Search

AbstractObjective To evaluate an experiential student clinical addiction research program by analyzing its components, evaluation survey data, and scientific outputs.Methods In 1995, we established a summer research program supporting trainees to gain exposure to clinical addiction research careers. This curriculum employed a three-pronged approach that combined mentored research training, didactic education, and clinical observerships for medical students and other trainees to acquire experience with addiction medicine and research. Utilizing the Kirkpatrick model as program evaluation framework, we analyzed evaluation data from programmatic surveys (didactic seminar evaluations, overall program surveys) and conducted qualitative feedback exploration.Results Between 2007 and 2019, 56 trainees and 26 faculty mentors participated in the curriculum. To date, 25 students published 38 papers with their faculty mentor. Analysis of the past 12 years of program evaluation data demonstrated that students highly valued individually-mentored research experiences. They indicated that seminars familiarized them with the foundations of different clinical care models and career trajectories in addiction medicine. Clinical observerships provided students with patient contacts in various multidisciplinary addiction treatment settings. These experiences, perhaps most importantly hearing about patients’ lived experiences, meaningfully informed various research and didactic activities.Conclusions This summer student research program successfully introduced students to addiction medicine and research, manifested by high peer-reviewed publication productivity. While our program engaged and involved committed mentors and inspired mentees to pursue professional paths in addiction research, it did not specifically incorporate attention to equity and diversity into program planning and implementation. Going forward, the program will improve equity by increasing the recruitment of trainees from disadvantaged groups and engaging underrepresented faculty.KEY MESSAGESSummer programs can be effective in engaging medical students and trainees in research early in their trajectory and inspire them to incorporate research into their careers.Programs that integrate experiential addiction research learning, i.e. mentored research activities, didactic sessions, and clinical observerships, can provide trainees with a profound understanding of substance use disorder treatment and research.

Abstract Introduction The LINC‐II randomized controlled trial in St. Petersburg, Russia for HIV‐positive adults who inject drugs found that a multi‐component intervention including initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) during admission to an addiction hospital, strengths‐based case management and naltrexone significantly increased 12‐month HIV viral suppression and ART retention. We conducted a comparative cost analysis to determine if the 12‐month cost of the intervention is affordable within the current Russian health system. Methods We used LINC‐II trial records and questionnaire responses to calculate the resources utilized by each participant in the study, including inpatient days, medications, laboratory tests, outpatient consultations, case manager interactions and opioid medication treatment. Quantities of resources utilized were multiplied by unit costs for each resource estimated from the service fee or price lists used by the study facilities for each specific service delivered. We report the average cost/study primary (viral suppression at 12 months) or secondary (retention in care at 12 months) outcome/participant in 2021 USD and compare costs between study arms. Results The trial enrolled 225 participants (111 intervention, 114 control) between September 2018 and December 2020. Viral suppression, non‐suppression and missing suppression results were 28% and 14%, 49% and 37%, and 31% and 41% for the control and intervention arms, respectively. Retention results were 35% and 51% for the control and intervention arms, respectively. The average cost per study participant was $2714 in the control arm and $4342 in the intervention arm. The average cost per participant virally suppressed at 12 months was $3662 (control) and $6355 (intervention). The average cost per participant retained at 12 months was $4050 (control) and $5448 (intervention). For those retained, the cost difference between the arms was comprised of opioid treatment (35%), case management (31%), outpatient visits (18%) and additional days of ART (12%). Conclusions The LINC‐II intervention increased the cost of care for HIV‐positive people who inject drugs in Russia significantly, but some components of the intervention, particularly earlier initiation of ART and case management, may be justifiable due to their success in reaching a challenging subgroup of the population in need. Clinical Trial Number NCT03290391

Abstract Background As students’ direct patient contact was suspended because of COVID-19-related restrictions, we revised our clinical addiction medicine curriculum for students to learn about the different multidisciplinary clinical models delivered at our hospital and in community settings. Our aim was to provide an overview of clinical modalities and familiarize learners with clinician and patient experiential perspectives. Methods We implemented a multi-pronged approach, offering an overview of clinical care programs through remote panels involving care providers at the clinics where students had previously been scheduled for in-person rotations. This included inpatient and office-based addiction services, addiction treatment program for adolescents and young adults, integrated addiction care and HIV primary care clinic, and opioid use urgent care clinic. Beyond having them join outpatient telehealth clinic visits, students also participated in an online panel involving patients in recovery to gain familiarity with their care perspectives; and joined a panel with recovery coaches to get further insights into patient challenges in clinical settings. Students further participated in remote opioid treatment trainings and observed clinical rounds of inpatient addiction consults and adolescent clinic team meetings. Results With this revised curriculum, students learned about the variety of clinical modalities at the height of our hospital’s COVID-19 pandemic burden. The evaluation suggested that students appreciated the authenticity of accounts from patients and providers about their challenges and satisfaction related to clinical care. While in a remote learning setting, students overall wished for more personal interaction with patients and providers. They also noted a lack of group cohesion and connection that they felt would otherwise have been met in an in-person program. Conclusions Remote learning allowed our program to connect trainees to the multidisciplinary field of addiction medicine despite the COVID-19 pandemic. In future program iterations, we will consider hybrid formats of in-person learning experiences with direct patient and faculty contact where possible, combined with online provider and patient panels possibly, in addition to virtual breakout formats to facilitate more personal student-patient and student-faculty interactions.