Early-career female faculty, both physician scientists and basic researchers, have disproportionately experienced negative professional, financial, and personal consequences associated with the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This career phase represents a critical time for establishing a network of mentors and collaborators, demonstrating professional independence, and balancing new teaching, research, and service duties while simultaneously navigating personal and familial responsibilities. Persistent gender inequality perpetuated by adherence to traditional gender roles place early-career women faculty at a further disadvantage. Women in academic medicine and research do not attain promotion, leadership positions, and other established markers of success at the same rate as their male counterparts. This disparity was the impetus for the creation of a Recruitment and Retention action group within the Center for Women in Medicine and Science (CWIMS) at the University of Minnesota Medical School (UMN). This perspective piece is written from the viewpoint of a group of female-identifying early-career faculty participating in a career development program for early-stage and newly appointed faculty at UMN, sponsored by the Recruitment and Retention CWIMS action group and our Office of Faculty Affairs. We describe areas of stress exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic: work, financial, and work-life well-being, and propose an adapted diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) model to guide the response to future challenges within a faculty competency framework. We offer recommendations based on the DEI-competency framework, including opportunities for lasting positive change that can emerge from this challenging moment of our collective history.

Specifications of what and how much health behavior change (BC) content within research interventions are needed to advance BC science, its implementation, and dissemination. We analyzed the types and dosages of the smallest potentially active BC ingredients and associated behavioral prescriptions intended to be delivered in an ongoing physical activity optimization trial for older adults (Ready Steady 3.0 [RS3]). We defined BC types as behavior change techniques (BCT) and behavioral prescriptions. Our protocol integrated the BCT Taxonomy coding procedures with BCT roles (primary or secondary) and, when relevant, linkages to behavioral prescriptions. Primary BCTs targeted theoretical mechanisms of action, whereas secondary BCTs supported primary BCT delivery. Behavioral prescriptions represented what participants were encouraged to do with each primary BCT in RS3 (ascertain, practice, implement). We assessed dosage parameters of duration, frequency, and amount in each BCT and prescription. Results provided a catalog of in-depth, multidimensional content specifications with 12 primary BCTs, each supported by 2-7 secondary BCTs, with dosages ranging from 2 to 8 weeks, 1 to 8 contacts, and 5 to 451 minutes. Minutes spent on behavioral prescriptions varied: ascertain (1 to 41), practice (5 to 315), and implement (0 to 38). Results can be organized and summarized in varied ways (e.g., by content component) to strengthen future assessments of RS3 fidelity and intervention refinement. Results highlight potential benefits of this early, integrated approach to analyzing BC content and frames questions about how such information might be incorporated and disseminated with reporting research outcomes.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic globally disrupted workplaces, including at academic institutions. Many clinical and research activities were paused and, when clinics and laboratories reopened, operations and workflows had changed. These changes were often stressful. We examined the changes in the quality and quantity of sleep for University of Minnesota health sciences faculty to understand the impact of these disruptions. Methods A cross-sectional survey of 291 University of Minnesota health sciences faculty was conducted over the months of April-June 2021 aimed at gaining insight into their lived experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey included validated measures and general questions developed using survey best practices. Information on personal demographics (gender, race, caregiver status etc.), academic demographics (rank, track, school, etc.), reflective sleep quantity (e.g. hours) and reflective sleep quality were collected through self-report. Associations between gender (e.g. men/women), sleep quantity and quality pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19 were examined using summary statistics as well as the chi-square test and T-test with statistical significance set to < 0.05. Results In general, the study population reported fewer hours of sleep since the COVID-19 pandemic began (µ=6.96) in comparison to before the COVID-19 pandemic (µ=7.23), t(285) = -5.04, p<.001, 95% CI [-0.37.-0.16]. Survey respondents also reported that their quality of sleep was “moderately” restful (N=160) prior to the pandemic but only “somewhat” restful (N=120) during the pandemic, X2(9)=123.59, p<.0001. Demographics (gender and race), caregiver status, and academic attributes (rank, track, school) will be reported. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic impacted academicians’ sleep quality and quantity. Understanding these changes is important for promoting wellbeing and resilience in academic healthcare. Support (if any) N/A

No abstract