Search

Purpose: The aim of this study was to utilize an intersectional framework to examine academic faculty's lived experiences during COVID-19. Specifically, we set out to: (1) describe the multiple intersectional identities (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, rank, caregiver status, disability status) represented by the faculty, (2) examine potential disparities in well-being, workload, and productivity linked to these intersectional factors, and (3) identify qualitative themes endorsed by faculty as they relate to lived experiences during COVID-19. Methods: This was a cross-sectional mixed-methods research study. The Center for Women in Medicine and Science (CWIMS) at the University of Minnesota developed and implemented a survey between February–June of 2021 in response to national reports of disparities in the impacts of COVID-19 on faculty with lived experiences from multiple intersections. Results: There were 291 full-time faculty who participated in the study. Quantitative findings indicated that faculty with multiple intersectional identities (e.g., woman+assistant professor+caregiver+underrepresented in medicine) reported greater depression symptoms, work/family conflict, and stress in contrast to faculty with fewer intersectional identities. Furthermore, faculty with more intersectional identities reported higher clinical workloads and service responsibilities and lower productivity with regard to research article submissions, publications, and grant submissions in contrast to faculty with fewer intersectional identities. Qualitative findings supported quantitative findings and broadened understanding of potential underlying reasons. Conclusions: Findings confirm anecdotal evidence that faculty with lived experiences from multiple intersections may be disproportionately experiencing negative outcomes from the pandemic. These findings can inform decisions about how to address these disparities moving into the next several years with regard to promotion and tenure, burnout and well-being, and faculty retention in academic medical settings. Given these findings, it is also important to intentionally plan responses for future public health crises to prevent continued disparities for faculty with multiple intersectional identities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gender disparities in academic promotion and leadership are well documented. Scholarly impact is essential for promotion. The Hirsch-index (h-index) is a measure of impact using number of publications and citations. We sought to (i) evaluate breast surgery fellowship faculty in North America by academic rank and research impact using the h-index, (ii) determine whether there is a gender difference in scholarly productivity, and (iii) determine the relationship between academic rank, h-index, and gender. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study of h-index and academic rank disparity in breast surgery faculty by gender was performed. We reviewed the faculty of Society of Surgical Oncology-accredited breast surgery fellowships in February 2019. Rank, gender, academic appointment, years in practice, program directorship, National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center association, size of the program, and h-index (via Scopus) were recorded. Univariate and multiple linear regression analyses were performed. Results: Fifty-two programs were identified, and 209 faculty had an h-index. Of them, 69.9% were women and 30.1% were men. h-index increased with academic rank although there was considerable overlap between ranks. Women were underrepresented at the professor level (46.4%), but accounted for the majority of assistant professors (91.5%, p < 0.001), and program directors (70.7%). Men professors had a significantly higher mean h-index than women professors, p < 0.001. However, women associate professors had a higher mean h-index than men, but this did not reach significance. Conclusions: Mean h-index increased with increasing rank among breast surgery faculty for both genders. Average h-index was significantly higher for men professors compared to women professors. No significant gender difference in h-index was found for assistant professors. For associate professors, h-index for women was higher than for men. Women are underrepresented at higher academic ranks despite forming the majority of breast surgical teaching faculty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health risks among informal caregivers have received inadequate attention in low and middle income countries. We examined cross-sectional data from 28611 adults 18 years and older in Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa in the WHO Study on Global AGEing and Adult Health (SAGE) to examine gender differences in informal caregiving and wellbeing. Methods: Wellbeing was measured by self-rated health, difficulties with tasks, self-reported and diagnosed depression and anxiety. Informal caregiving was specific to adults and constructed as categorical variable with the respondent as: the main caregiver, non-caregiver but an adult in the household needs care, and no-one ill in the household; multinomial gender-stratified regression models assessed adjusted relative risk ratios (ARRRs). Results: Female caregivers were more likely to report moderate difficulties with life tasks [ARRR = 1.45 (95% CI: 1.01, 2.08)], feel mild-moderate anxiety [ARRR = 1.64 (95% CI: 1.22, 2.22)], and report feeling severely depressed [ARRR = 1.86 (95% CI: 1.28, 2.69)] compared to female non-caregivers. Even when women were not caregivers, having someone ill at home was associated with extreme difficulties with life tasks [ARRR = 2.32 (95% CI: 1.33, 4.04)]. Male caregivers, compared to no-one ill in the household, were more likely to report mild-moderate anxiety [ARRR = 1.8 (95% CI: 1.2, 3.7)] and severe-extreme anxiety [ARRR = 2.22 (95% CI: 1.07, 4.6)]. Conclusions: Caregiving for older adults results in greater health burdens, particularly mental health, for both women and men, though evidence shows that these burdens may be prominent and manifest in more diverse ways for women relative to men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gender-related differences have been found among invited speakers in select professional and medical societies. We examined whether similar disparities existed among keynote speakers, plenary speakers, and invited lecturers in a broad range of medical specialty conferences from 2013 to 2017. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed on 27 U.S. medical specialty conferences for which data were available on plenary speakers, keynote speakers, and/or invited lecturers. For each speaker, gender and degree(s) were determined. Fisher's exact test was performed to compare proportions of women among speakers to Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC) physician workforce data on gender distribution. Results: In aggregate, we identified 246 women among 984 speakers, significantly lower than expected when compared with 2015 AAMC data (25.0% vs. 34.0%; p < 0.00001). Compared with AAMC data reported in 2013, 2015, and 2017, women were significantly underrepresented in 2013 (p = 0.0064) and 2015 (p = 0.00004). In 2017, the proportion of women among invited speakers trended lower than AAMC active women physicians but did not reach significance (p = 0.309). Analysis of individual conference data stratified by year indicated that, while the representation of women among all speakers improved between 2015 and 2017, the representation of women among keynote speakers, plenary speakers, and invited lectureships was variable (including zero levels some years during the study period) and remained lower than expected as compared with workforce data for specific medical specialties. Conclusions: Evaluating for and improving disparities is recommended to ensure gender equity among invited speakers across all medical specialty conferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]