Mental Wellbeing in Laboratory Animal Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Study of Compassion Fatigue, Contributing Factors, and Coping Mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compassion fatigue (CF) is a topic of increasing concern because it can affect the mental wellbeing of caregivers, including those caring for or using research animals. If unaddressed, compassion fatigue may adversely impact the quality of life for personnel working with animals in research settings and may influence their decision to remain in the field. This study used a cross-sectional anonymous online questionnaire to 1) examine compassion fatigue in individuals working with research animals in Canada and the US; 2) better understand how personal and work-related factors may influence feelings of CF; 3) assess coping mechanisms used to deal with CF; and 4) determine the beneficial components of a CF support program. A questionnaire was sent to laboratory animal professionals in Canada and the US via email listserves to survey the general population of laboratory animal workers and personnel working for a large North American contract research organization (CRO). A total of 422 responses were received and analyzed ( n = 154 from the general population, n = 268 from the CRO). Most participants were female (73%, 309/422); 66% (101/154) and 69% (184/268) of the general laboratory animal science respondents and the CRO respondents, respectively, reported experiencing feelings of CF. Survey participants indicated that the most influential work-related factors associated with feelings of CF were understaffing, close relationships with experimental animals, a lack of resources for coping with CF, poor relationships with superiors, and lack of training in managing CF. Respondents indicated that the most influential personal factors contributing to feelings of CF were poor mental and physical health. The most commonly reported beneficial coping mechanisms were talking to a trusted individual, getting away from work, practicing self-care strategies, increasing opportunities for physical activity, and owning or caring for companion animals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".