Prevalence of caregiving and high caregiving strain among late-career medical school faculty members: workforce, policy, and faculty development implications

Family caregiving experiences of medical school faculty: high prevalence, high strain, and low resource awareness

BACKGROUND

Adult caregiving can be demanding and stressful, especially when the caregiver is employed. As the age of the U.S. population and workforce increases, more adults are providing care to aging family members.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the prevalence and aspects of the caregiving experience and caregiving strain among department of medicine faculty members, and to gauge their awareness and utilization of caregiving resources.

DESIGN

We used a cross-sectional survey design. A questionnaire survey was developed and launched in Redcap in October, 2022, and an invitation was emailed followed by two reminders to all full-time and part-time faculty members (N = 1053) in our department of medicine.

MAIN MEASURES

Faculty demographics, caregiver status, caregiving details, degree of mental or emotional strain, and knowledge of and use of employer and external caregiver resources.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 1053 faculty members who received up to three email survey invitations, 209 (20%) responded of which 76 (36%) were current caregivers and 117 (56%) were non-caregivers. Among the 76 current caregivers, 53 (70%) reported providing care for parents or parent-in-laws and 9 (12%) reported caring for a spouse. One-third of current caregivers reported caring for individuals with Alzheimer's disease or dementia/memory problems. Ninety-five% of current caregivers reported some or a lot of caregiving strain. A wide variation in knowledge of and use of employer and external caregiver resources was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Department of medicine faculty who provide adult caregiving report a high prevalence of strain and wide variation in knowledge of and use of employer and external caregiver support services, suggesting opportunity to better understand where gaps exist in providing support for caregivers.

Informal Caregiving Among Faculty at a Large Academic Health Sciences University in the United States: an Opportunity for Policy Changes

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to determine the prevalence of caregiving among faculty at a large academic health sciences institution, to examine the effect of gender and other demographic and professional covariates on caregiving status, and to explore caregiver-generated policy recommendations.

METHOD

A cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey was collected from June through August 2018. Participants were faculty within one of the institution's health professional schools (dentistry, medicine, nursing, or pharmacy) receiving at least 50% salary from the institution. In addition to demographic information, we collected academic series and rank, and assessed association between covariates on caregiving status using logistic regression. We analyzed open-ended responses using thematic analysis to identify themes in caregiver barriers and policy suggestions.

RESULTS

Among 657 eligible respondents, 11.4% were informal caregivers. Women were more likely to be caregivers than men (aOR 2.53, 95% CI: 1.40, 4.78), as were older faculty. Caregivers identified unsupportive climate or unrealistic work expectations, concern about career advancement, insufficient information about policies, and concern about colleague burden as barriers to support. Suggestions for workplace support included improved leave policies, increased flexibility, caregiver resource support, improved clarity and dissemination of policy information, and financial support.

CONCLUSIONS

Women faculty are more likely to be informal caregivers, exacerbating disparities within academic medicine for promotion and retention among women faculty. Institutions might include caregiving status in annual burnout surveys to guide the development of structural support and policies for extension of family leave beyond childbearing (or catastrophic leave), flexibility in work hours, and subsidized eldercare services.

Commitment to inclusion: The importance of collaboration in gender equity work

Despite decades of faculty professional development programs created to prepare women for leadership, gender inequities persist in salary, promotion, and leadership roles. Indeed, men still earn more than women, are more likely than women to hold the rank of professor, and hold the vast majority of positions of power in academic medicine. Institutions demonstrate commitment to their faculty's growth by investing resources, including creating faculty development programs. These programs are essential to help prepare women to lead and navigate the highly matrixed, complex systems of academic medicine. However, data still show that women persistently lag behind men in their career advancement and salary. Clearly, training women to adapt to existing structures and norms alone is not sufficient. To effectively generate organizational change, leaders with power and resources must commit to gender equity. This article describes several efforts by the Office of Faculty in the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine to broaden inclusivity in collaborative work for gender equity. The authors are women and men leaders in the Office of Faculty, which is within the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine dean's office and includes Women in Science and Medicine. Here, we discuss potential methods to advance gender equity using inclusivity based on our institutional experience and on the findings of other studies. Ongoing data collection to evaluate programmatic outcomes in the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine will be reported in the future.

Factors Influencing Retirement Decisions of Senior Faculty at U.S. Medical Schools: Are There Gender-Based Differences?

Purpose: Women comprise almost one-third of academic medicine faculty 60 years of age and older. Gender disparities have been documented across many measures in medicine, including salary, promotion rates, and leadership positions and may impact long-term career and retirement decisions. The authors sought to describe gender differences in retirement decisions among late-career, full-time medical school faculty. Materials and Methods: The authors conducted a secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data from a 2017 survey of faculty 55 years of age and older at 14 U.S. Medical Schools. Responses were compared for differences by gender using bivariate and multivariable analyses. Results: Among the 2,126 respondents (41% response rate), the majority were male (67%) and the average age was 62. Less than half (45%) had current plans to retire and 50% reported that they would consider working part time. Women faculty were less likely to be professors or on a tenure track and more likely to be single and report past and current caregiving responsibilities. Women differed from men in the personal and professional factors influencing retirement decisions with women more likely to identify health insurance, sense of burnout, lack of access to career advancing resources and opportunities, feeling devalued at work, and caregiving responsibilities as important issues. Conclusions: Women late-career faculty report unique and salient factors influencing retirement plans that may reflect cumulative gender-based career differences and disparities. Institutions should be aware of these differences and work to support women during late career and retirement transitions, including creating opportunities for faculty to remain engaged in meaningful work during retirement transitions if they desire to do so.