Article

Medical use, illicit use and diversion of prescription stimulant medication.

Substance Abuse Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 48105-2194, USA.
Journal of psychoactive drugs (Impact Factor: 1.1). 04/2006; 38(1):43-56. DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2006.10399827
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to examine the prevalence and factors associated with the illicit use of prescription stimulants and to assess the relationship between the medical and illicit use of prescription stimulants among undergraduate college students. A Web survey was self-administered by a random sample of 9,161 undergraduate students attending a large public midwestern university in the spring of 2003. A total of 8.1% reported lifetime illicit use of prescription stimulants and 5.4% reported past year illicit use. The number of undergraduate students who reported illicit use of prescription stimulants exceeded the number of students who reported medical use of prescription stimulants for ADHD. The leading sources of prescription stimulants for illicit use were friends and peers. Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed several risk factors for illicit use of prescription stimulants such as being male, White, member of a social fraternity or sorority, Jewish religious affiliation, and lower grade point average. All of these characteristics were also related to medically prescribed use of prescription stimulants. Those who initiated medically prescribed use of prescription stimulants for ADHD in elementary school were generally not at increased risk for illicit use of prescription stimulants or other drugs during college as compared to those who were never prescribed stimulant medication. The present study provides evidence that the illicit use of prescription stimulants is a problem among undergraduate college students, and certain subgroups appear to be at heightened risk.

1 Bookmark
 · 
147 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Use of prescription stimulants by normal healthy individuals to enhance cognition is said to be on the rise. Who is using these medications for cognitive enhancement, and how prevalent is this practice? Do prescription stimulants in fact enhance cognition for normal healthy people? We review the epidemiological and cognitive neuroscience literatures in search of answers to these questions. Epidemiological issues addressed include the prevalence of nonmedical stimulant use, user demographics, methods by which users obtain prescription stimulants, and motivations for use. Cognitive neuroscience issues addressed include the effects of prescription stimulants on learning and executive function, as well as the task and individual variables associated with these effects. Little is known about the prevalence of prescription stimulant use for cognitive enhancement outside of student populations. Among college students, estimates of use vary widely but, taken together, suggest that the practice is commonplace. The cognitive effects of stimulants on normal healthy people cannot yet be characterized definitively, despite the volume of research that has been carried out on these issues. Published evidence suggests that declarative memory can be improved by stimulants, with some evidence consistent with enhanced consolidation of memories. Effects on the executive functions of working memory and cognitive control are less reliable but have been found for at least some individuals on some tasks. In closing, we enumerate the many outstanding questions that remain to be addressed by future research and also identify obstacles facing this research.
    Psychological Bulletin 09/2011; 137(5):717-41. · 15.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As prescriptions for stimulant medication to treat ADHD have increased, so have concerns about the nonmedical use and diversion of stimulant medication, especially among college students. There is also growing concern about young adults feigning ADHD in order to receive a prescription for stimulant medication. This paper summarizes recent research on the nonmedical use and diversion of stimulant medication with a focus on the prevalence of these behaviors, motivations for nonmedical use, factors associated with nonmedical use, and the consequences of such use. Research on the medical misuse of prescribed medication and malingering to obtain a diagnosis of ADHD is also discussed.
    Current Psychiatry Reports 07/2013; 15(7):375. · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found a negative association between health insurance and nonmedical use of prescription drugs (NMUPD), and abuse or dependence on prescription drugs (ADPD); and mixed associations between health insurance and use of substance abuse treatment (SAT). However, effect of health insurance in the specific subgroups of population is largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relationship between health insurance and (1) NMUPD, (2) ADPD, and (3) use of SAT services among 12-64 years old, noninstitutionalized individuals and to see if these relationships are different in different subgroups of population. METHODS: This study used cross-sectional survey data from 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In 2007, self-reported prevalence of NMUPD was approximately 10% (N=15,509,703). In multivariate analysis, NMUPD was negatively associated with health insurance, age, race other than non-Hispanic White, education, marital status, and income ($40,000-$74,999). Past year use of tobacco and alcohol were positively associated with NMUPD. Among those with private health insurance, Hispanics and individuals with family income less than $20,000 and $40,000-$74,999 were more likely prone to NMUPD than others. High school graduates with public health insurance were less likely prone to NMUPD. Approximately, 13% of nonmedical users reported ADPD (N=2,011,229). Health insurance and age were negatively associated with ADPD. However, people who were unmarried, reported fair/poor health, and used tobacco were more likely to report ADPD. Lastly, the use of substance abuse treatment programs was approximately 73% and 76% between NMUPD and ADPD population, respectively. Health insurance was not associated with use of substance abuse treatment. Individuals with high school education were 2.6 times more likely to use substance abuse treatment than the college graduates. Additionally, no significant interaction effects were found between health insurance, and sociodemographic factors on ADPD and the use of substance abuse treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Health insurance had a differential impact on NMUPD only. Among privately insured, Hispanics and individuals reporting family income less than $20,000 were more likely to engage in NMUPD. There is a need to better understand and monitor the use of prescription drugs among these groups. This knowledge can help in developing public health programs and policies that discourage NMUPD among these individuals.
    Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy 06/2012; · 2.35 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
14 Downloads
Available from
May 21, 2014