The Use of Caffeinated Substances by Surgeons for Cognitive Enhancement.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of coffee, caffeinated drinks, and caffeine tablets for pharmacological cognitive enhancement (CE) among surgeons. BACKGROUND: Surgeons have demanding workloads, and the resulting fatigue and concentration deficits can lead to medical errors. Some surgeons use substances that promote wakefulness to counteract these effects. METHODS: A total of 3306 surgeons who attended 5 international conferences in 2011 were surveyed regarding their use of coffee, caffeinated drinks, and caffeine tablets for CE and potential factors derived from professional and private life using an anonymous self-report questionnaire. In this study, we were only interested in surgeons working in hospitals; therefore, 951 questionnaires were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The most prevalent reason for using caffeine of any kind was to reduce fatigue (54.3%). Further prevalent reasons are working the night shift (32.2%) and overly long and excessive work hours (31.7%). Lifetime, past-year, past-month, and past-week prevalence was 66.8%, 61.9%, 56.9%, and 50.5%, for coffee use; 24.2%, 15.4%, 9.9%, and 6.1%, for caffeinated drinks; and 12.6%, 5.9%, 4.7%, and 3.8%, respectively, for caffeine tablets. Caffeine use was associated with lower age, male sex, divorced marital status, living with children, lack of satisfaction with professional status, pressure to perform in private life, and pressure perceived to be harmful to one's own health. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons often use caffeinated substances to cope with fatigue and long working hours. Coffee use was more prevalent than the use of caffeinated drinks and caffeine tablets.

Substances used and prevalence rates of pharmacological cognitive enhancement among healthy subjects.

Pharmacological "cognitive enhancement" (CE) is defined as the use of any psychoactive drug with the purpose of enhancing cognition, e.g. regarding attention, concentration or memory by healthy subjects. Substances commonly used as CE drugs can be categorized into three groups of drugs: (1) over-the-counter (OTC) drugs such as coffee, caffeinated drinks/energy drinks, caffeine tablets or Ginkgo biloba; (2) drugs being approved for the treatment of certain disorders and being misused for CE: drugs to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) such as the stimulants methylphenidate (MPH, e.g. Ritalin(®)) or amphetamines (AMPH, e.g. Attentin(®) or Adderall(®)), to treat sleep disorders such as modafinil or to treat Alzheimer's disease such as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors; (3) illicit drugs such as illicit AMPH, e.g. "speed", ecstasy, methamphetamine (crystal meth) or others. Evidence from randomized placebo-controlled trials shows that the abovementioned substances have limited pro-cognitive effects as demonstrated, e.g. regarding increased attention, increased cognitive speed or shortening of reaction times, but on the same time poses considerable safety risks on the consumers. Prevalence rates for the use of CE drugs among healthy subjects show a broad range from less than 1 % up to more than 20 %. The range in prevalence rates estimates results from several factors which are chosen differently in the available survey studies: type of subjects (students, pupils, special professions, etc.), degree of anonymity in the survey (online, face-to-face, etc.), definition of CE and substances used/misused for CE, which are assessed (OTC drugs, prescription, illicit drugs) as well as time periods of use (e.g. ever, during the past year/month/week, etc.). A clear and comprehensive picture of the drugs used for CE by healthy subjects and their adverse events and safety risks as well as comprehensive and comparable international data on the prevalence rates of CE among healthy subjects are of paramount importance for informing policy makers and healthcare professionals about CE.

Use of illicit and prescription drugs for cognitive or mood enhancement among surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons are usually exposed to high workloads leading to fatigue and stress. This not only increases the likelihood of mistakes during surgery but also puts pressure on surgeons to use drugs to counteract fatigue, distress, concentration deficits, burnout or symptoms of depression. The prevalence of surgeons taking pharmacological cognitive enhancement (CE) or mood enhancement (ME) drugs has not been systematically assessed so far. METHODS: Surgeons who attended five international conferences in 2011 were surveyed with an anonymous self-report questionnaire (AQ) regarding the use of prescription or illicit drugs for CE and ME and factors associated with their use. The Randomized Response Technique (RRT) was used in addition. The RRT guarantees a high degree of anonymity and confidentiality when a person is asked about stigmatizing issues, such as drug abuse. RESULTS: A total of 3,306 questionnaires were distributed and 1,145 entered statistical analysis (response rate: 36.4%). According to the AQ, 8.9% of all surveyed surgeons confessed to having used a prescription or illicit drug exclusively for CE at least once during lifetime. As one would expect, the prevalence rate assessed by RRT was approximately 2.5-fold higher than that of the AQ (19.9%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 15.9% to 23.9%, N = 1,105). An even larger discrepancy between the RRT and AQ was observed for the use of antidepressants with a 6-fold higher prevalence (15.1%; 95% CI, 11.3% to 19.0%, N = 1,099) as compared to 2.4% with the AQ. Finally, logistic regression analysis revealed that pressure to perform at work (odds ratio (OR): 1.290; 95% CI, 1.000 to 1.666; P = 0.05) or in private life (OR: 1.266; 95% CI, 1.038 to 1.543; P = 0.02), and gross income (OR: 1.337; 95% CI, 1.091 to 1.640; P = 0.005), were positively associated with the use of drugs for CE or ME. CONCLUSIONS: The use of illicit and prescription drugs for CE or ME is an underestimated phenomenon among surgeons which is generally attributable to high workload, perceived workload, and private stress. Such intake of drugs is associated with attempts to counteract fatigue and loss of concentration. However, drug use for CE may lead to addiction and to overestimation of one's own capabilities, which can put patients at risk. Coping strategies should be taught during medical education.

Pharmacological neuroenhancement and the ability to recover from stress - a representative cross-sectional survey among the German population.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological neuroenhancement (PNE) refers to the use of psychoactive substances without doctor's prescription to enhance cognitive performance or to improve mood. Although some studies have reported that drugs for PNE are also being used to cope with stressful life situations, nothing is known about the relationship of PNE and resilience, i.e. the ability to recover from stress. This study aimed at investigating the relationship of PNE and resilience in the first representative population sample. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey in a representative sample of 1128 adults (age ≥ 18 yrs.) living in Germany was conducted. The use of PNE and related attitudes, perceptions and behaviours were assessed by structured interviews and self-report questionnaires. Stepwise logistic regression with backward elimination was conducted to identify potential risk factors for PNE use. RESULTS: Lifetime prevalence for the use of stimulating prescription drugs without medical indication was 4.3%, 10.2% for stimulating illicit drugs, 20.3% for mood modulating prescription drugs, and 23.4% for cannabis. Coping with stressful situations was more frequently reported as underlying motive for using stimulant or mood modulating prescription drugs than stimulating illicit drugs or cannabis. The individual perceived stress increased the risk of using stimulating prescription drugs (OR: 2.86; 95% Cl: 1.49-5.46) and the individual ability to recover from stress decreased the risk of using any substance for PNE and especially mood modulating prescription drugs (OR: .62; 95% Cl: .47-.81). CONCLUSIONS: The non-medical use of prescription drugs for PNE appears to be more prevalent in subjects who are less resilient to stress. Tailored resilience interventions that improve the ability to adapt to and recover from stressors may prevent the use of prescription medication for PNE. Further research should disentangle the association between psychological resilience and PNE as well as examine the efficacy of resilience interventions in the prevention of PNE.

Construct Validity and Population-Based Norms of the German Brief Resilience Scale (BRS).

The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) measures the ability to recover from stress. To provide further evidence for construct validity of the German BRS and to determine population-based norms, a large sample (N = 1,128) representative of the German adult population completed a survey including the BRS and instruments measuring perceived stress and the resilience factors optimism, self-efficacy, and locus of control. Confirmatory factor analyses showed best model fit for a five-factor model differentiating the ability to recover from stress from the three resilience factors. On the basis of latent and manifest correlations, convergent and discriminant validity of the BRS were fair to good. Female sex, older age, lower weekly working time, higher perceived stress, lower optimism, and self-efficacy as well as higher external locus of control predicted lower BRS scores, that is, lower ability to recover from stress.

Population-based validation of a German version of the Brief Resilience Scale.

Smith and colleagues developed the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) to assess the individual ability to recover from stress despite significant adversity. This study aimed to validate the German version of the BRS. We used data from a population-based (sample 1: n = 1.481) and a representative (sample 2: n = 1.128) sample of participants from the German general population (age ≥ 18) to assess reliability and validity. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to compare one- and two-factorial models from previous studies with a method-factor model which especially accounts for the wording of the items. Reliability was analyzed. Convergent validity was measured by correlating BRS scores with mental health measures, coping, social support, and optimism. Reliability was good (α = .85, ω = .85 for both samples). The method-factor model showed excellent model fit (sample 1: χ2/df = 7.544; RMSEA = .07; CFI = .99; SRMR = .02; sample 2: χ2/df = 1.166; RMSEA = .01; CFI = 1.00; SRMR = .01) which was significantly better than the one-factor model (Δχ2(4) = 172.71, p < .001) or the two-factor model (Δχ2(3) = 31.16, p < .001). The BRS was positively correlated with well-being, social support, optimism, and the coping strategies active coping, positive reframing, acceptance, and humor. It was negatively correlated with somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction, depression, and the coping strategies religion, denial, venting, substance use, and self-blame. To conclude, our results provide evidence for the reliability and validity of the German adaptation of the BRS as well as the unidimensional structure of the scale once method effects are accounted for.

Reflections on Addiction in Students Using Stimulants for Neuroenhancement: A Preliminary Interview Study.

The use of stimulants for the purpose of pharmacological neuroenhancement (NE) among students is a subject of increasing public awareness. The risk of addiction development by stimulant use for NE is still unanswered. Therefore, face-to-face interviews were carried out among 18 university students experienced in the nonmedical use of methylphenidate and amphetamines for NE assessing aspects of addiction. Interviews were tape-recorded, verbatim-transcribed, and analyzed using a qualitative approach. The interviews showed that participants--the majority had current or lifetime diagnoses of misuse or addiction to alcohol or cannabis-reported an awareness of the risk of addiction development associated with stimulant use and reported various effects which may increase their likelihood of future stimulant use, for example, euphoric effects, increase of self-confidence, and motivation. They also cited measures to counteract the development of addiction as well as measures taken to normalize again after stimulant use. Students were convinced of having control over their stimulant use and of not becoming addicted to stimulants used for NE. We can conclude that behavior and beliefs of the students in our sample appear to be risky in terms of addiction development. However, long-term empirical research is needed to estimate the true risk of addiction.