Working smart: the use of ‘cognitive enhancers’ by UK University students

Cognitive enhancers include a wide range of substances including prescription medication for attentional deficient disorders and pharmacological substances for cognitive augmentation. Students have recently been identified as the largest cohort of users. Most research on student use of cognitive enhancers has been undertaken in the United States. This study utilised a mixed methods sequential explanatory approach to investigate cognitive enhancer use among UK university students specifically to aid study. A bespoke online survey was distributed throughout the UK. The findings informed the development of a qualitative interview study comprising fifteen participants. In total, 506 responses to the online survey were received from 54 UK institutions. 46% of respondents reported using recreational drugs and 19% reported having used cognitive enhancers. Males were two and a half times more likely to use cognitive enhancers than females. Participants reported various motives for using cognitive enhancers, the most frequent being to meet the demands of coursework, to improve focus or maintain wakefulness. The qualitative findings revealed that cognitive enhancers are widely accessible and are used to enhance performance in terms of motivation, concentration and meeting academic deadlines. The findings of this study will be of interest to a wide range of services within Universities across the UK

Clinical characteristic of patients waitlisted after graft failure versus transplant-näive waitlisted patients after matching 1:5 with replacement.

<p>Clinical characteristic of patients waitlisted after graft failure versus transplant-näive waitlisted patients after matching 1:5 with replacement.</p

Estimated survival curves for death while on the waiting list in both groups adjusted for confounders using competing risk analysis.

<p>Estimated survival curves for death while on the waiting list in both groups adjusted for confounders using competing risk analysis.</p

Proportion of deaths in both groups of waiting-list patients according to time on list.

<p>Overall comparison: chi-square = 42.8; <i>P</i><0.0001 *<i>P</i> = 0.029 vs. transplant-näive waitlisted patients (chi-square = 4.77).</p

Clinical and demographic characteristics of patients waitlisted after allograft failure versus transplant-naïve waitlisted patients.

<p>Clinical and demographic characteristics of patients waitlisted after allograft failure versus transplant-naïve waitlisted patients.</p

Causes of death among patients who remained on the waiting list^a (n = 1876 patients and 446 deaths) after allograft failure versus transplant-naïve waitlisted patients.

<p>Causes of death among patients who remained on the waiting list<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0193091#t003fn001" target="_blank">^a</a> (n = 1876 patients and 446 deaths) after allograft failure versus transplant-naïve waitlisted patients.</p

Multivariate competing risk analysis for the relationship between post-graft failure and mortality in relisted patients for kidney transplantation^a.

<p>Multivariate competing risk analysis for the relationship between post-graft failure and mortality in relisted patients for kidney transplantation<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0193091#t004fn001" target="_blank">^a</a>.</p