| Autor: |
Luchins KR; Animal Resources Center and Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois., Gates KV; Department of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California., Winn CB; Pfizer Worldwide Research, Development and Medical, Comparative Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts., Manuel CA; Office of Laboratory Animal Resources and Department of Pathology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado., Pettan-Brewer C; Department of Comparative Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington., Foley PL; Department Microbiology and Immunology, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia., Peterson NC; In Vivo Science & Technologies, Seagen, Bothel, Washington., Garner JP; Department of Comparative Medicine and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California., Hanson W; Division of Animal Resources, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia., LaFollette MR; 3Rs Collaborative, Denver, Colorado. |
| Abstrakt: |
Tens of thousands of rodents are used each year in Rodent Health Monitoring programs. However, Environment Health Monitoring (EHM) could replace sentinel rodent use while maintaining or even improving diagnostic quality. Despite its advantages, widespread implementation of EHM appears to be relatively low. To better understand EHM's prevalence and factors influencing its use, we surveyed research animal professionals. Our hypotheses were (1) EHM prevalence would be low and (2) EHM use would be associated with beliefs and knowledge about EHM. Participants were recruited via online promotion. A total of 158 individuals completed a mixed-methods survey about current practices, beliefs, and knowledge about EHM. Qualitative data were coded using thematic analysis and analyzed using generalized linear models. Results showed that current EHM implementation was low; only 11% of institutions used EHM exclusively. Across the 111 institutions surveyed, over 20,000 soiled bedding sentinels were used each year. However, most participants believed EHM to be advantageous in replacing sentinel animals (78% of participants). Some participants believed EHM could save time (31%), cost less (27%), and be highly accurate (15%). Conversely, some participants believed EHM would be difficult to use due to their current caging type (40%), higher costs (21%), lower accuracy (16%), and personnel attitudes/expertise (14%). Overall, respondents with higher planned EHM use also had more positive attitudes, norms, and control of EHM. We also identified several factors that could promote the implementation of EHM. Communication efforts should emphasize that EHM is compatible with various types of caging, can provide cost savings, has high accuracy, and is consistent with the 3Rs as a replacement. Efforts should also focus on improving attitudes, encouraging peers, and providing resources to facilitate implementation. Implementation in just the surveyed institutions could eliminate the need for well over 20,000 rodents each year, consistent with 3Rs goals. |
