4.5 Article

Perceived quality of life, 6 months after detoxification: Is abstinence a modifying factor?

Journal

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
Volume 25, Issue 9, Pages 2315-2322

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-016-1272-z

Keywords

Substance use disorders; Treatment outcome; Norway

Funding

  1. Norwegian Research Council [185511/V50]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Patients with a substance use disorder (SUD), admitted for detoxification, often suffer from a poor quality of life (QoL). We set out to monitor QoL, together with substance use, in a departure from the usual norm of measuring substance use alone as a treatment outcome. Literature searches revealed scant knowledge of how QoL is influenced. With this in mind, we aimed to investigate whether total abstinence, prior to follow-up, could influence QoL. Methods We studied a prospective cohort of 140 patients admitted for inpatient detoxification treatment at Sorlandet Hospital (Norway), from September 2008 to August 2010. QoL was measured by a generic five-item questionnaire, the QoL-5. The extremes of this scale ranged from the worst possible rating of 0.1 to 0.9, as the best. A norm for the general population was benchmarked at 0.69. Change in QoL was calculated by subtracting baseline QoL from that achieved at the 6-month follow-up interview; linear regression modeling was used to study the influence of individual QoL predictors. Results The mean QoL at baseline was 0.46, 39 % below that of the general reference population. By applying the clinical interpretation of the scale, we found a modest overall mean improvement in QoL at follow-up (0.11 points); the greatest increases were seen for patients with the lowest baseline QoL scores. Abstinence prior to followup correlated with improved QoL, while living alone and psychological distress were negative influences. Conclusions For patients with a SUD, clinicians should emphasize that abstinence may help to improve their QoL.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available