ArticleAEM education and training2022
Meeting expectations: An exploration of academic emergency medicine faculty experiences and preferences in the virtual meeting environment by age, gender and parental status.
Article in AEM education and training, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Meeting expectations: An exploration of academic emergency medicine faculty experiences and preferences in the virtual meeting environment by age, gender and parental status.AEM education and training · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual meetings became the norm in academic emergency medicine (EM) departments. This study explores the experiences of academic EM faculty within this environment. Methods: In 2021, authors surveyed a cross-sectional convenience sample of EM faculty using a mixed-methods approach to explore perceptions of the virtual meeting environment. Authors reported data on a five-point Likert scale, summarized as percentages, and calculated differences using Pearson's chi-squared test, where p < 0.05 was significant. Free text responses were analyzed qualitatively. Results: Two-hundred-fifty-nine responses were collected, (female [55.6%], ≤40 years old, [39.8%]) of which 33.2% had children ≤7 years old. Most respondents felt the total number of virtual meetings had increased and were more likely to happen outside of regular business hours compared to in-person meetings. Most faculty preferred meetings during regular hours and liked the virtual format overall. Younger faculty respondents were more polarized in their preferences of timing of meetings and reported more pressure to accept meetings outside of regular hours. Female respondents with young children were more likely to dislike meetings outside regular hours and to have declined them. Women faculty, younger faculty, and women faculty with young children were significantly more likely to agree that women had been "more impacted by the new virtual work environment." Qualitative themes highlighting the flexibility provided by the virtual work environment and decreased commuting time, though many felt communication was limited in virtual meetings. Conclusions: Academic EM faculty mostly preferred keeping meetings during regular business hours and in a virtual format. Experiences varied by age but not by gender overall. Women with young children reported greater challenges than women without. Men did not differ by parental status. The virtual format provided increased flexibility but limited communication and engagement. Academic EM departments may use this data to inform future meeting practices.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.