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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.