{"title":"Concurrent Disorders and Treatment Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Kathryn Danielle Scott, Kevin Michael Gorey","doi":"10.1080/15504263.2025.2515015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This rapid review and meta-analysis explores two hypotheses. First, people with a concurrent mental health and substance use disorder (SUD) respond less favorably to currently utilized treatment interventions, than do those with a single disorder. Second, the potential for certain already vulnerable groups including women, members of racialized minority groups and those who live in or near poverty may be even further disadvantaged.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multimethod sampling frame of 35 previous systematic reviews and or meta-analyses (2000-2024) augmented with peer-reviewed and grey research literature databases (2020-2024), resulted in the selection of 13 primary studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The pooled, sample-weighted risk ratio of 1.71 (95% confidence interval 1.38, 2.13) seemed to strongly suggest that those with concurrent disorders are largely disadvantaged in treatment compared to those with a single disorder.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of this review confirmed people with a concurrent disorder are twice as likely to experience such undesirable outcomes as relapse and related poor outcomes including emergency department visits, rehospitalization and death. However, no evidence was found enabling exploration of potential moderations of overall treatment effects by gender, race or income.</p>","PeriodicalId":46571,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dual Diagnosis","volume":" ","pages":"251-265"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dual Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15504263.2025.2515015","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: This rapid review and meta-analysis explores two hypotheses. First, people with a concurrent mental health and substance use disorder (SUD) respond less favorably to currently utilized treatment interventions, than do those with a single disorder. Second, the potential for certain already vulnerable groups including women, members of racialized minority groups and those who live in or near poverty may be even further disadvantaged.
Methods: A multimethod sampling frame of 35 previous systematic reviews and or meta-analyses (2000-2024) augmented with peer-reviewed and grey research literature databases (2020-2024), resulted in the selection of 13 primary studies.
Results: The pooled, sample-weighted risk ratio of 1.71 (95% confidence interval 1.38, 2.13) seemed to strongly suggest that those with concurrent disorders are largely disadvantaged in treatment compared to those with a single disorder.
Conclusions: The results of this review confirmed people with a concurrent disorder are twice as likely to experience such undesirable outcomes as relapse and related poor outcomes including emergency department visits, rehospitalization and death. However, no evidence was found enabling exploration of potential moderations of overall treatment effects by gender, race or income.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Dual Diagnosis is a quarterly, international publication that focuses on the full spectrum of complexities regarding dual diagnosis. The co-occurrence of mental health and substance use disorders, or “dual diagnosis,” is one of the quintessential issues in behavioral health. Why do such high rates of co-occurrence exist? What does it tell us about risk profiles? How do these linked disorders affect people, their families, and the communities in which they live? What are the natural paths to recovery? What specific treatments are most helpful and how can new ones be developed? How can we enhance the implementation of evidence-based practices at clinical, administrative, and policy levels? How can we help clients to learn active recovery skills and adopt needed supports, clinicians to master new interventions, programs to implement effective services, and communities to foster healthy adjustment? The Journal addresses each of these perplexing challenges.