The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Prevalence Estimates for Pharmacological Neuroenhancement in Austrian University Students: Its Relation to Health-Related Risk Attitude and the Framing Effect of Caffeine Tablets
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pharmacology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphar.2018.00494 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pavel Dietz, Benedikt Iberl, Emanuel Schuett, Mireille van Poppel, Rolf Ulrich, Matteo Christian Sattler |
| Abstract |
Background: Pharmacological neuroenhancement (PN) is defined as the use of illicit or prescription drugs by healthy individuals for cognitive-enhancing purposes. The present study aimed (i) to investigate whether including caffeine tablets in the definition of PN within a questionnaire increases the PN prevalence estimate (framing effect), (ii) to investigate whether the health-related risk attitude is increased in students who use PN. Materials and methods: Two versions of a paper-and-pencil questionnaire (first version included caffeine tablets in the definition of PN, the second excluded caffeine tablets) were distributed among university students at the University of Graz, Austria. The unrelated question model (UQM) was used to estimate the 12-month PN prevalence and the German version of the 30-item Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale to assess the health-related risk attitude. Moreover, large-sample z-tests (α = 0.05) were performed for comparing the PN prevalence estimates of two groups. Results: Two thousand four hundred and eighty-nine questionnaires were distributed and 2,284 (91.8%) questionnaires were included in analysis. The overall PN prevalence estimate for all students was 11.9%. One-tailed large-sample z-tests revealed that the PN estimate for students with higher health-related risk attitude was significantly higher compared to students with lower health-related risk attitude (15.6 vs. 8.5%; z = 2.65, p = 0.004). Furthermore, when caffeine tablets were included into the example of PN, the prevalence estimate of PN was significantly higher compared to the version without caffeine tablets (14.9 vs. 9.0%; z = 2.20, p = 0.014). Discussion: This study revealed that the PN prevalence estimate increases when caffeine tablets are included in the definition of PN. Therefore, future studies investigating the prevalence of, and predictors for, PN should be performed and interpreted with respect to potential framing effects. This study further revealed that the PN prevalence estimate is increased in students with a higher health-related risk attitude compared to students with a lower one. Therefore, future education and prevention programs addressing PN in the collective of students should not only inform about potential side effects of its use but also address the limited effects on cognition and potential alternatives of PN. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 17% |
| Psychology | 5 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 19% |
| Unknown | 24 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,472,031
of 26,222,113 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#4,907
of 20,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,629
of 344,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#108
of 389 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,222,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,297 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 389 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.