RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although our understanding about neurobiology of opioid dependence and availability of pharmacological treatment has gone a long way in the last few decades, psychosocial interventions play a pivotal role in the prevention of relapse owing to reasons such as less treatment-seeking behavior and poor penetrance of opioid substitution treatment. There are many studies assessing psychosocial factors in alcohol and nicotine dependence, yet the availability of such studies for opioid dependence is sparse. This study aimed at evaluating the association of relapse in opioid dependence with various psychosocial factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study with two groups of opioid dependence patients: In abstinence (N = 28) and relapse (N = 33). Psychosocial variables such as high-risk situations, coping behavior, stressful life events, self-efficacy, and social support were assessed in the two groups and analyzed for the association with opioid relapse. RESULTS: This study reports that more high risk situations (odds ratio [OR] =1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.22-2.03; P = 0.017), especially negative mood state and undesirable stressful life events (OR = 2.08; 95% CI = 1.28-3.37; P = 0.05) were significantly associated with higher odds of relapse in patients of opioid dependence. Further, higher self-efficacy (OR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.87-0.96; P = 0.017) was significantly associated with lower odds of relapse. CONCLUSION: Psychosocial factors such as high risk situations, undesirable stressful life events, and self-efficacy were significantly associated with relapse in opioid dependence. Hence, practice of a holistic, multimodal, and individualized treatment plan addressing these factors might help in reducing the relapse rates in them.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The use of restrictive interventions is one of the most controversial practices in medicine. They are utilized in an inpatient setting to manage agitated or aggressive behaviour or to ensure that an individual receives the necessary treatments. However, restrictive interventions remove autonomy and adverse events can be associated with their practice. Youth-specific inpatient units (IPUs) are now being established and it is imperative that the use of restrictive interventions is reduced. In order to inform and facilitate prevention and reduction strategies, this study aimed to determine the prevalence and determinants of restrictive interventions (restraint, seclusion and medication without consent) in a youth specialist mental health IPU. METHODS: This study was set at a 16-bed youth specialist acute IPU of Orygen Youth Health, a specialist youth mental health service that provides inpatient care for those aged 18 to 25 years within a catchment area of west and north-western regions of Melbourne, Australia. A retrospective file audit was conducted of all the admissions to the unit from 01 January 2015 to 30 June 2015. RESULTS: Over the 6-month study period, 159 young people were admitted and this accounted for 188 admissions. Over half (54.3%) of admissions were involuntary and restrictive intervention were used in 17.6% of admissions. Specifically, 15.7% (N = 25) of young people experienced restraint, 10.1% (N = 16) were secluded, and 8.1% (N = 12) experienced medication without consent. Absent insight and involuntary status on admission were associated with restrictive interventions. CONCLUSION: As youth mental health services develop, interventions aimed at reducing restrictive interventions are needed.
