This version may be subject to change during the production process.

Summary This study investigates the relationship between coworker work hours and perceived work‐to‐family conflict (WFC) in a multinational sample of professional service employees. Building on recent research on the ways in which workgroups influence individual WFC, we demonstrate that the average hours worked by coworkers has a significant relationship to reported WFC independent of an employee's own work hours. Although this finding is universal across the multinational sample, national cultural differences were found to moderate the relationship, such that employees in more collectivist countries are more strongly influenced by average coworker hours than their counterparts in less collectivist countries. The multilevel analysis was conducted using a sample of 7,600 professional service employees in 497 different workgroups across 20 countries. The results provide support for the effect of culture on the relationship between group average hours and perceptions of WFC. We conclude with a discussion of how national culture affects WFC.

No abstract

Background: Enhancement of diversity within the U.S. research workforce is a recognized need and priority at a national level. Existing comprehensive programs, such as the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) and Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI), have the dual focus of building institutional research capacity and promoting investigator self-efficacy through mentoring and training. Methods: A qualitative comparative analysis was used to identify the combination of factors that explain the success and failure to submit a grant proposal by investigators underrepresented in biomedical research from the RCMI and non-RCMI institutions. The records of 211 participants enrolled in the NRMN Strategic Empowerment Tailored for Health Equity Investigators (NRMN-SETH) program were reviewed, and data for 79 early-stage, underrepresented faculty investigators from RCMI (n = 23) and non-RCMI (n = 56) institutions were included. Results: Institutional membership (RCMI vs. non-RCMI) was used as a possible predictive factor and emerged as a contributing factor for all of the analyses. Access to local mentors was predictive of a successful grant submission for RCMI investigators, while underrepresented investigators at non-RCMI institutions who succeeded with submitting grants still lacked access to local mentors. Conclusion: Institutional contexts contribute to the grant writing experiences of investigators underrepresented in biomedical research.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: There is increased recognition that patients and community members are critical to creating impactful research. To this end the UCLA CTSI Community Engagement & Research Program modified an established multidisciplinary team science communication module to train academic-community research teams. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Community partners who have had previous experience in participatory research provided input such as limiting the emphases of individual academic introductions to group icebreakers (to level the playing field), reduced academic jargon to lay language, reducing the amount of text to key principles, and changed academic team scenarios for the team activity to represent community-academic teams. Academic partners articulated institutional barriers to integrating community into institutional systems. Iterative testing and modifications occurred through pilots with eleven teams (49 individuals). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Embedding community partners in team science training involved creating a level playing field with less emphasis on academic credentials, using lay language in the didactic sessions and ensuring accessibility in all aspects of the training. An example of modifications: communication scenarios were read out loud by participants, which community partners felt were not inclusive of potential varying literacy levels and all partners may not feel comfortable reading aloud in a group setting. The vignettes were replaced with short videos of the scenarios with audio recordings. Several modifications were made the training’s team activity of the training module. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Traditional academic team science training required significant modifications for an academic/community-partnered team to allow for optimal collaboration, inclusion, and strategically reduce the power dynamics that can naturally occur. Long-term followup to assess their effectiveness is needed.