Máté Kapitány-Fövény1,2,3,4, Barbara Mervó1,2, Máté Kertész1, Ornella Corazza5, Judit Farkas1,2,3, Gyöngyi Kökönyei1, Róbert Urbán1, Zsolt Demetrovics1. 1. Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary. 2. Doctoral School of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary. 3. Nyírő Gyula Hospital Drug Outpatient and Prevention Center, Budapest, Hungary. 4. Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. 5. School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In recent years, increasing intravenous mephedrone use was reported in several countries. The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics of such a form of mephedrone use, while identifying the differences between injectors and non-injectors in patterns of mephedrone use and psychiatric symptom status. METHODS: One hundred and forty-five mephedrone users were surveyed on patterns of mephedrone use using a structured questionnaire as well as the Brief Symptom Inventory. RESULTS: Majority of users received mephedrone from acquaintances and used it in discos/parties settings regarding both first and current mephedrone use. Intranasal use was the most typical route of administration (84.4%). Injectors (11%) used the drug more frequently and in higher dosages. This group included a greater proportion of opiate users (37.5%) and showed more diffuse psychiatric symptoms. Regarding the predictors of being an injector, heroin use showed the highest odds ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous mephedrone use is associated with a higher risk of harmful drug use, elevated psychiatric symptom profile and increased possibility of mephedrone being considered as an addictive substance. These findings might be important in efficient treatment planning.
OBJECTIVE: In recent years, increasing intravenous mephedrone use was reported in several countries. The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics of such a form of mephedrone use, while identifying the differences between injectors and non-injectors in patterns of mephedrone use and psychiatric symptom status. METHODS: One hundred and forty-five mephedrone users were surveyed on patterns of mephedrone use using a structured questionnaire as well as the Brief Symptom Inventory. RESULTS: Majority of users received mephedrone from acquaintances and used it in discos/parties settings regarding both first and current mephedrone use. Intranasal use was the most typical route of administration (84.4%). Injectors (11%) used the drug more frequently and in higher dosages. This group included a greater proportion of opiate users (37.5%) and showed more diffuse psychiatric symptoms. Regarding the predictors of being an injector, heroin use showed the highest odds ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous mephedrone use is associated with a higher risk of harmful drug use, elevated psychiatric symptom profile and increased possibility of mephedrone being considered as an addictive substance. These findings might be important in efficient treatment planning.
Authors: Zurina Hassan; Oliver G Bosch; Darshan Singh; Suresh Narayanan; B Vicknasingam Kasinather; Erich Seifritz; Johannes Kornhuber; Boris B Quednow; Christian P Müller Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Marie Claire Van Hout; Annemieke Benschop; Michal Bujalski; Katarzyna Dąbrowska; Zsolt Demetrovics; Katalin Felvinczi; Evelyn Hearne; Susana Henriques; Zsuzsa Kaló; Gerrit Kamphausen; Dirk Korf; Joana Paula Silva; Łukasz Wieczorek; Bernd Werse Journal: Int J Ment Health Addict Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 3.836
Authors: Helen Dolengevich-Segal; Alicia Gonzalez-Baeza; Jorge Valencia; Eulalia Valencia-Ortega; Alfonso Cabello; Maria Jesus Tellez-Molina; Maria Jesus Perez-Elias; Regino Serrano; Leire Perez-Latorre; Luz Martin-Carbonero; Sari Arponen; Jose Sanz-Moreno; Sara De la Fuente; Otilia Bisbal; Ignacio Santos; Jose Luis Casado; Jesus Troya; Miguel Cervero-Jimenez; Sara Nistal; Guillermo Cuevas; Javier Correas-Lauffer; Marta Torrens; Pablo Ryan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 3.240