Global Trends in Psychedelic Microdosing: Demographics, Substance Testing Behavior, and Patterns of Use

This cross-sectional study used the Global Psychedelic Survey (GPS), a 109-question online instrument that collected self-report data on use of 11 classical and atypical psychedelics (including psilocybin, LSD, ketamine, DMT/5-MeO-DMT, MDMA, ayahuasca, ibogaine, 2C-B, mescaline, nitrous oxide, and salvia divinorum). The survey ran on the Quantified Citizen platform for two weeks from 19 May to 2 June 2023. Recruitment was by convenience sampling via psychedelic nonprofits and websites, and participation was limited to English-speaking adults. The study was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework and an external team handled data cleaning and coding prior to analysis. Respondents reported lifetime and recent use patterns. The investigators defined microdosers in two ways: exclusive microdosers (individuals who reported only ever microdosing) and non-exclusive microdosers (those who reported both microdosing and using regular large doses, but who had taken a microdose at least once or twice per month in the past 12 months). Primary measures included sociodemographic variables, age at first psychedelic use, self-perceived knowledge and experience with psychedelics, microdosing frequency (over the last 12 months), motivations for microdosing, substance-testing awareness and practices, monthly spending on psychedelics and sources of financial support, and lifetime/past-year use of seven classes of non-psychedelic substances (alcohol, cannabis, tobacco/nicotine, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, opioids, and cocaine/crack). Analyses reported frequencies with 95% confidence intervals for proportions. Continuous variables were assessed for normality with the Shapiro–Wilk test; two‑sample t-tests were used for normally distributed comparisons and Mann–Whitney U-tests for non-normal data. Categorical comparisons used odds ratios where appropriate. Statistical significance was set at alpha = 0.05. The investigators analysed the full survey sample (n = 6,193) and focused subsequent analyses on the subsample of respondents who reported microdosing at least once per month in the prior 12 months (n = 2,488); they also report results for the larger group who had ever microdosed (n = 4,621) when relevant to frequency estimates.

A total of 6,193 respondents completed the survey. Lifetime microdosing was reported by 4,621 respondents (74.6%), and 2,488 respondents (40.2% of the full sample) reported microdosing one or more times per month over the past 12 months; the latter group formed the primary analytic sample. Within that analytic sample, 114 individuals (4.6%) were classified as exclusive microdosers and 2,374 (95.5%) as non-exclusive microdosers. Demographics of the 2,488 recent microdosers showed 1,277 males (51.3%) and 1,131 females (45.5%), with 2,111 (84.8%) identifying as Caucasian/European. Compared with non-exclusive microdosers, exclusive microdosers were more likely to be female (61.4% vs. 44.7%), more often non‑Caucasian (25.4% vs. 14.7%), and more frequently resided outside the USA or Canada (46.5% vs. 22.2%). Exclusive microdosers also reported an older age at first psychedelic use and lower self-perceived knowledge and experience with psychedelics (all p < 0.0001). Frequency analyses supported H1: when considering the 4,621 respondents who had ever microdosed, 52.5% (95% CI: 51.06% to 53.94%) reported microdosing multiple times a month. Smaller proportions microdosed less than once a month (12.8%, 95% CI: 11.83% to 13.77%) or once or twice a year (13.1%, 95% CI: 12.13% to 14.07%). Psilocybin was the most commonly reported microdosed substance (74.5%, 95% CI: 73.28% to 75.72%), followed by LSD (34.4%, 95% CI: 33.05% to 35.75%) and ketamine (15.8%, 95% CI: 14.8% to 16.8%). Regarding motivations, H2 was partially supported: 73.0% (95% CI: 71.2% to 74.7%) cited improving general well-being as a reason to microdose. Other commonly endorsed motives included personal growth/exploration (58.3%, 95% CI: 56.4% to 60.2%), increasing mindfulness (57.8%, 95% CI: 55.9% to 59.7%), and boosting productivity (55.4%, 95% CI: 53.5% to 57.3%). Treatment of a medical condition was selected by 45.4% (95% CI: 43.5% to 47.4%), making it the sixth most common reason. Substance-testing findings supported H3: awareness of laboratory or at‑home testing services differed by group, with 58.8% of non‑exclusive microdosers aware of testing services compared with 28.1% of exclusive microdosers. Among those aware of testing procedures (n = 1,428), 46.7% reported never testing their substances and 17.9% reported rarely using test kits. Of respondents who used testing services (n = 1,027), 47.8% used at‑home test kits and 20.7% relied on testing by dealers, therapists, or shamans. Lifetime use of non‑psychedelic substances supported H4: exclusive microdosers reported a mean lifetime use of 3.80 non‑psychedelic substance classes versus 4.71 for non‑exclusive microdosers (p < 0.0001). Differences were notable for tobacco, amphetamines, opioids, and cocaine, while alcohol, cannabis, and benzodiazepine use were comparable between groups. When asked about treating health conditions, 72.1% (n = 1,794) of the 2,488 microdosers reported using psychedelics to treat either a physical condition (20.5%, n = 510), a mental health condition (38.5%, n = 957), or both (13.1%, n = 327). Chronic pain was the most common physical condition treated (38.7% of those treating physical conditions), and depression was the most common mental health condition treated (82.1% of those treating mental health conditions). Respondents could select multiple conditions. Spending patterns varied: 21.5% of respondents reported spending nothing on psychedelics monthly, most spent under $100 per month, and a small minority (2.13%) reported spending over $1,500 monthly. Only 11.5% (n = 287) reported receiving financial assistance for psychedelic use; among those, 89.6% received support from public insurance, while 4.9% reported private insurance or other sources.

Syed and colleagues interpret the findings as evidence that microdosing practices are heterogeneous and that exclusive microdosers differ demographically and behaviourally from those who also take macrodoses. The most common regimen was 2–3 times per week, aligning with commonly recommended schedules; however, substantial variation existed, including daily use and infrequent dosing. The sample was dominated by psilocybin microdosing, which the authors note may shape overall frequency and testing patterns, while ketamine and other atypical psychedelics showed different and more variable regimens. Motivations centred on improving general well-being, personal growth, mindfulness, and productivity, with treatment of medical conditions less commonly endorsed as a primary motivation. The authors emphasise that prevalence of a motivation does not imply efficacy and reiterate that controlled clinical evidence is required to evaluate benefits. They also highlight that, when asked separately about treating specific conditions, a larger proportion reported using psychedelics for mental or physical health problems, a discrepancy the authors attribute in part to question wording and potential confounding from non‑exclusive microdosers' macrodose use. On safety practices, the discussion notes low rates of substance testing overall and particularly low awareness among exclusive microdosers, who also reported lower psychedelic knowledge and experience. The authors suggest barriers such as cost, stigma, legal concerns and perceptions of natural substances (for example, psilocybin mushrooms) being less likely to be adulterated may explain underuse of testing. They call for dissemination of harm‑reduction information to newer or less experienced users. The observed lower lifetime use of non‑psychedelic substances among exclusive microdosers is interpreted in two possible ways: exclusive microdosers may be less inclined to experiment with other recreational drugs, or those who have taken macrodoses may be more disinhibited and more likely to try other substances. The authors note that prior literature on substitution or substitution‑like effects is mixed. Regarding affordability, they report most respondents spent modest amounts monthly but a minority incurred high costs, potentially reflecting clinical ketamine treatment; the survey did not standardise currency, which the authors acknowledge as a limitation. Key limitations discussed include the online, convenience sample limited to English speakers, the cross‑sectional design, reliance on self-report, and absence of a firm, objective definition of a microdose. The authors also emphasise that many survey items did not explicitly distinguish microdosing from macrodosing, complicating attribution of reported behaviours and therapeutic uses to microdosing per se. They propose that future research use longitudinal designs comparing exclusive microdosing with combinations of micro- and macrodosing and call for more systematic, prospective studies that record granular details about dose, substance, intent and use patterns.

In this large, global convenience sample, microdosing practices varied widely and were dominated by psilocybin use. The investigators recommend that future clinical and observational studies include detailed reporting of dose, substance, intent and patterns of use to better assess potential harms and benefits. They conclude that systematic prospective research on specific microdosing regimens is needed, and that the present study contributes descriptive data on how exclusive microdosers differ from those who both micro- and macrodose, including novel information on atypical psychedelic microdosing.