Health Care Inquiry for BMC Medical Ethics -myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theHealth Care Inquiry for BMC Medical Ethics. Answer: Introduction Do stimulants increase academic performance in university students? This is a critical question that sits in the mind of many health researchers and while most of the younger people would very much shoot first and ask questions later, it is necessary to arrive at a concrete conclusion before deciding on the best way forward. This paper seeks to weigh out the best option that should be kept to as seen from different sources. It is without a doubt that evolution is still an ongoing process only that this time it is of a mental kind. A cognitive progression continues in modern man as he continues to make his life simpler. Gone are the days when Roman soldiers had their limbs amputated without anesthesia as they got subjected to the gruesome process of primitive surgery of the times gone. Evidence One Hildt, E., Lieb, K., Franke, A. G. (2014). Life context of pharmacological academic performance enhancement among university students a qualitative approach. BMC Medical Ethics, 15(1), 23-23. Authorship In their research paper, (Hildt et al., 2014) had a face to face interview with a sample of 18 university students who used cognitive enhancement drugs prescribed to which they arrived at the conclusion that not only does prescription stimulants for performance enhancement among university students is of no critical relevance as it is not an isolated phenomenon, it also gives the students the ability to balance their time between school life and their time off. The research subjects claimed that the use of nootropics enabled them to cope with memorizing class work better, enable them to have a proper management of time and generally, it increased their motivation. Research Aims Broadly speaking, the research outcomes supported the use of the nootropics as they also boosted the students life outside of school. However, it should be noted that the person involved was always under pressure to use the drugs. This pressure would most likely end badly for the student suppose she did not keep up with her routine. The drugs boosted memory and increased motivation in its use but there is also a possibility for creating dependency on the individual. This means that the student in question must regularly take the pills failure to which he might succumb to inconsistencies in his school work. It is these negative effects that the research papers failed to show. Design The research was based on six categories: use of the stimulant beyond academic performance enhancement, timing the consumption, objective results academically, the side effect, pressure and the subjective experience of enhancement which was concluded to be leaning greatly on the positive side of the user experience with excellent results. Findings It should be noted that the conclusion they arrived at supports the use of the drugs among the students as there was no inconsistency in the students subjective experiences and their objective academic results (Richardson et al,. 2016). This statement means that the test subjects educational efforts translated equally to their academic result at the end of the semester. Before, it was noted that memorizing class work became easier while they were on the pills. One must consider whether this is really the case. To answer this, a little psychology should be put into context. The mind, as it is, is complex. There have been instances of people walking on hot coals without wincing, or of monks making steam come from their bodies after splashing cold water on them. All these instances narrow down to one belief system; mind over matter. Strengths and weaknesses According to Sir Charles Lyell, our improbable ability to reason shows us our ever-increasing dominion of our mind over matter, philosophers would argue likewise. Even monks are in the same line of thought; it is why they are monks after all. But how does this apply in this case? Think about it, anyone can do what he believes he can do. Give a leper a pill for malaria and you will see him get cured because he believed it would; its all mind over matter here. However, placebo effect doesnt give us concrete grounds for a conclusion. Still, psychology gives us an opening for argument. There are three keywords that the test subjects mentioned: boosting memory, proper time management, and excellent motivation. Psychologically speaking, all work and no play make the mind dull and unproductive. We need to keep the reward centers of our brains active to get motivated to work even more.it is all a cycle, we work, we reap the fruits and if they are good, we yearn for more. Still, one must keep an open mind here. Munro, B. A., Weyandt, L. L., Marraccini, M. E., Oster, D. R. (2017). The relationship between nonmedical use of prescription stimulants, executive functioning and academic outcomes. Addictive Behaviors, 65, 250-257. doi: https://ift.tt/2fDSHfZ Authorship In the research paper, (Munro et al., 2017) deduced that of the 308 test subjects of their research study, only a 19% used the nootropics without prescription. They were also able to come up with several theories as to this deduction, chief of which is effective functionality (EF). EF is the ability of a student to be able to plan, self-regulate and become goal-oriented in their studies. Research Aims The main aim of the research study carried out by Munro and his team was to advocate against the use of the cognitive enhancing drugs prescribed (Munro et al, 2017). This is because the subjects with low EF had a reported case of using the drugs with translated in their GPA scores becoming lower. This did not change no matter how much of the drugs they used. There is an explanation to this. Having a low EF means that there is a low cognitive flexibility within the individual, which also means that there are low self-programming and no overall goal-directed behavior. The students expected that by using the drugs, their mental prowess gets automatically boosted. They put no effort in trying to study as they have not properly planned out their days well. Eventually, they lose sight of why they took the pills in the first place and thus their motivation gets significantly reduced and thus their overall GPA scores. Design (Hildt et al, 2014) used a one to one interview with the test subjects to arrive at their findings. A one to one interview is not a reliable source of information as there is always room for errors with the interviewees lying suppose the question hurts their feeling which was probably one of the most likely cases here (Malik et al, 2015). The researchers were only told what they wanted to hear and the likeliness of the sources being reliable was not considered. However, the results proved to be consistent in the end and it is from this that a conclusion was arrived at. Findings It was discovered that students with low EF succumbed to using smart pills due to their problems with keeping up with themselves and their studies. Based on their GPAs and BDEFS the researchers could conclude that using smart pills prescribed had a significant relationship between executive functioning and their overall GPA scores (Hajbaghery, 2005). This second research study stands against the use of the nootropic without a doctors prescription. Strengths and weaknesses (Munro et al, 2017) carried out the research broader with the 308 test subjects coming from six different public institutions and the methods used evidence based on their school performance at the end of the semester. The evidence obtained was, therefore, more conclusive and certain than the latter research findings. Barriers for the application of evidence in practice The two research outcomes are contradictory. Whereas one seeks to stand for the use of the cognitive enhancing drugs, the other strongly advocates against it on the grounds of being prescribed to the user. The first research outcome came out positive but the methods that were followed are not reliable. Even so, it still supports the use of the drugs if the user has a prescription and has the advice on which drug to use from the doctor. However, one must not expect the best outcomes from using as there is a lot of things involved, chief among them arising from the commitment that the user puts into his school work. How closely the research studies provided align with the PICO questions To answer this question, it is necessary to go deeper than the two research papers. The performance enhancing drugs trace their history to ADHD. They were used to enable people with this mental condition to cope and can lead a normal life and eventually, it was realized that it boosted attention and memory and thus it became common among college students. Today, the advancement in the medical field has led to a multitude of magnificent discoveries that makes us gods in a practical way. There exist pills for everything; ones for stopping pregnancy; ones to induce sleep and even those that boost the brain and memory capacity. It is the latter kind, the nootropics that are of interest. Currently, there are several brain supplement drugs sold over the counter and marketed for their abilities (Barkley, 2011). However, most of them are not prescribed by doctors and have found their way to the public particularly students. Their marketing is based on several speculations most of which are strongly advised against by professional doctors. The use of brain enhancement drugs has more antagonistic effects as they have positive effects on the plus side, they enable one to be motivated and improve time management but on the other hand, they might be dangerous (Bamberger et al, 2011). Besides worsening underlying mental conditions of the patient, there is room for other adverse effects. For one, the alter brain chemistry which is how they function. These drugs function by opening more serotonin receptors which the brain translates as improving more body activity. This means that the user becomes more active which possibly alters with the sleeping cycle of the individual which creates the need to use sleeping pills. Dependence is also another issue. Constant use means that the individual lives in a state where he cannot function without using the drugs at any given time. Eventually, the person succumbs to addiction and adverse withdrawal effects when the individual tries to opt out. Dependency is also linked to overdose which is a life risk. Ethically, taking brain-enhancing drugs is not the best way. The brain is the most complex organ in the human body thus using substances to alter its normal functioning to seek good grades is not worth it in the end. Moreover, everything used to alter the normal mental state of a human being all have very negative side effects both to the individual and to the community. Take illegal drugs for example. Conclusion In conclusion, the use of brain enhancing drugs, prescribe or otherwise, is not the best way to go for a student more so a medicine scholar as it beats the reason for learning in the end. Learning is the process of creating people who have proven to qualify for the field that they studied for. Proper time management is always of the essence for a scholar as it is what it all narrows down to in the end. References Bamberger, M., Rugh, J., Mabry, L. (2011). RealWorld evaluation: Working under budget, time, data, and political constraints. sage. Barkley, R, A. (2011). The Barkley deficits in executive functioning scale. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Chan, G. K., Barnason, S., Dakin, C. L., Gillespie, G., Kamienski, M. C., Stapleton, S., ... Li, S. (2011). Barriers and perceived needs for understanding and using research among emergency nurses. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 37(1), 24-31. Elfil, M., Negida, A. (2017). Sampling methods in Clinical Research; an Educational Review. Emergency, 5(1), e52. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325924/ Greenhalgh, T.M., Bidewell, J., Crisp, E., Lambros, A., Warland, J. (2017). Understanding research methods for evidence-based practice in health 1e Wileyplus learning space Wiley e-text powered by Vitalsource. Wiley. Retrieved from https://ift.tt/2xjnxVh 1ACUsearch_scope=61ACU_Alltab=61acu_alllang=en_US Hajbaghery, M. A., Salsali, M. (2005). A model for empowerment of nursing in Iran. BMC health services research, 5(1), 24.Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-5-24 Hildt, E., Lieb, K., Franke, A. G. (2014). Life context of pharmacological academic performance enhancement among university students a qualitative approach. BMC Medical Ethics, 15(1), 23-23. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-15-23 Kajermo, K. N., Undn, M., Gardulf, A., Eriksson, L. E., Orton, M. L., Arnetz, B. B., Nordstrm, G. (2008). Predictors of nurses perceptions of barriers to research utilization. Journal of Nursing Management, 16(3), 305-314. Malik, G., McKenna, L., Plummer, V. (2015). Perceived knowledge, skills, attitude and contextual factors affecting evidence?based practice among nurse educators, clinical coaches and nurse specialists. International journal of nursing practice, 21(S2), 46-57. Moore, D. R., Burgard, D. A., Larson, R. G., Ferm, M. (2014). Psychostimulant use among college students during periods of high and low stress: an interdisciplinary approach utilizing both self-report and unobtrusive chemical sample data. Addictive behaviors, 39(5), 987-993. Retrieved from https://www.pugetsound.edu/files/resources/addictive-behaviors-revise-resubmit_rev.pdf Munro, B. A., Weyandt, L. L., Marraccini, M. E., Oster, D. R. (2017). The relationship between nonmedical use of prescription stimulants, executive functioning and academic outcomes. Addictive Behaviors, 65, 250-257. Richardson-Tench, M., Taylor, B., Kermode, S., Roberts, K. (2016). Inquiry in health care (5th [ACU] ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning. Suresh, K., Thomas, S. V., Suresh, G. (2011). Design, data analysis and sampling techniques for clinical research. Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology, 14(4), 287. Yensen, J. (2013 J. Nurs. Inform. 17(3). Retrieved from PICO search strategies.