The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on underrepresented early-career PhD and physician scientists

Shortage of Mental Health Professionals Doing Research: A Cause for Concern

ABSTRACT

Research plays a crucial role in advancing health care. Physician scientists, who bring together clinical and scientific perspectives, are integral to this effort. However, the pursuit of research careers among physicians has declined due to several obstacles, including inadequate support, training, time, and financial constraints. Emergency medicine and psychiatric specialties receive less support than other specialties, and COVID-19 has worsened the challenges. The COVID-19 has made things harder for physician scientists, increasing clinical demands and causing research delays. To tackle this, future physician scientists should receive organized training that includes mandatory research activities during their training. Large-scale studies should identify barriers to research and offer mentoring for young physician scientists. Encouraging female researchers and involving research faculty in residency training is crucial. Collaboration between physician and PhD researchers is essential for the future of medical research. It is vital to address these to advance health care and improve mental health outcomes.

Students at a crossroad: A cross-sectional survey gauging the impact of COVID-19 on medical and biomedical graduates in the United States and Sweden

Graduate programs in medicine and biomedical sciences have been severely impacted by the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic over the last 2 years. Following 2 years since beginning of the pandemic, data on student support, educational and academic performance as well as sentiment on changes to educational programs are starting to emerge. We performed and compared results of two cross-sectional surveys of Swedish and U.S.-based medical and biomedical graduate students on how the pandemic has affected their studies, research productivity and career trajectory. Students were also asked to assess support provided by the university and supervisors. The surveys also captured student demographics and a range of other factors, such as pressures brought on by caretaking and financial responsibilities. We analyzed answers from 264 and 106 students attending graduate programs in universities in Sweden and the United States, respectively. U.S.-based students faced more severe restrictions on their research program compared to students in Sweden, reporting more delays in productivity, scientific output and graduation, and increased worries about their career trajectory. Swedish students had more caretaking responsibilities, although these did not cause any delays in graduation. While support by universities and supervisors was comparable between the countries, financial worries and mental health concerns were particularly prominent in the U.S. cohort. Student performance and outlook was hugely dependent on the breadth of the restrictions and the available support. Besides the governmental and university-led approach to counter the pandemic, societal differences also played a role in how well students were handling effects of the pandemic.

Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) researchers in India

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the nationally mandated lockdown has resulted in facility closures, decreased laboratory activities, and shifting to remote working. The effects of the pandemic have spread across all professions, including academia. Hence, the present study aims to understand the extent of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) researchers and stakeholders in India. Methods: The study employed a mixed method design. Both quantitative (survey) and qualitative (interview) methods were used to gain a comprehensive understanding on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) early career researchers (ECRs), graduate students, Heads of Institutes, suppliers of scientific equipment, funders, and other stakeholders in India. Results: A total of 618 researchers completed the survey, and 24 stakeholders were interviewed for this study. Our findings highlight the importance of institutional and social support for mental well-being and scientific productivity among researchers, especially during the pandemic. It also shows the impact of the disruptions in grant disbursals on research activities of scientists. Further, the gendered impact between these relationships was also noted, all of which hint at a need for structured reform within STEM. Conclusions: The study highlights the various challenges faced by early career researchers, and STEM scientists at various positions in their careers during the COVID-19 restrictions in India.

Are researchers in academic medicine flourishing? A survey of midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators

Introduction

Midcareer research faculty are a vital part of the advancement of science in U.S. medical schools, but there are troubling trends in recruitment, retention, and burnout rates.

Methods

The primary sampling frame for this online survey was recipients of a single R01 or equivalent and/or K-award from 2013 to 2019. Inclusion criteria were 3-14 years at a U.S. medical school and rank of associate professor or two or more years as assistant professor. Forty physician investigators and Ph.D. scientists volunteered for a faculty development program, and 106 were propensity-matched controls. Survey items covered self-efficacy in career, research, work-life; vitality/burnout; relationships, inclusion, trust; diversity; and intention to leave academic medicine.

Results

The majority (52%) reported receiving poor mentoring; 40% experienced high burnout and 41% low vitality, which, in turn, predicted leaving intention (P < 0.0005). Women were more likely to report high burnout (P = 0.01) and low self-efficacy managing work and personal life (P = 0.01) and to be seriously considering leaving academic medicine than men (P = 0.003). Mentoring quality (P < 0.0005) and poor relationships, inclusion, and trust (P < 0.0005) predicted leaving intention. Non-underrepresented men were very likely to report low identity self-awareness (65%) and valuing differences (24%) versus underrepresented men (25% and 0%; P < 0.0005). Ph.D.s had lower career advancement self-efficacy than M.D.s (P < .0005).

Conclusions

Midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators faced significant career challenges. Experiences diverged by underrepresentation, gender, and degree. Poor quality mentoring was an issue for most. Effective mentoring could address the concerns of this vital component of the biomedical workforce.

Perseverance and consistency of interest in underrepresented post-doctoral fellows and early-career faculty

Introduction

Underrepresented researchers face more challenges than their well-represented counterparts. Perseverance and consistency of interest are associated with career success in well-represented physicians. Therefore, we examined associations of perseverance and consistency of interest with Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI), science identity, and other factors related to career success among underrepresented post-doctoral fellows and early-career faculty.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional analysis of data collected from September to October 2020 among 224 underrepresented early-career researchers at 25 academic medical centers in the Building Up Trial. We used linear regression to test associations of perseverance and consistency of interest scores with CRAI, science identity, and effort/reward imbalance (ERI) scores.

Results

The cohort is 80% female, 33% non-Hispanic Black, and 34% Hispanic. The median perseverance and consistency of interest scores were 3.8 (25th-75th percentile: 3.7,4.2) and 3.7 (25th-75th percentile: 3.2, 4.0), respectively. Higher perseverance was associated with a higher CRAI score (β = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.30, 1.33, p = 0.002) and science identity (β = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.19, 0.68, p = 0.001). Higher consistency of interest was associated with a higher CRAI score (β = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.23, 0.96, p = 0.001) and higher science identity score (β = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.03, 0.36, p = 0.02), while lower consistency of interest was associated with imbalance favoring effort (β = -0.22; 95% CI = -0.33, -0.11, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

We found that perseverance and consistency of interest are related to CRAI and science identity, indicating that these factors may positively influence one's decision to stay in research.

Academic Productivity of Equity-Deserving Physician Scholars During COVID-19: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic presented new barriers and exacerbated existing inequities for physician scholars. While COVID-19's impact on academic productivity among women has received attention, the pandemic may have posed additional challenges for scholars from a wider range of equity-deserving groups, including those who hold multiple equity-deserving identities. To examine this concern, the authors conducted a scoping review of the literature through an intersectionality lens.

METHOD

The authors searched peer-reviewed literature published March 1, 2020, to December 16, 2021, in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PubMed. The authors excluded studies not written in English and/or outside of academic medicine. From included studies, they extracted data regarding descriptions of how COVID-19 impacted academic productivity of equity-deserving physician scholars, analyses on the pandemic's reported impact on productivity of physician scholars from equity-deserving groups, and strategies provided to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on academic productivity of physician scholars from equity-deserving groups.

RESULTS

Of 11,587 unique articles, 44 met inclusion criteria, including 15 nonempirical studies and 29 empirical studies (22 bibliometrics studies, 6 surveys, and 1 qualitative study). All included articles focused on the gendered impact of the pandemic on academic productivity. The majority of their recommendations focused on how to alleviate the burden of the pandemic on women, particularly those in the early stages of their career and/or with children, without consideration of scholars who hold multiple and intersecting identities from a wider range of equity-deserving groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate a lack of published literature on the pandemic's impact on physician scholars from equity-deserving groups, including a lack of consideration of physician scholars who experience multiple forms of discrimination. Well-intentioned measures by academic institutions to reduce the impact on scholars may inadvertently risk reproducing and sustaining inequities that equity-deserving scholars faced during the pandemic.

Training and cultivating the translational science workforce: Responses of Clinical and Translational Science Awards program hubs to the COVID-19 pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically changed our lives and the delivery of healthcare. The pandemic also led to widespread disruption in the research activities and training of pre-doctoral, post-doctoral, and early career faculty researchers. This mini-review uses the Local Adaptive Capacity Framework to describe successful practices, challenges, and lessons learned on how Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs have used their expertise, resources, and collaborations to advance clinical and translational science research and workforce development while facing and adapting to a pandemic. Data for this mini-review were taken from the scientific literature (23 articles) and the Research Performance Progress Reports of 50 unique CTSA hubs (40 TL1 and 50 KL2 awards). Institutions responded in innovative ways to the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic. Electronic and virtual platforms were used to overcome challenges related to physical distancing, laboratory closures, and travel bans. The importance of mentorship and well-being led to the creation of new virtual programs to expand mentoring and networking beyond the home institution and to promote well-being and resilience. These solutions to translational workforce development can be implemented to address future public health emergencies.

Continued impact of COVID-19 pandemic on clinical and translational science early-career researchers

The COVID-19 pandemic had an immediate impact on the lives and work of early-career researchers. We leveraged a cluster-randomized trial and compared survey data collected over two timepoints to explore whether these impacts persisted. Although more than a year had passed, 74% of participants reported that their research was affected in multiple ways in both 2020 and 2021. These data suggest that the effects of the pandemic on early-career researchers may be prolonged. Our findings additionally serve as an impetus to identify and implement solutions to early-career challenges that undoubtedly existed before the pandemic, but which COVID-19 brought into the spotlight.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Early Career Investigators in Rheumatology: Recommendations to Address Challenges to Early Research Careers

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the careers of trainees and early career investigators (ECIs). We sought to assess how the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Rheumatology Research Foundation (RRF) can address the needs of those pursuing research careers.

METHODS

The Committee on Research created a survey to assess the impact of COVID-19 and identify topics for the ACR and the RRF to address. In fall of 2020, we surveyed postdoctoral trainees and ECIs within 9 years of terminal training. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-one percent of invitees responded to the survey (n = 365); of these, 60% were pursuing careers in academic research. Seventy-five percent of respondents in academic research career paths placed their primary projects on hold during the pandemic. The number of individuals pursuing a research career from 2020 to 2021 decreased by 5%. Respondents reported funding, caregiving, and lack of preliminary data as significant challenges. Suggested impactful interventions included increased funding, funding process reform, and expanding mentoring and networking resources.

CONCLUSION

Major stressors identified during the pandemic included increased caregiving responsibilities and difficulty obtaining data and funding, for which respondents suggested increases and changes in funding programs as well as more mentoring and networking opportunities. Based on these, the Committee on Research proposes 3 priorities: 1) flexible funding mechanisms for ECIs and additional support for those impacted by caregiving; 2) virtual and in-person programs for career development and networking; and 3) curated content relevant to building a research career available on demand.

Surveying the experience of postdocs in the United States before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

In the interest of advocating for the postdoctoral community in the United States (US), we compared the results of surveys of postdocs carried out in 2019 and in late 2020. We found that respondents’ mental health and wellness were significantly impacted by the pandemic irrespective of their gender, race, citizenship, or other identities. Career trajectories and progression were also affected, as respondents reported being less confident about achieving career goals, and having more negative perceptions of the job market compared to before the pandemic. Postdocs working in the US on temporary visas reported experiencing increased stress levels due to changes in immigration policy. Access to institutional Postdoctoral Offices or Associations positively impacted well-being and helped mitigate some of the personal and professional stresses caused by the pandemic.

Differences in self-perception of productivity and mental health among the STEMM-field scientists during the COVID-19 pandemic by sex and status as a parent: A survey in six languages

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented challenges for working conditions for scientists, but little is known for how the associations of these challenges with scientists’ mental health and productivity differ by sex and status as a parent. This online survey study in six languages collected data from 4,494 scientists in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine fields across 132 countries during October–December 2021. We compared the type of challenges for work, changes in work hours, and perception in productivity during the pandemic by sex and status as a parent (children <18 years living at home). Regression analyses analyzed the impacts of changed working conditions and work-life factors on productivity and mental health. We found that the percentage of participants with increased work hours was the highest in female participants, especially without children. Disproportionately higher increases in work hours were found for teaching and administration in women than men and for research/fundraising in non-parent participants than parent participants (p-value<0.001). Female participants were more concerned about the negative impacts of the pandemic on publications and long-term career progress, and less satisfied with their career progress than their male counterparts. There were differences in the type of institutional actions for the pandemic across study regions. The identified obstacles for work and home-life factors were associated with higher risks of experiencing depression, anxiety, and stress. Decision makers should consider the gender differences in the pandemic’s adverse impacts on productivity in establishing equitable actions for career progress for scientists during pandemics.

Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) researchers in India

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the nationally mandated lockdown has resulted in facility closures, decreased laboratory activities, and shifting to remote working. The effects of the pandemic have spread across all professions, including academia. Hence, the present study aims to understand the extent of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) researchers and stakeholders in India. Methods: The study employed a mixed method design. Both quantitative (survey) and qualitative (interview) methods were used to gain a comprehensive understanding on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) early career researchers (ECRs), graduate students, Heads of Institutes, suppliers of scientific equipment, funders, and other stakeholders in India. Results: A total of 618 researchers completed the survey, and 24 stakeholders were interviewed for this study. Our findings highlight the importance of institutional and social support for mental well-being and scientific productivity among researchers, especially during the pandemic. It also shows the impact of the disruptions in grant disbursals on research activities of scientists. Further, the gendered impact between these relationships was also noted, all of which hint at a need for structured reform within STEM. Conclusions: The study highlights the various challenges faced by early career researchers, and STEM scientists at various positions in their careers during the COVID-19 restrictions in India.

The impact of social unrest due to systemic racism on underrepresented post-doctoral fellows and early-career faculty

Introduction:

Social unrest tied to racism negatively impacted half of NIH-funded extramural researchers underrepresented (UR) in science. UR early-career scientists encounter more challenges in their research careers, but the impact of social unrest due to systemic racism in this group is unclear. We used mixed methods to describe the impact of social unrest due to systemic racism on mentoring relationships, research, and psychological well-being in UR post-doctoral fellows and early-career faculty.

Methods:

This is a cross-sectional analysis of data collected in September 2021–January 2022 from 144 UR early-career researchers from 25 academic medical centers in the Building Up Trial. The primary outcomes were agreement on five-point Likert scales with social unrest impact statements (e.g., “I experienced psychological distress due to events of social unrest regarding systemic racism”). Thematic analysis was conducted on responses to one open-ended question assessing how social unrest regarding systemic racism affected participants.

Results:

Most participants were female (80%), non-Hispanic Black (35%), or Hispanic (40%). Over half of participants (57%) experienced psychological distress as a result of social unrest due to systemic racism. Participants described direct and indirect discrimination and isolation from other persons of color at their institutions. Twice as many participants felt their mentoring relationships were positively (21%) versus negatively (11%) impacted by social unrest due to systemic racism.

Conclusions:

Experiences with racial bias and discrimination impact the career and well-being of UR early-career researchers. Mentoring relationships and institutional support play an important role in buffering the negative impact of racial injustice for this population.