpopulationshowdoproblemsubstanceusersrecruitedfromanunemploymentofficedifferfromdetoxificationtreatmentinpatients
AT speckamichael newaccessroutestoundertreatedpopulationshowdoproblemsubstanceusersrecruitedfromanunemploymentofficedifferfromdetoxificationtreatmentinpatients
AT schifanofabrizio newaccessroutestoundertreatedpopulationshowdoproblemsubstanceusersrecruitedfromanunemploymentofficedifferfromdetoxificationtreatmentinpatients
AT liebbodo newaccessroutestoundertreatedpopulationshowdoproblemsubstanceusersrecruitedfromanunemploymentofficedifferfromdetoxificationtreatmentinpatients