ArticleSleep health2024
Diversity, equity, and inclusion: Findings from the Sleep Research Society.
Article in Sleep health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo characterize representation and inclusion among Sleep Research Society members and examine associations between sociodemographic features and Sleep Research Society experiences.
methodsThe Sleep Research Society Taskforce for Diversity and Inclusion developed a web-based questionnaire in 2021, assessing membership data and Sleep Research Society experiences (self-initiated and society-initiated participation, feeling very welcomed, perceptions of inclusiveness, and diversity of viewpoints represented). Frequencies were calculated and adjusted Poisson regression models with robust variance were fit to estimate associations.
resultsMost participants (n = 388; 35.7% of members) were aged 18-49 (61%), non-Hispanic White (65%), and women (59%). Regarding inclusion, 41% participated in ≥2 Sleep Research Society self-initiated activities (abstract submission), 56% in Sleep Research Society-initiated activities (appointed position), 51% felt welcomed, whereas 52% perceived a lack of inclusivity and 65% a lack of diverse viewpoints. Historically minoritized groups and women felt less welcomed compared to non-Hispanic White members and men. Older, biracial, women, gender-divergent, and U.S.-born individuals, were less likely to perceive that there was a diversity of viewpoints represented in the Sleep Research Society. Members of ≥10years and those with a doctoral degree were more likely to participate in Sleep Research Society activities, while sexual and gender minoritized individuals were less likely to do so. Sexual and gender minoritized individuals were more likely to report Sleep Research Society was noninclusive.
conclusionsHistorically minoritized individuals are under-represented in Sleep Research Society and a majority of respondents report not feeling welcomed. These results serve as a baseline benchmark and example for assessing the impact of ongoing and future diversity and inclusion initiatives and provide targets for expanding opportunities for underrepresented individuals in sleep/circadian societies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.