Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41981801›Full record

ArticleLaboratory animals2026

Building bridges: Involvement of animal care staff and laboratory technicians in experimental planning and conduct of animal studies for better job satisfaction and science.

Fernando Gonzalez-Uarquin, Paulin Jirkof, Bettina Bert, Penny Hawkins, Ljupco Angelovski, Jan Baumgart, Nadine Baumgart, Özge S Cevik, Nuno H Franco, Erdal Horata and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Laboratory animals, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

17 authors.

Fernando Gonzalez-UarquinTARCforce3R Center, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6013-7557
Paulin JirkofOffice for Animal Welfare and 3R, University of Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-7225-2325
Bettina BertGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), German Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8202-9290
Penny HawkinsRSPCA Animals in Science Department, Horsham, UK.
Ljupco AngelovskiFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, North Macedonia.ORCID 0000-0001-5225-5265
Jan BaumgartTARCforce3R Center, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany.
Nadine BaumgartTARCforce3R Center, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6684-0198
Özge S CevikPhysiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey.
Nuno H Francoi3S, Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-4015-0532
Erdal HorataDepartment of Orthopedic Prosthesis-Orthosis, Atatürk Health Services Vocational School, Afyonkarahisar Health Sciences University, Turkey.
Rohish KauraInstitute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Estonia.
Winfried NeuhausFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Danube Private University, Krems, Austria.
Brigida RisoFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal.
Adrian J SmithNorecopa, ℅ Norwegian Veterinary Institute, P.O. Box 64, 1431 Ås, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-8375-0805
Athanassia SotiropoulosFrance Centre 3R, FC3R, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Augusto VitaleCenter for Behavioural Sciences and Mental Health, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
Sophie SchoberKarl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The involvement of non-scientific staff in discussions about animal welfare and scientific quality is essential for biomedical research progress. In this study, we developed a survey to collect the self-perception of animal care staff (ACS) and laboratory technicians about their involvement in scientific planning and conduct. Participants were contacted to complete an anonymous online questionnaire. We obtained 850 responses, mainly from Europe: 564 from ACS and 286 from laboratory technicians. Job satisfaction was assessed as positive by ACS and laboratory technicians despite the low frequency of culture of care activities and mental health meetings. Both groups expressed their desire to be trained in research planning and conduct; however, regular training was not reported. In addition, the inability to act on animal welfare concerns owing to experimental reasons was reported by both groups. Over half of the participants felt valued and appreciated by the lead scientists or animal facility manager; however, it is not clear how they are acknowledged, as their names on the authors list or in the manuscript acknowledgments are barely included. Our results indicated that involvement of ACS and laboratory technicians in planning and conducting studies would improve their understanding of how experiments are done, and therefore communication processes, work satisfaction, animal welfare, and scientific quality. Finally, we provided recommendations to improve the engagement of ACS and laboratory technicians in discussions about animal research planning and conduct.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationAnimal TechniciansAnimal WelfareJob SatisfactionLaboratory PersonnelAnimalsAnimals, LaboratoryHumansSurveys and Questionnaires3Rsanimal care staffanimal researchanimal welfarecompassion fatigueculture of careexperimental designJob satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID41981801
PMCPMC13373277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.