The Glass Ceiling Thickens: How The COVID‐19 Pandemic Negatively Impacted Academic Medicine Faculty

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Inequities faced by women in academic medicine before the COVID‐19 pandemic are well‐known, yet there are little formal data on exactly how the pandemic has affected faculty, particularly in academic medicine. The purpose of this cross‐sectional study was to elucidate the impact of the pandemic on faculty in academic medicine and identify whether it is disproportionately affecting populations, focusing specifically on responsibilities at home, work, and mental health according to gender identification, faculty rank, and faculty appointment. METHODS: An online questionnaire was distributed in February 2021 to faculty at academic medicine centers. This questionnaire asked respondents to provide demographic data, answer questions about their responsibilities at home and work, and indicate whether and how the pandemic has affected both. Respondents were also asked questions on self‐care and mental health and to document how their institution(s) can assist faculty in mitigating struggles associated with the pandemic. Responses were analyzed via quantitative (Pearson’s chi‐square tests) and qualitative (thematic analysis) means. RESULTS: Women, mid‐, and early‐career faculty were more likely to be responsible for the care of others (p=0.014), and the impact of the pandemic on caring for others was negative, especially for early career faculty (p=0.019). Research, teaching, and clinical practice were negatively impacted by the pandemic, with women feeling this more severely in clinical practice (p=0.003), as a result of an increased teaching load (p=0.042), and inadequate work environment (p=0.013). Women (p<0.01), early career‐faculty (p<0.01), and clinical faculty (p=0.029) were also more negatively impacted by the pandemic in the areas of self‐care and mental health. While there was no significant difference in who requested a leave of absence or tenure clock extension, early‐career and women faculty were more likely to fear retribution for such requests. Faculty provided actionable suggestions to combat these negative effects under five themes, including Flexible Expectations, Support, Mental Health, Compensation, and Communication. CONCLUSION: Pre‐pandemic stress and burnout among faculty in academic medicine has been well documented, and this study demonstrates that academic medicine faculty, particularly women and early‐career faculty, continue to feel additional burdens secondary to the COVID‐19 pandemic. These data can be utilized by administrations and future studies to make informed decisions regarding policies and programs created to assist those populations who are most vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic. SIGNIFICANCE: To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to provide both quantitative and qualitative data demonstrating a negative impact of the COVID pandemic on academic medicine faculty, particularly women and early career faculty. These data are necessary to create change to improve recruitment and retention of quality faculty.