Although college students’ caffeine consumption has increased over the last decade, studies have not yet determined the time frame in which caffeine exerts its effects nor the impact of the vehicle by which caffeine is consumed. Sixty college students were randomly divided into one placebo (flour) and three caffeine treatment groups: 5-Hour Energy ®, Starbucks DoubleShot ®, or caffeine powder; all dosed at 3 mg caffeine/kg of body weight.  A battery of tests was performed prior to dosing and repeated 2.5 and 5 hours post treatment. Mood was self-reported on a scale of 1-100 for happiness, alertness and focus. Cognitive function was assessed by Stroop and memory tests. Reaction time, heart rate, blood glucose, and electroencephalogram were recorded. All initial measurements across groups and group baselines vs 2.5 and 5 hour results were analyzed by ANOVA followed, when indicated, by post hoc t-tests at 95% confidence levels and only significant results are reported. All caffeine groups had elevations in mood and faster reaction times at 2.5 hours (most effects sustained for 5 hours).  The 5-Hour Energy® group rated alertness higher than other caffeine treatments, and was the only group to demonstrate decreases in alpha waves, memory improvements, and impaired glucose homeostasis. All caffeine groups had improved cognition with decreased Stroop test time and the caffeine powder and 5-Hour Energy ® groups had improved Stroop test accuracy at 2.5 hours. The 5-Hour Energy shot ® had the greatest proportion of sustained caffeine effects across test parameters.

Introduction: Students participating in longitudinal integrated clerkships (LIC) experience longitudinal, comprehensive care of patients, report improved satisfaction with their training, and express increased interest in pursuing a career in primary care. To gain these benefits without requiring major curricular change, Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine created a year-long mini LIC (mLIC). As participants in the mLIC, we sought to measure our own experiences, gathering data in a systematic way to share our perceptions. Methods: We developed an online survey that included scale and open-ended questions. Eight students and three cooperating preceptors completed the survey. We analyzed short answer responses thematically; we analyzed multiple choice responses using descriptive statistics. Results: Participants reported increased interest in underserved rural primary care. Students described the continuity with patients as the most beneficial aspect. Students felt the increased autonomy, self-learning, and hands-on nature of the mLIC increased clinical confidence and preparedness for intern year. Students stated the mLIC provided learning opportunities they would not have experienced in traditional block-based clerkships, including longitudinal relationships and prolonged exposure to primary care. Preceptors stated they were able to learn new ideas from the students and were surprised by how much they benefited from the experience. Conclusion: Students did experience many of the benefits of a traditional LIC in our mLIC format focused on a longitudinal experience in family medicine. Students and preceptors were positively impacted and felt the mLIC led to increased student learning, professional development, and increased preceptor satisfaction. Our conclusions are limited by the small sample size included in our study.

No abstract