ArticleRadiography (London, England : 1995)2022
The gendered impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on academics working in medical imaging and radiation therapy.
Article in Radiography (London, England : 1995), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Lead like a woman": strengthening healthcare, medical imaging, and oncology through female leadership.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Leadership and resilience in adversity: The impact of COVID-19 on radiography researchers and ways forward.Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences · 2022Article
- The legacy of COVID-19 for radiography practice, education, and research: How to use lessons learned to navigate the "new normal"?Radiography (London, England : 1995) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealthcare workers have been particularly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, as have those educating them, albeit differently. Several papers have identified a gendered difference in the impact of the pandemic. This study aims to determine impact of COVID-19 on the health and wellbeing of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (MIRT) academics.
methodsAn electronic survey was designed in English on Qualtrics and distributed via email and online platforms to MIRT academics. Fifty-one questions were used; demographic (n = 9), work patterns (n = 11), general health (n = 8), mental health (n = 2), physical health (n = 10), and workload (n = 11). Overall, 46 were quantitative and five were qualitative 'open-ended' questions. The survey was open between 3rd March 2021 to 1st May 2021. Quantitative analysis was carried out using MS Excel v 16.61.1ss and SPSS v26.
resultsThe survey reached 32 countries globally and 412 participants; 23.5% identified as men (n = 97) and 76.5% as women (n = 315). Women reported worse sleep quality than men and overwhelmingly felt they would not like to work remotely again if given a choice. A higher percentage of males, 73% versus 40.5% of females reported getting outdoors less. The CORE-10 validated questionnaire found that 10.3% of males (n = 42) and 2.7% of females (n = 11) experienced severe psychological distress the week immediately before the survey was conducted.
conclusionWhile the study has identified some gender-related differences in the impact of COVID-19 on the mental and physical health of MIRT academics, both males and females have experienced significant deterioration in health and wellbeing due to the pandemic. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: Developing mental health support for MIRT academics and defining optimum methods for raising awareness is recommended.
Indexed as
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.