Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36864367›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2023

Principal Investigators' Priorities and Perceived Barriers and Facilitators When Making Decisions About Conducting Essential Research in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Alison L Antes, Tristan J McIntosh, Stephanie Solomon Cargill, Samuel Bruton, Kari Baldwin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alison L Antes *Bioethics Research Center, Division of General Medical Sciences, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. aantes@wustl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2632-7701
Tristan J McIntosh *Bioethics Research Center, Division of General Medical Sciences, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1931-4793
Stephanie Solomon CargillGnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5518-9061
Samuel BrutonSchool of Humanities, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5455-125X
Kari BaldwinBioethics Research Center, Division of General Medical Sciences, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR002345
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, stay-at-home orders disrupted normal research operations. Principal investigators (PIs) had to make decisions about conducting and staffing essential research under unprecedented, rapidly changing conditions. These decisions also had to be made amid other substantial work and life stressors, like pressures to be productive and staying healthy. Using survey methods, we asked PIs funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation (N = 930) to rate how they prioritized different considerations, such as personal risks, risks to research personnel, and career consequences, when making decisions. They also reported how difficult they found these choices and associated symptoms of stress. Using a checklist, PIs indicated those factors in their research environments that made their decisions easier (i.e., facilitators) or more difficult (i.e., barriers) to make. Finally, PIs also indicated how satisfied they were with their decisions and management of research during the disruption. Descriptive statistics summarize PIs' responses and inferential tests explore whether responses varied by academic rank or gender. PIs overall reported prioritizing the well-being and perspectives of research personnel, and they perceived more facilitators than barriers. Early-career faculty, however, rated concerns about their careers and productivity as higher priorities compared to their senior counterparts. Early-career faculty also perceived greater difficulty and stress, more barriers, fewer facilitators, and had less satisfaction with their decisions. Women rated several interpersonal concerns about their research personnel more highly than men and reported greater stress. The experience and perceptions of researchers during the COVID-19 pandemic can inform policies and practices when planning for future crises and recovering from the pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19Decision MakingFacultyFemaleHealth StatusHumansMalePandemicsUnited StatesCOVID-19DecisionsEthicsPandemicPrincipal investigatorResearch

Identifiers

PMID36864367
PMCPMC9980856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.