黑料网

Parental leave policy; Neurology residency; Work-life balance; Resident well-being; Medical education; Training outcomes; Policy impact

Introduction

The increasing demands of medical training, coupled with personal responsibilities such as family planning, have heightened the need for residency programs to adapt their policies. Historically, parental leave in medical residencies has been minimal, often leading to burnout, stress, and difficulty balancing personal and professional life [1]. With more residents seeking flexibility and work-life balance, many programs are rethinking their approaches to parental leave. In neurology residency programs, where clinical demands are high and training is rigorous, the challenge becomes even more pronounced [2,3]. In response to this, a growing number of institutions are adopting progressive parental leave policies that provide extended time off and greater flexibility for new parents. This study seeks to explore how such policies affect residents' training, performance, well-being, and overall satisfaction.

Materials and Methods

Study Design: This is a mixed-methods study consisting of a retrospective analysis of training metrics and qualitative data from resident surveys and interviews. Study population neurology residents at who took parental leave between and a comparison group of residents who did not take parental leave was also included [4,5].

Data Collection

Academic Metrics: Board exam scores, clinical evaluations, and procedural competencies were collected to evaluate training outcomes. Time to graduation, fellowship placement, and any delays in training were tracked.

Qualitative Data: Surveys standardized surveys were administered to all neurology residents who utilized the parental leave policy to assess their perceptions of work-life balance, well-being, and satisfaction [6]. Interviews semi-structured interviews were conducted to capture more in-depth experiences and opinions on the policy.

Analysis: Quantitative data were analyzed using statistical methods to compare training outcomes between those who took parental leave and those who did not [7,8]. Qualitative data were coded and analyzed thematically to identify key themes related to the benefits and challenges of the parental leave policy.

Ethical Considerations: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), and all participants provided informed consent.

Results and Discussion

Training Outcomes: No significant differences were found between residents who took parental leave and those who did not in terms of clinical competencies, board exam performance, or time to graduation.

Work-Life Balance and Well-being: Residents who utilized the parental leave policy reported significant improvements in work-life balance, mental health, and reduced burnout [9]. They expressed satisfaction with the policy and felt it helped them manage both personal and professional responsibilities.

Program Completion: No substantial delays in training or fellowship placement were observed for residents who took leave [10]. Qualitative themes key themes from interviews included increased flexibility, reduced stigma around taking leave, and improved departmental support for residents with families.

Conclusion

The implementation of a progressive parental leave policy in neurology residency programs demonstrates positive outcomes, both for the professional development of residents and their overall well-being. The policy did not negatively impact training milestones or performance but was instrumental in improving residents' quality of life. Institutions should consider adopting similar policies to foster a more supportive and inclusive training environment, particularly in specialties with demanding clinical duties like neurology. Further research is needed to explore long-term outcomes and potential broader applications across medical specialties.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

References

1. Cho E, Kim W (2021). Int J Mol Sci 22: 8575-8578.

, ,

2. Jankovic M, Novakovic I, Nikolic D, Maksic JM, Brankovic S, et al. ( 2021). Int J Mol Sci 22: 4887-4889.

, ,

3. Kamenov ZA, Traykov LD (2012). Adv Exp Med Biol 771: 155-175.

, ,

4. Mah JK, Pacaud D (2014). Handb Clin Neurol 126: 123-143.

, ,

5. De Lau LM, Breteler MM (2006. Lancet Neurol 5: 525-35.

, ,

6. Lill CM, Klein C (2017). Nervenarzt 88: 345-355.

, ,

7. Balestrino R, Schapira AHV (2020). Eur J Neurol 27: 27-42.

, ,

8. Lew M (2007). Pharmacotherapy 27: 155S-160S.

, ,

9. Eliasson AC, Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Rösblad B (2006) . Dev Med Child Neurol 48: 549-554.

, ,

10. Hidecker MJ, Paneth N, Rosenbaum PL (2011). Dev Med Child Neurol 53: 704-710.

, ,