Concept generation of cognitive enhancement: healthcare professionals' approach towards the impact and utilization of cognitive enhancers in academic context.

Brain function augmentation Cognitive enhancers Healthcare professionals Neuroenhancement Pakistan

Journal

Heliyon
ISSN: 2405-8440
Titre abrégé: Heliyon
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101672560

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Historique:
received: 02 07 2021
revised: 11 09 2021
accepted: 29 09 2021
entrez: 18 10 2021
pubmed: 19 10 2021
medline: 19 10 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Cognitive enhancers (CEs) encompass a wide range of drugs, including prescription medications for attention deficit disorders and pharmacological compounds for cognitive enhancement. It is well-documented that the students are the leading cohort of CEs users. Exploring how healthcare professionals perceive the use of CEs for academic accomplishments is significant to understand their encouragement of CE use. Hence, the purpose of the current study was to look at healthcare professionals' attitudes and perceived understanding about the usage of CEs in academic contexts. The study was a quantitative cross-sectional research design conducted in different healthcare and academic settings of Karachi. The respondents were approached either through social media platforms or the official email addresses of their working organizations. Data were collected through a web link of an online questionnaire that included four sections; inquiring about the respondents' demographics characteristics, their knowledge about CEs, their attitudes towards the use and impact of CEs, and their inclination to use a hypothetical prescription-only CE. The response rate of the study was 73.3%. The majority of the respondents negated to permit university students to using CEs for cognitive boost (n = 360, 67.1%), to concentrate (n = 406, 75.7%), to increase vigilance (n = 394, 73.5%) or to mitigate the effects of other medicines (n = 312, 58.2%). The pharmacists were more likely to refute that using CEs by the students is safe (pharmacists 10.8% vs. physicians 8.3%, p=<0.001), beneficial (pharmacists 12.7% vs. physicians 5.3%, p=<0.001), or necessary (pharmacists 17.6% vs. physicians 12.8%, p=<0.001). The major reasons for not encouraging the use of CEs were fear of misuse (n = 510, 95.1%), safety concerns (n = 495, 92.3%), and their consideration for CE as unnecessary medical intervention (n = 441, 82.2%). The findings indicated that overall, respondents have a clear consensus of not letting university students use CEs for cognitive improvement or any other purpose implying that cognitive enhancement is not yet a common or approved medical practice by the healthcare professionals in Pakistan.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34660928
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08118
pii: S2405-8440(21)02221-0
pmc: PMC8503621
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e08118

Informations de copyright

© 2021 The Author(s).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Références

BMC Fam Pract. 2014 Jan 08;15:3
pubmed: 24397728
PLoS One. 2020 Nov 20;15(11):e0241968
pubmed: 33216781
Brain Neurosci Adv. 2019 Feb 15;3:2398212818816018
pubmed: 32166175
Dement Neuropsychol. 2016 Apr-Jun;10(2):134-142
pubmed: 29213444
BMC Med. 2013 Apr 09;11:102
pubmed: 23570256
Public Underst Sci. 2012 Jul;21(5):606-25
pubmed: 23823168
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019 Oct;15(10):1204-1211
pubmed: 30448283
Brain Sci. 2018 Nov 09;8(11):
pubmed: 30423911
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2018 Mar;14(3):309-316
pubmed: 28473230
Br J Pharmacol. 2017 Oct;174(19):3257-3267
pubmed: 28427114
Neurol Clin Pract. 2021 Jun;11(3):e303-e307
pubmed: 34484905
Autism Res. 2018 Mar;11(3):519-530
pubmed: 29286586
Acta Med Port. 2021 Jan 28;:
pubmed: 33507860
Int J Drug Policy. 2018 Aug;58:104-112
pubmed: 29902691
PLoS One. 2010 Dec 14;5(12):e14322
pubmed: 21179461
CMAJ. 2013 Sep 3;185(12):1047-50
pubmed: 23251020
Nature. 2008 Apr 10;452(7188):674-5
pubmed: 18401370
J Psychoactive Drugs. 2013 Sep-Oct;45(4):360-5
pubmed: 24377176
Curr Opin Pediatr. 2018 Jun;30(3):430-437
pubmed: 29538047
Subst Use Misuse. 2017 Sep 19;52(11):1387-1392
pubmed: 28429997
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Mar 23;27(2):19
pubmed: 33759032
Am J Bioeth. 2011 Jan;11(1):3-13
pubmed: 21240795
PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e40047
pubmed: 22768218
AJOB Neurosci. 2020 Oct-Dec;11(4):224-237
pubmed: 33196348

Auteurs

Sadia Shakeel (S)

Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Dow College of Pharmacy, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.

Wajiha Iffat (W)

Department of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Dow College of Pharmacy, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.

Ambreen Qamar (A)

Department of Physiology, Dr. Ishrat Ul Ebad Khan Institute of Oral Health Sciences (DIKIOHS), Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.

Fareeha Butt (F)

Department of Physiology, Dow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.

Faiza Ghuman (F)

Department of Medicine, Dow University Hospital, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.

Imran Ahsan Mallick (I)

Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Dow College of Pharmacy, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.

Anees Ur Rehman (A)

Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan, Multan, Pakistan.

Shazia Jamshed (S)

Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, UniSZA, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia.

Classifications MeSH