Take it personal! Development and modelling study of an indicated prevention programme for substance use in adolescents and young adults with mild intellectual disabilities and borderline intellectual functioning.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the theory and development of Take it personal! an indicated prevention programme aimed at reducing substance use in individuals with mild intellectual disabilities and borderline intellectual functioning. METHOD: The process of the development of Take it personal! followed the steps of the Intervention Mapping protocol. Take it personal! is based on the theory that personality traits are an important construct to understand substance use (14-30 years old). A small modelling study was conducted with six adolescents to examine the feasibility, user-friendliness and potential effectiveness of the intervention. RESULTS: The results showed that the intervention has good feasibility and user-friendliness. Post-intervention evaluation of frequency, binge drinking and problematic use indicated that use was lower than at pre-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Take it Personal! can be a promising preventive intervention designed to reduce substance use in individuals in this target group. A larger scale study is needed to draw further conclusions.

Application of sweat patch screening for 16 drugs and metabolites using a fast and highly selective LC-MS/MS method.

BACKGROUND: To facilitate the monitoring of drug abuse by patients, a method was developed and validated for fast and highly selective screening for amphetamine, methamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, methylenedioxyamphetamine, methylenedioxyethylamphetamine, methylphenidate, cocaine, benzoylecgonine, morphine, codeine, heroin, 6-monoacteylmorphine, methadone, 2-ethylidene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine, nicotine, and cotinine in PharmCheck sweat patches. The analysis of sweat patches would provide a noninvasive alternative matrix to urine or blood samples. METHODS: The sweat patches were extracted during vigorous shaking for 10 minutes with 1.5 mL of 20 mmol/L ammonium formate, pH 7, and methanol (50%:50% vol/vol). The extracts were cleaned up by filtering through Whatman mini-Uniprep syringeless filter vials before injection. The method uses a single injection to detect and confirm all 16 drugs and metabolites within 9.6 minutes. RESULTS: The validated substances have a linear range of 3.0-300 nanograms per patch, except for nicotine which has a linear range of 30-3750 nanograms per patch. Stabilities of all substances in worn sweat patches were validated at room temperature for 7 days and as a processed sample in the autosampler at 10°C for 5 days. Only heroin was unstable, with high individual variability and reported bias and coefficient of variation of, respectively, -30.6% and 22.1% in worn sweat patches at room temperature. The monitoring of ion ratios was added to the validation criteria. This resulted in analytical cutoff concentrations of 3.0 and 60 nanograms per patch for nicotine with validated qualifier/quantifier ratios. All analytical cutoff concentrations were lower than the cutoff concentrations proposed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. CONCLUSIONS: The method uses validated cutoff concentrations, qualifier/quantifier ratios, and a simple extraction without extensive sample treatment for the analysis of 16 drugs and metabolites with a runtime of 9.6 minutes. This method was successfully applied for the analysis of 96 worn sweat patches to monitor patients for drug abuse. The results provided the physician or health-care professional with information about drug abuse and could be used to improve patient care with patient-specific therapy.

Fast and highly selective LC-MS/MS screening for THC and 16 other abused drugs and metabolites in human hair to monitor patients for drug abuse.

BACKGROUND: To facilitate the monitoring of drug abuse by patients, a method was developed and validated for the analysis of amphetamine, methamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, methylenedioxyamphetamine, methylenedioxyethylamphetamine, methylphenidate, cocaine, benzoylecgonine, morphine, codeine, heroin, 6-monoacteylmorphine, methadone, 2-ethylidene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine (EDDP), delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), nicotine, and cotinine in human hair. METHODS: The hair preparation method contains a 3-step wash procedure with dichloromethane followed by a simultaneous hair pulverization and extraction procedure with disposable metal balls. The developed liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method uses a single injection to detect and confirm all 17 abused drugs, including THC, within 4.8 minutes. RESULTS: Nicotine was validated with a linear range of 800-25,000 pg/mg hair, and all other substances were validated with a linear range of 30.0-2500 pg/mg hair. For inaccuracy and imprecision, the overall bias did not exceed -8.2% and the overall coefficient of variation did not exceed 17.7%. Autosampler stability was proven for 48 hours at 10°C for all substances. Analytical cutoff concentrations were defined for each substance at the lowest validated inaccuracy and imprecision concentration with a bias and coefficient of variation within 15% and qualifier/quantifier ratios within 20% of the set ratio. The analytical cutoff concentrations were 200 pg/mg for codeine and 80.0 pg/mg for 6-MAM, heroin, EDDP, and THC. The analytical cutoff concentration for nicotine was 800 pg/mg and for all other validated substances 30.0 pg/mg. This method was successfully applied to analyze hair samples from patients who were monitored for drug abuse. Hair samples of 47 subjects (segmented into 129 samples) showed 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, methylphenidate, cocaine, benzoylecgonine, codeine, methadone, EDDP, THC, nicotine, and cotinine above the analytical cutoff. CONCLUSIONS: The method was fully validated, including the validation of the qualifier/quantifier ratios. The analysis of real hair samples proved the efficacy of the developed method for monitoring drug abuse. The results obtained by this method provide the physician or health-care professional with extensive information about actual drug abuse or relapse and can be used for patient-specific therapy.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Take it Personal!+ in People With Mild Intellectual Disability or Borderline Intellectual Functioning and Substance Use Disorder: A Multiple Baseline Single-Case Experimental Study.

Individuals with mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning are at increased risk to develop a substance use disorder-however, effective treatment programs adapted to this target group are scarce. This study evaluated the effectiveness of Take it Personal!+ in individuals with mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning and substance use disorder. Take it Personal!+ is a personalized treatment based on motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy supported by an mHealth application. Data were collected in a nonconcurrent multiple baseline single-case experimental design across individuals with four phases (i.e., baseline, treatment, posttreatment, and follow-up). Twelve participants were randomly allocated to baseline lengths varying between 7 and 11 days. Substance use quantity was assessed during baseline, treatment, and posttreatment with a daily survey using a mobile application. Visual analysis was supported with statistical analysis of the daily surveys by calculating three effect size measures in 10 participants (two participants were excluded from this analysis due to a compliance rate below 50%). Secondary, substance use severity was assessed with standardized questionnaires at baseline, posttreatment, and follow-up and analyzed by calculating the Reliable Change Index. Based on visual analysis of the daily surveys, 10 out of 12 participants showed a decrease in mean substance use quantity from baseline to treatment and, if posttreatment data were available, to posttreatment. Statistical analysis showed an effect of Take it Personal!+ in terms of a decrease in daily substance use in 8 of 10 participants from baseline to treatment and if posttreatment data were available, also to posttreatment. In addition, data of the standardized questionnaires showed a decrease in substance use severity in 8 of 12 participants. These results support the effectiveness of Take it Personal!+ in decreasing substance use in individuals with mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning.

Determinants of seclusion after aggression in psychiatric inpatients.

Some aggressive incidents in psychiatric wards result in seclusion, whereas others do not. We used the Staff Observation Aggression Scale-Revised and the mental health trust's database to identify determinants that predicted seclusion after aggression. These consisted of demographic, diagnostic, contextual, and aggression characteristics and were analyzed in a multilevel logistic regression. This showed associations between seclusion and aggression for the following: younger age, involuntary status, history of previous aggression, physical or dangerous violence, aggression being directed against objects, and a more severe incident. Thus, seclusion after aggression appears to be mainly predicted by aggression itself.

"Disruptive Behavior" or "Expected Benefit" Are Rationales of Seclusion Without Prior Aggression.

Objective: In the Netherlands, seclusion of patients with a psychiatric disorder is a last-resort measure to be used only in the event of (imminent) severe danger or harm. Although aggressive behavior is often involved, seclusions not preceded by aggression also seem to occur. We sought insight into the non-aggressive reasons underlying seclusion and investigated the factors associated with it. Method: We included all patients admitted to a Dutch psychiatric hospital in 2008 and 2009. Seclusions had been registered on Argus-forms, and aggression incidents had been registered on the Staff Observation Aggression Scale-Revised (SOAS-R), inspectorate forms and/or patient files. Determinants of seclusion with vs. without prior aggression were analyzed using logistic regression. Reasons for seclusion without prior aggression were evaluated qualitatively and grouped into main themes. Results: Of 1,106 admitted patients, 184 (17%) were secluded at some time during admission. Twenty-one (11.4%) were excluded because information on their seclusion was lacking. In 23 cases (14%), neither SOAS-R, inspectorate forms nor individual patient files indicated any aggression. Univariable and multivariable regression both showed seclusion without preceding aggression to be negatively associated with daytime and the first day of hospitalization. In other words, seclusion related to aggression occurred more on the first day, and during daytime, while seclusion for non-aggressive reasons occurred relatively more after the first day, and during nighttime. Our qualitative findings showed two main themes of non-aggressive reasons for seclusion: "disruptive behavior" and "beneficial to patient." Conclusion: Awareness of the different reasons for seclusion may improve interventions on reducing its use. Thorough examination of different sources showed that few seclusions had not been preceded by aggression. The use of seclusion would be considerably reduced through interventions that prevent aggression or handle aggression incidents in other ways than seclusion. However, attention should also be paid to the remaining reasons for seclusion, such as handling disruptive behavior and focusing on the beneficial effects of reduced stimuli. Future research on interventions to reduce the use of seclusion should not only aim to reduce seclusion but should also establish whether seclusions preceded by aggression decrease different from seclusions that are not preceded by aggression.

The effectiveness of an indicated prevention programme for substance use in individuals with mild intellectual disabilities and borderline intellectual functioning: results of a quasi-experimental study.

AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of Take it personal!, a prevention programme for individuals with mild intellectual disabilities and borderline intellectual functioning (MID-BIF) and substance use (SU). The prevention programme aims to reduce SU (alcohol, cannabis and illicit drugs) among experimental to problematic substance users. DESIGN: A quasi-experimental design with two arms and a 3-month follow-up. SETTING: Adolescents were recruited from 14 treatment centres in the Netherlands specialized in offering intra- and extramural care for people with MID-BIF and behavioural problems. PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from 66 individuals with MID-BIF assigned either to the intervention condition (n = 34) or to the control condition (n = 32). INTERVENTIONS: Take it personal! was designed to target four personality traits: sensation-seeking, impulsive behaviour, anxiety sensitivity and negative thinking. For each of these profiles, interventions were developed that were structurally the same but contained different personality-specific materials, games and exercises. The control group received care as usual. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes at 3-month follow-up were frequency of SU, severity of SU and binge drinking. RESULTS: Results showed intervention effects for SU frequency (F(1, 50.43)  = 9.27, P = 0.004) and binge drinking (F(1, 48.02)  = 8.63, P = 0.005), but not for severity of SU (F(1, 42.09)  = 2.20, P = 0.145). CONCLUSIONS: A prevention programme to reduce substance use among experimental to problematic users with mild intellectual disabilities and borderline intellectual functioning helped participants to decrease substance use frequency and binge drinking.

Post-traumatic stress disorder and substance use disorder in individuals with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning: A review of treatment studies.

Individuals with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning (MID-BIF; IQ 50-85) are at high risk for developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorders (SUD). In individuals without MID-BIF, Seeking Safety (SeSa) is found to be effective in treating PTSD and SUD simultaneously. However, little is known about integrated treatment of PTSD and SUD in individuals with MID-BIF. This review aims to provide an overview of studies about this type of triple psychopathology, as well as PTSD or SUD in individuals with MID-BIF (i.e. dual diagnosis). No studies were found on integrated treatment of PTSD and SUD in individuals with MID-BIF. Thirty-two studies were found on treatment of either PTSD (mostly Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing and cognitive behavior therapy) or SUD (mostly cognitive behavior therapy and mindfulness) in individuals with MID-BIF. Only 9.4 % of these studies mentioned the co-morbidity of PTSD and SUD. Suggestions for adapting treatment to individuals with MID-BIF were provided on communication, structure, non-verbal elements, network, coping skills, therapeutic relationship and use of suitable and reliable instruments to measure treatment progress. More research is needed on the effectivity of EMDR or Imaginary Exposure (IE) combined with SUD treatment (CBT and mindfulness), and on the adaption of SeSa tot individuals with MID-BIF, as well as on this type of triple psychopathology in general.

Substance use among individuals with intellectual disabilities living independently in Flanders.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decades, there has been increased scientific and clinical interest in substance use among individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID). Despite raised interest and awareness in the topic, lack of supportive data on prevalence and risk factors highlights the need for ongoing research. The aims of this cross-sectional multicenter study were to examine the nature and extent of substance use in individuals with ID living independently, to investigate group differences in substance use and related problems, and to explore the role of substance-related knowledge and attitudes in substance use behaviors. METHOD: Participants were 123 individuals with mild to moderate ID receiving support from independent living services. Data were gathered by means of a structured interview strategy (i.e. the Substance Use and Misuse in Intellectual Disability-Questionnaire; SumID-Q). RESULTS: Findings revealed that rates of lifetime use of licit and illicit substances were higher than those found in earlier studies among individuals with ID and the general population. While cannabis use was the only illicit substance reported, current tobacco and alcohol use were shown to be highly prevalent (48%-45.5%). Rates for the latter were similar to earlier studies among community samples of individuals with ID. In contrast to our hypotheses, few group differences in substance use behaviors were observed. Male gender was associated with age of onset of alcohol and tobacco use and tobacco use-related problems, while younger age was found to be associated with lifetime use of cannabis. No evidence was found regarding the role of knowledge; however, smokers and alcohol users rated tobacco and alcohol use more positively. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that individuals with ID living independently use a wide range of licit and illicit substances and present divergent levels and patterns of substance use. Notwithstanding the role of personal choice in substance use, more research is needed to better understand the nature and extent of substance use and related problems, as well as the role of substance-related knowledge and attitudes in individuals with ID.

Substance use in individuals with mild to borderline intellectual disability: A comparison between self-report, collateral-report and biomarker analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Individuals with mild or borderline intellectual disability (MBID) are at risk of substance use (SU). At present, it is unclear which strategy is the best for assessing SU in individuals with MBID. This study compares three strategies, namely self-report, collateral-report, and biomarker analysis. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: In a sample of 112 participants with MBID from six Dutch facilities providing care to individuals with intellectual disabilities, willingness to participate, SU rates, and agreement between the three strategies were explored. The Substance use and misuse in Intellectual Disability - Questionnaire (SumID-Q; self-report) assesses lifetime use, use in the previous month, and recent use of tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, and stimulants. The Substance use and misuse in Intellectual Disability - Collateral-report questionnaire (SumID-CR; collateral-report) assesses staff members' report of participants' SU over the same reference periods as the SumID-Q. Biomarkers for SU, such as cotinine (metabolite of nicotine), ethanol, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and its metabolite THCCOOH, benzoylecgonine (metabolite of cocaine), and amphetamines were assessed in urine, hair, and sweat patches. RESULTS: Willingness to provide biomarker samples was significantly lower compared to willingness to complete the SumID-Q (p<0.001). Most participants reported smoking, drinking alcohol, and using cannabis at least once in their lives, and about a fifth had ever used stimulants. Collateralreported lifetime use was significantly lower. However, self-reported past month and recent SU rates did not differ significantly from the rates from collateral-reports or biomarkers, with the exception of lower alcohol use rates found in biomarker analysis. The agreement between self-report and biomarker analysis was substantial (kappas 0.60-0.89), except for alcohol use (kappa 0.06). Disagreement between SumID-Q and biomarkers concerned mainly over-reporting of the SumID-Q. The agreement between SumID-CR and biomarker analysis was moderate to substantial (kappas 0.48 - 0.88), again with the exception of alcohol (kappa 0.02). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: In this study, the three strategies that were used to assess SU in individuals with MBID differed significantly in participation rates, but not in SU rates. Several explanations for the better-than-expected performance of self- and collateral-reports are presented. We conclude that for individuals with MBID, self-report combined with collateralreport can be used to assess current SU, and this combination may contribute to collaborative, early intervention efforts to reduce SU and its related harms in this vulnerable group.

Substance use disorders in individuals with mild to borderline intellectual disability: current status and future directions.

Knowledge regarding substance use (SU) and substance use disorder (SUD) in individuals with mild to borderline intellectual disabilities (ID) has increased over the last decade, but is still limited. Data on prevalence and risk factors are fragmented, and instruments for screening and assessment and effective treatment interventions are scarce. Also, scientific developments in other fields are insufficiently incorporated in the care for individuals with ID and SUD. In this selective and critical review, we provide an overview of the current status of SU(D) in ID and explore insights on the conceptualisation of SUD from other fields such as addiction medicine and general psychiatry. SU(D) turns out to be a chronic, multifaceted brain disease that is intertwined with other physical, psychiatric and social problems. These insights have implications for practices, policies and future research with regard to the prevalence, screening, assessment and treatment of SUD. We will therefore conclude with recommendations for future research and policy and practice, which may provide a step forward in the care for individuals with ID and SUD.

Capture recapture estimation of the prevalence of mild intellectual disability and substance use disorder.

Persons with mild to borderline intellectual disability (MID) have been identified as a group at risk for substance use disorder (SUD). However, prevalence estimates of co-occurring SUD and MID rely largely on single source studies performed in selected samples. To obtain more reliable population estimates of SUD and MID, this study combines data from an Intellectual Disability Facility (IDF), and an Addiction Treatment Centre (ATC) in a semi-rural area in the Netherlands. Capture-recapture analysis was used to estimate the hidden population (i.e., the population not identified in the original samples). Further analyses were performed for age and gender stratified data. Staff members reported on 88 patients with SUD and MID in the IDF (4.0% of the IDF sample) and 114 in the ATC (5.2% of the ATC sample), with 12 patients in both groups. Only strata for males over 30 years provided reliable population estimates. Based on 97 patients in these strata, the hidden population was estimated at 215. Hence the estimated total population of males over 30 years old with MID and SUD was 312 (95% CI 143-481), approximately 0.16% (0.05-0.25%) of the total population of this age and gender group. This illustrates that while patients with co-occurring SUD and MID often receive professional help from only one service provider, single source data underestimate its prevalence, and thus underestimate treatment and service needs. Therefore, population prevalence estimations of co-occurring SUD and MID should be based on combined multiple source data.