Public and Population Health in U.S. Medical Education: A Review of Guidance in Extraordinary Times.

ABSTRACT: Generations of medical educators have recommended including public and population health (PPH) content in the training of U.S. physicians. The COVID-19 pandemic, structural racism, epidemic gun violence, and the existential threats caused by climate change are currently unsubtle reminders of the essential nature of PPH in medical education and practice. To assess the state of PPH content in medical education, the authors reviewed relevant guidance, including policies, standards, and recommendations from national bodies that represent and oversee medical education for physicians with MD degrees.Findings confirm that guidance across the medical education continuum, from premedical education to continuing professional development, increasingly includes PPH elements that vary in specificity and breadth. Graduate medical education policies present the most comprehensive approach in both primary care and subspecialty fields. Behavioral, quantitative, social, and systems sciences are represented, although not uniformly, in guidance for every phase of training. Quantitative PPH skills are frequently presented in the context of research, but not in relation to the development of population health perspectives (e.g., evidence-based medicine, quality improvement, policy development). The interdependence between governmental public health and medical practice, environmental health, and the impact of structural racism and other systems of oppression on health are urgent concerns, yet are not consistently or explicitly included in curricular guidance. To prepare physicians to meet the health needs of patients and communities, educators should identify and address gaps and inconsistencies in PPH curricula and related guidance.Re-examinations of public health and health care systems in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic support the importance of PPH in physician training and practice, as physicians can help to bridge clinical and public health systems. This review provides an inventory of existing guidance (presented in the appendices) to assist educators in establishing PPH as an essential foundation of physician training and practice.

Teaching Public and Population Health in Medical Education: An Evaluation Framework.

Curriculum models and training activities in medical education have been markedly enhanced to prepare physicians to address the health needs of diverse populations and to advance health equity. While different teaching and experiential learning activities in the public health and population health sciences have been implemented, there is no existing framework to measure the effectiveness of public and population health (PPH) education in medical education programs. In 2015, the Association of American Medical Colleges established the Expert Panel on Public and Population Health in Medical Education, which convened 20 U.S. medical faculty members whose goal was to develop an evaluation framework adapted from the New World Kirkpatrick Model. Institutional leaders can use this framework to assess the effectiveness of PPH curricula for learners, faculty, and community partners. It may also assist institutions with identifying opportunities to improve the integration of PPH content into medical education programs. In this article, the authors present outcomes metrics and practical curricular or institutional illustrations at each Kirkpatrick training evaluation level to assist institutions with the measurement of (1) reaction to the PPH education content, (2) learning accomplished, (3) application of knowledge and skills to practice, and (4) outcomes achieved as a result of PPH education and practice. A fifth level was added to measure the benefit of PPH curricula on the health system and population health. The framework may assist with developing a locally relevant evaluation to further integrate and support PPH education at U.S. medical schools and teaching hospitals.

Understanding the Tobacco Control Act: efforts by the US Food and Drug Administration to make tobacco-related morbidity and mortality part of the USA's past, not its future.

The USA has a rich history of public health efforts to reduce morbidity and mortality from tobacco use. Comprehensive tobacco-prevention programmes, when robustly implemented, reduce the prevalence of youth and adult smoking, decrease cigarette consumption, accelerate declines in tobacco-related deaths, and diminish health-care costs from tobacco-related diseases. Effective public health interventions include raising the price of tobacco products, smoke-free policies, counter-marketing campaigns, advertising restrictions, augmenting access to treatment for tobacco use through insurance coverage and telephone help lines, and comprehensive approaches to prevent children and adolescents from accessing tobacco products. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has six major areas of regulatory authority: regulation of tobacco products; regulation of the advertising, marketing, and promotion of tobacco products; regulation of the distribution and sales of tobacco products; enforcement of the provisions of the Tobacco Control Act and tobacco regulations; regulatory science to support FDA authorities and activities; and public education about the harms of tobacco products and to support FDA regulatory actions. With passing of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) in June, 2009, important new regulatory approaches were added to the tobacco prevention and control arsenal.

Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of oseltamivir combined with probenecid.

Oseltamivir is an inhibitor of influenza virus neuraminidase, which is approved for use for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza A and B virus infections. In the event of an influenza pandemic, oseltamivir supplies may be limited; thus, alternative dosing strategies for oseltamivir prophylaxis should be explored. Healthy volunteers were randomized to a three-arm, open-label study and given 75 mg oral oseltamivir every 24 h (group 1), 75 mg oseltamivir every 48 h (q48h) combined with 500 mg probenecid four times a day (group 2), or 75 mg oseltamivir q48h combined with 500 mg probenecid twice a day (group 3) for 15 days. Pharmacokinetic data, obtained by noncompartmental methods, and safety data are reported. Forty-eight subjects completed the pharmacokinetic analysis. The study drugs were generally well tolerated, except for one case of reversible grade 4 thrombocytopenia in a subject in group 2. The calculated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean ratios between groups 2 and 3 and group 1 were outside the bioequivalence criteria boundary (0.80 to 1.25) at 0.63 to 0.89 for group 2 versus group 1 and 0.57 to 0.90 for group 3 versus group 1. The steady-state apparent oral clearance of oseltamivir carboxylate was significantly less in groups 2 (7.4 liters/h; 90% CI, 6.08 to 8.71) and 3 (7.19 liters/h; 90% CI, 6.41 to 7.98) than in group 1 (9.75 liters/h; 90% CI, 6.91 to 12.60) (P < 0.05 for both comparisons by analysis of variance). The (arithmetic) mean concentration at 48 h for group 2 was not significantly different from the mean concentration at 24 h for group 1 (42 +/- 76 and 81 +/- 54 ng/ml, respectively; P = 0.194), but the mean concentration at 48 h for group 3 was significantly less than the mean concentration at 24 h for group 1 (23 +/- 26 and 81 +/- 54 ng/ml, respectively; P = 0.012). Alternate-day dosing of oseltamivir plus dosing with probenecid four times daily achieved trough oseltamivir carboxylate concentrations adequate for neuraminidase inhibition in vitro, and this combination should be studied further.

HIV, hepatitis C and HIV/hepatitis C virus co-infection in vulnerable populations.

OBJECTIVE: To describe basic patient demographic and clinical characteristics of HIV-infected and HIV/hepatitis C virus (HCV)-co-infected patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with a focus on some patient factors that place such patients at an increased risk of poor health outcomes. DESIGN: An observational retrospective cohort study. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of veterans in the VA Immunology Case Registry who received care in the VA in 2002. RESULTS: Of 18,349 HIV-infected patients, 6782 (37.0%) were HCV seropositive. Compared with HIV-alone-infected patients, HIV/HCV-co-infected patients were older, more likely to be men, more likely to be black or Hispanic, and more likely to report intravenous drug use as a risk factor for HIV acquisition. HIV/HCV-co-infected patients were more likely to have diagnoses of mental health illness, depression, alcohol abuse, substance abuse and hard drug abuse compared with HIV-alone-infected patients. Co-infected patients were less likely to have a history of an AIDS opportunistic infection ever and were less likely to have received HIV antiretroviral drugs in 2002. CONCLUSION: The VA's HIV and HIV/HCV-co-infected patient populations have very high rates of additional comorbid conditions that complicate both the pharmacological therapy and clinical course of both HIV and HCV infections. Given the overlap in viral illness and comorbidities, optimal models of integrated care need to be developed for populations with HIV, HCV, and HIV/HCV co-infection and who need substance abuse treatment or mental healthcare.