Nonmedical Use of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Medication Among Secondary School Students in The Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: No studies in Europe have assessed the extent of nonmedical attention-deficit/hyperactivitiy disorder (ADHD) medication use among adolescents, while also, in Europe, prescribing of these medicines has increased. Our objective was to study the prevalence and motives for nonmedical ADHD medication use among secondary school students in the Netherlands. METHODS: Adolescent students 10-19 years of age from six secondary schools were invited to complete an online survey on use of ADHD medication, tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. Nonmedical ADHD medication use was defined as self-reported use without a prescription during the previous 12 months. RESULTS: Survey data were available for 777 students (15% response rate). The overall proportion of students self-reporting nonmedical ADHD medication use was 1.2% (n = 9), which represented almost 20% of the adolescents who reported ADHD medication use (n = 49). Most adolescents reported self-medication or enhancing study performance as motives for ADHD medication use. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of the study sample reporting nonmedical ADHD medication use in our study is lower compared with that in previous research conducted in the United States and Canada; however, on a population-based level, there might be a considerable proportion of recreational users.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".