Laboratory Animal Welfare Meets Human Welfare: A Cross-Sectional Study of Professional Quality of Life, Including Compassion Fatigue in Laboratory Animal Personnel
Laboratory Animal Welfare Meets Human Welfare: A Cross-Sectional Study of Professional Quality of Life, Including Compassion Fatigue in Laboratory Animal Personnel
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fvets.2020.00114
复制
发表时间：
2020-03-05
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Gaskill, Brianna N.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
LaFollette, Megan R.;Riley, Megan C.;Gaskill, Brianna N.
在科学研究中与动物打交道可能会给实验动物人员带来巨大的压力。工作压力可以通过评估职业生活质量来评估，职业生活质量由同情疲劳（即倦怠和继发性创伤压力）和同情满意度组成。本研究旨在探讨危险因素与实验动物工作人员职业生活质量之间的关系。在横断面、便捷性的样本设计中，实验动物人员从广泛的网络推广中招募。美国或加拿大共有801名员工完成了一项关于职业生活质量、社会支持、安乐死、充实、压力/疼痛水平和人与动物互动的在线调查。参与者在广泛的环境（例如，工业，学术界），研究类型（例如，基础，应用，监管），物种（例如，非人灵长类动物，小鼠）和角色（例如，动物管理员，兽医）中工作。数据分析采用一般线性模型。报告较高同情疲劳的人员也报告较低的社会支持，较高的动物应激/疼痛，更高的实施更多充实的愿望，以及对实施安乐死的较少控制（p < 0.05）。较高的倦怠与较少的多样化/频繁的充实、使用物理安乐死方法和较长的工作时间有关。较高的继发性创伤压力与更多的促进人际关系的人与动物的互动（例如，命名动物）和作为训练员的工作相关（p < 0.05）。更高的同情满意度与更高的社会支持、更少的动物压力/疼痛和更多的人与动物互动相关（p < 0.05）。令人惊讶的是，工作人员的主要动物类型（例如，非人灵长类动物，老鼠）和安乐死的频率（例如，每天，每月）都与职业生活质量无关（p < 0.05）。我们的研究结果表明，实验动物工作人员的职业生活质量与几个因素有关。报告职业生活质量较差的人员还报告社会支持较少，动物压力/疼痛较高，富集多样性/频率较低，并希望他们能够提供更多富集，使用物理安乐死，减少对实施安乐死的控制。在大学担任培训师的人员的职业生活质量也较差，工作时间也较长。本研究提供了重要的经验数据，可为制定干预措施（如改善社会支持、减少动物压力、增加动物丰富多样性/频率、加强安乐死控制）提供指导，以提高实验动物工作人员的职业生活质量。
Laboratory animal personnel may experience significant stress from working with animals in scientific research. Workplace stress can be assessed by evaluating professional quality of life, which is comprised of compassion fatigue (i.e., burnout and secondary traumatic stress) and compassion satisfaction. This research aimed to explore the associations between risk factors and professional quality of life in laboratory animal personnel. In a cross-sectional, convenience sample design, laboratory animal personnel were recruited from widespread online promotion. A total of 801 personnel in the United States or Canada completed an online survey regarding professional quality of life, social support, euthanasia, enrichment, stress/pain levels, and human-animal interactions. Participants worked in a wide range of settings (e.g., industry, academia), research types (e.g., basic, applied, regulatory), species (e.g., non-human primates, mice), and roles (e.g., animal caretaker, veterinarian). Data were analyzed using general linear models. Personnel who reported higher compassion fatigue also reported lower social support, higher animal stress/pain, higher desire to implement more enrichment, and less control over performing euthanasia (p's < 0.05). Higher burnout was associated with less diverse/frequent enrichment, using physical euthanasia methods, and longer working hours. Higher secondary traumatic stress was associated with more relationship-promoting human-animal interactions (e.g., naming animals) and working as a trainers (p's < 0.05). Higher compassion satisfaction was associated with higher social support, less animal stress/pain, and more human-animal interactions (p's < 0.05). Surprisingly, neither personnel's primary animal type (e.g., non-human primates, mice) nor frequency of euthanasia (e.g., daily, monthly) were associated with professional quality of life (p's > 0.05). Our findings show that the professional quality of life of laboratory animal personnel is associated with several factors. Personnel reporting poorer professional quality of life also reported less social support, higher animal stress/pain, less enrichment diversity/frequency and wished they could provide more enrichment, using physical euthanasia, and less control over performing euthanasia. Poorer professional quality of life was also seen in personnel working as trainers, at universities, and longer hours. This study contributes important empirical data that may provide guidance for developing interventions (e.g., improved social support, decreased animal stress, increased animal enrichment diversity/frequency, greater control over euthanasia) to improve laboratory animal personnel's professional quality of life.