Preventing a Secondary Epidemic of Lost Early Career Scientists. Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on Women with Children

Factors Influencing Compensation of Early Career Neonatologists

OBJECTIVE

Workforce characteristics and compensation specific to early career neonatologists remain poorly defined. Lack of transparency surrounding compensation limits benchmarking for neonatologists entering the workforce and may negatively influence individual lifetime earnings. Our objective was to provide granular data for this unique subpopulation by defining employment characteristics and factors influential to compensation of early career neonatologists.

STUDY DESIGN

An anonymous 59-question cross-sectional electronic survey was distributed to eligible members of American Academy of Pediatrics Trainees and Early Career Neonatologists. A focused analysis was conducted on salary and bonus compensation data collected from the survey instrument. Respondents were classified based on primary site of employment: nonuniversity located (e.g., private practice, hospital employed, government/military, and hybrid employment groups) versus university located practice settings (e.g., work is primarily conducted in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) setting located within a university organization). Median quantile regression was used to conduct univariate and multivariate analyses using SAS Software version 9.4.

RESULTS

We received 348 responses (26.7% response rate). Median salary was $220,000 (interquartile range: $200,000-250,000). Factors associated with salary include academic rank (instructor: $196,000; assistant professor: $220,000 [12% increase; p < 0.001]; associate professor: $260,000 [18% increase]; p = 0.027) and years of experience (p = 0.017), after adjusting for relevant factors. Employment location, practice type, group size, clinical schedule, location of medical school training, and gender identity did not significantly influence salary in multivariate quantile regression. Median annual bonus was $7,000 higher for nonuniversity located positions ($20,000 vs. 13,000; p = 0.021), with assumption of additional administrative roles and practice group seniority as most commonly cited bonus criteria (p = 0.002 and <0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Academic rank and years of experience may influence salary. Bonus earnings are higher for nonuniversity located positions. Employment models are evolving to incorporate academic teaching appointments while practicing in nonuniversity located NICUs. This is the first detailed compensation analysis of early career neonatologists.

KEY POINTS

· Transparent compensation data specific to early career neonatologists is lacking.. · Associated factors influential to compensation of early career neonatologists remain unclear.. · This study identifies years of experience and academic rank as possible factors influencing salary earnings of early career neonatologists.. · Practicing in nonuniversity located positions was associated with greater bonus earning potential..

Female researchers are under-represented in the Colombian science infrastructure

Worldwide women have increased their participation in STEM, but we are still far from reaching gender parity. Although progress can be seen at the bachelor's and master's level, career advancement of women in research still faces substantial challenges leading to a 'leaky pipeline' phenomenon (i.e., the continuous decrease of women's participation at advanced career stages). Latin America exhibits encouraging rates of women participation in research, but the panorama varies across countries and stages in the academic ladder. This study focuses on women's participation in research in natural sciences in Colombia and investigates career progression, leadership roles, and funding rates by analyzing data on scholarships, grants, rankings, and academic positions. Overall, we found persistent gender imbalances throughout the research ecosystem that were significant using classical statistical analyses. First, although women constitute >50% graduates from bachelors in natural sciences, <40% of researchers in this field are female. Second, women win <30% of research grants, and in turn, their scientific productivity is 2X lower than that of men. Third, because of the less research funding and output women have, their promotion to senior positions in academic and research rankings is slower. In consequence, only ~25% of senior researchers and full professors are women. Fourth, the proportion of women leading research groups and mentoring young scientist in Colombia is <30%. Our study deepens our understanding of gender gaps in STEM research in Colombia, and provides information to design initiatives that effectively target gender disparities by focusing on key areas of intervention, and then gradually building up, rather than tackling structural inequities all at once.

The urgency of restructuring the landscape of behavioral medicine: Commentary from early-career diversity institute scholars

Structural and systemic barriers entrenched in academia have sustained for decades, and resulted in a lack of diversity in leadership positions, inequitable workloads for women and underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, and increasing issues with retention of faculty, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic. Increasing opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in higher education via legislation, policies, and general anti-DEI sentiment contextualizes the importance of prioritizing DEI. The goal of this commentary is to open discussion among academic institutions regarding changes in DEI culture that will facilitate the growth of diverse early-career faculty (ECF). We use an adapted framework which incorporates DEI into a faculty competency model to (i) guide our discussion of the rationale for restructuring academic systems to promote DEI and (ii) recommend strategies for institutional progress for ECF that can translate across academic institutions. Implementing policies and practices that seek to recruit, retain, and support historically underrepresented ECF are needed, and may involve faculty mentorship programs, establishing equitable funding mechanisms, reforming faculty evaluation practices, and examining and correcting inequities in faculty workloads. The onus is on institutions to recognize and replace the exclusionary practices and biases that have existed within their walls, and continuously promote and monitor their DEI efforts and initiatives to ensure their efficacy. Inclusive academic cultures that demonstrate their value of diversity and commitment to equity promotion at all levels of the organization, including among ECF, are necessary for ensuring excellence in scholarship in academia.

Maternal Exposure to Stress During Covid-19 and Non-Syndromic Orofacial Clefts: A Cohort Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic presents an opportunity to study stress's effect on the development of non-syndromic orofacial clefts (NSOFCs). This study was aimed at assessing maternal stress exposure during the pregestational to first trimester pregnancy periods and the development of NSOFCs during a year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Cohort study of infants with NSOFCs and controls matched based on recruitment site and age.

SETTING

Government hospitals in Saudi Arabia between November 2020 and November 2021.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Data collection included NSOFC clinical examination and maternal stress exposure assessment using the Modified Life Events Questionnaire, the Fear of COVID-19 Scale, and a focus on the lack of pregnancy planning and a threatened miscarriage.

RESULTS

Of the 557 infants recruited, 191 had NSOFCs. Logistic regression analysis with adjusted odds ratios (AORs) that removed the effects of confounders showed that any of the seven stressful life events (AOR:3.78, P < .001) and the family histories of relatives with NSOFCs (AOR:9.73, P < .001) increased the AOR for NSOFC development. In contrast, maternal folic acid (AOR:0.56, P.010), threatened miscarriage (AOR:0.17, P = .001), fear of COVID-19 (AOR:0.83, P = .038), and suspected COVID-19 infection (AOR:0.43, P = .008) decreased the AOR for NSOFC development.

CONCLUSION

Along with an established risk associated with family history of birth defects, stressful life events may be a risk factor for NSOFC development. Beyond folic acid's known benefit, it may be that higher maternal health concerns contribute to increased protective health behaviors during pregnancy. Ongoing research is needed to specify the maternal risk factors for NSOFC.

COVID-19 as a chronic stressor and the importance of individual identity: A data-driven look at academic productivity during the pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted personal and professional life. For academics, research, teaching, and service tasks were upended and we all had to navigate the altered landscape. However, some individuals faced a disproportionate burden, particularly academics with minoritized identities or those who were early career, were caregivers, or had intersecting identities. As comparative endocrinologists, we determine how aspects of individual and species-level variation influence response to, recovery from, and resilience in the face of stressors. Here, we flip that framework and apply an integrative biological lens to the impact of the COVID-19 chronic stressor on our endocrine community. We address how the pandemic altered impact factors of academia (e.g., scholarly products) and relatedly, how factors of impact (e.g., sex, gender, race, career stage, caregiver status, etc.) altered the way in which individuals could respond. We predict the pandemic will have long-term impacts on the population dynamics, composition, and landscape of our academic ecosystem. Impact factors of research, namely journal submissions, were altered by COVID-19, and women authors saw a big dip. We discuss this broadly and then report General and Comparative Endocrinology (GCE) manuscript submission and acceptance status by gender and geographic region from 2019 to 2023. We also summarize how the pandemic impacted individuals with different axes of identity, how academic institutions have responded, compile proposed solutions, and conclude with a discussion on what we can all do to (re)build the academy in an equitable way. At GCE, the first author positions had gender parity, but men outnumbered women at the corresponding author position. Region of manuscript origin mattered for submission and acceptance rates, and women authors from Asia and the Middle East were the most heavily impacted by the pandemic. The number of manuscripts submitted dropped after year 1 of the pandemic and has not yet recovered. Thus, COVID-19 was a chronic stressor for the GCE community.

Work, Parenting, and Well-being: An International Survey of Neurologists During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background and Objectives

COVID-19 reframed the relationship between work and home and, in general, made both more difficult-especially for parents. We hypothesized that, among neurologists, the effects of the pandemic on productivity and on well-being would be greater on those with children than on those without children and that the effects would be greater on women with children than on men with children.

Methods

We conducted an international electronic survey launched by the Practice Current section of the American Academy of Neurology. The survey included questions on demographics (self-identified gender, number of children and elderly dependents, childcare support, and country and state when applicable), workflow changes because of COVID-19, impacted domains, and productivity and well-being using the Likert scale. Counts are presented as descriptive statistics. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

Results

We collected 243 fully completed surveys from providers in all continents with high representation of the United States (76%), providers who identified as women (71.6%), and neurologists with children (91%) among respondents. A majority worked remotely (28% fully, 43% mix). Neurologists reported decreased academic productivity (72%), work benefits (65%), and time for writing (48%). These findings were more prominent in respondents with children and among women practicing outside of the United States. Increased pressure from productivity expectations and lack of time for family were reported by 47% and 41% of respondents, respectively.

Discussion

The disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic affected academic productivity and decreased the well-being of neurologists in general and of neurologists with children more drastically. This could potentially hinder the promotion and retention of junior neurologists who were juggling life and work during the pandemic outbreak and its recurrent surges.

Overemphasis on publications may disadvantage historically excluded groups in STEM before and during COVID-19: A North American survey-based study

Publishing is a strong determinant of academic success and there is compelling evidence that identity may influence the academic writing experience and writing output. However, studies rarely quantitatively assess the effects of major life upheavals on trainee writing. The COVID-19 pandemic introduced unprecedented life disruptions that may have disproportionately impacted different demographics of trainees. We analyzed anonymous survey responses from 342 North American environmental biology graduate students and postdoctoral scholars (hereafter trainees) about scientific writing experiences to assess: (1) how identity interacts with scholarly publication totals and (2) how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced trainee perceptions of scholarly writing productivity and whether there were differences among identities. Interestingly, identity had a strong influence on publication totals, but it differed by career stage with graduate students and postdoctoral scholars often having opposite results. We found that trainees identifying as female and those with chronic health conditions or disabilities lag in publication output at some point during training. Additionally, although trainees felt they had more time during the pandemic to write, they reported less productivity and motivation. Trainees who identified as female; Black, Indigenous, or as a Person of Color [BIPOC]; and as first-generation college graduates were much more likely to indicate that the pandemic affected their writing. Disparities in the pandemic's impact on writing were most pronounced for BIPOC respondents; a striking 85% of BIPOC trainees reported that the pandemic affected their writing habits, and overwhelmingly felt unproductive and unmotivated to write. Our results suggest that the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on writing output may only heighten the negative effects commonly reported amongst historically excluded trainees. Based on our findings, we encourage the academy to consider how an overemphasis on publication output during hiring may affect historically excluded groups in STEM-especially in a post-COVID-19 era.

The Careers and Professional Well-Being of Women Oncologists During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Responding for Tomorrow

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated gender inequity in medicine, with women physicians reporting greater household responsibilities than their men counterparts and steeper barriers to career advancement. The pandemic highlighted the systemic assumptions and challenges faced by women physicians, which we anticipate is also true in our field of oncology. Prior literature suggests that women physicians were tasked with increased personal and professional responsibilities without compensation for their additional work, as well as derailments in career progression and significant burnout. Our aims are to highlight areas of opportunity to optimize the workplace experience of the oncology workforce and to invest in the professional well-being and sustainability of women oncologists as a step toward global workplace equity and future pandemic preparedness.

Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) researchers in India

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the nationally mandated lockdown has resulted in facility closures, decreased laboratory activities, and shifting to remote working. The effects of the pandemic have spread across all professions, including academia. Hence, the present study aims to understand the extent of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) researchers and stakeholders in India. Methods: The study employed a mixed method design. Both quantitative (survey) and qualitative (interview) methods were used to gain a comprehensive understanding on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) early career researchers (ECRs), graduate students, Heads of Institutes, suppliers of scientific equipment, funders, and other stakeholders in India. Results: A total of 618 researchers completed the survey, and 24 stakeholders were interviewed for this study. Our findings highlight the importance of institutional and social support for mental well-being and scientific productivity among researchers, especially during the pandemic. It also shows the impact of the disruptions in grant disbursals on research activities of scientists. Further, the gendered impact between these relationships was also noted, all of which hint at a need for structured reform within STEM. Conclusions: The study highlights the various challenges faced by early career researchers, and STEM scientists at various positions in their careers during the COVID-19 restrictions in India.

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.

Career Satisfaction and Burnout among American Muslim Physicians

Background  Career satisfaction and burnout among physicians are important to study because they impact healthcare quality, outcomes, and physicians' well-being. Relationships between religiosity and these constructs are underexplored, and Muslim American physicians are an understudied population. Methods  To explore relationships between career satisfaction, burnout, and callousness and Muslim physician characteristics, a questionnaire including measures of religiosity, career satisfaction, burnout, callousness, and sociodemographic characteristics was mailed to a random sample of Islamic Medical Association of North America members. Statistical relationships were explored using chi-squared tests and logistic regression models. Results  There were 255 respondents (41% response rate) with a mean age of 52 years. Most (70%) were male, South Asian (70%), and immigrated to the United States as adults (65%). Nearly all (89%) considered Islam the most or very important part of their life, and 85% reported being somewhat or very satisfied with their career. Multivariate models revealed that workplace accommodation of religious identity is the strongest predictor of career satisfaction (odds ratio [OR]: 2.69, p  = 0.015) and that respondents who considered religious practice to be the most important part of their lives had higher odds of being satisfied with their career (OR: 2.21, p  = 0.049) and lower odds of burnout (OR: 0.51, p  = 0.016). Participants who felt that their religion negatively influenced their relationships with colleagues had higher odds of callousness (OR: 2.25, p  = 0.003). Conclusions  For Muslim physicians, holding their religion to be the most important part of their life positively associates with career satisfaction and lower odds of burnout and callousness. Critically, perceptions that one's workplace accommodates a physician's religious identity associate strongly with career satisfaction. In this era of attention to physician well-being, the importance of religiosity and religious identity accommodations to positive career outcomes deserves focused policy attention.

Impact of COVID-19 on the Research Career Advancement of Health Equity Scholars from Diverse Backgrounds

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly taxed scientific research and seems to have exacerbated existing inequities within the research field, particularly for early-stage investigators (ESIs). This study examines the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on traditionally underrepresented ESIs enrolled in an NIH-supported study evaluating the effectiveness of developmental networks, grant writing coaching, and mentoring on research career advancement. The survey consisted of 24 closed-ended (quantitative) and 4 open-ended questions (qualitative) linked to a participant's ability to meet grant submission deadlines, research and professional development disruptions, stress level, career transition level, self-efficacy and management of scholarly tasks, and familial responsibilities. Results from 32 respondents (53%) suggest that COVID-19 adversely impacted the continuity of research (81%) and grant submissions (63%). On average, grant submissions were delayed by 6.69 months (i.e., greater than one grant cycle). We also conducted additional analyses characterizing nonresponse and found that there were no significant predictors of nonresponse, indicating a limited threat to the validity of our findings. The disruption caused by COVID-19 to the careers of ESIs from underrepresented groups in the biomedical workforce has been profound in the short term. The long-term consequences to the future success of these groups are unknown but is a worthwhile area of research and potential innovation.

Safer at school early alert: an observational study of wastewater and surface monitoring to detect COVID-19 in elementary schools

Background

Schools are high-risk settings for SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but necessary for children's educational and social-emotional wellbeing. Previous research suggests that wastewater monitoring can detect SARS-CoV-2 infections in controlled residential settings with high levels of accuracy. However, its effective accuracy, cost, and feasibility in non-residential community settings is unknown.

Methods

The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness and accuracy of community-based passive wastewater and surface (environmental) surveillance to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in neighborhood schools compared to weekly diagnostic (PCR) testing. We implemented an environmental surveillance system in nine elementary schools with 1700 regularly present staff and students in southern California. The system was validated from November 2020 to March 2021.

Findings

In 447 data collection days across the nine sites 89 individuals tested positive for COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 374 surface samples and 133 wastewater samples. Ninety-three percent of identified cases were associated with an environmental sample (95% CI: 88%-98%); 67% were associated with a positive wastewater sample (95% CI: 57%-77%), and 40% were associated with a positive surface sample (95% CI: 29%-52%). The techniques we utilized allowed for near-complete genomic sequencing of wastewater and surface samples.

Interpretation

Passive environmental surveillance can detect the presence of COVID-19 cases in non-residential community school settings with a high degree of accuracy.

Funding

County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Centers for Disease Control.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic Unmasked the Challenges Faced by Early-Stage Faculty in Infectious Diseases: A Call to Action

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated increase in family care responsibilities resulted in unsustainable personal and professional workloads for infectious diseases (ID) faculty on the front lines. This was especially true for early-stage faculty (ESF), many of whom had caregiving responsibilities. In addition, female faculty, underrepresented in medicine and science faculty and particularly ESF, experienced marked declines in research productivity, which significantly impacts career trajectories. When combined with staffing shortages due to an aging workforce and suboptimal recruitment and retention in ID, these work-life imbalances have brought the field to an inflection point. We propose actionable recommendations and call on ID leaders to act to close the gender, racial, and ethnic gaps to improve the recruitment, retention, and advancement of ESF in ID. By investing in systemic change to make the ID workforce more equitable, we can embody the shared ideals of diversity and inclusion and prepare for the next pandemic.

Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Author Sex and Manuscript Acceptance Rates among Pulmonary and Critical Care Journals

Rationale: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has negatively affected women more than men and may influence the publication of non-COVID-19 research. Objectives: To evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with changes in manuscript acceptance rates among pulmonary/critical care journals and sex-based disparities in these rates. Methods: We analyzed first, senior, and corresponding author sex (female vs. male, identified by matching first names in a validated Genderize database) of manuscripts submitted to four pulmonary/critical care journals between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. We constructed interrupted time series regression models to evaluate whether the proportion of female first and senior authors of non-COVID-19 original research manuscripts changed with the pandemic. Next, we performed multivariable logistic regressions to evaluate the association of author sex with acceptance of original research manuscripts. Results: Among 8,332 original research submissions, women represented 39.9% and 28.3% of first and senior authors, respectively. We found no change in the proportion of female first or senior authors of non-COVID-19 or COVID-19 submitted research manuscripts during the COVID-19 era. Non-COVID-19 manuscripts submitted during the COVID-19 era had reduced odds of acceptance, regardless of author sex (first author adjusted OR [aOR], 0.46 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.36-0.59]; senior author aOR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.37-0.57]). Female senior authorship was associated with decreased acceptance of non-COVID-19 research manuscripts (crude rates, 14.4% [male] vs. 13.2% [female]; aOR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.71-0.99]). Conclusions: Although female author submissions were not disproportionately influenced by COVID-19, we found evidence suggesting sex disparities in manuscript acceptance rates. Journals may need to consider strategies to reduce this disparity, and academic institutions may need to factor our findings, including lower acceptance rates for non-COVID-19 manuscripts, into promotion decisions.

Wastewater and surface monitoring to detect COVID-19 in elementary school settings: The Safer at School Early Alert project

Background

Schools are high-risk settings for SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but necessary for children's educational and social-emotional wellbeing. Previous research suggests that wastewater monitoring can detect SARS-CoV-2 infections in controlled residential settings with high levels of accuracy. However, its effective accuracy, cost, and feasibility in non-residential community settings is unknown.

Methods

The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness and accuracy of community-based passive wastewater and surface (environmental) surveillance to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in neighborhood schools compared to weekly diagnostic (PCR) testing. We implemented an environmental surveillance system in nine elementary schools with 1700 regularly present staff and students in southern California. The system was validated from November 2020 - March 2021.

Findings

In 447 data collection days across the nine sites 89 individuals tested positive for COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 374 surface samples and 133 wastewater samples. Ninety-three percent of identified cases were associated with an environmental sample (95% CI: 88% - 98%); 67% were associated with a positive wastewater sample (95% CI: 57% - 77%), and 40% were associated with a positive surface sample (95% CI: 29% - 52%). The techniques we utilized allowed for near-complete genomic sequencing of wastewater and surface samples.

Interpretation

Passive environmental surveillance can detect the presence of COVID-19 cases in non-residential community school settings with a high degree of accuracy.

Funding

County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Centers for Disease Control.

Timing of submissions to The Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health: Associations with the COVID-19 pandemic and editorial decisions

AIM

To determine if the timing of manuscript submissions to The Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health (JPCH) changed following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and to determine if the timing of manuscript submissions influenced editorial decisions.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study of submissions to JPCH from 1 January 2015 to 1 August 2022 was performed. Regression models were used to explore the change over time. Editorial decisions were examined using a multinomial regression model with the three-category ordinal outcome of reject, revise and accept. All statistical models were fitted using a Bayesian approach and show 95% credible intervals (CI).

RESULTS

The analyses included 11 499 manuscript submissions between 2015 and 2022. The mean number of manuscript submissions increased by 17 papers per month (CI 15-19), with a larger 4-month long increase after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared of 86 submissions per month (CI 67-103). There was no clear effect of the pandemic on weekend submissions, mean difference in probability 0.003 (CI -0.021 to 0.026). Throughout the study period, the peak submission time was later in the day and was shifted +37 min later post-March 2020 (CI +22 to +52 min). Throughout the study period, submissions out-of-hours and on weekends were less likely to get an editorial decision of 'accept' or 'revise': odds ratio weekend versus weekday 0.87 (CI 0.78-0.97).

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic had a limited effect on the timing of manuscript submissions to JPCH. However, the timing of manuscript submission impacted the likelihood of a more positive editorial decision. While the time of manuscript submission is only one part of the research process, it is postulated that it may be associated with research quality.

Academic Productivity of Equity-Deserving Physician Scholars During COVID-19: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic presented new barriers and exacerbated existing inequities for physician scholars. While COVID-19's impact on academic productivity among women has received attention, the pandemic may have posed additional challenges for scholars from a wider range of equity-deserving groups, including those who hold multiple equity-deserving identities. To examine this concern, the authors conducted a scoping review of the literature through an intersectionality lens.

METHOD

The authors searched peer-reviewed literature published March 1, 2020, to December 16, 2021, in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PubMed. The authors excluded studies not written in English and/or outside of academic medicine. From included studies, they extracted data regarding descriptions of how COVID-19 impacted academic productivity of equity-deserving physician scholars, analyses on the pandemic's reported impact on productivity of physician scholars from equity-deserving groups, and strategies provided to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on academic productivity of physician scholars from equity-deserving groups.

RESULTS

Of 11,587 unique articles, 44 met inclusion criteria, including 15 nonempirical studies and 29 empirical studies (22 bibliometrics studies, 6 surveys, and 1 qualitative study). All included articles focused on the gendered impact of the pandemic on academic productivity. The majority of their recommendations focused on how to alleviate the burden of the pandemic on women, particularly those in the early stages of their career and/or with children, without consideration of scholars who hold multiple and intersecting identities from a wider range of equity-deserving groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate a lack of published literature on the pandemic's impact on physician scholars from equity-deserving groups, including a lack of consideration of physician scholars who experience multiple forms of discrimination. Well-intentioned measures by academic institutions to reduce the impact on scholars may inadvertently risk reproducing and sustaining inequities that equity-deserving scholars faced during the pandemic.

Continued impact of COVID-19 pandemic on clinical and translational science early-career researchers

The COVID-19 pandemic had an immediate impact on the lives and work of early-career researchers. We leveraged a cluster-randomized trial and compared survey data collected over two timepoints to explore whether these impacts persisted. Although more than a year had passed, 74% of participants reported that their research was affected in multiple ways in both 2020 and 2021. These data suggest that the effects of the pandemic on early-career researchers may be prolonged. Our findings additionally serve as an impetus to identify and implement solutions to early-career challenges that undoubtedly existed before the pandemic, but which COVID-19 brought into the spotlight.

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Intergroups Inequalities: The Case of Women

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has crucial implications for intergroup inequalities. The main aims of the current study are to examine how the COVID-19 affects inequalities between women and men, understand the causes of increasing gender-based inequalities during pandemic, and offer practical solutions on how these inequalities can be reduced. The results of studies from different countries demonstrated that gender-based inequalities that existed before the pandemic deepened with the COVID-19. After the COVID-19, there has been a serious rise in the level of physical, psychological and economic violence that women are exposed to, the labor they spend on housework and caring has increased dramatically, and the problems they face in business life ascended. Understanding why gender-based inequalities have increased during the COVID-19 is one of the influential steps to achieve gender equality. When the reasons are examined, it has been determined that many factors, including the policies implemented in the struggle against the pandemic and gender roles, play critical roles in this rise. Finally, in order to diminish gender-based inequalities, short and long-term solutions are presented such as carrying out gender-based awareness education, adequate representations of women in decision-making processes, developing gender-sensitive policies, strengthening the mechanisms that support women.

The Consequences of the Pandemic for Subjective Well-Being: Data for Improving Policymaking

The pandemic has affected people's lives and emotions in profound ways, which governments ignore at their peril. Among the often disregarded consequences of the pandemic, especially in developing countries, are its toll on subjective well-being and its implications for health policymaking. This paper uses a battery of surveys with over 1800 observations collected in 2019 and 2020, which inform on many aspects of subjective well-being before and during the pandemic in Cali, Colombia. The results show a dramatic and widespread reduction in life satisfaction in several dimensions of well-being beyond health, and not just among those directly affected by COVID-19. This analysis focuses on differences in well-being by gender and health status, providing information about gender variances and differences in subjective well-being between those who experienced and those who did not experience physical illness (including the COVID-19 infection) during the pandemic. This analysis aims at contributing to the body of research that studies the consequences of the pandemic for life satisfaction and well-being, in the context of a city experiencing profound social unrest during the pandemic.

Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientists' productivity in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and medicine fields

While studies suggested adverse impacts of COVID-19 on scientific outputs and work routines for scientists, more evidence is required to understand detailed obstacles challenging scientists' work and productivity during the pandemic, including how different people are affected (e.g., by gender). This online survey-based thematic analysis investigated how the pandemic affected scientists' perception of scientific and academic productivity in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and medicine fields. The analysis examined if inequitable changes in duties and responsibilities for caregiving for children, family, and/or households exist between scientists who are mothers compared to scientists who are fathers or non-parents. The survey collected data from 2548 survey responses in six languages across 132 countries. Results indicate that many scientists suffered from delays and restrictions on research activities and administrations due to the lockdown of institutions, as well as increased workloads from adapting to online teaching environment. Caregiving responsibility for children and family increased, which compromised time for academic efforts, especially due to the temporary shutdown of social supports. Higher percentages of female parent participants than male parent participants expressed such increased burdens indicating unequal divisions of caregiving between women and men. A range of physical and mental health issues was identified mainly due to overworking and isolation. Despite numerous obstacles, some participants reported advantages during the pandemic including the efficiency of online teaching, increased funding for COVID-related research, application of alternative research methodologies, and fluidity of the workday from not commuting. Findings imply the need for rapid institutional support to aid various academic activities and diminish gender inequity in career development among academicians, highlighting how crisis can exacerbate existing inequalities.

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.

Sticky steps and the gender gap: how thoughtful practices could help keep caregivers in science

Many fewer women than men hold senior academic positions, a widely recognized and increasing problem. Our goal is to identify effective and feasible solutions. We begin by providing an in-depth assessment of the drivers of this gender inequity. In our synthesis of existing data, we provide many lines of evidence highlighting caregiving as a primary main factor. This is not a ‘new’ insight per se, but a point worth repeating that we back up by a strong and synthetic body of recent data. We also believe that our analysis provides a step forward in tackling a complex issue. We then develop a more detailed understanding of the challenges academic caregivers face and discuss whether and why it is important to keep caregivers in science. We find that the attrition due to caregiving should not be seen as a factor but rather as a process with multiple ‘sticky steps’ that eventually drive caregivers out of science—which, as we argue, is partly also good news. Indeed, it is here that we believe actions could be taken that would have a real impact: for example, one could effectively increase and expand upon current funding practices that focus on caregiver career advancement.

Gender Differences in National Institutes of Health Grant Submissions Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Introduction: Emerging data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted women in academic medicine, potentially eliminating recent gains that have been made toward gender equity. This study examined possible pandemic-related gender disparities in research grant submissions, one of the most important criteria for academic promotion and tenure evaluations. Methods: Data were collected from two major academic institutions (one private and one public) on the gender and academic rank of faculty principal investigators who submitted new grants to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during COVID-19 (March 1st, 2020, through August 31, 2020) compared with a matched period in 2019 (March 1st, 2019, through August 31, 2019). t-Tests and chi-square analyses compared the gender distribution of individuals who submitted grants during the two periods of examination. Results: In 2019 (prepandemic), there was no significant difference in the average number of grants submitted by women compared with men faculty. In contrast, women faculty submitted significantly fewer grants in 2020 (during the pandemic) than men. Men were also significantly more likely than women to submit grants in both 2019 and 2020 compared with submitting in 2019 only, suggesting men faculty may have been more likely than their women colleagues to sustain their productivity in grant submissions during the pandemic. Discussion: Women's loss of extramural funding may compound over time, as it impedes new data collection, research progress, and academic advancement. Efforts to support women's research productivity and career trajectories are urgently needed in the following years of pandemic recovery.

COVID-19 and gender inequity in science: Consistent harm over time

Stay-at-home-orders, online learning, and work from home policies are some of the responses governments, universities, and other institutions adopted to slow the spread of COVID-19. However, research shows these measures have increased pre-existing gender disparities in the workplace. The working conditions for women during the pandemic worsened due to increased family care responsibilities and unequal distribution of domestic labor. In the academy, working from home has resulted in reduced research time and increased teaching and family care responsibilities, with a larger proportion of that burden falling to women. We investigate the persistence of gender inequity among academic scientists resulting from university COVID-19 responses over time. We draw on two surveys administered in May 2020 and May 2021 to university-based biologists, biochemists, and civil and environmental engineers, to analyze how the pandemic response has disproportionately impacted women in academia and the endurance of those inequities. Results show significantly greater negative impacts from the pandemic on women’s research activities and work-life balance, compared to men. We conclude by discussing the implications of our results, and the need for the academy to better predict and adjust to the gender disparities its policies create.

A Decade of GigaScience: Women in Science: Past, Present, and Future

Over the last decade, women have made decisive advances in increasing equality in science, technology, engineering, and medicine (STEM), but they still do not rival that of men. Many mechanisms to reduce gender discrimination have been addressed; however, little to nothing has been done to tackle the differences in the amount of time women spend on responsibilities at home. This has never been more apparent than during the COVID-19 pandemic. After a decade of advances promoting women, the last two years have seen these advances halted, and the long-term implications for women in STEM will be substantial. Moving forward, career advancement and funding mechanisms need to be adjusted to not just help women catch up, but to become a permanent support mechanism for women in the workplace. The higher amount of responsibilities at home and lack of support for women is not reserved for times of international upheaval: it has just become more apparent.

The "Gift" of Time: Documenting Faculty Decisions to Stop the Tenure Clock During a Pandemic

Anticipating the deleterious effects of pandemic mitigation protocols on faculty's research and creative work, many universities introduced mechanisms for pre-tenured faculty to receive tenure clock extensions. Unlike most stop-the-clock extensions, which occur on an individual basis, the stop-the-tenure-clock during COVID-19 was a mass-triggering event that applied to all faculty. Informed by social role theory, we examined this unique situation of stop-the-tenure clock decisions by faculty at two different universities within the same state system. Institutional level demographic and field of study data on faculty decision making at one high research activity university (n = 97) and one very high research activity university (n = 387) were examined at two time points; a first tenure-clock stop opportunity and a second tenure-clock stop opportunity. Results show that although the overall rates of clock-stops were much larger at the research-intense university, the characteristics of who was most likely to accept or opt out of the first tenure-clock stop were similar at both universities. Ethnic minoritized faculty at both universities had greater odds of accepting the clock-stop. Results also showed that at both universities, women were somewhat more likely to accept the first tenure clock extension, and exploratory follow-up shows this gendered decision manifested differently depending on field of study. Relatively few faculty accepted the second tenure clock-stop. Our findings provide a portrait of who accepts or declines tenure clock extensions with important implications for downstream effects on equity within the academy.

COVID-19 y desigualdades de género: los efectos de la pandemia sobre las investigadoras y científicas

Introducción. La pandemia de la COVID-19 ha tenido un impacto de género diferencial que ha situado a las mujeres en una situación de desventaja en todos los ámbitos de la sociedad, incluida la ciencia. Las mujeres son especialmente vulnerables en las pandemias, sufriendo un empeoramiento de su salud, economía y derechos. Objetivos. El principal objetivo de este artículo es el de conocer el impacto de la pandemia en la productividad de las investigadoras. Metodología. El trabajo ha consistido en la realización de una revisión bibliográfica de artículos relacionados principalmente con los temas de la productividad científica y el impacto de género que ha tenido la pandemia en la producción de las investigadoras. Resultados. El análisis de las fuentes bibliográficas revela que las investigadoras y su productividad se ha visto afectada por la pandemia, publicando menos, especialmente en puestos de autoría clave para la evaluación y dedicando menos horas a la investigación. Este efecto es especialmente acusado en aquellas que tienen hijas e hijos. Discusión y Conclusiones. La situación de pandemia ha empeorado situaciones de desigualdad que ya se experimentaban con anterioridad. En ese sentido, gran parte de la producción científica ha situado la carga de los cuidados como una de las principales razones que ha favorecido la amplificación de las desigualdades entre el personal investigador y su producción académica. Es clave que se actúe para que el daño en las carreras de las investigadoras no continúe aumentando y que se incluya a los hombres en la discusión sobre el reparto de los cuidados.

Impact of COVID-19 on access to laboratories and human participants: exercise science faculty perspectives

Restrictions due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic impacted the ability of faculty and students in exercise science to work in lab settings with human participants. The purpose of this study was to determine how exercise science faculty were impacted by COVID-19 restrictions with respect to access and use of exercise science lab and research facilities. Of the 100 surveyed participants categorized as requiring access to people and lab spaces (lab-based faculty), 61% (n = 61) reported decreased research productivity with 87% (n = 53) of those faculty in one or more of the following subdisciplines: exercise physiology, clinical exercise physiology, or biomechanics. Of all lab-based faculty, 40% (n = 40) participants reported having access to students and lab spaces and 55% (n = 55) indicated they were allowed to conduct in-person research. Of tenure-track lab-based faculty, 80% (n = 20) reported a decrease in research productivity, of which 60.0% (n = 12) identified as female. Among faculty with 5 or less years of teaching experience (n = 23), 69.6% (n = 16) reported a decrease in productivity, with 68.8% (n = 11) of those being female. All exercise science faculty surveyed reported issues with safety and social distancing, modified lab and research procedures, faculty workload, and research productivity. This information can be leveraged to create better infrastructure to support faculty and develop and implement strategies to reduce workload inequities.

Implementation of a Family Support Grant to Subsidize Caregiving Needs and Support Attendance at American Society for Nutrition's Annual Professional Scientific Conference

Attendance at professional society meetings facilitates networking, collaboration, and success in academic/scientific fields. Insufficient funds, support, or resources for caregiving can inhibit attendance for parents/caretakers, who may become professionally disadvantaged by not attending professional society conferences. The American Society for Nutrition (ASN) offered a family support grant for caregiving needs during the annual conference (maximum: $750); however, the perceived impact of caregiving funds on attendance outcomes is unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the need of family support for attendance to the ASN annual conference among applicants and to assess recipients' experience and usage of funds. Applicants completed a pre-conference survey assessing requested funds, out-of-pocket caregiving expenses to attend the meeting, the influence of receiving the grant on attendance, and additional factors. Recipients completed a post-conference survey assessing use of the funds and impact of the grant on attending/participating. Grant applications (n = 110) were majority women, aged 26-45 y, married, at the trainee or assistant professor level, from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds, and with parenting noted as the primary responsibility. Thirty-seven percent of applicants were currently lactating or expressing milk. The average amount requested was $650 US dollars, and >60% of respondents indicated plans to use funds to bring a family member/friend to the conference. Seventy-seven percent of respondents indicated that receiving the grant would influence their attendance. The post-conference survey (n = 25) indicated that recipients felt that receiving the grant was helpful in attending the conference (92%), specifically attending scientific sessions (96%) and poster sessions (80%). Recipients indicated the grant helped them network with attendees (88%), visit the exhibitor hall (72%), and participate in career development activities (64%). The ASN family support grant aided attendance and supported recipients' participation in conference activities, particularly early-career women who are parents, with the goal of supporting diversity and inclusivity in scientific/academic fields. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03432585.

Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) researchers in India

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the nationally mandated lockdown has resulted in facility closures, decreased laboratory activities, and shifting to remote working. The effects of the pandemic have spread across all professions, including academia. Hence, the present study aims to understand the extent of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) researchers and stakeholders in India. Methods: The study employed a mixed method design. Both quantitative (survey) and qualitative (interview) methods were used to gain a comprehensive understanding on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) early career researchers (ECRs), graduate students, Heads of Institutes, suppliers of scientific equipment, funders, and other stakeholders in India. Results: A total of 618 researchers completed the survey, and 24 stakeholders were interviewed for this study. Our findings highlight the importance of institutional and social support for mental well-being and scientific productivity among researchers, especially during the pandemic. It also shows the impact of the disruptions in grant disbursals on research activities of scientists. Further, the gendered impact between these relationships was also noted, all of which hint at a need for structured reform within STEM. Conclusions: The study highlights the various challenges faced by early career researchers, and STEM scientists at various positions in their careers during the COVID-19 restrictions in India.

Are professors of human nutrition faculty at Canadian universities representative with respect to common social constructs of gender and race?

Attributes such as sex and race/ethnicity are associated with inequities in representation. The objective of this study was to assess representation of 2 social constructs, gender and race, of professors of human nutrition in Canada. Using information publicly available October 2021, individuals with the title of assistant, associate, or full professor were identified on websites of 20 Canadian universities offering undergraduate and/or graduate degrees in human nutrition. Individuals were subjectively stratified to social constructs, i.e., white, racialized, or Indigenous, based on photographs, ethnic origin of a surname, and regional and ethnic origin disclosures on university websites, LinkedIn, social media, etc. Gender was assigned based on publicly available photographs and self-disclosed pronouns (when available). Of the 190 individuals, 80% were white, 16.4% were racialized, and 2.6% were Indigenous peoples. The majority (65.3%) were women. In a subset with established doctoral thesis dates and dates of hire at their current institution (n = 153), racialized and Indigenous professors, especially assistant and associate, had earned their doctorate and been hired more recently than their white peers. This study is limited because only individuals with professorial titles were included and the assignment of social constructs for race and gender was subjective. Nevertheless, it establishes an understanding of the proportions of professors of human nutrition who are white, racialized, Indigenous, women, and men. Novelty: Canadian universities strive to be equitable, diverse, and inclusive. One hundred and ninety professors of human nutrition were stratified using social constructs for race and gender. Findings: 65% Women, 80% white, 16.4% racialized, and 2.6% Indigenous.

Duoethnography as Transformative Praxis: Conversations about Nourishment and Coercion in the COVID-Era Academy

This article introduces the feminist praxis of duoethnography as a way to examine the COVID era. As a group of diverse, junior, midcareer, and senior feminist scholars, we developed a methodology to critically reflect on our positions in our institutions and social worlds. As a method, duoethnography emphasizes the dialogical intimacy that can form through anthropological work. While autoethnography draws on individual daily lives to make sense of sociopolitical dynamics, duoethnography emphasizes the relational character of research across people and practices. Taking the relational aspects of knowledge production seriously, we conceptualized this praxis as a transformative method for facilitating radical empathy, mobilizing our collective voice, and merging together our partial truths. As collective authors, interviewers, and interlocutors of this article, the anonymity of duoethnography allows us to vocalize details of the experience of living through COVID-19 that we could not have safely spoken about publicly or on our own.

Characteristics of early-career nurse researchers negatively impacted during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify typical patterns and determinants of early-career nurse researchers (ECNRs: age ≤45 years) who reported that their research activities were negatively impacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, using a data mining methodology. To gain a deeper understanding of the characteristics of these ECNRs, we compared them with the characteristics of senior nurse researchers (SNRs: age ≥46 years).

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

1532 nurse researchers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted an anonymous online questionnaire survey that assessed individual and professional attributes of nurse researchers and their experiences from April to June 2020. We analysed the association between the impact on research activities and the individual and professional attributes using cross-tabulation, and employed the chi-square automatic interaction detection technique to perform population segmentation.

RESULTS

We found that difficulties in research management, an increased burden of student education and organisational management, and organisational management position were relatively important factors for determining the negative impact of COVID-19 on the research activities of ECNRs (p<0.05). For both ECNRs and SNRs, the most relevant determinant of disrupted research activities was 'difficulties in research management' (χ²=34.7 and 126.5, respectively, p<0.001 for both). However, only ECNRs yielded 'position in organisational management' and was extracted only for ECNRs (χ²=7.0, p=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Difficulties in research management and an increased burden of student education and organisational management had an unfavourable impact on the research activities of ECNRs. To ensure quality of nursing care and nursing science development during and after the COVID-19 era, it is important to support ECNRs in their nursing research activities and career development. Our findings could contribute to the prioritisation of interventions and policymaking for ECNRs who are particularly at risk of being negatively affected by the pandemic.

Instructor Perceptions of Student Incivility in the Online Undergraduate Science Classroom

Student incivility, defined as a student behavior perceived to be disrespectful or disruptive to the overall learning environment in a course, can negatively affect the science learning environment and instructors. The transition to online science courses during the COVID-19 pandemic created a unique environment for student incivility to take place in undergraduate courses. There are few studies that examine student incivility in online synchronous courses, and we know of no studies that have investigated student incivility during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we surveyed 283 instructors across U.S. institutions who taught undergraduate science courses with synchronous online components. We probed their experiences with student incivility during the fall 2020 term. Over half of instructors surveyed reported experiencing student incivility, with women being more likely than men to report student incivility. Compared with white instructors, people of color were more likely to perceive an increase in student incivility in fall 2020 relative to previous in-person terms. This work indicates that student incivility is perceived in the online synchronous learning environment and that the negative impacts of perceived student incivility during COVID-19 online instruction were not distributed equally among instructors, disproportionately burdening women and people of color.

Editorial commentary on the special issue emerging psychoneuroimmunology research: Future leaders in focus

The theme of this BBI-Health special issue is to promote the research, creativity and forward-thinking of future key opinion leaders in the field of psychoneuroimmunology (PNI). We asked contributing researchers to identify new ideas and spaces for innovation to map out the future trajectory of our discipline. This special issue provides global and diverse views from early career investigators focused on science, society, and/or policy, with an emphasis on diversity in all its aspects. The common thread weaving through the articles contained in this special issue is that all authors were invited to consider the future of PNI while they were experiencing the global COVID-19 lockdowns that slowed down or even prevented them from access to their “hands-on” research. The contributors vary from Master level to assistant professors, and all have already significantly contributed to the field of PNI. Each contributor has provided a photograph and short biography alongside their written perspectives. We hope that you will enjoy learning about their visions for the future of PNI and will join us with enthusiasm as we watch our field grow through the advancement of their scientific careers.

The Impact of Research Culture on Mental Health & Diversity in STEM

The onset of COVID-19, coupled with the finer lens placed on systemic racial disparities within our society, has resulted in increased discussions around mental health. Despite this, mental health struggles in research are still often viewed as individual weaknesses and not the result of a larger dysfunctional research culture. Mental health interventions in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) academic community often focus on what individuals can do to improve their mental health instead of focusing on improving the research environment. In this paper, we present four aspects of research that may heavily impact mental health based on our experiences as research scientists: bullying and harassment; precarity of contracts; diversity, inclusion, and accessibility; and the competitive research landscape. Based on these aspects, we propose systemic changes that institutions must adopt to ensure their research culture is supportive and allows everyone to thrive.

COVID-19 effect on the gender gap in academic publishing

The authors wanted to verify a popular belief that women scholars have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied the first names of authors of 266,409 articles from 2813 journals in 21 disciplines, and we found no significant differences between men and women in publication patterns between 2021, 2020, and 2019 overall. However, we found significant differences in publication patterns between gender in different disciplines. In addition, in disciplines where the proportion of women authors is higher, there are fewer single-authored articles. In the multi-author articles if the first author is female, there is more gender balance among authors, although there are still fewer women co-authors.

The persistence of neoliberal logics in faculty evaluations amidst Covid-19: Recalibrating toward equity

In this paper, we theorize the intersectional gendered impacts of COVID-19 on faculty labor, with a particular focus on how institutions of higher education in the United States evaluate faculty labor amidst the COVID-19 transition and beyond. The pandemic has disrupted faculty research, teaching, and service in differential ways, having larger impacts on women faculty, faculty of color, and caregiving faculty in ways that further reflect the intersections of these groups. Universities have had to reconsider how evaluation occurs, given the impact of these disruptions on faculty careers. Through a case study of university pandemic responses in the United States, we summarize key components of how colleges and universities shifted evaluations of faculty labor in response to COVID-19, including suspending teaching evaluations, implementing tenure delays, and allowing for impact statements in faculty reviews. While most institutional responses recenter neoliberal principles of the ideal academic worker that is both gendered and racialized, a few universities have taken more innovative approaches to better attend to equity concerns. We conclude by suggesting a recalibration of the faculty evaluation system - one that maintains systematic faculty reviews and allows for academic freedom, but requires universities to take a more contextualized approach to evaluation in ways that center equity and inclusion for women faculty and faculty of color for the long term.

Researching the researchers: psychological distress and psychosocial stressors according to career stage in mental health researchers

Background

Although there are many benefits associated with working in academia, this career path often involves structural and organisational stressors that can be detrimental to wellbeing and increase susceptibility to psychological distress and mental ill health. This exploratory study examines experiences of work-related psychosocial stressors, psychological distress, and mental health diagnoses among mental health researchers.

Methods

This international cross-sectional study involved 207 mental health researchers who were post-graduate students or employed in research institutes or university settings. Work-related psychosocial stressors were measured by the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire III (COPSOQ III). Psychological distress was assessed using the Depression-Anxiety-Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21). Thoughts of suicide was assessed using an adaptation of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). History of mental health diagnoses was assessed through a custom questionnaire. Pearson’s chi-square test of independence was used to compare mental health diagnoses and suicidal ideation across career stages. The association between work-related psychosocial stressors and psychological distress was conducted using multivariate linear regression controlling for key demographic, employment-related and mental health factors.

Results

Differences in ‘demands at work’ and the ‘work-life balance’ domain were lowest among support staff (p = 0.01). Overall, 13.4% of respondents met the threshold for severe psychological distress, which was significantly higher in students compared to participants from other career stages (p = 0.01). Among the subgroup of participants who responded to the question on mental health diagnoses and suicidal ideation (n = 152), 54% reported a life-time mental health diagnosis and 23.7% reported suicidal ideation since their academic career commencement. After controlling for key covariates, the association between the ‘interpersonal relations and leadership’ domain and psychological distress was attenuated by the mental health covariates included in model 3 (β = −0.23, p = 0.07). The association between the remaining work-related psychosocial stressors and psychological distress remained significant.

Conclusions

Despite working in the same environment, research support staff report experiencing significantly less psychosocial stressors compared to postgraduate students, early-middle career researchers and senior researchers. Future research that targets key modifiable stressors associated with psychological distress including work organization and job content, and work-life balance could improve the overall mental health and wellbeing of mental health researchers.

Promotion of gender equity in obstetrics and gynecology: principles and practices for academic leaders

The advancement of women leaders in obstetrics and gynecology does not reflect the changes in the physician workforce seen over the last 50 years. A core value of our culture in obstetrics and gynecology must be gender equity. Departmental, institutional, and professional society efforts should explicitly prioritize and demonstrate a commitment to gender equity with tangible actions. This commentary from the American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society synthesizes available information about women holding academic leadership roles within obstetrics and gynecology. We propose specific principles and leadership practices to promote gender equity.

Recruiting underrepresented individuals in a double pandemic: Lessons learned in a randomized control trial

The Building Up Trial is a cluster-randomized trial that aims to address the issue of the leaky career pathway for underrepresented (UR) faculty in biomedical fields. Regulatory approval and recruitment for the Building Up Trial took place during the COVID-19 pandemic and the anti-racism movement. The pandemic and anti-racism movement personally and professionally impacted the target population and made recruitment challenging at both the institution and participant level. The target sample size for this study was 208 postdoctoral fellows or early-career faculty across 26 predominately white institutions. Challenges and adaptations are described. The Building Up Trial was delayed by 3 months. In total, 225 participants from 26 institutions were enrolled. Participants are predominately female (80%), Hispanic/Latinx (34%) or non-Hispanic/Latinx Black (33%), and early-career faculty (53%). At the institution level, obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval through a single Institutional Review Board (sIRB) posed the biggest challenge. We adapted to COVID-19-related challenges through simplifying sIRB forms, modifying study practices, and increasing communication with institutions. Recruiting UR postdoctoral fellows and faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic and anti-racism movement was challenging but not impossible. Studies should be prepared to modify study and recruitment policies to overcome additional barriers posed by the pandemics.