ArticlePloS one2020
Professionals' attitudes towards the use of cognitive enhancers in academic settings.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prevalence of cognitive enhancers' usage among health college students and the factors associated with its use.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- Ginkgo Biloba as a niche theme cognitive enhancer agent, 1420 dokumen of Scopus database. A bibliometric study from 1988 to 2024.F1000Research · 2025Article
- Modafinil, an atypical CNS stimulant?Advances in pharmacology (San Diego, Calif.) · 2024Article
- Do Medical Universities Students Use Cognitive Enhancers while Learning?-Conclusions from the Study in Poland.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Review
- Exploring the use of cognitive enhancement substances among Portuguese university students.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2022Article
- Article
- Professionals' attitudes towards the use of cognitive enhancers in academic settings.PloS one · 2020Article
- Neuroenhancement as Instrumental Drug Use: Putting the Debate in a Different Frame.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
aimsThe non-medical use of prescription stimulants such as methylphenidate, dexamphetamine and modafinil is increasing in popularity within tertiary academic settings. There is a paucity of information on awareness, attitudes, and acceptability by professionals of use in this context. This study aimed to investigate professionals' knowledge of and attitudes towards the use of cognitive enhancers (CEs) in academic settings, and their willingness to use a hypothetical CE. DESIGN AND
methodsA mail survey was sent to doctors, pharmacists, nurses, accountants and lawyers in New Zealand. These disciplines were chosen as they require professional registration to practice. The questionnaire comprised four sections: (1) demographics, (2) knowledge of CEs, (3) attitudes towards the use of CEs, and (4) willingness to use hypothetical CEs.
resultsThe response rate was 34.5% (414/1200). Overall, participants strongly disagreed that it was fair to allow university students to use CEs for cognitive enhancement (Mdn = 1, IQR: 1,3), or that it is ethical for students without a prescription to use cognitive enhancers for any reason (Mdn = 1, IQR: 1,2). Professions differed in their attitudes towards whether it is ethical for students without a prescription to use CEs for any reason (p = 0.001, H 31.527). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionDivergent views and lack of clear consensus within professions and between professionals on the use of CEs have the potential to influence both professionals and students as future professionals. These divergent views may stem from differences in the core values of self-identity as well as extrinsic factors of acceptability within the profession in balancing the elements of opportunity, fairness and authenticity in cognitive enhancement. Further research is required to inform the development of policy and guidelines that are congruent with all professions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.