Search

Background and AimsThe impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have not been equal, with a disproportionate impact among ethnic minority communities. Structural inequalities in social determinants of health such as housing and employment have contributed to COVID-19's impact on deprived communities, including many ethnic minority communities. To compare (1) how the UK government's “social distancing” restrictions and guidance were perceived and implemented by ethnic minority populations compared to white populations, (2) the impact of restrictions and guidance upon these groups.MethodsAn explanatory sequential mixed methods study incorporated a quantitative survey and qualitative semi-structured interviews to explore individual perceptions and experiences of COVID-19 and the national restrictions. Survey participants (n = 1587) were recruited from North West England; 60 (4%) participants were from ethnic minority communities. Forty-nine interviews were conducted; 19 (39%) participants were from ethnic minority communities. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach. Data collection was between April and August 2020.ResultsSignificant differences in demographics and household overcrowding were observed between white vs ethnic minority survey respondents, who were also significantly less confident in their knowledge of COVID-19, less likely to be high-risk drinkers, and marginally more likely to have experienced job loss and/or reduced household income. There were no group differences in wellbeing, perceptions, or nonfinancial impacts. Two inter-related themes included: (1) government guidance, incorporating people's knowledge and understanding of the guidance and their confusion/frustration over messaging; (2) the impacts of restrictions on keyworkers, home-schooling, working from home and changes in lifestyle/wellbeing.ConclusionsFurther research is needed on the long-term impacts of COVID-19 on ethnic minority communities. If policy responses to COVID-19 are to benefit ethnic minority communities, there is a need for future studies to consider fundamental societal issues, such as the role of housing and economic disadvantage.

Supplemental material, Protocol_for_systematic_review for Pain Processing in Psychiatric Conditions: A Systematic Review by Sarah Vaughan, Michelle D. Failla, Helen M. Poole, Mark J. Forshaw, Francis McGlone, Carissa J. Cascio and David J. Moore in Review of General Psychology

Supplemental material, Summary_ASD for Pain Processing in Psychiatric Conditions: A Systematic Review by Sarah Vaughan, Michelle D. Failla, Helen M. Poole, Mark J. Forshaw, Francis McGlone, Carissa J. Cascio and David J. Moore in Review of General Psychology

Supplemental material, Summary_Eating_disorder for Pain Processing in Psychiatric Conditions: A Systematic Review by Sarah Vaughan, Michelle D. Failla, Helen M. Poole, Mark J. Forshaw, Francis McGlone, Carissa J. Cascio and David J. Moore in Review of General Psychology

Supplemental material, Summary_ADHD for Pain Processing in Psychiatric Conditions: A Systematic Review by Sarah Vaughan, Michelle D. Failla, Helen M. Poole, Mark J. Forshaw, Francis McGlone, Carissa J. Cascio and David J. Moore in Review of General Psychology

Supplemental material, Summary_schizophrenia for Pain Processing in Psychiatric Conditions: A Systematic Review by Sarah Vaughan, Michelle D. Failla, Helen M. Poole, Mark J. Forshaw, Francis McGlone, Carissa J. Cascio and David J. Moore in Review of General Psychology

Supplemental material, Summary_PD for Pain Processing in Psychiatric Conditions: A Systematic Review by Sarah Vaughan, Michelle D. Failla, Helen M. Poole, Mark J. Forshaw, Francis McGlone, Carissa J. Cascio and David J. Moore in Review of General Psychology

University students’ use of “smart drugs” during the course of their studies appears to be on the rise. “Smart drugs”, more formally known as nootropics (noo = mind, tropic = to turn or change; Cakic, Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(10), 611–615, 2009; Giurgea & Salama, Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology, 1(3–4), 235–247, 1977), are substances which can be prescribed to improve mental performance, including memory recall, attention, and concentration, amongst other cognitive abilities. Nootropic medications are commonly prescribed to reduce the cognitive deficits associated with a number of medically diagnosed conditions, including vascular dementia, stroke, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and schizophrenia. Whilst these substances may be legitimately prescribed to address cognitive impairments in clinical populations, there has been a notable increase in societal concern over the use of these substances by healthy individuals as means of improving their cognitive performance without a medical prescription. A key risk group for the non-prescribed use of these stimulant nootropic “smart drugs” are university students, who may use substances such as methylphenidate (“Ritalin”), wakefulness-promoting medications, or eugeroics (e.g. modafinil), as well as various legal substances, nutraceuticals, and dietary supplements, to improve their performance in their academic studies. The aim of this chapter is to briefly review the use of non-medically prescribed stimulant “smart drugs” by university/college students in higher education, focusing on the psychosocial motivators underlying students’ use of smart drugs to improve academic performance, and an outline of potential interventions for reducing use in this population.