Cited by 76Psychedelics and Drug StudiesForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Microdosing psychedelics: Demographics, practices, and psychiatric comorbidities

Rosenbaum, Daniel, Weissman, Cory, Anderson, Thomas, Petranker, Rotem, Dinh-Williams, Le-Anh, Hui, Katrina, Hapke, Emma·2020·Journal of Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Rationale: Microdosing psychedelics – the practice of consuming small, sub-hallucinogenic doses of substances such as LSD or psilocybin – is gaining attention in popular media but remains poorly characterized. Contemporary studies of psychedelic microdosing have yet to report the basic psychiatric descriptors of psychedelic microdosers. Objectives: To examine the practices and demographics of a population of psychedelic microdosers – including their psychiatric diagnoses, prescription medications, and recreational substance use patterns – to develop a foundation on which to conduct future clinical research. Methods: Participants ( n = 909; M age = 26.9, SD = 8.6; male = 83.2%; White/European = 79.1%) recruited primarily from the online forum Reddit completed an anonymous online survey. Respondents who reported using LSD, psilocybin, or both for microdosing were grouped and compared with non-microdosing respondents using exploratory odds ratio testing on demographic variables, rates of psychiatric diagnoses, and past-year recreational substance use. Results: Of microdosers, most reported using LSD (59.3%; M dose = 13 mcg, or 11.3% of one tab) or psilocybin (25.9%; M dose = 0.3 g of dried psilocybin mushrooms) on a one-day-on, two-days-off schedule. Compared with non-microdosers, microdosers were significantly less likely to report a history of substance use disorders (SUDs; OR = 0.17 (95% CI: 0.05–0.56)) or anxiety disorders (OR = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.41–0.91)). Microdosers were also more likely to report recent recreational substance use compared with non-microdosers (OR = 5.2 (95% CI: 2.7–10.8)). Conclusions: Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of this practice in clinical populations and to test claims about potential benefits.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0269881120908004

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rosenbaum, D., Weissman, C., Anderson, T., Petranker, R., Dinh-Williams, L.-A., Hui, K., & Hapke, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • York University (CA)
  • Clinical Science, University of Toronto, Scarborough, Canada
Corresponding author
Rosenbaum, Daniel
Venue
Journal of Psychopharmacology
Published
2020-02-28
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
612-622
ISSN
  • 0269-8811 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7285
OpenAlex
W3007315114
Cited by
76
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6
FWCI
3.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychedelics and Drug Studies
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
psychedelic microdosing, LSD, psilocybin, psychiatric comorbidity, substance use disorders, anxiety disorders, recreational drug use, prescription drugs
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Mental Disorders, Cross-Sectional Studies, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Female, Hallucinogens, Humans, Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, Male, Psilocybin, Surveys and Questionnaires, Substance-Related Disorders, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review