Search

PurposeTo describe the policies, processes, and programs at U.S. medical schools to support faculty caregivers before and in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodIn 2021, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and founding members of the COVID-19 Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS) Collaborative launched and supported the COVID-19 FRCS program to recognize medical schools and their efforts to strengthen policies, processes, and programs supporting biomedical faculty with family caregiving responsibilities in the context of COVID-19-related impacts. The authors conducted a qualitative conceptual content analysis of the deidentified, open-ended responses submitted by institutions in their applications to the COVID-19 FRCS program and summarized the reported strategies using recurring patterns and common approaches.ResultsFifty-four institutions applied to the COVID-19 FRCS program in 2021 and were included in this study. COVID-19-related impacts on biomedical faculty included stymied career progression and academic productivity, exacerbated career-caregiving time conflicts, adverse effects on family and personal well-being and mental health, increased financial hardships, and amplified faculty caregiver stigma. The described policies, processes, and programs to support faculty caregivers fell into 4 domains: support for dependent care, career and workplace flexibility, career development support, and institutional culture change to reduce stigma. COVID-19-related modifications spanned these domains with remote and flexible work manifesting as disruptive changes. Strategies to support women and underrepresented in medicine faculty, who bear a disproportionate burden of caregiving responsibilities, centered on career development support and institutional culture change. The projected durability of the enacted changes varied by institution and across strategies.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic presents a disruptive opportunity to translate lessons learned into positive change to better support faculty caregivers, particularly women and underrepresented in medicine faculty. This study's findings provide a framework to guide sustainable change to support equity, diversity, and vitality in the academic biomedical workforce.

As the nation seeks to recruit and retain physician-scientists, gaps remain in understanding and addressing mitigatable challenges to the success of faculty from underrepresented minority (URM) backgrounds. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists program, implemented in 2015 at 10 academic medical centers in the United States, seeks to retain physician-scientists at risk of leaving science because of periods of extraordinary family caregiving needs, hardships that URM faculty-especially those who identify as female-are more likely to experience. At the annual Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists program directors conference in 2018, program directors-21% of whom identify as URM individuals and 13% as male-addressed issues that affect URM physician-scientists in particular. Key issues that threaten the retention of URM physician-scientists were identified through focused literature reviews; institutional environmental scans; and structured small- and large-group discussions with program directors, staff, and participants. These issues include bias and discrimination, personal wealth differential, the minority tax (i.e., service burdens placed on URM faculty who represent URM perspectives on committees and at conferences), lack of mentorship training, intersectionality and isolation, concerns about confirming stereotypes, and institutional-level factors. The authors present recommendations for how to create an environment in which URM physician-scientists can expect equitable opportunities to thrive, as institutions demonstrate proactive allyship and remove structural barriers to success. Recommendations include providing universal training to reduce interpersonal bias and discrimination, addressing the consequences of the personal wealth gap through financial counseling and benefits, measuring the service faculty members provide to the institution as advocates for URM faculty issues and compensating them appropriately, supporting URM faculty who wish to engage in national leadership programs, and sustaining institutional policies that address structural and interpersonal barriers to inclusive excellence.

Although the number of Hispanic/Latina women earning medical degrees has increased in recent years, the article by Anaya and colleagues in this issue highlights their stark underrepresentation in the U.S. physician workforce. In this Invited Commentary, the authors provide context on proposed drivers of underrepresentation, including bias, discrimination, harassment, and other structural barriers, which are amplified for women with multiple minoritized identities. They summarize the 2020 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recommendations for supporting women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) fields, including committed leadership, dedicated financial and human resources, data-driven accountability, and use of an intersectional approach to address the challenges faced by individuals who encounter multiple forms of bias and discrimination. The authors also provide additional recommendations and highlight innovative new National Institutes of Health funding opportunities to promote diversity in the scientific workforce. They argue that more research is needed to identify and best implement institutional practices that increase representation and retention of Latina women and other women with minoritized identities in STEMM fields.

PURPOSE: National Institutes of Health career development (K) awards mandate specific allocations of effort to research and training. The authors sought to understand pressures perceived by award recipients to change or misrepresent effort, and whether these perceptions differed by gender. METHOD: In 2010-2011 and 2014, the authors surveyed K08 and K23 award recipients. Questions evaluated perceived pressure to change or misrepresent time allocation. Multivariable logistic regression modeling of pressure to misrepresent effort evaluated associations with individual and basic job characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 1,719 faculty in the initial target population, 493 women and 573 men (1,066, 62%) responded at both time points. Most respondents reported feeling pressure to increase time spent on professional activities other than their K award-related research or career development or to decrease time on their K award-related research. The likelihood of perceiving pressure differed significantly by gender: 68% of women vs 55% of men (P < .001). A minority reported perceiving pressure to misrepresent professional time (women, 29%, vs men, 27%, P = .52). Multivariable analysis revealed that pressure to misrepresent professional time was less likely among respondents at institutions with the most extramural funding (P = .02). A significant pairwise interaction between gender and K award type suggested that female K08 awardees had higher odds than male peers of perceiving pressure to misrepresent time. CONCLUSIONS: Most K award recipients reported feeling pressure to do more non-K award-related activities. More than a quarter reported feeling pressure to misrepresent effort. Additional research is needed to evaluate the proportion of academic medical faculty who actually misrepresent professional effort.

PurposeNational Institutes of Health career development (K) awards mandate specific allocations of effort to research and training. The authors sought to understand pressures perceived by award recipients to change or misrepresent effort, and whether these perceptions differed by gender.MethodIn 2010-2011 and 2014, the authors surveyed K08 and K23 award recipients. Questions evaluated perceived pressure to change or misrepresent time allocation. Multivariable logistic regression modeling of pressure to misrepresent effort evaluated associations with individual and basic job characteristics.ResultsOf the 1,719 faculty in the initial target population, 493 women and 573 men (1,066, 62%) responded at both time points. Most respondents reported feeling pressure to increase time spent on professional activities other than their K award-related research or career development or to decrease time on their K award-related research. The likelihood of perceiving pressure differed significantly by gender: 68% of women vs 55% of men (P < .001). A minority reported perceiving pressure to misrepresent professional time (women, 29%, vs men, 27%, P = .52). Multivariable analysis revealed that pressure to misrepresent professional time was less likely among respondents at institutions with the most extramural funding (P = .02). A significant pairwise interaction between gender and K award type suggested that female K08 awardees had higher odds than male peers of perceiving pressure to misrepresent time.ConclusionsMost K award recipients reported feeling pressure to do more non-K award-related activities. More than a quarter reported feeling pressure to misrepresent effort. Additional research is needed to evaluate the proportion of academic medical faculty who actually misrepresent professional effort.

PurposeTo enhance understanding of challenges related to work-life integration in academic medicine and to inform the ongoing implementation of an existing program and the development of other interventions to promote success of physician-scientists.MethodThis study is part of a prospective analysis of the effects of the Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS), a national program launched by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation at 10 U.S. institutions, which provides financial support to physician-scientists facing caregiving challenges. In early 2018, 28 of 33 program awardees participated in semistructured interviews. Questions were about challenges faced by physician-scientists as caregivers and their early perceptions of the FRCS. Multiple analysts reviewed deidentified transcripts, iteratively revised the coding scheme, and interpreted the data using qualitative thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants' rich descriptions illuminated 5 interconnected themes: (1) Time is a critical and limited resource, (2) timing is key, (3) limited time resources and timing conflicts may have a particularly adverse effect on women's careers, (4) flexible funds enable reclamation and repurposing of time resources, and (5) FRCS leaders should be cognizant of time and timing conflicts when developing program-related offerings.ConclusionsPrograms such as the FRCS are instrumental in supporting individuals to delegate time-consuming tasks and to control how they spend their valuable time. Qualitative analysis suggests that access to and command of valuable time resources are crucial to career advancement, research productivity, and work-life flexibility, especially during critical time points along the physician-scientist trajectory.

While more women are in leadership positions in academic medicine now than ever before in U.S. history, evidence from recent surveys of women and graduating medical students demonstrates that sexual harassment continues in academic health centers. Academic medicine's ability to change its culture is hampered by victims' fear of reporting episodes of harassment, which is largely due to fear of retaliation. In this Perspective, the authors describe efforts in scientific societies to address the issue of sexual harassment and to begin to establish safe environments at national meetings. The authors contend that each institution must work to make it safe for individuals to come forward, to provide training for victims and for bystanders, and to abolish "locker room" talk that is demeaning to women.