Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Health professionals' training is a key element to address unhealthy alcohol use in Primary Care (PC). Education about alcohol use can be effective in improving PC provider's knowledge and skills addressing alcohol-related problems. The aim of the study was to evaluate the training of health professionals to address unhealthy alcohol use in PC. METHODS: An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, multicenter study was performed. LOCATION: PC centres of the Spanish National Health System (SNHS). PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians, residents and nurses completed an online questionnaire that inquired about their training (none, basic, medium or advanced), knowledge and preventive practices aimed at reducing unhealthy alcohol use. The study population was recruited via random sampling, stratified by the regions of the SNHS's PC centre, and by email invitation to members of two Spanish scientific societies of Family Medicine. RESULTS: A total of 1760 professionals participated in the study. Sixty-seven percent (95% CI: 67.5-71.8) reported not having received specific training to address unhealthy alcohol use, 30% (95% CI: 27.4-31.7) reported having received basic training, and 3% (95% CI: 2.3-4.0) medium/advanced training. The training received was greater in younger providers (p < 0.001) who participated in the PAPPS (Preventive Activities and Health Promotion Programme) (p < 0.001). Higher percentages of providers with intermediate or advanced training reported performing screening for unhealthy alcohol use (p < 0.001), clinical assessment of alcohol consumption (p < 0.001), counselling of patients to reduce their alcohol intake (p < 0.001) or to abstain, in the cases of pregnant women and drivers (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study reveals a low level of training among Spanish PC providers to address unhealthy alcohol use. A higher percentage of screening, clinical assessment and counselling interventions aimed at reducing unhealthy alcohol use was reported by health professionals with an intermediate or advanced level of training.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) has increased sharply. Office-based opioid treatment with buprenorphine (OBOT) is effective but often underutilized because of physicians' lack of experience prescribing this therapy. Little is known about US residency training programs' provision of OBOT and addiction medicine training. METHODS: The authors conducted a survey of residency program directors (RPDs) at all US residency programs in internal medicine, family medicine, and psychiatry to assess the frequency with which their residents provide care for OUD, presence and features of curricula in OBOT and addiction medicine, RPDs' beliefs about OBOT, and potential barriers to providing OBOT training. RESULTS: The response rate was 49.5% (476 of 962). Although 76.9% of RPDs reported that residents frequently manage patients with OUD, only 23.5% reported that their program dedicates 12 or more hours of curricular time to addiction medicine, 35.9% reported that their program encourages/requires training in OBOT, and 22.6% reported that their program encourages/requires obtaining a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. Most RPDs believe that OBOT is an important treatment option for OUD (88.1%) and that increased residency training in OBOT would improve access to OBOT (73.7%). The authors also found that programs whose RPD had favorable views of OBOT were more likely to provide OBOT and addiction medicine training. Psychiatry programs were most likely to provide OBOT training and their RPDs most likely to have beliefs about OBOT that were positive. Commonly cited barriers to implementing OBOT training include a lack of waivered preceptors (76.9%), competing curricular priorities (64.1%), and a lack of support (social work and counseling) services (54.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Internal medicine, family medicine, and psychiatry residents often care for patients with OUD, and most RPDs believe that increased residency training in OBOT would increase access to this treatment. Yet, only a minority of programs offer training in OBOT.

Medical education has increasingly shifted towards replacing large lectures with a combination of online and smaller in-person group sessions. This study compares the efficacy of a virtual Opioid Overdose Prevention and Response Training (OOPRT) for first-year medical students with an identical in-person training. During their first unit of medical school, students in the class of 2023 (cohort 1) received OOPRT in-person and students in the class of 2024 (cohort 2) received training via Zoom. Aside from the delivery format, trainings were identical. Both cohorts completed identical surveys at medical school entry and post-training to evaluate knowledge and experiences using the Opioid Overdose Knowledge Scale, Opioid Overdose Attitudes Scale, Medical Conditions Regard Scale, and Naloxone Related Risk Compensation Beliefs. Of 430 students, 84.2% (362: 124 in cohort 1; 238 in cohort 2) completed baseline and post-training surveys. Students reported significantly improved opioid overdose knowledge and attitudes in all 4 knowledge and 3 attitudes subscales after training. Only one outcome differed by training type: knowledge of opioid overdose signs. Cohorts did not differ in opinions of training; 97.2% enjoyed it and 99.4% believed future classes should receive it. Medical students' attitudes and knowledge significantly improved after OOPRT; only one of 13 outcomes showed a cohort difference. There were no differences in enjoyment, indicating that switching to virtual learning does not undermine the learning experience. Further studies are needed to confirm that these results can be extended to other medical school topics where small group interactive discussion is preferred.