This study supplies a rich understanding of the growing national trend of illegal ADHD stimulant use. The authors discuss strategies for stemming the tide of ADHD stimulant use.

No abstract

Qualitative methods were used to investigate the use of nonmedical Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) stimulants by fraternity members. The primary goal of the study was to determine students' levels of understanding and motivations for use of these Schedule II controlled substances. Seventy-nine in-depth interviews were conducted. Key findings highlighted how: a) easy it was for subjects to obtain stimulants; b) little health information nonmedical users have about stimulants; c) academic stress created a fertile context for stimulant use; and d) a small number of prescribed users supply the vast majority of nonmedical users with their stimulants. Most nonmedical users claimed to primarily use ADHD stimulants in periods of high academic stress and believed that they not only reduced fatigue, but also increased reading comprehension, interest, cognition, and memory. These qualitative data have supplied a rich and complex understanding behind nonmedical ADHD stimulant use among fraternity members.

Aims: To describe the diabetic population receiving primary care from the Tshwane district public health services and to assess the quality of care of members of this population, their level of disease control and the extent of their complications. Methods:A cluster-randomised trial was conducted in 12 primary care clinics in Tshwane district. A total of 599 diabetic patients attending these clinics for review were consecutively interviewed and clinically examined. Data on the care received was also obtained from their clinical records for the previous 12 months. Patients randomised to the active arm of the study were screened for complications. Results:The mean age was 58 years and 80.5% had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25kg/m 2 . Sixty-eight percent of patients were female. Acceptable glycaemic control and LDL-cholesterol were found for only 27% and 33% of patients respectively (HbA1c<7%; LDL <2.5 mmol/l). Despite more than 79% of patients reporting to be hypertensive, 68% of patients had a systolic blood pressure above 130 mmHg and 64% had a diastolic blood pressure above 80 mmHg. Evaluating patient records of the preceding year, screening for eye complications was only reported in 8.2%, feet complications in 6.5%, kidney complications in 21.4% and cardiovascular complications in 7.8%. The screening prevalences found were 29% for retinopathy, 22% for maculopathy, 5% for neuropathy (neurothesiometer), 7% for nephropathy (eGFR stage3-5), 17% for possible infarction (Rose questionnaire) and 36% for severe erectile dysfunction (SHIM questionnaire). Conclusion:Diabetes care and screening for complications at primary care level in the Tshwane district were found to be sub-optimal. Measures should be taken to address this.

The purpose of the current investigation was to contextualize the sexual relationships and risk behaviors of heterosexually active African Americans. A total of 38 participants (20 females and 18 males) aged 18–44 years were recruited in a large city in the southeastern U.S. to participate in focus group discussions exploring sexual partnerships, general condom perceptions, and condom negotiation. Results indicated that participants distinguished among at least three partner types–one-night stand, “regular” casual partner, and main partner. Partner types were found to shape and influence types of sexual behaviors, perceptions of risk and condom use, and condom negotiation. Participants also shared general perceptions about condoms and elucidated situations in which intentions to use condoms were not realized. Gender differences emerged in many of these areas. Implications of these findings are discussed and directions for future research on sexual partnerships and risk behavior are offered.