Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 540

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Illicit Use of Specific Prescription Stimulants Among College Students: Prevalence, Motives, and Routes of Administration

Open access
Teter, Christian J., McCabe, Sean Esteban, LaGrange, Kristy, Cranford, James A., Boyd, Carol J.·2006·Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy

Abstract

Objectives. To explore the illicit use of specific prescription stimulants among college students and add to our understanding of reasons (motives) and routes of administration associated with illicit use of these drugs. Methods. A random sample of 4580 college students self‐administered a Web‐based survey. The survey contained a variety of items pertaining to the illicit use of prescription stimulants. An extensive list of prescription stimulants was provided, and students were asked to select all the specific prescription stimulants that they had used illicitly. Items were also included to assess the motives and routes of administration associated with illicit use of prescription stimulants. Results. Lifetime and past‐year prevalence rates for illicit use of prescription stimulants were 8.3% (382 students) and 5.9% (269 students), respectively. Approximately three fourths (75.8%) of the 269 past‐year illicit users of prescription stimulants reported using an amphetamine‐dextroamphetamine combination agent (e.g., Adderall) in the past year, and approximately one fourth (24.5%) reported using methylphenidate (e.g., Ritalin, Concerta, Metadate, Methylin). Past‐year illicit use of prescription stimulants was more than 3 times more likely among Caucasians (odds ratio [OR] 3.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5–6.6) and Hispanics (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.6–9.3) compared with African‐Americans, and more than twice as likely among Caucasians (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.3–3.4) and Hispanics (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.4–5.1) compared with Asians. The most commonly reported motives for illicit use were to help with concentration (65.2%), help study (59.8%), and increase alertness (47.5%). Other motives included getting high (31.0%) and experimentation (29.9%). Nearly every illicit user (95.3%) reported oral administration, and 38.1% reported snorting prescription stimulants. Conclusion. Illicit use of amphetamine‐dextroamphetamine is more prevalent than illicit use of methylphenidate formulations among college students.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1592/phco.26.10.1501

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 540

Metadata

Authors
Teter, C. J., McCabe, S. E., LaGrange, K., Cranford, J. A., & Boyd, C. J.
Venue
Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-10
Volume
26
Issue
10
Pages
1501-1510
ISSN
  • 0277-0008 (ISSN-L)
  • 1875-9114
OpenAlex
W2163050774
Cited by
540
References
3
FWCI
8.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Illicit Use of Specific Prescription Stimulants Among College Students: Prevalence, Motives, and Routes of Administration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1592/phco.26.10.1501
The paper
Teter, C. J., McCabe, S. E., LaGrange, K., Cranford, J. A., & Boyd, C. J. (2006). Illicit Use of Specific Prescription Stimulants Among College Students: Prevalence, Motives, and Routes of Administration. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1592/phco.26.10.1501

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.