Health Care Inquiry: Evaluating Stimulant Use in University Students

This report examines the impact of stimulants on academic performance among university students, drawing upon research from various sources to address the central question: Do stimulants increase academic performance? The report analyzes two key research papers, exploring their methodologies, findings, strengths, and weaknesses. The first study suggests positive outcomes, such as improved time management and motivation, while the second highlights the potential negative effects, including low executive functioning and lower GPA scores. The report also investigates the barriers to applying this evidence in practice, considering ethical implications and the historical context of performance-enhancing drugs. Ultimately, the report concludes that the use of brain-enhancing drugs, whether prescribed or not, is not the optimal approach for students, particularly those in healthcare fields. The report underscores the importance of proper time management and the potential risks associated with altering brain chemistry to achieve academic goals.

Running head: HEALTH CARE INQUIRY
HEALTH CARE INQUIRY
Name
Institution

HEALTH CARE INQUIRY 2
Health Care Inquiry
Introduction
Do stimulants increase academic performance in university students? This is a critical
question that sits in the mind of many health researchers and while most of the younger people
would very much shoot first and ask questions later, it is necessary to arrive at a concrete
conclusion before deciding on the best way forward. This paper seeks to weigh out the best
option that should be kept to as seen from different sources.
It is without a doubt that evolution is still an ongoing process only that this time it is of a
mental kind. A cognitive progression continues in modern man as he continues to make his life
simpler. Gone are the days when Roman soldiers had their limbs amputated without anesthesia
as they got subjected to the gruesome process of primitive surgery of the times gone.
Part A
Evidence One
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), 23-23.
Authorship
In their research paper, (Hildt et al., 2014) had a face to face interview with a sample of
18 university students who used cognitive enhancement drugs prescribed to which they arrived at
the conclusion that not only does prescription stimulants for performance enhancement among
university students is of no critical relevance as it is not an isolated phenomenon, it also gives the

HEALTH CARE INQUIRY 3
students the ability to balance their time between school life and their time off. The research
subjects claimed that the use of nootropics enabled them to cope with memorizing class work
better, enable them to have a proper management of time and generally, it increased their
motivation.
Research Aims
Broadly speaking, the research outcomes supported the use of the nootropics as they also
boosted the student’s life outside of school. However, it should be noted that the person involved
was always under pressure to use the drugs. This pressure would most likely end badly for the
student suppose she did not keep up with her routine.
The drugs boosted memory and increased motivation in its use but there is also a
possibility for creating dependency on the individual. This means that the student in question
must regularly take the pills failure to which he might succumb to inconsistencies in his school
work. It is these negative effects that the research papers failed to show.
Design
The research was based on six categories: use of the stimulant beyond academic
performance enhancement, timing the consumption, objective results academically, the side
effect, pressure and the subjective experience of enhancement which was concluded to be
leaning greatly on the positive side of the user experience with excellent results.
Findings
It should be noted that the conclusion they arrived at supports the use of the drugs among
the students as there was no inconsistency in the students’ subjective experiences and their

HEALTH CARE INQUIRY 4
objective academic results (Richardson et al,. 2016). This statement means that the test subjects’
educational efforts translated equally to their academic result at the end of the semester. Before,
it was noted that memorizing class work became easier while they were on the pills. One must
consider whether this is really the case.
To answer this, a little psychology should be put into context. The mind, as it is, is
complex. There have been instances of people walking on hot coals without wincing, or of
monks making steam come from their bodies after splashing cold water on them. All these
instances narrow down to one belief system; mind over matter.
Strengths and weaknesses
According to Sir Charles Lyell, our improbable ability to reason shows us our ever-
increasing dominion of our mind over matter, philosophers would argue likewise. Even monks
are in the same line of thought; it is why they are monks after all. But how does this apply in this
case? Think about it, anyone can do what he believes he can do. Give a leper a pill for malaria
and you will see him get cured because he believed it would; it’s all mind over matter here.
However, placebo effect doesn’t give us concrete grounds for a conclusion. Still,
psychology gives us an opening for argument. There are three keywords that the test subjects
mentioned: boosting memory, proper time management, and excellent motivation.
Psychologically speaking, all work and no play make the mind dull and unproductive. We need
to keep the reward centers of our brains active to get motivated to work even more.it is all a
cycle, we work, we reap the fruits and if they are good, we yearn for more. Still, one must keep
an open mind here.

HEALTH CARE INQUIRY 5
Evidence Two
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. doi: http://ift.tt/2fDSHfZ
Authorship
In the research paper, (Munro et al., 2017) deduced that of the 308 test subjects of their
research study, only a 19% used the nootropics without prescription. They were also able to
come up with several theories as to this deduction, chief of which is effective functionality (EF).
EF is the ability of a student to be able to plan, self-regulate and become goal-oriented in their
studies.
Research Aims
The main aim of the research study carried out by Munro and his team was to advocate
against the use of the cognitive enhancing drugs prescribed (Munro et al, 2017). This is because
the subjects with low EF had a reported case of using the drugs with translated in their GPA
scores becoming lower. This did not change no matter how much of the drugs they used. There is
an explanation to this. Having a low EF means that there is a low cognitive flexibility within the
individual, which also means that there are low self-programming and no overall goal-directed
behavior. The students expected that by using the drugs, their mental prowess gets automatically
boosted. They put no effort in trying to study as they have not properly planned out their days
well. Eventually, they lose sight of why they took the pills in the first place and thus their
motivation gets significantly reduced and thus their overall GPA scores.

HEALTH CARE INQUIRY 6
Design
(Hildt et al, 2014) used a one to one interview with the test subjects to arrive at their
findings. A one to one interview is not a reliable source of information as there is always room
for errors with the interviewees lying suppose the question hurts their feeling which was
probably one of the most likely cases here (Malik et al, 2015). The researchers were only told
what they wanted to hear and the likeliness of the sources being reliable was not considered.
However, the results proved to be consistent in the end and it is from this that a conclusion was
arrived at.
Findings
It was discovered that students with low EF succumbed to using smart pills due to their
problems with keeping up with themselves and their studies. Based on their GPAs and BDEFS
the researchers could conclude that using smart pills prescribed had a significant relationship
between executive functioning and their overall GPA scores (Hajbaghery, 2005). This second
research study stands against the use of the nootropic without a doctor’s prescription.
Strengths and weaknesses
(Munro et al, 2017) carried out the research broader with the 308 test subjects coming
from six different public institutions and the methods used evidence based on their school
performance at the end of the semester. The evidence obtained was, therefore, more conclusive
and certain than the latter research findings.

HEALTH CARE INQUIRY 7
Part B
Barriers for the application of evidence in practice
The two research outcomes are contradictory. Whereas one seeks to stand for the use of
the cognitive enhancing drugs, the other strongly advocates against it on the grounds of being
prescribed to the user. The first research outcome came out positive but the methods that were
followed are not reliable.
Even so, it still supports the use of the drugs if the user has a prescription and has the
advice on which drug to use from the doctor. However, one must not expect the best outcomes
from using as there is a lot of things involved, chief among them arising from the commitment
that the user puts into his school work.
How closely the research studies provided align with the PICO questions
To answer this question, it is necessary to go deeper than the two research papers. The
performance enhancing drugs trace their history to ADHD. They were used to enable people
with this mental condition to cope and can lead a normal life and eventually, it was realized that
it boosted attention and memory and thus it became common among college students.
Today, the advancement in the medical field has led to a multitude of magnificent
discoveries that makes us gods in a practical way. There exist pills for everything; ones for
stopping pregnancy; ones to induce sleep and even those that boost the brain and memory
capacity. It is the latter kind, the nootropics that are of interest.

HEALTH CARE INQUIRY 8
Currently, there are several brain supplement drugs sold over the counter and marketed
for their abilities (Barkley, 2011). However, most of them are not prescribed by doctors and have
found their way to the public particularly students. Their marketing is based on several
speculations most of which are strongly advised against by professional doctors.
The use of brain enhancement drugs has more antagonistic effects as they have positive
effects on the plus side, they enable one to be motivated and improve time management but on
the other hand, they might be dangerous (Bamberger et al, 2011). Besides worsening underlying
mental conditions of the patient, there is room for other adverse effects. For one, the alter brain
chemistry which is how they function. These drugs function by opening more serotonin receptors
which the brain translates as improving more body activity. This means that the user becomes
more active which possibly alters with the sleeping cycle of the individual which creates the
need to use sleeping pills.
Dependence is also another issue. Constant use means that the individual lives in a state
where he cannot function without using the drugs at any given time. Eventually, the person
succumbs to addiction and adverse withdrawal effects when the individual tries to opt out.
Dependency is also linked to overdose which is a life risk.
Ethically, taking brain-enhancing drugs is not the best way. The brain is the most
complex organ in the human body thus using substances to alter its normal functioning to seek
good grades is not worth it in the end. Moreover, everything used to alter the normal mental state
of a human being all have very negative side effects both to the individual and to the community.
Take illegal drugs for example.

HEALTH CARE INQUIRY 9
Conclusion
In conclusion, the use of brain enhancing drugs, prescribe or otherwise, is not the best
way to go for a student more so a medicine scholar as it beats the reason for learning in the end.
Learning is the process of creating people who have proven to qualify for the field that they
studied for. Proper time management is always of the essence for a scholar as it is what it all
narrows down to in the end.

HEALTH CARE INQUIRY 10
References
Bamberger, M., Rugh, J., & Mabry, L. (2011). RealWorld evaluation: Working under budget,
time, data, and political constraints. sage.
Barkley, R, A. (2011). The Barkley deficits in executive functioning scale. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Chan, G. K., Barnason, S., Dakin, C. L., Gillespie, G., Kamienski, M. C., Stapleton, S., ... & Li,
S. (2011). Barriers and perceived needs for understanding and using research among
emergency nurses. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 37(1), 24-31.
Elfil, M., & Negida, A. (2017). Sampling methods in Clinical Research; an Educational Review.
Emergency, 5(1), e52. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325924/
Greenhalgh, T.M., Bidewell, J., Crisp, E., Lambros, A., & Warland, J. (2017). Understanding
research methods for evidence-based practice in health 1e Wileyplus learning space
Wiley e-text powered by Vitalsource. Wiley. Retrieved from http://ift.tt/2xjnxVh
1ACU&search_scope=61ACU_All&tab=61acu_all&lang=en_US
Hajbaghery, M. A., & Salsali, M. (2005). A model for empowerment of nursing in Iran. BMC
health services research, 5(1), 24.Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-5-24
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), 23-23. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-15-23

HEALTH CARE INQUIRY 11
Kajermo, K. N., Undén, M., Gardulf, A., Eriksson, L. E., Orton, M. L., Arnetz, B. B., &
Nordström, G. (2008). Predictors of nurses’ perceptions of barriers to research
utilization. Journal of Nursing Management, 16(3), 305-314.
Malik, G., McKenna, L., & Plummer, V. (2015). Perceived knowledge, skills, attitude and
contextual factors affecting evidence
‐based practice among nurse educators, clinical
coaches and nurse specialists. International journal of nursing practice, 21(S2), 46-57.
Moore, D. R., Burgard, D. A., Larson, R. G., & Ferm, M. (2014). Psychostimulant use among
college students during periods of high and low stress: an interdisciplinary approach
utilizing both self-report and unobtrusive chemical sample data. Addictive behaviors,
39(5), 987-993. Retrieved from http://www.pugetsound.edu/files/resources/addictive-
behaviors-revise-resubmit_rev.pdf
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.
Richardson-Tench, M., Taylor, B., Kermode, S., & Roberts, K. (2016). Inquiry in health care
(5th [ACU] ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning.
Suresh, K., Thomas, S. V., & Suresh, G. (2011). Design, data analysis and sampling techniques
for clinical research. Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology, 14(4), 287.
Yensen, J. (2013 J. Nurs. Inform. 17(3). Retrieved from PICO search strategies.