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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Working with research animals can be both rewarding and challenging. The rewarding part of the work is associated with understanding the necessity for animal research to improve the health of humans and animals and the knowledge that one can provide care and compassion for the animals. Challenges with animal research include witnessing stress/pain in animals necessitated by scientific requirements, end of study euthanasia, and societal stigmatization about animal research. These challenges could be compounded with more general workplace stresses, in turn, impacting job retention and satisfaction. However, these factors have yet to be formally evaluated. Therefore, the purpose of this survey was to comprehensively evaluate professional quality of life's correlation with key workplace metrics. METHODS: Six institutions were recruited to participate in a longitudinal intervention trial on compassion fatigue resiliency. This manuscript reports key baseline metrics from this survey. A cross-sectional mixed methods survey was developed to evaluate professional quality of life, job satisfaction, retention, and factors influencing compassion fatigue resiliency. Quantitative data were analyzed via general linear models and qualitative data were analyzed by theme. RESULTS: Baseline data was collected from 198 participants. Personnel who reported higher compassion satisfaction also reported higher retention and job satisfaction. Conversely, personnel who reported higher burnout also reported lower job satisfaction. In response to open-ended questions, participants said their compassion fatigue was impacted by institutional culture (70% of participants), animal research (58%), general mental health (41%), and specific compassion fatigue support (24%). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, these results show that professional quality of life is related to important operational metrics of job satisfaction and retention. Furthermore, compassion fatigue is impacted by factors beyond working with research animals, including institutional culture and general mental health support. Overall, this project provides rationale and insight for institutional support of compassion fatigue resiliency.
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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".