Presenting Pattern and Psychiatric Comorbidities in Rural versus Urban Substance Dependent Patients: A Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Background: “Locality” is a significant factor in substance initiation, maintenance, and relapse. The pattern of substance dependence among rural and urban populations varies across studies and is scarcely studied, warranting further research. To compare presenting patterns (sociodemographic and drug-related variables), reasons for substance use, and psychiatric comorbidities (prevalence, type, and severity) between rural and urban substance-dependent groups. Materials and Methods: This study was a cross-sectional analytical study in a government de-addiction center, including rural and urban patient groups aged 18–65. International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) criteria, and severity of dependence scale were used for diagnosing substance dependence. After detoxification, psychiatric comorbidity was assessed using brief psychiatric rating scale, Young's mania rating scale, and patient health questionnaire – somatic, anxiety, and depression symptoms scale. Post-analysis was performed to assess socioeconomic variables and access to de-addiction services. Results: The final sample was 500 (250 rural and 250 urban). The post-analysis sample size was 386 (211 rural and 175 urban). The mean age was 38.2 ± 12.4 years, mostly males (n = 495, 99%). Substance frequency was opioids (92%)> benzodiazepines (24.8%) > alcohol (22%) > cannabis (1.6%) for rural and opioids (91.2%) > alcohol (29.6%) > benzodiazepines (14.8%) > cannabis (2%) for urban patients. More than half of patients had comorbid nicotine dependence. Rural patients were more benzodiazepine dependent (P = 0.007), and urban were more opioid + alcohol dependent (P = 0.001). Rural patients had higher age (P = 0.012), less education (P < 0.001), positive family history of substance (P = 0.028), daily wagers, and farmers (P < 0.001) than urban patients who were younger, students (P = 0.002), businessmen and government employed (P < 0.001). Urban patients expended more on drugs (P < 0.001), had higher treatment attempts (P = 0.008), and had better availability and accessibility of de-addiction services (P < 0.001). More rural users initiated substances to “enhance performance,” whereas urban ones initiated for “stress relief/novelty” (P < 0.001). For treatment seeking, “External pressure” was a more common reason in urban patients (P < 0.001), who also had more psychiatric comorbidities (P = 0.026). Conclusion: Significant pattern differences exist between rural and urban substance dependents, warranting emphasis on locality-specific factors for appropriate intervention.

Keywords

• dependence
• dual diagnosis
• locality
• psychiatric comorbidity
• residence
• rural
• substance
• urban