Abstract
The coexistence of psychiatric symptomatology among individuals receiving longer-term treatment for alcohol use disorders has been well-established; however, less is known about comorbidity among individuals receiving alcohol detoxification. Using the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, 1992), we compared psychiatric symptomatology among 815 individuals receiving short-term detoxification services with normative data from nonpatients, psychiatric patients, and out-of-treatment individuals using street drugs. Findings revealed that individuals in the current sample reported a wide range of psychiatric symptoms with over 80% meeting BSI criteria for diagnosable mental illness. These BSI scores were significantly more severe than those reported by out-of-treatment individuals using street drugs and most closely resembled BSI scores reported for adult psychiatric inpatients. Findings suggest that routine screening for severe mental health symptoms appears warranted in detoxification units. Such screening would greatly increase the chance that coexistence of substance use and other psychiatric disorders would be properly addressed in ongoing treatment.
Keywords: psychopathology, dual diagnosis, comorbidity, alcohol detoxification, alcoholism
1.0 Introduction
Ample documentation exists that the co-occurrence of psychiatric disorders with substance use disorders is a general and widespread problem in general mental health and substance abuse treatment settings (e.g., Brems & Johnson, 2004; Havassy, Alvidrez & Owen, 2004; RachBeisel, Scott, & Dixon, 1999), as well as in the general population (e.g., Kessler et al., 1997; National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, 2006; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2005). Although varying considerably from study to study depending on treatment setting, assessment methods, and participant characteristics, individuals receiving or seeking long-term residential or outpatient alcohol treatment services have been found to have very high rates of psychiatric comorbidity (e.g., Castel, Rush, Urbanoski, & Toneatto, 2006; Johnson, Brems, & Burke, 2002; Watkins et al., 2004). However, less is known about psychiatric symptomatology among individuals with severe and sustained alcohol abuse or dependence who are receiving short-term detoxification, but no additional treatment services. The purpose of this study was to assess the degree of psychopathology as measured by the Brief Symptom Inventory (Derogatis, 1992) among individuals seeking detoxification services at a short-term, alcohol detoxification program.
2.0 Method
2.1 Setting and Participants
Data were collected from 815 individuals receiving services at an alcohol detoxification unit located in Anchorage, Alaska. This unit is designed to provide a four-day intervention to detoxify individuals from alcohol and to assess them for any additional needed treatment. Average length of stay for the participants was 4.84 days (SD=1.28). Table 1 provides demographic information about the 815 participants.
Table One.
Participant Characteristics (N=815)
| n | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 551 | 67.6% | |
| Female | 264 | 32.4% | |
| Ethnicity | |||
| African American | 53 | 6.5% | |
| Alaska Native | 283 | 34.7% | |
| American Indian/Native American | 25 | 3.1% | |
| White | 418 | 51.3% | |
| Other | 23 | 2.8% | |
| Missing | 13 | 1.6% | |
| Marital Status | |||
| Single | 379 | 46.5% | |
| Married | 100 | 12.3% | |
| Living with Partner | 10 | 1.2% | |
| Separated or divorced | 284 | 34.9% | |
| Widowed | 18 | 2.2% | |
| Missing | 24 | 2.9% | |
| Educational Attainment | |||
| Eighth grade or less | 26 | 3.2% | |
| Less than high school | 166 | 20.4% | |
| High school graduation or GED | 352 | 43.2% | |
| Some college | 183 | 22.5% | |
| College graduation | 49 | 6.0% | |
| Missing | 39 | 4.8% | |
| Living Arrangements | |||
| Own house or apartment | 323 | 39.5% | |
| Someone else's house or apartment | 150 | 18.4% | |
| Shelter | 114 | 14.0% | |
| Street or outdoors | 138 | 16.9% | |
| Institutionalized | 12 | 1.5% | |
| Criminal justice system | 11 | 1.4% | |
| Other | 16 | 2.0% | |
| Missing | 51 | 6.3% | |
| Employment Status | |||
| Unemployed, Looking for Work | 314 | 38.5% | |
| Unemployed, Not Looking for Work | 203 | 24.9% | |
| Full-Time or Part-Time Job | 129 | 15.9% | |
| Homemaker | 9 | 1.1% | |
| Retired | 8 | 1.0% | |
| Disabled | 70 | 8.6% | |
| Other | 38 | 4.6% | |
| Missing | 44 | 5.4% | |
| Age | Mean=41.1 | SD=9.3 | Range=18 - 68 |
2.2 Instrumentation
Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, 1992). The BSI consists of 53 symptoms drawn from the Symptom Checklist-90-R (Derogatis, 1992) and assesses current psychological symptomatology. Each symptom is rated on a 5-point Likert scale that ranges from not at all present (0) to extremely present (4) for their existence within the past seven days. The BSI results in nine subscales (Somatization, Obsessive-Compulsiveness, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Depression, Anxiety, Hostility, Phobic Anxiety, Paranoid Ideation, Psychoticism) and three global indices of distress (Global Severity Index [number and severity of symptoms], Positive Symptom Distress Index [intensity of symptoms], Positive Symptom Total [number of symptoms endorsed in a pathological direction without regard to intensity].
Scoring is accomplished by adding ratings for subscale items and dividing by the number of items. These mean raw scores can be transformed into T-scores (mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10) separately for women and men, based on relevant norms tables (adult, adolescent, inpatient, and outpatient). The following two criteria have been established for designating a protocol as being positive for diagnosable psychopathology based on adult, non-patient norms: a) T-score for GSI of 63 or greater, or b) T-scores of 63 or greater on two or more subscales (Derogatis, 1992). The instrument has demonstrated good psychometric properties, with adequate reliability and validity (Derogatis, 1992; Morlan & Tan, 1998).
2.3 Procedure
The BSI was completed as part of the detoxification unit's regular intake assessment and after consumers provided informed consent for treatment and use of data for research and evaluation purposes; all research procedures were conducted in compliance with the Institutional Review Board at the University of Alaska Anchorage. The BSI and other intake forms were completed as soon as staff members believed consumers were sufficiently sober to give consent, understand instructions, and participate in the assessment process. For most consumers, the assessment process was completed on the second day of services.
3.0 Results
3.1 Comparisons with Normative Samples
To compare whether the BSI scores obtained for the current sample differed from those of four normative samples (adolescent non-patients, adult non-patients, psychiatric inpatients, and psychiatric outpatients) provided by Derogatis (1992), independent two-tailed t-tests were calculated. Table 2 provides means and standard deviations and Table 3 provides t-test results. Significant differences (p<.001) were revealed between the current sample and the normative adult and adolescent non-patients on all but one subscale (adolescent non-patients for Hostility subscale). On all comparisons, the current sample of individuals receiving alcohol detoxification treatment services provided more pathological symptom ratings.
Table 2.
Means and Standard Deviations for the Current and Normative Samples for all BSI Subscales
| Current Sample | Normative Samples | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (N=815) |
Female (n=264) |
Male (n=551) |
Adult Non-Patient (N=719) |
Psychiatric Outpatient (N=1002) |
Psychiatric Inpatient (N=310) |
Adolescent Non-Patient (N=2408) |
Out-of- Treatment Drug Users (N=582) |
|||||||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| Somatization | 1.52 | 1.07 | 1.72 | 1.09 | 1.43 | 1.05 | .29 | .40 | .83 | .79 | 1.02 | .91 | .63 | .64 | .74 | .76 |
| Obsessive- Compulsive |
1.69 | 1.16 | 1.89 | 1.15 | 1.60 | 1.16 | .43 | .48 | 1.57 | 1.00 | 1.61 | 1.07 | .93 | .75 | 1.01 | .91 |
| Interpersonal Sensitivity |
1.47 | 1.17 | 1.70 | 1.20 | 1.36 | 1.15 | .32 | .48 | 1.58 | 1.05 | 1.48 | 1.11 | .99 | .85 | .84 | .88 |
| Depression | 1.78 | 1.23 | 1.98 | 1.27 | 1.68 | 1.20 | .28 | .46 | 1.80 | 1.08 | 1.87 | 1.21 | .82 | .79 | .89 | .89 |
| Anxiety | 1.74 | 1.13 | 1.98 | 1.17 | 1.63 | 1.10 | .35 | .45 | 1.70 | 1.00 | 1.70 | 1.16 | .78 | .68 | .85 | .85 |
| Hostility | 1.10 | 1.05 | 1.29 | 1.07 | 1.02 | 1.03 | .35 | .42 | 1.16 | .93 | 1.00 | .97 | 1.02 | .86 | .82 | .83 |
| Phobic Anxiety |
1.20 | 1.17 | 1.39 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 1.12 | .17 | .36 | .86 | .88 | 1.07 | 1.00 | .54 | .64 | .53 | .78 |
| Paranoid Ideation |
1.35 | 1.09 | 1.51 | 1.11 | 1.27 | 1.07 | .34 | .45 | 1.14 | .95 | 1.26 | 1.23 | 1.13 | .82 | 1.08 | .87 |
| Psychoticism | 1.37 | 1.11 | 1.54 | 1.13 | 1.29 | 1.09 | .15 | .30 | 1.19 | .87 | 1.27 | .98 | .73 | .73 | .80 | .79 |
| GSI | 1.52 | 0.99 | 1.72 | 1.02 | 1.43 | 0.97 | .30 | .31 | 1.32 | .72 | 1.37 | .86 | .83 | .59 | .85 | .71 |
| PSDI | 2.15 | 0.86 | 2.29 | 0.84 | 2.09 | 0.86 | 1.29 | .40 | 2.14 | .61 | 2.16 | .74 | 1.66 | .56 | 1.60 | .65 |
| PST | 33.56 | 16.01 | 35.89 | 15.10 | 32.44 | 16.34 | 11.45 | 9.20 | 30.80 | 11.63 | 31.60 | 13.40 | 24.81 | 12.47 | 24.50 | 14.26 |
Table 3.
t-Test Values for Comparisons between the Current Sample and Five Normative Samples for all BSI Subscales
| Adult Non- Patient (n=719) |
Psychiatric Outpatient (n=1002) |
Psychiatric Inpatient (n=310) |
Adolescent Non-Patient (n=2408) |
Out-of- Treatment Drug Users (n=263) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Somatization | 29.08* | 15.39* | 7.44* | 20.53* | 15.08* |
| Obsessive- Compulsive |
27.15* | 2.30 ns | 1.08 ns | 15.29* | 11.79* |
| Interpersonal Sensitivity |
24.59* | −2.04 ns | −0.13 ns | 8.77* | 10.96* |
| Depression | 30.85* | −0.36 ns | −1.13 ns | 18.30* | 14.89* |
| Anxiety | 30.89* | 0.77 ns | 0.54 ns | 20.88* | 16.03* |
| Hostility | 17.93* | −1.25 ns | 1.49 ns | 1.48 ns | 5.35* |
| Phobic Anxiety | 22.68* | 6.88* | 1.77 ns | 14.80* | 12.04* |
| Paranoid Ideation | 23.16* | 4.25* | 1.23 ns | 4.20* | 4.95* |
| Psychoticism | 28.56* | 3.77* | 1.42 ns | 13.29* | 10.62* |
| GSI | 31.70* | 4.85* | 2.40 ns | 17.25* | 13.96* |
| PSDI | 24.57* | 0.28 ns | −0.18 ns | 13.23* | 13.00* |
| PST | 32.59* | 4.14* | 1.95 ns | 11.05* | 10.91* |
p <.001; ns=not significant
The current sample differed significantly from psychiatric outpatients on four of nine subscales (Somatization, Phobic Anxiety, Paranoid Ideation, and Psychoticism) and two of three global scales (Global Severity Index and Positive Symptom Total). For all significant differences, the current sample provided higher ratings than the normative psychiatric outpatient sample. The current sample differed significantly from psychiatric inpatients only on the Somatization subscale, on which the current sample provided higher ratings.
3.2 Comparisons with Out-of-Treatment Drug Users Sample
Additional independent two-tailed t-tests were calculated to compare BSI scores obtained from the current sample with BSI scores from a sample of 582 injection drug-using individuals not currently in treatment. These out-of-treatment drug users were participants in a NIDA-funded project designed to determine the effects of a needle exchange program (Fisher, Fenaughty, Cagle, & Wells, 2003). Additional details about this sample are available in Johnson, Neal, Brems, and Fisher (2006). Table 2 provides means and standard deviations and Table 3 provides t-test results. Results indicate that all BSI subscales and global indices obtained from individuals receiving alcohol detoxification treatment services were significantly higher than scores obtained from out-of-treatment, injection drug-using individuals.
3.3 Positive Diagnostic Indicators
Participants were categorized using the two criteria established by Derogatis (1992; see above) for identifying protocols as demonstrating diagnosable psychopathology. Table 4 provides the percentages of participants who had a T-score of 63 or greater on each of the nine SCL-90-R subscales. Based on the criterion of having T-scores of 63 or greater on two or more subscales, 81.3% of the men and 82.6% of the women were diagnosable with comorbid psychopathology. Based on the criterion of a GSI T-score of 63 or greater, 75.3% of the men and 75.8% of the women produced protocols that were sufficiently severe to suggest a diagnosis of comorbid psychopathology.
Table 4.
Percentages of Men and Women with T-scores of 63 or Greater on Each of the Nine BSI Subscales and Global Severity Index
| Men | Women | Overall | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Somatization | 74.1% | 72.0% | 73.4% |
| Obsessive- Compulsive | 65.3% | 72.0% | 67.5% |
| Interpersonal Sensitivity | 60.8% | 59.9% | 60.5% |
| Depression | 77.0% | 68.6% | 74.2% |
| Anxiety | 73.7% | 73.1% | 73.5% |
| Hostility | 42.8% | 52.7% | 46.0% |
| Phobic Anxiety | 65.3% | 64.8% | 65.2% |
| Paranoid Ideation | 56.8% | 64.4% | 59.3% |
| Psychoticism | 70.2% | 76.5% | 72.4% |
| Global Severity Index | 75.3% | 75.8% | 75.5% |
4.0 Discussion
Prior research has indicated that substance abusers with severe psychopathology are more likely to receive treatment at mental health facilities and those with less severe psychopathology are more likely to receive treatment at substance abuse facilities (Primm et al., 2000). However, current findings suggest that this conclusion based on prior research may not be generalizable to individuals in detoxification. The individuals in this sample reported psychiatric symptoms of great acuity and wide range and an exceedingly high proportion of the sample (over 80%) met BSI criteria for diagnosable mental illness. Clearly, this suggests a large proportion of individuals in detoxification suffer from great psychiatric distress that warrants attention. Further, these findings provide evidence that individuals in alcohol detoxification are symptomatically significantly different from other individuals who are abusing or dependent on alcohol and from individuals in the general population or in the psychiatric population.
The implications of this finding could potentially be far-reaching for agencies providing detoxification services. It appears crucial to identify additional psychopathology among individuals in alcohol detoxification as such symptoms are likely to complicate treatment and evaluation plans. It may be erroneously assumed by providers that the prime goal of detoxification services is the initiation of sustained sobriety, and that comorbid psychiatric symptoms will be relieved on their own, or will significantly diminish, once that objective is achieved. Rather, more positive overall outcomes are likely if treatment plans are designed to help alleviate both the alcohol use disorder and any comorbid psychological symptoms (Brems & Johnson, 1997; Grant et al., 2004). Attention to psychiatric symptoms among individuals in detoxification may greatly enhance their outcomes both with regard to sobriety and mental health, especially if detection is timed at the onset of their stay in detoxification and can thus be considered when additional treatment plans are made.
Based on findings from this study, routine screening for severe mental health symptoms appears warranted in detoxification units. Individuals identified with high psychiatric distress could then be assessed more thoroughly through a psychiatric interview, a process that would greatly increase the chance that true coexistence of substance use and other psychiatric disorders would be properly addressed in ongoing treatment. Care will need to be taken to understand the psychiatric symptoms and distress of individuals in detoxification in their greater context of symptom presentation. Even though BSI-based comorbidity rates are high, it must be understood that they are not always reflective of definite coexistence of an alcohol use and other psychiatric disorder for each screened individual. It is possible that some acute mental health symptoms reported are directly related to the detoxification process and ameliorate upon successful completion of detoxification. However, ongoing observation during the individual's stay on the detoxification unit to differentiate temporary from ongoing psychiatric distress will be crucial to the successful long-term treatment of each individual.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by grant number 1H79TI11988, from Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and grant numbers 5R03DA018601 and 5R01DA10181 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Appreciation is extended to Dr. Peter Hartsock at NIDA for his ongoing support and assistance.
Footnotes
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
References
- Brems C, Johnson ME. Clinical implications of the co-occurrence of substance use and other psychiatric disorders. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 1997;28:437–447. [Google Scholar]
- Brems C, Johnson ME. Comorbidity in Alaska: Evidence and implications for treatment and public policy. Alaska Medicine. 2004;46:4–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Castel S, Rush B, Urbanoski K, Toneatto T. Overlap of clusters of psychiatric symptoms among clients of a comprehensive addiction treatment service. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2006;20:28–35. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.20.1.28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Derogatis LR. BSI: Administration, scoring, and procedures manual -II. Clinical Psychometric Research; Towson, MD: 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Fisher DG, Fenaughty AM, Cagle HH, Wells RS. Needle exchange and injection drug use frequency: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 2003;33:199–205. doi: 10.1097/00126334-200306010-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grant BF, Stinson FS, Dawson DA, Chou SP, Dufour MC, Compton W, Pickering RP, Kaplan K. Prevalence and co-occurrence of substance use disorders and independent mood and anxiety disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2004;61:807–816. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.61.8.807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Havassy BE, Alvidrez J, Owen K. Comparisons of patients with comorbid psychiatric and substance use disorders: Implications for treatment and service delivery. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2004;181:239–145. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.161.1.139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Johnson ME, Brems C, Burke S. Recognizing comorbidity among drug users in treatment. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 2002;28:1–19. doi: 10.1081/ada-120002973. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Johnson ME, Neal DB, Brems C, Fisher DG. Depression among out-of-treatment injecting drug users as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory-2. Assessment. 2006;13:168–177. doi: 10.1177/1073191106286951. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kessler RC, Crum RM, Warner LA, Nelson CB, Schulenberg J, Anthony JC. Lifetime co-occurrence of DSM-III-R alcohol abuse and dependence with other psychiatric disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1997;54:313–321. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1997.01830160031005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Morlan KK, Tan S-Y. Comparison of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Brief Symptom Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1998;54:885–894. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(199811)54:7<885::aid-jclp3>3.0.co;2-e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse . Alcohol use and alcohol use disorders in the United States: Main findings from the 2001–2002 national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions (NESARC) 1. Vol. 8. National Institutes of Health: US Alcohol Epidemiologic Data Reference Manual; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Primm AB, Gomez MB, Tzolova-Iontchev I, Perry W, Vu HT, Crum RM. Mental health versus substance abuse treatment programs for dually diagnosed patients. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2000;19:285–290. doi: 10.1016/s0740-5472(00)00112-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- RachBeisel J, Scott J, Dixon L. Co-occurring severe mental illness and substance use disorders: A review of recent research. Psychiatric Services. 1999;50:1427–1434. doi: 10.1176/ps.50.11.1427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration . Overview of findings from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Author; Rockville, MD: 2005. (NSDUH Series H-27, DHHS Publication No. SMA 05-4061). Office of Applied Studies. [Google Scholar]
- Watkins KE, Hunger SB, Wenzel SL, Tu W, Paddock SM, Griffin A, Ebener P. Prevalence and characteristics of clients with co-occurring disorders in outpatient substance abuse treatment. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 2004;30:749–764. doi: 10.1081/ada-200037538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]