Experimental evidence is needed to evaluate interventions that curtail burnout for physical therapists. The goal of this research was to assess the impact of mindfulness-based training (MBT) on the well-being of physical therapists. We hypothesized physical therapists would demonstrate greater work engagement, empathy, and job satisfaction, and lower depression, anxiety, stress, and moral distress following MBT.

Thirteen physical therapists (10 female/3 male; 35.38 ± 9.32 years old) completed this two-arm embedded mixed-methods pilot study. The control group (n = 4) was followed while the intervention group (n = 9) completed six MBT sessions over 3 months. Sessions were assigned a representative topic area (meaning in physical therapy, situational- and self-awareness, compassion fatigue/burnout, implicit biases, establishing boundaries and managing conflict, self-care) with relevant reflective writing, small group discussions, and mindfulness strategies. Non-parametric statistics compared quantitative outcomes across and within groups, and a thematic framework matrix was established by way of qualitative description for data analysis.

Physical therapists in the intervention group had improved pre- to post-scores for work engagement, mental health, and moral distress (p ≤ 0.043). Inability to effect change contributed to compassion fatigue/burnout, whereas difficulty prioritizing self/limited personal time impeded self-care. “I realized how easy it is to get caught up in life and in helping out those around you, you completely forget to take time to check in with how you are doing (Physical Therapist 3).”

Implementing an MBT program demonstrates promise and may benefit the well-being of physical therapists while simultaneously enhancing employee retention and improving patient care.

Health equity research spans various disciplines, crossing formal organizational and departmental barriers and forming invisible communities. This study aimed to map the nomination network of scholars at the University of Rochester Medical Center who were active in racial and ethnic health equity research, education, and social/administrative activities, to identify the predictors of peer recognition.

We conducted a snowball survey of faculty members with experience and/or interest in racial and ethnic health equity, nominating peers with relevant expertise.

Data from a total of 121 individuals (64% doing research on extent and outcomes of racial/ethnic disparities and racism, 48% research on interventions, 55% education, and 50% social/administrative activities) were gathered in six rounds of survey. The overlap between expertise categories was small with coincidence observed between education and social/administrative activities (kappa: 0.27; p < 0.001). Respondents were more likely to nominate someone if both were involved in research (OR: 3.1), if both were involved in education (OR: 1.7), and if both were affiliated with the same department (OR: 3.7). Being involved in health equity research significantly predicted the centrality of an individual in the nomination network, and the most central actors were involved in multiple expertise categories.

Compared with equity researchers, those involved in racial equity social/administrative activities were less likely to be recognized by peers as equity experts.

Although dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is a growing field, many health researchers with relevant D&I expertise do not self-identify as D&I researchers. The goal of this work was to analyze the distribution, clustering, and recognition of D&I expertise in an academic institution.

A snowball survey was administered to investigators at University of Rochester with experience and/or interest in D&I research. The respondents were asked to identify their level of D&I expertise and to nominate others who were experienced and/or active in D&I research. We used social network analysis to examine nomination networks.

Sixty-eight participants provided information about their D&I expertise. Thirty-eight percent of the survey respondents self-identified as D&I researchers, 24% as conducting D&I under different labels, and 38% were familiar with D&I concepts. D&I researchers were, on average, the most central actors in the network (nominated most by other survey participants) and had the highest within-group density, indicating wide recognition by colleagues and among themselves. Researchers who applied D&I under different labels had the highest within-group reciprocity (25%), and the highest between-group reciprocity (29%) with researchers familiar with D&I. Participants significantly tended to nominate peers within their departments and within their expertise categories.

Identifying and engaging unrecognized clusters of expertise related to D&I research may provide opportunities for mutual learning and dialog and will be critical to bridging across departmental and topic area silos and building capacity for D&I in academic settings.