Article Review on Use of Brain Booster Stimulants

Running head: Article Review 1
Article Review
Name
Institutional Affiliation

Article Review 2
Article Review
Introduction
Students are expected to perform well in schools after training for a certain period of
time. The end results are the ones that determines students’ movement to the next level of
academic ladder. It is a fact that so much money and other resources are invested in the
education and so the end results have to be impressive to avoid wastage of the money used in
the same. This have been a driving factor for students to use all means possible to achieve
their academic goals. According to Hildt et al., (2014), substance abuse by students who
perform poorly in schools started in high schools and the trend has since moved to colleges
and universities. Learners have the pressure to perform well and look impressive. This
pressure might come from their family members, academic staff, lecturers or friends. This is
why nonmedical use of substances to boost academic performance or intellectual ability is on
the rise. Students who are struggling academically tend to believe that their mental capacity
to perform well in schools can be adjusted by taking brain stimulants. The drugs are readily
available in many colleges since students have their own ‘external’ providers who come to
schools to bring them the drugs. However, research reveals that this is a myth and that the
students who o this always end up not getting the help intended. They, however, end up with
disorders as a result of the use of the same stimulants. Tutors and all other academicians
always reiterate that the only and sure way of achieving academic dreams is through doing
academic duties the best way possible. Doing consultations from the tutors, researching from
credible sources through the internet and many more, are the only sure ways of hitting the
academic target.

Article Review 3
Part A
Authorship
The authors of the two articles involve Hildt and Munro are drawn from the
department of psychiatry and psychotherapy respectively. As research indicates, they work in
university medical centres. Franke on the other hand, is a trainee while Hildt belongs to
psychology department. Additionally, he is an expert in neuroethics at the same university.
We are told that Bailey Munro together with Lisa Weyandt is the head of interdisciplinary
neuroscience program manager. On the other hand, Marraccini E. M is based at Alpert
Medical school, which is a research centre in the United States of America.
Aims of the Study
 To explore how the use brain booster stimulants among learners influence positively
their academic performance.
 To identify the main reasons why the students use brain stimulants more often despite
being taught or guided by their lecturers. This includes any other reason that makes
students use drugs and their motives as well.
 To investigate the effects, either positive or negative, of the stimulants to the users.
 To explore the impact of pressure directed to the learners mostly by their family
members, some of who invest all their money in school to make sure their child attend
university (Hildt et al., 2014).
Justification for the need of study
The study need is justified in several dimensions throughout both articles. First, there
was a need to know the main reason as to why there is a rise in the number of students who
are taking drugs in schools (Munro, et al, 2017). It is true to mention that people have their
own specific reasons for doing what they do, or behaving in a particular manner. The authors
had the need to know other reasons behind abuse of brain stimulants by learners, apart from

Article Review 4
boosting academic performance. According to Munro, et al, (2017) article, we are informed
that most students use the drugs to give them energy and pleasure they need to perform their
other activities. This clearly shows that the stimulants are not only used to boost brain activity
so that the end results in academics can be influenced, but also it helps the learners in
managing their schedules so that they do not miss class activities as well as their own planned
activities outside class time. There is also the need to boost the attentiveness of the minds
(Hildt, et al, 2014). Students need to be more active than they are naturally. This is why they
sort other sources of being more attentive during the long lecture hours at the universities.
Hildt et al., (2014) article also justifies his research study by wanting to known the side
effects that come as a result of brain stimulant abuse. Medical research shows that any human
being abusing any type of drug will at some point experience the negative side effects of the
same (Munro et al., 2017).
Design
Authors utilized one main methodology in the study which involves qualitative
research with a focus on interviewing as the main data collection method. From the reader
perspective, we see several interviews conducted to different people. These includes students
and the lecturers as well. However, the two groups are interviewed separately at different
times. This is because there is a need to keep information from different people secret from
public opinion but only revealed to the interviewers (Munro et al., 2017). The interviewees
used placards. These were meant attract the attention of learners and compel them to respond
to the same (Hildt, et al, 2014). However, the majority of those who responded were not drug
users (Hildt, et al, 2014), but still the authors were able to receive recommended number who
were later subjected to the interview panel.
Questions Used During the Interview
i. What was the reason behind you taking the stimulant while at the campus?

Article Review 5
ii. After taking the stimulant drugs, were there any increase in overall mental
performance or situation remained the way it was?
iii. Apart from increase or decrease in metal performance, were there improvement in
the academics that can be said to be a direct influence of the drugs?
iv. During usage of the stimulants, were there side effects that have affected you
either positively or negatively that you can mentioned or talk about?
The interviewers employed some tactics to ensure that the information received from
the interviewees is not lost or tampered with. For instance, the voice of the interviewees was
recorded using a voice recorder (Munro et al., 2017). Besides recording, one of the
interviewers noted down the answers given so that they can have a quick reference point is
need be (Hildt et al, 2014).
Participants and Reasons why methodology used was appropriate
The method used in data collection was appropriate and a good volume of results
came out. Interview was the best option since there was a need to get first hand data and
information that has not been interfered with before. Again, talking to people face to face
compels them to give true information due to the direct eye contact between the two. Since
direct face to face interview was used to get the needed data, it was the most effective
appropriate method that could be used to collect such sensitive and useful information
(Munro et al., 2017). The participant in the study included the students (both those who use
the brain stimulants medicines and those who do not use them), the lecturers, medical
practitioners, and the researchers who conducted the study (Hildt et al., 2014).
Findings
According to the study, the total turnout was small but still good to keep the exercise
and research work going. As per the requirements on the placards, email addresses were used
to by the students to contact the research centre. A total of twenty two were carried out in

Article Review 6
general. Out of the number, four participants tested positive of the ADHD as per Hildt
statements. Results showed that fourteen of the remaining candidates had attempted to use
ADHD drugs at some point in school. Reports points out clearly that the reaming four
students used both the two, that is, the prescribed drugs and the illicit drugs to boost their
academic outcome (Hildt et al., 2014).
Strengths and Weaknesses
 Strengths
Intake of AMPH drugs makes one become active at some point, thus he or she is able
to do so many things at the same time without feeling exhausted (Hildt et al., 2014). It also
improves one’s level of concentration. however, most students appreciated its effects to
reduce the need to sleep, as this would make them have enough time to study thus improving
their end academic results. It improves their ability to focus on details and the level of
receptiveness. Students also feel good when they are re-energized. This allows them to be
more and more active to do all the work that need to be done on time.
 Weaknesses
The report points out several disadvantages that affect students who take the drugs.
Students stay awake and do not feel like sleeping for ling hour. This affects their normal
brain operation since it is a requirement that everyone should sleep at least eight hours a day.
The drugs also make them feel restlessness thus affecting their normal day operations.
According to Hildt et al., (2014), the side effects increases or decreases depending on the
duration of the drug abuse. For instance, one of the students mentioned that a day after taking
the drugs everything seems fines but its negative effects projects in after two to three days,
making the user to feel ‘shattered’. Students also reiterated that they become tired due to
consumptive nature of the drugs. This makes them not be in a position to take the drugs more
than one within a single month. According to Munro et al., (2017), the students’ experiences,

Article Review 7
those who take the drugs on a daily basis are always weak and very exhausted. So for the
drugs to work properly as intended, the user needs to take small amount at a specified
interval. The drugs also make students feel depressed and be in unhappy moods most of the
time. This is due to the effects of MPH. As mentioned, the drug is a stimulus, and can trigger
hormones that makes one have a change of moods and so on.
Part B
Reports point out barriers that hinder the use of the finding in the report to bring
changes in higher learning institutions. If the findings are used to prevent students from
accessing brain booster drugs such as ADHD, then the affected people will barely find time
to do their outside school work. We are also informed that mostly students use the illicit
drugs during specific times like during the examination periods (Munro et al, 2017).
Publishing the findings and attempting to stop the use of the same in institutions will make
students attempt examinations without reading for them (Munro et al., 2017). This will
reduce the performance of the learners plus the institutional grade. There is alignment of the
questions in the study with the PICO requirements since the main issue which is drug usage is
fully addressed and concluded.
Conclusion
It is evident that students are given too much work in schools. Among others, this is
the reason behind usage of brain booster drugs by the learners. Students need extra time to
attend to their own activities. Most of them have businesses to nurture while others do
partying and socializing. Due to the pressure to perform in academics, they are forced to use
other means to get more time. They also do this so that their brains can be boosted with more
energy to enhance concentration in classes. However, research indicates that usage of the
brain boosters is characterised with some negative effects. Most of the students feel dizzy and
tiredness after consumption of these illicit drugs. Reports also shows that some of them

Article Review 8
contemplate suicide due to the side effects of the drugs. This is because the drugs affect the
brain of the students or any other user.

Article Review 9
References
Hildt, E., Lieb, K., & Franke, A. G. (2014). Life context of pharmacological academic
performance enhancement among university students–a qualitative approach. BMC
medical ethics, 15(1), 23.
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.