Faculty Bibliography

The Triple Aim framework for advancing health care transformation elevated population health improvement as a central goal, together with improving patient experiences and reducing costs. Though population health improvement is often viewed in the context of clinical care delivery, broader-reaching approaches that bridge health care delivery, public health, and other sectors to foster area-wide health gains are gathering momentum. Academic medical centers (AMCs) across the United States are poised to play key roles in advancing population health and have begun to structure themselves accordingly. Yet few frameworks exist to guide these efforts. Here, the authors offer a generalizable approach for AMCs to promote population health across the domains of research, education, and practice. In 2012, NYU School of Medicine, a major AMC dedicated to high-quality care of individual patients, launched an academic Department of Population Health with a strongly applied approach. A rigorous research agenda prioritizes scalable initiatives to improve health and reduce inequities in populations defined by race, ethnicity, geography, and/or other factors. Education targets population-level thinking among future physicians and research leadership among graduate trainees. Four key mission-bridging approaches offer a framework for population health departments in AMCs: engaging community, turning information into insight, transforming health care, and shaping policy. Challenges include tensions between research, practice, and evaluation, navigating funding sources, and sustaining an integrated, interdisciplinary approach. This framework of discipline-bridging, partnership-engaging inquiry, as it diffuses throughout academic medicine, holds great promise for realigning medicine and public health.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:In response to rapidly growing interest in population health, academic medical centers are launching department-level initiatives that focus on this evolving discipline. This trend, with its potential to extend the scope of academic medicine, has not been well characterized. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To describe the emergence of departments of population health at academic medical centers in the United States, including shared areas of focus, opportunities, and challenges. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This qualitative study was based on a structured in-person convening of a working group of chairs of population health-oriented departments on November 13 and 14, 2017, complemented by a survey of core characteristics of these and additional departments identified through web-based review of US academic medical centers. United States medical school departments with the word population in their name were included. Centers, institutes, and schools were not included. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Departments were characterized by year of origin, areas of focus, organizational structure, faculty size, teaching programs, and service engagement. Opportunities and challenges faced by these emerging departments were grouped thematically and described. Results/UNASSIGNED:Eight of 9 population health-oriented departments in the working group were launched in the last 6 years. The 9 departments had 5 to 97 full-time faculty. Despite varied organizational structures, all addressed essential areas of focus spanning the missions of research, education, and service. Departments varied significantly in their relationships with the delivery of clinical care, but all engaged in practice-based and/or community collaboration. Common attributes include core attention to population health-oriented research methods across disciplines, emphasis on applied research in frontline settings, strong commitment to partnership, interest in engaging other sectors, and focus on improving health equity. Tensions included defining boundaries with other academic units with overlapping areas of focus, identifying sources of sustainable extramural funding, and facilitating the interface between research and health system operations. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:Departments addressing population health are emerging rapidly in academic medical centers. In supporting this new framing, academic medicine affirms and strengthens its commitment to advancing population health and health equity, to improving the quality and effectiveness of care, and to upholding the social mission of medicine.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To support efforts to improve urban population health, we created a City Health Dashboard with area-specific data on health status, determinants of health, and equity at city and subcity (census tract) levels. METHODS:We developed a Web-based resource that includes 37 metrics across 5 domains: social and economic factors, physical environment, health behaviors, health outcomes, and clinical care. For the largest 500 US cities, the Dashboard presents metrics calculated to the city level and, where possible, subcity level from multiple data sources, including national health surveys, vital statistics, federal administrative data, and state education data sets. RESULTS:Iterative input from city partners shaped Dashboard development, ensuring that measures can be compared across user-selected cities and linked to evidence-based policies to spur action. Reports from early deployment indicate that the Dashboard fills an important need for city- and subcity-level data, fostering more granular understanding of health and its drivers and supporting associated priority-setting. CONCLUSIONS:By providing accessible city-level data on health and its determinants, the City Health Dashboard complements local surveillance efforts and supports urban population health improvement on a national scale. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print February 21, 2019: e1-e8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304903).

Background. Reference life expectancies inform frequently used health metrics, which play an integral role in determining resource allocation and health policy decision making. Existing reference life expectancies are not able to account for variation in geographies, populations, and disease states. Using a computer simulation, we developed a reference life expectancy estimation that considers competing causes of mortality, and is tailored to population characteristics. Methods. We developed a Monte Carlo microsimulation model that explicitly represented the top causes of US mortality in 2014 and the risk factors associated with their onset. The microsimulation follows a birth cohort of hypothetical individuals resembling the population of the United States. To estimate a reference life expectancy, we compared current circumstances with an idealized scenario in which all modifiable risk factors were eliminated and adherence to evidence-based therapies was perfect. We compared estimations of years of potential years life lost with alternative approaches. Results. In the idealized scenario, we estimated that overall life expectancy in the United States would increase by 5.9 years to 84.7 years. Life expectancy for men would increase from 76.4 years to 82.5 years, and life expectancy for women would increase from 81.3 years to 86.8 years. Using age-75 truncation to estimate potential years life lost compared to using the idealized life expectancy underestimated potential health gains overall (38%), disproportionately underestimated potential health gains for women (by 70%) compared to men (by 40%), and disproportionately underestimated the importance of heart disease for white women and black men. Conclusion. Mathematical simulations can be used to estimate an idealized reference life expectancy among a population to better inform and assess progress toward targets to improve population health.

BACKGROUND:We developed and implemented the Substance Abuse Research Education and Training (SARET) program for medical, dental, nursing, and social work students to address the dearth of health professionals pursuing research and careers in substance use disorders (SUD). SARET has two main components: (1) A novel online curriculum addressing core SUD research topics, to reach a large number of students. (2) A mentored summer research experience for in-depth exposure. METHODS:Modules were integrated into the curricula of the lead institution, and of five external schools. We assessed the number of web modules completed and their effect on students' interest in SUD research. We also assessed the impact of the mentorship experience on participants' attitudes and early career trajectories, including current involvement in SUD research. RESULTS:Since 2008, over 24,000 modules have been completed by approximately 9,700 individuals. In addition to integration of the modules into curricula at the lead institution, all five health-professional partner schools integrated at least one module and approximately 5,500 modules were completed by individuals outside the lead institution. We found an increase in interest in SUD research after completion of the modules for students in all four disciplines. From 2008-2015, 76 students completed summer mentorships; 8 students completed year-long mentorships; 13 published in SUD-related journals, 18 presented at national conferences, and 3 are actively engaged in SUD-related research. Mentorship participants reported a positive influence on their attitudes towards SUD-related clinical care, research, and inter-professional collaboration, leading in some cases to changes in career plans. CONCLUSIONS:A modular curriculum that stimulates clinical and research interest in SUD can be successfully integrated, into medical, dental, nursing, and social work curricula. The SARET program of mentored research participation fostered early research successes and influenced career choice of some participants. Longer-term follow-up will enable us to assess more distal careers of the program.

The NIDA funded Substance Abuse Education, Research and Training (SARET) Program addresses the compelling need for health professionals prepared to engage in substance use disorders (SUD) research. The goal of this interprofessional project, structured by an Executive Committee of co-investigators from the disciplines of medicine, nursing, social work and dentistry, is to increase the skills of students from each discipline for interprofessional research collaboration and early career-development opportunities in SUD research. The development of web-based modules, interprofessional seminars and a model mentorship program were designed as well, for dissemination and evaluation by other health professional schools. The educational format is 6 interactive web-based learning modules, providing an overview of core content on Substance Use Disorders (SUD), summer or year-long mentored research experiences with NIH-funded researchers and small interprofessional seminars and site visits. Assessment consists of self-reported annual student learning outcomes and external editorial and advisory board project and curricular materials review. These reviews encourages the updating of materials and provide flexibility for participating "champions" at other schools who use the modules. Quantitative and qualitative outcomes of student research activities and data on dissemination of modules support the fit between project content and interprofessional teaching modalities. The learning modules are available without charge to individuals, students, faculty or health professional programs from the project's website.

: The presence of structured addiction research training programs helps to ensure that the scientific workforce includes well-trained, diverse scientists necessary to reduce the negative impact of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use disorders. Although the field has made significant progress in the development of standards for clinical training in addiction medicine, there remains significant room for improvement in the training of addiction researchers, and also opportunities to synergize across addiction research training programs. The purpose of this commentary is to describe 4 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored addiction research training programs, highlight critical components, and provide recommendations for more comprehensive and effective program evaluation. Moving forward, evaluation of addiction research training programs would be enhanced by the use of conceptual models to inform process and outcome evaluations, the application of innovative methods to ensure long-term data collection, the improvement of mentorship evaluation measures, and the integration of training methods from other fields of study. We encourage NIH and others in the field to be proactive in establishing core metrics for evaluation across programs. Furthermore, centralized tracking of NIH-funded addiction research trainees, analysis of aggregate data across programs, and innovative methods to effectively disseminate program materials and processes are recommended.

BACKGROUND: The Substance Abuse Research and Education Training (SARET) program is funded by the National Institutes of Drug Abuse in 2006 as a novel approach to spark interest in substance abuse research among medical, dental, nursing, and social work graduate students through a Web-based curriculum and research mentorships. This report presents the initial integration of the intervention in a Master of Social Work (MSW) program, the components of the program, and the mixed-methods evaluation of its effect on students' attitudes towards substance abuse research and treatment. METHODS: SARET comprises 2 main components: stipend-supported research mentorships and a Web-based module series, consisting of 6 interactive, multimedia modules addressing core SA research topics, delivered via course curricula and in the research mentorships. An initial evaluation was designed to assess SARET's acceptability and short-term impact on participants' interest in SA research. The components of this Web-based curriculum evaluation include focus group feedback on the relevance of the modules to SW students, number of courses into which the modules were integrated with number of module completions, changes in interest in SA research associated with module completion. RESULTS: The full series of Web-based modules has been integrated across several courses in the social work curriculum, and social work students have become integral participants in the summer mentored research experience. One hundred eighteen students completed at least 1 module and 42 students completed all 6 modules. Neurobiology, Screening, and Epidemiology were the most widely viewed modules. Students reported positive impact on their vision of SA-related clinical care, more positive attitudes about conducting research, and in some cases, change in career. CONCLUSIONS: The SARET program's modules and summer mentored research increased clinical and research interest related to SUDs, as well as interprofessional attitudes among social work students. Participants have shown some early research success. Longer-term follow-up will enable us to continue to assess the effectiveness of the program.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine maintenance for opioid dependence remains of limited availability among underserved populations, despite increases in US opioid misuse and overdose deaths. Low threshold primary care treatment models including the use of unobserved, "home," buprenorphine induction may simplify initiation of care and improve access. Unobserved induction and long-term treatment outcomes have not been reported recently among large, naturalistic cohorts treated in low threshold safety net primary care settings. METHODS: This prospective clinical registry cohort design estimated rates of induction-related adverse events, treatment retention, and urine opioid results for opioid dependent adults offered buprenorphine maintenance in a New York City public hospital primary care office-based practice from 2006 to 2013. This clinic relied on typical ambulatory care individual provider-patient visits, prescribed unobserved induction exclusively, saw patients no more than weekly, and did not require additional psychosocial treatment. Unobserved induction consisted of an in-person screening and diagnostic visit followed by a 1-week buprenorphine written prescription, with pamphlet, and telephone support. Primary outcomes analyzed were rates of induction-related adverse events (AE), week 1 drop-out, and long-term treatment retention. Factors associated with treatment retention were examined using a Cox proportional hazard model among inductions and all patients. Secondary outcomes included overall clinic retention, buprenorphine dosages, and urine sample results. RESULTS: Of the 485 total patients in our registry, 306 were inducted, and 179 were transfers already on buprenorphine. Post-induction (n = 306), week 1 drop-out was 17%. Rates of any induction-related AE were 12%; serious adverse events, 0%; precipitated withdrawal, 3%; prolonged withdrawal, 4%. Treatment retention was a median 38 weeks (range 0-320) for inductions, compared to 110 (0-354) weeks for transfers and 57 for the entire clinic population. Older age, later years of first clinic visit (vs. 2006-2007), and baseline heroin abstinence were associated with increased treatment retention overall. CONCLUSIONS: Unobserved "home" buprenorphine induction in a public sector primary care setting appeared a feasible and safe clinical practice. Post-induction treatment retention of a median 38 weeks was in line with previous naturalistic studies of real-world office-based opioid treatment. Low threshold treatment protocols, as compared to national guidelines, may compliment recently increased prescriber patient limits and expand access to buprenorphine among public sector opioid use disorder patients.