The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the research productivity of K-awardees

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted many aspects of academic research, particularly for early career investigators striving for independence. This study examines geographic heterogeneity in the pandemic’s impact on the publication productivity of recipients of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute K01, K08, and K23 awards within Departments of Medicine across different states in the US using data from the National Institutes of Health RePORTER and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID data tracker from 2015 to 2022. Findings indicate that while publication productivity increased steadily until 2020, it plateaued soon after. K-awardees in states with an early peak in COVID-19-related deaths maintained relatively stable productivity levels post-2020, whereas those in states with a late peak experienced a decline. The observed geographic differences may stem from variations in pandemic response measures, resource availability, and institutional support. These findings highlight the need for careful consideration of geographic heterogeneity when designing targeted interventions, such as funding support and tenure extensions, to mitigate the pandemic’s impact on early career investigators. Addressing additional factors, including career stage, personal responsibilities, and institutional environments, is essential for a comprehensive understanding of disparities in publication productivity.

Introduction

K-awardees are a vulnerable group of early career investigators who are attempting to transition to independence in a limited timeframe. However, limited objective data exists on how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the publication productivity of K-awardees within Departments of Medicine. We hypothesized that the impact of the pandemic on the publication productivity of K-awardees would be geographically heterogeneous because of the geographic variability in the prevalence of COVID-19 cases.

Methods

Publication productivity was assessed as the number of publications reported by recipients of National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) K01, K08, and K23 awards within Departments of Internal Medicine (DOM) by state from 2015 to 2022 using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER database [1]. Only states with ≥ 3 award recipients each year during 2015-22 were included in the analysis to ensure reliable data. The analysis was limited to DOM awardees and to the NHLBI because other specialties, such as surgical specialties, may have been less negatively affected by the increased clinical workload from respiratory illness during the pandemic.

To measure the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic by state, we determined the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 per 100,000 residents in each state per annum from 2020 to 2022 using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID data tracker [2]. States were classified as having an early COVID peak if the number of COVID-19-related deaths per 100,000 residents was higher in 2020 than in 2021 and as having a late COVID peak if there were more deaths per 100,000 residents in 2021 than in 2020.

Results

The analysis included 22 of 50 states with ≥ 3 recipients of NHLBI K01, K08, and K23 awards in Departments of Medicine from 2015 to 2022. In these 22 states, the number of publications per K award increased steadily from 2015 to 2020, after which it plateaued (Fig. 1A). Among the seven states with an early COVID peak (WI, MD, IL, MA, IA, CT, and NY), the number of publications per K award increased till 2020 and then remained stable till 2022 (Fig. 1B). In contrast, in the fifteen states with a late COVID peak (AL, CA, CO, FL, GA, IN, MI, MO, NC, OH, PA, TX, UT, VA, and WA), the number of publications per K award decreased after peaking in 2020 (Fig. 1C). This reduction in the number of publications per K award from 2020 to 2022 appeared to be greater in the fifteen states with a late COVID peak compared to the seven states with an early COVID peak (p = 0.06). There was no association between publications per award and number of deaths from COVID-19 per 100,000 residents, the peak deaths per year from COVID-19 per 100,000 residents, or the cumulative deaths from COVID-19 per 100,000 residents by state from 2020 to 2022.

Fig. 1.

Number of publications per K01, K08, or K23 award funded by the NHLBI from 2015 to 2022 per state stratified by early (2020) vs. late (2021) peak in COVID-19-related deaths per 100,000 residents

Discussion

Our findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic affected the publication productivity of recipients of NHLBI K01, K08, and K23 awards more in states with a late peak in COVID-19-related deaths. A late peak may be a manifestation of a variety of factors, including pandemic fatigue, vaccine hesitancy or delays, the emergence of novel variants, poor resource allocation or public compliance, or premature relaxation of preventative measures [3]. The observed geographic variability should be considered when implementing measures such as providing supplementary funding and extensions for tenure-track positions to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on early career investigators at affected universities. Both academic institutions and funding agencies, like the NIH, should provide accommodations for impacted researchers.

Our study has multiple limitations. First, we did not have individual-level data so we could not look at factors such as time of K-award receipt, gender, race, and other variables that could influence productivity of researchers. Furthermore, the CDC COVID-19 Tracker that was used to determine COVID-19 deaths did not distinguish between inpatient and outpatient deaths, which inhibited us from being able to determine the impact of increased clinical work requirements for K-awardees during the pandemic. Additionally, our two groups (states with early peaks vs. late peaks) were of different sizes; therefore, differences in statistical power could have impacted our results. Lastly, our measure of productivity was limited to publications, but this is not the only measure of academic productivity. We were limited by a lack of access to further data such as grants submitted and awarded, which would have strengthened our analysis.

Geographic variability is one piece of the puzzle when assessing the impact of COVID-19 on research productivity, as multiple factors influence academic progress. Casey et al. mention the importance of generational inequality, career stage, personal circumstances, career responsibilities, work environments, places of employment, and related factors [4]. Other studies found gender-based differences in research productivity, noting that female researchers were, on average, less productive than male researchers following COVID-19-related lockdowns [5]. These variables need to be considered to better understand the unequal effect of the pandemic on the academic productivity of K-awardees.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to data collection and analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Not applicable.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.