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

Abstract

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.

“The genie is out of the bottle”: a qualitative study on the impact of COVID-19 on continuing professional development

“…This duality is recognized in the literature which cautions that virtual CPD may inadvertently reinforce gender disparities. There is evidence that women were disproportionately burdened by household and childcare duties during the pandemic, thereby potentially reducing their capacity to engage in virtual CPD [ 33 , 36 ]. While additional research on this topic is warranted, in light of these nascent findings, CPD program developers should consider the divergent experiences that exist among different populations when assessing content delivery modalities.…”

Faster, higher, stronger – together? A bibliometric analysis of author distribution in top medical education journals

“…[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] There are some empirical studies examining various aspects of representation within medical education, with recent attention given to gender, sociocultural and racial equity within academic medicine's leadership, student body and curricula. [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] There is also growing documentation of the paucity of published voices from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and non-English speaking scholars in medical education journals that position their reach as international. [48][49][50][51][52] This parallels the relative absence of authors from LMIC and non-English speaking countries in leading academic journals in many other areas of academia, including health and education.…”

“…Many are written as commentaries and perspectives pieces, providing reflections on personal experiences and theoretical explorations of ways that dominant approaches (generally white and EuroAmerican centric) constrain and limit the field 23–31. There are some empirical studies examining various aspects of representation within medical education, with recent attention given to gender, sociocultural and racial equity within academic medicine’s leadership, student body and curricula 32–47. There is also growing documentation of the paucity of published voices from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and non-English speaking scholars in medical education journals that position their reach as international 48–52.…”