Search

Attention Restoration Theory proposes that exposure to natural environments helps to restore attention. For sustained attention—the ongoing application of focus to a task, the effect appears to be modest, and the underlying mechanisms of attention restoration remain unclear. Exposure to nature may improve attention performance through many means: modulation of alertness and one’s connection to nature were investigated here, in two separate studies. In both studies, participants performed the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) before and immediately after viewing a meadow, ocean, or urban image for 40 s, and then completed the Perceived Restorativeness Scale. In Study 1 (n = 68), an eye-tracker recorded the participants’ tonic pupil diameter during the SARTs, providing a measure of alertness. In Study 2 (n = 186), the effects of connectedness to nature on SART performance and perceived restoration were studied. In both studies, the image viewed was not associated with participants’ sustained attention performance; both nature images were perceived as equally restorative, and more restorative than the urban image. The image viewed was not associated with changes in alertness. Connectedness to nature was not associated with sustained attention performance, but it did moderate the relation between viewing the natural images and perceived restorativeness; participants reporting a higher connection to nature also reported feeling more restored after viewing the nature, but not the urban, images. Dissociation was found between the physiological and behavioral measures and the perceived restorativeness of the images. The results suggest that restoration associated with nature exposure is not associated with modulation of alertness but is associated with connectedness with nature.

Background: Publication and co-authorship rates have been increasing over decades. In response, calls are being made to restrict the number of publications included in research evaluations. Yet there is little evidence to guide publication expectations and inform research evaluation for early career researchers (ECRs). Methods: Here we examine the early career publication and co-authorship records between 1970 and 2019 of >140,000 authors of 2.8 million publications, to identify how publication and co-authorship rates have changed over the last 50 years. This examination is conducted in order to develop benchmarks of median publication rates for sensibly evaluating ECR research productivity, and to explore success in meeting these benchmarks with different co-authorship strategies using regression models. Results: Publication rates of multidisciplinary ECRs publishing in Nature, Science and PNAS have increased by 46% over the last 50 years and that publications rates in a set of disciplinary journals have increased by 105%. Co-authorship rates have increased even more, particularly for the multidisciplinary sample which now has 572% more co-authors per publication. Benchmarks based on median publication rates for all authors increased from one publication per year at the start of a career, to four publications per year after 10 years of publishing, and one first-author publication across all years. The probability of meeting these benchmarks increases when authors publish with different co-authors, and first authorship rates decrease for ECRs with many co-authors per publication. Conclusion: This evidence could be used to inform sensible publishing expectations for ECRs and the institutions they work for, and to inform calls to limit the number of publications produced by researchers and those used in research evaluations.

Objective To characterise the long-term outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to a large New York City medical centre at 3 and 6 months after hospitalisation and describe their healthcare usage, symptoms, morbidity and mortality.Design Retrospective cohort through manual chart review of the electronic medical record.Setting NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, a quaternary care academic medical centre in New York City.Participants The first 1190 consecutive patients with symptoms of COVID-19 who presented to the hospital for care between 1 March and 8 April 2020 and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on reverse transcriptase PCR assay.Main outcome measures Type and frequency of follow-up encounters, self-reported symptoms, morbidity and mortality at 3 and 6 months after presentation, respectively; patient disposition information prior to admission, at discharge, and at 3 and 6 months after hospital presentation.Results Of the 1190 reviewed patients, 929 survived their initial hospitalisation and 261 died. Among survivors, 570 had follow-up encounters (488 at 3 months and 364 at 6 months). An additional 33 patients died in the follow-up period. In the first 3 months after admission, most encounters were telehealth visits (59%). Cardiopulmonary symptoms (35.7% and 28%), especially dyspnoea (22.1% and 15.9%), were the most common reported symptoms at 3-month and 6-month encounters, respectively. Additionally, a large number of patients reported generalised (26.4%) or neuropsychiatric (24.2%) symptoms 6 months after hospitalisation. Patients with severe COVID-19 were more likely to have reduced mobility, reduced independence or a new dialysis requirement in the 6 months after hospitalisation.Conclusions Patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection reported persistent symptoms up to 6 months after diagnosis. These results highlight the long-term morbidity of COVID-19 and its burden on patients and healthcare resources.

ObjectivesThe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted medical student education, particularly in New York City (NYC). We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical students' residency choices.MethodsThe authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of medical students in all years of study at four NYC medical schools (Columbia, Cornell, NYU, and SUNY Downstate). The survey was fielded from 19 Aug 2020 to 21 Sep 2020. Survey questions included items assessing COVID-19 impact on residency choices, personal impact of COVID-19, residency/specialty choices, and factors influencing these choices.ResultsA total of 2310 students received the survey, with 547 (23.7%) providing partial responses and 212 (9.2%) providing valid responses for our primary analysis. 59.0% of participants thought that COVID-19 influenced their choice of residency/specialty, with 0.9% saying the influence was to a great extent, 22.2% to some extent, and 35.8% very little. On multivariable analysis, factors that were independently associated with COVID-19 impacting residency choice included low debt ($1 to $99,999: adjOR 2.23, 95%CI 1.02-5.03) compared with no debt and Other race/ethnicity (adjOR 0.26, 95%CI 0.10-0.63) compared with White race/ethnicity. On secondary analysis of all participants answering survey items for logistic regression regardless of survey completion, direct personal impact of COVID-19 was significantly associated with COVID-19 impacting specialty choice (adjOR 1.90, 95%CI 1.04-3.52). Moreover, 24 students (11.6%) reported a change in their top residency choice from before to during/after COVID-19, citing concerns about frontline work, work-life balance, and risk of harm.ConclusionsOur study found that 3 in 5 (59.0%) participants felt that COVID-19 impacted their residency choice, with 11.6% of respondents explicitly changing their top specialty choice. Investigating the impact of the pandemic on medical student residency considerations is crucial to understand how medical career outlooks may change in the future.