Joffe Ari R, Bara Meredith, Anton Natalie, Nobis Nathan
Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 4-546 11405 87 Ave, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
John Dossetor Health Ethics Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
BMC Med Ethics. 2015 May 7;16:29. doi: 10.1186/s12910-015-0024-x.
Health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR); therefore, an awareness of the empirical costs and benefits of animal research is an important issue for HCW. We aim to determine what health-care-workers consider should be acceptable standards of AR methodology and translation rate to humans.
After development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory-therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, methodology of AR, and expectations from AR. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P < .05 considered significant.
Response rate was 44/114(39%) (pediatricians), and 69/120 (58%) (nurses/RTs). Asked about methodological quality, most respondents expect that: AR is done to high quality; costs and difficulty are not acceptable justifications for low quality; findings should be reproducible between laboratories and strains of the same species; and guidelines for AR funded with public money should be consistent with these expectations. Asked about benefits of AR, most thought that there are sometimes/often large benefits to humans from AR, and disagreed that "AR rarely produces benefit to humans." Asked about expectations of translation to humans (of toxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and treatment findings), most: expect translation >40% of the time; thought that misleading AR results should occur <21% of the time; and that if translation was to occur <20% of the time, they would be less supportive of AR. There were few differences between pediatricians and nurses/RTs.
HCW have high expectations for the methodological quality of, and the translation rate to humans of findings from AR. These expectations are higher than the empirical data show having been achieved. Unless these areas of AR significantly improve, HCW support of AR may be tenuous.
医护人员经常开展、推广并主张使用公共资金进行动物研究(AR);因此,了解动物研究的实际成本和益处对医护人员来说是一个重要问题。我们旨在确定医护人员认为动物研究方法和向人类转化率的可接受标准是什么。
在进行开发和验证后,通过电子邮件向一所加拿大大学附属的所有儿科医生、儿科重症监护病房护士和呼吸治疗师(RTs)进行了调查。我们提出了有关人口统计学、动物研究方法以及对动物研究期望的问题。使用卡方检验比较儿科医生与护士/RTs的回答,P < 0.05被视为具有显著性。
回复率为44/114(39%)(儿科医生)和69/120(58%)(护士/RTs)。当被问及方法学质量时,大多数受访者期望:动物研究要高质量进行;成本和难度不能成为低质量的合理理由;研究结果应在不同实验室和同一物种的不同品系之间具有可重复性;并且由公共资金资助的动物研究指南应符合这些期望。当被问及动物研究的益处时,大多数人认为动物研究有时/经常会给人类带来巨大益处,并不同意“动物研究很少给人类带来益处”这一观点。当被问及对向人类转化(毒性、致癌性、致畸性和治疗结果方面)的期望时,大多数人:期望转化发生率超过40%;认为误导性的动物研究结果发生率应低于21%;并且如果转化发生率低于20%,他们对动物研究的支持度会降低。儿科医生与护士/RTs之间几乎没有差异。
医护人员对动物研究的方法学质量以及研究结果向人类的转化率有很高期望。这些期望高于实际数据所显示的已实现水平。除非动物研究的这些方面有显著改善,医护人员对动物研究的支持可能会很薄弱。