Gender Differences in Research Productivity of Academic Physicians Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: The gendered impact of the COVID-19 on scientific productivity has been primarily studied in nonclinical academic fields. We investigated the gendered effect of the pandemic on diverse measures of research participation among physician faculty, who experienced an increase in clinical duties concomitant with pandemic-era challenges to research. Materials and Methods: Physician faculty employed in both 2019 (prepandemic) and 2021 (pandemic era) were identified at one U.S. medical school. Annual outcomes included scientific publications, Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved protocols, and extramural funding submissions (funding data were unavailable for 2019). Mixed-effects Poisson regression models compared the pandemic impact by gender. Results: The study included 105 women and 116 men, contributing to 122 publications, 214 IRB protocols, and 99 extramural funding applications. Controlling for potential confounders such as faculty rank and track (tenure vs. nontenure), women's publication count increased by 140% during the pandemic (95% confidence interval [CI]: +40% to +310%, p = 0.001) but was unchanged among men (95% CI: -30% to +50%; p > 0.999). The number of IRB protocols decreased from 2019 to 2021, but to a greater extent among men than women. In 2021, there was no gender difference in the number of extramural funding submissions. Conclusions: Among physician faculty at our medical school, women achieved parity with men on multiple measures of scholarly activity, and women's research productivity outpaced that of men in the same faculty track and rank. Targeted initiatives to support research among women faculty, junior investigators, and clinical investigators may have helped avert exacerbation of prepandemic gender disparities in research participation.

Well-child visit attendance of children who have experienced a parental COVID-19 diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, rates of well-child visit (WCV) attendance have significantly decreased. We wanted to see how a parent's positive diagnosis for COVID-19 affected a child's WCV attendance along with other factors. Therefore, we hypothesized that in families with at least 1 positive COVID-19 diagnosis, the rates of WCV attendance would be lower than in families that have not experienced COVID-19. METHODS: Using National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data from 2020, we analyzed sample adult responses for the sample child to questions about last WCV attendance. We included children whose parents completed the survey during quarters 3 and 4 of 2020. The outcome of this study was WCV attendance in the past 12 months with the exposure of interest being parental diagnosis of COVID-19. RESULTS: In our sample (N=1,413), 91% of children attended a WCV in the past 12 months, and 5% had a parent with a positive COVID-19 diagnosis. On adjusted analysis, there was a negative but not statistically significant association between a parent with a positive COVID-19 diagnosis and WCV attendance (OR=0.32; 95% CI: 0.09, 1.20; p=0.092). CONCLUSIONS: Nationwide, there has been a significant decrease in children attending recommended WCVs since the start of the pandemic. Having a parent test positive for COVID-19 may contribute to decreases in WCV attendance in traditional medical office settings. Alternative options exist that may improve WCV attendance; these include telemedicine or virtual visits, as well as visits completed in non-traditional settings such as mobile health clinics and school-based clinics. Further expansion of these options for WCVs must still take into account health disparities that exist among marginalized communities.

Factors Influencing US Hospital and Medical School Participation in Pediatric COVID-19 Research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Literature suggests that funding for pediatric clinical trials is inequitably awarded. Furthermore, although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affected all hospitals, institutions with already limited resources were more severely impacted. We hypothesized that there would be difference in schools and hospitals that were able to participate in the initial round of pediatric COVID-19 clinical research. METHODS: We searched online databases for preregistered studies using the keywords "COVID-19," "COVID," "SARS-CoV-2," "2019-nCov," "2019 novel coronavirus," and "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2." Search results were limited to studies enrolling participants from birth to 17 years, studies started in 2020, and studies originating in the United states. We calculated the proportion of institutions with active COVID-19 pediatric clinical studies in 2020 and compared institutional characteristics between institutions with and without at least one qualifying COVID-19 study, using rank-sum tests, χ2 tests, or Fisher's exact tests, as appropriate. RESULTS: We identified 150 allopathic medical schools, 34 osteopathic medical schools, and 178 children's hospitals meeting inclusion criteria. Among included institutions, 25% of medical schools and 20% children's hospitals participated in 1 of the registered pediatric COVID-19 studies the year before the study period. Institutions that participated in pediatric COVID-19 studies had more publications, more National Institutes of Health funding, and more studies registered on Clinicaltrials.gov in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the pandemic affecting everyone, participation in early clinical research on the impact of COVID-19 in pediatric populations was concentrated in a few well-resourced institutions that were highly experienced in research.