Testing a Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) interdisciplinary training program model for higher education systems.

Abstract

An estimated 21 million Americans meet the criteria for a substance use disorder (SUD), whereas 24% of the population engages in risky alcohol use leading to tremendous health and economic impacts (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2017). Opioid misuse is a national public health emergency, with an estimated 46,802 opioid-related deaths occurring in 2018 (National Center for Health Statistics, 2020). Despite the high prevalence of risky substance use and SUDs, preservice education related to screening for and treating SUDs in health and behavioral health professions is inadequate (

Training Master of Social Work Students in Brief Intervention for Unhealthy Alcohol Use: Results of a Validated Adherence Assessment

“…At the same time, like education in other health professions, 32 such efforts represent the next frontier in quality training to effect client outcomes. In addition, consistent with trends in higher education in general, future social work training and educational assessment efforts in substance use should continue to strive toward interprofessional education, 33 in which learners from 2 or more professions are learning together in a collaborative fashion to improve client health outcomes. 34,35 SBIRT, which often requires a team approach in health care to implement, along with other team-based, substance-related service models, would fit well into an interprofessional training course.…”

Expanding interprofessional teams: Training future health care professionals in screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT).

“…Although self-efficacy has been used as outcomes for other workforce development initiatives (Martin et al, 2021), self-efficacy does not necessarily predict model fidelity or skill effectiveness; UG students reported significantly greater efficacy at baseline than GRAD counterparts, despite equivocal pretraining knowledge scores. Another limitation is that we did not control for differences in the SBIRT training dosage across the courses (e.g., some courses may have provided additional trainings/offerings developed during another project; Lindsey et al, 2021). Similarly, we did not collect data on (and therefore, did not control for) full- versus part-time student status, employment, or other factors that may have influenced use of the modules in the context of the students’ curricular experiences.…”

“…This was a cohort outcome study using data collected from an SBIRT student training program, funded by two SAMHSA grants (2015–2018; 2020–2022). The 2020–2022 project expanded on another SBIRT student training grant which operated from 2015–2018 (see Lindsey et al, 2021, for details on module development, dissemination, and implementation across interdisciplinary graduate programs) by including health coaching and physician assistant students, and continuing data collection among a subset of graduate students. The 2020–2022 project is the focus of this article.…”

“…Given the complex health concerns of patients with SUDs, or those engaging in risky substance use, integrated primary care (IPC) has been identified as a means to serve this population (Jemberie et al, 2020); however, many health care professionals working in primary care lack the skills, knowledge, self-efficacy, and time to provide evidence-based substance use interventions in the absence of specialized training (Tanner et al, 2012). To fill this gap, workforce development in integrated primary care, particularly in the domain of substance use education, has increasingly focused on preprofessional training (Lindsey et al, 2021; Muzyk et al, 2019; Martin et al, 2021). Interprofessional education has often resulted in training a wide range of providers, including medicine, pharmacy, social work, and nursing (Muzyk et al, 2019; Martin et al, 2021).…”

Disability-affirmative integrated primary care.

“…For example, disability is often only cursory included in health education, and when it is, it is often individually driven by passionate faculty, rather than systematically integrated across the curriculum (Peiris-John et al, 2021; Bowen et al, 2020), and trainees living with disabilities often face barriers when disclosing disability, asking for accommodation, or addressing others’ ablest assumptions and microaggressions (Lund et al, 2020). CFHA members in higher education need to intentionally serve as advocates for PWD and disability education, develop disability threads that cross-cut curricula in a way that is integrated and sustainable (Council on Social Work Education Center for Diversity and Social & Economic Justice, 2018; Lindsey et al, 2021); similarly, those in academic medical centers must focus on precepting strategies that encourage reflective practice when working with PWD in order to develop disability-competent providers. Particular attention should be paid to microaggressions such as the assumptions of helplessness, or that presenting concerns in primary care, such as depression or anxiety, are inherently tied to one’s disability (Keller & Galgay, 2010).…”