Engaging Health Professional Students in Substance Abuse Research

Abstract

Objective There is a need to build the ranks of health professionals engaged in substance abuse (SA) focused clinical research. The authors simultaneously developed and evaluated SARET, the Substance Abuse Research Education and Training program. The fundamental goal of this interprofessional program is to stimulate medical, dental and nursing student interest and experience in SA research. Evaluation aims to understand program feasibility and acceptability, and to assess short term impact. Methods SARET is comprised of two main components: stipend-supported research mentorships and a web-based module series, consisting of six, interactive, multi-media modules addressing core SA research topics, delivered via course curricula and in the research mentorships. Authors assessed program feasibility and impact on student interest in conducting SA research by tracking participation and conducting participant focus groups and online surveys. Results 30 early health professional students completed mentorships (25 summer, 5 year-long) and 1324 completed at least one web-module. SARET was considered attractive for the opportunity to conduct clinically-oriented research and to work with health professionals across disciplines. Mentorship students reported positive impact on their vision of SA-related clinical care, more positive attitudes about research, and in some cases, change in career plans. Web-based modules were associated with enhanced interest in SA (35% increase, p=0.005, in those somewhat/very interested for Neurobiology module) and SA research (+38%, p<0.001 for Activation, +45%, p<0.001 for Personal Impact, +7%, p=0.089 for Neurobiology). Conclusions The SARET program stimulates SA clinical and research interest among students of nursing, medicine and dentistry and may be disseminable in whole or in part.

A Scoping Review of Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Addictions Education and Training

“…Reported outcomes were typically preliminary, anecdotal, and limited to participants' general satisfaction with the initiative and/or self-reported confidence/ self-efficacy in applying new knowledge and skills (Iles-Shih et al, 2011;Marcus et al, 1999;Mihalynuk et al, 2007;Near & Martin, 2007;Stanton et al, 2012;Storti & Maranjian-Church, 1999;Tanner et al, 2012;Truncali et al, 2012). In several instances, however, more rigorous outcomes were reported.…”

“…Furthermore, programs or initiatives were often framed as involving more than one discipline and/or listed the disciplines of the learners or faculty, but the specific ways in which this interdisciplinarity was manifested in curriculum development, learner interaction, or program activities, management, and evaluation were unclear (Stanton, Atherton, Toriello, & Hodgson, 2012;Tanner, Wilhelm, Rossie, & Metcalf, 2012;Truncali et al, 2012). In a related vein, interdisciplinary collaboration across various disciplines was often implied but rarely explicated.…”

“…Major facilitators included the availability of practical educational materials, mentorship, and resources/ funding for the initiative and support from colleagues, department, and institutional leaders (Baez et al, 2004;IlesShih et al, 2011;Marcus et al, 2005). Barriers and challenges included limited room for interprofessional education initiatives in already-full curricula; scheduling conflicts that compromised interdisciplinary productivity or student participation; retention/turnover among learners/faculty/community partners; limited funding or sharing funding across departments, lack of faculty recognition/reward for interdisciplinary teaching, and internal conflict across disciplines because of differing foci on goals and actions versus process and communication Madden et al, 2006;Marcus et al, 2005;Mihalynuk et al, 2007;Storti & Maranjian-Church, 1999;Tetrault et al, 2012;Truncali et al, 2012). In addition, several authors raised that challenges related to the amount of discipline-specific content or approaches might be needed for interdisciplinary education in addictions, for example, creating a meaningful ''generic'' curriculum or managing content or teaching modalities that were incongruent with certain disciplines' paradigms or norms (Baez et al, 2004;Tetrault et al, 2012;Truncali et al, 2012).…”

“…Some authors, however, were explicit about the forms of interdisciplinary collaboration occurring between learners or among health professional faculty organizers. These included interdisciplinary team-based problem-solving exercises and joint projects for learners (Cobia, Center, Buckhalt, & Meadows, 1995;Herie, Connolly, Voci, Dragonetti, & Selby, 2012;Storti & Maranjian-Church, 1999;Straussner et al, 2005;Wendler & Murdock, 2006) and, for health professional faculty, roles as development committee or task force members, expert trainers/co-teachers/mentors, and evaluators (Baez, Eckert-Norton, & Morrison, 2004;Herie et al, 2012;Madden et al, 2006;Marcus, Rickman, & Sobhan, 1999;Near & Martin, 2007;Storti & Maranjian-Church, 1999;Truncali et al, 2012).…”

“…In addition, several initiatives combined addictions content with formal interdisciplinary research training for health professional students and postlicensure health professionals (Meyer, Babor, & Hesselbrock, 1988;Truncali et al, 2012).…”