The strengths of our study are: 1) a large sample; 2) a well-known and established structured clinical assessment; and 3) careful distinction between substance-induced and non-substance-induced psychiatric disorders. Our findings differ from other studies in the prevalence rate of mood and anxiety disorders diagnosed, although comparisons across studies are difficult due to: 1) differences in gender distribution; 2) exclusion of non-substance induced DSM-IV disorders; 3) reporting of point prevalence compared to lifetime prevalence; and 4) potentially other sampling factors (Stinson et al., 2005; Conway et al., 2006; Semple et al., 2007; Sutcliffe et al., 2009). In this study we were able to provide clinically relevant information on the prevalence of psychiatric disorders among MA-dependent users, provide additional data on the percentage of primary and substance-induced disorders and to identify novel information on gender differences in MA-induced delusional disorder.
