Impact of a Student-Run Clinic in a Non-Profit Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Facility for Women [32B]

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Substance abuse is a growing problem among women, and is frequently accompanied by multiple gynecologic concerns. Residential substance abuse rehabilitation facilities offer an opportunity to address those concerns. The purpose of this report is to examine the impact of an all-volunteer, medical student-run clinic with faculty supervision within a non-profit, inner-city women's residential substance abuse rehabilitation facility. METHODS: 625 clients were admitted, regardless of financial status, to a 70-bed residential substance abuse rehabilitation facility between 2016 and mid-2018. Data including Pap smears, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection, and sexually transmitted infection testing were analyzed. RESULTS: From January 2016 through August 2018, 175/625 (28.0%) clients accepted Pap testing. 52/175 (29.7%) had an abnormal result, defined as Trichomonas infection, HPV infection, or premalignant or malignant lesion. 240/625 (38.4%) clients accepted Gonorrhea/Chlamydia testing, and 6 were identified as having Gonorrhea or Chlamydia. In 2018 alone, Pap testing identified 7/44 (15.9%) clients as having premalignant or malignant lesions, including one case of squamous cell carcinoma. 9/24 (37.5%) had a high-risk HPV strain. 7/44 (15.9%) had Trichomonas. Clients also received counseling regarding personal health awareness and reduction of high-risk behaviors. CONCLUSION: The use of a student-run clinic to provide gynecologic services within a residential substance abuse rehabilitation facility has a major impact and is cost-efficient. Many clients have no other opportunity to obtain instruction on health awareness and high-risk behavior, as well as diagnosis and treatment of abnormal Pap smears and STIs. This model allows non-profit facilities to provide an otherwise unaffordable level of care.

Breast and cervical cancer screening rates in student‐run free clinics: A systematic review

“…Of these, 3614 were excluded as either duplicates or because they did not meet our inclusion criteria based on title and abstract ( n = 3125). For the remaining 20 studies, we undertook full‐text review and eliminated eight studies because they did not specify the proportion of eligible women who had screening, and, as a result, we were not able to obtain the rate of screening information from those studies 20–27 . This left 12 references that ultimately met our inclusion criteria and were synthesized in the systematic review.…”

“…For the remaining 20 studies, we undertook full-text review and eliminated eight studies because they did not specify the proportion of eligible women who had screening, and, as a result, we were not able to obtain the rate of screening information from those studies. [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] This left 12 references that ultimately met our inclusion criteria and were synthesized in the systematic review. The Figure 1 details the study selection process.…”

Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Rates in Student-Run Free Clinics: A Systematic Review

“…For the remaining 20 studies, we undertook full-text review and eliminated 8 studies because they did not specify the proportion of eligible women who had 8 screening and as a result, we were not able to obtain rate of screening information from those studies. [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] This left 12 references which ultimately met our inclusion criteria and were synthesized in the systematic review.…”