Search

Background: Currently, physicians face an unprecedented crisis with the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The impact of the pandemic on dual-physician households remains unknown. In this survey study, we examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dual-physician families and described gendered differences related to the impact of the pandemic. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey distributed via e-mail and social media, with results collected from April 30, 2020 until May 26, 2020. Respondents were members of a dual-physician couple. Respondents provided information on demographic characteristics and the impact of the pandemic on their professional lives, personal lives, and well-being. Categorical variables were compared using chi-squared or Fisher's exact test. Ordinal variables were compared between genders using Cochran-Armitage trend test. Feeling emotionally and physically drained compared to pre-pandemic was analyzed as a binary outcome in a multivariable logistic model. Results: Of the 1799 physicians who completed the survey, 52% were between 30 and 39 years old, 81% self-identified as women, and 62% were white. Women were more likely to report increased worry about their job security, finances, personal health, partner's health, and children's health (p = 0.02, p = 0.01, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). Seventy-eight percent of respondents reported feeling more drained during the pandemic. Multivariable analysis revealed that female gender (odds ratio [OR] 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-3.3, p < 0.001), and having children younger than 5 years of age (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.05-1.95, p = 0.02) were associated with an increased risk of feeling more drained. Conclusions: Women were more likely to report increased worry about job security, finances, and health and had an increased risk of feeling more drained during the pandemic. While the COVID-19 pandemic is a significant stress for all physicians, women in dual-physician families were disproportionately affected, demonstrating the need for increased support from hospital administrations.

Background The traditional model of promotion and tenure in the health professions relies heavily on formal scholarship through teaching, research, and service. Institutions consider how much weight to give activities in each of these areas and determine a threshold for advancement. With the emergence of social media, scholars can engage wider audiences in creative ways and have a broader impact. Conventional metrics like the h-index do not account for social media impact. Social media engagement is poorly represented in most curricula vitae (CV) and therefore is undervalued in promotion and tenure reviews. Objective The objective was to develop crowdsourced guidelines for documenting social media scholarship. These guidelines aimed to provide a structure for documenting a scholar’s general impact on social media, as well as methods of documenting individual social media contributions exemplifying innovation, education, mentorship, advocacy, and dissemination. Methods To create unifying guidelines, we created a crowdsourced process that capitalized on the strengths of social media and generated a case example of successful use of the medium for academic collaboration. The primary author created a draft of the guidelines and then sought input from users on Twitter via a publicly accessible Google Document. There was no limitation on who could provide input and the work was done in a democratic, collaborative fashion. Contributors edited the draft over a period of 1 week (September 12-18, 2020). The primary and secondary authors then revised the draft to make it more concise. The guidelines and manuscript were then distributed to the contributors for edits and adopted by the group. All contributors were given the opportunity to serve as coauthors on the publication and were told upfront that authorship would depend on whether they were able to document the ways in which they met the 4 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria. Results We developed 2 sets of guidelines: Guidelines for Listing All Social Media Scholarship Under Public Scholarship (in Research/Scholarship Section of CV) and Guidelines for Listing Social Media Scholarship Under Research, Teaching, and Service Sections of CV. Institutions can choose which set fits their existing CV format. Conclusions With more uniformity, scholars can better represent the full scope and impact of their work. These guidelines are not intended to dictate how individual institutions should weigh social media contributions within promotion and tenure cases. Instead, by providing an initial set of guidelines, we hope to provide scholars and their institutions with a common format and language to document social media scholarship.