Dataset Information

Mental health outcomes associated with of the use of amphetamines: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background:The use of amphetamines is a global public health concern. We summarise global data on use of amphetamines and mental health outcomes. Methods:A systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD 42017081893). We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo for methamphetamine or amphetamine combined with psychosis, violence, suicidality, depression or anxiety. Included studies were human empirical cross-sectional surveys, case-control studies, cohort studies and randomised controlled trials that assessed the association between methamphetamine and one of the mental health outcomes. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool results for any use of amphetamines and amphetamine use disorders. Findings:149 studies were eligible and 59 were included in meta-analyses. There was significant heterogeneity in effects. Evidence came mostly from cross-sectional studies. Any use of amphetamines was associated with higher odds of psychosis (odds ratio [OR] = 2.0, 95%CI 1.3-3.3), violence (OR = 2.2, 95%CI 1.2-4.1; adjusted OR [AOR] = 1.4, 95%CI 0.8-2.4), suicidality OR = 4.4, 95%CI 2.4-8.2; AOR = 1.7, 95%CI 1.0-2.9) and depression (OR = 1.6, 95%CI 1.1-2.2; AOR = 1.3, 95%CI 1.2-1.4). Having an amphetamine use disorder was associated with higher odds of psychosis (OR = 3.0, 95%CI 1.9-4.8; AOR = 2.4, 95%CI 1.6-3.5), violence (OR = 6.2, 95%CI 3.1-12.3), and suicidality (OR = 2.3, 95%CI 1.8-2.9; AOR = 1.5, 95%CI 1.3-1.8). Interpretation:Methamphetamine use is an important risk factor for poor mental health. High quality population-level studies are needed to more accurately quantify this risk. Clinical responses to methamphetamine use need to address mental health harms.

SUBMITTER: McKetin R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6890973 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mental health outcomes associated with of the use of amphetamines: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

McKetin Rebecca R Leung Janni J Stockings Emily E Huo Yan Y Foulds James J Lappin Julia M JM Cumming Craig C Arunogiri Shalini S Young Jesse T JT Sara Grant G Farrell Michael M Degenhardt Louisa L

EClinicalMedicine 20191017

<h4>Background</h4>The use of amphetamines is a global public health concern. We summarise global data on use of amphetamines and mental health outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD 42017081893). We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo for methamphetamine or amphetamine combined with psychosis, violence, suicidality, depression or anxiety. Included studies were human empirical cross-sectional surveys, case-control studies, cohort studies and randomised controlled tria ...[more]

PMID: 31832623

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsAmphetamines are the second most commonly used class of illicit drugs. We aimed to produce pooled estimates of mortality risks among people with regular or dependent use of amphetamines, with a focus upon all-cause mortality as well as specific causes of death.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of cohorts of people with problematic use or dependence on amphetamines with data on all-cause or cause-specific mortality.Setting and participantsOf 4240 papers, 30 were eligible, reporting on 25 cohorts that measured all-cause mortality, drug poisoning, suicide, accidental injuries, homicide and cardiovascular mortality. Cohorts (n = 35-74 139) were in North America, several Nordic countries and Asia Pacific.MeasurementTitles/abstracts were independently screened by one reviewer and excluded those reviewed by a second reviewer. Full-text screening was by two reviewers with discrepancies resolved via a third reviewer. We extracted data on crude mortality rates (CMR) per 100 person-years (py), standardized mortality ratios (SMRs). We imputed SMRs where possible if not reported by study authors. We also calculated mortality relative risks. Data were pooled using random-effects models; potential reasons for heterogeneity were explored using subgroup analyses and meta-regressions.FindingsTwenty-three cohorts contributed data for the pooled all-cause CMR: 1.14 per 100 py [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.92-1.42]. Pooled cause-specific mortality rates were: drug poisoning, 0.14 per 100 py (95% CI = 0.06-0.34); cardiovascular disease, 0.13 per 100 py (95% CI = 0.06-0.29); suicide, 0.20 per 100 py (95% CI = 0.07-0.55); accidental injury, 0.20 per 100 py (95% CI = 0.08-0.47) and homicide, 0.03 per 100 py (95% CI = 0.02-0.06). There was substantial heterogeneity for all pooled CMR estimates except homicide. The pooled all-cause SMR was 6.83 (95% CI = 5.27-8.84). Pooled cause-specific SMRS were: poisoning, 24.70 (95% CI = 16.67, 36.58); homicide, 11.90 (95% CI = 7.82-18.12); suicide, 12.20 (95% CI = 4.89-30.47); cardiovascular disease, 5.12 (95% CI = 3.74-7.00) and accidental injury, 5.12 (95% CI = 2.88-9.08).ConclusionsPeople with regular or dependent amphetamine use are at elevated risk of a range of causes of mortality compared with people without regular or dependent amphetamine use.

Project description:BackgroundInternational estimates suggest around a third of students arrives at university with symptoms indicative of a common mental disorder, many in late adolescence at a developmentally high-risk period for the emergence of mental disorder. Universities, as settings, represent an opportunity to contribute to the improvement of population mental health. We sought to understand what is known about the management of student mental health, and asked: (1) What proportion of students use mental health services when experiencing psychological distress? (2) Does use by students differ across health service types?MethodsA systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines using a Context, Condition, Population framework (CoCoPop) with a protocol preregistered on Prospero (CRD42021238273). Electronic database searches in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC and CINAHL Plus, key authors were contacted, citation searches were conducted, and the reference list of the WHO World Mental Health International College Student Initiative (WMH-ICS) was searched. Data extraction was performed using a pre-defined framework, and quality appraisal using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. Data were synthesised narratively and meta-analyses at both the study and estimate level.Results7789 records were identified through the search strategies, with a total of 44 studies meeting inclusion criteria. The majority of included studies from the USA (n = 36), with remaining studies from Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia and Italy. Overall, studies contained 123 estimates of mental health service use associated with a heterogeneous range of services, taking highly variable numbers of students across a variety of settings.DiscussionThis is the first systematic quantitative survey of student mental health service use. The empirical literature to date is very limited in terms of a small number of international studies outside of the USA; studies of how services link together, and of student access. The significant variation we found in the proportions of students using services within and between studies across different settings and populations suggests the current services described in the literature are not meeting the needs of all students.

Project description:BackgroundA nature-based social prescription (NBSP) is an approach to improving mental health outcomes that involves prescribing nature-based interventions as complementary or alternative therapy to traditional ones. A variety of advantages are available from NBSP for people looking to enhance their mental well-being. The effect size of the nature-based social prescriptions (NBSPs) has not been thoroughly evaluated by systematic reviews and meta-analyses.ObjectivesThe current study aimed to analyze existing studies and conduct a meta-analysis to determine the overall effect size of the nature-based social prescriptions (NBSP's) outcomes on mental health.MethodsBy choosing the relevant papers from among those that were available, a meta-analysis was carried out in the current study. A systematic search of electronic databases (Pub Med, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO) was conducted to identify relevant studies. Studies were included if they evaluated the effects of NBSP on mental health outcomes. Effect sizes were calculated using the random effects model.ResultsMeta-analysis of interventions statistics shows that CBT (SMD -0.0035; 95% CI: [-0.5090; 0.5020]; Tau^2: 0.1011; Tau: 0.318), digital intervention (SMD -0.3654; 95% CI: [-0.5258; 1.2566]; Tau^2: 0.2976, Tau: 0.5455), music intervention (SMD -2.1281; 95% CI: [-0.4659; 4.7221]; Tau^2: 3.4046; Tau:1.8452), and psychological interventions (SMD -0.8529; 95% CI: [0.3051; 1.4007]; Tau^2: 0.1224; Tau: 0.3499) do not significantly impact. The other interventions [social belongingness, communication training, blue intervention, nature-based education, cognitive behavior group therapy (CBGT), social prescribing coordinator, self-help intervention, participatory, organizational intervention, inpatient services, brief diet, internet-based intervention, prenatal intervention, yoga and meditation, ergonomics training program, yoga nidra intervention, and storytelling] highlighted above are significant.ConclusionThe conclusion of the meta-analysis supports the idea that incorporating nature-based social prescription interventions into mental healthcare plans can effectively complement traditional therapies and improve mental health outcomes.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023412458, CRD42023412458.

Project description:BackgroundAccelerated by technological advancements and the recent global pandemic, there is burgeoning interest in digital mental health literacy (DMHL) interventions that can positively affect mental health. However, existing work remains inconclusive regarding the effectiveness of DMHL interventions.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the components and modes of DMHL interventions, their moderating factors, and their long-term impacts on mental health literacy and mental health.MethodsWe used a random-effects model to conduct meta-analyses and meta-regressions on moderating effects of DMHL interventions on mental health.ResultsUsing 144 interventions with 206 effect sizes, we found a moderate effect of DMHL interventions in enhancing distal mental health outcomes (standardized mean difference=0.42, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.73; P<.001) and a large effect in increasing proximal mental health literacy outcomes (standardized mean difference=0.65, 95% CI 0.59-0.74; P<.001). Uptake of DMHL interventions was comparable with that of control conditions, and uptake of DMHL interventions did not moderate the effects on both proximal mental health literacy outcomes and distal mental health outcomes. DMHL interventions were as effective as face-to-face interventions and did not differ by platform type or dosage. DMHL plus interventions (DMHL psychoeducation coupled with other active treatment) produced large effects in bolstering mental health, were more effective than DMHL only interventions (self-help DMHL psychoeducation), and were comparable with non-DMHL interventions (treatment as usual). DMHL interventions demonstrated positive effects on mental health that were sustained over follow-up assessments and were most effective in enhancing the mental health of emerging and older adults.ConclusionsFor theory building, our review and meta-analysis found that DMHL interventions are as effective as face-to-face interventions. DMHL interventions confer optimal effects on mental health when DMHL psychoeducation is combined with informal, nonprofessional active treatment components such as skills training and peer support, which demonstrate comparable effectiveness with that of treatment as usual (client-professional interactions and therapies). These effects, which did not differ by platform type or dosage, were sustained over time. Additionally, most DMHL interventions are found in Western cultural contexts, especially in high-income countries (Global North) such as Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and limited research is conducted in low-income countries in Asia and in South American and African countries. Most of the DMHL studies did not report information on the racial or ethnic makeup of the samples. Future work on DMHL interventions that target racial or ethnic minority groups, particularly the design, adoption, and evaluation of the effects of culturally adaptive DMHL interventions on uptake and mental health functioning, is needed. Such evidence can drive the adoption and implementation of DMHL interventions at scale, which represents a key foundation for practice-changing impact in the provision of mental health resources for individuals and the community.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42023363995; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023363995.

Dataset Information

Mental health outcomes associated with of the use of amphetamines: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Mental health outcomes associated with of the use of amphetamines: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets