Psychiatrists’ attitudes towards and willingness to prescribe cognitive enhancers in academic settings

The rising use of cognitive enhancement drugs and predictors of use during COVID-19: findings from a cross-sectional survey of students and university staff in the UK

Background

The use of psychoactive substances to increase cognitive performance while studying has been termed 'pharmacological cognitive enhancement' (PCE). In previous years, several large-scale national surveys have focused on their use by students at university, including drug types, prevalence rates, and predictive factors. The recent coronavirus pandemic brought about widespread structural changes for UK universities, as students were forced to adapt to home-based learning and in many cases reduced academic support. No study has yet focused primarily on the impact of pandemic social restrictions on PCE in students and academic staff, and whether personality and demographic factors reveal user profiles that predict use during the pandemic period.

Method

A convenience sample of 736 UK students and staff aged 18-54 (M = 22.2, SD = 5.2) completed a cross-sectional survey assessing PCE prevalence rates, polydrug use, perceived effects, academic self-efficacy and personality during the first year of social restrictions (March 2020 - February 2021) compared with the previous year (March 2019 - February 2020).

Results

There was a significant self-reported rise in the use of all drug types (all ps < 0.001) during social restrictions, particularly with Modafinil (+42%), nutraceuticals (+30.2%) and microdose LSD (+22.2%). Respondents also indicated stronger PCE effects for all substances, except alcohol, in comparison to the previous year. Polydrug use with modafinil and other prescription stimulants increased the most during social restrictions. Personality factors and gender identity reliably predicted PCE use and lower agreeableness was often the strongest predictor, followed by identifying as male and lower conscientiousness. Academic self-efficacy and student/academic staff status were not consistent predictors.

Conclusion

This is the first survey of UK students to investigate PCE during coronavirus social restrictions and to assess predictive factors. Findings reveal a rise in PCE use and polydrug use which we suggest is because of increased pressures on students created by the lockdown and reduced access to university resources.

Adapting Ourselves, Instead of the Environment: An Inquiry into Human Enhancement for Function and Beyond

Technology enables humans not only to adapt their environment to their needs but also to modify themselves. Means of Human Enhancement - embodied technologies to improve the human body's capabilities or to create a new one - are the designated means of adapting ourselves instead of the environment. The debate about these technologies is typically fought on ethical soil. However, alarmist, utopian, and science fiction scenarios distract from the fact that Human Enhancement is a historical and pervasive phenomenon incorporated into many everyday practices. In the vein of disentangling conceptual difficulties, we claim that means of Human Enhancement are either physiologically or psychologically embodied, rendering the merging with the human user their most defining aspect. To fulfill its purpose, an enhancement must pass the test-in-the-world, i.e., assisting with effective engagement with a dynamic world. Even if failing in this regard: Human Enhancement is the fundamental and semi-targeted process of changing the users relationship with the world through the physical or psychological embodiment of a hitherto external object and/or change of one's body. This can potentially change the notion of being human. Drawing on a rich body of theoretical and empirical literature, we aim to provide a nuanced analysis of the transformative nature of this phenomenon in close proximity to human practice. Stakeholders are invited to apply the theory presented here to interrogate their perspective on technology in general and Human Enhancement in particular.

Students' use of caffeine, alcohol, dietary supplements, and illegal substances for improving academic performance in a New Zealand university

This study aimed to describe patterns of use and attitudes towards a broad variety of substances for improving academic performance at a New Zealand university. 685 students (from 1800 invited) completed an online questionnaire (38% response rate). They were asked about their lifetime and current substance use for improving academic performance, as well as their reasons for use, attitudes and perceptions of: caffeine, alcohol, dietary supplements, prescription stimulants, other prescription substances, and illicit substances. 80% (95% CI: 76.3, 82.5) reported ever using any substance to help improve academic performance, mainly to stay awake and improve concentration. Caffeine (70%, 95% CI: 66.3, 73.3) and dietary supplements (32%, 95% CI: 28.3, 35.5) were most commonly used. 4% (95% CI: 2.7, 5.9) reported use of prescription stimulants, mostly methylphenidate, and another 4% (95% CI: 2.7, 5.9) reported using illicit substances for improving academic performance. Users of prescription stimulants were more likely than non-users to believe that they were safe, morally acceptable, and that they should be available legally for enhancing academic performance. We close with discussions on broadening the focus of substances for improving academic performance in public health debates. Further qualitative research from small countries is also needed to move towards a place-based approach for clarifying ethical implications, inform policy in universities, and understand how injustices are created through the use of and ability to purchase different substances.

Concept generation of cognitive enhancement: healthcare professionals' approach towards the impact and utilization of cognitive enhancers in academic context

Cognitive enhancers (CEs) encompass a wide range of drugs, including prescription medications for attention deficit disorders and pharmacological compounds for cognitive enhancement. It is well-documented that the students are the leading cohort of CEs users. Exploring how healthcare professionals perceive the use of CEs for academic accomplishments is significant to understand their encouragement of CE use. Hence, the purpose of the current study was to look at healthcare professionals' attitudes and perceived understanding about the usage of CEs in academic contexts. The study was a quantitative cross-sectional research design conducted in different healthcare and academic settings of Karachi. The respondents were approached either through social media platforms or the official email addresses of their working organizations. Data were collected through a web link of an online questionnaire that included four sections; inquiring about the respondents' demographics characteristics, their knowledge about CEs, their attitudes towards the use and impact of CEs, and their inclination to use a hypothetical prescription-only CE. The response rate of the study was 73.3%. The majority of the respondents negated to permit university students to using CEs for cognitive boost (n = 360, 67.1%), to concentrate (n = 406, 75.7%), to increase vigilance (n = 394, 73.5%) or to mitigate the effects of other medicines (n = 312, 58.2%). The pharmacists were more likely to refute that using CEs by the students is safe (pharmacists 10.8% vs. physicians 8.3%, p=<0.001), beneficial (pharmacists 12.7% vs. physicians 5.3%, p=<0.001), or necessary (pharmacists 17.6% vs. physicians 12.8%, p=<0.001). The major reasons for not encouraging the use of CEs were fear of misuse (n = 510, 95.1%), safety concerns (n = 495, 92.3%), and their consideration for CE as unnecessary medical intervention (n = 441, 82.2%). The findings indicated that overall, respondents have a clear consensus of not letting university students use CEs for cognitive improvement or any other purpose implying that cognitive enhancement is not yet a common or approved medical practice by the healthcare professionals in Pakistan.

Neuroenhancement as Instrumental Drug Use: Putting the Debate in a Different Frame

The use of performance-enhancing drugs to study or work better is often called "cognitive enhancement" or "neuroenhancement" and sparked a debate between scholars from many disciplines. I argue that such behavior can better be subsumed under the more general category of "instrumental drug use". This broader perspective allows understanding neuroenhancement better from the perspective of addiction medicine and public health and supports a more consistent drug policy. I also summarize the most important systematic reviews and individual surveys of nonmedical substance use to study or work better. Different definitions and methodologies limit the comparability of these studies. The unified approach of drug instrumentalization would partially solve such problems. Finally, prevalence studies from the 1960s to 1980s as well as anecdotal evidence since the late 19th century show that instrumental drug use is and has been for a long time a common phenomenon. It should thus also be investigated and treated accordingly.