Dataset Information

Experiences of a Health System's Faculty, Staff, and Trainees' Career Development, Work Culture, and Childcare Needs During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

In March 2020, US public buildings (including schools) were shut down because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and 42% of US workers resumed their employment duties from home. Some shutdowns remain in place, yet the extent of the needs of US working parents is largely unknown.

Objective

To identify and address the career development, work culture, and childcare needs of faculty, staff, and trainees at an academic medical center during a pandemic.

Design, setting, and participants

For this survey study, between August 5 and August 20, 2020, a Qualtrics survey was emailed to all faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health, an academic health care system that includes multiple hospitals, community clinics, and specialty centers. Participants included 27 700 University of Utah Health faculty, staff, and trainees who received a survey invitation. Data analysis was performed from August to November 2020.

Main outcomes and measures

Primary outcomes included experiences of COVID-19 and their associations with career development, work culture, and childcare needs.

Results

A total of 5030 participants completed the entire survey (mean [SD] age, 40 [12] years); 3738 (75%) were women; 4306 (86%) were White or European American; 561 (11%) were Latino or Latina (of any race), Black or African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander; and 301 (6%) were Asian or Asian American. Of the participants, 2545 (51%) reported having clinical responsibilities, 2412 (48%) had at least 1 child aged 18 years or younger, 3316 (66%) were staff, 791 (16%) were faculty, and 640 (13%) were trainees. Nearly one-half of parents reported that parenting (1148 participants [49%]) and managing virtual education for children (1171 participants [50%]) were stressors. Across all participants, 1061 (21%) considered leaving the workforce, and 1505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Four hundred forty-nine faculty (55%) and 397 trainees (60%) perceived decreased productivity, and 2334 participants (47%) were worried about COVID-19 impacting their career development, with 421 trainees (64%) being highly concerned.

Conclusions and relevance

In this survey of 5030 faculty, staff, and trainees of a US health system, many participants with caregiving responsibilities, particularly women, faculty, trainees, and (in a subset of cases) those from racial/ethnic groups that underrepresented in medicine, considered leaving the workforce or reducing hours and were worried about their career development related to the pandemic. It is imperative that medical centers support their employees and trainees during this challenging time.

SUBMITTER: Delaney RK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8019096 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST) program is an NIH-funded effort testing the impact of career development interventions (e.g. internships, workshops, classes) on biomedical trainees (graduate students and postdoctoral fellows). BEST Programs seek to increase trainees' knowledge, skills and confidence to explore and pursue expanded career options, as well as to increase training in new skills that enable multiple career pathways. Faculty mentors are vital to a trainee's professional development, but data about how faculty members of biomedical trainees view the value of, and the time spent on, career development are lacking. Seven BEST institutions investigated this issue by conducting faculty surveys during their BEST experiment. The survey intent was to understand faculty perceptions around professional and career development for their trainees. Two different, complementary surveys were employed, one designed by Michigan State University (MSU) and the other by Vanderbilt University. Faculty (592) across five institutions responded to the MSU survey; 225 faculty members from two institutions responded to the Vanderbilt University survey. Participating faculty were largely tenure track and male; approximately 1/3 had spent time in a professional position outside of academia. Respondents felt a sense of urgency in introducing broad career activities for trainees given a recognized shortage of tenure track positions. They reported believing career development needs are different between a graduate student and postdoctoral fellow, and they indicated that they actively mentor trainees in career development. However, faculty were uncertain as to whether they actually have the knowledge or training to do so effectively. Faculty perceived that trainees themselves lack a knowledge base of skills that are of interest to non-academic employers. Thus, there is a need for exposure and training in such skills. Faculty stated unequivocally that institutional support for career development is important and needed. BEST Programs were considered beneficial to trainees, but the awareness of local BEST Programs and the national BEST Consortium was low at the time surveys were employed at some institutions. It is our hope that the work presented here will increase the awareness of the BEST national effort and the need for further career development for biomedical trainees.

Project description:ImportanceWith a renewed focus on medical professionalism, an opportunity exists to better define its standards and application to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse workforce given the important association between interprofessional behavior and patient care.ObjectiveTo examine the context of how professionalism is operationalized and perceived in diverse health care work and learning environments.Design, setting, and participantsA qualitative mixed-methods analysis of survey data collected from February to April 2015, was conducted followed by analysis of narrative data collected in June 2017. The setting was 2 health systems and 4 health professional and graduate schools. Participants were faculty, trainees, staff, and students (3506 survey respondents and 52 narratives) affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Pennsylvania Health System. Data analysis was conducted in 2018 and 2019.ExposuresIndependent variables included the following respondent characteristics: gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, position, generational age group, length of employment at institution, disability status, belief system or religion, and primary site of work or study.Main outcomes and measuresSurvey questions were used to assess participants' perception and experiences of professionalism in the workplace as measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale.ResultsFor the survey, there were 3506 respondents from a pool of 18 550 potential respondents (18.9% response rate). Of 3506 survey respondents, 2082 of 3231 (64.4%) were women, 331 of 3164 (10.5%) identified as gender or sexual minority groups, and 360 of 3178 (11.3%) were non-Hispanic Black individuals. In adjusted analyses, women compared with men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.3) and Asian individuals (aOR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.7-2.3) and Hispanic individuals (aOR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7) compared with non-Hispanic White individuals were more likely to value institutional professionalism. In addition, gender identity and sexual minority groups compared with heterosexual respondents (aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8) and non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (aOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.4) were statistically significantly more likely to consider changing jobs because of unprofessional behavior at work. The qualitative analysis of narratives revealed that marginalized populations (including but not limited to women, gender and sexual minority groups, racial/ethnic minority groups, those who identify as having a disability, and religious minority groups) reported (1) greater infringements on their professional boundaries, as well as increased scrutiny over their professional actions, and (2) a tension between inclusion vs assimilation.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study highlight the need for health care organizations to revisit how they define and operationalize professionalism to improve inclusivity.

Project description:Most women experience some premenstrual symptoms during their reproductive years. Yet, this is an under-researched health issue, particularly in the context of work. This study aimed to: (i) understand the prevalence and severity of premenstrual symptoms experienced by working females, and their association with key work outcomes; (ii) explore factors that may be influencing these symptoms and their severity; and (iii) examine how organizations might help staff with premenstrual symptoms that may be impacting their working lives. An online, anonymous survey collected quantitative and qualitative data from 125 working women in the UK. Over 90% of the sample reported some premenstrual symptoms; 40% experienced premenstrual symptoms moderately or severely. Higher symptom severity was significantly (p < 0.05) associated with poor presenteeism, intention to reduce working hours, and higher work absence (time off work, being late, leaving early). Moderate/severe symptoms were significantly associated with several individual-related variables: lower perceived general health, higher alcohol consumption, poorer sleep quality, anxiety, depression, hormonal contraception, and using fewer coping approaches towards premenstrual symptoms (avoiding harm, adjusting energy levels); and work-related variables: poorer work-life balance, lower levels of psychological resilience, higher perceived work demands, less control over work. Disclosure of premenstrual symptoms and sickness absence because of premenstrual symptoms was very low, typically because of perceptions of appropriateness as a reason for work absence, gender of line managers (male), and it being a personal or embarrassing topic. Staff with moderate to severe premenstrual symptoms were statistically more likely to disclose reason for absence than those with milder symptoms. Recommendations and suggestions for employers and line managers include the need to train staff to improve knowledge about women's experience of premenstrual symptoms, to be able to communicate effectively with women and to provide tailored support and resources for those who need it. Implications for future research, policy and practice are discussed.

Project description:The idea of faculty engaging in meaningful dialogue with different publics instead of simply communicating their research to interested audiences has gradually morphed from a novel concept to a mainstay within most parts of the academy. Given the wide variety of public engagement modalities, it may be unsurprising that we still lack a comprehensive and granular understanding of factors that influence faculty willingness to engage with public audiences. Those nuances are not always captured by quantitative surveys that rely on pre-determined categories to assess scholars' willingness to engage. While closed-ended categories are useful to examine which factors influence the willingness to engage more than others, it is unlikely that pre-determined categories comprehensively represent the range of factors that undermine or encourage engagement, including perceptual influences, institutional barriers, and scholars' lived experiences. To gain insight into these individual perspectives and lived experiences, we conducted focus group discussions with faculty members at a large midwestern land-grant university in the United States. Our findings provide context to previous studies of public engagement and suggest four themes for future research. These themes affirm the persistence of institutional barriers to engaging with the public, particularly the expectations in the promotion process for tenure-track faculty. However, we also find a perception that junior faculty and graduate students are challenging the status quo by introducing a new wave of attention to public engagement. This finding suggests a "trickle-up" effect through junior faculty and graduate students expecting institutional support for public engagement. Our findings highlight the need to consider how both top-down factors such as institutional expectations and bottom-up factors such as graduate student interest shape faculty members' decisions to participate in public engagement activities.