RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The American Board of Medical Specialties recognized addiction medicine (ADM) as a subspecialty in 2016, which was timely given the recent rise in substance use disorder (SUD). The impact of this dual board opportunity on Family Medicine has not been described. Our study enumerates and characterizes physicians dually certified in Family Medicine and ADM. METHODS: We linked American Board of Medical Specialties data from March 2020 on physicians dually boarded in Family Medicine and ADM to responses on demographic and scope of practice questions in the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) National Graduate Survey and Family Medicine Certification Examination Registration Questionnaire. RESULTS: Of current ABFM Diplomates, 0.53% (492/93,269) are also boarded in ADM. Based on survey responses from a subset of dually certified physicians, those who are dually certified are more likely to practice in federally qualified health centers and to hold a faculty position. Dually certified physicians are more likely to provide HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C management and are as likely as non-dually certified physicians to provide newborn care, obstetric deliveries, inpatient adult medicine care, and intensive care. DISCUSSION: While only a small proportion of family physicians carry dual ADM board certification, those that do disproportionately serve vulnerable populations while retaining broad scope of care. Further work is needed to examine whether SUD treatment access could be addressed by implementing models that support dually certified physicians in consultative and educational efforts that would amplify their impact across the primary care workforce.
Assuntos
Medicina do Vício , Médicos de Família , Certificação , Humanos , Recém-NascidoRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of medical school location in Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and Puerto Rico (PR) on the proportion of underrepresented minorities in medicine (URMM) and women hired in faculty and leadership positions at academic medical institutions. METHOD: AAMC 2013 faculty roster data for allopathic medical schools were used to compare the racial/ethnic and gender composition of faculty and chair positions at medical schools located within HBCU and PR to that of other medical schools in the United States. Data were compared using independent sample t-tests. RESULTS: Women were more highly represented in HBCU faculty (mean HBCU 43.5% vs. non-HBCU 36.5%, p=0.024) and chair (mean HBCU 30.1% vs. non-HBCU 15.6%, p=0.005) positions and in PR chair positions (mean PR 38.23% vs. non-PR 15.38%, p=0.016) compared with other allopathic institutions. HBCU were associated with increased African American representation in faculty (mean HBCU 59.5% vs. non-HBCU 2.6%, p=0.011) and chair (mean HBCU 73.1% vs. non-HBCU 2.2%, p≤0.001) positions. PR designation was associated with increased faculty (mean PR 75.40% vs. non-PR 3.72%, p≤0.001) and chair (mean PR 75.00% vs. non-PR 3.54%, p≤0.001) positions filled by Latinos/Hispanics. CONCLUSIONS: Women and African Americans are better represented in faculty and leadership positions at HBCU, and women and Latino/Hispanics at PR medical schools, than they are at allopathic peer institutions.