Between Hormones and H-index: A Lived Experience of Academic Perimenopause

Background: Integrated care research increasingly emphasizes inclusion of persons with lived experience (LE) as partners in knowledge generation and system improvement. Yet, within academia itself, few have examined the lived experiences of researchers whose own biological and social transitions affect their scholarly identities and productivity. Perimenopause—a complex neuroendocrine and psychosocial life phase that may span a decade or more—remains under-researched, underdiagnosed, and stigmatized, particularly in male-dominated scientific systems. Gender inequities in research persist globally: while women now constitute roughly half of researchers in the social sciences, they comprise only 29% of those in STEM, and their representation declines steeply at senior career levels. The result is a “leaky pipeline” that erodes mentorship, leadership, and retention.

 

Approach: This reflective and narrative inquiry uses an autoethnographic lens to explore the lived experience of perimenopause within the context of an academic career in behavioral health and integrated care. Anchored in the principles of person-centeredness and co-design, the project situates the author’s experiences—cognitive, emotional, and professional—within broader structural inequities in research culture, funding, and policy. The work draws upon existing global data on gender representation (Elsevier, 2024), women’s health research gaps, and the social and neurological dimensions of menopause to frame perimenopause not as a private medical concern but as a systemic workplace and equity issue.

 

Results: Emerging themes reveal profound intersections between hormonal transition and academic identity. Cognitive symptoms such as brain fog, fatigue, and executive dysfunction led to self-doubt, fear of diminished capacity, and hesitancy in leadership and collaboration—particularly in environments that equate productivity with worth. The absence of workplace accommodations or informed healthcare exacerbated these effects, echoing patterns of dismissal and misdiagnosis long documented in women’s health literature. The experience underscores the dual invisibility of both menopause and mid-career women in research—those most likely to mentor, lead, and influence the next generation of female scholars. It also surfaces a critical gap in institutional and policy support for aging female academics navigating overlapping demands of scholarship, caregiving, and embodiment.

Implications: This lived-experience account contributes to a growing call for research methodologies and institutional practices that integrate biological, psychological, and systemic understandings of women’s health into workforce design. Addressing perimenopause through an integrated care lens invites attention to the relational, cognitive, and policy-level supports necessary for retention and thriving of senior women in academia. Internationally, this case reflects broader needs for gender-responsive leadership, equitable research funding, and inclusion of female health and aging as core components of workforce well-being. As aging is a universal experience—“we are all doing it”—perimenopause becomes not merely a women’s issue but a human and organizational one, central to creating inclusive, sustainable, and compassionate systems of care and scholarship.