Skip to main content
Download PDF

Cognitive impairment as a predictor of long-term psychological distress in patients with polysubstance use disorders: a prospective longitudinal cohort study

BMC Psychiatry volume 24, Article number: 143 (2024) Cite this article

A Correction to this article was published on 24 April 2024

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

The association between polysubstance use disorder (pSUD), mental illness, and cognitive impairments is well established and linked to negative outcomes in substance use disorder treatment. However, it remains unclear whether cognitive impairment predicts long-term psychological distress among treatment seeking patients with pSUD. This study aimed to investigate the associations and predictive ability of cognitive impairment on psychological distress one and 5 years after treatment initiation.

Methods

N = 164 treatment seeking patients with pSUD were sampled at treatment initiation. We examined associations between cognitive impairment according to Montreal Cognitive Assessment® (MoCA®), Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI), and Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function - Adult version (BRIEF-A) administered at treatment initiation and psychological distress defined by the Symptom Check List-90-Revised (SCL-90-R) at treatment initiation, one and five years later. We ran hierarchical logistic regressions to assess the predictive ability of the respective cognitive instruments administered at treatment initiation on psychological distress measured one and five years later including psychological distress at treatment initiation and substance intake at the time-points of the measurements as covariates.

Results

The main results was that MoCA® and BRIEF-A predicted psychological distress at years one and five, but BRIEF-A lost predictive power when accounting for psychological distress at treatment initiation. WASI predicted psychological distress at year five, but not at year one.

Conclusions

Results from MoCA® and WASI was found to be less sensitive to the effect of psychological distress than BRIEF-A. Cognitive impairment at treatment initiation may hold predictive value on later psychological distress, yet its clinical utility is uncertain.

Peer Review reports

Background

Addressing mental health is pivotal to the treatment of substance use disorders (SUDs) due to its effect on quality of life, treatment retention and risk of relapse [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Elevated psychological distress impedes individuals’ capacity to engage in long-term objectives of psychosocial improvement and moderation of substance use [9, 10] but also results in a perception of unmet treatment needs, particularly among male patients with SUDs [11]. Therefore, it is imperative to identify risk factors influencing long-term mental health to optimize the efficiency of SUD treatment.

The relationship between SUDs, mental health and cognitive functioning is intricately intertwined [12,13,14]. Epidemiological and clinical studies link SUD to a host of mental illnesses, such as mood and anxiety disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, psychosis, personality disorders, suicidality and general psychological distress [13, 15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Executive dysfunction, and cognitive impairments in general, are suggested to be a transdiagnostic dimension in psychopathology [22]. Indeed, psychological distress and several psychiatric disorders are associated with both specific deficits in executive function and general neurocognitive impairments, including impaired intellectual functioning [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. The manifestation of cognitive impairment in apparently recovered patient cohorts implies that some cognitive impairments associated with mental illness may possess trait-like qualities [24, 34, 35].

Psychological distress and executive deficits are also considered integral transdiagnostic components of SUD and map to the withdrawal/negative affect and preoccupation/anticipation stages in the addiction cycle [12, 36,37,38]. Conversely, substance use may cause neuropsychological impairments [39] originating from factors such as neuroadaptations [40, 41], cerebrovascular changes [42] and hypoxia [43]. Moreover, elevated psychological distress has also been linked with cognitive impairments in patients with SUD [44,45,46]. This is noteworthy because cognitive impairments negatively affect several treatment processes and therapeutic change mechanisms [47,48,49,50] as well as treatment outcomes such as rates of drop-out [6, 51, 52] and relapse [53,54,55].

Despite the recognized link between SUD, psychological distress, and cognition, the authors are unaware of any specific research addressing the influence of cognitive functioning at the initiation of SUD treatment on long-term psychological distress in this group of patients.

Aim

The overall objective of the current study is to evaluate the utility of administering cognitive screening instruments to inform treatment planning in a typical treatment seeking group of patients receiving treatment for polysubstance use disorder (pSUD). Clinical research on SUDs has predominantly investigated particular substances in isolation, often excluding individuals with a history of polysubstance use [56]. Nevertheless, polysubstance use is the norm in both clinical and population samples [57, 58] and represents up to 91% of treatment-seeking patients, who consume an average of 3.5 substances [59]. Additionally, individuals seeking treatment for monosubstance use disorders frequently display polysubstance use [60,61,62,63,64,65].

This study aims to 1) establish associations between cognitive impairments measured by three screening instruments at baseline (the Montreal Cognitive Assessment® (MoCA®), Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) and the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function - Adult version (BRIEF-A)), and psychological distress measured according to self-reports on the Symptom Checklist 90 Revised (SCL-90-R) one and five years after enrolment in a treatment programme and 2) examine the ability of the MoCA®, WASI and BRIEF-A to predict psychological distress among treatment seeking in- and outpatients with pSUD receiving treatment as usual at two follow-up time points. Accordingly, we hypothesize that cognitive impairment according to at least one instrument would be associated with increased substance use and a predictor of elevated distress at follow-ups one and five years after enrolment.

Methods

Design

This study is part of the Stavanger Study of Trajectories of Addiction (STAYER), a prospective longitudinal cohort study of neurocognitive, psychological and social recovery in patients with SUD who initiated a new treatment sequence in the Stavanger University Hospital catchment area in Norway.

Setting

Two hundred and eight patients were recruited at convenience from 10 specialized outpatient and residential SUD treatment facilities within the Stavanger University Hospital catchment area between March 2012 and January 2016. These facilities were diverse in terms of treatment approaches and target groups with regard to type and severity of comorbid psychiatric disorders, the severity of substance use, and degree of social adjustment and functioning. All recruitment sites are staffed by a multidisciplinary team and offers services that address a broad spectrum of psychosocial and medical issues related to SUDs. The eligibility criteria for treatment in specialized SUD-treatment services in Norway require patients to meet the diagnostic criteria for either F1x.1 harmful use, F1x.2 dependency syndrome, or F63.0 pathological gambling as defined by the ICD-10 [66]. Participants were approached by an on-site clinician working with the patient and asked if they were interested in participating in the study. Each participant was assigned a primary research assistant throughout the project and compensated approximately EUR 40 per assessment for their participation. Baseline assessment was performed after a minimum of two weeks of self-reported abstinence to minimize contamination from drug withdrawal and acute neurotoxic effects from psychoactive substances [67]. Abstinence was achieved either in a home setting or a specialized residential facility. Follow-up assessments were conducted after one and five years. Trained research personnel of the STAYER research group collected all data. Clinicians working with the patient were blinded to the assessment results obtained in the current study.

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria were as follows: a) patients enrolled in the treatment program to which they were admitted for at least two weeks; b) patients over 16 years of age; c) patients who met the diagnostic criteria for F1x.1 or F1x.2; and d) patients who reported polysubstance use defined as the consumption of multiple substances within the last year before inclusion.

Measures

At baseline, demographic neurocognitive, psychological and social functioning data were collected through semistructured interviews, questionnaires, and selected cognitive tests administered to the patients. We used a preliminary version of the National Quality Register for Substance Abuse (KVARUS) [68], a semistructured interview to obtain information on the type of substance intake, initial age at use, treatment and work history, and educational, vocational, and social adjustment. Substance intake was measured at the one- and five-year follow-up assessments. Psychological distress was measured at baseline, as well as during the one- and five-year follow-up assessments.

The Montreal cognitive assessment

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment® (MoCA®) is a cognitive screening tool that measures overall cognitive function by sampling behaviour across 14 performance tasks that engage multiple cognitive domains [65]. The test is scored in integers to obtain a total score between 0 and 30. We defined cognitive impairment (MoCA®+) at a sum score ≤ 25, where MoCA® has demonstrated excellent sensitivity and acceptable specificity in identifying mild cognitive impairment [65]. A MoCA® nonimpaired group (MoCA®-) was defined at sum-score > 25. MoCA® has proven effective in detecting mild cognitive impairment among patients with SUDs, exhibiting good test-retest reliability, good internal consistency, and sensitivity when utilizing the specified cut-off value [69,70,71].

The Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence

The Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) [72] comprises four subtests, two verbal measures of crystallized intelligence (Vocabulary and Similarities) and two nonverbal tests of fluent intelligence (Block Design and Matrix Reasoning). The subtests within the WASI correspond to the subtests found in the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Third Edition [73], although they feature different items. The full-scale IQ (FSIQ) was selected to reflect general intellectual function (“g-factor”). Cognitive impairment (WASI+) was delineated as an FSIQ < 86, thereby including participants with borderline intellectual functioning as cognitively impaired [45]. We also defined a WASI nonimpaired group (WASI-) as FSIQ ≥86.

The behavior rating inventory of executive function - adult version

The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function - Adult version (BRIEF-A) is a self-report questionnaire to assess executive functioning in daily-life situations [74, 75]. The BRIEF-A comprises nine subscales and three composite scores. We utilized the cut-off scores, age norms and validation criteria proposed by the original authors [74]. Participants with cognitive impairment (BRIEF-A+) were identified by utilizing a standardized t score of ≥65 on the BRIEF-A Global Executive Composite (GEC) score. BRIEF-A GEC nonimpaired (BRIEF-A-) was defined as a GEC score < 65.

The symptom Checklist-90-revised

The Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R) [76] is a 90-item self-report measure widely used in clinical practice and research. It has been validated for the assessment of psychological distress in patients with SUD [77], as well as in individuals with intellectual disabilities [78]. A five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (severely) is used to assess the level of distress experienced by respondents in the past 7 days. The checklist yields nine symptom dimension subscales: Somatization, Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Depression, Anxiety, Hostility, Phobic Anxiety, Paranoid Ideation, and Psychoticism. The Global Severity Index (GSI) reflects the mean score of SCL-90-R for all reported symptoms and was employed to assess overall psychological distress. In accordance with Derogatis [76], we defined “caseness”, i.e., self-reported level of psychological distress that warrants further assessment, as a GSI standardized t score ≥ 63 or t score ≥ 63 on two or more symptom scales.

The drug use identification test

The Drug Use Identification Test (DUDIT) is a self-report screening tool used to evaluate substance consumption, substance-related behaviours, and substance-related problems [79]. The DUDIT consists of 11 items that are rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “never” to “four or more times a week”. We used the four consumption items from DUDIT (DUDIT-C) to gauge substance intake [80]. As study participation mandated a period of abstinence from substances prior to baseline assessment, the DUDIT-C score was recorded as 0 at the baseline measurements.

Statistical procedure

Assumptions of normality were evaluated by inspecting histograms and the Shapiro–Wilks test. To obtain optimal statistical power, we did not listwise exclude cases when some cognitive measures were missing or invalid. The distribution of the SCL-90-R GSI scores departed significantly from normality at baseline (W = 0.96, p < 0.001), year 1 (W = 0.92, p < 0.001) and year 5 (W = 0.89, p < 0.001). This was also true for age (W = 0.92, p < 0.001), years of education (W = 0.94, p < 0.001), years of work experience (W = 0.82, p < 0.001), substance debut age (W = 0.93, p < 0.001), years of substance use (W = 0.93, p < 0.001) and treatment attempts (W = 0.75, p < 0.001). Thus, we applied the Mann–Whitney U test to evaluate group differences pertaining to cognitive impairment according to the respective instrument. In accordance with Fritz et al. [81], we calculated effect sizes for these analyses. The chi-squared test of independence was used to analyse group differences for the categorical variables caseness, gender, income from work or other meaningful daily activity and intravenous drug ever used.

Additional analyses were conducted on all baseline variables to examine differences in attrition over the five-year study duration. Disparities in attrition rate based on baseline measurements of MoCA®, WASI and BRIEF-A has been reported elsewhere [82].

We ran hierarchal logistic regression analyses with SCL-90-R caseness as outcome at years one and five. The model was developed in three stages to evaluate the utility of administering cognitive screening instruments. Cognitive status, measured by the cognitive screening tools (MoCA®, WASI or BRIEF-A), was therefore entered in the first model (Model 1). DUDIT-C score from the corresponding time point of interest was added in Model 2, and baseline SCL-90-R GSI score was added in the third and final model to evaluate the effect of cognitive status when their potential effects were accounted for. Nagelkerke’s R2 was used to measure the goodness of fit of the regression models. Variance inflation factor diagnostics, utilizing a threshold of 2.50 [83], indicated that multicollinearity among the independent variables posed no issues in the regression models. Statistics were conducted using the statistical software package SPSS version 29 (IBM Corp., released 2022).

Results

Among the 164 participants included in this study, 145 were available for the one-year assessment, and 109 participants were available for the five-year assessment. Figure 1 presents the flow of participants and available data.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Participant inclusion, exclusion and missing data flow at baseline, 1-year, and 5-year follow-up measurements. Discrepancies between (i) excluded participants and (ii) the number of analysed protocols at baseline and follow-ups result from overlap between excluded protocols at baseline and study dropout or missing data at follow up. Specifically, a) 17 BRIEF-A protocols were excluded at the 1-year follow-up measurement, and b) 55 WASI and c) 51 BRIEF-A protocols were excluded at the 5-year follow-up measurement. MoCA®, Montreal Cognitive Assessment®; WASI, Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence; BRIEF-A, Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function – Adult version

Full size image

Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the sample at baseline, providing separate presentations of the cognitively impaired and nonimpaired groups. The BRIEF-A+ (impaired) group was younger (Mdn = 24.0) than the BRIEF-A- (nonimpaired) group (Mdn = 27.0), U = 5808.5, p = .028. r = .18. The BRIEF-A+ group also had more treatment attempts (Mdn = 1.0) than the BRIEF-A- group (Mdn = 1.0), U = 1979, p = .023, r = .19. The proportion of participants who met the criteria for caseness was approximately 76, 58 and 52% at baseline, year one and year five, respectively.

Table 1 Demographic features of the sample at baseline stratified according to cognitive impairment
Full size table

Association between cognitive impairment and SCL-90-R

Table 2 presents the SCL-90-R GSI and caseness at baseline, year one and five stratified by cognitive impairment. A significantly greater proportion classified as MoCA® + (impaired) met criteria for caseness at year one χ2 (1, N = 143) = 5.63, p = .018, V = .20 and year five χ2 (1, N = 107) = 4.45, p = .035, V = .20.

Table 2 SCL-90-R scores stratified according to cognitive impairment assessed at baseline
Full size table

At baseline, the WASI+ (impaired) group (Mdn = 1.4) displayed a significantly higher SCL-90-R GSI score than the WASI- (nonimpared) group (Mdn = 1.0), U = 2480, p = .038, r = .16. Similarly, at year five, the proportion of caseness was higher for the WASI+ group than for the WASI- group χ2 (1, N = 109) = 6.30, p = .012, V = .24.

The BRIEF-A+ group was associated with all measures of SCL-90-R GSI and caseness. At baseline, the BRIEF-A+ group exhibited both a higher SCL-90-R GSI score (Mdn = 1.3) compared to the BRIEF-A- group (Mdn = 0.6), U = 4200, p < .001, r = .56 and a higher likelihood of caseness χ2 (1, N = 145) = 32.55, p < .0001, V = .47. At year one, the BRIEF-A+ group had significantly higher SCL-90-R GSI score (Mdn = 0.8) compared to the BRIEF-A- group (Mdn = 0.4), U = 2797, p < .001, r = .33 and was also associated with caseness χ2 (1, N = 129) = 14.17, p < .0001, V = .33. Similarly, at year five, the BRIEF-A+ group also had a significantly higher SCL-90-R GSI score (Mdn = 0.7) than the BRIEF-A- group (Mdn = 0.3), U = 1448, p = .003, r = .30. Additionally, the BRIEF-A+ group had a higher proportion of caseness compared to the BRIEF-A- group χ2 (1, N = 95) = 6.04, p = .014, V = .25.

Differences in attrition over the five-year study duration

Participants dropping out of the study had lower education (Mdn = 11.0) compared to participant who did not drop out of the study (Mdn = 12.00), U = 2431, p = .005, r = .22. We did not find any baseline disparities on study drop out on the age, gender, occupational status, history with intravenous drug use, years of work, substance debut age and years of substance use.

Prediction of SCL-90-R caseness by cognitive impairment

Tables 3 and 4 summarizes the test statistics and results obtained from the hierarchical logistic regression analyses conducted at years one and five, respectively, with the primarily aim to investigate the value of cognitive status to predict SCL-90-R caseness. At year one (Table 3), all regression models yielded a significant solution except for WASI Model 1.

Table 3 Summary of hierarchical logistic regression analyses at year one with SCL-90-R caseness as the dependent variable
Full size table
Table 4 Summary of hierarchical logistic regression analyses at year five with SCL-90-R caseness as the dependent variable
Full size table

Nagelkerke R2 increased from Model 1 (cognitive instrument as predictor) to Model 2 (cognitive instrument + DUDIT-C as predictor) and from Model 2 to Model 3 (cognitive instrument + DUDIT-C + Baseline GSI as predictor) across all the hierarchical regression analyses. The Nagelkerke R2 for the significant model solutions were in the range of .054–.425 at year one and .055–.295 at year five.

MoCA® + emerged as a significant independent predictor of long-term caseness in all models, except for Model 2 at year one, where it approached significance at an α = .05 level (p = .066). Its odds ratios (ORs) ranged from 2.2 to 3.4. While WASI+ did not prove to be a significant predictor of caseness in the year one regression models, it gained significance in all models at year five, with ORs ranging from 4.5 to 5.2. BRIEF-A+ exhibited significant predictive ability for caseness in Model 1 and Model 2 at both year one and year five, with ORs ranging from 2.9 to 4.1. However, the statistical significance of BRIEF-A+ as a predictor was lost in Model 3 at both years one and five.

In addition, the DUDIT-C scores emerged as significant predictors of caseness in models 2 and 3 for both year one and year five, with ORs ranging from 1.1 to 1.2. Similarly, when baseline GSI was included in Model 3 at both time points, it also demonstrated significant predictive value, with ORs ranging from 2.9 to 6.4.

Discussion

We established associations between three widely used cognitive screening tools and psychological distress and examined their ability to predict the occurrence of psychological distress at levels warranting psychiatric assessment one and five years following treatment initiation. The main finding in the current study was that the results from the selected cognitive screening instruments showed associations with psychological distress and predicted later caseness in all regression models. However, the patterns of associations and predictive value varied across the included cognitive tests. MoCA® + was associated with and proved to be a significant independent predictor of long-term caseness at both the one- and five-year measurements. Notably, significance was sustained after the impact of baseline psychological distress was accounted for. Thus, the MoCA® results may function as an independent predictor of long-term elevated psychological distress among patients with SUD. While WASI+ did not predict caseness at year-one, it was a significant predictor at the five-year follow up, even after accounting for the effect of psychological distress. BRIEF-A+ was associated with elevated psychological distress and caseness according to SCL-90-R GSI at all time points, but lost statistical significance as a predictor variable for caseness when baseline psychological distress was included in the regression model. The baseline SCL-90-R GSI and DUDIT-C scores obtained from the one- and five-year follow-ups emerged as significant predictors of caseness in the regression models, even after accounting for cognitive impairment according to the included cognitive screening instruments.

The explained variance across the regression models suggest that 1) the contribution from baseline GSI and DUDIT-C to the models explanatory power is approximately equal, 2) the regressions where baseline GSI and DUDIT-C are included produce models with a moderate to strong relationship with long-term caseness, compared to a weak relationship when they are excluded, and 3) the difference in explanatory power between MoCA®, WASI FSIQ and BRIEF-A GEC in models including baseline GSI and DUDI-C is limited.

While the MoCA® was not specifically developed to detect cognitive impairments in patients with psychiatric illness or SUD, some subtests within the MoCA® are shown to be sensitive to deficits in executive functioning [84]. Moreover, such deficits are recognized as hallmarks in both SUD [85] and other mental illnesses [22] but also “meaningfully associated” with SUD treatment outcomes [86]. Hagen et al. [44] suggest that MoCA® is dissociated from concurrent psychological distress among patients with SUDs. It is noted that the sample in Hagen et al. [44] shares a significant overlap with the sample used in the current study. Others have demonstrated an association between MoCA® and psychiatric comorbidities among patients with alcohol use disorder [46]. Depressive symptomatology has also been shown to negatively impact MoCA® performance in a non-SUD population [87]. Moreover, a total of 79% of patients admitted to an acute psychiatric ward demonstrated cognitive impairment according to MoCA®, indicating that MoCA® is sensitive to a wide range of mental illnesses [88]. Comorbid PTSD and SUD may also reduce the criterion-related validity of the MoCA® in terms of its correspondence with the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status [89]. Notwithstanding, the current study suggests that MoCA® assesses some cognitive domains that 1) to a limited extent are affected by psychological distress measured with SCL-90-R and 2) contribute to the prediction of long-term caseness.

The mechanism by which MoCA® predicts long-term distress in the current study remains unknown. Previous studies have linked MoCA®-defined impairment to adverse treatment outcomes from isolated and formalized treatment settings [52, 90]. However, patients with cognitive impairments may follow different recovery pathways than patients without such impairments, where informal treatment processes and social structures may gain prominence in determining behavioural, psychosocial, emotional and vocational outcomes [50, 91]. Similarly, the link between MoCA®-derived cognitive impairments and psychological distress may partly be mediated by a complex interplay between treatment responsiveness and psychosocial factors [92]. SUDs and mental health problems are associated with and share social risk factors such as lack of healthy and committed social relationships, financial strain, housing insecurity or poor quality housing, poor education, unemployment and exposure to violence [93,94,95,96,97]. Moreover, individuals with SUD combat stigma and face barriers to social integration. These obstacles pose substantial challenges in their recovery or habilitation [98,99,100] and may contribute to sustaining or perpetuating mental health issues or substance use behaviour [101]. Cycles of relapse and dropouts may impede or worsen social adaptation in the short term, but the full psychological impact of poor social, vocational, and community functioning as well as social exclusion may not become evident until several years after experiencing poor response to treatment.

The relationship between WASI and psychological distress remains somewhat inconclusive. Measures of intellectual functioning have been associated with various mental illnesses [102, 103]. The current findings partially align with Hunt et al. [104], who reported that higher WASI Matrix Reasoning scores predicted a greater reduction in depressive symptomatology among patients receiving treatment for problematic alcohol use. The theoretical basis for the predictive capacity of WASI on psychological distress at the year five measurement, but not year one, is unknown. However, the predictive value of WASI and, to an extent, the MoCA®, on long-term psychological distress may be found in their capacity to provide measures of multiple and diverse cognitive domains [105]. A more general impairment profile, contrary to measures of more discrete cognitive domains, e.g., impulsivity or working memory, may hold greater significance in later stages of recovery. During these phases, stronger efforts are put on navigating the intricacies and challenges of work and social life than in early phases where goals are more demarked and the support network is more engaged. Within this context, cognitive impairment may increase psychological distress when interfering with the individuals’ coping with daily life demands.

The results of the current study indicated that the BRIEF-A was intimately linked to psychological distress. However, the ability of BRIEF-A GEC to predict clinical outcomes in terms of long-term psychological distress beyond measures of psychological distress at treatment onset appears limited. The association between psychological distress and elevated BRIEF-A self-reported executive impairments extends across diverse clinical and nonclinical cohorts, including veterans [106], patients with breast cancer, [107], adults with ADHD [33], patients diagnosed with mild or moderate depression [108], patients with neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions [109, 110], patients with brain tumors [111], older adults [112, 113], and controls [109]. Improved BRIEF-A results are also linked to decreased psychological distress among patients with a SUD one year following cessation [55]. Moreover, the BRIEF-A has shown questionable criterion-related validity pertaining to performance on objective tests of executive functioning [108, 113,114,115] and clinically relevant SUD treatment outcomes [82]. BRIEF-A may be particularly sensitive to latent executive deficits shared by SUD and psychiatric disorders, e.g., working memory impairments [14, 22, 116,117,118,119,120,121,122]. Conversely, the BRIEF-A may gauge self-reported functional debilitation associated with psychological distress or mental disorders among patients with SUD rather than impaired executive functioning as defined from psychometric tests.

The study’s results align with prior clinical and population-based research on the prevalence and developmental trajectories of mental illness, affirming that mental health problems among patients with SUD are substantial and that mental health problems act as a risk factor for later life mental health problems [15, 17, 123,124,125]. It is also noted that in accordance with the recommended cut-off scores from SCL-90-R [76], a substantial proportion (76%) of the participants reported a level of psychological distress at treatment initiation that warrants further assessment. Indeed, the level of psychological distress measured with SCL-90-R in the current study appears elevated compared to some SUD-cohorts [77, 126], but still comparable to other severe clinical SUD-profiles [127,128,129]. This suggest that a two-step screening-diagnostic assessment procedure may be redundant for patients with pSUD and that a comprehensive diagnostic assessment of mental illness could represent a more cost-efficient approach in treatment planning for all patients with pSUD. Unsurprisingly, the study reinforces the well-documented association between substance intake and greater levels of psychological distress [15, 17, 130].

Strengths and limitations

The present study is one of few to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes in patients with cooccurring SUD and cognitive impairments. SUDs are recognized as enduring conditions, and data on long-term outcome measurements are of vital importance. The current study attempted to maximize ecological validity and sample heterogeneity. First, we utilized widely used and viable instruments that facilitate generalizability to clinical practice. Second, the study targets polysubstance users which is a clinically relevant and representative SUD sample [59]. Third, the cohort is highly heterogeneous and was recruited from diverse SUD clinics. Norway’s universal access to health care allows for the collection of a more comprehensive sample relative to countries where care is privatized and costly. Fourth, psychological distress represents a clinically relevant outcome measure, with clear implications for treatment planning and action.

The study dropout rate in the current cohort may be higher among participants with impaired intellectual functioning defined by the WASI than among those without [82]. This may potentially modify the sample characteristics pertaining to hitherto unknown key variables accounting for temporal disparities in the association between intellectual impairment and psychological distress. Moreover, the sample size pertaining to participants with intellectual impairments is modest and may mask true differences in psychological distress between the WASI+ and WASI- groups. The size of the WASI+ group is also modest, and fitting a regression model with three predictors exceeds the recommended number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis [131].

The results were not Bonferroni corrected and thus susceptible to type I error, i.e., the results may be spurious. However, there is little consensus on the conditions in which the results should be corrected. Due to the greater exploratory focus in the current study, an application of Bonferroni correction would also carry an inherent risk of committing Type II errors, which was undesirable [132].

The study employed screening instruments to evaluate cognitive functioning, which might have compromised the accuracy of identifying cognitive impairment. While a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment is the gold standard for determining neurocognitive functioning, it is not always feasible in clinical practice and research involving patients with SUDs due to the time-consuming nature of such assessment protocols and the extensive training required for their administration and interpretation. Consequently, clinicians and researchers commonly rely on short, easy to administer cognitive instrument to inform treatment and obtaining neurocognitive research data.

The timeframe from detoxification to assessment may be too short for some participants to measure stable neurocognitive impairment and psychological distress not influenced by long term withdrawal symptomology. While assessments of cognition and psychological distress were performed a minimum of two weeks after substance cessation, not all studies of long-term recovery have required 2-week substance abstinence [39]. In addition, the frequency of cognitive dysfunction according to MoCA® and BRIEF-A found in the current cohort is comparable to results reported in previous studies in SUD populations [82]. Moreover, other studies employing the SCL-90-R have had a similar short cessation period [5, 129] or exhibited comparable degree of psychological distress [127, 128].

The current study utilized a MoCA® cut-off score of ≤25 to detect cognitive impairment in accordance with previous recommendations to enhance comparisons and generalizability [65, 69, 71]. However, the frequency of PTSD symptomatology in the STAYER cohort is high [133], and others have recommended lowering the MoCA® cut-off score to ≤23 to minimize the rate of false positives in SUD-PTSD populations [89].

Participants who dropped out of the study had lower education than those who remained. Furthermore, an earlier study on the current cohort has also indicated a higher study attrition rate among participants with cognitive impairments according to the WASI than among those without [82]. The uneven dropout profile could potentially introduce biases and limit the generalizability of the study’s findings. However, the authors are unaware of any research indicating that such biases could significantly impact the outcomes related to the objectives of the current study.

While the hierarchical regression model was valuable in showing the importance of cognitive status in predicting SCL-90-R caseness, the selection and ordering of the predictors, guided by the overall aim of the study, may have overlooked over relevant features. Future studies should aim to replicate and extend the findings of the current study.

Conclusions

Identifying risk factors that undermine long term recovery is pivotal to ensure adequate treatment and post SUD-treatment support. The present study emphasized the importance of cognitive impairment and psychological distress at treatment initiation which was shown to predict elevated long-term psychological distress. Further studies should examine mediators between cognitive impairments and long-term psychological distress. Exploring such mediators could provide valuable insights into the underlying mechanisms and potential targets for interventions aimed at reducing psychological distress in individuals with cognitive impairments. In particular, little is known about the interaction between cognition and environmental factors in long term SUD-recovery. This represent a crucial research avenue to inform service providers and network on patients’ long term support needs. Research is also needed to develop clinically viable short assessment tools with established criterion-related and ecological validity. Such instruments should aim to reliably differentiate between potential psychopathology-driven cognitive impairment and cognitive deficits derived from substance-related neuroadaptations or neurotoxic effects.

BRIEF-A may be more sensitive to psychopathology-driven cognitive impairments than MoCA® and WASI. Caution should be exercised when employing BRIEF-A within a clinical SUD context considering its potential limitations and biases. If utilized, it is crucial to corroborate the results with results from objective measures of executive functioning and a broader psychiatric evaluation. The utility of BRIEF-A may rather be evaluated and studied within the framework of being a viable tool assessing self-reported functional impairments associated with psychiatric conditions. Research should be conducted to explore the potential of BRIEF-A in differentiating between patients with psychiatric disorders and SUD while also determining the feasibility of identifying distinct BRIEF-A profiles.

Considering the high frequency of mental health issues in patients with polysubstance use disorders, it is imperative to investigate the cost–benefit ratio of implementing routine screening for mental disorders in individuals presenting with polysubstance use, as opposed to conducting a comprehensive diagnostic assessment for all.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Change history

Abbreviations

ADHD:

Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder

BRIEF-A:

Behaviour rating inventory of executive function - adult version

CI:

Confidence interval

DUDIT:

The drug use identification test

DUDIT-C:

The drug use identification test - consumption items

EUR:

Euro

FSIQ:

Full-scale IQ

GEC:

Global executive composite

GSI:

Global severity index

ICD-10:

International classification of diseases, tenth revision

MoCA® :

Montreal cognitive assessment®

OR:

Odds ratio

pSUD:

poly Substance use disorder

PTSD:

Post traumatic stress disorder

SCL-90-R:

Symptom check list-90-revised

SUD:

Substance use disorder

STAYER:

Stavanger study of trajectories of addiction

WASI:

Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence

References

  1. Connell J, O’Cathain A, Lloyd-Jones M, Paisley S. Quality of life of people with mental health problems: A synthesis of qualitative research. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:138.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Evans S, Banerjee S, Leese M, Huxley P. The impact of mental illness on quality of life: A comparison of severe mental illness, common mental disorder and healthy population samples. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(1):17–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lauvsnes ADF, Gråwe RW, Langaas M. Predicting relapse in substance use: prospective modeling based on intensive longitudinal data on mental health, cognition, and craving. Brain Sci. 2022;12(7):957.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Andersson HW, Mosti MP, Nordfjaern T. Inpatients in substance use treatment with co-occurring psychiatric disorders: a prospective cohort study of characteristics and relapse predictors. BMC Psychiatry. 2023;23(1):152.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Engel K, Schaefer M, Stickel A, Binder H, Heinz A, Richter C. The role of Psychological distress in relapse prevention of alcohol addiction. Can high scores on the SCL-90-R predict alcohol relapse? Alcohol Alcohol. 2016;51(1):27–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brorson HH, Ajo Arnevik E, Rand-Hendriksen K, Duckert F. Drop-out from addiction treatment: A systematic review of risk factors. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33(8):1010–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Andersson HW, Steinsbekk A, Walderhaug E, Otterholt E, Nordfjærn T. Predictors of dropout from inpatient substance use treatment: A prospective cohort study. Subst Abuse. 2018;12:1178221818760551.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Krawczyk N, Feder KA, Saloner B, Crum RM, Kealhofer M, Mojtabai R. The association of psychiatric comorbidity with treatment completion among clients admitted to substance use treatment programs in a U.S. national sample. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;175:157–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Clarke SP, Oades LG, Crowe TP, Caputi P, Deane FP. The role of symptom distress and goal attainment in promoting aspects of psychological recovery for consumers with enduring mental illness. J Ment Health. 2009;18(5):389–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moss-Pech SA, Southward MW, Cheavens JS. Hope attenuates the negative impact of general Psychological distress on goal Progress. J Clin Psychol. 2020;77.

  11. Manuel JI, Stebbins MB, Wu E. Gender differences in perceived unmet treatment needs among persons with and without co-occurring disorders. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2018;45(1):1–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kwako LE, Momenan R, Litten RZ, Koob GF, Goldman D. Addictions Neuroclinical assessment: A neuroscience-based framework for addictive disorders. Biol Psychiatry. 2016;80(3):179–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Morisano D, Babor TF, Robaina KA. Co-occurrence of substance use disorders with other psychiatric disorders: implications for treatment services. Nordic Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2014;31(1):5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Burton SMI, Sallis HM, Hatoum AS, Munafò MR, Reed ZE. Is there a causal relationship between executive function and liability to mental health and substance use? A Mendelian randomization approach. R Soc Open Sci. 2022;9(12):220631.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Andreas JB, Lauritzen G, Nordfjærn T. Co-occurrence between mental distress and poly-drug use: A ten year prospective study of patients from substance abuse treatment. Addict Behav. 2015;48:71–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Compton WM, Thomas YF, Stinson FS, Grant BF. Prevalence, correlates, disability, and comorbidity of DSM-IV drug abuse and dependence in the United States: results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64(5):566–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hjemsaeter AJ, Monsbakken B, Bramness JG, Benth JS, Drake R, Landheim AS, Skeie I. Levels of mental distress over 18 years after entering treatment for substance use disorders: A longitudinal cohort study. Nordic Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2020;37(4):352–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Langås AM, Malt UF, Opjordsmoen S. Substance use disorders and comorbid mental disorders in first-time admitted patients from a catchment area. Eur Addict Res. 2012;18(1):16–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ross S, Peselow E. Co-occurring psychotic and addictive disorders: neurobiology and diagnosis. Clin Neuropharmacol. 2012;35(5):235–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Torrens M, Gilchrist G, Domingo-Salvany A. Psychiatric comorbidity in illicit drug users: substance-induced versus independent disorders. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;113(2–3):147–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Magidson JF, Liu SM, Lejuez CW, Blanco C. Comparison of the course of substance use disorders among individuals with and without generalized anxiety disorder in a nationally representative sample. J Psychiatr Res. 2012;46(5):659–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Abramovitch A, Short T, Schweiger A. The C factor: cognitive dysfunction as a transdiagnostic dimension in psychopathology. Clin Psychol Rev. 2021;86:102007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nolen-Hoeksema S, Watkins ER. A heuristic for developing Transdiagnostic models of psychopathology: explaining multifinality and divergent trajectories. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011;6(6):589–609.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Millan MJ, Agid Y, Brüne M, Bullmore ET, Carter CS, Clayton NS, et al. Cognitive dysfunction in psychiatric disorders: characteristics, causes and the quest for improved therapy. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11(2):141–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim EJ, Bahk YC, Oh H, Lee WH, Lee JS, Choi KH. Current status of cognitive remediation for psychiatric disorders: A review. Front Psychiatry. 2018;9:461.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Garcia-Villamisar D, Dattilo J, Garcia-Martinez M. Executive functioning in people with personality disorders. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2017;30(1).

  27. Keyes KM, Platt J, Kaufman AS, McLaughlin KA. Association of Fluid Intelligence and Psychiatric Disorders in a population-representative sample of US adolescents. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(2):179–88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Marazziti D, Consoli G, Picchetti M, Carlini M, Faravelli L. Cognitive impairment in major depression. Eur J Pharmacol. 2010;626(1):83–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Diamond A. Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64(1):135–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Höijer I, Ilonen T, Löyttyniemi E, Salokangas RKR. Neuropsychological performance in patients with substance use disorder with and without mood disorders. Nord J Psychiatry. 2020;74(6):444–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Melby L, Indredavik MS, Løhaugen G, Brubakk AM, Skranes J, Vik T. Is there an association between full IQ score and mental health problems in young adults? A study with a convenience sample. BMC Psychology. 2020;8(1):7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Teasdale TW, Antal K. Psychological distress and intelligence in young men. Personal Individ Differ. 2016;99:336–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Arellano-Virto PT, Seubert-Ravelo AN, Prieto-Corona B, Witt-González A, Yáñez-Téllez G. Association between psychiatric symptoms and executive function in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Psychol Neurosci. 2021; No Pagination Specified-No Pagination Specified.

  34. Paelecke-Habermann Y, Pohl J, Leplow B. Attention and executive functions in remitted major depression patients. J Affect Disord. 2005;89(1):125–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sofuoglu M, DeVito EE, Waters AJ, Carroll KM. Cognitive function as a Transdiagnostic treatment target in stimulant use disorders. J Dual Diagn. 2016;12(1):90–106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Koob GF. Neurobiological substrates for the dark side of compulsivity in addiction. Neuropharmacology. 2009;56(Suppl 1):18–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Yücel M, Oldenhof E, Ahmed SH, Belin D, Billieux J, Bowden-Jones H, et al. A transdiagnostic dimensional approach towards a neuropsychological assessment for addiction: an international Delphi consensus study. Addiction. 2019;114(6):1095–109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ramey T, Regier PS. Cognitive impairment in substance use disorders. CNS Spectr. 2019;24(1):102–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fernández-Serrano MJ, Pérez-García M, Verdejo-García A. What are the specific vs. generalized effects of drugs of abuse on neuropsychological performance? Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011;35(3):377–406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Verdejo-García A. The neuropsychologist working in addiction: what to know? Ten questions and answers. Rev Iberoam Neuropsicol. 2018;1(2):170–9.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Klugah-Brown B, Di X, Zweerings J, Mathiak K, Becker B, Biswal B. Common and separable neural alterations in substance use disorders: A coordinate-based meta-analyses of functional neuroimaging studies in humans. Hum Brain Mapp. 2020;41.

  42. Rojas R, Riascos R, Vargas D, Cuellar H, Borne J. Neuroimaging in drug and substance abuse part I: cocaine, Cannabis, and ecstasy. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;16(3).

  43. Winstanley EL, Mahoney JJ 3rd, Castillo F, Comer SD. Neurocognitive impairments and brain abnormalities resulting from opioid-related overdoses: A systematic review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021;226:108838.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Hagen E, Sømhovd M, Hesse M, Arnevik EA, Erga AH. Measuring cognitive impairment in young adults with polysubstance use disorder with MoCA or BRIEF-A – the significance of psychiatric symptoms. J Subst Abus Treat. 2019;97:21–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hetland J, Braatveit KJ, Hagen E, Lundervold AJ, Erga AH. Prevalence and characteristics of borderline intellectual functioning in a cohort of patients with polysubstance use disorder. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:1185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. D’Hondt F, Lescut C, Maurage P, Menard O, Gibour B, Cottencin O, et al. Psychiatric comorbidities associated with a positive screening using the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) test in subjects with severe alcohol use disorder. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;191:266–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Blume AW, Alan MG. The role of executive cognitive functions in changing substance use: what we know and what we need to know. Ann Behav Med. 2009;37(2):117–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Luteijn I, Didden R, VanDerNagel J. Individuals with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning in a forensic addiction treatment center: prevalence and clinical characteristics. Adv Neurodev Disord. 2017;1(4):240–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Severtson SG, von Thomsen S, Hedden SL, Latimer W. The association between executive functioning and motivation to enter treatment among regular users of heroin and/or cocaine in Baltimore, MD. Addict Behav. 2010;35(7):717–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Bates ME, Pawlak AP, Tonigan JS, Buckman JF. Cognitive impairment influences drinking outcome by altering therapeutic mechanisms of change. Psychol Addict Behav. 2006;20(3):241–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Aharonovich E, Hasin DS, Brooks AC, Liu X, Bisaga A, Nunes EV. Cognitive deficits predict low treatment retention in cocaine dependent patients. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;81(3):313–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sømhovd M, Hagen E, Bergly T, Arnevik EA. The Montreal cognitive assessment as a predictor of dropout from residential substance use disorder treatment. Heliyon. 2019;5(3):e01282-e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Braatveit K, Torsheim T, Hove O. The prevalence and characteristics of intellectual and borderline intellectual disabilities in a sample of inpatients with substance use disorders: preliminary clinical results. J Ment Health Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;11:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Barreno EM, Domínguez-Salas S, Díaz-Batanero C, Lozano ÓM, Marín JAL, Verdejo-García A. Specific aspects of cognitive impulsivity are longitudinally associated with lower treatment retention and greater relapse in therapeutic community treatment. J Subst Abus Treat. 2019;96:33–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hagen E, Erga AH, Hagen KP, Nesvåg SM, McKay JR, Lundervold AJ, Walderhaug E. One-year sobriety improves satisfaction with life, executive functions and psychological distress among patients with polysubstance use disorder. J Subst Abus Treat. 2017;76:81–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Crummy EA, O’Neal TJ, Baskin BM, Ferguson SM. One is not enough: understanding and modeling polysubstance use. Front Neurosci. 2020;14:569.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Bhalla IP, Stefanovics EA, Rosenheck RA. Clinical epidemiology of single versus multiple substance use disorders: polysubstance use disorder. Med Care. 2017;55(Suppl 9 Suppl 2):S24-s32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. McCabe SE, West BT, Jutkiewicz EM, Boyd CJ. Multiple DSM-5 substance use disorders: A national study of US adults. Hum Psychopharmacol Clin Exp. 2017;32(5):e2625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Onyeka IN, Uosukainen H, Korhonen MJ, Beynon C, Bell JS, Ronkainen K, et al. Sociodemographic characteristics and drug abuse patterns of treatment-seeking illicit drug abusers in Finland, 1997–2008: the Huuti study. J Addict Dis. 2012;31(4):350–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Brooner RK, King VL, Kidorf M, Schmidt CW Jr, Bigelow GE. Psychiatric and substance use comorbidity among treatment-seeking opioid abusers. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997;54(1):71–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Choi NG, DiNitto DM. Older marijuana users in substance abuse treatment: treatment settings for marijuana-only versus polysubstance use admissions. J Subst Abus Treat. 2019;105:28–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Palamar JJ, Le A, Mateu-Gelabert P. Not just heroin: extensive polysubstance use among US high school seniors who currently use heroin. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;188:377–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Staines GL, Magura S, Foote J, Deluca A, Kosanke N. Polysubstance use among alcoholics. J Addict Dis. 2001;20(4):53–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Timko C, Han X, Woodhead E, Shelley A, Cucciare MA. Polysubstance use by stimulant users: health outcomes over three years. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2018;79(5):799–807.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The montreal cognitive assessment, moca: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. World Health Organization. The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Miller L. Neuropsychological assessment substance abusers: review and recommendations. J Subst Abus Treat. 1985;2(1):5–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Center for Alcohol & Drug Research Helse Vest. National quality register for the treatment of harmful substance use or addiction 2018. Available from: https://www.helse-stavanger.no/kvarus. Accessed 15 Feb 2024.

  69. Copersino ML, Fals-Stewart W, Fitzmaurice G, Schretlen DJ, Sokoloff J, Weiss RD. Rapid cognitive screening of patients with substance use disorders. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;17(5):337–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Ko KY, Ridley N, Bryce SD, Allott K, Smith A, Kamminga J. Screening tools for cognitive impairment in adults with substance use disorders: A systematic review. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2021;28:1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Ridley N, Batchelor J, Draper B, Demirkol A, Lintzeris N, Withall A. Cognitive screening in substance users: diagnostic accuracies of the Mini-mental state examination, Addenbrooke’s cognitive examination-revised, and Montreal cognitive assessment. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2018;40(2):107–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Wechsler D. Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence WASI: manual. TX Pearson/PsychCorp: San Antonio; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Wechsler D, Psychological C. WAIS-III : administration and scoring manual. In: Wechsler adult intelligence scale. San Antonio, Tex: Psychological Corporation; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Roth R, Isquith P, Gioia G. Behavior rating inventory of executive function - adult version (BRIEF-A). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Roth RM, Lance CE, Isquith PK, Fischer AS, Giancola PR. Confirmatory factor analysis of the behavior rating inventory of executive function-adult version in healthy adults and application to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2013;28(5):425–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Derogatis LR. SCL-90-R : symptom checklist-90-R : administration, scoring & procedures manual. Minneapolis, Minn: Pearson; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Bergly T, Nordfjærn T, Hagen R. The dimensional structure of SCL-90-R in a sample of patients with substance use disorder. J Subst Abus. 2013;19.

  78. Kellett SC, Beail N, Newman DW, Mosley E. Indexing Psychological distress in people with an intellectual disability: use of the symptom Checklist-90-R. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 1999;12(4):323–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Voluse AC, Gioia CJ, Sobell LC, Dum M, Sobell MB, Simco ER. Psychometric properties of the drug use disorders identification test (DUDIT) with substance abusers in outpatient and residential treatment. Addict Behav. 2012;37(1):36–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Berman AH, Wennberg P, Sinadinovic K. Changes in mental and physical well-being among problematic alcohol and drug users in 12-month internet-based intervention trials. Psychol Addict Behav. 2015;29(1):97–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Fritz CO, Morris PE, Richler JJ. Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012;141(1):2–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Hetland J, Hagen E, Lundervold AJ, Erga AH. Performance on cognitive screening tests and long-term substance use outcomes in patients with polysubstance use disorder. Eur Addict Res. 2023;1-10.

  83. Allison P. When can you safely ignore multicollinearity? 2015 02.06.2023. Available from: https://statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearity/.

  84. Julayanont P, Phillips N, Chertkow H, Nasreddine ZS. Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA): concept and clinical review. In: Larner AJ, editor. Cognitive screening instruments: A practical approach. London: Springer London; 2013. p. 111–51.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  85. Verdejo-García A, Garcia-Fernandez G, Dom G. Cognition and addiction. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2019;21(3):281–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Verdejo-Garcia A, Lorenzetti V, Manning V, Piercy H, Bruno R, Hester R, et al. A roadmap for integrating neuroscience into addiction treatment: A consensus of the neuroscience interest Group of the International Society of addiction medicine. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10(877).

  87. Blair M, Coleman K, Jesso S, Desbeaumes Jodoin V, Smolewska K, Warriner E, et al. Depressive symptoms negatively impact Montreal cognitive assessment performance: A memory clinic experience. Can J Neurol Sci. 2016;43(4):513–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Wood L, Williams C, Enache G, Withers F, Fullarton K, Salehi D, Draper M. Examining cognitive functioning of adult acute psychiatric inpatients through a brief screening assessment. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2019;42:64–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Kutash LA, Sayer MA, Samii MR, Rabinowitz EP, Boros A, Jensen T, et al. Questionable utility of the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) in detecting cognitive impairment in individuals with comorbid PTSD and SUD. Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2023:1–12. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23279095.2023.2219003.

  90. Beurmanjer H, Bruijnen CJWH, Greeven PGJ, De Jong CAJ, Schellekens AFA, Dijkstra BAG. Cognitive impairments in patients with GHB use disorder predict relapse in GHB use. Eur Addict Res. 2022;28(5):350–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Buckman JF, Bates ME, Morgenstern J. Social support and cognitive impairment in clients receiving treatment for alcohol- and drug-use disorders: a replication study. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2008;69(5):738–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Jokela M. Why is cognitive ability associated with psychological distress and wellbeing? Exploring psychological, biological, and social mechanisms. Personal Individ Differ. 2022;192:111592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Compton MT, Shim RS. The social determinants of mental health. FOCUS. 2015;13(4):419–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Oliveros B, Agulló-Tomás E, Márquez-Álvarez LJ. Risk and protective factors of mental health conditions: impact of employment, deprivation and social relationships. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(11).

  95. Alegría M, NeMoyer A, Falgàs Bagué I, Wang Y, Alvarez K. Social determinants of mental health: where we are and where we need to go. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2018;20(11):95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Daley DC. Family and social aspects of substance use disorders and treatment. J Food Drug Anal. 2013;21(4):S73-Ss6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Amaro H, Sanchez M, Bautista T, Cox R. Social vulnerabilities for substance use: stressors, socially toxic environments, and discrimination and racism. Neuropharmacology. 2021;188:108518.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Harris LM, Matthews LR, Penrose-Wall J, Alam A, Jaworski A. Perspectives on barriers to employment for job seekers with mental illness and additional substance-use problems. Health Soc Care Community. 2014;22(1):67–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Sigurdsson SO, Ring BM, O’Reilly K, Silverman K. Barriers to employment among unemployed drug users: age predicts severity. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2012;38(6):580–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Laura W. Creating an ethical culture to support recovery from substance use disorders. J Med Ethics. 2021;47(12):e9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. McGaffin B, Deane FP, Kelly PJ. Community participation and mental health prior to treatment. Adv Dual Diagn. 2017;10(2):57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Sackeim HA, Freeman J, McElhiney M, Coleman E, Prudic J, Devanand DP. Effects of major depression on estimates of intelligence. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1992;14(2):268–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Mortensen EL, Sørensen HJ, Jensen HH, Reinisch JM, Mednick SA. IQ and mental disorder in young men. Br J Psychiatry. 2005;187(5):407–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Hunt SA, Baker AL, Michie PT, Kavanagh DJ. Neurocognitive profiles of people with comorbid depression and alcohol use: implications for psychological interventions. Addict Behav. 2009;34(10):878–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Royall DR, Lauterbach EC, Kaufer D, Malloy P, Coburn KL, Black KJ. The cognitive correlates of functional status: a review from the committee on research of the American neuropsychiatric association. J Neuropsych Clin Neurosci. 2007;19(3):249–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Shwartz SK, Roper BL, Arentsen TJ, Crouse EM, Adler MC. The behavior rating inventory of executive function®-adult version is related to emotional distress, not executive dysfunction, in a veteran sample. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2020;35(6):701–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Kaiser J, Dietrich J, Amiri M, Rüschel I, Akbaba H, Hantke N, et al. Cognitive performance and Psychological distress in breast Cancer patients at disease onset. Front Psychol. 2019;10.

  108. Hagen BI, Landrø NI, Hoorelbeke K, Lau B, Stubberud J. Characteristics associated with the discrepancy between subjective and objective executive functioning in depression. Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2021;30(5):567–76.

  109. Løvstad M, Sigurdardottir S, Andersson S, Grane VA, Moberget T, Stubberud J, Solbakk AK. Behavior rating inventory of executive function adult version in patients with neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions: symptom levels and relationship to emotional distress. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2016;22(6):682–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Løvstad M, Funderud I, Endestad T, Due-Tønnessen P, Meling TR, Lindgren M, et al. Executive functions after orbital or lateral prefrontal lesions: neuropsychological profiles and self-reported executive functions in everyday living. Brain Inj. 2012;26(13–14):1586–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Braun SE, Lanoye A, Aslanzadeh FJ, Loughan AR. Subjective executive dysfunction in patients with primary brain tumors and their informants: relationships with neurocognitive, psychological, and daily functioning. Brain Inj. 2021;35(14):1665–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Geiger PJ, Reed RG, Combs HL, Boggero IA, Segerstrom SC. Longitudinal associations among older adults’ neurocognitive performance, psychological distress, and self-reported cognitive function. Psychol Neurosci. 2019;12:224–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Meltzer EP, Kapoor A, Fogel J, Elbulok-Charcape MM, Roth RM, Katz MJ, et al. Association of psychological, cognitive, and functional variables with self-reported executive functioning in a sample of nondemented community-dwelling older adults. Appl Neuropsychol: Adult. 2017;24(4):364–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Dube SL, Sigmon S, Althoff RR, Dittus K, Gaalema DE, Ogden DE, et al. Association of self-reported executive function and mood with executive function task performance across adult populations. Appl Neuropsychol: Adult. 2022;29(4):605–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Hagen E, Erga AH, Hagen KP, Nesvåg SM, McKay JR, Lundervold AJ, Walderhaug E. Assessment of executive function in patients with substance use disorder: A comparison of inventory- and performance-based assessment. J Subst Abus Treat. 2016;66:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Gold JM, Barch DM, Feuerstahler LM, Carter CS, MacDonald AW, Ragland JD, et al. Working memory impairment across psychotic disorders. Schizophr Bull. 2019;45(4):804–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Christopher G, MacDonald J. The impact of clinical depression on working memory. Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2005;10(5):379–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Yue J, Zhong S, Luo A, Lai S, He T, Luo Y, et al. Correlations between working memory impairment and Neurometabolites of the prefrontal cortex in drug-naive obsessive-compulsive disorder. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2021;17:2647–57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Duijkers JCLM, Vissers CTWM, Egger JIM. Unraveling executive functioning in dual diagnosis. Front Psychol. 2016;7:979.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Alexander SH, Emma CJ, Sarah MCC, Renato P, Hang Z, Raymond W, et al. The Addiction Risk Factor: A Unitary Genetic Vulnerability Characterizes Substance Use Disorders and Their Associations with Common Correlates. medRxiv. 2021;2021.

  121. East-Richard C, R-Mercier A, Nadeau D, Cellard C. Transdiagnostic neurocognitive deficits in psychiatry: A review of meta-analyses. Can Psychol / Psychol Can. 2020;61:190–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Hatoum AS, Johnson EC, Colbert SMC, Polimanti R, Zhou H, Walters RK, et al. The addiction risk factor: A unitary genetic vulnerability characterizes substance use disorders and their associations with common correlates. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2022;47(10):1739–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Copeland WE, Shanahan L, Costello EJ, Angold A. Childhood and adolescent psychiatric disorders as predictors of young adult disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009;66(7):764–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Hofstra MB, Van der Ende J, Verhulst FC. Continuity and change of psychopathology from childhood into adulthood: a 14-year follow-up study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000;39(7):850–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Gustavson K, Knudsen AK, Nesvåg R, Knudsen GP, Vollset SE, Reichborn-Kjennerud T. Prevalence and stability of mental disorders among young adults: findings from a longitudinal study. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Sander W, Jux M. Psychological distress in alcohol-dependent patients evaluating inpatient treatment with the symptom checklist (SCL-90-R). Eur Addict Res. 2006;12(2):61–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Langås AM, Malt UF, Opjordsmoen S. In-depth study of personality disorders in first-admission patients with substance use disorders. BMC Psychiatry. 2012;12(1):180.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Philips B, Wennberg P, Konradsson P, Franck J. Mentalization-based treatment for concurrent borderline personality disorder and substance use disorder: A randomized controlled feasibility study. Eur Addict Res. 2018;24(1):1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Rasmussen IS, Arefjord K, Winje D, Dovran A. Childhood maltreatment trauma: a comparison between patients in treatment for substance use disorders and patients in mental health treatment. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2018;9(1):1492835.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. Erga AH, Hønsi A, Anda-Ågotnes LG, Nesvåg S, Hesse M, Hagen E. Trajectories of psychological distress during recovery from polysubstance use disorder. Addict Res Theory. 2021;29(1):64–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(12):1373–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Armstrong RA. When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014;34(5):502–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Belfrage A, Mjølhus Njå AL, Lunde S, Årstad J, Fodstad EC, Lid TG, Erga AH. Traumatic experiences and PTSD symptoms in substance use disorder: A comparison of recovered versus current users. Nordic Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2022;40(1):61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to the participants in STAYER and the staff of the participating clinical services, the KORFOR staff, and in particular, Thomas Solgård Svendsen, Anne-Lill Mjølhus Njaa, and Janne Aarstad, who collected all the data.

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Bergen. The Western Norway Regional Health Authority, Strategic Initiative for Substance Use Research [912003], and the Department of Research and Education, Division of Psychiatry, Stavanger University Hospital funded this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Alcohol and Drug Research (KORFOR), Stavanger University Hospital, P.O. Box 8100, N-4068, Stavanger, Norway

    Jens Hetland & Aleksander H. Erga

  2. Department of Biological and Medical Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Jens Hetland & Astri J. Lundervold

  3. The Norwegian Centre for Movement Disorders, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway

    Aleksander H. Erga

  4. Institute of Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

    Aleksander H. Erga

Authors
  1. Jens Hetland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Astri J. Lundervold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aleksander H. Erga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Jens Hetland and Aleksander Hagen Erga: conceptualized and designed the study. Jens Hetland: wrote the first draft and revised the manuscript. Jens Hetland and Aleksander Hagen Erga performed the analyses. Aleksander Hagen Erga and Astri Johansen Lundervold  made critical revisions of the manuscript. Aleksander Hagen Erga and Astrid Johansen Lundervold supervised the study. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jens Hetland.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Regional Ethics Committee West, University of Bergen, approval reference REK 2011/1877. The research was conducted according to its guidelines and those of the Helsinki Declaration (1975). All participants gave written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: the sentence has been corrected in the Abstract.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hetland, J., Lundervold, A.J. & Erga, A.H. Cognitive impairment as a predictor of long-term psychological distress in patients with polysubstance use disorders: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. BMC Psychiatry 24, 143 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05600-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05600-x

Keywords

BMC Psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X

Contact us