Ryan E Lawrence, Adam Bernstein, Chaya Jaffe, Yinjun Zhao, Yuanjia Wang, Terry E Goldberg
{"title":"精神科急诊患者参加药物使用临床试验的资格:排除标准的影响。","authors":"Ryan E Lawrence, Adam Bernstein, Chaya Jaffe, Yinjun Zhao, Yuanjia Wang, Terry E Goldberg","doi":"10.1080/15504263.2024.2377100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> The first objective was to identify common exclusion criteria used in clinical trials. The second objective was to quantify the degree to which these criteria exclude emergency psychiatry patients. <b>Methods:</b> Qualitative Content Analysis was used for the first objective, identifying common exclusion criteria used in recent high-impact substance use clinical trials. A retrospective record review was used for the second objective, which examined the frequency of these exclusion criteria in a 1-month sample of adults receiving psychiatric evaluation in an emergency department. <b>Results:</b> Most trials had exclusions for co-occurring psychiatric problems (76.6%), medical problems (74.0%), prior or current treatment (72.7%), motivation for change (61.1%), pregnancy or lactation (57.1%), or using other specified substances of abuse (54.6%). In the clinical sample, exclusions for co-occurring psychiatric problems would make 94.7% of patients ineligible. Other exclusions had a combined effect of making 76% of patients ineligible. <b>Conclusions:</b> Clinical trials using typical exclusion criteria exclude nearly all emergency psychiatry patients with substance use problems.</p>","PeriodicalId":46571,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dual Diagnosis","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eligibility for Substance Use Clinical Trials Among Emergency Psychiatry Patients: The Impact of Exclusion Criteria.\",\"authors\":\"Ryan E Lawrence, Adam Bernstein, Chaya Jaffe, Yinjun Zhao, Yuanjia Wang, Terry E Goldberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15504263.2024.2377100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> The first objective was to identify common exclusion criteria used in clinical trials. The second objective was to quantify the degree to which these criteria exclude emergency psychiatry patients. <b>Methods:</b> Qualitative Content Analysis was used for the first objective, identifying common exclusion criteria used in recent high-impact substance use clinical trials. A retrospective record review was used for the second objective, which examined the frequency of these exclusion criteria in a 1-month sample of adults receiving psychiatric evaluation in an emergency department. <b>Results:</b> Most trials had exclusions for co-occurring psychiatric problems (76.6%), medical problems (74.0%), prior or current treatment (72.7%), motivation for change (61.1%), pregnancy or lactation (57.1%), or using other specified substances of abuse (54.6%). In the clinical sample, exclusions for co-occurring psychiatric problems would make 94.7% of patients ineligible. Other exclusions had a combined effect of making 76% of patients ineligible. <b>Conclusions:</b> Clinical trials using typical exclusion criteria exclude nearly all emergency psychiatry patients with substance use problems.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46571,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Dual Diagnosis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-16\",\"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/10.1080/15504263.2024.2377100\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dual Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15504263.2024.2377100","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Eligibility for Substance Use Clinical Trials Among Emergency Psychiatry Patients: The Impact of Exclusion Criteria.
Objective: The first objective was to identify common exclusion criteria used in clinical trials. The second objective was to quantify the degree to which these criteria exclude emergency psychiatry patients. Methods: Qualitative Content Analysis was used for the first objective, identifying common exclusion criteria used in recent high-impact substance use clinical trials. A retrospective record review was used for the second objective, which examined the frequency of these exclusion criteria in a 1-month sample of adults receiving psychiatric evaluation in an emergency department. Results: Most trials had exclusions for co-occurring psychiatric problems (76.6%), medical problems (74.0%), prior or current treatment (72.7%), motivation for change (61.1%), pregnancy or lactation (57.1%), or using other specified substances of abuse (54.6%). In the clinical sample, exclusions for co-occurring psychiatric problems would make 94.7% of patients ineligible. Other exclusions had a combined effect of making 76% of patients ineligible. Conclusions: Clinical trials using typical exclusion criteria exclude nearly all emergency psychiatry patients with substance use problems.
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.