Cross-sectional analysis reveals no significant link between abstinence duration and cognitive performance in polydrug users.
Objective Previous studies have reported improved neurocognitive performance in individuals with a history of drug use during extended abstinence. However, most investigations have focused on single-substance users, despite the fact that most individuals engage in the concurrent use of multiple substances, referred to as polydrug users. This population is characterized by greater cognitive impairment than single-drug users. Therefore, examining neurocognitive performance during abstinence in polysdrug users is critical for designing future interventions and rehabilitation planning. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between abstinence (days) and neurocognitive performance in a polydrug users. Method A total of 23 polydrug users took part in this non-experimental, cross-sectional study. Eligibility criteria included a history of multiple substance use and current abstinence. All participants were assessed to measure processing speed, cognitive flexibility, and visuomotor integration using the Trail Making Test A and B and the Bender-Gestalt II test. Participants were stratified by age, education level, and duration of abstinence. Correlation analysis examined the relationship between abstinence and test performance. Results Results did not reveal a significant relationship between abstinence duration and processing speed (p = .90) or cognitive flexibility (p = .47). Even when visuomotor performance appeared higher than other cognitive domains, this relationship was also not statistically significant (p = .19). Conclusion These findings suggest that abstinence period is not significantly associated with a better performance in processing speed, cognitive flexibility, or visuomotor integration among polydrug users. These results indicate that prolonged multiple drug consumtion may alter neurocognitive functioning even after extended abstinence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Díaz et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: