Arria Amelia M, Caldeira Kimberly M, Vincent Kathryn B, O'Grady Kevin E, Cimini M Dolores, Geisner Irene M, Fossos-Wong Nicole, Kilmer Jason R, Larimer Mary E
Center on Young Adult Health and Development, University of Maryland School of Public Health, Department of Behavioral and Community Health, 2387 School of Public Health Building, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, 3109 Biology-Psychology Building, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
Addict Behav. 2017 Feb;65:245-249. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.07.016. Epub 2016 Jul 19.
Many college students engage in nonmedical use of prescription stimulants (NPS) because they believe it provides academic benefits, but studies are lacking to support or refute this belief.
Using a longitudinal design, 898 undergraduates who did not have an ADHD diagnosis were studied. Year 3 GPA (from college records) of four groups was compared: Abstainers (did not engage in NPS either year; 68.8%); Initiators (NPS in Year 3 but not Year 2; 8.7%); Desisters (NPS in Year 2 but not Year 3; 5.8%); and Persisters (NPS in both years; 16.7%). Generalized estimating equations regression was used to estimate the association between NPS and change in GPA, controlling for sex and Year 2 GPA.
GPA increased significantly within Abstainers (p<0.05), but did not change significantly within the other groups. Overall, the relationship between NPS pattern group and change in GPA was not statistically significant (p=0.081). NPS was generally infrequent, but Persisters used more frequently than Desisters (11.7 versus 3.4days in Year 2) and Initiators (13.6 versus 4.0days in Year 3, both ps<0.001), controlling for sex and Year 2 GPA.
We cannot rule out the possibility that NPS prevented declines in GPA, but we can conclude that students who engaged in NPS showed no increases in their GPAs and gained no detectable advantages over their peers. The results suggest that prevention and intervention strategies should emphasize that the promise of academic benefits from NPS is likely illusory.
许多大学生非医疗性使用处方兴奋剂(NPS),因为他们认为这能带来学业上的好处,但缺乏支持或反驳这一观点的研究。
采用纵向设计,对898名未被诊断患有注意力缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)的本科生进行研究。比较了四组学生三年级时的平均绩点(GPA,来自大学记录): Abstainers组(两年均未使用NPS;68.8%); Initiators组(三年级使用NPS但二年级未使用;8.7%); Desisters组(二年级使用NPS但三年级未使用;5.8%); Persisters组(两年均使用NPS;16.7%)。使用广义估计方程回归来估计NPS与GPA变化之间的关联,并控制性别和二年级GPA。
Abstainers组的GPA显著提高(p<0.05),但其他组没有显著变化。总体而言,NPS模式组与GPA变化之间的关系无统计学意义(p = 0.081)。NPS的使用通常不频繁,但在控制性别和二年级GPA后,Persisters组比Desisters组使用更频繁(二年级分别为11.7天和3.4天),Initiators组也比Desisters组使用更频繁(三年级分别为13.6天和4.0天,p均<0.001)。
我们不能排除NPS阻止GPA下降的可能性,但可以得出结论,使用NPS的学生GPA没有提高,也没有比同龄人获得明显优势。结果表明,预防和干预策略应强调,NPS带来学业好处的承诺可能是虚幻的。