COVID-19 Threatens Progress Toward Gender Equity Within Academic Medicine.

Women remain underrepresented within academic medicine despite past and present efforts to promote gender equity. The authors discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic could stymie progress toward gender parity within the biomedical workforce and limit the retention and advancement of women in science and medicine. Women faculty face distinct challenges as they navigate the impact of shelter-in-place and social distancing on work and home life. An unequal division of household labor and family care between men and women means women faculty are vulnerable to inequities that may develop in the workplace as they strive to maintain academic productivity and professional development without adequate assistance with domestic tasks and family care. Emerging data suggest that gender differences in academic productivity may be forthcoming as a direct result of the pandemic. Existing gender inequities in professional visibility, networking, and collaboration may be exacerbated as activities transition from in-person to virtual environments and create new barriers to advancement. Meanwhile, initiatives designed to promote gender equity within academic medicine may lose key funding due to the economic impact of COVID-19 on higher education. To ensure that the gender gap within academic medicine does not widen, the authors call upon academic leaders and the broader biomedical community to support women faculty through deliberate actions that promote gender equity, diversity, and inclusion. The authors provide several recommendations, including faculty needs assessments; review of gender bias within tenure-clock-extension offers; more opportunities for mentorship, sponsorship, and professional recognition; and financial commitments to support equity initiatives. Leadership for these efforts should be at the institutional and departmental levels, and leaders should ensure a gender balance on task forces and committees to avoid overburdening women faculty with additional service work. Together, these strategies will contribute to the development of a more equitable workforce capable of transformative medical discovery and care.

Open Office Space: The Wave of the Future for Academic Health Centers?

Facing space constraints similar to those experienced by many urban campuses, the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) looked to innovative office workplace design to curb growing facilities expenditures. Mission Hall, a new office building primarily for desktop and clinical researchers and staff, was designed as an activity-based workplace (ABW), a type of open-space design. ABW was simultaneously being proposed as the template for future UCSF desktop research workspaces. ABWs can be less costly to construct than other designs, and their mix of shared and open workspaces is intended to improve efficiency and interaction. Evaluations of ABWs in corporate settings have yielded mixed results. Examples of ABW buildings for faculty in academic health centers (AHCs) are rare.The Mission Hall experience provided a unique opportunity to understand the impact of an ABW design on faculty satisfaction, work effectiveness, well-being, and engagement. In a 2016 survey of faculty, 1 year after occupancy, respondents reported adverse changes in all 4 areas. The most common complaints involved noise exposure and lack of visual and auditory privacy. In response to these issues, faculty reported working at home or elsewhere more frequently, making collaboration more difficult. In 2018, UCSF retrofitted the building to create some private offices and adjusted its overall program to balance private office and open workspaces in future projects.Lessons drawn from this experience can inform workplace solutions at other AHCs. Most critical are the needs to assess functional requirements of work and align design, change management, and technologies to support those requirements.

Scientific Ethics: A New Approach.

Science is an activity of the human intellect and as such has ethical implications that should be reviewed and taken into account. Although science and ethics have conventionally been considered different, it is herewith proposed that they are essentially similar. The proposal set henceforth is to create a new ethics rooted in science: scientific ethics. Science has firm axiological foundations and searches for truth (as a value, axiology) and knowledge (epistemology). Hence, science cannot be value neutral. Looking at standard scientific principles, it is possible to construct a scientific ethic (that is, an ethical framework based on scientific methods and rules), which can be applied to all sciences. These intellectual standards include the search for truth (honesty and its derivatives), human dignity (and by reflection the dignity of all animals) and respect for life. Through these it is thence achievable to draft a foundation of a ethics based purely on science and applicable beyond the confines of science. A few applications of these will be presented. Scientific ethics can have vast applications in other fields even in non scientific ones.

The Productivity Dilemma in Workplace Health Promotion.

BACKGROUND: Worksite-based programs to improve workforce health and well-being (Workplace Health Promotion (WHP)) have been advanced as conduits for improved worker productivity and decreased health care costs. There has been a countervailing health economics contention that return on investment (ROI) does not merit preventive health investment. METHODS/PROCEDURES: Pertinent studies were reviewed and results reconsidered. A simple economic model is presented based on conventional and alternate assumptions used in cost benefit analysis (CBA), such as discounting and negative value. The issues are presented in the format of 3 conceptual dilemmas. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In some occupations such as nursing, the utility of patient survival and staff health is undervalued. WHP may miss important components of work related health risk. Altering assumptions on discounting and eliminating the drag of negative value radically change the CBA value. SIGNIFICANCE: Simple monetization of a work life and calculation of return on workforce health investment as a simple alternate opportunity involve highly selective interpretations of productivity and utility.

Productivity costs in economic evaluations: past, present, future.

Productivity costs occur when the productivity of individuals is affected by illness, treatment, disability or premature death. The objective of this paper was to review past and current developments related to the inclusion, identification, measurement and valuation of productivity costs in economic evaluations. The main debates in the theory and practice of economic evaluations of health technologies described in this review have centred on the questions of whether and how to include productivity costs, especially productivity costs related to paid work. The past few decades have seen important progress in this area. There are important sources of productivity costs other than absenteeism (e.g. presenteeism and multiplier effects in co-workers), but their exact influence on costs remains unclear. Different measurement instruments have been developed over the years, but which instrument provides the most accurate estimates has not been established. Several valuation approaches have been proposed. While empirical research suggests that productivity costs are best included in the cost side of the cost-effectiveness ratio, the jury is still out regarding whether the human capital approach or the friction cost approach is the most appropriate valuation method to do so. Despite the progress and the substantial amount of scientific research, a consensus has not been reached on either the inclusion of productivity costs in economic evaluations or the methods used to produce productivity cost estimates. Such a lack of consensus has likely contributed to ignoring productivity costs in actual economic evaluations and is reflected in variations in national health economic guidelines. Further research is needed to lessen the controversy regarding the estimation of health-related productivity costs. More standardization would increase the comparability and credibility of economic evaluations taking a societal perspective.