Eduardo Hariton1, Benjamin Matthews2, Abigail Burns3, Chitra Akileswaran4, Lori R Berkowitz5. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: ehariton@partners.org. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The health and economic benefits of paid parental leave have been well-documented. In 2016, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a policy statement about recommended parental leave for trainees; however, data on adoption of said guidelines are nonexistent, and published data on parental leave policies in obstetrics-gynecology are outdated. The objective of our study was to understand existing parental leave policies in obstetrics-gynecology training programs and to evaluate program director opinions on these policies and on parenting in residency. OBJECTIVE: A Web-based survey regarding parental leave policies and coverage practices was sent to all program directors of accredited US obstetrics-gynecology residency programs. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional Web-based survey. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent (163/250) of program directors completed the survey. Most program directors (71%) were either not aware of or not familiar with the recommendations of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2016 policy statement on parental leave. Nearly all responding programs (98%) had arranged parental leave for ≥1 residents in the past 5 years. Formal leave policies for childbearing and nonchildbearing parents exist at 83% and 55% of programs, respectively. Program directors reported that, on average, programs offer shorter parental leaves than program directors think trainees should receive. Coverage for residents on leave is most often provided by co-residents (98.7%), usually without compensation or schedule rearrangement to reduce work hours at another time (45.4%). Most program directors (82.8%) believed that becoming a parent negatively affected resident performance, and approximately one-half of the program directors believed that having a child in residency decreased well-being (50.9%), although 19.0% believed that it increased resident well-being. Qualitative responses were mixed and highlighted the complex challenges and competing priorities related to parental leave. CONCLUSION: Most residency programs are not aligned with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations on paid parental leave in residency. Complex issues regarding conflicting policies, burden to covering co-residents, and impaired training were raised.
BACKGROUND: The health and economic benefits of paid parental leave have been well-documented. In 2016, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a policy statement about recommended parental leave for trainees; however, data on adoption of said guidelines are nonexistent, and published data on parental leave policies in obstetrics-gynecology are outdated. The objective of our study was to understand existing parental leave policies in obstetrics-gynecology training programs and to evaluate program director opinions on these policies and on parenting in residency. OBJECTIVE: A Web-based survey regarding parental leave policies and coverage practices was sent to all program directors of accredited US obstetrics-gynecology residency programs. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional Web-based survey. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent (163/250) of program directors completed the survey. Most program directors (71%) were either not aware of or not familiar with the recommendations of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2016 policy statement on parental leave. Nearly all responding programs (98%) had arranged parental leave for ≥1 residents in the past 5 years. Formal leave policies for childbearing and nonchildbearing parents exist at 83% and 55% of programs, respectively. Program directors reported that, on average, programs offer shorter parental leaves than program directors think trainees should receive. Coverage for residents on leave is most often provided by co-residents (98.7%), usually without compensation or schedule rearrangement to reduce work hours at another time (45.4%). Most program directors (82.8%) believed that becoming a parent negatively affected resident performance, and approximately one-half of the program directors believed that having a child in residency decreased well-being (50.9%), although 19.0% believed that it increased resident well-being. Qualitative responses were mixed and highlighted the complex challenges and competing priorities related to parental leave. CONCLUSION: Most residency programs are not aligned with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations on paid parental leave in residency. Complex issues regarding conflicting policies, burden to covering co-residents, and impaired training were raised.
Authors: Stephanie Treffert Lumpkin; Mia K Klein; Ashley N Battarbee; Paula D Strassle; Sara Scarlet; Meredith C Duke Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Dana D Huh; Jiangxia Wang; Michael J Fliotsos; Casey J Beal; Charline S Boente; C Ellis Wisely; Lindsay M De Andrade; Alice C Lorch; Saras Ramanathan; Maria A Reinoso; Ramya N Swamy; Evan L Waxman; Fasika A Woreta; Divya Srikumaran Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 8.253
Authors: Marianne Casilla-Lennon; Stephanie Hanchuk; Sijin Zheng; David D Kim; Benjamin Press; Justin V Nguyen; Alyssa Grimshaw; Michael S Leapman; Jaime A Cavallo Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Breana R Siljander; Sara S Van Nortwick; Jessica C Flakne; Ann E Van Heest; Deborah C Bohn Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Sarah E Conway; Pavan A Vaswani; Joshua A Budhu; Lauren R Kett; Silviya H M Eaton; Wei Wang; Michael P Bowley; Sashank Prasad Journal: Neurology Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 11.800