Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26556055›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

High-Dose Benzodiazepine Dependence: A Qualitative Study of Patients' Perceptions on Initiation, Reasons for Use, and Obtainment.

Michael Liebrenz, Marcel Schneider, Anna Buadze, Marie-Therese Gehring, Anish Dube, Carlo Caflisch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. GABAFrontiers in psychiatry · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Benzodiazepine high-doses: The need for an accurate definition.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Determinants of Quality of Life in High-Dose Benzodiazepine Misusers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017
    Article
  17. Multifocal cognitive dysfunction in high-dose benzodiazepine users: a cross-sectional study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2017
    Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michael LiebrenzDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Psychiatric Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Marcel SchneiderDepartment of Surgery, Division of Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Anna BuadzeDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Psychiatric Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Marie-Therese GehringUlmenhof, Sozialtherapie, Ottenbach, Switzerland.
Anish DubeUniversity of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Carlo CaflischDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Psychiatric Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh-dose benzodiazepine (BZD) dependence is associated with a wide variety of negative health consequences. Affected individuals are reported to suffer from severe mental disorders and are often unable to achieve long-term abstinence via recommended discontinuation strategies. Although it is increasingly understood that treatment interventions should take subjective experiences and beliefs into account, the perceptions of this group of individuals remain under-investigated.

methodsWe conducted an exploratory qualitative study with 41 adult subjects meeting criteria for (high-dose) BZD-dependence, as defined by ICD-10. One-on-one in-depth interviews allowed for an exploration of this group's views on the reasons behind their initial and then continued use of BZDs, as well as their procurement strategies. Mayring's qualitative content analysis was used to evaluate our data.

resultsIn this sample, all participants had developed explanatory models for why they began using BZDs. We identified a multitude of reasons that we grouped into four broad categories, as explaining continued BZD use: (1) to cope with symptoms of psychological distress or mental disorder other than substance use, (2) to manage symptoms of physical or psychological discomfort associated with somatic disorder, (3) to alleviate symptoms of substance-related disorders, and (4) for recreational purposes, that is, sensation-seeking and other social reasons. Subjects often considered BZDs less dangerous than other substances and associated their use more often with harm reduction than as recreational. Specific obtainment strategies varied widely: the majority of participants oscillated between legal and illegal methods, often relying on the black market when faced with treatment termination.

conclusionsIrrespective of comorbidity, participants expressed a clear preference for medically related explanatory models for their BZD use. We therefore suggest that clinicians consider patients' motives for long-term, high-dose BZD use when formulating treatment plans for this patient group, especially since it is known that individuals are more compliant with approaches they perceive to be manageable, tolerable, and effective.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-Anxiety AgentsBenzodiazepinesFemaleGABA AgonistsHumansHypnotics and SedativesMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedSubstance-Related DisordersSurveys and QuestionnairesAnti-Anxiety AgentsBenzodiazepinesGABA AgonistsHypnotics and Sedatives

Identifiers

PMID26556055
PMCPMC4640837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.