ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2022
Exploring the use of cognitive enhancement substances among Portuguese university students.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Effect of a Plant-Based Nootropic Supplement on Perceptual Decision-Making and Brain Network Interdependencies: A Randomised, Double-Blinded, and Placebo-Controlled Study.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Investigating cognitive-enhancing supplement use among students at a Dutch life science university.PloS one · 2025Article
- Do Medical Universities Students Use Cognitive Enhancers while Learning?-Conclusions from the Study in Poland.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prescription drug use and the consumption of substances to enhance college students' cognitive performance, described as pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE), is a known phenomenon potentially impacting individuals' health. University and college students are two specific subpopulations noted to use PCE (up to 17%, on average). To our knowledge, no data have been published on the use of PCE drugs among university students at a national level in Portugal and the factors that might be associated with this usage. Objective: The main objective was to estimate the prevalence of PCE use by Portuguese university students and to identify the PCE substances commonly used by university students, i.e., those classified as prescription drugs and other legal and nonprescribed substances, including food supplements. Methods: The study followed a cross-sectional exploratory, descriptive design and pursued a convenience sample of students from Portuguese public and private universities (22 higher education institutions). Results: From a sample of 745 university students, 32% indicated the use of prescribed and nonprescribed substances. The most consumed substances were food supplements with CNS stimulants being the most frequent prescription-only drugs but not necessarily accessed through a medical prescription. A significant statistical association was found between substance consumption and the field of study. Health science students reported more food supplements and drug intake, allegedly under prescribed regimens, compared to humanities and exact sciences students. The study discusses the need to better understand the competitive societies that produce and support young students' outputs and the perceived 'need' for performance-enhancing substances. Conclusions: One-third of the university students aimed to improve their performance by pharmacological cognitive enhancement, with a preference for food supplements dispensed in pharmacies. PCE substance consumption in higher education is thus non-negligible. The study suggests the need to improve regulations on potential inequalities in academic rankings and success and an observant attitude concerning implications that negatively affect health in the long run.
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.