Faculty Bibliography

Despite significant public health attention and investment, hundreds of thousands of individuals have suffered fatal opioid overdose since the onset of the opioid crisis. Risk of opioid overdose has been exacerbated by the influx of fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid, into the drug supply. The National Institutes of Health Helping End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) Initiative is supporting the development of vaccines targeting fentanyl to protect against overdose. If successful, a vaccine would induce anti-fentanyl antibodies to sequester fentanyl (but not other opioids) in the blood, preventing fentanyl from crossing into the brain and reaching the central nervous system where it can cause overdose. Introduction of an overdose preventing strategy that relies on a vaccine to confer passive protection may be impactful. However, vaccines are poorly understood by the public and politicized. Moreover, the overdose ecosystem is complex and extends across numerous social, economic, medical, and cultural systems. As such, optimal use of a vaccine strategy to address overdose may benefit from multidisciplinary consideration of the social, ethical, and systemic factors that influence substance use and overdose that may also impact the acceptability of a fentanyl vaccine and related implementation strategies. In March 2022, Dr. Elissa Weitzman convened a two-day conference at the Harvard Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study on the Social Complexity of a Fentanyl Vaccine to Prevent Opioid Overdose. In all, 19 professionals from diverse disciplines (medicine, psychology, history, ethics, immunology, vaccinology, communications, policy) attended the conference and led discussions that centered on population health and epidemiology, history of medicine and frameworks for understanding substance use, ethics, decision-making and attitudes, and operational issues to the question of a novel immunotherapy targeting fentanyl overdose. Participants also debated the risks and benefits of vaccine administration in response to fictional clinical case vignettes. A summary of the conference presentations and discussions follows.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Creating an inclusive and equitable learning environment is a national priority. Nevertheless, data reflecting medical students' perception of the climate of equity and inclusion are limited. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To develop and validate an instrument to measure students' perceptions of the climate of equity and inclusion in medical school using data collected annually by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:The Promoting Diversity, Group Inclusion, and Equity tool was developed in 3 stages. A Delphi panel of 9 members identified survey items from preexisting AAMC data sources. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was performed on student responses to AAMC surveys to construct the tool, which underwent rigorous psychometric validation. Participants were undergraduate medical students at Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited medical schools in the US who completed the 2015 to 2019 AAMC Year 2 Questionnaire (Y2Q), the administrations of 2016 to 2020 AAMC Graduation Questionnaire (GQ), or both. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to November 2023. EXPOSURES/UNASSIGNED:Student race and ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Development and psychometric validation of the tool, including construct validity, internal consistency, and criterion validity. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Delphi panel members identified 146 survey items from the Y2Q and GQ reflecting students' perception of the climate of equity and inclusion, and responses to these survey items were obtained from 54 906 students for the Y2Q cohort (median [IQR] age, 24 [23-26] years; 29 208 [52.75%] were female, 11 389 [20.57%] were Asian, 4089 [7.39%] were multiracial, and 33 373 [60.28%] were White) and 61 998 for the GQ cohort (median [IQR] age, 27 [26-28] years; 30 793 [49.67%] were female, 13 049 [21.05%] were Asian, 4136 [6.67%] were multiracial, and 38 215 [61.64%] were White). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of student responses identified 8 factors for the Y2Q model (faculty role modeling; student empowerment; student fellowship; cultural humility; faculty support for students; fostering a collaborative and safe environment; discrimination: race, ethnicity, and gender; and discrimination: sexual orientation) and 5 factors for the GQ model (faculty role modeling; student empowerment; faculty support for students; discrimination: race, ethnicity, and gender; and discrimination: sexual orientation). Confirmatory factor analysis indicated acceptable model fit (root mean square error of approximation of 0.05 [Y2Q] and 0.06 [GQ] and comparative fit indices of 0.95 [Y2Q] and 0.94 [GQ]). Cronbach α for individual factors demonstrated internal consistency ranging from 0.69 to 0.92 (Y2Q) and 0.76 to 0.95 (GQ). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:This study found that the new tool is a reliable and psychometrically valid measure of medical students' perceptions of equity and inclusion in the learning environment.

Black individuals in the USA experience disparities in mental health that lead to unfavorable health outcomes and increased morbidity from mental illness due to centuries of racism. We emphasize the need to understand the roots of racial injustice to achieve racial equity. Historical factors such as European imperialism, enslavement, the myth of Black inferiority, and scientific racial classification have all perpetuated disparities, leading to the current underestimation, misdiagnosis, and inadequate treatment of mental illness in Black populations. Many of the issues discussed herein apply to Black people globally; however, our focus is on Black Americans and the inequities that result from the current US mental health system. We discuss the limitations of using the DSM-5 classification system and common epidemiological surveys, which do not capture or call for a comprehensive analysis of the systems producing mental health issues, to understand mental illness among Black Americans.

Emotional distress can disproportionately disable individuals from minoritized groups, such as Black Americans, due to multiple intersecting factors. Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive, culturally sensitive approach to mental health care that promotes inclusivity, accessibility, and representation within the field, to foster empowerment and resilience among minoritized communities. Given the weight of negative factors that can lead to psychological distress and mental illness, the wellness of Black Americans and how they support their mental health is important to acknowledge. In this Series paper, we propose that Black Americans have developed systems for managing many of these threats to their survival and wellbeing.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative approach that involves active participation and input from members of the community on all aspects of the research process. CBPR is an important research method as it can empower communities to work with academicians and other scholars for more robust and culturally appropriate interventions. Although CBPR is useful regardless of race or ethnicity, it is particularly important for Black scientists and communities. This is because CBPR seeks to address social and health inequities by engaging with historically excluded communities, as well as to produce research that is relevant to the community. Successful CBPR initiatives can improve Black mental health through collaboration, empowerment, and cultural sensitivity, as the current under-representation of Black scientists hampers mental health equity efforts. Equal funding of Black scientists is key to conducting community-engaged research. We discuss CBPR and its importance for Black mental health, case studies of CBPR conducted by Black scientists, Black leaders, and community members, and what is necessary for Black people to attain mental health in an inherently racist society.

Opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose deaths are a public health crisis. One contributing factor is stigma towards people who use opioids. We developed and conducted a public-facing, half-day educational event designed to challenge misperceptions about OUD from a contemporary neuroscience perspective. Participants engaged with three different resources on the neurobiology of addiction, and, at the end of the event, they rated its effectiveness. We also collected and compared pre- and post-event composite OUD stigma scales. Participants rated our approach and the overall event as highly effective. Additionally, OUD stigma scores were lower immediately following the event, and this decrease was primarily driven by decreased internalized stigma. Here, we demonstrate an effective proof-of-concept that an accessible, public-facing, neuroscience education event may reduce OUD stigma in the community.

BACKGROUND:Cocaine overdose death rates among Black people are higher than that of any other racial/ethnic group, attributable to synthetic opioids in the cocaine supply. Understanding the most effective psychostimulant use treatment interventions for Black people is a high priority. While some interventions have proven effective for the general population, their comparative effectiveness among Black people remains unknown. To address this gap, our NIDA-funded Clinical Trials Network (CTN) study (0125), will use Integrative Data Analysis (IDA) to examine treatment effectiveness across 9 CTN studies. This manuscript describes the study protocol for CTN-0125. METHODS:Of the 59 completed randomized clinical trials in the CTN with available datasets, nine met our inclusion criteria: 1) behavioral intervention, 2) targeted cocaine use or use disorder, 3) included sub-samples of participants who self-identified as Black and 4) included outcome measures of cocaine and psychostimulant use and consequences. We aim to 1) estimate scale scores of cocaine use severity while considering study-level measurement non-invariance, 2) compare the effectiveness of psychosocial treatments for psychostimulant use, and 3) explore individual (e.g., concomitant opioid use, age, sex, employment, pre-treatment psychiatric status) and study-level moderators (e.g., attendance/retention) to evaluate subgroup differences in treatment effectiveness. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The NIDA CTN provides a unique collection of studies that can offer insight into what interventions are most efficacious for Black people. Findings from our CTN-0125 study have the potential to substantially inform treatment approaches specifically designed for Black people who use psychostimulants.

BACKGROUND:Alcohol use disorder (AUD) commonly causes hospitalization, particularly for individuals disproportionately impacted by structural racism and other forms of marginalization. The optimal approach for engaging hospitalized patients with AUD in treatment post-hospital discharge is unknown. We describe the rationale, aims, and protocol for Project ENHANCE (ENhancing Hospital-initiated Alcohol TreatmeNt to InCrease Engagement), a clinical trial testing increasingly intensive approaches using a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation approach. METHODS:We are randomizing English and/or Spanish-speaking individuals with untreated AUD (n = 450) from a large, urban, academic hospital in New Haven, CT to: (1) Brief Negotiation Interview (with referral and telephone booster) alone (BNI), (2) BNI plus facilitated initiation of medications for alcohol use disorder (BNI + MAUD), or (3) BNI + MAUD + initiation of computer-based training for cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT4CBT, BNI + MAUD + CBT4CBT). Interventions are delivered by Health Promotion Advocates. The primary outcome is AUD treatment engagement 34 days post-hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes include AUD treatment engagement 90 days post-discharge and changes in self-reported alcohol use and phosphatidylethanol. Exploratory outcomes include health care utilization. We will explore whether the effectiveness of the interventions on AUD treatment engagement and alcohol use outcomes differ across and within racialized and ethnic groups, consistent with disproportionate impacts of AUD. Lastly, we will conduct an implementation-focused process evaluation, including individual-level collection and statistical comparisons between the three conditions of costs to providers and to patients, cost-effectiveness indices (effectiveness/cost ratios), and cost-benefit indices (benefit/cost ratios, net benefit [benefits minus costs). Graphs of individual- and group-level effectiveness x cost, and benefits x costs, will portray relationships between costs and effectiveness and between costs and benefits for the three conditions, in a manner that community representatives also should be able to understand and use. CONCLUSIONS:Project ENHANCE is expected to generate novel findings to inform future hospital-based efforts to promote AUD treatment engagement among diverse patient populations, including those most impacted by AUD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05338151.