Context of Pharmacological Academic Performance †MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Context of Pharmacological Academic Performance. Answer: Introduction The aim of the assignment is to demonstrate the ability to reflect on the health scenario in the case study of Wasim. Wasim is a university student, and while using Facebook, he finds his friends talking about purchasing smart drugs. He learns from them these drugs are used to increase performance in exams. Upon personal investigation, he finds that these drugs are prescribed for conditions like ADHD, which is not diagnosed in any of his friends case. Wasim decided to evaluate evidence pertaining to use of such drugs and find if what his friends are claiming are true. The objective of the essay is to address the health question developed by Wasim and critically evaluate the evidence provided in relation to the question. The essay initially analyses the quality of the evidence provided followed by the discussion on the factors influencing the implementation of the evidence. The essay highlights the PICO elements and lastly discuses if the evidence aligns with the PICO question. The research study by Hildt et al. (2014), involves three authors. Each of the authors belongs to the different professional background. The first author is Elisabeth Hildt. She works at Illinois Institute of Technology at centre for Study of Ethics. She works as professor and director. She is an expert in neuroscience and especially deals with cognitive studies. Her research is based on ethical and philosophical issues in the subject. The second author is Klaus Lieb, working as professor and director at Mainz University in the Psychiatry and Psychotherapy department. The third author of the research study is AndreasGnterFranke also works in the same department as the second author as a trainee (Hildt et al. 2014). The research has no conflict of interest in regards to authors of paper. The appropriate and sufficient details on authorship are the strength of the study as it indicates the credibility of research. It indicates the readers about the reliability of the research. The research study has considered the ethical issues which also add to the strength of the study (LoBiondo-Wood Haber, 2017). It can be judged that the authors collaborating in the study are highly qualified. It can be interpreted that their affiliations and expertise is relevant to conduct the study in the area of smart drugs. The aim of the paper is clearly sated which is to investigate the prescription, and illicit stimulants use by the university students for academic performance in a broad context. The research question is not stated. It can be interpreted from the background that the research question is to know if the cognitive enhancement solely represents the use of drugs or its serves any other purpose too. The aims and objectives of the paper justify the need of the study. Since there is insufficient literature pertaining to use of smart drugs and the real world effects associated with it, the research study aims to address the gap in this area. Other than the academic enhancement the study also aims to identify additional benefits of smart drugs. It can be considered the strength of the study. However, lack of clear research question or hypothesis is the weakness of the study. It is because the aim is broad and having specific research question would have been convenient for readers (OBrien et al., 2014). The paper uses the qualitative research paradigm. The data collection instrument is to conduct semi-structured interviews in a face-to-face setting. The methodology and the methods used in the study are justified. It is the strength of the study. According to Mertens (2014), qualitative interviews are appropriate in order to explore the perceptions of the participants and interaction with the stimulants for enhancing the academic performance (Brannen, 2017). Semi-structured interviews used for data collection is justified as it provides insights of the students opinions and beliefs of using stimulants. It is the strength of the research paper. The participants of the study are students of MainzUniversity who are recruited anonymously via email. These participants have been confirmed to take prescription or illicit (psycho-) stimulants. A total of 18 participants were chosen. The participant's size is justified as a qualitative interview is time-consuming method. It is not possible to consider large sample size. There is a chance of potential bias with the participant's self-selection process (McCusker Gunaydin, 2015). This may be considered the weakness of the study. The findings reveal that cognitive enhancement does not solely represent the intake of stimulants for better academic results. The other benefits of stimulants found include leading an active life, well balancing the academics and other liabilities, effective time management, cope up with memorising, maximise time, and increase motivation. The strength of the study is the findings that address the research aims. The weakness of the study is the discrepancy related to the subjective and the objective outcomes (Hildt et al., 2014). In the quantitative study by (Munro et al., 2017), Bailey A. Munro is the first author and is the expert of Neuroscience subject. The first and the second author Lisa L. Weyandt, work at University of Rhode Island, United States. The later is professor in the department of psychology. Marisa E. Marraccin is the third author. She is the professor at Alpert Medical School of Brown University and researches research in Bradley Hasbro Research Centre, at University of Rhode Island. The fourth author of the paper is Danielle R. Oster, who also works in the same university as previous two authors and is the professor of psychology. There are no conflicts of interest. It can be judged that the authors collaborating in the study are highly qualified to conduct research on human cognitive function. Their affiliations and expertise is relevant to conduct the study in the area of smart drugs. It constitutes the strength of the study. The appropriate and sufficient details on authorship indicate the credibility and reliability of research. The weakness of the study is lack of details on ethical consideration (Creswell Poth, 2017). The research aims to investigate the relationship between use of stimulants by university students non-medically and executive function. The author clearly stated the first hypothesis as students are taking the stimulants to overcome executive deficits. The author also stated the second hypothesis as use of stimulants non-medically may moderate the relationship between academic performance and executive function. The researchers did justify the need of the study by conducting the thorough literature review on how academic outcomes are decreased by poor executive skills such as planning, orientation, self-regulation, and goal-oriented behaviour adding to strength of the study (LoBiondo-Wood Haber, 2017). The survey method is justified for this research this instrument is effective in collecting the self-report data from the research participants and assesses the opinions and feelings of research participants. It is appropriate for psychology-based research with broad goals. It is the strength of the study (McCusker Gunaydin, 2015). The participants are university students from six public universities of US and sample size is 308. The drawback of the paper is the use of sample as priority based on the primary aim of the study. Convenience sampling employed may hinder the generalisability of the findings (McCusker Gunaydin, 2015). The study should have proportionate number of participants (white and female). It may constitute the weakness of the study (Munro et al., 2017). Since the study is voluntary, the participants may not be representative of the entire population. The findings reveal that there is a high rate of NMUPS among students with deficits in executive skills and low rate among those without deficits. The executive skills improve with the use of stimulants. There is also high rate of use of stimulants with self-reported deficits, which makes the first hypothesis correct. These results only partially support the second hypothesis as there is no moderation of relation between executive function and grade point average. The results were statistically significant adding to the strength of the article. The findings appear to be slightly reliable due to self-reported data (Brannen, 2017). The results are supported by the National Centre for Research. The weakness of the study includes lack of consideration of the confounding factors and poor statistical significance of the interaction effect. (Munro et al., 2017). There are several barriers to application of the evidence obtained by Wasim. It includes the discrepancy in the subjective and objective data of the participants. Underreporting of data is possible due to quantitative questionnaires. Further, there is a potential bias due to personal response of participants. It is difficult to rule of social desirability. Further, barriers to use of evidence come from size and complexity of qualitative and quantitative research study, which may limit the concluding evidence (Maier Schaub, 2015). Therefore, Wasim may not be able to rely on this evidence or conclude the claims of his friends as true. Without knowing the drug kinetics or pharmacology of stimulants, it is difficult to rely on evidence for personal use (Munro et al., 2017). These four components assist the investigator in identifying the evidence from the literature search that can address specific clinical situation (Richardson et al., 2017). In the PICO question developed by Wasim, The population is University students, Intervention is the Use of stimulants, and The outcome is the academic performance enhancement. The research evidence strongly aligns with the PICO question and its elements. It well addresses the PICO question-Do stimulants increase academic performance in university students? As per the discussion, the stimulants increase academic performance when used by the university students. The driving force for taking these stimulants non-medically is the increase in motivation and executive skills. It may not be beneficial to take smart drugs illicitly as it accompanies ambiguous effects such as substance abuse. Conclusion As per the critical evaluation of the evidence provided, the quality of both the research articles is adequate. It was useful in addressing the PICO question of Wasim. There are both positive and negative aspects of stimulants use among the university students. Stimulants increase the academic performance. It is effective for students diagnosed poor executive functioning skills and with ADHD. It may be harmful to self-reported deficits. It may be harmful for Wasims friends to take these stimulants as they are not diagnosed with ADHD or prescribed for stimulants. Both the quantitative and qualitative research evidence has their own limitations, which acts as barrier in implementing the evidence. References Brannen, J. (Ed.). (2017).Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Routledge. Retrieved from: https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=enlr=id=YSIuDwAAQBAJoi=fndpg=PT6dq=quantitaive++methodology+in+psychology+reaserch+ots=rSS8HcRaK-sig=Xi0NAck_hzqKmDmVD0Uxkd1TQJQ#v=onepageq=quantitaive%20%20methodology%20in%20psychology%20reaserchf=false Creswell, J. W., Poth, C. N. (2017).Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications. Retrieved from: https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=enlr=id=DLbBDQAAQBAJoi=fndpg=PP1dq=need+of+ethics+in+reserch+studyots=-gn93aMPOwsig=Z-NSDbQvaMKjJWu_Ju9cCobjOWQ#v=onepageq=need%20of%20ethics%20in%20reserch%20studyf=false Hildt, E., Lieb, K., Franke, A. G. (2014). Life context of pharmacological academic performance enhancement among university studentsa qualitative approach.BMC medical ethics,vol. 15(1), pp. 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-23 LoBiondo-Wood, G., Haber, J. (2017).Nursing Research-E-Book: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice. Elsevier Health Sciences. Retrieved from: https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=enlr=id=vGclDwAAQBAJoi=fndpg=PP1dq=Nursing+Research-E-Book:+Methods+and+Critical+Appraisal+for+Evidence-Based+Practice.ots=9ISBRBB_i2sig=MhliPjKaZNXxEMaN0DKVcDKkrWo#v=onepageq=Nursing%20Research-E-Book:%20Methods%20and%20Critical%20Appraisal%20for%20Evidence-Based%20Practice.f=false Maier, L. J., Schaub, M. P. (2015). The use of prescription drugs and drugs of abuse for neuroenhancement in Europe.European Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000228. McCusker, K., Gunaydin, S. (2015). Research using qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods and choice based on the research.Perfusion,vol. 30(7), pp. 537-542. Doi: 10.1177/0267659114559116 Mertens, D. M. (2014).Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Sage publications. Retrieved from: https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=enlr=id=VEkXBAAAQBAJoi=fndpg=PP1dq=quantitaive++methodology+in+psychology+reaserch+ots=4_aFHc18njsig=X63TbpR5_r5r1zSJDDtAm8W2AhI#v=onepageq=quantitaive%20%20methodology%20in%20psychology%20reaserchf=false 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,vol. 65, pp. 250-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.08.023 OBrien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.Academic Medicine,vol. 89(9), pp. 1245-1251. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388 Richardson, A., Yarwood, J., Richardson, S. (2017). Expressions of cultural safety in public health nursing practice.Nursing inquiry,vol. 24(1). DOI:10.1111/nin.12171