Cross-sectional survey assesses medical students' equity, diversity, and inclusion perceptions in Saudi Arabia, indicating strong institutional support.
Background Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) are essential elements in creating supportive learning environments within medical education. While global attention to EDI has increased, there remains limited empirical evidence from the Gulf region, particularly Saudi Arabia, where national reforms and institutional efforts are transforming the higher education landscape. Objective The objective of the study is to explore medical students' perceptions of EDI within a Saudi Arabian institution that emphasizes inclusive excellence and to assess the alignment of these perceptions with institutional strategic goals. Methods A validated EDI questionnaire was distributed in a cross-sectional survey to a total of 328 medical students. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate mean scores across inclusion-related items. Socioeconomic status (SES), nationality, and gender were used to examine group comparisons. Results Students reported high levels of inclusion in classroom settings (mean = 4.22), cultural representation (mean = 4.25), and access to mentorship (mean = 4.23). The items were three core domains: institutional support and inclusion, cultural sensitivity, and peer belonging. There were no statistically significant variations by SES, gender, or nationality. Findings reflect widespread satisfaction with institutional EDI practices and support the university's mission of fostering student-centered, technology-enabled learning. Conclusion The institution's strong performance across all EDI dimensions demonstrates a deeply embedded culture of inclusion and respect. Results affirm the effectiveness of strategic planning, digital integration, and stakeholder engagement in shaping equitable learning environments. This study contributes to the growing body of evidence supporting region-specific models of inclusive medical education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alsaleh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: