Mobile Distribution of COVID-19 Vaccines to Migrant Farmworkers in Minnesota.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted migrant farmworkers (MFWs). MFWs have experienced higher rates of infection and death than any other occupational group in the United States due to workplace exposure risks, overcrowded housing, and limited access to personal protective equipment. Barriers to accessing COVID-19 vaccines have also contributed to these disparities, especially in rural areas where the pandemic's impact has been devastating. Mobile health clinics, in partnership with community-based organizations, are an effective method for vaccine distribution to rural communities where many MFWs live and work. Between June 2021 and October 2022, the University of Minnesota's Mobile Health Initiative (MHI) organized health fairs in southern Minnesota to distribute vaccines to MFWs and their families. The success of these events can be attributed to partnering with trusted local organizations, bridging geographic barriers, ensuring language-concordant care, and offering multiple health services in one place. MHI's health fairs serve as a model for future mobile vaccination events. As the COVID-19 pandemic has ended as of this time, future pandemics may occur, and equitable vaccine access must be a priority for MFWs. Mobile health clinics are an essential tool to achieving this goal.

Sabbaticals in US Medical Schools.

BACKGROUND: Sabbaticals are an important feature of academia for faculty and their institutions. Whereas sabbaticals are common in institutions of higher learning, little is known about their role and utilization in US medical schools. This perspective piece examining sabbaticals in medical school faculty was undertaken at a time that well-being of health professionals was increasingly being recognized as a workforce health priority. METHODS: We surveyed associate deans at US medical schools in 2021 about faculty who had taken sabbaticals within the past 3 years, the parameters of the sabbaticals, and institutional policies and respondents' predictions of future sabbatical use. RESULTS: A total of 53% of respondents reported any faculty had taken sabbaticals in the past 3 years (M = 6.27; Median = 3; range = 1-60). Institutions rated enhancing research as the most important objective, while recognizing other benefits. Sabbaticals were more commonly taken by male, white, senior faculty PhDs. Details about sabbaticals, including eligibility, expectations, length, financial support, and benefits were reviewed. Most (54.8%) respondents expected no change in the number of faculty seeking sabbaticals. Nearly all anticipated the COVID-19 pandemic would not affect sabbatical policies. CONCLUSION: In contrast to other institutions of higher learning, sabbatical-taking by medical school faculty is rare. We explore factors that may contribute to this phenomenon (eg, the tripartite mission, faculty clinical responsibilities, culture of medicine, and student debt). Despite financial and other barriers, a closer look at the benefits of sabbaticals is warranted as a mechanism that may support faculty well-being, retention, and mental health.

Gender Distribution of Authors of Evaluation Letters for Promotion at One Medical School.

PURPOSE: Women remain underrepresented in key leadership positions and advanced ranks in academic medicine. This study examines the numbers of men and women letter writers for promotion candidates during a 5-year period across departments, tracks, ranks, and candidate gender. METHOD: A descriptive study characterized the gender of evaluation letter writers for candidates for promotion to associate or full professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School between 2015 and 2020. Letter writer and candidate gender were characterized by self-identified pronouns in the faculty biography or dossier. Letter writer gender was described by candidate department, promotion track, rank, terminal degree, and gender. RESULTS: Among 299 candidates for promotion, 172 (58%) were men and 127 (42%) were women; dossiers included 3,995 evaluation letters. Across all years, men wrote more letters than women (external letters, range, 69% in 2019-2020 to 75% in 2015-2016; internal letters, range, 67% in 2018-2019 to 77% in 2015-2016). Candidates in the family medicine and pediatrics departments had the highest percentages of letters written by women (44% and 40%, respectively). No differences were found in the number of women letter writers by candidate promotion track; however, differences were found by candidate rank (associate professor, 30%; full professor, 23%) and terminal degree (MD/DO, 25%; PhD, 33%; MD-PhD, 20%). Regardless of candidate gender, most evaluation letters were written by men. Women candidates had 15% to 20% more letters authored by women than men candidates (34%-40% vs 18%-23%). CONCLUSIONS: The gender pattern of letter writers may reflect implicit biases regarding gender and perceived leadership status, expertise, and success. Adopting policies that promote or require gender diversity among letter writers for promotion candidates may provide an opportunity to encourage faculty to seek diverse networks and recognize the achievements of women faculty.