Life context of pharmacological academic performance enhancement among university students – a qualitative approach

Abstract

BackgroundAcademic performance enhancement or cognitive enhancement (CE) via stimulant drug use has received increasing attention. The question remains, however, whether CE solely represents the use of drugs for achieving better academic or workplace results or whether CE also serves various other purposes. The aim of this study was to put the phenomenon of pharmacological academic performance enhancement via prescription and illicit (psycho-) stimulant use (Amphetamines, Methylphenidate) among university students into a broader context. Specifically, we wanted to further understand students’ experiences, the effects of use on students and other factors, such as pressure to perform in their academic and private lives.MethodsA sample of 18 healthy university students reporting the non-medical use of prescription and illicit stimulants for academic performance enhancement was interviewed in a face-to-face setting. The leading questions were related to the situations and context in which the students considered the non-medical use of stimulants.ResultsBased on the resultant transcript, two independent raters identified six categories relating to the life context of stimulant use for academic performance enhancement: Context of stimulant use beyond academic performance enhancement, Subjective experience of enhancement, Timing of consumption, Objective academic results, Side effects, Pressure to perform.ConclusionsThe answers reveal that academic performance enhancement through the use of stimulants is not an isolated phenomenon that solely aims at enhancing cognition to achieve better academic results but that the multifaceted life context in which it is embedded is of crucial relevance. The participants not only considered the stimulants advantageous for enhancing academic performance, but also for leading an active life with a suitable balance between studying and time off. The most common reasons given for stimulant use were to maximize time, to increase motivation and to cope with memorizing. According to the interviews, there is a considerable discrepancy between subjective experiences and objective academic results achieved.

Cognitive Enhancement and Coping in an Australian University Student Sample

“…Regardless, this study adds to a wealth of existing research that suggests that students' use of CE agents to improve their study-related performance cannot be understood without first acknowledging how this behavior is embedded within multifaceted life contexts (Hildt et al 2014). Although enhancement enthusiasts often consider this field simplistically (i.e., 'smart pills used by smart students'), students' true motives are evidently diverse.…”

(Mis)use of prescribed stimulants in the medical student community: Motives and behaviors. A population-based cross-sectional study

“…2,3 Students may not only consider the stimulants advantageous for enhancing academic performance, but also for leading an active life style, balancing studies and time off. 4 Previous study also reported other motives such as recreational purposes. 5 Given the increasing demand for enhanced cognitive performance, pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement could become a major public health concern (Farah et al, 2004).…”

Prescription stimulant medication misuse: Where are we and where do we go from here?

“…The mechanisms explaining neurocognitive enhancement, however, are less understood. For example, it is possible that neuroenhancement is better explained by placebo effects, altered perception of quality of work, or enhanced energy and motivation to improve productivity (Hildt, Lieb, & Franke, 2014; Ilieva et al, 2015; Smith & Farah, 2011). Mixed findings across studies examining the cognitive effects of prescription stimulants may also be explained by limitations inherent to comparing findings across a variety of study designs, as well as limitations concerning study design itself (i.e., power limitations, generalizability issues, poor psychometric properties of outcome instruments, and variability across doses).…”