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.

Are researchers in academic medicine flourishing? A survey of midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators.

Introduction: Midcareer research faculty are a vital part of the advancement of science in U.S. medical schools, but there are troubling trends in recruitment, retention, and burnout rates. Methods: The primary sampling frame for this online survey was recipients of a single R01 or equivalent and/or K-award from 2013 to 2019. Inclusion criteria were 3-14 years at a U.S. medical school and rank of associate professor or two or more years as assistant professor. Forty physician investigators and Ph.D. scientists volunteered for a faculty development program, and 106 were propensity-matched controls. Survey items covered self-efficacy in career, research, work-life; vitality/burnout; relationships, inclusion, trust; diversity; and intention to leave academic medicine. Results: The majority (52%) reported receiving poor mentoring; 40% experienced high burnout and 41% low vitality, which, in turn, predicted leaving intention (P < 0.0005). Women were more likely to report high burnout (P = 0.01) and low self-efficacy managing work and personal life (P = 0.01) and to be seriously considering leaving academic medicine than men (P = 0.003). Mentoring quality (P < 0.0005) and poor relationships, inclusion, and trust (P < 0.0005) predicted leaving intention. Non-underrepresented men were very likely to report low identity self-awareness (65%) and valuing differences (24%) versus underrepresented men (25% and 0%; P < 0.0005). Ph.D.s had lower career advancement self-efficacy than M.D.s (P < .0005). Conclusions: Midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators faced significant career challenges. Experiences diverged by underrepresentation, gender, and degree. Poor quality mentoring was an issue for most. Effective mentoring could address the concerns of this vital component of the biomedical workforce.

Winners and Losers in Academic Productivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Is the Gender Gap Widening for Faculty?

Background: The coronavirus pandemic accelerated academic medicine into the frontline of research and clinical work, leaving some faculty exhausted, and others with unanticipated time off. Women were particularly vulnerable, having increased responsibilities in both academic work and caregiving. Methods: The authors sought to determine faculty's responses to the pandemic, seeking predictors of accelerated versus decelerated academic productivity and work-life balance. In this survey of 424 faculty from a private Midwest academic medical center completed in August-September 2020, faculty rated multiple factors both "pre-COVID" and "during the COVID-19 lockdown," and a change score was calculated. Results: In a binary logistic regression model comparing faculty whose self-rated academic productivity increased with those whose productivity decreased, the authors found that controlling for multiple factors, men were more than twice as likely to be in the accelerated productivity group as women. In a similar model comparing partnered faculty whose self-rated work-life balance increased with partnered faculty whose work-life balance decreased, being in the positive work-life balance group was predicted by increased academic productivity, increased job stress, and having higher job priority than your partner. Conclusions: While the COVID-19 pandemic placed huge stressors on academic medical faculty, pandemic placed huge stressors on academic medical faculty, some experienced gains in productivity and work-life balance, with potential to widen the gender gap. As academic medicine evolves post-COVID, leaders should be aware that productivity and work-life balance predict each other, and that these factors have connections to work location, stress, and relationship dynamics, emphasizing the inseparable connections between work and life success.

The glass ceiling thickens: the impact of COVID-19 on academic medicine faculty in the United States.

The inequities faced by women in academic Medicine before the COVID-19 pandemic are well established. However, there is little formal data regarding exactly how the pandemic has affected faculty. This cross-sectional study investigated the impact of the pandemic on responsibilities at home, work, and mental health according to gender identification, faculty rank, and faculty appointment. In February 2021, an online questionnaire was broadly distributed to academic medicine faculty. Respondents were asked to provide demographic data, answer questions about their responsibilities at home and work, mental health, and how the pandemic has influenced these. Respondents were also asked to document what their institution(s) can do to help faculty through the pandemic. Responses were analyzed via Pearson's chi-square tests and thematic analysis. Women faculty were more likely to be responsible for the care of others (70%, p = 0.014), and the impact was negative, especially for early career faculty (p = 0.019). Productivity in research, teaching, and clinical practice were negatively impacted, with women feeling this in clinical practice (p = 0.005), increased teaching load (p = 0.042), and inadequate work environment (p = 0.013). In the areas of self-care and mental health, women (p < 0.001), early career-faculty (p < 0.001), and clinical faculty (p = 0.029) were more negatively impacted. Early-career women were more likely to fear retribution. Five themes emerged, including Flexible Expectations, Support, Mental Health, Compensation, and Communication. Pre-pandemic stress and burnout were rampant, and this study demonstrates that academic medicine faculty are still suffering. It is the authors' hope that administrations can utilize these data to make informed decisions regarding policies enacted to assist populations who are most vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic.

Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts: Stepping-stones to Innovation and Equity in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

The Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts (CORE) grant program coordinates research funding initiatives across the subspecialties of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Modeled after National Institutes of Health study sections, CORE grant review processes provide comprehensive reviews of scientific proposals. The organizational structure and grant review process support grant-writing skills, attention to study design, and other components of academic maturation toward securing external grants from the National Institutes of Health or other agencies. As a learning community and a catalyst for scientific advances, CORE evaluates clinical, translational, basic science, and health services research. Amid the societal reckoning around long-standing social injustices and health inequities, an important question is to what extent CORE engenders diversity, equity, and inclusion for the otolaryngology workforce. This commentary explores CORE's track record as a stepping-stone for promoting equity and innovation in the specialty. Such insights can help maximize opportunities for cultivating diverse leaders across the career continuum.

Burnout During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Descriptive and Predictive Data from a Survey of Psychologists at a Single Academic Medical Center.

OBJECTIVE: Burnout in academic medicine has been widely studied, but most work has been conducted among physicians. Psychologists in academic medicine have unique burnout factors. Therefore, investigating the prevalence and predictors of burnout among psychologists in academic medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic represents an important addition to the literature. METHODS: Sixty-two psychologists responded to burnout-related items in a larger, 40-item Psychiatry Department climate survey conducted from October to November 2020. Five items from the MINI-Z survey were administered to examine control over workload and sufficiency of documentation time as predictors of both continuous and dichotomously defined burnout. Linear and logistic regression was employed with years as a faculty member entered as a covariate. RESULTS: Slightly less than half (48.4%) of respondents met dichotomous criteria for burnout. Faculty with fewer years of experience scored higher on their level of continuous burnout. Both control over workload and sufficiency of time for documentation were independent predictors of continuous burnout, but only control over workload remained a statistically significant predictor in a simultaneous model. Control over workload was a significant predictor in dichotomous models but did not remain so once sufficiency of documentation time was also added. CONCLUSION: Burnout prevalence among psychologists was comparable to rates among physicians at other institutions, even when examined during the COVID-19 pandemic. Academic medicine administrators and organizational leaders should consider policies and programming to increase control over workload, especially among junior psychologist faculty.

The Importance of Criminal Justice Health Education for Today's Medical Students and Strategies for Integration Into Medical School Curricula.

As the United States wrestles with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and concurrently confronts long-standing issues of racial injustice, it is more important than ever that criminal justice health becomes an integrated component of medical school curricula. Nearly all future physicians will someday be caring for justice-involved patients or their family members. A foundational medical school education that includes criminal justice health will better equip these physicians to not only care for their patients, but also help address health care disparities and the public health concerns that affect our communities. These recommended changes to U.S. medical school curricula will occur only with the commitment of academic leaders and their inclusion of medical school faculty with criminal justice health expertise to help guide these efforts. Now is the time for U.S. medical schools to embrace criminal justice health as essential learning.

Framework for advancing equity in academic medicine and science: Perspectives from early career female faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Early-career female faculty, both physician scientists and basic researchers, have disproportionately experienced negative professional, financial, and personal consequences associated with the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This career phase represents a critical time for establishing a network of mentors and collaborators, demonstrating professional independence, and balancing new teaching, research, and service duties while simultaneously navigating personal and familial responsibilities. Persistent gender inequality perpetuated by adherence to traditional gender roles place early-career women faculty at a further disadvantage. Women in academic medicine and research do not attain promotion, leadership positions, and other established markers of success at the same rate as their male counterparts. This disparity was the impetus for the creation of a Recruitment and Retention action group within the Center for Women in Medicine and Science (CWIMS) at the University of Minnesota Medical School (UMN). This perspective piece is written from the viewpoint of a group of female-identifying early-career faculty participating in a career development program for early-stage and newly appointed faculty at UMN, sponsored by the Recruitment and Retention CWIMS action group and our Office of Faculty Affairs. We describe areas of stress exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic: work, financial, and work-life well-being, and propose an adapted diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) model to guide the response to future challenges within a faculty competency framework. We offer recommendations based on the DEI-competency framework, including opportunities for lasting positive change that can emerge from this challenging moment of our collective history.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on family medicine residency training.

BACKGROUND: Family physicians have played a unique clinical role during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the pandemic would be associated with significant deleterious effects on clinical activity, educational training, personal safety and well-being. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a national survey to obtain preliminary data that would assist in future targeted data collection and subsequent evaluation of the impact of the pandemic on family medicine residents and teaching faculty. METHODS: An anonymous online survey of residents and faculty was distributed via the Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors list serve between 5/21/2020 and 6/18/2020. Survey questions focused on clinical and educational activities, safety and well-being. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-three residents and 151 teaching faculty participated in the survey. Decreased clinical activity was noted by 81.5% of residents and 80.9% of faculty and the majority began conducting telehealth visits (97.9% of residents, 91.0% of faculty). Distance learning platforms were used by all residents (100%) and 39.6% noted an overall positive impact on their education. Higher levels of burnout did not significantly correlate with reassignment of clinical duties (residents P = 0.164; faculty P = 0.064). Residents who showed significantly higher burnout scores (P = 0.035) and a decline in levels of well-being (P = 0.031) were more likely to participate in institutional well-being support activities. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary data indicate that family medicine residents and teaching faculty were profoundly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies can be directed by current findings with focus on mitigation factors in addressing globally disruptive events such as COVID-19.

Family physicians have played a unique clinical role during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the pandemic would be associated with significant deleterious effects on clinical activity, educational training, personal safety and well-being. Towards setting a foundation for further studies, we conducted a national survey to obtain preliminary data that would assist in future targeted data collection and subsequent evaluation of the impact of the pandemic on family medicine residents and teaching faculty. Our preliminary data indicate that family medicine residents and teaching faculty were profoundly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in all domains studied. Future studies can be directed by current findings with focus on mitigation factors in addressing globally disruptive events such as COVID-19.

Mentoring as a Buffer for the Syndemic Impact of Racism and COVID-19 among Diverse Faculty within Academic Medicine.

Within this article, we explore the dual impact of two pandemics, racism and COVID-19, on the career and psychological well-being of diverse faculty within academic medicine. First, we present a discussion of the history of racism in academic medicine and the intensification of racial disparities due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of the syndemic of racism and COVID-19, the outlook for the recruitment, retention, and advancement of diverse faculty and leaders within academic medicine is at risk. While mentoring is known to have benefits for career and personal development, we focus on the unique and often unacknowledged role that mentoring can play as a buffer for women and people of color, especially when working in institutions that lack diversity and are now struggling with the syndemic of racism and COVID-19. We also discuss the implications of acknowledging mentoring as a buffer for future leadership development, research, and programs within academic medicine and health professions.

Educational leadership in the time of a pandemic: Lessons from two institutions.

Over the course of a few weeks in March, COVID-19 upended the daily lives of Americans. Academic Medical Centers became a center-point for the response to the virus. Leaders within academic medical centers faced twin challenges of responding to the needs of the patients we serve while managing radical changes within their own institutions, including the educational mission. In this article, we describe some key themes identified and lessons learned as educational leaders during this time. We draw from the experiences of two institutions- one public and one private. These lessons learned fall into the broad categories of leadership decision-making and communication and included the importance of principled decision-making, a connected leadership team, and effective communication both within leadership and to the broader institutional community. The consequences of these responses resulted in a renewed recognition for us as educational leaders of the interdependence of our tripartide academic fates, the importance of academic medical centers as anchor institutions and advocates for our community, and the resilience and ingenuity of our students. We provide examples of these lessons and themes and make recommendations for how to approach educational decision-making in the "new normal" of living with COVID-19 for the immediate future.

Psychiatric genomics research during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey of Psychiatric Genomics Consortium researchers.

Between April 20, 2020 and June 19, 2020 we conducted a survey of the membership of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) to explore the impact of COVID-19 on their research and academic careers. A total of 123 individuals responded representing academic ranks from trainee to full professor, tenured and fixed-term appointments, and all genders. The survey included both quantitative and free text responses. Results revealed considerable concern about the impact of COVID-19 on research with the greatest concern reported by individuals in nonpermanent positions and female researchers. Concerns about the availability of funding and the impact of the pandemic on career progression were commonly reported by early career researchers. Recommendations for institutions, organizations such as the PGC, as well as individual senior investigators have been provided to ensure that the futures of early career investigators, especially those underrepresented in academic medicine such as women and underrepresented minorities, are not disproportionately disadvantaged by the COVID-19 pandemic.