对多样性、公平性、包容性和反种族主义培训研究的系统回顾:研究结果和未来方向。

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Monica L Wang, Alexis Gomes, Marielis Rosa, Phillipe Copeland, Victor Jose Santana
{"title":"对多样性、公平性、包容性和反种族主义培训研究的系统回顾:研究结果和未来方向。","authors":"Monica L Wang, Alexis Gomes, Marielis Rosa, Phillipe Copeland, Victor Jose Santana","doi":"10.1093/tbm/ibad061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A growing number of organizations are prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and antiracism in the workplace, including investing resources in DEI or antiracism training. However, such trainings vary widely in curriculum, objectives, delivery, and evaluation, with little known about the efficacy of existing trainings. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate training characteristics, measures, and results of peer-reviewed studies (published between 2000 and 2022) testing DEI or antiracism trainings. Studies were identified using Google Scholar, JSTOR, and a university library database. Key search terms included \"diversity, equity, and inclusion training\"; \"antiracism training\"; and \"effect,\" \"impact,\" \"outcome,\" or \"evaluation.\" The search yielded N = 15 DEI training studies and N = 8 antiracism training studies. The majority of studies (75% of antiracism training; 66.6% of DEI training) utilized a one-time training session. Content, objectives, measures, and impact varied widely across studies. Randomized designs were uncommon (13%), and over 70% of studies had majority female participants. Findings highlight several strategies to advance the field of DEI and antiracism training, such as shifting curriculum from targeting individual knowledge to supporting behavioral and organizational change, providing longitudinal training, standardizing outcomes of interest, and implementing rigorous evaluation methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":48679,"journal":{"name":"Translational Behavioral Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"156-171"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10890819/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of diversity, equity, and inclusion and antiracism training studies: Findings and future directions.\",\"authors\":\"Monica L Wang, Alexis Gomes, Marielis Rosa, Phillipe Copeland, Victor Jose Santana\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tbm/ibad061\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A growing number of organizations are prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and antiracism in the workplace, including investing resources in DEI or antiracism training. However, such trainings vary widely in curriculum, objectives, delivery, and evaluation, with little known about the efficacy of existing trainings. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate training characteristics, measures, and results of peer-reviewed studies (published between 2000 and 2022) testing DEI or antiracism trainings. Studies were identified using Google Scholar, JSTOR, and a university library database. Key search terms included \\\"diversity, equity, and inclusion training\\\"; \\\"antiracism training\\\"; and \\\"effect,\\\" \\\"impact,\\\" \\\"outcome,\\\" or \\\"evaluation.\\\" The search yielded N = 15 DEI training studies and N = 8 antiracism training studies. The majority of studies (75% of antiracism training; 66.6% of DEI training) utilized a one-time training session. Content, objectives, measures, and impact varied widely across studies. Randomized designs were uncommon (13%), and over 70% of studies had majority female participants. Findings highlight several strategies to advance the field of DEI and antiracism training, such as shifting curriculum from targeting individual knowledge to supporting behavioral and organizational change, providing longitudinal training, standardizing outcomes of interest, and implementing rigorous evaluation methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translational Behavioral Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"156-171\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10890819/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translational Behavioral Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibad061\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibad061","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的组织正在优先考虑工作场所的多样性、公平性和包容性(DEI)以及反种族主义,包括将资源投资于DEI或反种族主义培训。然而,此类培训在课程、目标、实施和评估方面差异很大,对现有培训的效果知之甚少。这项系统综述的目的是评估测试DEI或反种族主义培训的同行评审研究(发表于2000年至2022年)的培训特征、措施和结果。研究是使用谷歌学者、JSTOR和大学图书馆数据库确定的。主要搜索词包括“多样性、公平性和包容性培训”;“反种族主义培训”;以及“效果”、“影响”、“结果”或“评估”。搜索得出N=15项DEI训练研究和N=8项反种族主义训练研究。大多数研究(75%的反种族主义培训;66.6%的DEI培训)使用了一次性培训课程。研究的内容、目标、衡量标准和影响差异很大。随机设计并不常见(13%),超过70%的研究以女性参与者为主。研究结果强调了推进DEI和反种族主义培训领域的几种策略,例如将课程从针对个人知识转变为支持行为和组织变革,提供纵向培训,标准化感兴趣的结果,以及实施严格的评估方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A systematic review of diversity, equity, and inclusion and antiracism training studies: Findings and future directions.

A growing number of organizations are prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and antiracism in the workplace, including investing resources in DEI or antiracism training. However, such trainings vary widely in curriculum, objectives, delivery, and evaluation, with little known about the efficacy of existing trainings. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate training characteristics, measures, and results of peer-reviewed studies (published between 2000 and 2022) testing DEI or antiracism trainings. Studies were identified using Google Scholar, JSTOR, and a university library database. Key search terms included "diversity, equity, and inclusion training"; "antiracism training"; and "effect," "impact," "outcome," or "evaluation." The search yielded N = 15 DEI training studies and N = 8 antiracism training studies. The majority of studies (75% of antiracism training; 66.6% of DEI training) utilized a one-time training session. Content, objectives, measures, and impact varied widely across studies. Randomized designs were uncommon (13%), and over 70% of studies had majority female participants. Findings highlight several strategies to advance the field of DEI and antiracism training, such as shifting curriculum from targeting individual knowledge to supporting behavioral and organizational change, providing longitudinal training, standardizing outcomes of interest, and implementing rigorous evaluation methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Translational Behavioral Medicine
Translational Behavioral Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: Translational Behavioral Medicine publishes content that engages, informs, and catalyzes dialogue about behavioral medicine among the research, practice, and policy communities. TBM began receiving an Impact Factor in 2015 and currently holds an Impact Factor of 2.989. TBM is one of two journals published by the Society of Behavioral Medicine. The Society of Behavioral Medicine is a multidisciplinary organization of clinicians, educators, and scientists dedicated to promoting the study of the interactions of behavior with biology and the environment, and then applying that knowledge to improve the health and well-being of individuals, families, communities, and populations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信