There has been intense focus on improving the quality of animal research in recent times. An emerging concept of a ‘culture of care’ has been proposed as another important pillar to enhance scientific quality, with staff well-being being a critical aspect. Professionals working with research animals can face moral and psychological burdens and are at risk of experiencing work-related stress. However, data on the global prevalence of stress in this population is limited. Equally, it is not clear how these stresses manifest, and what impact they might have on an individual’s workplace performance and research quality. The purpose of this review was to identify work-related stress, its prevalence, and map evidence on strategies to mitigate stresses. We also set out to identify studies assessing the association between work-related stress and research quality. A systematic search was conducted across four databases, in addition to hand searching relevant references. We included peer-reviewed publications describing work-related stress, culture of care and laboratory animal professionals. A total of 49 publications were included for data mapping. Compassion fatigue was the most frequently described work-related stress, and its prevalence across Europe and North America is likely to be widespread. Multiple strategies to mitigate compassion fatigue and work-related stress were put forward, however, limited empirical evidence was available to assess success. Moreover, no studies reported empirical data linking work-related stress with research quality, despite several publications stating the case. Further population-specific research and measured assessments are urgently needed to deliver culture of care programmes to improve human well-being, animal welfare and research quality.
BegleyCGIoannidisJPA.Reproducibility in Science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circulation Res2015;
116: 116–126.
2.
LeenaarsCHCKouwenaarCStafleuFR, et al.
Animal to human translation: a systematic scoping review of reported concordance rates. J Transl Med2019;
17: 223.
3.
MacleodMMohanS.Reproducibility and rigor in animal-based research. ILAR J2019;
60: 17–23.
4.
Ritskes-HoitingaMLeenaarsMAveyM, et al. Systematic reviews of preclinical animal studies can make significant contributions to health care and more transparent translational medicine. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2014;
2014: ED000078.
5.
Percie Du SertNHurstVAhluwaliaA, et al.
The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol2020;
18: e3000410.
6.
Van der NaaldMChamuleauSAJMenonJML, et al.
Preregistration of animal research protocols: development and 3-year overview of preclinicaltrials.eu. BMJ Open Sci2022;
6: e100259.
FerraraFHieblBKunzmannP, et al.
Culture of care in animal research – expanding the 3Rs to include people. Lab Anim2022;
56: 511–518.
9.
BrownMJSymonowiczCMedinaLV, et al. Culture of care: organizational responsibilities. In: WeichbrodRHThompsonGA (Heidbrink)NortonJN (eds) Management of animal care and use programs in research, education, and testing. 2nd ed.Boca Raton:
Taylor & Francis, 2018, pp. 11–26.
10.
MurrayJBauerCVilminotN, et al.
Strengthening workplace well-being in research animal facilities. Front Vet Sci2020;
7: 573106.
11.
BertelsenTØvlisenK.Assessment of the culture of care working with laboratory animals by using a comprehensive survey tool. Lab Anim2021;
55: 453–462.
12.
RobinsonSSparrowSWilliamsB, et al.
The European Federation of the Pharmaceutical Industry and Associations’ Research and Animal Welfare Group: assessing and benchmarking ‘culture of care’ in the context of using animals for scientific purpose. Lab Anim2020;
54: 421–432.
13.
CarterLCNelsonJLSieversBA, et al.
Exploring a culture of caring. Nurs Adm Q2008;
32: 57–63.
14.
MitchenerKLOgilvieGK.Understanding compassion fatigue: keys for the caring veterinary healthcare team. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc2002;
38: 307–310.
15.
EUR-Lex. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes Text with EEA relevance, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/63/oj (2010, accessed 7 July 2023).
16.
LaFolletteMRRileyMCCloutierS, et al.
Laboratory animal welfare meets human welfare: a cross-sectional study of professional quality of life, including compassion fatigue in laboratory animal personnel. Front Vet Sci2020;
7: 114.
17.
Goñi-BalentziagaOVilaSOrtega-SaezI, et al.
Professional quality of life in research involving laboratory animals. Animals2021;
11: 2639.
18.
O’MalleyCIMoodyCMFosterA, et al.
Compassion fatigue and coping mechanisms of laboratory animal professionals from Europe, China, and Japan. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci2022;
61: 634–643.
RumpelSKempenRMerleR, et al.
Psychological stress and strain in laboratory animal professionals – a systematic review. Lab Anim2023;
57: 396–411.
23.
ArlukeA.Uneasiness among laboratory technicians. Occup Med1999;
14: 305–316.
24.
ArlukeA.Managing emotions in an animal shelter. In: Animals and human society.
New York, NY:
Taylor and Francis Group, 1994, pp. 183–203.
25.
MosesLMalowneyMJWesley BoydJ.Ethical conflict and moral distress in veterinary practice: a survey of North American veterinarians. J Vet Intern Med2018;
32: 2115–2122.
26.
RauvolaRSVegaDMLavigneKN.Compassion fatigue, secondary traumatic stress, and vicarious traumatization: a qualitative review and research agenda. Occup Health Sci2019;
3: 297–336.
27.
PavanADO’QuinJRobertsME, et al.
Using a staff survey to customize burnout and compassion fatigue mitigation recommendations in a lab animal facility. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci2020;
59: 139–147.
28.
RandallMSMoodyCMTurnerPV.Mental wellbeing in laboratory animal professionals: a cross-sectional study of compassion fatigue, contributing factors, and coping mechanisms. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci2021;
60: 54–63.
29.
ThurstonSEChanGBurlingameLA, et al.
Compassion fatigue in laboratory animal personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci2021;
60: 646–654.
30.
GrimmD.Suffering in silence. Science2023;
379: 974–977.
31.
NewsomeJTClemmonsEAFitzhughDC, et al.
Compassion fatigue, euthanasia stress, and their management in laboratory animal research. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci2019;
58: 289–292.
TriccoACLillieEZarinW, et al.
PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med2018;
169: 467–473.
35.
ArkseyHO’MalleyL.Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol2005;
8: 19–32.
36.
MorahanHRooneyK.The culture of care to enhance best practice in animal research: a scoping review protocol. 26 May2023; osf.io/7r4pc
37.
WolfleT.Laboratory animal technicians. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract1985;
15: 449–454.
38.
HerzogH.Ethical aspects of relationships between humans and research animals. ILAR Jl2002;
43: 27–32.
39.
BennettPRohlfV.Perpetration-induced traumatic stress in persons who euthanize nonhuman animals in surgeries, animal shelters, and laboratories. Soc Anim2005;
13: 201–219.
40.
FrieseCLatimerJ.Entanglements in health and well‐being: working with model organisms in biomedicine and bioscience. Med Anthropol Q2019;
33: 120–137.
41.
GormanRDaviesG.When ‘cultures of care’ meet: entanglements and accountabilities at the intersection of animal research and patient involvement in the UK. Soc Cult Geogr2023;
24: 121–139.
42.
KirkRGWMyelnikovD.Governance, expertise, and the ‘culture of care’: The changing constitutions of laboratory animal research in Britain, 1876–2000. Stud Hist Philos Sci2022;
93: 107–122.
43.
RobinsonSKertonA.What does a culture of care look like? Lessons learnt from a workshop survey. Lab Anim2021;
50: 269–271.
44.
RobinsonSWhiteWWilkesJ, et al.
Improving culture of care through maximising learning from observations and events: addressing what is at fault. Lab Anim2022;
56: 135–146.
45.
RoeEGreenhoughB.A good life? A good death? Reconciling care and harm in animal research. Soc Cult Geogr2023;
24: 49–66.
46.
DaviesKLewisD.Can caring for laboratory animals be classified as emotional labour?Anim Technol Welf2010;
9: 1–6.
47.
WilliamsA.Caring for those who care: towards a more expansive understanding of ‘cultures of care’ in laboratory animal facilities. Soc Cult Geogr2023;
24: 31–48.
48.
SharpLA.Animal research unbound: the messiness of the moral and the ethnographer’s dilemma. Hist Philos Life Sci2021;
43: 76.
49.
SchlanserTVRabinowitzPMThompson-IritaniS.Compassion fatigue and satisfaction in US army laboratory animal medicine personnel. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci2021;
60: 422–430.
50.
SmithAJLilleyE.The role of the three Rs in improving the planning and reproducibility of animal experiments. Animals2019;
9: 975.
GlenkLMBelikCPalmeR, et al.
The human side of animal experimentation: a qualitative, exploratory study into work-related stress and coping in animal experimenters. Pet Behav Sci2020: 1–15.
53.
HawkinsPBertelsenT.3Rs-related and objective indicators to help assess the culture of care. Animals2019;
9: 969.
54.
TurkménianORocuaADecelleT.Scoring the culture of care as a key performance indicator in a global pharmaceutical company. Lab Anim2023;
57: 432–442.
KingM.Killing and feeling bad: animal experimentation and moral stress. Anim Stud J2016;
5: 119–133.
57.
KangMHanAKimD, et al.
Mental stress from animal experiments: a survey with Korean researchers. Toxicol Res2018;
34: 75–81.
58.
AmarasekaraDSRathnadiwakaraHRatnayakeK, et al.
The Capability Maturity Model as a measure of culture of care in laboratory animal science. Altern Lab Anim2022;
50: 437–446.
59.
ColemanK.Caring for nonhuman primates in biomedical research facilities: scientific, moral and emotional considerations. Am J Primatol2011;
73: 220–225.
60.
KertonATremoledaJ.Emotional challenges in our work with laboratory animals: tools that support caring for others and yourself. Anim Technol Welf2021;
20: 35–41.
61.
KingMZohnyH.Animal researchers shoulder a psychological burden that animal ethics committees ought to address. J Med Ethics2021;
48: 299–303.
62.
Sánchez-MorgadoJMJirkofPLangA, et al.
Is it time for a ‘culture of carers’?Lab Anim2022;
56: 498–498.
63.
ScotneyRLMcLaughlinDKeatesHL.A systematic review of the effects of euthanasia and occupational stress in personnel working with animals in animal shelters, veterinary clinics, and biomedical research facilities. J Am Vet Med Assoc2015;
247: 1121–1130.
64.
Thompson IritaniSBrandoSHartLA.Editorial: occupational stress and joy of animal care professionals in zoos, sanctuaries, farms, shelters, and laboratory animal facilities. Front Vet Sci2023;
10: 1164483.
65.
TremoledaJLKertonA.Creating space to build emotional resilience in the animal research community. Lab Anim2020;
49: 275–277.
66.
TremoledaJLKertonAMazharyH, et al.
New perspectives for teaching culture of care and their strengths and challenges. Lab Anim2023;
57: 170–181.
67.
EnkelmannABischoffSJ.CIRS-LAS – a novel approach to increase transparency in laboratory animal science for improving animal welfare by reducing laboratory animal distress. Front Vet Sci2023;
10: 1155249.
68.
EngelRMSilverCCVeederCL, et al.
Cognitive dissonance in laboratory animal medicine and implications for animal welfare. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci2020;
59: 132–138.
69.
MamzerHZokABiałasP, et al.
Negative psychological aspects of working with experimental animals in scientific research. PeerJ2021;
9: e11035.
70.
AhnNParkJRohS.Mental stress of animal researchers and suggestions for relief. J Anim Reprod Biotechnol2022;
37: 13–16.
71.
CockerFJossN.Compassion fatigue among healthcare, emergency and community service workers: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health2016;
13: 618.
72.
HuerkampMJ.Job dynamics of veterinary professionals in an academic research institution. I. Retention and turnover of veterinary technicians. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci2006;
45: 16–25.
73.
MastellarSWrightCGondaMG.Gender differences in career and species interests of animal and veterinary science first year seminar students. NACTA J2019;
63: 36–41.
74.
SuBZhangCMartensP.Attitudes in China, Japan, and the Netherlands toward the use of animals in medical research. Anthrozoös2022;
35: 409–422.
75.
RohlfVI.Interventions for occupational stress and compassion fatigue in animal care professionals – a systematic review. Traumatology2018;
24: 186–192.
PinillosRGApplebyMCMantecaX, et al.
One Welfare – a platform for improving human and animal welfare. Vet Rec2016;
179: 412–413.
78.
RaultJ-LWaiblingerSBoivinX, et al.
The power of a positive human–animal relationship for animal welfare. Front Vet Sci2020;
7: 590867.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
