4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Assessment of cognitive functioning of methadone-maintenance patients: Impact of adult ADHD and current cocaine dependence

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADDICTIVE DISEASES
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 15-25

出版社

HAWORTH PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1300/J069v25n04_02

关键词

cognitive deficits; methadone; ADHD; cocaine

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA 11444] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [K02 00465] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [R01DA011444] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to determine if methadone-maintained patients (MMP) with cocaine dependence (CD) and/or adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) exhibited compounded cognitive dysfunction associated with their poly-substance use and/or co-morbid psychiatric diagnoses. The sample consisted of 79 MNIP (59% male, 51 % Caucasian), maintained on methadone doses ranging from 40-130 mg/day, who were placed into one of four diagnostic categories: (1) a control group (no ADHD, no CD) (n = 24), (2) CD alone (n = 18),(3) ADHD alone (n = 18), and (4) ADHD + CD (n = 19). The California Computerized Assessment Package (CalCAP((R))) was administered to assess cognitive functioning requiring focused and sustained attention in a standardized fashion. There were no group differences on Simple Reaction tasks. Compared to the control group, the ADHD + CD group was slower and less accurate on 33% of the Choice Reaction (CR) tasks. Specifically, individuals in the ADHD + CD group and the ADHD alone group performed significantly worse on tasks measuring attention and psychomotor responding. These tasks are associated with broader cognitive skills in working memory, language discrimination and flexibility of cognitive sets that may have implications for treatment outcome. Diagnostic services capable of identifying cognitive deficits among MMP with ADHD and/or CD are needed to maximize the likelihood of treatment success and to serve as ail indicator for the efficacy of therapeutic approaches.

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

4.1
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