ArticleHeliyon2021
Concept generation of cognitive enhancement: healthcare professionals' approach towards the impact and utilization of cognitive enhancers in academic context.
Article in Heliyon, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
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
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.
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.