Work-Life Experience of Academic Radiologists: Food for Thought

Abstract

Rationale and objectives: Work-life experience of physicians is a driver of work engagement vs. burnout. We aimed to determine individual and institutional factors affecting work-life experience of the clinical faculty at a large tertiary care academic medical center.

Materials and methods: The Department of Radiology clinical faculty (n = 62) were surveyed electronically in October 2022. Twenty-three questions, consisting of multiple choice, Yes/No, and Likert scale ratings were administered to obtain demographic information and data for life outside of work, life at work, and work-life integration for the prior 12 months. Work engagements in terms of clinical, research, administrative, and education; work practices including engagement in extra work and remote work; life responsibilities; and utilization of work-life balance strategies were analyzed for percentages and differences in seniority levels and genders. Ratings of faculty work engagement and life integration strategies were assessed utilizing a 1-5 Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were utilized to report mean, standard deviation, median, Q1 and Q3 for continuous measurements, while count and percentage for categories measurements. Comparisons between seniority and gender categories were conducted using independent t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test depending on data normality assessed through histogram analysis. Chi-square test was used to make comparisons for categorical data. When encountered with small cell (category with <5 count), Fisher's exact test was used for 2 × 2 table analysis and Freeman-Halton test was used for comparisons with more than two categories. SAS 9.4 was used for the data analysis.

Results: Twenty-eight faculty (M:F = 17:11) responded to the survey (survey response rate 45%). The vast majority of faculty reported working extra hours, with 40% working at least 10 hours extra per week. Total of 42.9% reported performing clinical work in the extra hours worked. Total 70.4% of faculty had caregiver responsibilities and 64.3% reported other individual stresses (e.g., financial, family/social, health-related), which required consistent demand of time and effort. A total of 35.7% of faculty reported not being able to balance competing life and work demands. A total of 21.4% respondents reported not utilizing any individual healthy lifestyle choices on a consistent basis over the prior 12 months. Protected time off work and remote work were perceived as effective strategies to provide adequate work-life balance; however, remote work engagement was relatively minor and 35.7% bought back vacation. Total 53.6% respondents reported a level 4 (out of 5) rating for work being meaningful and being positively engaged in their work.

Conclusion: Institutions should invest in providing the infrastructure for physician work-life balance and in facilitating healthy lifestyle choices for physicians.