Intersectionality and COVID-19: Academic Medicine Faculty's Lived Experiences of Well-Being, Workload, and Productivity During the Pandemic.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to utilize an intersectional framework to examine academic faculty's lived experiences during COVID-19. Specifically, we set out to: (1) describe the multiple intersectional identities (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, rank, caregiver status, disability status) represented by the faculty, (2) examine potential disparities in well-being, workload, and productivity linked to these intersectional factors, and (3) identify qualitative themes endorsed by faculty as they relate to lived experiences during COVID-19. Methods: This was a cross-sectional mixed-methods research study. The Center for Women in Medicine and Science (CWIMS) at the University of Minnesota developed and implemented a survey between February-June of 2021 in response to national reports of disparities in the impacts of COVID-19 on faculty with lived experiences from multiple intersections. Results: There were 291 full-time faculty who participated in the study. Quantitative findings indicated that faculty with multiple intersectional identities (e.g., woman+assistant professor+caregiver+underrepresented in medicine) reported greater depression symptoms, work/family conflict, and stress in contrast to faculty with fewer intersectional identities. Furthermore, faculty with more intersectional identities reported higher clinical workloads and service responsibilities and lower productivity with regard to research article submissions, publications, and grant submissions in contrast to faculty with fewer intersectional identities. Qualitative findings supported quantitative findings and broadened understanding of potential underlying reasons. Conclusions: Findings confirm anecdotal evidence that faculty with lived experiences from multiple intersections may be disproportionately experiencing negative outcomes from the pandemic. These findings can inform decisions about how to address these disparities moving into the next several years with regard to promotion and tenure, burnout and well-being, and faculty retention in academic medical settings. Given these findings, it is also important to intentionally plan responses for future public health crises to prevent continued disparities for faculty with multiple intersectional identities.

Rethinking how and when to report descriptions of behavior change content within interventions: a case study of an ongoing physical activity trial (ready steady 3.0).

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.

The focus of this case study was to assess what and how much behavior change content was within an intervention still under development­by integrating existing frameworks for classifying behavior change techniques, dosages, and behavioral prescriptions. Findings provide the first set of procedures available for collecting, coding, and analyzing data representing the types of behavior change techniques in an intervention, their durations, frequencies, and amounts, and their linkages to what participants are asked to do. Applying these procedures to the protocol and materials in an ongoing study (Ready Steady 3.0) yielded a detailed, multidimensional catalog of the smallest potentially active behavior change ingredients in its intervention, including behavior change techniques, intended uses, and intended dosages. Findings also showcased how this information can be summarized and organized in various ways to strengthen fidelity evaluations and future intervention development. Researchers can use and adapt these new procedures for reporting behavior change content within individual intervention studies. Findings also highlight the potential benefits of this early, integrated approach to analyzing behavior change content and frame questions about how such information might be incorporated and disseminated with reporting research outcomes.

Bibliometric Approach to Evaluating the Impact of a Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health K12 Research Career Development Program.

Background: Mentored research career development programs are excellent training opportunities for junior faculty/early-stage investigators to transition into independent research careers. However, there is limited evidence that provides guidance on best practices for measuring the impact and reach of these programs, both for individual Scholars and the program as a whole. This article evaluates both the individual and overall impact of the Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (BIRCWH) National Institutes of Health research career development award at the University of Minnesota. Materials and Methods: BIRCWH Scholars (n = 16) and a comparison group (n = 17) were evaluated on traditional metrics (e.g., publications, grant funding) in addition to bibliometrics (e.g., network growth, interdisciplinary collaborations, international reach, policy impact). Results: Traditional metric findings showed that BIRCWH Scholars had significantly more publications from pre- to post-BIRCWH experience than the comparison group and more grant funding. Bibliometric findings showed exponential network growth, interdisciplinary collaborations, international citations, and policy impact from pre- to post-BIRCWH Scholar experience. Conclusion: Findings from this evaluation have potential important implications. At the Scholar level, the results can be used to provide evidence of research impact in materials developed for merit review and promotion as well as in job and research grant applications. At the program level, the results can be used at the institutional level to gain broad administrative support and leverage additional funds for program activities and for evidence of program success for continuation funding from federal agencies.

Using a Community-Based Participatory Approach to Address Gender Equity in Academic Medicine: The Center for Women in Medicine and Science at the University of Minnesota.

Many medical schools are instituting gender equity initiatives to address long-standing inequities (e.g., salary, leadership positions, resource distribution) between women and men in academic medicine. However, few theory-driven models exist with built-in metrics to assess the impact of gender equity initiatives. The authors describe the theory- and metric-driven process used to create the Center for Women in Medicine and Science (CWIMS) at the University of Minnesota (UMN) Medical School. An innovative theory-driven approach using community-based participatory research (CBPR) was used to create and organize CWIMS. CBPR acknowledges community members (e.g., faculty members, staff), academic organizational representatives (e.g., department heads, center directors), and administrative leaders (e.g., deans) as equal contributors in carrying out all aspects of gender equity work. CBPR values collaborative approaches that empower faculty, promote co-learning and co-creation of initiatives among all university partners, and build upon already existing community strengths and resources. Four CWIMS action groups were created using CBPR principles. The action groups are retention and recruitment; mentoring; salary, resource, and leadership equity; and strategic communications and collaborations. Faculty members across all medical school departments joined these 4 action groups to co-create and carry out all CWIMS gender equity initiatives. The process of developing the CWIMS center and action groups, the CBPR theoretical model guiding the approach, the initiatives developed by the action groups and metrics created, and the outcomes achieved to date are described. In addition, 4 lessons learned from the development of the CWIMS-use of theoretically driven and evidence-based models is key to building a sustainable organization; bottom-up and top-down engagement of partners is crucial for sustainability; passion and innovation are critical for long-term momentum; and not all faculty members and leaders will be enthusiastic about gender equity issues-are shared for the benefit of other medical schools wanting to develop similar centers.

Framework for advancing equity in academic medicine and science: Perspectives from early career female faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.