Search

Background: Testosterone is used therapeutically in medical settings. Non-prescribed testosterone use is typically illegal, described as 'enhancement' or 'doping', and considered a problem. However, research has found that some non-prescribed testosterone use may be therapeutic (i.e. self-medication). Little is known about testosterone self-medication. It has been noted among individuals who use image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs), but never systematically explored.Approach: This paper describes the findings of a 4-year ethnographic study in online forums and social media groups frequented by people who use IPEDs. It focusses on 31 men who used enhancement doses of testosterone, but who described some of their testosterone use as 'testosterone replacement therapy' (TRT). In particular, it focuses on the 26 (84%) of these individuals who self-medicated TRT. Data was analysed thematically (using NVivo) in order to answer the question: 'how and why is testosterone self-medicated?'. Using Bacchi's (2016) problematization approach to policy analysis, this paper also asks, 'what happens to the 'problem' of non-prescribed testosterone use if such use is therapeutic?'.Findings: Self-medicated TRT was found to be very similar to TRT as practised in medical contexts. Self-medication was often practised because of an inability to access testosterone through health practitioners (who were either reluctant or unable to prescribe). However, some individuals were found to prefer self-medication because of price, ease of access, reliability of supply, and because health practitioners were perceived as lacking expertise regarding testosterone use.Conclusion: By documenting the therapeutic use of testosterone outside of medical settings, this paper calls into question previous conceptualisations of all illicit testosterone use as 'abuse', and the utility of the repair/enhancement dichotomy as a foundation for discussions of drug use. It suggests that in some cases the problem may not be non-prescribed testosterone use per se, but policies that prevent access to medical treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on a cross-language longitudinal study in which we extend previous research on the effects of maternal education on vocabulary growth in Spanish- and English-dominant children at three time points: 16 months, 22 months, and 30 months of age. This study addresses recent conflicting evidence regarding the role of maternal education in children's acquisition of Spanish. Participants were 62 English-dominant children, 47 Spanish-dominant children, and their mothers. Growth curve models were constructed separately for English and Spanish vocabulary. Strong growth rate reliability and effect sizes were evinced for vocabulary across samples. As expected, in English-dominant children, maternal education predicted English vocabulary and growth from 16 to 30 months of age. However, in Spanish-dominant children, there was no significant effect of maternal education on vocabulary or growth, although there was a descriptive advantage for children of college-educated mothers at 30 months of age. In conjunction with prior evidence, we conclude that the effect of maternal education on maternal input and child vocabulary does not generalize readily to children whose first language is Spanish. Our findings contribute to a literature that suggests that focusing on maternal beliefs, input, and the home literacy environment are more fruitful approaches in the study of children learning Spanish in the U.S. Further, the importance of maternal beliefs highlights the need to support parent investment in the quantity and quality of input in the home language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]