Research Article (Open access) |
---|
Int. J. Life. Sci. Scienti. Res., 4(1): 1605-1608,
January 2018
Psychiatric Co-morbidities and Management Outcomes
in Mentally Ill Prisoners
Mary C. D’souza*
Assistant Professor, Institute of
Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Bambolim, Goa, India
Correspondence
to author: Dr. Mary C. D’souza, Assistant Professor, Institute of Psychiatry
and Human Behavior, Bambolim Opposite Holy Cross Shrine, Bambolim, Goa- 403202,
India
Abstract-
Background: The occurrence of
psychiatric disorders is more in the prisoners than in general population.
Co-morbidity is seen to be an important and complex entity in clinical
assessment of mental state competence (diminished mental capacity, temporary
insanity and insanity) in the offenders at the time of the offence. It has a
great role in determining all possible options in future treatment of violent
offenders.
Aim: This research article is focused on the
co-morbid psychiatric diagnoses and the treatment outcomes in the mentally ill
prisoners referred to the tertiary care mental health facility.
Materials and Method: Total 100 mentally
ill prisoners referred to the tertiary care psychiatric hospital during the
study period (Jan 2015 - Dec 2015) was the sample size. It was a prospective
study and the sampling method was of the purposive type.
Results: Besides their primary
diagnosis, the referred prisoners had more than one co-morbid psychiatric
diagnosis in 46% of the cases. The most frequent co-occurring conditions were
learning disabilities, personality disorders, and substance use disorders. The
outcomes for the psychiatric conditions were positive as patients responded
well to the line of management.
Conclusion: The study provides
valuable data to understand the mental health needs and the treatment gaps in
this population so as to plan adequate services to tackle these issues.
Keywords: Mentally ill
prisoners, Psychiatric co-morbidities, Treatment outcomes, Substance use
disorders, Personality disorders
Introduction- Psychiatric Disorders are
commonly seen in the offender population. Co-occurrence of substance use
disorders with other psychiatric disorders is a frequent entity. Co-morbidity
or Dual diagnosis refers to those cases in which another distinct independent
clinical diagnosis occurred during the clinical course of a patient having a
primary disease [1]. Psychiatric co- morbidity may be defined as the
co-occurrence of two psychiatric disorders at any point in the same person
occurring longitudinally or cross-sectionally during their life span. It does not necessarily mean that one is
caused by the other. These patients form an important and challenging strata of
patients associated with poorer outcomes in clinical courses, such as increased
risk of relapse, re-hospitalization, life events, self harm and violence,
medical co morbidity, homelessness, recidivism, family discord[2],
economic burden and public healthcare delivery system burden [3-4].
Hence, such a population requires a more holistic approach when dealing with
their mental health issues. Treatment for COD is more effective if the same
clinician helps the individual with all his co- morbid conditions thus the
individual gets one consistent, integrated idea about his treatment and outcome
[5]. This study was taken up with this aim of determining the prevalence
of dual diagnosis and the clinical outcome in the mentally ill prisoners that
were referred to a tertiary care psychiatric unit.
Materials and MethodS
Source
of data-
All the mentally ill prisoners referred by the jail authorities to the tertiary
care psychiatric unit during the study period (Jan 2015- Dec 2015) formed the
sample of the study.
Method
of collection of data-
This was a prospective study with the sampling method used being purposive
type. Total 100 sample size were taken for this study.
Inclusion
criteria-
All prisoners referred to the tertiary care psychiatry unit during study
period.
Exclusion criteria-
1.
Non
consenting prisoners were excluded.
2.
Patients
below 18yrs and above 60yrs of age.
3.
Patients
with chronic medical ailments like Diabetes, Hypertension, chronic heart
ailments etc were not included in the
study.
Written Informed
consent was obtained from the individuals after explaining the purpose of the
study. The assessment was done by a consultant psychiatrist .The data was
entered on a case sheet record, which is ideal for collection of such data. The
diagnosis was made as per ICD-10 criteria. The patients were further assessed
by experienced clinical psychologist for IQ assessment and psycho-diagnostics.
Statistical
Analysis-
Pearson’s Chi-square test and repeated measures ANOVA were used for comparing
the variables among different subgroups. All statistical methods were carried
out through the SPSS for Windows (22 Version, IBM). The values were compared at
0.05 level of significance for the corresponding degree of freedom and
P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results- A total of 100
mentally ill prisoners referred to the tertiary care psychiatric unit formed
the sample of this study, in which 92 were males and 8 females taken. Most
patients were in the age group of 20-39 years (N =70) with a breakup of 20-29
years, N=45 and 30-39 years, N=25. The mean standard deviation for age within
the sample group was 31.8(±10.8) years. The socio-demographic variables are
summarised below in Table 1.
Table 1: Socio demographic variables in
referred Prisoners (N=100) Variable Factors
1. Age (Years) |
||
Years |
Frequency( N) |
Percentage (%) |
18-29 |
54 |
54.0 |
30-49 |
38 |
38.0 |
50-69 |
08 |
8.0 |
|
|
|
2. Residence |
||
Rural |
70 |
70.0 |
Urban |
30 |
30.0 |
|
|
|
3.
Gender |
|
|
Males |
92 |
92.0 |
Females |
08 |
8.0 |
|
|
|
4. Marital Status |
||
Single |
61 |
61.0 |
Married |
39 |
39.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Duration of stay in prison |
||
Below 1 year |
59 |
59.0 |
1- 5 years |
35 |
35.0 |
>5years |
06 |
6.0 |
|
|
|
6. Education |
||
Illiterate |
03 |
3.0 |
Primary/ Secondary |
65 |
65.0 |
HSSC/ Graduation |
29 |
29.0 |
Post Graduation |
03 |
3.0 |
|
|
|
7. Socioeconomic status (Kuppuswamy) |
||
L |
65 |
65.0 |
M |
35 |
35.0 |
Table 2, depicts the
prevalence of Major Psychiatric Disorders (ICD-10) diagnoses in the study group.
Substance use Disorder was the most frequent diagnosis seen N= 45 (45%).
Adjustment disorders formed the next largest group N= 36(36%). The patients in
other categories were mood disorder 5%, Nil psychiatry 5%, psychosis 4%, and 5%
were other uncommon diagnosis (2 cases were organic brain syndrome, 2 were OCD
cases and one was delusional disorder).
Table 2: Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders
(ICD-10) Diagnosis in referred prisoners
|
Frequency
(N) |
Percentage
(%) |
1. Substance use disorders |
45 |
45.0 |
2. Adjustment Disorders |
36 |
36.0 |
3. Mood Disorders |
05 |
5.0 |
4. Psychosis |
04 |
4.0 |
5. NIL Psychiatry |
05 |
5.0 |
6. Others |
05 |
5.0 |
Table 3 describes the co-morbidities
present along with the primary diagnosis. The most frequent co-morbid condition
seen in this group of patients was below average intellectual functioning. 29%
of the inmates were having borderline IQ (slow learners) and 9% were with mild
mental retardation. Another 31% of this group had personality disorders
(cluster B personality). 25% of the cases had substance use disorder as
co-morbidity and 2% had seizure disorder. Some of the inmates had more than two
co-morbid conditions. Among the total sample group, 54% of the cases did not
have any psychiatric co-morbidity.
Table 3:
Co-morbid conditions in referred prisoners
Diagnosis |
Frequency |
Learning Disability: 1.Slow learners 2.mental retardation |
29 09 |
Personality Disorders |
31 |
Substance Use Disorder |
25 |
Seizure disorder |
02 |
Table 4 shows the
outcomes of the psychiatric referral. 59% of the patients received medications
for the treatment of their psychiatric condition. 27% of the cases were severe
enough to warrant an admission for their management. Only 5% of cases were
treated with psychotherapy alone as treatment modality. And another 6% were
treated simultaneously with medications and psychotherapy. All patients
followed up regularly till resolution of their symptoms.
Table 4: Management strategies in
referred prisoners
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Cumulative
Percent |
Admit and Medication |
27 |
27.0 |
27.0 |
Both(Med +Psy) |
6 |
6.0 |
33.0 |
Medications only |
59 |
59.0 |
92.0 |
Psychotherapy |
5 |
5.0 |
97.0 |
Nil |
3 |
3.0 |
100 |
Discussion- There is enough
evidence to prove that the prevalence of psychiatric disorders is far more in
prisoners than in the general population [6-7]. The common reasons
cited for the increase are the harsh prison conditions causing acute stress [8],
the current increased tendency to criminalise severely mentally ill persons [9],
frequent delays in trial process and paucity in mental health services for the
incarcerated [10]. In our study sample 95% were seen to have met an
ICD-10 diagnoses of psychiatric illness and only 5% were with nil psychiatric
diagnosis, the reason being early detection and referral of these cases for
treatment. The State prisons are regularly provided with mental health services
on site with prison clinics, regular trained psychiatric nursing services for
patient monitoring in prison and tertiary care psychiatric services for
emergency needs [11].
The
commonest diagnosis in this study group was substance use disorder 45%, which
is in keeping with other studies in India by Kumar et al. [12] and Birmingham et al. [13], Steadman et al. [14] abroad. Adjustment Disorders (36%) formed
the next largest group, were higher than seen in the studies done by Ayirolimeethal
et al. [15] and Fido et al. [16]. Psychosis and
depression were infrequent diagnosis in the present study. This was in keeping
with other Indian [17] and Western studies [10,18].
Regarding
Co-occurring psychiatric disorders our study sample (46%) was seen to have more
than one psychiatric diagnosis at the time of assessment. The most frequent
co-morbid condition encountered was of borderline IQ (Slow Learner) in 29% and
mild mental retardation in 9%. Personality Disorders were seen in 31% cases,
Co-morbid substance use disorder was diagnosed in 25% of the cases and 2% had
seizure disorder. Studies by Baillargeon et
al. [19]; James and Glaze [20]; and Grant et al. [21] were also
referred to the exceedingly high prevalence of co morbid substance use disorders
and mental illness in prisoners. Among the studied sample, 54% of cases did not
exhibit any diagnosable co-morbidity. The outcome of the psychiatric referrals
was generally very encouraging. 27% of our patients were severe enough to need
inpatient care. Most patients (59%) were managed by medications alone. Another
6% of the cases were treated with both psychotherapy and medications. 5% of the
referrals were managed with psychological interventions alone and 3% cases did
not need any sort of intervention. Service integration that is combination of
medication and other multidisciplinary team intervention has shown to be more
effective for specific population to get better outcomes [22].
Limitations and
implications for further research: The study was conducted in a hospital
setting therefore does not represent actual prevalence in prison population. It
was a cross-sectional hospital based study with all its limitations. However
the study was taken up with a sincere concern to understand the mental health needs
of the prisoners. Future studies will be aimed at overcoming these limitations
by actually working with the prison population at the place of confinement.
Long term follow up for the outcomes would lead to better insights into their
conditions.
CONCLUSIONS-
This
study demonstrated that there is a high prevalence of mental illness and
co-morbidities prevailing in prisoners. Since early interventions have a very
good outcome the prison authorities need to encourage early detection and
treatment. Having staff that are trained for this purpose is recommended. When
a person is taken into custody, he should be assessed for mental health illness
and co-morbidities. Understanding to what extent these co-morbidities can lead
to increased risk of recidivism is important for criminal justice and
psychological health fields. Such information will serve to develop targeted
interventions to reduce mental health issues in prisoners.
ReferenceS
1.
Feinstein
AR et al. The pre-therapeutic
classification of co-morbidity in chronic disease. J Chronic Dis 1970; 23:
455-68.
2.
RachBeisel,
Scott J, Dixon L. Co-occuring severe mental illness and substance use
disorders. A review of recent research. Psychiatr Serv, 1999; 5:1427-534.
3.
Hartman
E, Nelson D. A case study of statewide capitation: The Massachusetts
experience. In: Minkoff K, Pollack D, editors. Managed Mental Health Centre
Care in the Public Sector: A Survivor manual. Amsterdam: Harward academic
publishers: 1996, pp: 59-76.
4.
Quinlivan
R, McWhirter DP. Designing a comprehensive care program for high cost clients
in a managed care environment. Psychiatr Serv 1996;47:813-5. ood Academic
Publishers; 1997.p. 59-76.
5.
Steadman
HJ, Peters RH et al. six steps to
improve your drug court outcomes for adults with co-occurring disorders. Drug
Court Practitioner Fact Sheet, 8(1), Alexandria, VA. National Drug Court
Institute and SAMHSA’s GAINS Center for Behavior Health and justice
Transformation, 2013.
6.
Math
SB, Chandrashekhar CR, Bhugra D. Psychiatric epidemiology in India. Indian J. Med
Res, 2007; 126:183-92
7.
Fazel
S and Lubbe S. Prevalence and characteristics of mental disorders in jails and
prisons. Current Opinions in psychiatry, 2005; 18(5):550-554.
8.
Eytan
A et al. Psychiatric symptoms,
psychological distress and somatic co-morbidity among remand prisoners in
Switzerland. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 2011; 34(1):13-9.
9.
Okasha
A. Mental patients in prisons; Punishment V /S Treatment? World Psychiatry,
2004; 3(1):1-2.
10.
Gunn
J, MadenA, Swinton M. Treatment needs of prisoners with psychiatric disorders.
BMJ, 1991; 303:338-41.
11.
Bowden
P. Men remanded into custody for medical reports; The selection for treatment.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 1978; 133:320-31.
12.
Kumar
V. Daria U; Psychiatric morbidity in prisoners. Indian Journal of Psychiatry,
2013; 55:366-70.
13.
Birmingham
L, Mason D, Grubin D, Prevalence of mental disorders in remand prisoners:
consecutive case study BMJ, 1996; 313:1521-4.
14.
Steadman
HJ, FabisiakS, Dvoskin J, Holohean EJ jr
. A survey of mental disability among state prison inmates. Hosp Community
Psychiatry, 1987; 38:1086-90.
15.
Ayirolimeethal
A, Ragesh G, Ramanujam JM, George B.
Psychiatric morbidity among prisoners. Indian journal of Psychiatry,
2014:56: 150-3.
16.
Fido
AA, Razile MA, Mirza L Islam MF. Psychiatric disorders in prisoners referred
for assessment ;a preliminary study Can J Psychiatry, 1992; 37:100-3.
17.
Goyal
SK, Singh P, Gargi PD, Goyal S, Garg A. Psychiatric morbidity in prisoners.
Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 2011; 53: 253-7.
18.
Assadi
SM, Norozian M, Pakravannejad M, Yahyazadeh O, Aghayan S. Shariat S V et al. Psychiatric morbidity among
sentenced prisoners: Prevalence studies in Iran. Br J Psychiatry, 2006;
188:159-64.
19.
Baillargeon
J, WilliamsB, Mellow et al. Parole revocation among prison inmates with
psychiatric and substance use disorders. Psychiatric Services, 2009;
60(11):1516- d1521.
20.
James
DJ, Glaze LE. Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates [special
report]. Bureau of Justice Statistics (Publication no NCJ213600), 2006.
Washington, DC, US, Dept of Justice.
21.
Grant
BF, Stinson FS et al. Prevalence and
co-occurrence of substance use disorders and independent mood and anxiety
disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 2004; 61:891-896.
22.
Mueser
K T, Noordsy DL et al. Integrated
treatment for dual disorders: A guide to effective practice. New York Guilford
Press, 2003.