IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0260057.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fellowship program directors and trainees across the United States find parental leave policies to be inconsistent, inaccessible, and inadequate

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Sabido Jamorabo
  • Amrin Khander
  • Vasilios Koulouris
  • Jeremy Eli Feith
  • William Matthew Briggs
  • Benjamin Dwight Renelus

Abstract

Introduction: Determine the consistency, accessibility, and adequacy of parental leave policies for adult and pediatric medicine fellowship programs. Methods: We administered a 40-question survey to fellowship program directors (PDs) and trainees in adult and pediatric cardiology, hematology/oncology, gastroenterology, and pulmonology/critical care fellowship programs in the United States. We used Chi-square tests to compare proportions for categorical variables and t-tests to compare means for continuous variables. Results: A total of 190 PDs from 500 programs (38.0%) and 236 trainees from 142 programs (28.4%) responded. Most respondents did not believe that parental leave policies were accessible publicly (322/426; 75.6%), on password-protected intranet (343/426; 80.5%), or upon request (240/426; 56.3%). The PDs and trainees broadly felt that parental leave for fellows should be 5–10 weeks (156/426; 36.6%) or 11–15 weeks (165/426; 38.7%). A majority of PDs felt that there was no increased burden upon other fellows (122/190; 64.2%) or change in overall well-being (110/190; 57.9%). When asked about the biggest barrier to parental leave support, most PDs noted time constrains of fellowship (101/190; 53.1%) and the limited number of fellows (43/190; 22.6%). Trainees similarly selected the time constraints of training (88/236; 37.3%), but nearly one-fifth chose the culture in medicine (44/236; 18.6%). There were no statistically significant differences in answers based on the respondents’ sex, specialty, or subspecialty. Discussion: Parental leave policies are broadly in place, but did not feel these were readily accessible, standardized, or of optimum length. PDs and trainees noted several barriers that undermine support for better parental leave policies, including time constraints of fellowship, the limited number of fellows for coverage, and workplace culture. Standardization of parental leave policies is advisable to allow trainees to pursue fellowship training and care for their newborns without undermining their educational experiences.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Sabido Jamorabo & Amrin Khander & Vasilios Koulouris & Jeremy Eli Feith & William Matthew Briggs & Benjamin Dwight Renelus, 2021. "Fellowship program directors and trainees across the United States find parental leave policies to be inconsistent, inaccessible, and inadequate," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-13, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0260057
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0260057
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0260057&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0260057?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0260057. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.