Table 5.

IRBs Utilizing Outside Experts (N = 302).

	n	%
Overall Impact of Using Outside Experts
Positive	280	91.5%
Neutral	22	7.2%
Negative	0	0.00%
Potential advantages of utilizing outside experts/consultants*
May contribute knowledge/expertise	289	94.4%
May assist/support IRB decision making	261	85.3%
May provide additional input/second set of eyes	238	77.8%
May demonstrate due diligence on the part of the IRB	171	55.9%
May add objectivity	162	52.9%
May allow IRBs to remain a reasonable size without having to cover all areas of expertise themselves	111	36.3%
May allow IRBs to remain a reasonable size to attain quorum	48	15.7%
May allow outside expert to learn more about the IRB before deciding if they would like to formally join	29	9.5%
May provide audit coverage	19	6.2%
Other [write in]	6	2.0%
Potential disadvantages of utilizing outside experts/consultants*
May have limited knowledge of research regulations and the role of the IRB	136	44.4%
May not provide useful/actionable feedback	116	37.9%
May provide review beyond the scope of what they’re asked to do	106	34.6%
May provide recommendations the IRB disagrees with	51	16.7%
Other [write in]	39	12.7%
Challenges that prevent seeking outside expert/consultant review*
We have not experienced any challenges	181	59.2%
Pressure to review protocols quickly rather than taking time to seek consultation	66	21.6%
Difficulty identifying a consultant with the necessary expertise	65	21.2%
Concern that it may be perceived that the IRB isn’t adequately composed	16	5.2%
Other [write in]	15	4.9%
Concern for offending current IRB members who perceive they are experts in a specific area	9	2.9%

^*Respondents were allowed to choose multiple responses.