Work-Life Balance and Productivity Among Academic Faculty During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Latent Class Analysis

Abstract

Background: For faculty in academic health sciences, the balance between research, education, and patient care has been impeded by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aimed to identify personal and professional characteristics of faculty to understand the impact of the pandemic on faculty and consequent policy implications. Methods: A 93-question survey was sent to faculty at a large urban public university and medical center. Demographic, family, and academic characteristics, work distribution and productivity before and during the pandemic, stress, and self-care data information were collected. Latent class analysis (LCA) was performed to identify classes of faculty sharing similar characteristics. Comparisons between latent classes were performed using analysis of variance and chi-square analyses. Results: Of 497 respondents, 60% were women. Four latent classes of faculty emerged based on six significant indicator variables. Class 1 individuals were more likely women, assistant professors, nontenured with high work and home stress; Class 2 faculty were more likely associate professors, women, tenured, who reported high home and work stress; Class 3 faculty were more likely men, professors, tenured with moderate work, but low home stress; and Class 4 faculty were more likely adjunct professors, nontenured, and had low home and work stress. Class 2 reported significantly increased administrative and clinical duties, decreased scholarly productivity, and deferred self-care. Conclusions: The pandemic has not affected faculty equally. Early and mid-career individuals were impacted negatively from increased workloads, stress, and decreased self-care. Academic leaders need to acknowledge these differences and be inclusive of faculty with different experiences when adjusting workplace or promotion policies.

Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic; academic faculty; gender; health sciences; latent class analysis; work–life balance.

FIG. 1.

Flow chart of respondents with inclusions and exclusions. Of the 562 respondents, 4 did not indicate their sex or gender, and 5 had incomplete surveys, and were excluded. An additional 56 respondents were excluded due to nonfaculty status, leaving 497 respondents included in our statistical analyses. Of these, 299 (60%) were women and 198 (40%) were men. The Bayesian LCA was conducted on surveys from 483 faculty due to exclusion of 14 respondents who did not fully complete the stress questions. LCA, latent class analysis.

FIG. 2.

Violin plots showing the distribution in respondents by change in stress level compared to prepandemic period for (A) eight work-related and (B) five home-life related activities. The contour of the plots represents the probability density function computed using the kernel density estimation (KDE) method. The interrupted line represents neutrality—no change in stress level from before the COVID pandemic. COVID, coronavirus disease.

FIG. 3.

Profile plot of the 4-cluster model solution of the LCA applied to the 483 respondents in the study, who completed the stress questions. The x-axis lists the discriminative indicators with their modal characteristic for which the probability level expected to manifest in each of the four latent clusters is displayed on the y-axis. The interrupted line marks the 50% probability level.