Non-Medical Use of Prescription Stimulants and Illicit Use of Stimulants for Cognitive Enhancement in Pupils and Students in Germany

Franke, Andreas G.; Bonertz, C.; Christmann, Michaela; Huß, Michael; Fellgiebel, Andreas; Hildt, Elisabeth; Lieb, Klaus

doi:10.1055/s-0030-1268417

Cited by 217 publications

(238 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

182

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A mailed survey from the USA with 10 904 students (data from 2001) revealed a lifetime prevalence of nonmedical prescription stimulant use (Ritalin, Dexedrine or Adderall) of 6.9 % [ 7 ] . A paper-and-pencil survey carried out in Germany with 512 students and 1 035 school pupils showed that 1.6 % of the students and 0.8 % of the school pupils had taken Ritalin, Concerta, Adderall or Modafi nil as a healthy person for non-therapeutic reasons at least once in their lives [ 8 ] . An online survey carried out with 8 000 students in Germany showed that around 5 % of participants took prescription substances to deal with the requirements of studying [ 9 ] .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuroenhancement among Swiss Students – A Comparison of Users and Non-Users

Ott

Biller‐Andorno

2013

Pharmacopsychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: This survey aims to contribute to the current discussion about neuroenhancement by comparing cognitive enhancer(s) (CE) users with CE non-users with a focus on their characteristics and attitudes. Methods: An online survey was sent out to all undergraduate and graduate students of the University of Z?rich who allow such e-mails (n=8?642), accompanied by advertisement for the survey in lectures. 1?765 students completed the survey, which was about healthy people?s use of Ritalin, Adderall and/or Modasomil to increase concentration and/or alertness. A complementary paper-and-pencil survey (n=97 students, response rate: 95.1%) was also carried out in order to compare data. Results: Non-therapeutic CE users (6.2%) were more often male, considered religion to be of less importance and had more experience with drugs. CE had been taken for study purposes by 4.7% of all students. CE users had tried Ritalin most often, which about half of them received from friends and colleagues. The CE users had more reasons for and fewer concerns about taking CE than non-users. The most common reasons for both groups were ?the effects of learning quicker? and ?for finishing more work in less time?. The most common concerns for both groups were ?the worries about possible side effects? and ?the goal of CE to achieve more?, and ?an unnatural interference of such products with our bodies? (CE-users) or ?the gut feeling of not using such products? (CE non-users). Discussion: The comparison of CE users with CE non-users reveals insights about their attitudes, which will add to the understanding of why students take or could imagine taking such products.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuroenhancement among Swiss Students – A Comparison of Users and Non-Users

Ott

Biller‐Andorno

2013

Pharmacopsychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Exaggerations of the novelty and prevalence of CE, along with a dubious use of CE terminology within the academic literature, (Racine and Forlini 1 Estimates of the proportion of university students using stimulants to enhance academic performance range from 1.3% to 11% (Wilens et al 2008;Racine and Forlini 2010;Franke et al 2011). 4 2010) suggest that academia has not necessarily been an impartial and reasonably objective participant in the CE debate Lucke et al 2010;Outram 2010;. Moreover, assumptions about the effects and prevalence of CE could prevent openended discussion and stifle debate by suggesting that "cognitive enhancement" is by nature an "enhancement" or that prevalence creates pressures to hastily condone the moral acceptability of CE more generally .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Added Stakeholders, Added Value(s) to the Cognitive Enhancement Debate: Are Academic Discourse and Professional Policies Sidestepping Values of Stakeholders?

Forlini

Racine

2012

AJOB Primary Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The debate on the non-medical use of prescription medication for the enhancement of cognitive function (e.g., attention, memory, concentration, vigilance), accompanied by heated public discussions in the media, has spurred the interest of scholars and the public. Methods: In this paper, we present qualitative data from a focus group study with university students, parents, and healthcare providers. We identified ethical, social, and legal issues related to the non-medical use of methylphenidate for cognitive enhancement (CE) and closely examined the positions taken on these issues and their supporting arguments. Results: The ethical, social, and legal issues we identified (e.g., authenticity, cheating) were similar to those identified in a previous discourse analysis of the bioethics literature but indicate the existence of moderately and highly contentious issues as well as factors and values underlying these issues. The model we generated from these findings shows how interplay between values (e.g., effort and honesty) and external factors (e.g., regulation and access) may lie at the root of contentious ethical issues in CE. Conclusions: Our discussion points to an unsuspected complexity in understanding values of stakeholders and their unclear relationship to academic discourse and professional societies. We propose deliberative or other democratic processes as a way to recognize and incorporate the complexity of the CE debate.

show abstract

“…5 Box 1 presents landmarks in the debate surrounding the ethics of cognitive enhancement. 1,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Physicians are important stakeholders in this debate, given the risks and regulations of prescription drugs and the potential for requests from patients for cognitive enhancers. 12,13 The underlying question for physicians is not solely whether cognitive enhancement should be legitimized, but what role physicians should play, and under what circumstances they should prescribe these agents to individuals with no medical need, if at all.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3, 4 An editorial in CMAJ cautioned against rampant use of stimulants for cognitive enhancement and called for university administrations to curtail this practice.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%