IRB成员的多样性:美国大学和学术医学中心的IRB主席的观点。

Q1 Arts and Humanities AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2022.2110962
Sydney Churchill, Emily A Largent, Elizabeth Taggert, Holly Fernandez Lynch
{"title":"IRB成员的多样性:美国大学和学术医学中心的IRB主席的观点。","authors":"Sydney Churchill,&nbsp;Emily A Largent,&nbsp;Elizabeth Taggert,&nbsp;Holly Fernandez Lynch","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2022.2110962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":"13 4","pages":"237-250"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diversity in IRB Membership: Views of IRB Chairpersons at U.S. Universities and Academic Medical Centers.\",\"authors\":\"Sydney Churchill,&nbsp;Emily A Largent,&nbsp;Elizabeth Taggert,&nbsp;Holly Fernandez Lynch\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23294515.2022.2110962\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJOB Empirical Bioethics\",\"volume\":\"13 4\",\"pages\":\"237-250\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJOB Empirical Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2022.2110962\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2022.2110962","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

背景:机构审查委员会(IRB)成员的多样性在内在和工具上都很重要,包括公平、促进信任、提高决策质量和应对系统性种族主义。然而,尽管性别多样性有所改善,但美国的irb在种族和民族上仍然是同质的。关于IRB主席对成员多样性的看法和增加成员多样性的障碍,以及目前在IRB成员中促进多样性、公平和包容(DEI)的机构努力,人们知之甚少。方法:我们调查了在人类研究保护办公室注册的美国主要委员会的IRB主席。在这里,我们只关注来自大学和学术医学中心(amc)的388位irb主席的回答。结果:董事会主席以白人为主,男女比例平均。只有大约一半的人表示,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董事会成员全部是白人(15%)或大部分是白人(70%)。大多数IRB主席(64%)对目前成员的多样性表示满意。与会者普遍认为,在遴选内部审查委员会成员时考虑多样性很重要(91%),包括提高内部审查委员会的审议质量(80%),强调种族/民族(85%)和性别多样性(74%)。大多数参与者(80%)表示,他们在大学/AMC的董事会成员方面做出了某种积极的DEI努力,超过一半(57%)的人对这些努力表示满意。结论:我们的全国性调查发现,尽管大学/AMC IRB主席报告重视董事会成员的多样性,但在关键领域可能缺乏多样性。展望未来,重要的是要明确说明在IRB背景下实现多样性的原因,并建立可接受的董事会多样性水平的目标,并使DEI的努力与这些目标相匹配。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Diversity in IRB Membership: Views of IRB Chairpersons at U.S. Universities and Academic Medical Centers.

Background: 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.

Methods: 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).

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

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
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Animals is "Still Genetics": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement. Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States. Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards. Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons. Advance Medical Decision-Making Differs Across First- and Third-Person Perspectives.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1