71 - Workplace Stress in Institutional Review Board (IRB)/Human Research Protections Program (HRPP) Professionals: Key Organizational Predictors

Background:  This study provides an opportunity to learn about levels and sources of stress for those working in the IRB/HRPP profession. We hope this research results in a better understanding of stress and what may be unique predictors of stress for professionals who work in the human subjects regulatory field.

Methods:  The survey was administered via Qualtrics and distributed through IRB/HRPP mailing lists and social media platforms. Demographic data, IRB/HRPP work experiences, perceived stress, work stress, and stress management information was collected from more than 200 participants over a 2-week period. Analysis was conducted on a subset of responses, based on survey completeness.

Results:  The survey was administered via Qualtrics and distributed through IRB/HRPP mailing lists and social media platforms. Demographic data, IRB/HRPP work experiences, perceived stress, work stress, and stress management information was collected from more than 200 participants over a 2-week period. Analysis was conducted on a subset of responses, based on survey completeness.
The analysis reveals several significant associations between variables related to the workplace environment and participant’s perceived stress, and perceived workplace stress.
Perceived adequacy of training is strongly associated with workplace stress: individuals with adequate training reported lower stress, while those with inadequate or no training experienced higher, often severe stress. The type of research conducted at an institution also influenced stress levels. Participants who work in social, behavioral, and educational research reported higher perceived stress than those in biomedical fields.
A positive culture of compliance was associated with lower stress, both perceived and workplace-related stress. In contrast, the absence or uncertainty of such a culture correlated with higher stress, including severe and potentially dangerous levels. Leadership support and the perception that leadership values staff perspective when there is a conflict with investigators were consistently linked to perceived lower stress. Lack of support from leadership and negative value during conflicts with investigators was associated with elevated stress, particularly in severe categories. Work manageability played a critical role: those who found their workload manageable reported lower stress, while those who did not reported higher stress levels. Overlapping job responsibilities was also associated with increased stress.
The use of stress management techniques was linked to lower perceived stress. Interestingly, individuals who had seen or wanted to see a mental health professional tended to report higher stress, while those with no interest in such support reported lower stress—possibly reflecting differences in stress awareness or severity.

Limitations: The results are limited by the scope of recruitment. Participants were recruited through the PRIM&R IRB Forum, LinkedIn, and other IRB/HRPP mailing lists. This does not ensure a representative sample of all US research institutions or practices.
This study is limited by its cross-sectional design, lack of comparison groups, self-reported data, and small subgroup sizes. Missing responses and lack of control over confounding variables may affect generalizability and the strength of observed associations.

Discussion:  Adequate training, supportive leadership, and a strong culture of compliance were consistently associated with lower perceived stress and workplace stress. Conversely, inadequate training, unclear responsibilities, and lack of institutional support correlated with higher stress, including severe levels. Work manageability emerged as a critical factor, with unmanageable workloads linked to elevated stress. While stress management techniques were beneficial, those seeking mental health support reported higher stress, possibly reflecting greater awareness or severity. These findings suggest actionable areas for institutions to improve employee well-being in the human subjects protections field.