2026/07/08 by Luwam T. Gebrekristos, Xiaochu Hu, Michael Dill · 1 voice
Social Sciences · Psychology · Health Professions · #Diversity and Career in Medicine #COVID-19 and Mental Health #Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
paper · doi:10.1093/acamed/wvag210
openalex publication_date 2026/07/08 · openalex created_date 2026/07/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/31
PURPOSE: Academic physicians play an essential role in training the next generation of physicians and delivering care. However, few empirical studies compare academic and nonacademic physicians. This exploratory study examined differences in demographic and training characteristics, work patterns, and COVID-19 work effects. METHOD: Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges' 2022 National Sample Survey of Physicians were collected from May to November 2022 and analyzed. US academic physicians were classified using 2 definitions: (1) academic affiliation (faculty appointment at a medical school or affiliation with an academic health center or teaching hospital) and (2) faculty appointment at a medical school. Three domains were examined: (1) demographic and training characteristics, (2) work patterns, and (3) COVID-19 work effects. RESULTS: Among 5,834 physicians, 2,659 (45.6%) were academically affiliated physicians and 2,028 (34.8%) were physicians with a faculty appointment. Minimal differences in demographics and training background exist. More academically affiliated physicians were moderate telehealth users (1,011 [38.0%] vs 1,002 [31.6%]; P < .001), worked with physician assistants (1,228 [46.2%] vs 1,275 [40.2%]; P < .001) and nurse practitioners (1,386 [52.1%] vs 1,300 [41.0%]; P < .001), cared for a higher proportion of Medicaid patients (mean [SD], 18.2 [17.9] vs 14.1 [15.9]; P < .001), and had practice zip code that had higher unmet needs scores (mean [SD], 48.9 [21.5] vs 45.5 [20.9]; P < .001) compared with nonacademically affiliated physicians. Furthermore, academically affiliated physicians reported fewer COVID-19-related impacts on their work status (444 [16.7%] vs 674 [21.2%]; P < .001). Results were similar for physicians with faculty appointments. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in work patterns and patient populations distinguish academic from nonacademic physicians. Findings highlight the unique contributions and practice models of academic physicians and can inform tailored strategies to support physicians' well-being, optimize care delivery, and guide workforce planning.