Emotional distress, stress, anxiety, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on early- to mid-career women in healthcare sciences research

  1. Noor Bittar
  2. Andrea Cohee
  3. Surya Sruthi Bhamidipalli
  4. April Savoy
  5. Heba M. Ismail

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objectives:

The main objective of this study was to report stress and anxiety levels during the COVID-19 pandemic on early- to mid-career women researchers in healthcare sciences research and determine the associated factors.

Methods:

A 50-item self-administered internet questionnaire was developed using a mix of Likert-type scales and open-ended response questions. The survey was distributed June 10–August 3, 2020. Anxiety and stress as well as personal/family demands were assessed through validated measures (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]-Anxiety Short Form and Perceived Stress Scale [PSS]) and open-ended responses.

Results:

One hundred and fifty-one early-career women in healthcare sciences research completed the survey; mean respondent age was 37.3 ± 5.2 years; and all had a college degree or higher, 50.3% holding a PhD and 35.8% MD. Race and ethnicity were reported in 128; the majority were White (74.0%). One-third (31.2%) reported being “very much” concerned about reaching their research productivity goals and 30.1% were “very much” concerned about academic promotion and tenure. Fifty percent reported a “moderate” PROMIS anxiety score and 72.1% reported a “moderate” PSS score. For the open-ended responses, 65.6% reported a worry about their professional goals because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Major concerns revolved around finances, childcare, and job security.

Conclusions:

Throughout the pandemic, early- and mid-career women in healthcare sciences research have reported moderate to high overall stress, anxiety, and worries. These concerns appear related to household settings, additional responsibilities, financial concerns, and reduced research productivity. Institutions and funding agencies should take these concerns into consideration and offer support.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1017/cts.2022.417
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.09.21267476: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Study Design: This cross-sectional study was submitted, reviewed, and considered an Institutional Review Board (IRB) exempt study by the Indiana University IRB (IRB Protocol
    Sex as a biological variableInclusion criteria were individuals who identified as women working in health sciences research, at least 15% of their professional time and effort spent on research, able to read and understand English, and in the early stages of their career (research fellows to associate professor level).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Cell Line AuthenticationAuthentication: Additionally, respondents were asked about COVID-19’s impact on their stress and anxiety using validated measures (see Measures).

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    This study is not without limitations. This survey was conducted early during the pandemic but after the shutdown mandate was removed in most states. Thus, the sentiments and stressors may have changed over time. This study also assessed marital status with childcare and clinical responsibility allocations. While there was a majority correlation, it should be noted that our respondent population was majority married with children, thus impacting the generalizability of our results. The data collected also consisted of majority Caucasian women, so differences across ethnic groups and perceptions cannot be generalized, and significant correlations could not be made. In addition, as only females were surveyed, adequate correlations to men’s perceptions of the COVID-19 impact were not collected. While many women stated their concerns of being compared to their colleagues or unfair advantages, we cannot say for certain that men do not also hold similar concerns, or that it solely applies to women. Men may also have financial concerns, time management and family obligations or childcare responsibilities that were not noted in this study. In addition, we could not identify a normative comparator group to compare levels of stress and anxiety to. This is because every field is highly specialized and results from one group may not be applicable to others. Yet, it is still important to emphasize the pandemic concerns mentioned in this study to better establish policies and support netwo...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.12.09.21267476v1 on medRxiv