ReviewJournal of clinical and translational science2026
Evaluating efforts to advance equity and inclusion in academic medicine: Charting a path for transformative change.
Review in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Erratum: Evaluating efforts to advance equity and inclusion in academic medicine: Charting a path for transformative change - CORRIGENDUM.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Measuring what matters: Modern evaluation practices in clinical and translational science.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the critical role academic medical institutions play in promoting equity and inclusion, these efforts are often undermined by fragmented and siloed evaluation approaches, a lack of theory-driven models, and inadequate data-driven methodologies. This commentary critically examines the factors contributing to the persistent challenges in implementing and advancing equity and inclusion initiatives in the United States (U.S.), focusing on academic medical institutions in particular. It underscores the need for theory-guided frameworks to better structure and evaluate such initiatives and highlights existing gaps in accountability and data-driven decision-making. Moreover, it argues for an integrated approach that combines multidisciplinary strategies, promoting collaboration across different sectors to develop more comprehensive and sustainable solutions. Ultimately, effective evaluation - grounded in data, theory, and diverse perspectives - is essential for promoting equity and inclusion and addressing disparities in U.S. academic medical institutions. By addressing these structural and evaluative shortcomings, institutions can move towards more impactful and equitable outcomes for underrepresented groups in STEM fields and the biomedical workforce more broadly.
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.