Dataset Information

Report from the RSNA COVID-19 Task Force: COVID-19 Impact on Academic Radiology Research-A Survey of Vice Chairs of Research.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Survey vice chairs of research from academic radiology departments on the impact of COVID-19 on research activities.

Methods

The survey asked respondents to quantify changes in research performed during the shutdown and ramp-up, relative to pre-COVID-19 levels. Respondents estimated research activity changes by overall research type (wet, instrumentation, or core facilities; prospective non-COVID-19 clinical research and computational laboratories) and then by the research activity type (data analysis, grant or manuscript writing, clinician involvement, summer student participation, and international research fellow appointments).The χ² test was used for comparison between shutdown and ramp-up, with Yates correction when necessary.

Results

Of 105 vice chairs contacted, 46 (43.8%) responded. For 95.5%, wet, instrumentation, or core facilities research decreased to ≤50% during shutdown and for 83.3% during ramp-up (P < .0001). In addition, 89.2% and 46.5% indicated reduction to ≤25% of non-COVID-19 clinical research during shutdown and ramp-up, respectively (P < .0001). Only computational research increased to 120% during shutdown (39.5%) or ramp-up (50%) (P = .8984). For data analysis from closed laboratories, 75% and 86% showed decreased activity during shutdown and ramp-up, respectively (P = .28). Increased grant writing during shutdown and ramp-up was reported by 45.5% and 23.3% (P = .093). For 52.3% and 23.3%, manuscript writing and submission increased during shutdown and ramp-up, respectively (P < .02). Clinician research involvement trended toward relative decreases during shutdown (84.1% versus 60.5%, P = .05). There was similar drop in summer student participation (shutdown: 86.4%, ramp-up: 83.7%, P = .95) and international researcher appointment (shutdown: 85.7%, ramp-up: 86.1%; P = .96).

Conclusion

Many radiology research activities diminished during the COVID-19 shutdown and to a lesser extent during the ramp-up. Activities that could be done remotely, such as computational analysis and grant and manuscript writing and submission, increased.

SUBMITTER: Mossa-Basha M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8639392 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Education scholarship continues to grow within emergency medicine (EM) and in academic medicine in general. Despite a growing interest, would-be education scholars often struggle to find adequate mentorship, research training, funding, and protected time to produce rigorous scholarship. The ways in which individual academic EM departments can support this mission remains an area in need of description.ObjectivesWe sought to describe academic EM department chairs' perceptions of education scholarship and facilitators and barriers to producing high-quality education scholarship.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study using a grounded theory-derived approach. Participants were solicited directly, and semistructured interviews were conducted via telephone. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and were analyzed by three study investigators using a coding matrix. Discrepancies in coding were resolved via in depth discussion.ResultsWe interviewed seven EM chairs from academic departments throughout North America (six in geographically diverse regions of the United States and one in western Canada). Chairs described education scholarship as lacking clearly defined and measurable outcomes, as well as methodologic rigor. They identified that education faculty within their departments need training and incentives to pursue scholarly work in a system that primarily expects teaching from educators. Chairs acknowledged a lack of access to education research expertise and mentorship within their own departments, but identified potential resources within their local medical schools and universities. They also voiced willingness to support career development opportunities and scholarly work among faculty seeking to perform education research.ConclusionsAcademic EM chairs endorse a need for methodologic training, mentorship, and access to expertise specific to education scholarship. While such resources are often rare within academic EM departments, they may exist within local universities and schools of medicine. Academic EM chairs described themselves as willing and able to support faculty who wish to pursue this type of work.