Perceived quality of life, 6 months after detoxification: Is abstinence a modifying factor?

Abstract

PurposePatients with a substance use disorder (SUD), admitted for detoxification, often suffer from a poor quality of life (QoL). We set out to monitor QoL, together with substance use, in a departure from the usual norm of measuring substance use alone as a treatment outcome. Literature searches revealed scant knowledge of how QoL is influenced. With this in mind, we aimed to investigate whether total abstinence, prior to follow-up, could influence QoL.MethodsWe studied a prospective cohort of 140 patients admitted for inpatient detoxification treatment at Sørlandet Hospital (Norway), from September 2008 to August 2010. QoL was measured by a generic five-item questionnaire, the QoL-5. The extremes of this scale ranged from the worst possible rating of 0.1 to 0.9, as the best. A norm for the general population was benchmarked at 0.69. Change in QoL was calculated by subtracting baseline QoL from that achieved at the 6-month follow-up interview; linear regression modeling was used to study the influence of individual QoL predictors.ResultsThe mean QoL at baseline was 0.46, 39 % below that of the general reference population. By applying the clinical interpretation of the scale, we found a modest overall mean improvement in QoL at follow-up (0.11 points); the greatest increases were seen for patients with the lowest baseline QoL scores. Abstinence prior to follow-up correlated with improved QoL, while living alone and psychological distress were negative influences.ConclusionsFor patients with a SUD, clinicians should emphasize that abstinence may help to improve their QoL.

First-person experiences of recovery in co-occurring mental health and substance use conditions

“…Abstinence from substance use was experienced as crucial in recovery by some persons. In recent studies, abstinence from substance use has been associated with increased quality of life (Vederhus, Birkeland, & Clausen, 2016) and flourishing (McGaffin, Deane, Kelly, & Ciarrochi, 2015). Others described how they used substances as a way of managing everyday life, which is in line with a study of self-reported reasons for substance use in persons with severe mental illness (Pettersen, Ruud, Ravndal, & Landheim, 2013).…”

Perceived quality of life in partners of patients undergoing treatment in somatic health, mental health, or substance use disorder units: a cross-sectional study

“…Psychological distress (SCL-10) was the strongest variable explaining variations in QoL. A one-point gain (higher psychological distress) resulted in a 0.16 lower QoL-5 score in the final adjusted model, suggesting a substantial influence when applying the clinical interpretation of the scale [ 46 ]. The fit of the model was also strengthened considerably, and the explained variance in QoL increased from 33% to 56% with inclusion of this clinical variable.…”

“…QoL was measured with the QoL-5 [ 45 ], a generic, validated instrument covering overall QoL, based on an integrative theory of QoL and considered relevant as a disease-nonspecific instrument [ 45 – 47 ]. The reason for choosing the QoL questionnaire was that the instrument has been described as useful for measuring the overall QoL for both general population samples and across different illness domains [ 45 , 46 , 48 ]. It consists of five subjective QoL statements: two questions on mental and physical health, two questions on the quality of the relationship with important others (partner and friends), and one question regarding existential QoL, meaning relation to self.…”

Quality of Life in Patients with Substance Use Disorders Admitted to Detoxification Compared with those Admitted to Hospitals for Medical Disorders: Follow-Up Results

“…In the present study, we did not put a main focus on the changes within the SUD sample, a more detailed analysis of these changes has been published elsewhere. 36 Instead we compared the QoL of the two groups and controlled for the variables the two studies had in common in order to identify potential modifiable factors and increase the understanding of underlying mechanisms influencing QoL. The interventions in the SUD study (motivational intervention or brief advice about using MHGs after discharge) did not affect the patients’ QoL.…”