In a longitudinal, multilingual online study begun during the COVID‑19 peak, regular users of hallucinogens reported higher psychological well‑being, lower psychopathology and greater post‑traumatic growth (even among those with higher distress) than non‑users. Findings were culturally heterogeneous — with more English‑speaking regular users — suggesting further research on hallucinogens’ role in large‑scale catastrophes.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on the health and wellbeing of the global population. This paper presents the results of a longitudinal transcultural study that was begun at the peak of the pandemic (in April, 2020). An online survey was used to collect data from English-, Spanish-, and Portuguese-speaking participants. The survey collected information about sociodemographics, lifestyle activities, COVID-19-related circumstances, and drug use (with an emphasis on hallucinogenic drugs), as well as involving psychometric questionnaires. Users of hallucinogenic drugs had higher psychological well-being and lower scores on psychopathology scales, both at baseline and during follow-ups. This difference was larger when users were distinguished by frequency of use, as regular users scored higher on psychological well-being and lower on psychopathology scales. Subjects with more psychological distress had lower scores for all scales of post-traumatic growth, but if they were regular hallucinogens users, they had higher scores for post-traumatic growth. When comparing the results between cultural contexts, heterogeneous results were obtained. There were more English-speaking regular users of hallucinogenic drugs. Further research should analyse the potential role of hallucinogens in large-scale catastrophes, with a special focus on post-traumatic growth.
The authors situate the study in the context of widespread mental-health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, noting increases in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and general distress observed internationally during 2020. They describe a concurrent resurgence of scientific interest in classical hallucinogens (for example psilocybin and MDMA) as potential treatments for mood, anxiety and trauma-related disorders, and identify an evidence gap about how lifetime or regular use of hallucinogens relates to psychological wellbeing and post-traumatic growth (PTG) in the population-level, real-world context of a major global stressor. A. and colleagues therefore set out to examine longitudinal relationships between hallucinogenic drug use, mental-health measures (psychological distress and psychopathology), peritraumatic stress and PTG during the pandemic. They implemented a transcultural online survey (English, Spanish and Portuguese) launched at the peak of early lockdowns in April 2020, with follow-ups at approximately two and six months, to assess whether lifetime and/or regular use of hallucinogens was associated with differences in wellbeing, symptom scores and PTG over time across culturally diverse respondents.
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Dos Santos, R. G., Bouso, J. C., Hallak, J. E. · Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology (2018)
Greif, A., Šurkala, M. · Medicine Health Care and Philosophy (2020)
Kelly, J. R., Crockett, M. T., Alexander, L. et al. · Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine (2020)
González, D., Carvalho, M., Aixalá, M. et al. · OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying (2017)
Design and recruitment: The study was a longitudinal online survey disseminated by snowball sampling beginning 7 April 2020. The questionnaire was developed originally in Spanish and translated into Portuguese and English. Recruitment occurred via researchers' networks, social media, academic and community websites, and platforms related to psychedelics and cannabis. The baseline sample comprised 2,971 participants; 1,024 completed the first follow-up (≈2 months) and 455 completed the last follow-up (≈6 months). Measures: The survey collected sociodemographic, lifestyle and COVID-19-related information plus detailed substance-use questions with emphasis on hallucinogens (MDMA, ayahuasca, psilocybin-containing mushrooms, LSD, peyote, San Pedro, Incilius alvarius [5-MeO-DMT], changa and other psychedelics). At baseline participants were classified as regular users (more than once per six months), occasional users (ever tried but not regular), or never-users; at follow-ups participants reported whether their use of each drug was more often, less often, or the same compared with before. Validated psychometric instruments included the GHQ-12 (psychological distress) at all time points, the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) with nine subscales and the General Severity Index (GSI) at all time points, the Peritraumatic Stress Inventory (PSI) at baseline only, and the Post-traumatic Growth Inventory (PGI) at the two follow-ups. Cronbach's alpha was computed for each instrument and language version. Statistical analysis: Descriptive statistics (percentages, means and SDs) described the sample and COVID-related items across time points. Longitudinal associations between hallucinogen use (users vs non-users and frequency categories) and psychometric outcomes were modelled using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure to account for within-person correlations and missing data. Dependent variables included COVID-related wellbeing items (1–10 scales), GHQ scores, the nine BSI scales and GSI, and five PTG subscales. GEE models were adjusted for age, gender, questionnaire language, religion and practice, and other substance use (alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine). Additional GEE models examined associations of peritraumatic stress, GSI and GHQ with PTG, adjusted for demographic covariates. Analyses were performed in SPSS v24; a Bonferroni-adjusted significance threshold of p ≤ 0.003 was applied (0.05/20).
Reliability: Internal consistency was high for all instruments across languages. Reported Cronbach's alpha values were: GHQ-12 ~0.87–0.89, BSI ~0.96–0.97, PSI ~0.82–0.89 and PGI ~0.94–0.95 for the English, Portuguese and Spanish versions. Sample and COVID-related context: Baseline N=2,971; follow-ups at 2 months N=1,024 and 6 months N=455, indicating substantial attrition. Epidemiological indicators changed across assessments: the proportion reporting COVID-19 positivity rose over time; confinement and isolation proportions varied (examples reported include 47% confined at 2 months and 86% at 6 months, and isolation rising from 55.8% to 74.1%). About half the sample reported an early reduction in personal income, falling to 33.4% by six months. Reported engagement in many lifestyle activities increased during confinement (aerobic exercise, martial arts, music/singing, reading), while yoga, Pilates and meditation decreased. Substance-use patterns shifted: at the first follow-up alcohol, tobacco and cannabis use increased, while amphetamines, MDMA and hallucinogenic drug use decreased. Associations with hallucinogenic drug use: Across longitudinal analyses, hallucinogenic drug use was associated with better outcomes on several measures. Specifically, hallucinogen use over time was associated with higher psychological wellbeing (B = 0.48; SE = 0.10; p < 0.001), lower ratings of information provided by the media (B = -0.44; SE = 0.10; p < 0.001), and less psychological distress (GHQ) (B = -0.73; SE = 0.16; p < 0.001). When stratified by frequency at baseline, regular users (more than once per six months) scored higher on psychological wellbeing and lower on psychological distress and on most BSI subscales (except GSI) relative to occasional and never-users. Regular use was specifically associated with higher scores on PTG subscales for new possibilities and spiritual change. Multivariable models for PTG: In adjusted GEE models including peritraumatic stress, GSI and GHQ, psychological distress was independently associated with lower scores across all five PTG domains, while regular psychedelic use was independently associated with higher PTG scores. Corrected mean PTG scores differed across never, occasional and regular users (graphical representation referenced in the paper). Transcultural comparisons: Analyses comparing English-, Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking respondents found significant differences across languages for media/politician information ratings, stress levels, BSI scores and psychedelic use at all time points. The pattern of differences was heterogeneous and did not show a uniform directional trend.
The authors interpret their findings as evidence that lifetime and, more strongly, regular use of hallucinogens was associated with more favourable scores on multiple indicators of mental health and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Regular users showed lower psychopathology scores across most BSI dimensions and higher post-traumatic growth (PTG) scores after adjustment for covariates and longitudinally measured psychological variables. In multivariable models, higher psychological distress (GHQ) was linked with lower PTG, whereas regular hallucinogen use was independently associated with higher PTG. A. and colleagues relate their results to existing literature reporting positive associations between hallucinogen use and wellbeing, resilience and lower measures of mental-health impairment, and they note consistency with studies of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy that report enhanced PTG. The authors discuss potential mechanisms that might underlie these associations—repeated exposure to challenging psychedelic experiences, personality differences (for example greater openness or self-transcendence), modulation of coping strategies, and transformative features of psychedelic experiences such as ego dissolution and spiritual insights—which could foster adaptive processes reflected in PTG and resilience. The authors acknowledge several important limitations. There was substantial attrition over follow-ups, which may have biased longitudinal inferences and contributed to a decline in reported hallucinogen use across assessments. The transcultural comparison used questionnaire language rather than country, grouping diverse regions (for example Spain with South American countries, Portugal with Brazil), which may obscure important contextual differences. All data were self-reported, with attendant biases (including possible positive appraisals among users). The unique context of widespread confinement at baseline and changing restrictions across follow-ups may have influenced who completed the online survey, potentially biasing the sample toward those in confinement. The authors therefore urge caution in interpretation and call for further research to clarify causality and mechanisms. The discussion also touches on policy implications: given the observed associations and an expanding evidence base for therapeutic effects of classical hallucinogens, the authors argue that current scheduling (Schedule I) may be misaligned with emerging scientific evidence and suggest re-evaluation of drug policies, while acknowledging the need for rigorous research and cautious policy change.
The conclusions section (as extracted) states that users of hallucinogenic drugs scored better on pandemic-affected dimensions such as psychopathology, wellbeing and post-traumatic growth, with effects more pronounced among regular users. The extracted text of the Conclusions is truncated mid-sentence ("From these results, we can suggest that either these drugs exert certain"), so the final sentence and any additional concluding remarks are not available in the provided extraction.
The following validated questionnaires were included in the survey, as described previously in more detail. First, the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) was used to screen for psychological distress at all time points in its validated Spanish (α = 0.86-0.90), English (α = 0.82-0.86), and Portuguese (α = 0.83-0.86)versions. A higher score represents greater psychological distress. We also used the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) in its validated English (α = 0.87-0.98), Portuguese (α = 0.73-0.88), and Spanish (α = 0.69-0.85)versions. The nine sub-scales (somatization, SOM; obsessive-compulsive, O-C; interpersonal sensitivity, IS; depression, DEP; anxiety, ANX; hostility, HOST; phobic anxiety, PHOB; paranoid ideation, PAR; and psychoticism, PSY) and the General Severity Index (GSI) were used, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms. A T-score above 70 for each sub-scale and a score of 63 or above for the GSI indicate a clinical case. Further, we used the Peritraumatic Stress Inventory (PSI) at baseline only. The PSI is a proposed measure of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); that is, it measures symptoms associated with exposure to a potentially traumatic experience. The validated English version (α = 0.75-0.76)was used. The questionnaire was translated into Spanish and Portuguese by native Spanish and Portuguese researchers, respectively. Higher scores represent more intense symptoms resulting from exposure to potentially traumatic experiences. Lastly, the Post-traumatic Growth Inventory (PGI) was also included in the two follow-up questionnaires, in its validated English (α = 0.90), Portuguese (α = 0.95), and Spanish (α = 0.95)versions. This provides a measure of positive changes perceived by the subject following a traumatic event. It contains five sub-scales (relationships, new possibilities, personal change, spiritual change, and life appreciation). Higher scores represent more post-traumatic growth (PTG).
Participants were asked about their use of psychedelic drugs. We included the use of these psychedelic drugs: MDMA, ayahuasca, psilocybin-containing mushrooms, LSD, peyote, San Pedro, Incilius alvarius or 5-MeO-DMT, changa, and other psychedelics, as described previously. Only at baseline, we categorized participants as (a) regular users (more than once per 6 months), (b) occasional users (tried it, but do not use it regularly), and (c) never-users. At the follow-ups, participants indicated whether they used each drug more often, less often, or the same as before.
All variables were described as percentages or means and standard deviations. Sample characteristics are described at baseline, and at 2 and 6 months. We first did this analysis for the sociodemographic factors, religion, health factors, and substance use. Then we did the same for all COVID-19-related factors. Next, in order to determine longitudinal associations between psychedelic drug users vs. non-users and the psychometric measures, we used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure, which takes into account within-person correlations when examining multiple observations per subject and can handle missing values. As dependent variables, we took these into account: (a) COVID-19-related items regarding psychological wellbeing, the home environment, and information given by politicians or the media, all items are unstandardized and rated on a scale of 1-10; (b) psychological distress (measured by the GHQ); (c) nine BSI scales and the GSI; and (d) five PTG scales. We performed the same analyses at baseline with regular vs. occasional vs. never users of psychedelic drugs as an independent variable, using the same set of psychometric measures as dependent variables. We corrected all these GEE models directly for age, gender, language of questionnaire, religion, practitioner of religion, and alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine, or amphetamine use, as described previously. Subsequently, we performed GEE analyses with peritraumatic stress, the GSI, psychological distress (GHQ), and occasional vs. never and regular vs. never users of psychedelic drugs as independent variables, and the five PTG scores as dependent variables. We corrected for age, gender, language of questionnaire, and religion. Cronbach's Alpha was calculated for all the questionnaires used. All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). After Bonferronicorrection (p-value of 0.05 divided by 20), we set the significant p-value at 0.003, two-tailed.
Reliability of questionnaires used. GHQ-12 questionnaire showed a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.87, 0.89, and 0.89 for English, Portuguese, and Spanish versions, respectively. BSI questionnaire showed a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.96, 0.97, and 0.96 for English, Portuguese, and Spanish versions, respectively. PSI questionnaire showed a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.89, 0.82, and 0.85 for English, Portuguese, and Spanish versions, respectively. Lastly, PGI showed a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.95, 0.94, and 0.95 for English, Portuguese, and Spanish versions, respectively.
Tableshows the sample characteristics at baseline, and at the 2 and 6-month follow-ups, while Tableshows COVID-related items at all time points. According to the epidemiological data, the number of participants who tested COVID-positive increased across the three assessments. Whereas 47% were confined at 2 months, 86% were confined at 6 months. The percentage of the sample in isolation increased as well, from 55.8% at 2 months to 74.1% at 6 months. Regarding personal income, nearly 50% of the sample experienced a reduction in the first weeks of the pandemic, while at 6 months only 33.4% of the sample indicated a reduction in income. A general increase in the frequency of engaging with different lifestyle activities during confinement can be observed, especially in terms of aerobic exercise, martial arts, music and singing, and reading. There was an increase in watching pornography as well. A general decrease was observed in the case of yoga, Pilates, and meditation. As can be seen in Fig., at the first follow-up, there was a general and marked increase in alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis use, while the most relevant drug use decrease occurred in the cases of amphetamines, MDMA, and Hallucinogenic drugs and psychometric measures. Among the sample, there was a general decrease in BSI scores across the follow-ups (see Supplementary Table), suggesting that stress peaked at the beginning of the pandemic and the associated lockdown measures. The use of hallucinogenic drugs over time was significantly associated with higher psychological wellbeing (B = 0.48; SE = 0.10; p < 0.001), and lower rates on the information given by the media (B = -0.44; SE = 0.10; p < 0.001), as shown in Table. Hallucinogenic drug use was also associated with less psychological distress (B = -0.73; SE = 0.16; p < 0.001), fewer obsessions Table. Sample characteristics at baseline, and after 2 and 6 months. a At follow-up 2, English speakers did not enter their email address, and we were unable to add them to the longitudinal analyses. b Is only taken as a psychedelic drug when used for rituals or therapeutic settings. When we examined the frequency of hallucinogenic drug use, regular users scored higher in terms of psychological wellbeing, and lower in terms of information given by the media and psychological distress. Regular users of hallucinogens had lower BSI scores, excluding GSI. Regular hallucinogenic drug use was associated with higher scores on the new possibilities and spiritual change scales of PTG. Stress, psychedelic drugs and posttraumatic growth. Tableshows the longitudinal analyses between various psychometric measures, psychedelic drugs, and the five scales of PTG. When entered into a multivariable model, psychological distress was independently associated with lower scores on all five scales, while regular psychedelic use was associated with higher scores on the PTG scales. See Fig.for a graphical representation of the corrected means of the five PTG scores for never, occasional, and regular users of psychedelic drugs. Transcultural comparison. Supplementary Tables 1, 2 and 3 show the differences between the three languages in which the questionnaires were completed. At all three time points, there were significant differences between the English, Spanish, and Portuguese speakers in their rating of the information given by the media and politicians, their stress levels, BSI scores, and the use of psychedelic drugs. Results were heterogeneous, and no clear tendency can be observed.
In this manuscript, we explore the relationship between hallucinogen use and different variables, including mental health and well-being, peritraumatic stress, and PTG. This study was initiated during a global pandemic, when many countries were implementing confinement measures. Results showed that lifetime use of hallucinogens was related to better scores on most of the measures and that regular users had lower scores on each of the psychopathology scales. Regular users of hallucinogens also had higher PTG scores than occasional or never users, even after the multivariate longitudinal analysis corrected for various psychological measures. Within the multivariate model, it can be observed that as scores for psychological distress (GHQ-12) increased, lower scores on PTG were obtained, indicating that as distress reaches higher Table. Associations between longitudinally measured psychedelic drug users vs. non-users and baseline regular vs. occasional vs. never users of psychedelic drugs with psychometric measures. Generalized estimated equations were corrected for age, gender, language of questionnaire, religion, practitioner of religion, alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine or amphetamine use. Significant (Bonferroni-corrected) p-values ≤ 0.003 are represented bold. a Posttraumatic growth was only recorded after 2 and 6 months, not at baseline. levels, there is a decrease of growth associated with such distress. It should be noted that both psychological distress and regular use of hallucinogens were independently associated with PTG. Some important questions related to clinical and public policy arise from our results. Contrary to the presumptions that justify hallucinogens being scheduled substances (i.e., causing harm to health and having a high abuse potential), our results show that they might offer some kind of protection of mental health when confronting highly stressful situations, like facing a pandemic where most of the world's population is suffering unprecedented deaths and strict lockdowns. Another retrospective, transversal study (n = 5618), performed at the same time as our study, also found a relationship between lifetime use of hallucinogens and lower scores on dimensions linked to mental health impairment (state/trait anxiety, negative affect), as well as higher scores on dimensions linked to well-being and resilience (mainly positive affect, autonomy, social ties, and wellbeing). Other cohort studies have found positive relationships between lifetime use of hallucinogens and mental health, and negative relationships between hallucinogenic drug use and suicidalityand violence. Additionally, there are numerous published manuscripts reporting the positive effects of hallucinogens on mental health in clinical settings (for reviews, see Goldberg et al.; Luoma et al.; and Yu et al.) and in ceremonies where hallucinogens were administered. Lastly, cross-sectional studies comparing regular hallucinogen users with non-users have found an absence of neuropsychiatric impairments in the former, with users reporting better scores than non-users on some measures. In a previous manuscript, we hypothesized that regular hallucinogen use could be a protective factor when confronting stressful situations. The pandemic offered an unfortunate but appropriate scenario in which to test our hypothesis, and the results were in line with it: lifetime hallucinogen use was related longitudinally with positive outcomes in terms of most of the mental health measures. Moreover, regular use of hallucinogenic drugs was specifically associated with higher scores on the PTG scales (relating to others, new possibilities, personal strength, spiritual change, and appreciation of life). In relation to that, another manuscript focused on coping strategies and use of hallucinogens showed that regular users of these drugs are more prone to use adaptive coping strategies. This is highly relevant in the context of the recently published research on the potential of MDMA for the treatment of PTSD. PTG reflects an adaptive process of adjustment, and it is positively correlated with resiliency, meaning-making regarding the traumatic event, and functional relationships. Thus, PTG is an indicator of a holistic process of change following a traumatic event. It is worth noting that we should be prevented of labeling the pandemic experience as a traumatic for everyone. Instead, the measure of PTG can be interpreted as an indicator of resilience, or positive-biased personal changes that can occur in generally significant experiences. There are only a couple of research reports that have assessed PTG in the context of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy. Our current results add evidence to these emerging findings, extending from MDMA to the whole class of hallucinogenic drugs, suggesting that the effects of MDMA on PTG may be a non-specific feature of hallucinogenic drugs regarding the treatment of trauma. The hallucinogenic experience produced by drugs like psilocybin and ayahuasca has been characterized as spiritual and/or mystical. Commonly, the phenomenon so-called "ego dissolution" occurs, and personal insights can emerge, providing subjects with new perspectives about themselves, their relationships, and the nature of reality. These features tend to be conceived of as positive, leading to transformative and valuable experiences. However, psychedelic experiences can also be extremely stressful. Despite this, it is common for users to continue taking these drugs after having experienced certain adverse effects, especially in the case of ayahuasca. It is possible, therefore, that the willingness that users tend to show toward exposing themselves to highly challenging experiences is somehow related to their better PTG scores. In addition, this continuous exposure to challenging experiences could have provided personal resources to deal with pandemic stress, partially explaining the better scores on mental health and well-being they showed in different studies. Previous research has shown different personality traits between hallucinogenic drug users and non-users, especially in the case of ayahuasca, as well as differences between users depending on the environment in which they live. These differences may provide possible explanations for our findings. Taking into account the hierarchical order of psychological variables suggested by some authors, we observe that personality domains influence on cognitive styles, which are responsible for interpreting and processing reality. These interpretations, in turn, affect emotions, and emotional states contribute to complex self-perceived processes that we conceptualize as wellbeing or resilience. Therefore, the ability of psychedelics to modulate personality traits, particularly openness and self-transcendence, may be at the core of a "cascade" of subsequent psychological changes that eventually result in protective effects against various stressors, including pandemic-related stress. Further research in that regard is warranted. Another remarkable result was the association between regular use of hallucinogens and lower psychopathology scores. The public image of hallucinogens has associated their use with madness and bizarre behaviors. In addition, hallucinogenic drugs have been used to mimic psychotic states. Nevertheless, our results, in concordance with recent research on hallucinogens, show that the use of these drugs is associated with less psychopathology and with functional behaviors. Many variables could be intertwined with these outcomes. For instance, in the case of the present study, regular users of hallucinogenic drugs also showed an enhanced detachment from the information given by politicians and the media, which has been repeatedly related to higher distress scores during the initial waves of the pandemic. Remarkably, a recently published preclinical study suggested that the use of ayahuasca could have a prophylactic effect in front of depressive symptoms 81 . Thus, a similar mechanism might be responsible for the present findings. Due to our social responsibility as scientists, we must emphasize the policy implications of these results. Most classical hallucinogens (LSD, psilocybin, DMT or MDMA) are in the Schedule I of the United Nations (UN) Convention on Psychotropic Drugs of 1971 for their severe health risks. Although drugs included in the Schedule I are only allowed to be used for medical and scientific purposes, their use in non-medical settings has remained highly prevalent in Western countries. Notably, scientists are asking for the reclassification of these substancesgiven the emerging body of evidence, which the present study strengthens by showing the positive consequences of their use in both informal and experimental settings. A policy that it is not aligned with scientific evidence should be changed for the benefit of society. Good examples of this proposed change include local public policies like the one developed in Alberta (Canada), Oregon (USA) or in Catalonia, where the local government adopted a harm reduction approach regarding the extended use of ayahuasca. The most relevant limitation of this study was the high drop-out rate during the follow-ups of this study, a limitation that tends to occur in longitudinal studies. Although characteristics like age, gender, and marital status remained the same in each assessment, this drop-out rate might have affected some other characteristics of the sample, giving the longitudinal analyses limited reliability. For instance, the percentage of users of hallucinogenic drugs in the sample dropped considerably across the follow-ups. Nevertheless, in terms of the English version of the questionnaire, the majority of the participants in both follow-ups were users of hallucinogenic drugs, as they were possibly more motivated to answer a survey in which they were asked about their use of hallucinogens. One additional limitation of our study is the comparison of subjects between different language versions of the questionnaire (English, Portuguese, and Spanish), rather than comparing subjects between countries. The latter option would have been challenging due to our sample being provided by individuals from more than 80 countries. However, we opted to group Portuguese-speaking individuals from both Portugal and Brazil, as well as Spanish-speaking individuals from both Spain and South American countries. It is important to note that the reality of the pandemic may have varied substantially in these different regions. Lastly, self-report measures have inherent limitations and may be influenced by biases, such as individuals who already perceive consumption of psychedelic drugs positively. We employed validated assessment tools to minimize subjective interpretation and increase the reliability of our findings, but the results have to be interpreted with caution. One of the main inspirations for the design of this study was the uncommon scenario of widespread social isolation during confinement measures. While this scenario provided an interesting object of study, it could also be seen as an extraneous variable, since we presume that confinement measures could have affected the number of people who answered the survey. At the baseline assessment, nearly all countries that participants were from were in strict lockdown (97% of the sample were confined), whereas at the second and third assessments, 47% and 85.5% of participants were confined, respectively. Especially during the third assessment, six months after the first (in October, 2020), most countries developed other less strict measures, avoiding complete confinement precisely due to the psychological consequences observed. However, the majority of our sample at this assessment reported being confined (85.5%, which is in line with the high score obtained on the GSI in the last follow-up, as reported in Supplementary Table, suggesting that confinement is closely linked with psychological distress). Thus, it is possible that people in confinement were more likely to take 20-30 min to answer an online survey, biasing the results of the study toward confined people.
Users of hallucinogenic drugs scored better on various dimensions that were clearly affected by the recent COVID-19 pandemic, like psychopathology, wellbeing, and post-traumatic growth. This was even clearer in the case of regular users of these drugs. From these results, we can suggest that either these drugs exert certain
Create a free account to open full-text PDFs.
Perkins, D., Schubert, V., Simonová, H. et al. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2021)
Ona, G., Kohek, M., Massaguer, T. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2019)
Kohek, M., Ona, G., Dos Santos, R. G. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2022)
Walsh, Z., Hendricks, P. S., Smith, S. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2016)
Hendricks, P. S., Thorne, C. B., Clark, B. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2015)
Johansen, P. Ø., Krebs, T. S. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2015)
Zeifman, R. J., Dos Santos, R. G., Sanches, R. F. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2020)
Zeifman, R. J., Wagner, A. C., Watts, R. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2020)
Araújo, D. B., Zeifman, R. J., Palhano-Fontes, F. et al. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2019)
Bouso, J. C., González, D., Fondevila, S. et al. · PLOS ONE (2012)
Krebs, T. S., Johansen, P. ˚. Ø. · PLOS ONE (2013)
Cavanna, F., Pallavicini, C., Milano, V. et al. · Journal of Psychedelic Studies (2021)
Bouso, J. C., Révész, D., Ona, G. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2021)
Raison, C. L., Jain, R., Jain, S. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2022)
Zeifman, R. J., Singhal, N., Breslow, L. et al. · ACS Pharmacology and Translational Science (2021)
Hendricks, P. S., Crawford, M. S., Cropsey, K. L. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2017)
Jones, G. M., Nock, M. K. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2022)
Goldberg, S. B., Shechet, B., Nicholas, C. R. et al. · Psychological Medicine (2020)
Yu, C. L., Liang, C. S., Yang, F. et al. · Journal of Clinical Medicine (2022)
Domínguez-Clavé, E., Soler, J., Elices, M. et al. · Human Psychopharmacology (2021)
O'shaughnessy, D. M., Berlowitz, I., Rodd, R. et al. · Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology (2021)
Perkins, D., Opaleye, E. S., Simonová, H. et al. · Drug and Alcohol Review (2021)
Barbosa, P., Strassman, R. J., da Silveira, D. X. et al. · Comprehensive Psychiatry (2016)
Bouso, J. C., Fábregas, J. M., Antonijoan, R. M. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2013)
Doering-Silveira, E., Lopez, E., Grob, C. S. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2005)
Wagner, A. C., Liebman, R. E., Mithoefer, A. T. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2021)
Gorman, I., Belser, A. B., Jerome, L. et al. · Journal of Traumatic Stress (2020)
Barrett, F. S., Griffiths, R. R. · Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences (2017)
Kangaslampi, S., Hausen, A., Rauteenmaa, T. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2020)
Nour, M. R., Evans, J., Nutt, D. J. et al. · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (2016)
Peill, J. M., Trinci, K. E., Kettner, H. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2022)
Carbonaro, T. M., Bradstreet, M. P., Barrett, F. S. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2016)
Bouso, J. C., Dos Santos, R. G., Hallak, J. E. · Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews (2018)
Galvão-Coelho, N. L., De Meiroz Grilo, M. L. P., de Sousa, G. M. et al. · Frontiers in Behavioural Neuroscience (2022)
Johnson, M. W., Griffiths, R. R., Hendricks, P. S. et al. · Neuropharmacology (2018)