Relevant Degree Programs
Complete these steps before you reach out to a faculty member!
- Familiarize yourself with program requirements. You want to learn as much as possible from the information available to you before you reach out to a faculty member. Be sure to visit the graduate degree program listing and program-specific websites.
- Check whether the program requires you to seek commitment from a supervisor prior to submitting an application. For some programs this is an essential step while others match successful applicants with faculty members within the first year of study. This is either indicated in the program profile under "Requirements" or on the program website.
- Identify specific faculty members who are conducting research in your specific area of interest.
- Establish that your research interests align with the faculty member’s research interests.
- Read up on the faculty members in the program and the research being conducted in the department.
- Familiarize yourself with their work, read their recent publications and past theses/dissertations that they supervised. Be certain that their research is indeed what you are hoping to study.
- Compose an error-free and grammatically correct email addressed to your specifically targeted faculty member, and remember to use their correct titles.
- Do not send non-specific, mass emails to everyone in the department hoping for a match.
- Address the faculty members by name. Your contact should be genuine rather than generic.
- Include a brief outline of your academic background, why you are interested in working with the faculty member, and what experience you could bring to the department. The supervision enquiry form guides you with targeted questions. Ensure to craft compelling answers to these questions.
- Highlight your achievements and why you are a top student. Faculty members receive dozens of requests from prospective students and you may have less than 30 seconds to pique someone’s interest.
- Demonstrate that you are familiar with their research:
- Convey the specific ways you are a good fit for the program.
- Convey the specific ways the program/lab/faculty member is a good fit for the research you are interested in/already conducting.
- Be enthusiastic, but don’t overdo it.
G+PS regularly provides virtual sessions that focus on admission requirements and procedures and tips how to improve your application.
Graduate Student Supervision
Master's Student Supervision (2010 - 2018)
Introduction: Hip fracture is a serious event with longstanding implications for older adults. These fractures frequently lead to reduced mobility, prolonged periods of sitting time, and consequently, a lack of physical activity. Objectives: I aimed to test how a comprehensive geriatric management clinic affects sedentary behaviour and physical activity patterns over a 12-month period, and to characterise the recovery patterns of sedentary behaviour and physical activity for older adults after hip fracture. Methods: This study collected prospective objective measurements (accelerometry) of sedentary behaviour and physical activity patterns from older adults with hip fracture. I described and tested sedentary behaviour and physical activity using accelerometry at baseline, 6 and 12 months from a parallel-group, 1:1 single-blinded randomised controlled trial for older adults 3-12 months after hip fracture. The usual care group received standard post-operative management; the intervention group received usual care plus a clinical management by health professionals. Results: The study enrolled 53 participants [mean age (SD) 79(8) years], 3-12 months post-fracture. Forty-five participants had valid data (intervention (n=22) or usual care (n=23) group). Participants had a mean (SD) age of 79.2 (7.4) years, ranged 65-98 years, with a median (p10, p90) of 203 (143, 335) days since fracture. Participants from both groups spent approximately 10 hours/day in sedentary behaviour. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for sedentary behaviour or physical activity variables at midpoint and final assessment. Men engaged in significantly more sedentary time (47 minutes; p=0.049), and spent less time in light physical activity (44 minutes; p=0.044) compared with women, across the study. Although men had more sedentary time at each time point, the difference was attenuated at final assessment and was no longer statistically significant. Conclusion: Older adults after hip fracture spend prolonged periods of waking hours sedentary and without much activity. Decreasing and breaking up sedentary time and increasing physical activity is an important target for rehabilitation. Differences between sexes should be acknowledged and addressed by health professionals. Further, strategies should be developed and tested to reduce time spent in sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity for older adults after hip fracture.
Objective: To describe the change in objectively measured sitting, standing and stepping time for officebased workers as they transitioned from a conventional to an activity-permissive workplace physical environment. Methods: This pre-post study observed 17 office-based working adults [mean age 33 (SD 7) years] from an academic research centre as they transitioned from a conventional to a purpose-built, innovative activity-permissive workplace physical environment with flexible layouts, workspaces, and working conditions. Participants wore an activity monitor (activPAL3, PAL Technologies Limited, Glasgow, UK) forseven consecutive days at both the conventional and innovative workplaces to determine time spent sitting, standing, stepping, the number of sit to stand transitions and the length and number of sitting bouts ≥ 30 minutes. They also completed a self-reported log of workplace time and monitor wear time. Participants’ height, weight, descriptive characteristics, body composition (measured by DXA) and moderate-to-vigorousphysical activity (measured by ActiGraph GT3X+; LLC, Fort Walton Beach, FL) were recorded. Istandardized results to an 8-hour workday and compared outcomes between the conventional andinnovative workplaces using Hodges-Lehmann median point estimate (90% CI). Results: The transition to the innovative workplace resulted in a non-significant decrease in workplace sitting time (-24 minutes/ 8-hour workday; 90% CI = -55 to 9 minutes/ 8-hour workday) and a correspondingincrease in workplace standing (12 minutes/ 8- hour workday; 90% CI = -42 to 61 minutes/ 8-hourworkday). There were no differences in the number of sit to stand transitions or sitting bouts ≥ 30 minutes in the workplace. Participants spent more time sitting in bouts ≥ 30 minutes at the innovative workplace (increase of 16 minutes/ 8-hour workday; 90% CI = -7 to 44 minutes/ 8-hour workday). None of these changes were statistically significant. Conclusions: This group of office workers did not significantly change their total workplace sitting time or how it was accumulated with the transition to the innovative workplace physical environment. The results of this preliminary investigation suggest that interventions include a multifaceted approach to complement physical environment changes in order to reduce prolonged sitting time.