MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4226536380 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/ym54d

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Clinical Practice and Work Life Integration experienced by Academic Medical Faculty

2022· preprint· en· W4226536380 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephanie Garner, Natalie Campbell, James D. Douketis, Patricia C. Liaw, Shamir R Mehta, MyLinh Duong, Mimi Wang, Sonia S. Anand

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsBurnoutMedicinePandemicFamily medicineDescriptive statisticsLikert scaleLonelinessCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, physician burnout was endemic in North America. The pandemic placed an increase demand on physicians’ time both at work and home. We sought to identify the frequency of burnout in a large academic institution and its impact on clinical practice, non-clinical work, and homelife. Methods: All academic physicians and non-physician faculty members in the Department of Medicine (DOM) at McMaster University were invited to participate in an anonymous survey between January 22 and February 21, 2021. The survey elicited information on how clinical practice, work, and home life changed over the course of the pandemic. Responses to questions were captured on a 1-to-5 Likert scale. Descriptive statistics and the Mann Whitney U test were used for determining statistical significance (p< 0.05). The results were compared to the 2019 DOM survey which included a question on burnout.Results: Among 330-faculty, 76.7% completed the survey. The reported burnout was high at 75.9%, affecting women to a greater extent than men faculty (82.5% vs 70.4%, P< 0.01). Early career faculty also reported proportionally more burnout (83.5% versus 65.7%; p< 0.001). Medical-legal liability of phone-based care was a concern for 48% of physicians. The reported hours of work per day was significantly higher amongst women compared with men (80.4% vs 58.0%; p< 0.001). Loneliness (64.1% vs 51.4%; p< 0.05) and hours spent on caring for dependents (54.5% vs 31.1%, p< 0.01) were higher for women versus men. Both genders reported career fulfillment and research productivity were overall lower by 51.2% and 52.3% respectively. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased burnout amongst DOM academic faculty, and disproportionately affected women and early career faculty. A thoughtful systems level approach, with dedicated resources, is needed to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for women and early career faculty.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.336
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts→French-language works237,207→