College students' perceived benefit-to-risk tradeoffs for nonmedical use of prescription stimulants: Implications for intervention designs

Thumbnail Image

Files

nihms931562.pdf (552.49 KB)

Links to Files

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306460317304562#!

Permanent Link

http://hdl.handle.net/11603/20983

Collections

UMBC Psychology Department
UMBC Faculty Collection

Author/Creator

Author/Creator ORCID

Date

2017-12-06

Type of Work

journal articles postprints
Text

Department

Program

Citation of Original Publication

Ross, Melissa M.; Arria, Amelia M.; Brown, Jessica P.; Mullins, C. Daniel; Schiffman, Jason; Simoni-Wastila, Linda; dosReis, Susan; College students' perceived benefit-to-risk tradeoffs for nonmedical use of prescription stimulants: Implications for intervention designs; Addictive Behaviors; Volume 79, 2017, Pages 45-51; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306460317304562#!

Rights

This item is likely protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. Unless on a Creative Commons license, for uses protected by Copyright Law, contact the copyright holder or the author.
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Subjects

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.