Talk:Polysubstance dependence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Polysubstance dependence was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 6, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Three substances?[edit]

All the literature claims three substances, so what is addiction to two only duosubstance dependence? :-) Polydrug abuse/dependence however is two or more, why?
Polydrug, Poly Drug and Polysubstance should surely be synonyms anyway2829 VC 11:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Evaluation for Abnormal Psychology class[edit]

This article can be improved further by adding examples of drugs that are commonly abused at the same time and including discussion about the diagnosis of polysubstance dependency. Dandres19 (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible Improvements[edit]

This article definitely needs more information about studies relating to polysubstance dependence. What are its effects? Gender differences? Also, it would be better if there was more discussion of treatment methods. Mgreen1 (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Project Proposal[edit]

We, as a group, have decided to use polysubstance dependence as our topic for the Wikipedia assignment. The America Psychiatric Association defines polysubstance dependence as, “a behavioral pattern exhibited by an individual who has been using a minimum of three psychoactive substances within a twelve-month period without the use of one outweighing the other. These substances do not include caffeine or nicotine.”

Our plans for this article include dividing the article into parts and assigning one person to add information about that part. For example, Dandres19 (talk) will talk about common drugs used in polysubstance dependence, how common it is, as well as discuss studies about cognition and polysubstance dependence. (Mackleah (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)) will write about how polysubstance is diagnosed, what specific symptoms need to be present, and studies on the relationship between genetics and polysubstance dependence. Jlucas1 (talk) will discuss treatment options for polysubstance dependence and the effectiveness of those treatments, and contribute to the section on gender differences. To make sure everyone does research, we have decided that finding one new source per week will help create a long list of sources by the end of this project. Adding something to the article each week from each source will hopefully create more depth to the article as we go along.

Sources: DSM-IV-TR (2000)[edit]

Frances, R.J.,Miller, S.I., & Mack, A.H. (2010.) Clinical Textbook of Addictive Disorders (3rd ed.) New York, NY:Guilford Press.

Medina, K.L., Shear, P.K., Schafer, J., Armstrong, T.G., & Dyer, P. (2003, January). Cognitive functioning and length of abstinence in polysubstance dependent men. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19(2), 245-258. Retrieved from

By Lex, Barbara W. Health Psychology, Vol 10(2), 1991, 121-132.

Schuckit, M.A., et al. (2001, January). “A preliminary evaluation of the potential usefulness of the diagnoses of polysubstance dependence”. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62(1), 54-61.

Feedback on Plan[edit]

Looks like you are off to a good start. Do not forget to add the Educational Assignment template to the talk page of your article. It should look like this:

. Use the next several weeks to learn as much as you can about the construct and keep modifying this outline as you reorganize, cut and add. As always let me know if you need any assistance.Tatompki (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


Hmm... we need to fix the references somehow, since there are three copies at the moment. Just a thought. Mgreen1 (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Dandres19 (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Done(Mackleah (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC))

Hey, I saw that the first sentence on our article did not have a source, so I searched around and found a possible source (see under the list of references.) Does anyone one know exactly where that sentence came from? I know it was part of the original article before we started editing it. Dandres19 (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I deleted part of the project proposal, since one of our group members is no longer taking the class. Dandres19 (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary of Peer Review[edit]

Hi group! I peer-reviewed the Corumination article, and there are some things that I was reminded of that we should put in our article. First, links. I have no links in my paragraphs, and I need to link some words to other articles on Wikipedia that explain those concepts. Second, making sure we cited everything correctly. Third, it occurred to me from looking over the class assignment page that we can put images in our article. Though I'm not sure if there are any pictures that relate to our topic. Fourth, I think that we need to put more into the introduction paragraph--our current paragraph is one sentence. These are just some thoughts, please let me know what you think. Dandres19 (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary of Peer review[edit]

Hi ladies- I peer reviewed the Pica article. Basically, the only piece of advice I had for them was to eliminate things that had repeated in more than one section. I also noticed they listed somethings they didn't go into detail or even describe at all. I think it would be a good idea if we reviewed the article together and read through it all to make sure we aren't doing either of these things. I also noticed they linked to a lot of other pages which we have done none of. A lot of things to look into... Jlucas1 (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary of Peer review[edit]

Hi, I reviewed Bipolar II disorder and after looking through their article I agree with the changes you suggested, and it gave me some other ideas about what we can add to our article to make it stronger. (Mackleah (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

Peer Review[edit]

Hey guys, I reviewed your article for the peer review assignment! I think you guys did a great job with the layout of the article and the way you separated everything into sections. I also thought you guys did well with covering the things we cover in class, like etiology, symptoms and long term effects. And seeing if there is a gender connection! Another great aspect was the treatment section. You acknowledged that both therapeutic treatments like CBT and medical treatments are useful in treating the disorder. Something you may consider adding would be sections from biographies or autobiographies from people who have suffered through polysubstance dependence. This might help with the validity of the article and give people an insight into the mind of someone who is actually experiencing this. (Tiffanybn (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC))

Peer Review[edit]

Great job everyone, I really liked the format of the article as it progressed from etiology through effects. I do think that there needs to be a future research section as this topic is continually being researched and developed. The gender section expecially is still being researched providing for possible sub headings under the future research section. Wildcat707 —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Peer Review[edit]

Very well done! Everything that you need in the article seems to be there and it would make sense to someone reading it, even if they have no background in psychology. It would be a little more helpful if some of the terms were more defined, just so the people that dont know what certain things are wont have trouble reading the article. You guys made sure everything was covered and that was great! Also, the layout is easy to read and is very concise. Over all I think you guys did extremely well, especially for it being a rough draft. -- (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on Rough Draft[edit]

Nice job of incorporating a lot of new information into the existing article. In general, you will want to carefully read the entire article aloud to listen for awkward phrases and ways to improve the flow. The most pressing need is to consider some reorganization and, in general, to move toward clearly discussing the information in broad categories (e.g., “Associated Cognitive Impairments”) vs. a laundry list of points gleaned from study A, study B and study C. Toward that end I offer some observations and suggestions:

  • Get rid of “Commonalities…” and instead incorporate into an introductory paragraph that starts with the first sentence. Second sentence – “Although any combination…” Last sentence – “Longitudinal research suggests that excessively using or relying on one…”
  • Next paragraph should be labeled “Epidemiology” – which can come before or after diagnosis. It would include: “Polysubstance dependence… thought. According to… “. Data were vs. was (data are always plural). Don’t spell out ages (14 and 24)
  • Get rid of “Studies That Have Been Done on Polysubstance Dependence” and move the first 2 sentences to a section like “Associated Cognitive Impairments” or “Prognosis”. I realize they are studies that evaluated cognitive impairments separately in men and women but seem more pertinent to describing some of the negative sequelae. The next section could be title “Gender Differences”
  • Need a section that deals with “Causes” – could include genetics, self-medication hypothesis and the fact that dependence on one substance can increase the risk. In addition, you may want to generally consider other etiological factors for substance dependence – mentioning and linking to other articles that look at: biological, psychological (discuss CBT in treatment should discuss here), sociocultural.
  • Diagnosis - watch “abuse” vs. “dependence”. Additionally, more clear to state DSM symptoms present to diagnose polysubstance dependence vs. required/symptoms. You may also want to peruse articles on other disorders to get ideas about how you can present in a side box the DSM codes (and ICD-10 codes if you desire)
  • Treatment section – again important to link to other pages as well. You may also want to consider separate sections – medication; therapy; 12-step programs. The first couple of sentences could use some polishing. For example, the “only on a multiple scale” perhaps could instead suggest that treatment is complicated by the fact that multiple substances are involved. The second sentence, “it needs to be a sufficient period… “ – this sentence doesn’t make sense. Spell out Twelve if you start a sentence with a number. CBT mentioned as a treatment so you’ll want to make sure to discuss cognitive behavioral explanations for how polysubstance dependence develops. Additionally, it seems heavy on the behavioral – what about the cognitive? Inpatient and outpatient are all one word (vs. hyphenated – same is true for throughout). In order to be more balanced in your discussion of inpatient vs. outpatient care you may want to mention the challenges associated with generalizing treatment gains outside the inpatient setting. What type of medications? Would be useful to give at least one example (perhaps again linking to other articles for more information?). Relapse sentence needs a citation.

Tatompki (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Things to work on:[edit]

- Editing of each individual section
- Linking to other pages
- Addition of causes section
- Incorporating images?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlucas1 (talkcontribs) 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Jlucas1 (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing Update[edit]

Hi, so I'm checking in with the group to see how both of you feel about the article. I've added information to the biological causes section, and also checked over the other sections I worked on for grammar and spelling, etc. I'm going to try to find an image to put in, though, maybe for the biological section. I think the article looks good, except that there is nothing under the sociocultural section under causes, as yet. How are you doing with that, Mackleah? If you need help finding information, please let me know. Thanks! Dandres19 (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional Feedback[edit]

Good job of expanding, adding links and re-organizing. However, there are still a number of areas in need of improvement:

  • In general, you are writing much of the article in manner that provides a thorough description of one study vs. sharing what is known about the topic (and citing across studies or a review). Please see WP:MEDRSwhich indicates that reviews are preferred to primary studies. If there are no review studies or meta analyses then summarizing across studies is better than going into detail on one study which may or may not be consistent with the broader literature. In the case that very little work has been done in the area it is perfectly fine to describe results/conclusions of one study (however, your statement should draw attention to the fact that it is the only or one of the few studies on the topic).
  • Epidemiology – 1st sentence is overly long and a run-on sentence. The first phrase should be cited and/or discussed in a history section (i.e., more common than once thought – did criteria change; did research studies measuring polysubstance use make the problem apparent, etc.).
  • Causes – “comorbid of each other” is redundant and overly technical. Remember to write for a lay audience choosing non-technical and straightforward ways to describe (i.e., see WP:MoS). For example, you could state “Polysubstance ??missing a word here??abuse/dependence frequently co-occurs with depression.”
  • Still a fair number of typos or sentences that are awkward, unclear and/or have grammatical errors (e.g., 3rd sentence under “biological” should read “substance” not “substantial”). Additionally, this sentence is generally unclear – are there few studies or few genes that have been investigated? Also in this same paragraph data are plural!!! Finally, the rest of this paragraph is problematic . Read this sentence aloud “Other researchers found a connection between dopamine receptor genes and dependency on a substance, but admitted that because alcohol is commonly used with another substance, and that there was the possibility of placing separate diagnoses of dependence on marijuana, cocaine, or opiates under a single substance dependence diagnosis, the results of the study may not have been caused by dependency on a single substance.” – very wordy and tough to follow. Strive to write clearly and concisely.
  • Next section there are similar problems (e.g., “roll” vs. “role”; first sentence regarding Axis II problems seems disconnected from the rest – not sure why it is included here. Ditto for the next section (e.g., “reproductions” vs. “repercussions”; not appropriately sourced/cited). Self-medication discussed as psychological and sociocultural – confusing. Maybe it is better to have a separate section called “Co-Occurring Conditions” or “Self-Medication Hypothesis”?
  • Diagnosis section is still unclear. The last sentence doesn’t have a citation. Seems that Diagnosis should come before causes.
  • Associated Cognitive Impairments again reads like a term paper vs. a wikipedia article as you summarize the results of one study vs. sharing information about various cognitive impairments that have been noted. Tatompki (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Multiple references to the same footnote[edit]

I just noticed that this article uses the same citations multiple times but instead of naming the references, it repeats them so they show up multiple times in the list of references. I would fix it myself but I don't quite have the time right now. However, there is an explanation of how to do this at WP:NAMEDREFS that is very explanatory. Hope this helps. Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! That was very helpful! Dandres19 (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polysubstance dependence/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 00:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am knowledgeable on this topic. I will review it next week. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably, I am quickfailing this article. This article needs some work, but could get to GA status in time. Below is a non-exhaustive list of comments to explain. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • This is a classifiable disorder. Why aren't you using {{Infobox disease}}?
  • Images need captions
  • The lead is a major issue. Please read MOS:LEAD. The page title should be bolded in the first sentence, the lead needs to be expanded and should summarize the article, which it at present does not. It talks about specific studies in a manner that does not summarize all that is known about polysubstance dependence.
    • The first sentence: "A person with polysubstance dependence is psychologically addicted to being in an intoxicated state without a preference to one particular substance" This is an insufficient summarization of the topic.
  • What is How is this a reliable source?
  • The lead claims that polysubstance dependence only concerns alcohol, cocaine and heroin, based on one study in the literature. Polysubstance dependence can be for any two substances.
  • The article discusses the the DSM-IV-TR, which is good. However, there isn't any mention of the ICD, so this article lacks the worldwide perspective.
  • Prose is an issue.
    • One example that drew my attention: "There is [sic] data to support that some genes contribute to substance dependence" Why is there a [sic] in a sentence that doesn't include a quotation.
    • Spaces between periods and references, references inside periods, no spaces between words and parentheses...

Gender Differences[edit]

This section is not very well-sourced, specifically I am looking for a citation for this statement: "Research has shown that women are more likely to be polysubstant dependent." All of the research cited in this article, and that I can find on my own, shows the opposite to be true. -- (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

DSM-IV vs. DSM-5[edit]

Due to changes from DSM-IV to DSM-5 in this topic area, much of this article appears to be out-of-date. (And, no, I am not going to work on it as I know little about the subject. I just happened to be doing some clean-up in the section in the DSM-5 article where major changes are described.) --Hordaland (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)