Psycho-Stimulants And Examination Performance †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Psycho-Stimulants And Examination Performance. Answer: Introduction Evidence based practice is essential because it involves a judicious and explicit sue of current evidences that are best suited to make decisions related to individual patient care. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is a neuro-developmental disorder, characterized by impulsive behaviour and lack of concentration, generally treated with the use of psycho-stimulants (Melegari et al., 2015). However, recently a large increase is observed in the proportion of college students who are being involved in drug abuse related to these psycho-stimulants, in spite of being not being diagnosed with ADHD. Wasim, a student has observed that all his university friends are talking about using smart drugs to improve their academic performance in examinations. Although he is aware of the therapeutic role of these drugs in ADHD, he wants to investigate their probable role in enhancing academic performance by analysing two articles. The first article will use a qualitative approach to investigate the association between psycho-stimulants and examination performance and the second article will evaluate the association between these drugs and executive functioning. Thus, the articles will help Wasim to judge the truthfulness of the claims made by his friends. Body Authorship- Elisabeth Hildt is a neuroethic expert at the Department of Philosophy; Andreas Gnter Franke and Klaus Lieb are from the Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, at the University Medical Centre Mainz (Germany). Klaus Lieb heads the department and Franke is a trainee under his guidance. Thus, all the three authors were well educated and knowledgeable to conduct the research. There were some contradictions in the academic results that had been achieved and in the subjective experiences of the study participants. Research Aims- In this study, the primary objective of the authors was to evaluate effects of both prescribed and illicit psycho-stimulant usage on academic performance enhancement. The authors examined the effects of methylphenidate and amphetamine stimulants on the examination performance of university students. The experiences of the participating students were measured with respect to administration of the drugs. In addition, influence of several factors such as academic and peer pressure, that are thought to increase personal life and academic excellence were also assessed (Hildt, Lieb Franke, 2014). Design- Psycho-stimulant related placards were used to collect students from the University of Mainz campus. Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted on healthy students who did not report previous history of psychiatric disorders. The interview questions were focused on prescribed or illicit intake of stimulants, their individual perception on the probable effects of stimulants on academic improvement and the observable negative effects (if any). The interview responses were transcribed verbatim, and systematically analyzed with the help of a qualitative approach. Findings- 18 results were analysed for final conclusions out of the 22 interviews that had been carried out. Prescribed usage of stimulants was found among 4 students. The rest 14 participants followed illicit usage of the stimulants. The findings suggested that stimulants were mainly used prepare for a term paper and facilitate exam preparation, in addition to gaining study time, and pursuing and achieving individual projects, which were out of their academic domains. The intake was found to be affected by performance and time pressure. Some of them also reported a motivation increase, and sleep time reduction after the drug usage. The analysis also showed an increase in energy for leisure activities on stimulant usage (Spencer, Devilbiss Berridge, 2015). Thus, it can be deduced that maximising time and boosting motivation were the 2 most important effects. Strengths and weaknesses- The study had several limitations. One of them was inclusion of extremely small number of interviews. Although the there were around 36,000 registered students in the university, the placards were able to gain the willingness of only 22 students. The low participation rate can be attributed to stigma related to drug abuse. Secondly a selection bias was formed due to exclusion of willing participants with reported psychiatric disorders or under the action of prescribed psychoactive medications, and the type of students who wanted to participate. Moreover, time frame, social desirability and behavioural aspects could have influenced the spontaneous answers given by the participants. However, the strength can be attributed to the fact that study acted as a starting point for conducting qualitative and quantitative studies in future, which would investigate observable effects of stimulants on academic performance, and the motivation behind pharmacological neuro- enhancement. Authorship- Marisa E. Marraccini is an Assistant Professor at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University. Lisa L. Weyandt works as a professor at the Department of Psychology, University of Rhode Island. Danielle R. Oster and Bailey A. Munro are Doctoral Research Assistants in the same university. Thus, they have adequate qualifications and resources to conduct the study. There were few discrepancies in the study related to its generalization and inclusion of voluntary participants. Research Aims- Executive functioning is the key factor that involves cognitive flexibility and self regulation and is thought to underlie academic performance. Based on preliminary research that revealed presence of educational difficulties among college students, with EF deficits, this study aimed to understand the association between executive functioning and non-prescribed use of psycho stimulants in a sample population of college students (Munro et al., 2017). Design- The study considered six different schools and public universities from different regions and contacted with the staff and faculty via e-mail to seek their permission for providing eligible participants for the study. Informed consent was taken from the willing participants and they were made to complete two sets of questionnaire. The demographic questionnaire contained questions on the age, gender, ethnicity, and name of the university, and on being members of any fraternity or sonority. The SSQ questionnaire measured non-medical use of prescribed psycho stimulants by the students. The dimensions of the adult executive functioning were measured by the Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale. A total EF summary score was generated for the population. Statistical methods (t-test) were used for result analysis. Findings- This study identified the relationship between non-medical use of psycho-stimulants and executive functioning of the brain for the first time. It is evident from the results that students with self reported EF deficits had a higher SSQ score. This indicated that such students had an increased likelihood of being associated with non medical use of psycho-stimulants (Gerlach et al., 2014). Furthermore, those students also reported a lower grade point average than participants with moderate EF. Strengths and weaknesses- The strength lies in the fact that the study was able to successfully determine the relation between psycho-stimulants and executive functioning of the brain. This was due to the presence of positive results in the survey completed by the college students. It also helped in establishing academics as the primary reason for drug abuse. Therefore, it had great implications in identifying students at a risk for usage of these drugs and in creating intervention or prevention policies related to their usage. One limitation was the presence of a convenient sample that led to generalization of the study. Additionally the disproportionate number of Whites and females caused a selection bias. Presence of only 3 participants having 2 GPA score increased the difficulty to assess psycho-stimulant effectiveness on the brain. Furthermore, the study contained voluntary participants, which might not be the suitable representatives of the entire population. Further research w as needed to evaluate the relationship between NMUPS, academic outcomes and EF. Barriers for the application of evidence in practice- Evidence-based practice (EBP) is therefore defined as an approach that focuses on solving problems with the aim of improving health outcomes among several patients. This is achieved by integration of best research evidences from well designed studies. Time management, inadequate knowledge, limited IT access and skills, lack of motivation and patient factors are some of the most common existing barriers in EBP implementation (Laska, Gurman Wampold, 2014). While applying evidence based research finding in a practical environment, adequate knowledge is often unavailable. A sound knowledge on psycho-stimulants is required before understanding its effectiveness in improving academic skills. Lack of time and insufficient English proficiency also act as major barriers while using evidences from research findings. Although, it is generally known that psycho-stimulant drugs are used for the treatment of children with ADHD, their probable effects on improvement of academic performance or cognitive skills of college or university students had not been evaluated properly. Further, it is of extreme importance to properly recognise the criteria, which will reflect a high quality research. Lack of access to a large library, and inadequate computer resources are other barriers in implementation of EBP (Rousseau Gunia, 2016). In addition, time commitment also creates difficulties in finding best evidence to questions on clinical practice. EBP implementation is time consuming in clinical practice. It has replaced traditional treatment plans. However, the discovery of new evidences often creates difficulty for the researchers. Alignment with PICO elements- The PICO format was completely followed by the two research studies that were investigated by Wasim. They were built on a well formulated format or framework in order to improve scientific rigour (Brignardello-Petersen et al., 2015). PICO format (Munro et al., 2017): P (Population) - 6 public university students; I (Intervention) - NMUPS; Nonmedical use of prescribed stimulants; C (Comparison) - Students with NMUPS and EF deficits compared to those deficits; O (Outcome) - Measuring effects of psycho-stimulant on executive brain functioning. PICO format (Hildt, Lieb Franke, 2014): P (Population) - Psycho-stimulant using university students; I (Intervention) - Psycho-stimulant effects on academic performance; C (Comparison) - Respondents with stimulant use compared placebo controlled group; O (Outcome) - Interview analysis of psycho-stimulant effects. Conclusion Thus, it can be concluded from the analysis of the two articles that there are some potential side effects of every psycho-stimulant in addition to enhancing cognitive functions. Although, the effects of prescribed and non-prescribed psycho-stimulants on academic excellence of students belonging to different universities were assessed by both the articles, one article established a better association between the two factors. The first research was more successful in providing evidence. It is considered to superior to the second study owing to the fact that the former study revealed that enhancement of academic performance through the use of psycho-stimulants is not any isolated phenomenon. The study stated that in addition to the administration of these drugs, there lies a multifaceted life context that involves staying awake and alertness, which are of crucial relevance in enhancing cognition. This improved cognition helps in achieving better academic results. Furthermore, the findi ngs also suggested that administration of these drugs increase the motivation for leisure activities among the students. Thus, the use of smart drugs by university classmates will alone not be sufficient in improving their academic performance. References Brignardello-Petersen, R., Carrasco-Labra, A., Glick, M., Guyatt, G. H., Azarpazhooh, A. (2015). A practical approach to evidence-based dentistry: III: how to appraise and use an article about therapy.The Journal of the American Dental Association,146(1), 42-49. Gerlach, K. K., Dasgupta, N., Schnoll, S. H., Henningfield, J. E. (2014). Epidemiology of stimulant misuse and abuse: implications for future epidemiologic and neuropharmacologic research.Neuropharmacology,87, 91-96. Hildt, E., Lieb, K., Franke, A. G. (2014). Life context of pharmacological academic performance enhancement among university studentsa qualitative approach.BMC medical ethics,15(1), 23. Laska, K. M., Gurman, A. S., Wampold, B. E. (2014). Expanding the lens of evidence-based practice in psychotherapy: a common factors perspective.Psychotherapy,51(4), 467. Melegari, M. G., Nanni, V., Lucidi, F., Russo, P. M., Donfrancesco, R., Cloninger, C. R. (2015). Temperamental and character profiles of preschool children with ODD, ADHD, and anxiety disorders.Comprehensive psychiatry,58, 94-101. Munro, B. A., Weyandt, L. L., Marraccini, M. E., Oster, D. R. (2017). The relationship between nonmedical use of prescription stimulants, executive functioning and academic outcomes.Addictive behaviors,65, 250-257. Rousseau, D. M., Gunia, B. C. (2016). Evidence-based practice: the psychology of EBP implementation.Annual review of psychology,67, 667-692. Spencer, R. C., Devilbiss, D. M., Berridge, C. W. (2015). The cognition-enhancing effects of psychostimulants involve direct action in the prefrontal cortex.Biological psychiatry,77(11), 940-950.