Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2022 Oct-Dec;13(4):237-250. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2022.2110962. Epub 2022 Aug 22.
Diversity in Institutional Review Board (IRB) membership is important for both intrinsic and instrumental reasons, including fairness, promoting trust, improving decision quality, and responding to systemic racism. Yet U.S. IRBs remain racially and ethnically homogeneous, even as gender diversity has improved. Little is known about IRB chairpersons' perspectives on membership diversity and barriers to increasing it, as well as current institutional efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within IRB membership.
We surveyed IRB chairpersons leading U.S. boards registered with the Office for Human Research Protections. Here, we focus exclusively on responses from a subset of 388 chairpersons of IRBs at universities and academic medical centers (AMCs).
Board chairs were predominantly white and evenly split between men and women. Only about half reported that their boards had at least one member who is Black or African American (51%), Asian (56%), or Hispanic (48%), with 85% of university/AMC boards comprised entirely (15%) or mostly (70%) of white members. Most IRB chairpersons (64%) reported satisfaction with the current diversity of their membership. Participants largely agreed that considering diversity in the selection of IRB members is important (91%), including to improve the quality of IRB deliberation (80%), with an emphasis on racial/ethnic (85%) and gender diversity (74%). Most participants (80%) reported some type of active DEI effort regarding board membership at their university/AMC and just over half (57%) expressed satisfaction with these efforts.
Our national survey found that although university/AMC IRB chairpersons report valuing diversity in board membership, it may be lacking in key areas. Going forward, it will be important to specify clear reasons for diversity in the IRB context, as well to establish targets for acceptable levels of board diversity and to match DEI efforts to those targets.
机构审查委员会(IRB)成员的多样性对于内在和工具性原因都很重要,包括公平性、增强信任、提高决策质量以及应对系统性种族主义。然而,美国的 IRB 仍然在种族和民族上同质化,尽管性别多样性有所改善。对于 IRB 成员多样性以及增加多样性的障碍,以及当前机构在 IRB 成员中促进多样性、公平性和包容性(DEI)的努力,人们知之甚少。
我们调查了领导美国注册人体研究保护办公室的 IRB 主席。在这里,我们仅专注于来自大学和学术医疗中心(AMC)的 388 名 IRB 主席的子集中的回应。
董事会主席主要是白人,男女各占一半。只有大约一半的人报告说他们的董事会至少有一名成员是黑人或非裔美国人(51%)、亚洲人(56%)或西班牙裔(48%),85%的大学/AMC 董事会完全由(15%)或主要由(70%)白人组成。大多数 IRB 主席(64%)对其成员的当前多样性表示满意。参与者普遍认为,在选择 IRB 成员时考虑多样性很重要(91%),包括提高 IRB 审议的质量(80%),重点是种族/民族多样性(85%)和性别多样性(74%)。大多数参与者(80%)报告说,他们所在的大学/AMC 有某种类型的关于董事会成员的积极 DEI 努力,超过一半(57%)对这些努力表示满意。
我们的全国性调查发现,尽管大学/AMC IRB 主席报告说重视董事会成员的多样性,但在关键领域可能缺乏多样性。今后,重要的是要在 IRB 背景下明确多样性的原因,为董事会多样性设定可接受的目标,并使 DEI 努力与这些目标相匹配。