Nursing Report: Critical Analysis of Stimulants on Student Performance

This nursing report critically analyzes two research articles to investigate the impact of stimulants on academic performance in university students, addressing the PICO question: "Do stimulants increase academic performance in university students?" The report examines studies by Hildt et al. (2014) and Munro et al. (2017), evaluating their methodologies, findings, strengths, and weaknesses. Hildt et al. (2014) used qualitative interviews to explore students' motivations for stimulant use, while Munro et al. (2017) employed a quantitative approach to assess the relationship between nonmedical stimulant use, executive functioning, and academic outcomes. The report highlights barriers to applying the research findings, such as the lack of causal relationships and limitations in the study designs. It concludes that further research is needed to establish a definitive link between stimulants and improved academic performance, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based practice in nursing and the need for nurses to critically evaluate research before applying it to practice. The report recommends more rigorous studies with robust methodologies and data collection methods to provide clearer insights into the effects of stimulant use on academic outcomes.

1Running head:NURSING
Nursing
Name of student:
Name of university:
Author note:

NURSING
The profession of nursing practice is aimed at delivering optimal quality care to the
patient population. For achieving this goal, it is imperative that nurses engage in evidence-
based practice wherein one is required to apply insights from research into practice.
Evidence-based practice refers to the process of undertaking research on the recent evidence
present among a large and rich pool of literature about a certain care aspect and implementing
the same in practice. It is to be noted that the translation from theory to practice is crucial and
a critical analysis of the research is done for understanding its suitability for the concerned
practice scenario (Houser, 2016). The extant paper is based on a health scenario and aims to
carry out an inquiry in healthcare evidence for addressing the scenario. Based on the scenario
the PICO question that is to be answered through research is “Do stimulants increase
academic performance in university students?”. Critical analysis of two research articles is
done for gaining insights from the paper pertaining to the research question and
understanding their applicability for the concerned scenario. The paper also highlights the
barriers for application of the gathered evidence for the scenario and the alignment of the
studies with the PICO question.
Part A
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
Authorship
a. The authors of the research article are Elisabeth Hildt, Klaus Lieb and Andreas Gunter
Franke. The first author is an expert of Neuroethics from the Department of Philosophy. The
second and third authors are from Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University
Medical Centre Mainz, Germany.

NURSING
b. There was no conflict of interest declared by the authors.
Research aims
a. The research addressed the question “do university students use stimulant drugs for
enhancing the cognitive functioning and successively better academic results as well as other
reasons?” The study had the aim of understanding whether stimulant drugs had implications
for students in the context of academic results as well as other non-academic purposes. There
was no hypothesis considered for the study.
b. As per the researcehrs, the background for the present study was formed by the research
gap generated in existing literature regarding the use of stimulant drugs y university students.
There was an absence of qualitative studies that successfully highlighted the matter under
study. Empirical data was also missing on the contextual factors and real-life influences of
such stimulant drugs.
Design
a. The research upheld a qualitative methodology and used extensive semi-structured
interview as the data collection method. The interviews were done with the help of a
questionnaire that had close-ended questions. The researchers appointed three interviewers
and a psychologist for carrying out face-to-face interviews. Two individuals were responsible
for carrying out an interview which were tape recorded. In addition, one of the interviewers
was to ask the questions while the other interviewer had to note down the responses given.
The purpose of this was to prevent any loss of information. The data analysis process
considered extracting transcription of the records verbatim. The analysis was done
systematically through inductive category development approach.

NURSING
b. It was appropriate to use qualitative research methodology for gaining rich information
from the participants about their viewpoints and perceptions regarding use of stimulant drugs.
Since the research wanted to understand the feelings and sensitivity of the respondents to the
research questions, the face-to-face interviews were highly beneficial. The interviewers could
highlight the depth of the responses that were given and help the respondents to answer the
questions (Nieswiadomy& Bailey, 2017). It is, however, to be noted that close-ended
questions were not completely suitable since such questions limited the extraction of valuable
data from the respondents. The inductive approach for analysing data was suitable since raw
information could be condensed and a brief, summary format could be achieved (Houser,
2016).
c. 18 healthy students from the University of Mainz, not having any psychiatric disorder,
took part in the study, reported non-medical use of illicit stimulants. The condition was
relevant for academic performance enhancement purposes.
Findings
a. Six categories for the life context of use of stimulant for academic enhancement
purposeemerged from the study. These were- Context of stimulant. This is used beyond
academic performance enhancement. There are also the scope of subjective experience of
enhancement, Timing of consumption, Objective academic results, Side effects, Pressure to
perform. It was inferred from the study that university students use stimulant drugs not only
for cognitive ability enhancement and academic purposes but also for other multifactorial life
contexts.
Strengths and weaknesses

NURSING
Strength- The study highlighted that university students use stimulant drugs for both
academic and no academic purposes
Weakness- Participant bias since only healthy individuals were recruited, indicating non-
representation of the general student population; spontaneous responses provided that might
not be appropriate; no certain conclusion drawn from the study.
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://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.08.023
Authorship
a. The present research paper has been penned down by four researchers whose affiliations
and qualifications have not been mentioned in the paper though their expertise have been
mentioned.
b. There was no conflict of interest declared by the authors.
Research aims
a. The research question that the study wanted to address was “is there any association
between nonmedical use of prescription drugs (NMUPS), executive functioning and
academic outcomes among college students?” The study aimed at assessing the relationship
existing between nonmedical use of prescription stimulants (NMUPS), and executive
functioning (EF) and academic outcomes among a population of college students who

NURSING
belonged to five regions of the US. The study considered two hypotheses- Students with EF
deficiencies, as measured with Barkley Deficits Executive Functioning Scale (BDEFS), have
more chances of demonstrating NMUPS contradictory to those having average EF skills;
NMUPS has an altering impact on the relationship between EF and academic performances.
b. The background of the study was formed by the fact that there was an absence of
noteworthy studies that was successful in examining the between NMUPS and EF among the
college student population. The studies conducted previously only had indicated the
association between EF deficiency and reporting of prescription stimulants.
Design
a. The study had a quantitative research methodology. The respondents had to complete a
demographics questionnaire after which three study measures were considered for extracting
data. These were Stimulant Survey Questionnaire (SSQ), Barkley Deficits in Executive
Functioning Scale (BDEFS for Adults) and Grade Point Average (GPA). For analysing the
extracted data, the researchers considered using descriptive statistics. The first hypothesis
was tested through independent samples t-test while the second hypothesis was tested using
the ANOVA test method. Measurement of effect size was done through Cohen’s ‘d’ method.
b. The suitability of the quantitative research methodology is to be highlighted in here.
Since the purpose of the study was to establish the relationship existing between nonmedical
use of prescription stimulants (NMUPS), academic performance and executive functioning
the methodology was justified since accurate data collection was possible. In addition,
personal biases are less likely to occur with this methodology. Further, quantitative data
collection and analysis enables summarisation of vast range of data while fostering
comparison of the same across categories (Tappen 2015). However, the correlational study

NURSING
design had the drawback of only establishing the relationship between the variables and not
generating a conclusive causal effect (Atanes et al., 2015).
c. The study respondents were 308 undergraduate students from six different univeristies of
United States.
Findings
a. The study reported about 18% of the sample population highlighting their use of
NMUPS. The rate of use was same for male and female. The respondents stated that the
primary purpose for NMUPS was academics. Further, they reported knowing others using the
same. The hypothesis that students with a considerable level of EF deficit tend to have more
chances of taking NMUPS was hence proved.
Strengths and weaknesses
Strength- A large sample population, was considered
Weakness- Gender bias in sampling as 73.4% of the participants were female; respondents
had voluntary participation implying deviation from an accurate representation of the
considered population; failure to establish a causal relationship between the variables under
scrutiny.
Part B
Barriers for the application of evidence in practice- The present paper is based on a
scenario that demands the present critical analysis of the research papers to be conducted for
highlighting the relationship between stimulant drugs and acasemic performance
enhancement. The case scenario has Wasim, a 29 year old university student attempting to
understand the life contexts in which non-prescription stimulant drugs can be used. For this

NURSING
purpose, insights from the research paper is to be referred to. The key insight from the
research is that the exact relationship between stimulant drugs and positive change in
academic performance has not been established through the research discussed in here. The
causal effect of the stimulant drug on academic performances has not been accurately pointed
out. The first study of Hildt et al., (2014) was only effective in highlighting that university
students take such drugs for academic purposes as well as other purposes. The extent to
which these are beneficial has not been discussed suitably under different situations. The
second study by Munro et al., (2016) indicated that there exists a relationship between
stimulant drug intake, executive functioning and academic performance. It is also to be
highlighted in here that the studies had some key limitations, adding to the barriers for
application of the evidence in practice. The most significant limitation was the absence of
generalisability of the study results. For the first study, the responses generated were not
optimal since close-ended questions were considered, restricting the understanding of
feelings and perceptions of the participants. For the second study, no causal relationship was
established between the variables being studied. Thus, it would not be advisable for Wasim to
consider using stimulant drugs for enhancement of academic performances based on the
results of these research papers. It is recommended that further research is conducted with
studies that are successful in identifying whether stimulant drugs enhance academic
performance or not.
Alignment of research studies with the PICO question- The PICO question that was
considered for the present paper was “Do stimulants increase academic performance in
university students?” The research paper did not achieve much success in addressing the
research question as no discreet answer to whether stimulants increase university student’s
performance.
Conclusion

NURSING
From the above analysis it can be stated that nurses having the ability to reflect on
own practice and question current practice are capable of bringing improvement in practice.
The present paper was a good opportunity to carry out a critical analysis of research articles
and adjudge the suitability of them for application in practice. Gaining knowledge of the
application of evidence to real-life scenarios is beneficial for professional practice. The
present research was carried out to understand whether stimulant drugs increase academic
performance. A critical analysis of the two research papers indicated that these articles were
not completely suitable for addressing the research questions. Further research is warranted
that would highlight the exact relationship between use of stimulant drugs and academic
performances among university students. These studies need to be flawless with appropriate
methodology and data collection method. The validity and credibility of such research were
to be adjudged critically before applying the insights drawn from the research into practice.
For evidence-based nursing practice it is imperative to carry out the comprehensive process
of research and its translation into practice.

NURSING
Reference
Atanes, A. C., Andreoni, S., Hirayama, M. S., Montero-Marin, J., Barros, V. V., Ronzani, T.
M., ...&Demarzo, M. M. (2015). Mindfulness, perceived stress, and subjective well-
being: a correlational study in primary care health professionals. BMC complementary
and alternative medicine, 15(1), 303.
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
Houser, J. (2016). Nursing research: Reading, using and creating evidence. Jones & Bartlett
Learning. USA.
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://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.08.023
Nieswiadomy, R. M., & Bailey, C. (2017). Foundations of nursing research. Pearson. UK.
Tappen, R. M. (2015). Advanced nursing research.Jones & Bartlett Publishers.USA.