No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Pediatric Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement in a Self-Medicating Society
Abstract
Pediatric pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PPCE) refers to children’ and adolescents’ nonmedical use of prescription and recreational drugs for enhanced performance at school. Adolescents’ own intentional decision for substance use to compete with fellow students must be distinguished from parental decisions to enhance their children’s performance as an investment in their children’s or in their own future, respectively. While several recent studies have examined the prevalence and the correlates of pharmacological cognitive enhancement among healthy students and employees, only little is known about PPCE among school students. Given that decision-making in adolescence is strongly modulated by emotional and social factors, peer influence, and availability, the theory of self-medication might best explain intentional PPCE in late adolescence. In addition, regular recreational drug use is likely to lower the barriers for PPCE in populations interested in enhancing their performance at school. To ensure equal developmental opportunities for today’s school students, an individual-centered approach should focus on strengthening adolescents’ resources and self-efficacy.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Presents an integrative theoretical framework to explain and to predict psychological changes achieved by different modes of treatment. This theory states that psychological procedures, whatever their form, alter the level and strength of self-efficacy. It is hypothesized that expectations of personal efficacy determine whether coping behavior will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences. Persistence in activities that are subjectively threatening but in fact relatively safe produces, through experiences of mastery, further enhancement of self-efficacy and corresponding reductions in defensive behavior. In the proposed model, expectations of personal efficacy are derived from 4 principal sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. Factors influencing the cognitive processing of efficacy information arise from enactive, vicarious, exhortative, and emotive sources. The differential power of diverse therapeutic procedures is analyzed in terms of the postulated cognitive mechanism of operation. Findings are reported from microanalyses of enactive, vicarious, and emotive modes of treatment that support the hypothesized relationship between perceived self-efficacy and behavioral changes. (21/2 p ref)
Introduction:
Many college students engage in nonmedical use of prescription stimulants (NPS) because they believe it provides academic benefits, but studies are lacking to support or refute this belief.
Methods:
Using a longitudinal design, 898 undergraduates who did not have an ADHD diagnosis were studied. Year 3 GPA (from college records) of four groups was compared: Abstainers (did not engage in NPS either year; 68.8%); Initiators (NPS in Year 3 but not Year 2; 8.7%); Desisters (NPS in Year 2 but not Year 3; 5.8%); and Persisters (NPS in both years; 16.7%). Generalized estimating equations regression was used to estimate the association between NPS and change in GPA, controlling for sex and Year 2 GPA.
Results:
GPA increased significantly within Abstainers (p<0.05), but did not change significantly within the other groups. Overall, the relationship between NPS pattern group and change in GPA was not statistically significant (p=0.081). NPS was generally infrequent, but Persisters used more frequently than Desisters (11.7 versus 3.4days in Year 2) and Initiators (13.6 versus 4.0days in Year 3, both ps<0.001), controlling for sex and Year 2 GPA.
Conclusions:
We cannot rule out the possibility that NPS prevented declines in GPA, but we can conclude that students who engaged in NPS showed no increases in their GPAs and gained no detectable advantages over their peers. The results suggest that prevention and intervention strategies should emphasize that the promise of academic benefits from NPS is likely illusory.
We investigated a unique way in which adolescent peer influence occurs on social media. We developed a novel functional MRI (fMRI) paradigm to simulate Instagram, a popular social photo-sharing tool, and measured adolescents’ behavioral and neural responses to likes, a quantifiable form of social endorsement and potential source of peer influence. Adolescents underwent fMRI while viewing photos ostensibly submitted to Instagram. They were more likely to like photos depicted with many likes than photos with few likes; this finding showed the influence of virtual peer endorsement and held for both neutral photos and photos of risky behaviors (e.g., drinking, smoking). Viewing photos with many (compared with few) likes was associated with greater activity in neural regions implicated in reward processing, social cognition, imitation, and attention. Furthermore, when adolescents viewed risky photos (as opposed to neutral photos), activation in the cognitive-control network decreased. These findings highlight possible mechanisms underlying peer influence during adolescence.
If the 62 world´s richest people own as much as the half of the global poorest (Hardoon et al.,2016), this is more than worrying and socially unacceptable, especially given that many of this poorest half are children. Increasing educational access and achievement of these
children (but also of the poor in general) – that are often powerless to defend themselves and to fight for their rights, might be one important leverage to increase their long-term opportunities. Education is known to influence health outcomes, job market entry, control over life, etc. as Keisha Ray (2016) argues convincingly. Education might be especially
important for the multiply disadvantaged, e.g. children from several ethnic minorities. Thus,we strongly agree with Ray that society has a moral obligation to deliberate about all potential means to improve the conditions of disadvantaged individuals (with/without diseases) for the sake of justice.
Pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) refers to the nonmedical use of prescription or recreational drugs to enhance cognitive performance. Several concerns about PCE have been raised in the public. The aim of the present study was to investigate students’ attitudes toward PCE. Students at three Swiss universities were invited by e-mail to participate in a web-based survey. Of the 29,282 students who were contacted, 3,056 participated. Of these students, 22% indicated that they had used prescription drugs (12%) or recreational substances including alcohol (14%) at least once for PCE. The use of prescription drugs or recreational substances including alcohol prior to the last exam was reported by 16%. Users of pharmacological cognitive enhancers were more likely to consider PCE fair (24%) compared with nonusers (11%). Only a minority of the participants agreed with the nonmedical use of prescription drugs by fellow students when assuming weak (7%) or hypothetically strong efficacy and availability to everyone (14%). Two-thirds (68%) considered performance that is obtained with PCE less worthy of recognition. Additionally, 80% disagreed that PCE is acceptable in a competitive environment. More than half (64%) agreed that PCE in academia is similar to doping in sports. Nearly half (48%) claimed that unregulated access to pharmacological cognitive enhancers increases the pressure to engage in PCE and educational inequality (55%). In conclusion, Swiss students’ main concerns regarding PCE were related to coercion and fairness. As expected, these concerns were more prevalent among nonusers than among users of pharmacological cognitive enhancers. More balanced information on PCE should be shared with students, and future monitoring of PCE is recommended.
The use of prescription or recreational drugs for cognitive enhancement (CE) is prevalent among students. However, the prevalence of CE among Swiss school students is unknown. We therefore performed a cross-sectional online survey including >= 16-year-old students from bridge-year schools (10th grade), vocational schools, and upper secondary schools (10th-12th grade) in the Canton of Zurich to investigate the prevalence of and motives for the use of prescription drugs, recreational drugs, and/or freely available soft enhancers for CE. A total of 1,139 students were included. Of these, 54.5% reported the use of prescription drugs (9.2%), recreational drugs including alcohol (6.2%), or soft enhancers (51.3%) explicitly for CE at least once in their lives. The last-year and last-month prevalence for CE considering all substances was 45.5% and 39.5%, respectively. Soft enhancers were the substances that were most commonly used (ever, last-year, and last-month, respectively), including energy drinks (33.3%, 28.4%, and 24.6%), coffee (29.8%, 25.1%, and 21.9%), and tobacco (12.6%, 9.3%, and 8.3%). CE with methylphenidate was less prevalent (4.0%, 2.8%, and 2.0%). However, the use of prescription drugs, alcohol, or illegal drugs for CE was reported by 13.3% of the participants. The most common motives for use were to stay awake and improve concentration. CE was more prevalent among students who reported higher levels of stress or performance pressure and students with psychiatric disorders. In conclusion, half of the school students had used a substance at least once in their lives to improve school performance. Soft enhancers were most commonly used. Prevalence rates were similar to those reported by Swiss university students, indicating that the use of prescription or recreational drugs for CE already occurs before starting higher education. Performance pressure, stress, and psychiatric disorders may be associated with CE.
The present study was designed to examine best friend influence over alcohol intoxication and truancy as a function of relative perceptions of friendship satisfaction. The participants were 700 adolescents (306 boys, 394 girls) who were involved in same-sex best friendships that were stable from one academic year to the next. Participants completed self-report measures of alcohol intoxication frequency and truancy at 1-year intervals. Each member of each friendship dyad also rated his or her satisfaction with the relationship. At the outset, participants were in secondary school (approximately 13-14 years old) or high school (approximately 16-17 years old). More satisfied friends had greater influence than less satisfied friends over changes in intoxication frequency and truancy. Problem behaviors of less satisfied friends increased over time if the more satisfied friend reported relatively higher, but not relatively lower, initial levels of drinking or truancy. The results support the hypothesis that adolescent friends are not similarly influential. The power to socialize, for better and for worse, rests with the partner who has a more positive perception of the relationship.
The ongoing bioethical debate on pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) in healthy individuals is often legitimated by the assumption that PCE will widely spread and become desirable for the general public in the near future. This assumption was questioned as PCE is not equally save and effective in everyone. Additionally, it was supposed that the willingness to use PCE is strongly personality-dependent likely preventing a broad PCE epidemic. Thus, we investigated whether the cognitive performance and personality of healthy individuals with regular nonmedical methylphenidate (MPH) use for PCE differ from stimulant-naïve controls. Twenty-five healthy individuals using MPH for PCE were compared with 39 age-, sex-, and education-matched healthy controls regarding cognitive performance and personality assessed by a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery including social cognition, prosocial behavior, decision-making, impulsivity, and personality questionnaires. Substance use was assessed through self-report in an interview and quantitative hair and urine analyses. Recently abstinent PCE users showed no cognitive impairment but superior strategic thinking and decision-making. Furthermore, PCE users displayed higher levels of trait impulsivity, novelty seeking, and Machiavellianism combined with lower levels of social reward dependence and cognitive empathy. Finally, PCE users reported a smaller social network and exhibited less prosocial behavior in social interaction tasks. In conclusion, the assumption that PCE use will soon become epidemic is not supported by the present findings as PCE users showed a highly specific personality profile that shares a number of features with illegal stimulant users. Lastly, regular MPH use for PCE is not necessarily associated with cognitive deficits.
Pharmacological neuroenhancement, defined as the misuse of prescription drugs, illicit drugs, or alcohol for the purpose of enhancing cognition, mood, or prosocial behavior, is not widespread in Europe – nevertheless, it does occur. Thus far, no drug has been proven as safe and effective for cognitive enhancement in otherwise healthy individuals. European studies have investigated the misuse of prescription and illicit stimulants to increase cognitive performance as well as the use of tranquilizers, alcohol, and cannabis to cope with stress related to work or education. Young people in educational settings report pharmacological neuroenhancement more frequently than those in other settings. Although the regular use of drugs for neuroenhancement is not common in Europe, the irregular and low-dose usage of neuroenhancers might cause adverse reactions. Previous studies have revealed that obtaining adequate amounts of sleep and using successful learning techniques effectively improve mental performance, whereas pharmacological neuroenhancement is associated with ambiguous effects. Therefore, nonsubstance-related alternatives should be promoted to cope with stressful situations. This paper reviews the recent research on pharmacological neuroenhancement in Europe, develops a clear definition of the substances used, and formulates recommendations for practitioners regarding how to react to requests for neuroenhancement drug prescriptions. We conclude that monitoring the future development of pharmacological neuroenhancement in Europe is important to provide effective preventive measures when required. Furthermore, substance use to cope with stress related to work or education should be studied in depth because it is likely more prevalent and dangerous than direct neuroenhancement.
Research efforts to account for elevated risk behavior among adolescents have arrived at an exciting new stage. Moving beyond laboratory studies of age differences in "cool" cognitive processes related to risk perception and reasoning, new approaches have shifted focus to the influence of social and emotional factors on adolescent neurocognition. We review recent research suggesting that adolescent risk-taking propensity derives in part from a maturational gap between early adolescent remodeling of the brain's socio-emotional reward system and a gradual, prolonged strengthening of the cognitive control system. At a time when adolescents spend an increasing amount of time with their peers, research suggests that peer-related stimuli may sensitize the reward system to respond to the reward value of risky behavior. As the cognitive control system gradually matures over the course of the teenage years, adolescents grow in their capacity to coordinate affect and cognition, and to exercise self-regulation even in emotionally arousing situations. These capacities are reflected in gradual growth in the capacity to resist peer influence.
A primary means for the augmentation of cognitive brain functions is “pharmacological cognitive enhancement” (PCE). The term usually refers to the off-label use of medical substances to improve mental performance in healthy individuals. With the final aim to advance the normative debate taking place on that topic, several empirical studies have been conducted to assess the attitudes toward PCE in the public, i.e., in groups outside of the academic debate. In this review, we provide an overview of the 40 empirical studies published so far, reporting both their methodology and results. Overall, we find that several concerns about the use of PCE are prevalent in the public. These concerns largely match those discussed in the normative academic debate. We present our findings structured around the three most common concerns: medical safety, coercion, and fairness. Fairness is divided into three subthemes: equality of opportunity, honesty, and authenticity. Attitudes regarding some concerns are coherent across studies (e.g., coercion), whereas for others we find mixed results (e.g., authenticity). Moreover, we find differences in how specific groups—such as users, nonusers, students, parents, and health care providers—perceive PCE: a coherent finding is that nonusers display more concerns regarding medical safety and fairness than users. We discuss potential psychological explanations for these differences.
Psychostimulants such as cocaine have been used as performance enhancers throughout recorded history. Although psychostimulants are commonly prescribed to improve attention and cognition, a great deal of literature has described their ability to induce cognitive deficits, as well as addiction. How can a single drug class be known to produce both cognitive enhancement and impairment? Properties of the particular stimulant drug itself and individual differences between users have both been suggested to dictate the outcome of stimulant use. A more parsimonious alternative, which we endorse, is that dose is the critical determining factor in cognitive effects of stimulant drugs. Herein, we review several popular stimulants (cocaine, amphetamine, methylphenidate, modafinil, and caffeine), outlining their history of use, mechanism of action, and use and abuse today. One common graphic depiction of the cognitive effects of psychostimulants is an inverted U-shaped dose-effect curve. Moderate arousal is beneficial to cognition, whereas too much activation leads to cognitive impairment. In parallel to this schematic, we propose a continuum of psychostimulant activation that covers the transition from one drug effect to another as stimulant intake is increased. Low doses of stimulants effect increased arousal, attention, and cognitive enhancement; moderate doses can lead to feelings of euphoria and power, as well as addiction and cognitive impairment; and very high doses lead to psychosis and circulatory collapse. This continuum helps account for the seemingly disparate effects of stimulant drugs, with the same drug being associated with cognitive enhancement and impairment.
Neuroenhancement is the use of substances by healthy subjects to enhance mood or cognitive function. The prevalence of neuroenhancement among Swiss university students is unknown. Investigating the prevalence of neuroenhancement among students is important to monitor problematic use and evaluate the necessity of prevention programs.
To describe the prevalence of the use of prescription medications and drugs of abuse for neuroenhancement among Swiss university students.
In this cross-sectional study, students at the University of Zurich, University of Basel, and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich were invited via e-mail to participate in an online survey.
A total of 28,118 students were contacted, and 6,275 students completed the survey. Across all of the institutions, 13.8% of the respondents indicated that they had used prescription drugs (7.6%) or drugs of abuse including alcohol (7.8%) at least once specifically for neuroenhancement. The most frequently used prescription drugs for neuroenhancement were methylphenidate (4.1%), sedatives (2.7%), and beta-blockers (1.2%). Alcohol was used for this purpose by 5.6% of the participants, followed by cannabis (2.5%), amphetamines (0.4%), and cocaine (0.2%). Arguments for neuroenhancement included increased learning (66.2%), relaxation or sleep improvement (51.2%), reduced nervousness (39.1%), coping with performance pressure (34.9%), increased performance (32.2%), and experimentation (20%). Neuroenhancement was significantly more prevalent among more senior students, students who reported higher levels of stress, and students who had previously used illicit drugs. Although "soft enhancers", including coffee, energy drinks, vitamins, and tonics, were used daily in the month prior to an exam, prescription drugs or drugs of abuse were used much less frequently.
A significant proportion of Swiss university students across most academic disciplines reported neuroenhancement with prescription drugs and drugs of abuse. However, these substances are rarely used on a daily basis and more sporadically used prior to exams.
There is currently little empirical information about attitudes towards cognitive enhancement - the use of pharmaceutical drugs to enhance normal brain functioning. It is claimed this behaviour most commonly occurs in students to aid studying. We undertook a qualitative assessment of attitudes towards cognitive enhancement by conducting 19 semi-structured interviews with Australian university students. Most students considered cognitive enhancement to be unacceptable, in part because they believed it to be unethical but there was a lack of consensus on whether it was similar or different to steroid use in sport. There was support for awareness campaigns and monitoring of cognitive enhancement use of pharmaceutical drugs. An understanding of student attitudes towards cognitive enhancement is important in formulating future policy.
Globalization of ADHD and the rise of cognitive enhancement have raised fresh concerns about the validity of ADHD diagnosis and the ethics of stimulant drug treatment. We review the literature on these two emerging phenomena, with a focus on the corresponding social, scientific and ethical debates over the universality of ADHD and the use of stimulant drug treatments in a global population of children and adolescents. Drawing on this literature, we reflect on the importance of ethically informed, ecologically sensitive clinical practices in relation to ADHD diagnosis and treatment.
The non-medical use of methylphenidate for cognitive enhancement becomes a more and more common practice among college and university students. Although physicians are a source of access, little is known about the underlying mechanisms that might lead to physicians' intention and behaviour of prescribing methylphenidate to improve students' academic performance. Applying Ajzen's theory of planned behaviour (TPB), we tested whether attitudes, subjective norms (controllability and self-efficacy) and perceived behavioural control predicted the intention and the prescribing behaviour of physicians. Participants were 130 physicians (62.3% males). Structural equation modelling was used to test the ability of TPB to predict physicians' behaviour. Overall, the present study provides support for the TPB in predicting physicians' prescribing behaviour of methylphenidate for cognitive enhancement. Subjective norms, followed by attitudes, are the strongest predictors of physicians' intention to prescribe methylphenidate. To a lesser extent, controllability predicts the intention of physicians, and self-efficacy predicts the self-reported behaviour. Compared to their male colleagues, female physicians seem to have more negative attitudes towards prescribing methylphenidate for cognitive enhancement, feel less social pressure and perceive more control over their behaviour. Intervention programmes that want to decrease physicians' intention to prescribe methylphenidate for improving academic performance should primarily focus on alleviating the perceived social pressure to prescribe methylphenidate and on converting physician neutral or positive attitudes towards prescribing methylphenidate into negative attitudes.
Although the ethical and health implications of neuroenhancement have been intensely discussed over the past years, little is known about the experiences and attitudes of physicians confronted with requests for neuroenhancing substances. The aim of this study was to explore general practitioners' and psychiatrists' familiarity with such requests and their willingness to prescribe these products.
A nation-wide cross-sectional survey among general practitioners and psychiatrists in Switzerland was conducted. A questionnaire was developed, pre-tested and sent out to a pre-defined sample of 1,600 Swiss practising physicians in the fields of psychiatry and general practice/internal medicine in the German-speaking and French-speaking part of Switzerland.
A total of 393 questionnaires were returned (response rate: 24.7%). 80.2% of study participants were encountered requests for neuroenhancing products in their own practice, mostly not exceeding 1-2 times a year. A total of 41.1% were undecided when asked if they categorically against neuroenhancement, 49% would decide on a case-by-case basis, and 9.6% would decide according to patients' wishes.
Swiss psychiatrists and general practitioners are confronted with requests for neuroenhancement, albeit not very frequently. Most participants embrace a pragmatic position towards neuroenhancement, although there is also a considerable degree of uncertainty about the appropriateness of a categorical refusal. A minority would follow a consumer model that leaves the decision about the use of neuroenhancers to the client, even though this conflicts with legal requirements regarding drug prescriptions.
Introduction and aims:
Recent, high profile articles in leading science journals have claimed that the enhancement use of prescription stimulants is a common practice among students worldwide. This study provides empirical data on Australian university students' perceptions of: (i) the prevalence of prescription stimulant use by their peers for cognitive enhancement; (ii) motivations for such use; (iii) efficacy; and (iv) its safety.
Design and methods:
Participants were 19 Australian university students with an average age of 24 who were recruited through emails lists, notice board posters and snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted during 2010 and 2011, recordings transcribed and responses coded using thematic analysis.
Results:
Participants typically did not believe the use of stimulants for cognitive enhancement was common in Australia. Perceived motivations for use included: (i) 'getting ahead' to perform at high levels; (ii) 'keeping up' as a method of coping; and (iii) 'going out' so that an active social life could be maintained in the face of study demands. Australian students were generally sceptical about the potential benefits of stimulants for cognitive enhancement and they identified psychological dependence as a potential negative consequence.
Discussion and conclusions:
This study is an important first step in understanding the use of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in Australia, amid calls for more widespread use of cognitive enhancing drugs. It is important to conduct further studies of the extent of cognitive enhancement in Australia if we are to develop appropriate policy responses.
The prospects of enhancing cognitive or motor functions using neuroscience in otherwise healthy individuals has attracted
considerable attention and interest in neuroethics (Farah et al., Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5:421–425, 2004; Glannon Journal of Medical Ethics 32:74–78, 2006). The use of stimulants is one of the areas which has propelled the discussion on the potential for neuroscience to yield
cognition-enhancing products. However, we have found in our review of the literature that the paradigms used to discuss the
non-medical use of stimulant drugs prescribed for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) vary considerably. In this
brief communication, we identify three common paradigms—prescription drug abuse, cognitive enhancement, and lifestyle use
of pharmaceuticals—and briefly highlight how divergences between paradigms create important “ethics blind spots”.
KeywordsNeuroethics-Enhancement-Prescription drug misuse-Lifestyle drugs-Public health
This Clinical Practice Guideline was revised. See https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-2528
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common neurobehavioral disorder of childhood and can profoundly affect the academic achievement, well-being, and social interactions of children; the American Academy of Pediatrics first published clinical recommendations for the diagnosis and evaluation of ADHD in children in 2000; recommendations for treatment followed in 2001.
In this paper we question the guidance offered to neurologists by the Ethics, Law and Humanities Committee of the American Academy of Neurology (Larriviere, Williams, Rizzo & Bonnie, 200910.
Larriviere , D. ,
Williams , M. A. ,
Rizzo , M. and
Bonnie , R. J. 2009. Responding to requests from adult patients for neuroenhancements: Guidance of the Ethics, Law and Humanities Committee. Neurology, 73(17): 1406–1412. [CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]View all references) on how to respond to requests for “neuroenhancement”: the use of pharmaceuticals to enhance cognitive function in cognitively normal people. The guidance assumes that the benefits of using neuroenhancers will prove to outweigh the risks in the absence of any evidence that this is the case. However, the principle of nonmaleficence dictates that the use of these drugs by healthy people should not be condoned before reliable evidence for their short and long term safety and efficacy is at hand. The proposed ethical framework for neuroenhancement prescribing also neglects the broader social implications of condoning such practices. The adoption of these guidelines by neurologists could have adverse social and medical effects that need to be more carefully considered.
The aim of this study was to assess for the first time the prevalence and factors associated with stimulant use exclusively for cognitive enhancement among pupils and university students in Germany.
A sample of 1 035 pupils (vocational and grammar schools) in small and big cities and 512 university students of 3 Departments (Medicine, Pharmacy, Economics) completed a questionnaire regarding knowledge and use of stimulants for cognitive enhancement and factors associated with their use.
Lifetime prevalence for use of prescription stimulants (methylphenidate, amphetamines) for cognitive enhancement in pupils was 1.55% and in students 0.78%. Last-year and last-month prevalence rates were significantly lower. 2.42% of pupils and 2.93% of students reported lifetime illicit use of stimulants (amphetamines, cocaine, ecstasy) for cognitive enhancement with lower last-year and last-month rates. Prevalence was higher in male pupils, pupils from vocational schools and pupils with bad marks.
The illicit use of stimulants for cognitive enhancement is significantly higher than non-medical use of prescription stimulants among pupils and students. Stimulant use is determined by gender, school type, and school marks. The potential risks associated with stimulant use require early awareness and intervention strategies.
This article summarizes recent research findings on nonmedical use of prescription stimulants and outlines a multi-pronged strategic approach for responding to this unique problem among college students. Students, health professionals, parents, the pharmaceutical industry, and institutions of higher education all play roles in this response. Moreover, the academic community should view the translation of research findings as an important responsibility that can help dispel the myths often perpetuated in the media. The nonmedical use of prescription stimulants is a complex behavior and should be viewed in the larger context of alcohol and drug involvement among young adults. Strategies to reduce nonmedical use of prescription stimulants might have direct application to the abuse of other prescription drugs, including opiates.
The self-medication hypothesis of addictive disorders derives primarily from clinical observations of patients with substance use disorders. Individuals discover that the specific actions or effects of each class of drugs relieve or change a range of painful affect states. Self-medication factors occur in a context of self-regulation vulnerabilities--primarily difficulties in regulating affects, self-esteem, relationships, and self-care. Persons with substance use disorders suffer in the extreme with their feelings, either being overwhelmed with painful affects or seeming not to feel their emotions at all. Substances of abuse help such individuals to relieve painful affects or to experience or control emotions when they are absent or confusing. Diagnostic studies provide evidence that variously supports and fails to support a self-medication hypothesis of addictive disorders. The cause-consequence controversy involving psychopathology and substance use/abuse is reviewed and critiqued. In contrast, clinical observations and empirical studies that focus on painful affects and subjective states of distress more consistently suggest that such states of suffering are important psychological determinants in using, becoming dependent upon, and relapsing to addictive substances. Subjective states of distress and suffering involved in motives to self-medicate with substances of abuse are considered with respect to nicotine dependence and to schizophrenia and posttraumatic stress disorder comorbid with a substance use disorder.
Our growing ability to alter brain function can be used to enhance the mental processes of normal individuals as well as to treat mental dysfunction in people who are ill. The prospect of neurocognitive enhancement raises many issues about what is safe, fair and otherwise morally acceptable. This article resulted from a meeting on neurocognitive enhancement that was held by the authors. Our goal is to review the state of the art in neurocognitive enhancement, its attendant social and ethical problems, and the ways in which society can address these problems.
To assess the prevalence and motives for illicit use of prescription stimulants and alcohol and other drugs (AODs), associated with these motives, the authors distributed a self-administered Web survey TO a random sample of 9,161 undergraduate college students. Of the study participants, 8.1% reported lifetime and 5.4% reported past-year illicit use of prescription stimulants. The most prevalent motives given for illicit use of prescription stimulants were to (1) help with concentration, (2) increase alertness, and (3) provide a high. Although men were more likely than women were to report illicit use of prescription stimulants, the authors found no gender differences in motives. Regardless of motive, illicit use of prescription stimulants was associated with elevated rates of AOD use, and number of motives endorsed and AOD use were positively related. Students appear to be using these prescription drugs non-medically, mainly to enhance performance or get high.
Abuse of several categories of prescription drugs has increased markedly in the United States in the past decade and is now at alarming levels for certain agents, especially opioid analgesics and stimulants. Prescription drugs of abuse fit into the same pharmacological classes as their non-prescription counterparts. Thus, the potential factors associated with abuse or addiction versus safe therapeutic use of these agents relates to the expected variables: dose, route of administration, co-administration with other drugs, context of use, and expectations. Future scientific work on prescription drug abuse will include identification of clinical practices that minimize the risks of addiction, the development of guidelines for early detection and management of addiction, and the development of clinically effective agents that minimize the risks for abuse. With the high rates of prescription drug abuse among teenagers in the United States, a particularly urgent priority is the investigation of best practices for effective prevention and treatment for adolescents, as well as the development of strategies to reduce diversion and abuse of medications intended for medical use.
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/137909/1/mtf-overview2015.pdf
An argument in the cognitive enhancement literature is that using stimulants in populations of healthy but socially disadvantaged individuals mistakenly attributes pathology to nonpathological individuals who experience social inequalities. As the argument goes, using stimulants as cognitive-enhancing drugs to solve the social problem of poorly educated students in inadequate schools misattributes the problem as an individual medical problem, when it is really a collective sociopolitical problem. I challenge this argument on the grounds that not all types of enhancement have to be explained in medical terms, but rather at least one conception of enhancement can be explained in social terms—opportunity maintenance. Therefore, I propose that as a moral requirement we ought to explore whether stimulants could be a means of remedying underprivileged children's experiences of social inequalities that are borne from inadequate schools for the sake of increasing their chances for opportunities and well-being.
Uppers. Crank. Bennies. Dexies. Greenies. Black Beauties. Purple Hearts. Crystal. Ice. And, of course, Speed. Whatever their street names at the moment, amphetamines have been an insistent force in American life since they were marketed as the original antidepressants in the 1930s. On Speed tells the remarkable story of their rise, their fall, and their surprising resurgence. Along the way, it discusses the influence of pharmaceutical marketing on medicine, the evolving scientific understanding of how the human brain works, the role of drugs in maintaining the social order, and the centrality of pills in American life. Above all, however, this is a highly readable biography of a very popular drug. And it is a riveting story. Incorporating extensive new research, On Speed describes the ups and downs (fittingly, there are mostly ups) in the history of amphetamines, and their remarkable pervasiveness. For example, at the same time that amphetamines were becoming part of the diet of many GIs in World War II, an amphetamine-abusing counterculture began to flourish among civilians. In the 1950s, psychiatrists and family doctors alike prescribed amphetamines for a wide variety of ailments, from mental disorders to obesity to emotional distress. By the late 1960s, speed had become a fixture in everyday life: up to ten percent of Americans were thought to be using amphetamines at least occasionally. Although their use was regulated in the 1970s, it didn't take long for amphetamines to make a major comeback, with the discovery of Attention Deficit Disorder and the role that one drug in the amphetamine family-Ritalin-could play in treating it. Today's most popular diet-assistance drugs differ little from the diet pills of years gone by, still speed at their core. And some of our most popular recreational drugs-including the "mellow" drug, Ecstasy-are also amphetamines. Whether we want to admit it or not, writes Rasmussen, we're still a nation on speed.
To estimate the prevalence of self-reported pharmacological neuroenhancement (PNE) with prescription or recreational drugs among the Swiss general population and correlates of PNE.
A population-based cross-sectional study using a self-administered online survey.
A telephone-recruited highly representative Internet Panel in Switzerland.
A total of 10,171 Swiss employees and students (unweighted N = 10,084) aged 15 to 74 years (mean age: 39.1 ± 13.3; 46.6% female).
Self-reported lifetime, past-year, and past-month use of prescription or recreational drugs for PNE, motives for use, and correlates of PNE including socio-demographic, health, and recreational drug use characteristics.
The lifetime prevalence of PNE was 4.0% (95% CI = 3.62, 4.38), and the past-year prevalence was 2.1% (95% CI = 1.82, 2.38). Lifetime pharmacological mood enhancement (3.1%; 95% CI = 2.76, 3.44) was more prevalent than pharmacological cognitive enhancement (1.4%; 95% CI = 1.17, 1.63). Fifty-four participants reported both (0.5%; 95% CI = 0.36, 0.64). PNE was associated with studying rather than full-time (OR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.21, 0.57) or part-time employment (OR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.23, 0.67), stress (OR = 1.51 95% CI = 1.31, 1.75), cocaine (OR = 2.40; 95% CI = 1.51, 3.82) and amphetamine use (OR = 2.44; CI 95% = 1.37, 4.33), diagnosis of a mental disorder (OR = 4.26; 95% CI = 3.14, 5.80), and perceived poor health (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.64, 0.90).
Taking prescription or recreational drugs for pharmacological neuroenhancement is rare among Swiss employees and students (4.0%). Pharmacological mood enhancement (3.1%) is more prevalent than direct pharmacological cognitive enhancement (1.4%).
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Background
To produce population-level, year- and age-specific risk estimates of first time nonmedical use of prescription stimulants among young people in the United States.
Methods
Data are from the National Surveys on Drug Use and Health 2004–2012; a nationally representative probability sample survey administered each year. Subpopulations included youths aged 12 to 21 years (n = 240,160) who had not used prescription stimulants nonmedically prior to their year of survey assessment. A meta-analytic approach was used to produce population-level age-, year-, and cohort-specific risk estimates of first time nonmedical use of prescription stimulants.
Results
Peak risk of starting nonmedical use of prescription stimulants was concentrated between ages 16 and 19 years, when an estimated 0.7% to 0.8% of young people reported nonmedical use of these medicines for the first time in the past twelve months. Smaller risk estimates ranging from 0.1% to 0.6% were observed at ages 12 to 15 years and 20 to 21 years. Compared with males, females were more likely to have started nonmedical use of prescription stimulants (odds ratio = 1.35; 95% CI, 1.13–1.62), particularly between the ages of 14 and 19. Females showed a peak annual incidence rate of 1% at age 18, while males the same age showed an incidence rate of 0.5%.
Conclusions
Peak annual incidence rates for nonmedical use of prescription stimulants were observed between the ages of 16 and 19 years. There is reason to initiate interventions during the earlier adolescent years to prevent youths from starting nonmedical use of prescription stimulants.
Increasing prescription stimulant abuse among youth without diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is of concern. The most frequently cited motive for abuse is improved academic achievement via neurocognitive enhancement. Our aim in reviewing the literature was to identify neurocognitive effects of prescription stimulants in non-ADHD youth.
A systematic review was conducted for youth aged 12–25 years using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Fourteen papers were included.
Modafinil appears to improve reaction time (P ≤ 0.04), logical reasoning (P ≤ 0.05) and problem-solving. Methylphenidate appears to improve performance in novel tasks and attention-based tasks (P ≤ 0.05), and reduces planning latency in more complex tasks (P ≤ 0.05). Amphetamine has been shown to improve consolidation of information (0.02 ≥ P ≤ 0.05), leading to improved recall. Across all three types of prescription stimulants, research shows improved attention with lack of consensus on whether these improvements are limited to simple versus complex tasks in varying youth populations.
The heterogeneity of the non-attention deficit hyperactivity disorder youth population, the variation in cognitive task characteristics and lack of replication of studies makes assessing the potential global neurocognitive benefits of stimulants among non-attention deficit hyperactivity disorder youth difficult; however, some youth may derive benefit in specific cognitive domains.
Zusammenfassung Medizinethische Untersuchungen zum Thema Neuroenhancement (NE) wenden sich oft der Frage zu, inwiefern der Einzelne wie auch die Allgemeinheit durch NE zu Schaden kommen können. Gerechtigkeitsprobleme,
ein befürchteter Wandel des Menschenbildes oder die Gefahr einer unerwünschten, schleichenden Veränderung der Gesellschaft
werden problematisiert. Bezüglich individueller Risiken bleibt es aufgrund des vermeintlichen Zugewinns an Selbstbestimmung
und Eigenverantwortung gerne beim Verweis auf die subjektive Kosten-Nutzen-Abwägung. Innerhalb der NE-Debatte gibt es bisher
kaum Arbeiten, die die Aspekte der Motivation für die Nutzung von NE aus tiefenpsychologischer Perspektive beleuchten. Das
Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit ist es, diese Aspekte zu analysieren. Die Arbeit soll einen Beitrag zu einem neuen Blickwinkel
auf Selbstbestimmung und subjektive Einschätzung der Vor- und Nachteile von NE leisten. Es werden psychologische Aspekte thematisiert,
welche die im Kontext von NE übliche Annahme, dass Konsumenten zur Selbstverantwortung fähig seien, problematisch erscheinen
lassen, da sie die Wahrnehmung dieser Verantwortung erschweren oder gar unmöglich machen können. In diesem Zusammenhang wollen
wir versuchen, für die psychologischen Gefahren und Folgen von NE zu sensibilisieren. Es wird beispielsweise darüber diskutiert,
inwiefern der Gebrauch von NE-Technologien eine Persönlichkeit nachhaltig prägen und gerade deshalb das Erleben von Selbstwirksamkeit
beeinträchtigen kann. Dies stellt die für die liberale Position zentrale Prämisse, wonach Individuen sich frei und vernünftig
entscheiden können, infrage.
Psychotropic neuroenhancement by young people under 18 is growing, and is certain to increase further with the availability of effective drugs and increasing tolerance for neuroenhancement practices. Use of these agents by young people for purposes of enhancement has social and ethical implications that require scrutiny and analysis. It is particularly important that these analyses do not simply translate normative judgments on adult neuroenhancement practices or intentions to young people. In this article, we outline the key social and ethical concerns raised by the use of stimulant drugs for neuroenhancement in young people and make specific research, practice, and policy recommendations. We also suggest a rationale for clinical management of psychotropic drug neuroenhancers for young people, attending closely to the necessary boundaries on such practice asserted by organizational and clinical factors, as well as by potential ethical conflicts.
The use of prescription medication to augment cognitive or affective function in healthy persons-or neuroenhancement-is increasing in adult and pediatric populations. In children and adolescents, neuroenhancement appears to be increasing in parallel to the rising rates of attention-deficit disorder diagnoses and stimulant medication prescriptions, and the opportunities for medication diversion. Pediatric neuroenhancement remains a particularly unsettled and value-laden practice, often without appropriate goals or justification. Pediatric neuroenhancement presents its own ethical, social, legal, and developmental issues, including the fiduciary responsibility of physicians caring for children, the special integrity of the doctor-child-parent relationship, the vulnerability of children to various forms of coercion, distributive justice in school settings, and the moral obligation of physicians to prevent misuse of medication. Neurodevelopmental issues include the importance of evolving personal authenticity during childhood and adolescence, the emergence of individual decision-making capacities, and the process of developing autonomy. This Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee position paper, endorsed by the American Academy of Neurology, Child Neurology Society, and American Neurological Association, focuses on various implications of pediatric neuroenhancement and outlines discussion points in responding to neuroenhancement requests from parents or adolescents. Based on currently available data and the balance of ethics issues reviewed in this position paper, neuroenhancement in legally and developmentally nonautonomous children and adolescents without a diagnosis of a neurologic disorder is not justifiable. In nearly autonomous adolescents, the fiduciary obligation of the physician may be weaker, but the prescription of neuroenhancements is inadvisable because of numerous social, developmental, and professional integrity issues.
The interaction of drugs with biologic targets is a critical area of research, particularly for the development of medications to treat substance use disorders. In addition to understanding these drug-target interactions, however, there is a need to understand more fully the psychosocial influences that moderate these interactions. The first section of this review introduces some examples from human behavioral pharmacology that illustrate the clinical importance of this research. The second section covers preclinical evidence to characterize some of the key individual differences that alter drug sensitivity and abuse vulnerability, related primarily to differences in response to novelty and impulsivity. Evidence is presented to indicate that critical neuropharmacological mechanisms associated with these individual differences involve integrated neurocircuits underlying stress, reward, and behavioral inhibitory processes. The third section covers social influences on drug abuse vulnerability, including effects experienced during infancy, adolescence, and young adulthood, such as maternal separation, housing conditions, and social interactions (defeat, play, and social rank). Some of the same neurocircuits involved in individual differences also are altered by social influences, although the precise neurochemical and cellular mechanisms involved remain to be elucidated fully. Finally, some speculation is offered about the implications of this research for the prevention and treatment of substance abuse.
To estimate the 12-month prevalence of cognitive-enhancing drug use.
Paper-and-pencil questionnaire that used the randomized response technique.
University in Mainz, Germany.
A total of 2569 university students who completed the questionnaire.
An anonymous, specialized questionnaire that used the randomized response technique was distributed to students at the beginning of classes and was collected afterward. From the responses, we calculated the prevalence of students taking drugs only to improve their cognitive performance and not to treat underlying mental disorders such as attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder, depression, and sleep disorders. The estimated 12-month prevalence of using cognitive-enhancing drugs was 20%. Prevalence varied by sex (male 23.7%, female 17.0%), field of study (highest in students studying sports-related fields, 25.4%), and semester (first semester 24.3%, beyond first semester 16.7%). To our knowledge, this is the first time that the randomized response technique has been used to survey students about cognitive-enhancing drug use.
Using the randomized response technique, our questionnaire provided data that showed a high 12-month prevalence of cognitive-enhancing drug use in German university students. Our study suggests that other direct survey techniques have underestimated the use of these drugs. Drug prevention programs need to be established at universities to address this issue.
Adolescence is characterized by making risky decisions. Early lesion and neuroimaging studies in adults pointed to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and related structures as having a key role in decision-making. More recent studies have fractionated decision-making processes into its various components, including the representation of value, response selection (including inter-temporal choice and cognitive control), associative learning, and affective and social aspects. These different aspects of decision-making have been the focus of investigation in recent studies of the adolescent brain. Evidence points to a dissociation between the relatively slow, linear development of impulse control and response inhibition during adolescence versus the nonlinear development of the reward system, which is often hyper-responsive to rewards in adolescence. This suggests that decision-making in adolescence may be particularly modulated by emotion and social factors, for example, when adolescents are with peers or in other affective ('hot') contexts.
To examine the literature pertaining to the diversion and misuse of pharmaceutical stimulants.
Relevant literature was identified through comprehensive MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed searches.
The evidence to date suggests that the prevalence of diversion and misuse of pharmaceutical stimulants varies across adolescent and young adult student populations, but is higher than that among the general population, with the highest prevalence found among adults with attention deficit-hyperactive disorder (ADHD) and users of other illicit drugs. Concerns that these practices have become more prevalent as a result of increased prescribing are not supported by large-scale population surveys. Information on trends in misuse in countries where there have been recent increases in prescription and consumption rates, however, is limited. Little is known about the frequency and chronicity of misuse, or the extent of associated harms, particularly among those populations, i.e. adolescents, young adult student populations, those with ADHD and illicit drug users, where abuse may be more likely to occur.
Continued monitoring of the diversion and misuse of pharmaceutical stimulants is of major clinical importance. Despite recognition of the abuse liability of these medications, there is a paucity of data on the prevalence, patterns and harms of diversion and misuse among populations where problematic use and abuse may be most likely to occur (e.g. adolescents, young adults, illicit drug users). Comprehensive investigations of diversion and misuse among these populations should be a major research priority, as should the assessment of abuse and dependence criteria among those identified as regular users.
Self-esteem has become a household word. Teachers, parents, therapists, and others have focused efforts on boosting self-esteem, on the assumption that high self-esteem will cause many positive outcomes and benefits—an assumption that is critically evaluated in this review.
Appraisal of the effects of self-esteem is complicated by several factors. Because many people with high self-esteem exaggerate their successes and good traits, we emphasize objective measures of outcomes. High self-esteem is also a heterogeneous category, encompassing people who frankly accept their good qualities along with narcissistic, defensive, and conceited individuals.
The modest correlations between self-esteem and school performance do not indicate that high self-esteem leads to good performance. Instead, high self-esteem is partly the result of good school performance. Efforts to boost the self-esteem of pupils have not been shown to improve academic performance and may sometimes be counterproductive. Job performance in adults is sometimes related to self-esteem, although the correlations vary widely, and the direction of causality has not been established. Occupational success may boost self-esteem rather than the reverse. Alternatively, self-esteem may be helpful only in some job contexts. Laboratory studies have generally failed to find that self-esteem causes good task performance, with the important exception that high self-esteem facilitates persistence after failure.
People high in self-esteem claim to be more likable and attractive, to have better relationships, and to make better impressions on others than people with low self-esteem, but objective measures disconfirm most of these beliefs. Narcissists are charming at first but tend to alienate others eventually. Self-esteem has not been shown to predict the quality or duration of relationships.
High self-esteem makes people more willing to speak up in groups and to criticize the group's approach. Leadership does not stem directly from self-esteem, but self-esteem may have indirect effects. Relative to people with low self-esteem, those with high self-esteem show stronger in-group favoritism, which may increase prejudice and discrimination.
Neither high nor low self-esteem is a direct cause of violence. Narcissism leads to increased aggression in retaliation for wounded pride. Low self-esteem may contribute to externalizing behavior and delinquency, although some studies have found that there are no effects or that the effect of self-esteem vanishes when other variables are controlled. The highest and lowest rates of cheating and bullying are found in different subcategories of high self-esteem.
Self-esteem has a strong relation to happiness. Although the research has not clearly established causation, we are persuaded that high self-esteem does lead to greater happiness. Low self-esteem is more likely than high to lead to depression under some circumstances. Some studies support the buffer hypothesis, which is that high self-esteem mitigates the effects of stress, but other studies come to the opposite conclusion, indicating that the negative effects of low self-esteem are mainly felt in good times. Still others find that high self-esteem leads to happier outcomes regardless of stress or other circumstances.
High self-esteem does not prevent children from smoking, drinking, taking drugs, or engaging in early sex. If anything, high self-esteem fosters experimentation, which may increase early sexual activity or drinking, but in general effects of self-esteem are negligible. One important exception is that high self-esteem reduces the chances of bulimia in females.
Overall, the benefits of high self-esteem fall into two categories: enhanced initiative and pleasant feelings. We have not found evidence that boosting self-esteem (by therapeutic interventions or school programs) causes benefits. Our findings do not support continued widespread efforts to boost self-esteem in the hope that it will by itself foster improved outcomes. In view of the heterogeneity of high self-esteem, indiscriminate praise might just as easily promote narcissism, with its less desirable consequences. Instead, we recommend using praise to boost self-esteem as a reward for socially desirable behavior and self-improvement.
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurobehavioral condition that impairs functioning throughout childhood and adolescence. Evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of ADHD recommend recognizing ADHD as a chronic condition. The chronic care model for child health emphasizes the need for productive interactions between an informed, activated family and a prepared, proactive practice team. Key parent-physician interactions in the treatment of a child with ADHD include: family education, treatment goal setting, treatment plan formation, cardiovascular screening, medication titration and ongoing monitoring and treatment plan revision. Most care for children/adolescents with ADHD is provided in community-based primary care settings where there are significant barriers to delivering high-quality care to children with chronic conditions. This article reviews recommended physician-parent interactions, examines current practice patterns and identifies facilitators and barriers to the implementation of recommended practices for ADHD care.
Undergraduates (total N=185) were asked about performance-affecting drugs. Some drugs supposedly affected athletic performance, others memory, and other attention. Some improved performance for anyone who took them, others for the top 10% of performers, others for the bottom 10%, and finally, yet other drugs worked only on the bottom 10% who also showed physical abnormalities. Participants were asked about the fairness of allowing the drug to be used, about banning it, and about whether predictions of future performance based on testing with or without the drug were better. The study found that participants appreciated the "interaction effect," that they felt it was less unfair to allow the drug if it affected the bottom 10% than if it affected everyone, and they were more eager to have the drug banned if it affected everyone. Participants were least tolerant of drugs that affected athletic performance and most tolerant of those that affected attention.
Recent studies have provided variable information on the frequency and context of diversion and the use of nonprescribed and prescribed stimulant medications in adolescent and young adult populations. The purpose of this systematic review of the literature is to evaluate the extent and characteristics of stimulant misuse and diversion in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and non-ADHD individuals.
We conducted a systematic review of the literature of available studies looking at misuse and diversion of prescription ADHD medications using misuse, diversion, stimulants, illicit use, and ADHD medications as key words for the search.
We identified 21 studies representing 113,104 subjects. The studies reported rates of past year nonprescribed stimulant use to range from 5% to 9% in grade school- and high school-age children and 5% to 35% in college-age individuals. Lifetime rates of diversion ranged from 16% to 29% of students with stimulant prescriptions asked to give, sell, or trade their medications. Recent work suggests that whites, members of fraternities and sororities, individuals with lower grade point averages, use of immediate-release compared to extended-release preparations, and individuals who report ADHD symptoms are at highest risk for misusing and diverting stimulants. Reported reasons for use, misuse, and diversion of stimulants include to concentrate, improve alertness, "get high," or to experiment.
The literature suggests that individuals both with and without ADHD misuse stimulant medications. Recent work has begun to document the context, motivation, and demographic profile of those most at risk for using, misusing, and diverting stimulants. The literature highlights the need to carefully monitor high-risk individuals for the use of nonprescribed stimulants and educate individuals with ADHD as to the pitfalls of the misuse and diversion of the stimulants.