An orientation to wellness for new faculty of medicine members: meeting a need in faculty development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the format, content, and effectiveness of a newly developed orientation to wellness workshop, and to explore participants' overall perceptions. METHODS: This was a mixed methods study. Participants consisted of 47 new faculty of medicine members who attended one of the four workshops held between 2011 and 2013. Questionnaires were used to evaluate workshop characteristics (10 survey items; response scale 1=unacceptable to 7=outstanding), intention to change behavior (yes/no), and retrospective pre/post workshop self-efficacy (4 survey items; response scale 1=no confidence to 6=absolute confidence). Mean scores and standard deviations were calculated for the workshop characteristics. Pre/post workshop self-efficacy scores were compared using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Participants' written qualitative feedback was coded using an inductive strategy to identify themes. RESULTS: There was strong support for the workshop characteristics with mean scores entirely above 6.00 (N=42). Thirty-one of 34 respondents (91%) expressed intention to change their behavior as a result of participating in the workshop. The post workshop self-efficacy scores (N=38 respondents) increased significantly for all four items (p<0.0001) compared to pre workshop ratings. Participants perceived the key workshop elements as the evidence-based content relevant to academic physicians, incorporation of practical tips and strategies, and an atmosphere conducive to discussion and experience sharing. CONCLUSIONS: Participants welcomed wellness as a focus of faculty development. Enhancing instruction around wellness has the potential to contribute positively to the professional competency and overall functioning of faculty of medicine members.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".