Exploring dual diagnosis in opioid agonist treatment patients: a registry-linkage study in Czechia and Norway
Peer reviewed, Journal article
Published version
View/ Open
Date
2024Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Original version
10.1186/s13722-024-00467-5Abstract
Background Knowledge of co-occurring mental disorders (termed ‘dual diagnosis’) among patients receiving opioid
agonist treatment (OAT) is scarce. This study aimed (1) to estimate the prevalence and structure of dual diagnoses
in two national cohorts of OAT patients and (2) to compare mental disorders between OAT patients and the general
populations stratified on sex and standardized by age.
Methods A registry-linkage study of OAT patients from Czechia (N = 4,280) and Norway (N = 11,389) during 2010–
2019 was conducted. Data on mental disorders (F00-F99; ICD-10) recorded in nationwide health registers were linked
to the individuals registered in OAT. Dual diagnoses were defined as any mental disorder excluding substance use
disorders (SUDs, F10-F19; ICD-10). Sex-specific age-standardized morbidity ratios (SMR) were calculated for 2019 to
compare OAT patients and the general populations.
Results The prevalence of dual diagnosis was 57.3% for Czechia and 78.3% for Norway. In Czechia, anxiety (31.1%)
and personality disorders (25.7%) were the most prevalent, whereas anxiety (33.8%) and depression (20.8%) were the
most prevalent in Norway. Large country-specific variations were observed, e.g., in ADHD (0.5% in Czechia, 15.8% in
Norway), implying differences in screening and diagnostic practices. The SMR estimates for any mental disorders were
3.1 (females) and 5.1 (males) in Czechia and 5.6 (females) and 8.2 (males) in Norway. OAT females had a significantly
higher prevalence of co-occurring mental disorders, whereas SMRs were higher in OAT males. In addition to opioid
use disorder (OUD), other substance use disorders (SUDs) were frequently recorded in both countries.
Conclusions Results indicate an excess of mental health problems in OAT patients compared to the general
population of the same sex and age in both countries, requiring appropriate clinical attention. Country-specific
differences may stem from variations in diagnostics and care, reporting to registers, OAT provision, or substance use
patterns.