A Canadian meta-analysis shows that equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) initiatives in health care may be associated with greater workforce diversity and promote equity in the health care culture. Deena Fremont, MSc, from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, and colleagues, reported the corresponding data from several studies in a manuscript published online Wednesday in JAMA Network Open. The concept of EDI is a hot topic in politics. In the health care setting, employers are continuously adopting EDI practices and policies. The implications of these practices across the board are still unknown. Authors of this review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) to search through PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsychINFO databases for trials examining the use of EDI practices in health care institutions between January 2010 and December 2023. Data were analyzed in June 2025. EDI programs included in the review were categorized: participant satisfaction, increased awareness of EDI-related topics, proportions of underrepresented minority people in medicine and the overall impact of the EDI programs. Outcomes included the proportion of diversity in the workplace, employee and patient satisfaction with the program and the number of employees recruited as well as continued post-program implementation. Meta-analysis outcomes A total of 43 studies, which gathered over 15,000 people who were involved in EDI programs, were included in this meta-analysis. The Joanna Briggs Institute assessment of methodological quality showed that 7 of the studies were high-quality, 20 studies were moderate quality and 16 were low quality. All studies were conducted in the U.S., except one, which was conducted in the U.K. Several types of EDI programs were implemented, including 14 career advancement and training programs 16 diversity representation programs, 11 academia and research support programs and 2 pipeline programs. These interventions led to improvements in EDI initiatives and perceived benefits in promotion of underrepresented groups. The meta-analysis of 2 studies demonstrated an increase in minority representation in competitive medical residencies after EDI programs were implemented (odds ratio [OR]=1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.21-2.47). Limitations in the research Several limitations should be noted in this study. First, satisfaction with EDI programs was solely assessed by the beneficiaries of EDI programs, and no input was collected from broader populations who may have been affected by the programs. Second, no standardized definitions were created for diverse representation. This also limits the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the studies were not randomized, did not have control groups and no long-term outcomes were evaluated. Another limitation was the fact that only 2 of the 43 studies had data suitable for quantitative analysis, which further limits the application of the findings to a broader population. The authors also noted a key limitation that the studies focused primarily on Black and African American populations and other underrepresented groups received less attention. “Consequently, generalizability to other underrepresented minority groups and international contexts is limited. For instance, other forms of underrepresentation, such as sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, family structure and disability status, remain understudied,” the authors of this review noted. Looking to the future EDI programs in health care institutions can still increase equity in medicine, but action is needed. In an invited commentary, Marshall Fleurant, MD, MPH, and Jada C. Bussey-Jones, MD, of the Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, discussed this present meta-analysis and current public policy regarding EDI initiatives in health care. “Readers still may grapple with additional questions, such as differences in EDI initiatives, and considerations of cost and scalability. We must recognize that goals of this nature are not achieved passively but require intentional action,” the commentators concluded. Sources: Fremont D, Buh A, Hoar-Stephens C, et al. Equity, diversity, and inclusion in health care institutions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2026 February 4 (Article in Press). Fleurant M, Bussey-Jones JC. Diversity in health care institutions-well worth the effort. JAMA Netw Open. 2026 February 4 (Article in Press). Image Credit: Studio Romantic – stock.adobe.com