There also does not appear to be a definition for what they define as a 'substance abuse comorbidity' Looking it up: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2669586/
"Schizophrenia Patients Report Consistently Higher Rates of Substance Abuse Than the General Population, Notably With Respect to 4 Licit (Nicotine and Alcohol) and Illicit (Cannabis and Cocaine) Substances"
it also says this is not to be used as a baseline for studies but if Schizophrenia is commonly co-morbid with substance abuse then pointing out that mental illness doesn't increase violence by much seems like a red-herring.
No.
It tells us that people who are mentally ill are about as violent as the general population unless they also have substance abuse.
> it also says this is not to be used as a baseline for studies but if Schizophrenia is commonly co-morbid with substance abuse then pointing out that mental illness doesn't increase violence by much seems like a red-herring
When trying to predict risk of violence knowing that someone has schizophrenia tells you almost nothing. Knowing they have substance misuse tells you a bit more.
And knowing that people with schizophrenia are not more violent than the general population means community treatment is easier to provide.
thats a 2.5 difference in patients with schizophrenia compared to the general population
> When trying to predict risk of violence knowing that someone has schizophrenia tells you almost nothing. Knowing they have substance misuse tells you a bit more.
That is simply not true though. Substance abuse changes the rate at which it happens but Substance abuse seems to have a high comorbidity with Schizophrenia and while the rate is significantly lower when there are no substance issues it is still higher. Substance abuse, per the link you provided, creates a 3rd and fourth population subset (1: schizophrenics 2: neurotypical 3:Schizophrenics with Substance abuse 4: NT with Substance abuse) Which after your response, seems like you're being intentionally misleading in order prove your point.
eg, this study:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/183929
> In patients with schizophrenia, 1054 (13.2%) had at least 1 violent offense compared with 4276 (5.3%) of general population controls (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-2.2). The risk was mostly confined to patients with substance abuse comorbidity (of whom 27.6% committed an offense), yielding an increased risk of violent crime among such patients (adjusted OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 3.9-5.0), whereas the risk increase was small in schizophrenia patients without substance abuse comorbidity (8.5% of whom had at least 1 violent offense; adjusted OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; P<.001 for interaction). The risk increase among those with substance abuse comorbidity was significantly less pronounced when unaffected siblings were used as controls (28.3% of those with schizophrenia had a violent offense compared with 17.9% of their unaffected siblings; adjusted OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.4; P<.001 for interaction), suggesting significant familial (genetic or early environmental) confounding of the association between schizophrenia and violence.