Melissa M Ross1, Amelia M Arria2, Jessica P Brown3, C Daniel Mullins4, Jason Schiffman5, Linda Simoni-Wastila4, Susan dosReis4. 1. University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, United States. Electronic address: mross@umaryland.edu. 2. University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park, MD, United States. 3. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States. 4. University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, United States. 5. University of Maryland Baltimore County, Catonsville, MD, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Few studies have examined the benefit-to-risk tradeoffs undergraduate students perceive when engaging in the nonmedical use of prescription stimulants (NPS). This study examined the variation in college students' perceived risks and benefits for NPS. METHODS: An online survey was administered to 259 college students (ages 18-25) at six public universities who had engaged in NPS in the past year. A best-worst scaling (BWS) instrument assessed the relative importance of 12 perceived benefits and risks of NPS. Probabilities of selection of each factor and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for the aggregate sample and latent preference subgroups were derived using latent class analysis (LCA). RESULTS: For the aggregate sample, the strongest motivators for NPS were better grades (m=2.33, p<0.05) and meeting deadlines (m=1.62, p<0.05). The LCA generated four subgroups: 1) assuredly performance-driven (n=64; 25%), who prioritized academic performance and nonacademic responsibilities; 2) cautiously grade/career-oriented (n=117; 45%), who balanced academic improvements with expulsion and limiting future career opportunities; 3) risk-averse (n=64; 25%), who prioritized expulsion above academic improvements; and 4) recreational (n=14; 5%), who most valued having fun partying. CONCLUSIONS: These findings identify subgroups of college NPS users that could have vastly different trajectories in terms of future drug use and college performance. Given this heterogeneity among students regarding perceived risks and benefits of NPS, interventions should be designed to assess motives and provide personalized feedback. Further research is needed with larger, more diverse samples and to assess the prospective stability of perceived risks and benefits.
OBJECTIVES: Few studies have examined the benefit-to-risk tradeoffs undergraduate students perceive when engaging in the nonmedical use of prescription stimulants (NPS). This study examined the variation in college students' perceived risks and benefits for NPS. METHODS: An online survey was administered to 259 college students (ages 18-25) at six public universities who had engaged in NPS in the past year. A best-worst scaling (BWS) instrument assessed the relative importance of 12 perceived benefits and risks of NPS. Probabilities of selection of each factor and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for the aggregate sample and latent preference subgroups were derived using latent class analysis (LCA). RESULTS: For the aggregate sample, the strongest motivators for NPS were better grades (m=2.33, p<0.05) and meeting deadlines (m=1.62, p<0.05). The LCA generated four subgroups: 1) assuredly performance-driven (n=64; 25%), who prioritized academic performance and nonacademic responsibilities; 2) cautiously grade/career-oriented (n=117; 45%), who balanced academic improvements with expulsion and limiting future career opportunities; 3) risk-averse (n=64; 25%), who prioritized expulsion above academic improvements; and 4) recreational (n=14; 5%), who most valued having fun partying. CONCLUSIONS: These findings identify subgroups of college NPS users that could have vastly different trajectories in terms of future drug use and college performance. Given this heterogeneity among students regarding perceived risks and benefits of NPS, interventions should be designed to assess motives and provide personalized feedback. Further research is needed with larger, more diverse samples and to assess the prospective stability of perceived risks and benefits.
Authors: Sean Esteban McCabe; Brady T West; Philip Veliz; Kenneth A Frank; Carol J Boyd Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2014-08-22 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Dalissa R Sepúlveda; Lisl M Thomas; Sean Esteban McCabe; James A Cranford; Carol J Boyd; Christian J Teter Journal: J Pharm Pract Date: 2011-11-17
Authors: Amelia M Arria; Kimberly M Caldeira; Kathryn B Vincent; Kevin E O'Grady; M Dolores Cimini; Irene M Geisner; Nicole Fossos-Wong; Jason R Kilmer; Mary E Larimer Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Mary E Larimer; Christine M Lee; Jason R Kilmer; Patricia M Fabiano; Christopher B Stark; Irene M Geisner; Kimberly A Mallett; Ty W Lostutter; Jessica M Cronce; Maggie Feeney; Clayton Neighbors Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2007-04
Authors: Amelia M Arria; Kimberly M Caldeira; Kevin E O'Grady; Kathryn B Vincent; Erin P Johnson; Eric D Wish Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: Samantha Dick; Eadaoin Whelan; Martin P Davoren; Samantha Dockray; Ciara Heavin; Conor Linehan; Michael Byrne Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-09-09 Impact factor: 3.295