Caring,killing and an always busy schedule: a cross-sectional study on stress and strain in laboratory animal professionals in German-speaking countries

Abstract

German

Spanish

French

Various studies have documented psychological strain in laboratory animal professionals (LAPs). However, reliable data on relevant stressors remain limited. This study aimed to assess potential stressors experienced by LAPs in German-speaking countries and analyse their impact on psychological strain. An online survey was conducted in summer 2023, assessing the participants’ mental strain using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), common general stressors using the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ), as well as potential job-specific stressors. The final sample included 932 anonymous LAP participants. Data were analysed descriptively and using hierarchical regression analysis. Tasks like the euthanasia of surplus animals or being unable to alleviate animal distress due to scientific needs emerged as job-specific stressors. However, the results of the hierarchical regression indicated that general stressors, such as work–privacy conflict, physical and emotional demands, the need to hide emotions, and the degree of one’s own influence at work, explained at least as much of the variance in psychological strain as the specific stressors. In addition, work experience, function, and gender significantly influenced the GHQ score. The results from this study could contribute to fostering a culture of care by developing general protection means for the psychological hazards in the workplaces of LAPs, thus reducing their adverse effects on personnel, laboratory animals and research results.

Keywords

Laboratory animal professionals compassion fatigue occupational health culture of care psychological strain

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arluke

Uneasiness among laboratory technicians. Occup Med 1999; 14: 305–316.

Chang

Hart

LH.

Human-animal bonds in the laboratory: how animal behavior affects the perspectives of caregivers. ILAR J 2002; 43: 10–18.

Davies

Lewis

Can caring for laboratory animals be classified as emotional labour?

Anim Technol Welf 2010; 9: 1–6.

Kang

Han

Kim

D-E

, et al. Mental stress from animal experiments: a survey with Korean researchers. Toxicol Res 2018; 34: 75–81.

Scotney

McLaughlin

Keates

HL.

An investigation of the prevalence of compassion fatigue, compassion satisfaction and burnout in those working in animal-related occupations using the Professional Quality of Life (ProQoL) Scale. Vet Nurse 2019; 10: 276–284.

LaFollette

Riley

Cloutier

, 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 Sci 2020; 7: 114.

Pavan

O'Quin

Roberts

, et al. Using a staff survey to customize burnout and compassion fatigue mitigation recommendations in a lab animal facility. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2020; 59: 139–147.

Randall

Moody

Turner

PV.

Mental wellbeing in laboratory animal professionals: a cross-sectional study of compassion fatigue, contributing factors, and coping mechanisms. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2021; 60: 54–63.

Thurston

Chan

Burlingame

, et al. Compassion fatigue in laboratory animal personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2021; 60: 646–654.

10.

O'Malley

Moody

Foster

, et al. Compassion Fatigue and Coping Mechanisms of Laboratory Animal Professionals from Europe, China, and Japan. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2022; 61: 634–643.

11.

Young

Ferrara

Kelly

, et al. Professional quality of life in animal research personnel is linked to retention & job satisfaction: A mixed-methods cross-sectional survey on compassion fatigue in the USA. PLoS One 2024; 19: e0298744.

12.

Williams

Caring for those who care: towards a more expansive understanding of ‘cultures of care’ in laboratory animal facilities. Soc Cult Geogr 2023; 24: 31–48.

13.

Coleman

Caring for nonhuman primates in biomedical research facilities: scientific, moral and emotional considerations. Am J Primatol 2011; 73: 220–225.

14.

Bekoff

Should scientists bond with the animals whom they use? Why not?

Int J Comp Psychol 1994; 7: 78–86.

15.

Rogelberg

Reeve

Spitzmüller

, et al. Impact of euthanasia rates, euthanasia practices, and human resource practices on employee turnover in animal shelters. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2007; 230: 713–719.

16.

Newsome

Clemmons

Fitzhugh

, et al. Compassion fatigue, euthanasia stress, and their management in laboratory animal research. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2019; 58: 289–292.

17.

van Stolk

Staetsky

Hassan

, et al. Management of psychosocial risks at work: An analysis of the findings of the Euroepan Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2012.

18.

Treier

Gefährdungsbeurteilung psychischer Belastungen. 2. Auflage. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2019.

19.

Engel

Silver

Veeder

, et al. Cognitive dissonance in laboratory animal medicine and implications for animal welfare. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2020; 59: 132–138.

20.

Rumpel

Kempen

Merle

, et al. Psychological stress and strain in laboratory animal professionals – a systematic review. Lab Anim 2023; 57: 396–411.

21.

Leka

Cox

Psychosocial risk management at the workplace level. In: Leka

Houdmont

(eds) Occupational health psychology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, pp.124–156.

22.

O'Keefe

Brown

Christian

BJ.

Policy perspectives on occupational stress. Workplace Health Saf 2014; 62: 432–8; quiz 439.

23.

Robinson

Sparrow

Williams

, 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 Anim 2019; 54: 23677219887998.

24.

Tremoleda

Kerton

Mazhary

, et al. New perspectives for teaching Culture of Care and their strengths and challenges. Lab Anim 2023; 57: 170–181.

25.

Lazarus

Folkman

Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. Eur J Pers 1987; 1: 141–169.

26.

Schlanser

Rabinowitz

Thompson-Iritani

Compassion fatigue and satisfaction in US Army Laboratory Animal Medicine Personnel. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2021; 60: 422–430.

27.

Schmitz

Kruse

Tress

Psychometric properties of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) in a German primary care sample. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1999; 100: 462–468.

28.

Romppel

Braehler

Roth

, et al. What is the General Health Questionnaire-12 assessing? Dimensionality and psychometric properties of the General Health Questionnaire-12 in a large scale German population sample. Compr Psychiatry 2013; 54: 406–413.

29.

Lincke

H-J

Vomstein

Lindner

, et al. COPSOQ III in Germany: validation of a standard instrument to measure psychosocial factors at work. J Occup Med Toxicol 2021; 16: 50.

30.

Goldberg

Gater

Sartorius

, et al. The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychol Med 1997; 27: 191–197.

31.

Sharma

Minh Duc

Luu Lam Thang

, et al. A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). J Gen Intern Med 2021; 36: 3179–3187.

32.

Field

Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 6th ed. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne: Sage, 2024.

33.

Kalasauskas

Ottenhausen

Irene

, et al. How do spine surgeons cope with psychological distress: results of a cross-sectional study. Neurosurg Rev 2023; 46: 182.

34.

Friese

Latimer

Entanglements in health and well-being: working with model organisms in biomedicine and bioscience. Med Anthropol Q 2019; 33: 120–137.

35.

Rohlf

Bennett

Perpetration-induced traumatic stress in persons who euthanize nonhuman animals in surgeries, animal shelters, and laboratories. Soc Anim 2005; 13: 201–219.

36.

Goñi-Balentziaga

Vila

Ortega-Saez

, et al. Professional quality of life in research involving laboratory animals. Animals (Basel) 2021; 11.

37.

Roe

Greenhough

A good life? A good death? Reconciling care and harm in animal research. Soc Cult Geogr 2023; 24: 49–66.

38.

Goñi-Balentziaga

Azkona

Perceived professional quality of life and mental well-being among animal facility personnel in Spain. Lab Anim 2023; 58: 73–81.

39.

Goñi-Balentziaga

Ortega-Saez

Vila

, et al. Working with laboratory rodents in Spain: a survey on welfare and wellbeing. Lab Anim Res 2021; 37: 18. https://labanimres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42826-021-00098-w

40.

Schaufeli

Enzmann

The burnout companion to study and practice: A critical analysis. Boca Raton, London, New York: CRC Press, 1998.

41.

Burnett

HJ.

The compassion fatigue and resilience connection: A survey of resilience, compassion fatigue, burnout, and compassion satisfaction among trauma responders. Int J Emerg Ment Health 2015; 17: 318–326.

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.

0.06 MB

0.00 MB