Recovery capital (RC) encompasses the wide range of resources individuals can employ to recover from Substance Use Disorder (SUD). It consists of five subdomains: human, social, cultural, financial, and community RC. Negative recovery capital (NRC) represents the obstacles to recovery. Research on (N)RC in complex multimorbid populations is scarce. This study offers an initial exploration of the viability of (N)RC in three individuals with SUD, psychiatric comorbidities, and an intellectual disability (a triple diagnosis) in inpatient addiction treatment. We collected case file data, ranked recovery goals, and conducted follow-up interviews. The data were subjected to template analysis, using (N)RC domains as codes. All domains were prevalent and relevant, showing dynamic and reciprocal effects, influenced by critical life events acting as catalysts. Notably, during treatment, patients prioritized individual skill development despite challenges in other domains. RC emerges as a valuable concept for mapping recovery barriers and facilitators in individuals with a triple diagnosis, serving as an alternative to the medical model and complementing the biopsychosocial model. It provides a systematic framework to assess critical factors for recovery in complex cases and accordingly align interventions. Future studies should explore the intersections of NRC domains and the dynamic nature of (N)RC to enhance the understanding of the challenges faced by individuals with a triple diagnosis.

ObjectiveIn the Netherlands, seclusion of patients with a psychiatric disorder is a last-resort measure to be used only in the event of (imminent) severe danger or harm. Although aggressive behavior is often involved, seclusions not preceded by aggression also seem to occur. We sought insight into the non-aggressive reasons underlying seclusion and investigated the factors associated with it.MethodWe included all patients admitted to a Dutch psychiatric hospital in 2008 and 2009. Seclusions had been registered on Argus-forms, and aggression incidents had been registered on the Staff Observation Aggression Scale-Revised (SOAS-R), inspectorate forms and/or patient files. Determinants of seclusion with vs. without prior aggression were analyzed using logistic regression. Reasons for seclusion without prior aggression were evaluated qualitatively and grouped into main themes.ResultsOf 1,106 admitted patients, 184 (17%) were secluded at some time during admission. Twenty-one (11.4%) were excluded because information on their seclusion was lacking. In 23 cases (14%), neither SOAS-R, inspectorate forms nor individual patient files indicated any aggression. Univariable and multivariable regression both showed seclusion without preceding aggression to be negatively associated with daytime and the first day of hospitalization. In other words, seclusion related to aggression occurred more on the first day, and during daytime, while seclusion for non-aggressive reasons occurred relatively more after the first day, and during nighttime. Our qualitative findings showed two main themes of non-aggressive reasons for seclusion: “disruptive behavior” and “beneficial to patient.”ConclusionAwareness of the different reasons for seclusion may improve interventions on reducing its use. Thorough examination of different sources showed that few seclusions had not been preceded by aggression. The use of seclusion would be considerably reduced through interventions that prevent aggression or handle aggression incidents in other ways than seclusion. However, attention should also be paid to the remaining reasons for seclusion, such as handling disruptive behavior and focusing on the beneficial effects of reduced stimuli. Future research on interventions to reduce the use of seclusion should not only aim to reduce seclusion but should also establish whether seclusions preceded by aggression decrease different from seclusions that are not preceded by aggression.

Background:People with Down syndrome (DS) are at high risk to develop Alzheimer’s disease dementia (AD). Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are common and may also serve as early signals for dementia. However, comprehensive evaluation scales for BPSD, adapted to DS, are lacking. Therefore, we previously developed the BPSD-DS scale to identify behavioral changes between the last six months and pre-existing life-long characteristic behavior.Objective:To optimize and further study the scale (discriminative ability and reliability) in a large representative DS study population.Methods:Optimization was based on item irrelevance and clinical experiences obtained in the initial study. Using the shortened and refined BPSD-DS II, informant interviews were conducted to evaluate 524 individuals with DS grouped according to dementia status: no dementia (DS, N = 292), questionable dementia (DS + Q, N = 119), and clinically diagnosed dementia (DS + AD, N = 113).Results:Comparing item change scores between groups revealed prominent changes in frequency and severity for anxious, sleep-related, irritable, restless/stereotypic, apathetic, depressive, and eating/drinking behavior. For most items, the proportion of individuals displaying an increased frequency was highest in DS + AD, intermediate in DS + Q, and lowest in DS. For various items within sections about anxious, sleep-related, irritable, apathetic, and depressive behaviors, the proportion of individuals showing an increased frequency was already substantial in DS + Q, suggesting that these changes may serve as early signals of AD in DS. Reliability data were promising.Conclusion:The optimized scale yields largely similar results as obtained with the initial version. Systematically evaluating BPSD in DS may increase understanding of changes among caregivers and (timely) adaptation of care/treatment.

This chapter summarizes research on the prevalence of substance use disorders - particularly alcohol use disorder (AUD) - amongst individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) in a forensic context and its relationship to offending behaviour. It provides suggestions for the assessment of substance use in individuals with IDD in a forensic context. Similar to prevalence rates in the wider IDD population, the prevalence rates of substance use disorders (SUD) amongst individuals with IDD in forensic settings differ across studies. Substance use and offending behaviour are closely related and this relationship can be explained in several ways European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Despite the relationship between alcohol use and offending behaviour, several studies report low levels of substance use involvement in index offences. Systematic screening and assessment of alcohol use and AUD in individuals with IDD in forensic contexts is relevant for both the offender and society in general.

Although the attention for substance use (SU) and SU disorders (SUD) among individuals with mild to borderline intellectual disability (MBID) has been growing exponentially, this form of dual diagnosis has largely been ignored by addiction medicine. In this article, we systematically review the research between January 2000 and June 2018 on the prevalence, assessment, and treatment of SU(D) among children, adolescents, and adults with MBID. A total of 138 articles were included. It is concluded that individuals with MBID are likely to be at a higher risk for developing SUD compared to those without MBID. Future research should focus on the detection of MBID among patients being treated in addiction medicine, the development and implementation of systematic assessment methods of SU(D) among individuals with MBID, and the development and evaluation of prevention and treatment interventions. System integration, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the development of tailored treatment for individuals with MBID are advised to improve treatment access and outcome for those who have developed SUD.

This book is a long-overdue answer to the need of treatment programs suitable for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and substance use and other addictive disorders. It’s ...

Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) have not been comprehensively studied in people with Down syndrome, despite their high risk on dementia. Anovel evaluation scale was developed to identify the nature, frequency and severity of behavioral changes (83 behavioral items in 12 clinically defined sections). Central aim was to identify items that change in relation to the dementia status. Structured interviews were conducted with informants of people with Down syndrome without dementia (DS, N = 149), with questionable dementia (DS + TD, N = 65) and with diagnosed dementia (DS + AD, N = 67). Group comparisons showed apronounced increase in frequency and severity of items about anxiety, sleep disturbances, agitation & stereotypical behavior, aggression, apathy, depressive symptoms, and, eating/drinking behavior. The proportion of individuals presenting an increase was highest in the DS + AD group and lowest in the DS group. Interestingly, among DS + TD individuals, asubstantial proportion already presented increased anxiety, sleep disturbances, apathy and depressive symptoms, suggesting that these changes may be early alarm signals of dementia. The scale may contribute to abetter understanding of the changes, adapting daily care/support, and providing suitable therapies to people with Down syndrome. The scale needs to be optimized based on the results and experiences. The applicability, reliability and validity require further study.

People with Down syndrome (DS) are prone to develop Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are core features, but have not been comprehensively evaluated in DS. In a European multidisciplinary study, the novel Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia in Down Syndrome (BPSD-DS) scale was developed to identify frequency and severity of behavioral changes taking account of life-long characteristic behavior. 83 behavioral items in 12 clinically defined sections were evaluated. The central aim was to identify items that change in relation to the dementia status, and thus may differentiate between diagnostic groups. Structured interviews were conducted with informants of persons with DS without dementia (DS, n = 149), with questionable dementia (DS+Q, n = 65), and with diagnosed dementia (DS+AD, n = 67). First exploratory data suggest promising interrater, test-retest, and internal consistency reliability measures. Concerning item relevance, group comparisons revealed pronounced increases in frequency and severity in items of anxiety, sleep disturbances, agitation & stereotypical behavior, aggression, apathy, depressive symptoms, and eating/drinking behavior. The proportion of individuals presenting an increase was highest in DS+AD, intermediate in DS+Q, and lowest in DS. Interestingly, among DS+Q individuals, a substantial proportion already presented increased anxiety, sleep disturbances, apathy, and depressive symptoms, suggesting that these changes occur early in the course of AD. Future efforts should optimize the scale based on current results and clinical experiences, and further study applicability, reliability, and validity. Future application of the scale in daily care may aid caregivers to understand changes, and contribute to timely interventions and adaptation of caregiving.

Little is known about rates and risk factors of substance use (SU) in individuals with mild to borderline intellectual disabilities (MBID, IQ 50–85). This hinders targeted prevention and treatment. In this study we assessed SU rates and risk factors in individuals with MBID in 419 adults (63% male, average IQ = 66) in 16 Dutch disability services. Lifetime and current SU, SU picture recognition, knowledge, attitudes and modeling were assessed with the Substance use and misuse in Intellectual Disability - Questionnaire (SumID-Q). Lifetime licit SU (alcohol and tobacco) was 97%, lifetime illicit SU (predominantly cannabis) was 50%. Current users of tobacco (62%), alcohol (64%), and cannabis (15%) initiated SU at a younger age than those who desisted SU (ps < .001). Participants with mild ID and those with borderline ID did not differ in SU rates (ps .429–.812), or age at SU initiation (ps .221–.853). Current licit SU and lifetime illicit SU were related to male gender, younger age, and (for smoking and stimulant use) to lack of daytime activities. However, these factors did not contribute to multivariate models when recognition, knowledge, attitudes and modeling were added. The models correctly identified current SU in 84% (smoking) and 74% (drinking), and lifetime SU in 76% (cannabis) and 84% (stimulants) of the participants. As almost all participants reported lifetime use of licit, and about half reported lifetime illicit substance use, systematic screening for substance use, and development of preventative and treatment interventions targeted to this group are needed.