Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34315536›Full record

ArticleLaboratory animal research2021

Working with laboratory rodents in Spain: a survey on welfare and wellbeing.

Olatz Goñi-Balentziaga, Iván Ortega-Saez, Sergi Vila, Garikoitz Azkona

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Laboratory animal research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The use of animals in physiological science: the past, the presence, and the future.Pflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Refinement in the European Union: A Systematic Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Professional Quality of Life in Research Involving Laboratory Animals.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Olatz Goñi-BalentziagaDepartment of Clinical and Health Psychology and Research Methodology, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU), Donostia, Spain.
Iván Ortega-SaezScientific and Technological Centers (CCIT), University of Barcelona (UB), Barcelona, Spain.
Sergi VilaScientific and Technological Centers (CCIT), University of Barcelona (UB), Barcelona, Spain.
Garikoitz AzkonaDepartment of Basic Psychological Processes and their Development, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU), Donostia, Spain. garikoitz.azkona@ehu.eus.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5312-1207

Funding

Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea GIU18/103Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea PPGI19/14
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReplacement, reduction and refinement, the 3R principles, provide a framework to minimize the use and suffering of animals in science. In this context, we aimed to determine the actual perception that individuals working with laboratory rodents in biomedical research have on animal welfare and on their interaction with the animals, as well as how they perceive its impact on their social relations. To this end, we designed an anonymous on-line survey for people working with rodents, at three responsibility levels, in Spain.

resultsOf the 356 participants, 239 were women (67 %); 263 were researchers (74 %), and 93 animal facility staff (26 %), of which 55 were caretakers/technicians (15 %), and 38 welfare officer/veterinarians (11 %). Animal facility staff indicated environmental enrichment to be a universal practice. About half of the participants reported that, in their opinion, animals suffer "little to none" or "minor" stress and pain. Animal caretakers/technicians and researchers perceived higher levels of stress and pain than welfare officers/veterinarians. Participants judged decapitation the most unpleasant method to kill rodents, whereas anaesthetic overdose was the least one. A sizable proportion - 21 % of animal caretakers/technicians and 11.4 % of researchers - stated that they were never given the choice not to euthanize the rodents they work with. Overall, women reported higher interactions with animals than men. Nevertheless, we could detect a significant correlation between time spent with the animals and interaction scores. Notably, 80 % of animal facility staff and 92 % of researchers rarely talked about their work with laboratory rodents with people outside their inner social circle.

conclusionsOverall, the participants showed high awareness and sensitivity to rodent wellbeing; animal facility staff reported a similar perception on welfare questions, independently of their category, while researchers, who spent less time with the animals, showed less awareness and manifested lower human-animal interaction and less social support. Regarding the perception on social acceptance of laboratory animal work, all groups were cautious and rarely talked about their job, suggesting that it is considered a sensitive issue in Spain.

Indexed as

AnalgesiaAnesthesiaEnvironmental enrichmentEuthanasiaHuman-animal interactionLaboratory rodentSocial support

Identifiers

PMID34315536
PMCPMC8314439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.