ArticleJAMA network open2025
Perceptions of Institutional Engagement and Inclusion by Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Promoting Well-Being Among Gastroenterologists - A Call for Systemic Action.United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Review
- Workplace inclusivity, social support, and mental health of Taiwanese LGBTI + employees among different relationship status groups.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- The Culture of Academic Medicine Initiative (CAMi): Advancing Systems-Level Wellbeing in Medical Education Through a National Change Management Approach.Medical science educator · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: There is a paucity of research regarding the experiences of self-identified lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT+) individuals in academic medicine. Objective: To examine LGBT+ individuals' perceptions of institutional engagement and workplace inclusivity. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, in 2015, 2018, 2021, and 2023, the Diversity Engagement Survey (DES) supplemented with specific questions about LGBT+ visibility and engagement in the workplace was sent to faculty, students and trainees, and staff at a single academic medical center in Pennsylvania. Exposures: Sexual orientation was self-identified as heterosexual; lesbian, gay, or bisexual [LGB]; or other. Gender identity was self-identified as men; transgender, queer, or nonbinary [TQNB]; women; or other or unknown. Main Outcomes and Measures: Workplace culture inclusivity was assessed using 8 validated DES constructs summarized into 3 scores: perceptions of shared vision and purpose, camaraderie, and appreciation of contributions to the institution. Three questions evaluated statements about institutional welcoming of LGBT+ individuals, comfort working with LGBT+ colleagues, and LGBT+ institutional visibility. Potential attrition was assessed through a question about job change considerations due to inappropriate, disruptive, or unprofessional behavior by a coworker or supervisor. Results were weighted to account for nonresponse. Results: Among 23 708 respondents (15.9% of approximately 149 500 survey recipients), 2068 (8.7%) identified as LGB and 169 (0.7%) as TQNB. Compared with heterosexual respondents, LGB respondents reported lower institutional engagement (vision and purpose: adjusted difference (AD), -1.2 [95% CI, -1.6 to -0.9]; camaraderie: AD, -1.1 [95% CI, -1.3 to -0.9]; appreciation: AD, -0.9 [95% CI, -1.1 to -0.6]) and were less likely to agree with statements of LGBT+ institutional inclusivity (welcoming: adjusted relative ratio [ARR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.85-0.90]; visibility: ARR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.86-0.94]). Compared with men, TQNB respondents reported lower engagement (vision and purpose: AD, -4.1 [95% CI, -5.5 to -2.6]; camaraderie: AD, -3.2 [95% CI, -4.1 to -2.3]; appreciation: AD, -2.6 [95% CI, -3.5 to -1.7]) and were less likely to agree with LGBT+ institutional inclusivity statements (welcoming: ARR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.53-0.80]; visibility: ARR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.61-1.00]). LGB (vs heterosexual; ARR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.15-1.38]) and TQNB (vs men; ARR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.17-1.88]) respondents were more likely to report job change consideration. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, the findings demonstrated a need for focused and subgroup-specific intentional initiatives to optimize productivity and improve workplace culture, sense of belonging, and retention for self-identified sexual and gender minority individuals within academic medical communities.
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.