Trial reportAccountability in research2026
Improving diversity in research: Successes and limitations of research team education in fostering inclusive recruitment practices and community voice.
Trial report in Accountability in research, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe lack of diversity in research participation poses a threat to health equity and the ethical principle of justice. Yet few evidence-based interventions exist. This study compared two educational programs for research teams, designed to build capacity for inclusive recruitment practices.
methodsThis parallel cluster randomized trial compared outcomes generated by an anti-bias focused educational workshop and one emphasizing pro-diversity learning. The evaluation consisted of pre-/post-intervention (n = 124) and 3-month follow-up surveys (n = 83). Regression analysis was employed to evaluate program efficacy, and the adoption of simple behaviors comparing groups at follow-up while controlling for pre-measurement levels and utilizing propensity weights. Interviews (n = 33) with participants explored experiences post-intervention.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences in outcomes between the test and control groups. Both workshop versions increased participants' self-efficacy and simple behaviors, including "thinking about community perspectives" and "identifying ways to increase community voice" at follow-up. Participants in the test group were the only ones to show a significant increase (within group) in "making
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.