Cargando…
Expectations for methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of health care workers
BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR); therefore, an awareness of the empirical costs and benefits of animal research is an important issue for HCW. We aim to determine what health-care-workers consider should be accep...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4428252/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25947255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0024-x |
_version_ | 1782370863863037952 |
---|---|
author | Joffe, Ari R Bara, Meredith Anton, Natalie Nobis, Nathan |
author_facet | Joffe, Ari R Bara, Meredith Anton, Natalie Nobis, Nathan |
author_sort | Joffe, Ari R |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR); therefore, an awareness of the empirical costs and benefits of animal research is an important issue for HCW. We aim to determine what health-care-workers consider should be acceptable standards of AR methodology and translation rate to humans. METHODS: After development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory-therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, methodology of AR, and expectations from AR. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P < .05 considered significant. RESULTS: Response rate was 44/114(39%) (pediatricians), and 69/120 (58%) (nurses/RTs). Asked about methodological quality, most respondents expect that: AR is done to high quality; costs and difficulty are not acceptable justifications for low quality; findings should be reproducible between laboratories and strains of the same species; and guidelines for AR funded with public money should be consistent with these expectations. Asked about benefits of AR, most thought that there are sometimes/often large benefits to humans from AR, and disagreed that “AR rarely produces benefit to humans.” Asked about expectations of translation to humans (of toxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and treatment findings), most: expect translation >40% of the time; thought that misleading AR results should occur <21% of the time; and that if translation was to occur <20% of the time, they would be less supportive of AR. There were few differences between pediatricians and nurses/RTs. CONCLUSIONS: HCW have high expectations for the methodological quality of, and the translation rate to humans of findings from AR. These expectations are higher than the empirical data show having been achieved. Unless these areas of AR significantly improve, HCW support of AR may be tenuous. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4428252 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44282522015-05-13 Expectations for methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of health care workers Joffe, Ari R Bara, Meredith Anton, Natalie Nobis, Nathan BMC Med Ethics Research Article BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR); therefore, an awareness of the empirical costs and benefits of animal research is an important issue for HCW. We aim to determine what health-care-workers consider should be acceptable standards of AR methodology and translation rate to humans. METHODS: After development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory-therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, methodology of AR, and expectations from AR. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P < .05 considered significant. RESULTS: Response rate was 44/114(39%) (pediatricians), and 69/120 (58%) (nurses/RTs). Asked about methodological quality, most respondents expect that: AR is done to high quality; costs and difficulty are not acceptable justifications for low quality; findings should be reproducible between laboratories and strains of the same species; and guidelines for AR funded with public money should be consistent with these expectations. Asked about benefits of AR, most thought that there are sometimes/often large benefits to humans from AR, and disagreed that “AR rarely produces benefit to humans.” Asked about expectations of translation to humans (of toxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and treatment findings), most: expect translation >40% of the time; thought that misleading AR results should occur <21% of the time; and that if translation was to occur <20% of the time, they would be less supportive of AR. There were few differences between pediatricians and nurses/RTs. CONCLUSIONS: HCW have high expectations for the methodological quality of, and the translation rate to humans of findings from AR. These expectations are higher than the empirical data show having been achieved. Unless these areas of AR significantly improve, HCW support of AR may be tenuous. BioMed Central 2015-05-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4428252/ /pubmed/25947255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0024-x Text en © Joffe et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Joffe, Ari R Bara, Meredith Anton, Natalie Nobis, Nathan Expectations for methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of health care workers |
title | Expectations for methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of health care workers |
title_full | Expectations for methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of health care workers |
title_fullStr | Expectations for methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of health care workers |
title_full_unstemmed | Expectations for methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of health care workers |
title_short | Expectations for methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of health care workers |
title_sort | expectations for methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of health care workers |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4428252/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25947255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0024-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT joffearir expectationsformethodologyandtranslationofanimalresearchasurveyofhealthcareworkers AT barameredith expectationsformethodologyandtranslationofanimalresearchasurveyofhealthcareworkers AT antonnatalie expectationsformethodologyandtranslationofanimalresearchasurveyofhealthcareworkers AT nobisnathan expectationsformethodologyandtranslationofanimalresearchasurveyofhealthcareworkers |