4.5 Review

Attitudes and perceptions towards substances among people with mental disorders: a systematic review

期刊

ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 126, 期 2, 页码 87-105

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2012.01861.x

关键词

review; mental disorders; tobacco; alcohol drinking; cannabis

资金

  1. Louise Thornton's Australian Postgraduate Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thornton LK, Baker AL, Johnson MP, Lewin TJ. Attitudes and perceptions towards substances among people with mental disorders: A systematic review. Objective: To develop effective interventions for people with coexisting mental disorders (MD) and substance use, it may be beneficial to understand their attitudes and perceptions of substances. Method: A systematic literature search regarding attitudes and perceptions towards tobacco, alcohol or cannabis among people with MD was conducted. Studies methodological quality was assessed using the NewcastleOttawa Scale. Results: Twenty-one papers were included in the review and found to have generally low methodological quality. Papers investigated reasons for substance use, substance use expectancies, substances perceived effects and reasons for quitting. People with psychotic disorders reported using substances primarily for relaxation and pleasure. Among people with mood disorders, alcohol was used primarily for social motives and tobacco for negative affect reduction. Conclusion: For substance use interventions among people with MD to be more effective, it may be necessary to tailor interventions specifically for this population and customize by substance type. Gaps in the literature regarding attitudes and perceptions towards substance use among people with MD were identified, which future research should aim to address. These include designing and conducting methodologically rigorous research, investigating perceived harmfulness and knowledge of substances, and broadening recruitment of participants to include people with MD other than psychosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据