RESUMO
Background: As compared to natives, higher rates of involuntary admission were found among migrants in most European countries. A possible strategy to reduce this phenomenon is to develop preventive strategies targeting risk and protective factors of compulsory admission specific to the migrant population. Aims: The first aim of the present study was to evaluate compulsory admission rates in the migrant population as compared to natives admitted for an acute mental disorder. The second aim was investigate whether sociodemographic, clinical, and care-related variables associated with compulsory admission differed between migrants and natives. Moreover, in the whole sample we assessed whether migrant status affected the risk of compulsory admission. Methods: Retrospective single-center study on patients hospitalized in the period between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020 in a large metropolitan academic hospital. We compared sociodemographic, clinical, and care-related variables between migrants and natives, voluntary or compulsory admitted. We investigated the association between compulsory admission and the variables collected in the whole sample and in the migrants' and natives' groups with a correlation analysis followed by hierarchical logistic regression models. Results: The sample included 185 migrant patients and 933 native patients. The prevalence of compulsory admission was significantly higher in the migrants' group. Male gender, lower education, non-comprehension of the local language, a diagnosis of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder, and aggressive behavior were associated with compulsory admission in the migrants' sample, partially differing from the natives. Conclusion: Our study highlighted how migrant status is associated with a higher risk for compulsory admission. Inclusion policies or the presence of cultural mediators in emergency settings might be preventive strategies in this context.
RESUMO
In the present study we sought: 1) to estimate the frequency of substance use disorders (SUD), and 2) to investigate whether there is a mere association between diagnosis and SUD in a large cohort of patients with severe psychiatric disorders representative of the usual setting and modality of care of a psychiatric emergency service in a geographically well-defined catchment area in Italy, independent of sociodemographic features, anamnestic data and clinical status. The study was conducted between January 2007 and December 2008. The following rating scales were performed: the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S), the Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF) and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Factors found to be associated (p<0.05) with SUD[+] in the univariate analyses were subjected to multilevel logistic regression model with a backward stepwise procedure. Among 848 inpatients of our sample 29.1% had a SUD codiagnosis. Eleven factors accounted for 30.6% of the variability in SUD[+]: [a] a Personality Disorder diagnosis, [b] a Depressive Disorder diagnosis, [c] male gender, [d] previous outpatient contacts, [e] single marital status, [f] no previous psychiatric treatments, [g] younger age, [h] lower scores for BPRS Anxiety-depression and [i] BPRS Thought Disturbance, [l] higher scores for BPRS Activation and [m] BPRS Hostile-suspiciousness. The findings are important in identifying (1) the complexity of the clinical presentation of SUD in a inpatients sample, (2) the need for collaboration among health care workers, and (3) the need to develop and apply treatment programs that are targeted at particular risk groups.
