Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Ethics Hum Res. 2021 Sep;43(5):2–17. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500100

Table 2:

IRB Member Demographics (n=93)

IRB Personnel Characteristics
Age Range 25–69, Median 44
Gender Male 22 (23.6%)
Female 71(76.3%)
Professional background (more than 1 choice could be selected) Medicine 18 (19.6%)
Nursing 7 (7.5%)
Biomedical science 19 (20.4%)
Behavioral/ Social science 34 (36.5%)
Public Health 7 (7.5%)
Law 10 (10.8%)
Other 21 (22.6%)
IRB member role IRB Chair 19 (20.4%)
Scientific member 34 (36.6%)
Nonscientific member 31 (33.3%)
Community member 1 (1.1%)
Another role 8 (8.6%)
Total IRB experience 1–5 years 29 (31.2%)
6–10 years 28 (30.1%)
>10 years 36 (38.7%)
IRB Affiliation Academic Medical Center/ University / Research Institute 73 (78.5%)
Non-academic Medical Center 7 (7.5%)
Government Agency 16 (17.2%)
Independent/Commercial IRB 4 (4.3%)
Other 0
Types research protocols (more than 1 choice could be selected) Biomedical research 92 (98.9%)
Social Science 63 (67.7%)
Public Health 46 (49.5%)
Other 4 (4.3%)
IRB Experience With Subpart B
Frequency of reviewing IRB protocols involving pregnant women Low frequency 63 (67.7%)
High frequency (half or more of IRB meetings) 30 (32.2%)
Frequency of IRB referencing Subpart B Never or unsure 5 (5.4%)
Sometimes 49 (52.7%)
Always 38 (40.9%)
Familiarity with Subpart B Very familiar (from memory) 21 (22.6%)
Mostly familiar 47 (50.5%)
A little familiar 22 (23.6%)
Not familiar at all 3 (3.2%)
Ease of understanding Subpart B Somewhat or very easy 47 (50.5%)
Not easy or difficult 27 (29.0%)
Somewhat or very difficult 19 (20.4%)
Ease of applying Subpart B to protocol review Somewhat or very easy 44 (47.3%)
Not easy or difficult 25 (26.9%)
Somewhat or very difficult 24 (25.8%)