An examination of COVID-19 on performance and engagement scores of professional and frontline employees

The year 2020 has been a year of change and adaptation largely due to the presence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes in the way we live and work have impacted us all to varying degrees. This paper explores the changes in the workplace of a food-and-beverage company to determine the impact on employees due to the pandemic. Specifically, this paper explores the impact of workplace changes on professional and frontline populations (as defined in the Method section) by examining their levels of engagement and performance. The role of age and gender is also examined in relation to engagement and performance. Results are mixed and are in the opposite direction of the hypotheses examining the role of population, gender, and time on engagement and performance scores. There is partial support for the research questions that explore the role of generation on engagement and performance scores. A discussion and implications of findings follows. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

An examination of COVID-19 on performance and engagement scores of professional and frontline employees

The year 2020 has been a year of change and adaptation largely due to the presence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes in the way we live and work have impacted us all to varying degrees. This paper explores the changes in the workplace of a food-and-beverage company to determine the impact on employees due to the pandemic. Specifically, this paper explores the impact of workplace changes on professional and frontline populations (as defined in the Method section) by examining their levels of engagement and performance. The role of age and gender is also examined in relation to engagement and performance. Results are mixed and are in the opposite direction of the hypotheses examining the role of population, gender, and time on engagement and performance scores. There is partial support for the research questions that explore the role of generation on engagement and performance scores. A discussion and implications of findings follows. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in kidney transplant recipients: a multicentre, single-arm, phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: Most kidney transplant recipients with cancer stop or reduce immunosuppressive therapy before starting treatment with an immune checkpoint inhibitor, and approximately 40% of such patients will develop allograft rejection. Isolated immunosuppression reduction might be associated with organ rejection. Whether immunosuppression manipulation, immune checkpoint inhibition, or both, induce organ rejection is difficult to ascertain. The aim of this study was to examine the risk of allograft rejection with immune checkpoint inhibitor exposure when baseline immunosuppression was left unchanged. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, single-arm, phase 1 study in three hospitals in Australia. Kidney transplant recipients aged 18 years or older with incurable, locally advanced cancer or defined metastatic solid tumours were eligible if they had a creatinine concentration of less than 180 mmol/L, no or low concentrations of donor-specific HLA antibodies, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of 0-2. Patients received standard doses of nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously every 14 days for five cycles, then 480 mg every 28 days for up to 2 years). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with irretrievable allograft rejection and no evidence of tumour response. Primary outcome analyses and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register, ANZCTR12617000741381, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 31, 2017, and Aug 6, 2021, 22 kidney transplant recipients with various solid tumours were screened and enrolled, four of whom chose not to proceed in the study and one of whom had unexpected disease progression. 17 patients (six [35%] women and 11 [65%] men; median age 67 years [IQR 59-71]) were allocated treatment with nivolumab and were included in the analyses. The trial was then stopped due to ongoing difficulties with running clinical trials during COVID-19 health restrictions. Patients were treated with a median of three infusions (IQR 2-10) and median follow-up was 28 months (IQR 16-34). No patients had irretrievable allograft rejection without evidence of tumour response. There were no treatment-related deaths or treatment-related serious adverse events. The most common grade 3 or grade 4 adverse events were decreased lymphocyte count in four (24%) patients, fever or infection in four (24%) patients, decreased haemoglobin in three (18%) patients, and increased creatinine in three (18%) patients. INTERPRETATION: Maintaining baseline immunosuppression before treatment with an immune checkpoint inhibitor in kidney transplant recipients might not affect expected efficacy and might reduce the risk of allograft rejection mediated by immune checkpoint inhibitors. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Successes in the COVID-19 Era: Novel Peer-Mentoring Series for Junior and Mid-Career Academic Faculty Across a University Campus

IMPACT: Partnering with academic offices to promote peer-mentoring in a virtual format is feasible, novel, and well-received across a major academic campus. Particularly during a pandemic, the success of this programmatic effort highlights the continued need for peer-to-peer support. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To identify feasibility and key lessons learned from the planning and implementation of a virtual, interdisciplinary group peer-mentoring series, implemented broadly across an academic medical center in New York City. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: ASPIRE! (Accountability & Safe-Space to Promote, Inspire, Recharge, & Empower one another!) is a group of seven interdisciplinary mid-career academic women faculty, who began collaborations as CTSA KL2 scholars. Our mission is to support interdisciplinary peer coaching for advancement of gender and racial equity among academic faculty and leaders. We designed and implemented a series of virtual symposia focused on essential struggles for clinicians and investigators at during the COVID-19 pandemic. Partnering with Columbia’s CTSA, Office for Women and Diverse Faculty, and Office for Research, we invited leaders in psychiatry/psychology, early childhood education, organization/team management, and academic advancement as keynote speakers and facilitated peer-mentoring virtual breakouts. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: These efforts resulted in the completion of four separate 1.5-hour symposia, each with keynote speakers, discussions with academic leaders, and 30-minute breakout peer-mentoring sessions. Session topics included Calibrating Expectations, Helping Families Thrive, Managing Remote Teams, and Faces and Phases of Stress. Enrollment ranged from 30 to 70 participants per session. Participants reported: (1) Keynotes focused on actionable solutions stimulated the most productive conversations;(2) Peers from different disciplines and career stages provided a range of actionable recommendations tested within local contexts;(3) The greatest learning came from the peer-to-peer breakout group sessions. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Partnering with academic offices to promote interdisciplinary, peer-mentoring in a virtual format is feasible, novel, and can be well-received across a major academic campus during the COVID-19 pandemic. The success of this programmatic effort highlights the continued need for expanded peer-to-peer support in academia.

Treatments Administered to the First 9152 Reported Cases of COVID-19: A Systematic Review.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2/2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has created a global pandemic with no approved treatments or vaccines. Many treatments have already been administered to COVID-19 patients but have not been systematically evaluated. We performed a systematic literature review to identify all treatments reported to be administered to COVID-19 patients and to assess time to clinically meaningful response for treatments with sufficient data. We searched PubMed, BioRxiv, MedRxiv, and ChinaXiv for articles reporting treatments for COVID-19 patients published between 1 December 2019 and 27 March 2020. Data were analyzed descriptively. Of the 2706 articles identified, 155 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 9152 patients. The cohort was 45.4% female and 98.3% hospitalized, and mean (SD) age was 44.4 years (SD 21.0). The most frequently administered drug classes were antivirals, antibiotics, and corticosteroids, and of the 115 reported drugs, the most frequently administered was combination lopinavir/ritonavir, which was associated with a time to clinically meaningful response (complete symptom resolution or hospital discharge) of 11.7 (1.09) days. There were insufficient data to compare across treatments. Many treatments have been administered to the first 9152 reported cases of COVID-19. These data serve as the basis for an open-source registry of all reported treatments given to COVID-19 patients at www.CDCN.org/CORONA . Further work is needed to prioritize drugs for investigation in well-controlled clinical trials and treatment protocols.