A mixed methods investigation of non-medical prescription stimulant use to promote wakefulness at an Atlantic Canadian university
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is a mixed-methods investigation into the non-medical use of prescription stimulants for the purpose of staying awake among students at Memorial University of Newfoundland. The quantitative part of the study involved a comprehensive online survey, which asked for information regarding demographic characteristics and substance use, and included standardized measures of sleep, mental health and attitudes towards non-medical use of prescription drugs. A total of 3,699 participants were recruited and the clean, complete data for 3,160 participants was used for the analysis. The prevalence of non-medical use of prescription stimulants for the purpose of staying awake was 3.1%. The factors associated with such use were alcohol, tobacco and nicotine vapour use, poor sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, and more liberal attitudes towards the non-medical use of prescription drugs. The factors associated with these more liberal attitudes include male gender, non-White ethnicity, international student status, alcohol, tobacco, and nicotine use, depressive symptoms and clinical level of anxiety symptoms. Factors associated with less liberal attitudes were part-time study and borderline level of anxiety symptoms. In order to provide more insight into why students use prescription stimulants for staying awake, ten semi-structured interviews were conducted. Participants reported obtaining the stimulants from friends who had prescriptions for ADHD, and stated that they were using them to stay awake longer in order to study, indicating that the underlying motive for misuse was academic stress.Participants recognized that such use could impact sleep and reported using exercise and meditation as alternatives to stimulant use, but admitted that stimulants were much more effective in the short-term. Any prevention/intervention programs should involve promoting sleep hygiene and academic skills, as well as highlighting the negative effects of non-medical prescription stimulant use. These programs should be aimed at the aforementioned groups of students who are at most risk of engaging in such use.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".