All Publications

  • Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Representation in Academic Psychiatry Chairs, 2012 to 2022 ACADEMIC PSYCHIATRY Fok, K. T., Wang, J. J., Trinh, N. 2026

    Abstract

    This study examines trends in gender and racial/ethnic representation in academic psychiatry department chairs compared to faculty in the United States (U.S.).Using data from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Roster (2012-2022), a total of 1722 psychiatric department chairs and 125,333 psychiatric faculty at U.S. academic medical centers were included. Trends in leadership representation by gender, race, and ethnicity were examined using the Leadership Parity Index (LPI). Individuals were categorized by self-identified race/ethnicity (American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino/Spanish origin, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, White) and gender (female or male). An LPI of 1 suggests parity of department chair representation relative to a group's faculty representation, LPI > 1 suggests overrepresentation, and LPI < 1 suggests underrepresentation.White individuals (LPI range over 10-year period = 1.1 to 1.19), particularly white men (LPI range = 1.79 to 1.96), were consistently overrepresented as psychiatry department chairs. Women across all races/ethnicities were underrepresented as psychiatry department chairs (LPI range = 0.24 to 0.58). Men were overrepresented (LPI range = 1.54 to 1.70) in every racial/ethnic group, except Asian men. Of all racial/ethnic groups studied, Asian men and women were the most underrepresented (LPI range = 0.42 to 1.07 and 0.12 to 0.30, respectively).Academic psychiatry department chairs continue to be disproportionately overrepresented by white men. The persistent underrepresentation of women in all racial/ethnic groups and Asians as department chairs highlights the continued need to promote parity in academic psychiatry leadership.

    View details for DOI 10.1007/s40596-026-02387-9

    View details for Web of Science ID 001808141300001

    View details for PubMedID 42380431

    View details for PubMedCentralID 10105312

  • Changes to Care Delivery at Nine International Pediatric Diabetes Clinics in Response to the COVID-19 Global Pandemic. Pediatric diabetes Cristello Sarteau, A. n., Souris, K. J., Wang, J. n., Ramadan, A. A., Addala, A. n., Bowlby, D. n., Corathers, S. n., Forsander, G. n., King, B. n., Law, J. R., Liu, W. n., Malik, F. n., Pihoker, C. n., Seid, M. n., Smart, C. n., Sundberg, F. n., Tandon, N. n., Yao, M. n., Headley, T. n., Mayer-Davis, E. n. 2021

    Abstract

    Pediatric diabetes clinics around the world rapidly adapted care in response to COVID-19. We explored provider perceptions of care delivery adaptations and challenges for providers and patients across nine international pediatric diabetes clinics.Providers in a quality improvement collaborative completed a questionnaire about clinic adaptations, including roles, care delivery methods, and provider and patient concerns and challenges. We employed a rapid analysis (RA) to identify main themes.Providers described adaptations within multiple domains of care delivery, including provider roles and workload, clinical encounter and team meeting format, care delivery platforms, self-management technology education, and patient-provider data sharing. Providers reported concerns about potential negative impacts on patients from COVID-19 and the clinical adaptations it required, including fears related to telemedicine efficacy, blood glucose and insulin pump/pen data sharing, and delayed care-seeking. Particular concern was expressed about already vulnerable patients. Simultaneously, providers reported 'silver linings' of adaptations that they perceived as having potential to inform care and self-management recommendations going forward, including time-saving clinic processes, telemedicine, lifestyle changes compelled by COVID-19, and improvements to family and clinic staff literacy around data sharing.Providers across diverse clinical settings reported care delivery adaptations in response to COVID-19 --particularly telemedicine processes-- created challenges and opportunities to improve care quality and patient health. To develop quality care during COVID-19, providers emphasized the importance of generating evidence about which in-person or telemedicine processes were most beneficial for specific care scenarios, and incorporating the unique care needs of the most vulnerable patients. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

    View details for DOI 10.1111/pedi.13180

    View details for PubMedID 33470020

  • Characterization of Youth Goal Settingin the Self-Management of Type 1 Diabetes and Associations with HbA1c - The Flexible Lifestyle Empowering Change (FLEX) Trial. Pediatric diabetes Cristello Sarteau, A., Crandell, J., Seid, M., Kichler, J. C., Maahs, D. M., Wang, J., Mayer-Davis, E. 2020

    Abstract

    INTRODUCTION: Youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) commonly do not meet HbA1c targets. Youth-directed goal setting as a strategy to improve HbA1c has not been well characterized and associations between specific goal focus areas and glycemic control remain unexplored.OBJECTIVE: To inform future trials, this analysis characterized intended focus areas of youth self-directed goals and examinedassociations with change in HbA1c over 18months.METHODS: We inductively coded counseling session data from youth in the Flexible Lifestyle Empowering Change Intervention(n=122, 13-16years, T1D duration >1year, HbA1c 8-13%) to categorize intendedgoalfocus areas and examine associations between frequency of goalfocus areas selected by youth and change in HbA1c between first and last study visit.RESULTS: We identified 13 focus areas that categorized youth goalintentions.Each session where youthgoal setting concurrently incorporatedblood glucose monitoring (BG), CGM, and insulin dosing was associated with a 0.4% (95% CI: -0.77, -0.01; P=0.03) lower HbA1c at the end of intervention participation. No association was observed between HbA1c and frequency of sessions where goalintentionsfocused on BG only (without addressing insulin or CGM) (beta: 0.07; 95% CI: -0.07, 0.21; P=0.33) nor insulin dosing only (without addressing BG or CGM) (beta: 0.00; 95% CI: -0.11, 0.10; P=0.95).CONCLUSIONS: Findings exemplify how guidingyouth goal development and combining multiplebehaviors proximally related to glycemic control into youth goal setting may benefitHbA1c among youth with T1D.More research characterizingoptimal goal setting practicesin youth with T1D is needed. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

    View details for DOI 10.1111/pedi.13099

    View details for PubMedID 32741045