Abstract The elderly use drugs more commonly than younger persons. Many studies about drug use have concentrated on institutionalized elders. Knowledge of drug use by the oldest old, aged 85 years or over, is scant. Psychotropics are among the drugs most commonly used by the elderly. Psychotropics have many adverse effects, such as balance impairment, sedation, reduced cognition, depression, and extrapyramidal symptoms. We do not know the extent of sedative drug use, including psychotropics and drugs prescribed for somatic disorders that have sedative properties. Withdrawal of unnecessary drugs appears to be beneficial and to improve the functional capacities of the elderly. The aim of this study was to describe the changes in prescription drug use, polypharmacy, and psychotropic use among home-dwelling elderly Finns in the 1990s by using two cross-sectional community surveys. The specific aim was to classify all drugs used in Finland into four groups based on their sedative properties. Drug use, polypharmacy, and, to some extent, psychotropic use increased within a decade. The oldest old used prescription drugs most commonly. Polypharmacy was independently associated with higher age, and in 1998-99, with at least 3 chronic diseases, poor self-perceived health, and the use of home nursing services. Most psychotropic users were on regular medication. The use of hypnotics and antidepressants increased most. Persons with polypharmacy used significantly more commonly psychotropics compared to other people. Over 84-year-olds used psychotropics more commonly than younger persons. Sedative use was common, as 40 % of drug users used them. Sedative use was significantly more common among persons with polypharmacy than others. According to logistic regression models, the use of many sedatives was independently associated with age 80 years or over, female gender, chronic morbidity, smoking, poor self-perceived health/life satisfaction, and the use of home nursing. Both polypharmacy and abundant sedative use were associated with impaired physical functional abilities. Prescribers need to be aware of the increasing polypharmacy and abundant sedative use. Regular assessment of indications is needed to avoid overuse of drugs. Geriatric knowledge is needed to support health centers and specialized units in this demanding task.

Background: Sedatives and hypnotics are substances to calm or relieve anxiety and to induce sleep. Long term prescription of benzodiazepines/Z-drugs may lead to the development of tolerance and the need to increase the dose. It is important to be aware of the risks of uncontrolled use of these drugs, such as harmful interactions with other substances, side effects and potential for abuse or addiction. Aim: The aim of this research was to describe abuse of sedatives and hypnotics from the user's perspective, to focus on circumstances leading to drug abuse, to describe beginning and course of the use of these drugs and self-awareness of the problem. The aim was also to describe the current state of users and their needs. Sample: The research sample consisted of 6 participants, of which 4 women and 2 men currently or recently using sedatives and hypnotics (specifically benzodiazepines/Z-drugs). Methods: Data were collected through a qualitative approach using a semi-structured interview. Interviews were conducted, rewritten into protocol summary, further analysed using thematic analysis, modified using open and axial coding and categorization methods. Results: Respondents may have misused sedatives and hypnotics to self-medicate symptoms. These drugs were prescribed for the first time with...

Background: Trauma is a major cause of death and disability. Adverse events, such as prolonged prehospital time, hypoxia, hypotension and/or hyperventilation have been reported to correlate to poor outcome. Adequate cortisol levels are essential for survival after major trauma. In hypotensive critically ill patients, lack of sufficient amount of cortisol can be suspected, and a concept of critical illness related corticosteroid insufficiency has been proposed. Corticosteroid therapy has many adverse effects in critically ill patients and should only be given if life-saving. Correct measurement of serum cortisol levels is important but difficult in critically ill patients with capillary leakage. Estimation of the free and biologically active cortisol is preferable. In serum less than 10% of cortisol is free and biologically active and not possible to measure with routine laboratory methods. Salivary cortisol can be used as a surrogate for free cortisol, but salivary production is reduced in critically ill patients. Liver resection could reduce cortisol levels due to substrate deficiency. Aims: 1. Evaluate the occurrence of early adverse events in patients with traumatic brain injury and relate them to outcome. 2. Assess cortisol levels over time after trauma and correlate to severity of trauma, sedative/analgesic drugs and cardiovascular function. 3. Evaluate if saliva stimulation could be performed without interfering with salivary cortisol levels. 4. Assess cortisol levels over time after liver resection in comparison to other major surgery. Results: There was no significant correlation between prehospital time ³60 minutes, hypoxia (saturation <95%), hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg), or hyperventilation (ETCO2 <4.5 kPa) and a poor outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale 1-3) in patients with traumatic brain injury. Cortisol levels decreased significantly over time after trauma, but there was no correlation between low (<200 nmol/L) serum cortisol levels and severity of trauma. Infusion of sedative/analgesic drugs was the strongest predictor for a low (<200 nmol/L) serum cortisol. The odds ratio for low serum cortisol levels (<200 nmol/L) was 8.0 for patients receiving continuous infusion of sedative/analgesic drugs. There was no significant difference between unstimulated and stimulated salivary cortisol levels (p=0.06) in healthy volunteers. Liver resection was not associated with significantly lower cortisol levels compared to other major surgery. Conclusion: There was no significant correlation between early adverse events and outcome in patients with traumatic brain injury. Cortisol levels decreased significantly over time in trauma patients. Low cortisol levels (<200 nmol/L) were significantly correlated to continuous infusion of sedative/analgesic drugs. Saliva stimulation could be performed without interfering with salivary cortisol levels. Liver resection was not associated with low cortisol levels compared to other major surgery.

INTRODUÇÃO: Os transtornos psiquiátricos são altamente prevalentes e têm sido associados ao maior uso de serviços e de medicamentos. Entretanto resultados do World Health Organization (WHO) World Mental Health (WHM) Surveys, conduzidos em diversos países, têm apresentado baixas prevalências de uso de psicofármacos entre sujeitos com diagnóstico de transtornos psiquiátricos no ano anterior à entrevista. OBJETIVOS: Estimar a prevalência, o padrão, e os fatores associados ao uso de psicofármacos em amostra da população geral e entre sujeitos com diferentes diagnósticos para doenças psiquiátricas, de acordo com DSM-IV. MÉTODOS: Os dados são provenientes do São Paulo Megacity Mental Health Survey (SPMHS), segmento brasileiro do estudo World Mental Health Survey (WMH survey). O WMH survey é uma iniciativa da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), da Universidade de Harvard e Universidade de Michigan, que vem sendo realizada em mais de 28 centros de pesquisa no mundo. O São Paulo Megacity Mental Health Survey é um estudo de corte transversal, de base populacional, desenhado para avaliar a morbidade psiquiátrica em uma amostra representativa da população geral, com 18 anos ou mais, residentes na Região Metropolitana de São Paulo. Uma amostra de 5.037 indivíduos (taxa de resposta: 81,3%) foi entrevistada por leigos treinados, utilizando a versão do Composite International Diagnostic Interview para o World Mental Health Survey, elaborado para gerar diagnósticos de acordo com o DSM-IV. O foco do presente estudo foi uma subamostra de 2.935 entrevistados, os quais foram avaliados com a versão longa da entrevista e que foram questionados sobre psicofármacos prescritos no ano anterior à entrevista para \"problemas com emoções, nervos, saúde mental, uso de substâncias, energia, concentração, sono ou a capacidade de lidar com o estresse\". Os dados foram ponderados para ajustar a subamostragem dos não casos dessa subamostra e para ajustar as discrepâncias residuais entre as distribuições amostrais e populacionais de uma série de variáveis sociodemográficas, garantindo, assim, a representatividade dessa subamostra. RESULTADOS: Apenas 6,13% dos respondentes relataram o uso de psicofármacos no ano anterior à entrevista. Os hipnóticos e sedativos (incluindo os benzodiazepínicos) (3,63%) e os antidepressivos (3,46%) foram os mais comumente relatados, enquanto os estabilizadores de humor (0,64%) e os antipsicóticos (0,61%) foram pouco frequentes. Ser do sexo feminino (OR= 2,55; 95% IC=1,58-4,11), avançar da idade, escolaridade abaixo do nível superior e ter maior renda foram fatores associados ao maior uso de psicofármacos, assim como ter comorbidades e transtornos graves. A prevalência de transtornos psiquiátricos de acordo com os critérios do DSM-IV/WMH-CIDI no ano anterior à entrevista foi 29,49%. Entretanto, somente 13,75% dos sujeitos com diagnóstico de transtorno psiquiátrico no ano anterior à entrevista, 24,93% com transtorno de humor, 14,43% com transtorno de ansiedade e, aproximadamente, 10% com transtorno por uso de substância e com transtorno de controle do impulso relataram uso de psicofármacos no mesmo período. Respondentes sem diagnóstico também reportaram uso de psicofármacos (2,94%). O uso de antidepressivos (9,10%) e de hipnóticos e sedativos (7,81%) foi pouco frequente naqueles com diagnóstico, apresentando a seguinte distribuição, respectivamente: sujeitos com transtorno de humor (17,94% e 14,70%), ansiedade (9,04% e 8,08%), controle de impulso (6,76% e 5,80%) e por uso de substâncias (5,08% e 7,86%). O uso de psicofármacos foi maior entre sujeitos que apresentaram três transtornos ou mais (26,91%) quando comparado aos que apresentaram dois (15,21%) ou um transtorno (8,96%). Entre os sujeitos com transtornos considerados leve, de moderada gravidade e grave, a prevalência de uso de psicofármacos foi 6,60%, 10,68% e 23,77%, respectivamente. Entretanto aproximadamente 75% casos graves e com três ou mais transtornos, permaneceram sem tratamento farmacológico. CONCLUSÃO: Os resultados sugerem que a maioria dos sujeitos com transtornos psiquiátricos ativos não estão recebendo tratamento farmacológico para seus transtornos psiquiátricos na Região Metropolitana de São Paulo. Políticas públicas poderiam aumentar o acesso aos cuidados de saúde adequado, particularmente entre sujeitos com transtornos graves e comorbidades / INTRODUCTION: Mental Disorders are highly prevalent and have been associated with high use of health services and medications. However results of the World Health Organization (WHO) World Mental Health (WHM) Surveys carried out in several countries have found low prevalence rates of psychotropic medication among those with 12-month disorders. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence, pattern, and associated factors with the use of psychotropic medication in a sample in the general population and, within this sample, among those with different diagnoses for psychiatric disorders, according to DSM-IV. METHODS: Data were from the São Paulo Megacity Mental Health Survey (SPMHS), the Brazilian segment of the World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative, coordinated by the World Health Organization and Harvard University, which has been held in more than 28 research centers in the world. The São Paulo Megacity Mental Health Survey is a cross-sectional population-based study, designed to evaluate psychiatric morbidity in a representative sample in the general population, aged 18 years or more, living in the São Paulo Metropolitan Area. A sample of 5,037 individuals (response rate: 81.3%) was assessed by trained lay interviewers using the World Mental Health version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, designed to generate DSM-IV diagnoses. The focus of the current report was a subsample of 2,935 subjects to whom the long version of the interview was applied and were asked about prescription medicines that used in the previous12 months for \"problems with emotions, nerves, mental health, substance use, energy, concentration, sleep or ability to cope with stress\". Data were weighted to adjust the undersampling of long interview respondents non-cases and to adjust residual discrepancies between the sample and population distributions of a range of sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Only 6.13% of the respondents reported psychotropic medication use in the previous year the interview. Hypnotics and sedatives (including benzodiazepines) (3.63%) and antidepressants (3.46%) were the most commonly reported, while mood stabilizers (0.64%) and antipsychotics (0.61%) were used less frequently. In the general population of the SPMHS, be female gender (OR= 2.55; 95% IC=1.58-4.11), older, education low level high and higher income were associated the higher psychotropic medication use, well as have comorbidity and serious disorders. The 12-month prevalence of DSM-IV/WMH-CIDI disorder was 29.49%. However, only 13.75% of those with 12-month disorders, 24.93% among those with mood disorder, 14.43% in those with anxiety disorder and, approximately 10% impulse-control disorder and substance use disorder reported psychotropic medication use in the same period. Respondents without diagnosis also reported psychotropic medication use (2.94%). Antidepressants (9.10%) and hypnotics and sedatives (7.81%) were commonly reported, with the following distribution, respectively: subjects with mood disorder (17.94% and 14.70%), anxiety (9.04 % and 8.08%), impulse control (6.76% and 5.80%), and substance use (5.08% and 7.86%). Psychotropic medication use was higher among the respondents with three or more disorders (26.91%), when compared with those with two (15.21%) or with one disorder (8.96%). Among the respondents with mild, moderate, or severe disorders, the prevalence of Psychotropic medication use was 6.60%, 10.68%, and 23.77%, respectively. However approximately 75% severe cases and comorbidities, remained without pharmacologic treatment. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the majority of individuals diagnosed with an active mental disorder are not being treated with psychotropic medication in the São Paulo Metropolitan Area. Public policies should increase access to appropriate care, particularly among subjects with serious disorders and comorbidities

INTRODUÇÃO: Os transtornos psiquiátricos são altamente prevalentes e têm sido associados ao maior uso de serviços e de medicamentos. Entretanto resultados do World Health Organization (WHO) World Mental Health (WHM) Surveys, conduzidos em diversos países, têm apresentado baixas prevalências de uso de psicofármacos entre sujeitos com diagnóstico de transtornos psiquiátricos no ano anterior à entrevista. OBJETIVOS: Estimar a prevalência, o padrão, e os fatores associados ao uso de psicofármacos em amostra da população geral e entre sujeitos com diferentes diagnósticos para doenças psiquiátricas, de acordo com DSM-IV. MÉTODOS: Os dados são provenientes do São Paulo Megacity Mental Health Survey (SPMHS), segmento brasileiro do estudo World Mental Health Survey (WMH survey). O WMH survey é uma iniciativa da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), da Universidade de Harvard e Universidade de Michigan, que vem sendo realizada em mais de 28 centros de pesquisa no mundo. O São Paulo Megacity Mental Health Survey é um estudo de corte transversal, de base populacional, desenhado para avaliar a morbidade psiquiátrica em uma amostra representativa da população geral, com 18 anos ou mais, residentes na Região Metropolitana de São Paulo. Uma amostra de 5.037 indivíduos (taxa de resposta: 81,3%) foi entrevistada por leigos treinados, utilizando a versão do Composite International Diagnostic Interview para o World Mental Health Survey, elaborado para gerar diagnósticos de acordo com o DSM-IV. O foco do presente estudo foi uma subamostra de 2.935 entrevistados, os quais foram avaliados com a versão longa da entrevista e que foram questionados sobre psicofármacos prescritos no ano anterior à entrevista para \"problemas com emoções, nervos, saúde mental, uso de substâncias, energia, concentração, sono ou a capacidade de lidar com o estresse\". Os dados foram ponderados para ajustar a subamostragem dos não casos dessa subamostra e para ajustar as discrepâncias residuais entre as distribuições amostrais e populacionais de uma série de variáveis sociodemográficas, garantindo, assim, a representatividade dessa subamostra. RESULTADOS: Apenas 6,13% dos respondentes relataram o uso de psicofármacos no ano anterior à entrevista. Os hipnóticos e sedativos (incluindo os benzodiazepínicos) (3,63%) e os antidepressivos (3,46%) foram os mais comumente relatados, enquanto os estabilizadores de humor (0,64%) e os antipsicóticos (0,61%) foram pouco frequentes. Ser do sexo feminino (OR= 2,55; 95% IC=1,58-4,11), avançar da idade, escolaridade abaixo do nível superior e ter maior renda foram fatores associados ao maior uso de psicofármacos, assim como ter comorbidades e transtornos graves. A prevalência de transtornos psiquiátricos de acordo com os critérios do DSM-IV/WMH-CIDI no ano anterior à entrevista foi 29,49%. Entretanto, somente 13,75% dos sujeitos com diagnóstico de transtorno psiquiátrico no ano anterior à entrevista, 24,93% com transtorno de humor, 14,43% com transtorno de ansiedade e, aproximadamente, 10% com transtorno por uso de substância e com transtorno de controle do impulso relataram uso de psicofármacos no mesmo período. Respondentes sem diagnóstico também reportaram uso de psicofármacos (2,94%). O uso de antidepressivos (9,10%) e de hipnóticos e sedativos (7,81%) foi pouco frequente naqueles com diagnóstico, apresentando a seguinte distribuição, respectivamente: sujeitos com transtorno de humor (17,94% e 14,70%), ansiedade (9,04% e 8,08%), controle de impulso (6,76% e 5,80%) e por uso de substâncias (5,08% e 7,86%). O uso de psicofármacos foi maior entre sujeitos que apresentaram três transtornos ou mais (26,91%) quando comparado aos que apresentaram dois (15,21%) ou um transtorno (8,96%). Entre os sujeitos com transtornos considerados leve, de moderada gravidade e grave, a prevalência de uso de psicofármacos foi 6,60%, 10,68% e 23,77%, respectivamente. Entretanto aproximadamente 75% casos graves e com três ou mais transtornos, permaneceram sem tratamento farmacológico. CONCLUSÃO: Os resultados sugerem que a maioria dos sujeitos com transtornos psiquiátricos ativos não estão recebendo tratamento farmacológico para seus transtornos psiquiátricos na Região Metropolitana de São Paulo. Políticas públicas poderiam aumentar o acesso aos cuidados de saúde adequado, particularmente entre sujeitos com transtornos graves e comorbidades / INTRODUCTION: Mental Disorders are highly prevalent and have been associated with high use of health services and medications. However results of the World Health Organization (WHO) World Mental Health (WHM) Surveys carried out in several countries have found low prevalence rates of psychotropic medication among those with 12-month disorders. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence, pattern, and associated factors with the use of psychotropic medication in a sample in the general population and, within this sample, among those with different diagnoses for psychiatric disorders, according to DSM-IV. METHODS: Data were from the São Paulo Megacity Mental Health Survey (SPMHS), the Brazilian segment of the World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative, coordinated by the World Health Organization and Harvard University, which has been held in more than 28 research centers in the world. The São Paulo Megacity Mental Health Survey is a cross-sectional population-based study, designed to evaluate psychiatric morbidity in a representative sample in the general population, aged 18 years or more, living in the São Paulo Metropolitan Area. A sample of 5,037 individuals (response rate: 81.3%) was assessed by trained lay interviewers using the World Mental Health version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, designed to generate DSM-IV diagnoses. The focus of the current report was a subsample of 2,935 subjects to whom the long version of the interview was applied and were asked about prescription medicines that used in the previous12 months for \"problems with emotions, nerves, mental health, substance use, energy, concentration, sleep or ability to cope with stress\". Data were weighted to adjust the undersampling of long interview respondents non-cases and to adjust residual discrepancies between the sample and population distributions of a range of sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Only 6.13% of the respondents reported psychotropic medication use in the previous year the interview. Hypnotics and sedatives (including benzodiazepines) (3.63%) and antidepressants (3.46%) were the most commonly reported, while mood stabilizers (0.64%) and antipsychotics (0.61%) were used less frequently. In the general population of the SPMHS, be female gender (OR= 2.55; 95% IC=1.58-4.11), older, education low level high and higher income were associated the higher psychotropic medication use, well as have comorbidity and serious disorders. The 12-month prevalence of DSM-IV/WMH-CIDI disorder was 29.49%. However, only 13.75% of those with 12-month disorders, 24.93% among those with mood disorder, 14.43% in those with anxiety disorder and, approximately 10% impulse-control disorder and substance use disorder reported psychotropic medication use in the same period. Respondents without diagnosis also reported psychotropic medication use (2.94%). Antidepressants (9.10%) and hypnotics and sedatives (7.81%) were commonly reported, with the following distribution, respectively: subjects with mood disorder (17.94% and 14.70%), anxiety (9.04 % and 8.08%), impulse control (6.76% and 5.80%), and substance use (5.08% and 7.86%). Psychotropic medication use was higher among the respondents with three or more disorders (26.91%), when compared with those with two (15.21%) or with one disorder (8.96%). Among the respondents with mild, moderate, or severe disorders, the prevalence of Psychotropic medication use was 6.60%, 10.68%, and 23.77%, respectively. However approximately 75% severe cases and comorbidities, remained without pharmacologic treatment. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the majority of individuals diagnosed with an active mental disorder are not being treated with psychotropic medication in the São Paulo Metropolitan Area. Public policies should increase access to appropriate care, particularly among subjects with serious disorders and comorbidities

After sixteen intensive months, I quit my employed position as a security guard at a local hospital. By drawing on my autoethnographic experiences in the form of “ethnographic fiction writing”, as well as eight interviews with my former male colleagues, I explore how the guards’ constructions of masculinity intersect with their security assessment and subsequent application of force, chemical incarceration, and other coercive security tactics on involuntarily-committed mental health patients. The narratives are framed by the available literature on gender and masculinity within the security, police, prison and military institutions, as well as the theoretical notions of gendered institutions (Acker), hegemonic masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt), doing gender (West & Zimmerman), and Dave Holmes’s application of Foucauldian biopolitical power to forensic healthcare settings. These concepts are used in tandem with a creative methodological tool to reveal the “messy”, “bloody” and “gendered” ways in which hospital life unfolds between the guard, the nurse, and the patient prisoner. By escaping more traditional forms of academic writing, I am able to weave raw, sensitive and reflexive thoughts and emotions into the research design and analysis. The analysis is divided into two narratives: “Us” and “Them”. “Us” emphasizes the gendered ways in which the hospital guard learns, reproduces, resists, lives up, or fails to live up to the masculine codes of the profession. Here, the guard must confront cultural demands to demonstrate physical prowess, authority and heroism during a patient battle. “Them” explores how hegemonic masculinity shapes the hierarchical and coercive relations between the guard, the nurse, and the patient, and reinforces psychiatrized discourses that promote punishment, pain, bureaucracy and control. Overall, these findings call for the abolition of physical restraint, chemical incarceration and other coercive security measures within our healthcare institutions, and encourage future research to give voice to the lived experiences of women guards and security management teams.

No description available.

Abstract not available

Lifetime prevalence estimates of psychotropic medicine use as well as prevalence of DSM-IV prescription drug use disorders from the baseline investigation of the Early Developmental Stages of Psychopathology (EDSP) Study are presented. Use of prescription medication at some time in their life was reported by 27.4% of the respondents. Illicit use of prescription drugs, which means an intake without medical legitimation, was reported by 4.5% of the sample. The findings suggest that abuse of and dependence on prescription drugs, with most cases reporting polysubstance use, is quite rare in the 14- to 24-year-olds. DSM-IV abuse was more prevalent than dependence (0.5 vs. 0.3%). In general, women reported higher prevalence rates of prescription drug use, whereas men reported higher prevalence rates of prescription drug disorders. This result suggests that men have a higher risk to develop a substance-use-related disorder.

After sixteen intensive months, I quit my employed position as a security guard at a local hospital. By drawing on my autoethnographic experiences in the form of “ethnographic fiction writing”, as well as eight interviews with my former male colleagues, I explore how the guards’ constructions of masculinity intersect with their security assessment and subsequent application of force, chemical incarceration, and other coercive security tactics on involuntarily-committed mental health patients. The narratives are framed by the available literature on gender and masculinity within the security, police, prison and military institutions, as well as the theoretical notions of gendered institutions (Acker), hegemonic masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt), doing gender (West & Zimmerman), and Dave Holmes’s application of Foucauldian biopolitical power to forensic healthcare settings. These concepts are used in tandem with a creative methodological tool to reveal the “messy”, “bloody” and “gendered” ways in which hospital life unfolds between the guard, the nurse, and the patient prisoner. By escaping more traditional forms of academic writing, I am able to weave raw, sensitive and reflexive thoughts and emotions into the research design and analysis. The analysis is divided into two narratives: “Us” and “Them”. “Us” emphasizes the gendered ways in which the hospital guard learns, reproduces, resists, lives up, or fails to live up to the masculine codes of the profession. Here, the guard must confront cultural demands to demonstrate physical prowess, authority and heroism during a patient battle. “Them” explores how hegemonic masculinity shapes the hierarchical and coercive relations between the guard, the nurse, and the patient, and reinforces psychiatrized discourses that promote punishment, pain, bureaucracy and control. Overall, these findings call for the abolition of physical restraint, chemical incarceration and other coercive security measures within our healthcare institutions, and encourage future research to give voice to the lived experiences of women guards and security management teams.