Using the novel functional purchase task to examine prescription stimulant drug effect preferences in college students.

Nonmedical prescription stimulant use (NMPSU) is a rising trend among college-age adults (18-25 years old). Survey research has identified several reasons for use, including enhancing cognitive, athletic, and social performance. Less is known about how relative reinforcing value differs based on the self-reported reasons for use. The commodity purchase task (CPT) is used to assess demand for substances such as alcohol and cigarettes and has been extended for NMPSU among college student users. However, this work has not been replicated for NMPSU or expanded to determine how reason for use affects drug demand. The aim of this study was to develop a novel functional purchase task (FPT) to measure demand for preferred stimulant-like drug effects (e.g., focus, academic achievement, energy). Undergraduate students (n = 116) recruited from two universities who endorsed lifetime NMPSU completed five hypothetical stimulant purchase tasks, one for stimulant medication and four based on their ordinal ranking of eight possible reasons for stimulant use. Results support using a CPT to measure the reinforcing value of prescription stimulants and found demand predicts past year NMPSU, but not other variables associated with use. Furthermore, there are multiple reinforcing functions of NMPSU among college students, and more preferred reasons for use corresponded with higher demand intensity and inelasticity on the FPT at the aggregate level but less so at the individual participant level. These results suggest the need for further work exploring the utility of a functional approach to measure demand as reinforcing value. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Beliefs related to health care incentives: Comparison of substance use disorder treatment providers, medical treatment providers, and a public sample.

This study surveyed substance use disorder (SUD) treatment providers, medical treatment providers, and a public sample about beliefs regarding health care incentives to explore differences among the groups and across health disorders for which research has demonstrated incentives improve outcomes. Six hundred participants (n = 200/group) completed the Provider Survey of Incentives. The study found between group differences for positive and negative beliefs. The public sample was highest on the positive beliefs subscale (M = 3.81), followed by SUD (M = 3.63) and medical treatment providers (M = 3.48; F(2, 597) = 20.09, p < .001). The medical treatment providers were highest on the negative beliefs subscale (M = 2.91), compared to the public sample (M = 2.77) and SUD treatment providers (M = 2.65; F(2, 597) = 7.521, p < .001). Endorsement of incentives to treat medical disorders was similar across the groups, with obesity the most endorsed disorder. In contrast, endorsement of incentives to treat SUDs differed across groups, except for smoking. The SUD treatment providers were almost twice as likely as the public sample (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.27-2.59) and the public sample almost twice as likely as the medical treatment providers (OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.24-2.47) to endorse the use of incentives to treat more SUDs. Medical treatment providers were also the least likely to endorse incentives to treat both legal and illicit substance use. These findings suggest that incentive programs have good acceptability among SUD treatment providers and the public, but medical treatment providers are less accepting of incentive programs. This study provides evidence that incentive-based interventions are acceptable to the public and is the first to document specific objections that individuals disseminating incentive interventions will most likely face when introducing them in medical settings.